Sitting of 18 February 1985

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

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the coal strike.
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the miners' strike.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position in the coal industry dispute.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the mining industry.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the mining industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Since I last made a statement to the House, more pits have returned to normal working, more pits have started to produce coal, and so far during the first few weeks of 1985 more than 17,000 miners have returned to work. Movements of coal and coal stocks at the power stations have remained at a very high level. Sixty-one coal faces have, unfortunately, been lost since the start of the dispute, including 38 working faces.
    During the past week Mr. Norman Willis, on behalf of the TUC, has held a series of talks with the chairman of the National Coal Board. As a result of those talks a document was prepared which dealt with a number of crucial matters in connection with the dispute. The National Coal Board stated that it was willing to accept
    712
    this. The document outlined the duty of the NCB to manage the industry efficiently, it recognised the responsibilities and rights of the unions in representing their members' interests, it outlined a plan to prepare a revised "Plan for Coal" within six months, it set out the need for urgent talks to create the early establishment of the modified procedures agreed with NACODS, and it stipulated that any future closures for any reason would thereafter take place under the modified colliery review procedures, and that all parties would be committed to give full weight to the view of the independent review body.
    Unfortunately, this statement was not acceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers, and Mr. Willis outlined to the Coal Board changes that it would seek in such a statement. In the view of the board those changes would have meant that the document failed to meet the main issue of the dispute, and I regret that only yesterday Mr. Scargill, as president of the NUM, made it clear that he would never agree to any closures.
    The Government naturally regret that the latest efforts have failed to bring an end to the dispute, particularly as there is on offer a substantial investment programme, good pay for miners, a closure procedure better than has ever been previously available, generous early retirement provisions and substantial resources to bring new enterprises and businesses to mining communities. The Government continue to hope that the damaging industrial action which has taken place without a ballot will swiftly be ended.
    Mr. Adley: My right hon. Friend says that the document is not acceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers. Is it not more accurate to say that it is not acceptable to Mr. Scargill? Is it not a tragedy for the miners that he has been unwilling or unable to see the immense benefits that the latest offer gives to the members of his union?
    I welcome the efforts of Mr. Willis and his meeting with the Prime Minister, but will my right hon. Friend agree that from now on the less Mr. Scargill is involved in the negotiations, the greater the chance of a negotiated settlement?
    Mr. Walker: The past year, during which hundreds of millions of pounds of capital investment has not taken place, markets have been lost and pit faces destroyed, has been a tragedy for the industry. That is why the offer—probably the best since nationalisation — should be accepted quickly.
    Mr. Nellist: How does the Secretary of State define "uneconomic"? Does he hold to the definition that he gave to Members of Parliament in July last year, that it was intended to close 12 per cent. of capacity in the industry to save £275 million? If that is the definition, how does he explain his toytown economics of the past 11 months in which he has spent £5,500 million in trying to save the country £275 million?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman's economics include the belief that when any militant leader decides to use mob methods he should be given whatever he demands, that would be the most lunatic form of economics that any country could pursue. May I say how pleased I am that last week the Coventry pit returned to normal working.
    Mr. Proctor: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets leaders of the TUC to discuss these matters, will she impress upon them the need for the leadership of the NUM to live in the real world, by accepting the code of practice on picketing, the widely accepted provision for balloting, and the necessity for the closure of uneconomic resources?
    Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, that is the view of many of us, and was demonstrated by what happened in the one third of Britain's coalfields that did have a ballot. If the NUM's normal procedures on having a ballot and on peaceful picketing had operated throughout the dispute, it would have ended a long time ago.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State resist some of the more outlandish views put to him by his right hon. and hon. Friends, and recognise that it is time for conciliation and a constructive settlement of the dispute, which we all desire? Is he aware that any desire on his part or on the part of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have Mr. Scargill's head will be decidedly misplaced and will reverberate against a settlement, so we should be constructive and conciliatory, and not vindictive?
    Mr. Walker: I have no desire to have Mr. Scargill's head or any other part of his anatomy. A great deal of patience and effort was put into the talks that took place last week, and anybody who studies the statement that was prepared will recognise that it is a constructive and objective statement, which should have been the basis for a settlement.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Secretary of State accept last week's figures from the Department of Trade and Industry, which show that the cost of importing oil and coal has risen by 42 per cent. to £10 billion in 1984, the highest figure ever recorded? Does he further accept the Central Statistical Office's figure of £3·5 billion for the cost of the strike until January? If he does, what possible justification can there be for his boasting of the miserly £10 million that has been given for new jobs in coal mining areas? This dispute is about jobs.
    Mr. Walker: I have repeated constantly that the £10 million for the new enterprise company is all that is required at the commencement of its activity. The NCB and I have made it clear that the NCB will review that ceiling when it becomes necessary and there are more applications. If the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave were published, obviously they are accurate, but no one regrets more than I do that this form of industrial action without a ballot has resulted in us importing coal instead of producing our own.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that his description of the NCB's document would be contradicted by not only the NUM but NACODS? Will he comment on the fact that both Mr. McNestry and Mr. Sampey, the NACODS leaders, stated at the weekend that the Coal Board document involved breaching the NACODS-NCB agreement?
    Mr. Walker: The Coal Board has made it clear to NACODS that it is keeping to the sanctity of that agreement. NACODS was concerned with the item that said that normal colliery review procedures would continue until the new modified procedure had been put into place. I am certain that if it were left to NACODS, the Government and the Coal Board, the new procedure
    714
    would come into place virtually immediately. However, one could not have a situation in which, if the NUM decided to veto the details of such an organisation, there would be no procedures in place whatsoever.
    Mr. Parry: Now that the strike is in its 50th week, will the Secretary of State urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have an early meeting with TUC leaders to see whether an agreement can be reached with honour, whereby the gallant miners, who have defended their jobs and communities for nearly a year will not be brutally crushed into submission?
    Mr. Walker: Certainly, there is no desire to see miners who have been prevented from having a ballot being in any way humiliated as a result of what has occurred during this period. The Prime Minister has agreed to meet the TUC tomorrow at 11.30 am, and will listen to what it has to say.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Is not the evidence clear that, since we have been talking about cost, the personal cost is not so much to some of those who are on strike but to those who supply them, such as the small shopkeepers and so on and those who supply the industry? Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is very much in the interests of those people that the terms that are now on the table are taken up?
    Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that jobs have been lost in many parts of the country, especially by firms supplying the coal industry and those connected with mining communities. One deeply regrets that, and I am sure that those firms join the Government in wishing that there had been a ballot at the outset, which would almost certainly have resulted in there being no dispute.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept that there is a contradiction between his statement that NACODS is happy with its agreement and the NACODS statement several times last week that it is not happy about it because it is not happy at what the NUM is being asked to accept? Will the Minister now be honest enough to admit that the NCB is trying to lay down preconditions which will undermine any agreement with NACODS?
    Mr. Walker: The statement prepared following the talks between Mr. Willis and the NCB carries a clause which makes it clear that the procedures agreed with NACODS should be implemented with the greatest possible speed. It is certainly the hope of the Government, the NCB and NACODS that that should happen. I only hope that that is also the object of the NUM.
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a negotiated settlement is essential if an orderly return to work is to be achieved and anarchy avoided in the future? Will he clear up a matter that concerns many people about the latest NCB document? Does it represent an agenda for discussion or a final take-it-or-leave-it offer?
    Mr. Walker: Mr. Willis's objective in seeking such a document was to ensure that the crunch issue of the dispute was agreed and settled. There will, of course, be other items and issues that both sides will wish to discuss.
    Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the miners of south Derbyshire, who have worked normally throughout the strike, have just voted by 78·4 per cent. to give their local leaders the power to defy the national executive if necessary? Does that not show that most

    715
    mineworkers want the right to go to work in peace and a free and democratic union to look after their interests, not one that wishes to play revolutionary political games?
    Mr. Walker: The dispute has undoubtedly done considerable damage to NUM unity both locally and nationally. I am sure that many members of the union regret that.
    Mr. Rost: Instead of the inquiry demanded by Mr. Scargill, will my right hon. Friend prepare a White Paper acknowledging that because the nationalised monopoly has failed the economy, the consumer and the miners, it is now time for the Government to put privatisation of the coal industry at the top of their priorities?
    Mr. Walker: No. It has been perfectly clear throughout the dispute that the Government's intention has been to ensure that the industry in its present form has a stable and prosperous future. I am sure that that is the first priority.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman really implying that he understands the NACODS agreement better than the NACODS leaders understand it? Why does he not use his influence to get the NACODS agreement properly understood by the NCB?
    Mr. Walker: There is no misunderstanding about the agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to ensure that the NUM agrees speedily to the details of the NACODS agreement.
    Mr. Gregory: If the learned judge was correct in his comment the other day that six pickets was the maximum permitted, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his colleagues to ensure that that is implemented wherever possible in the coalfields so that the dispute can be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Walker: The judgment related to certain pits and certain local conditions. It will be necessary to examine the national implications of that judgment.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Why has the Prime Minister now agreed to meet the TUC to discuss a dispute that has been running for 11 months? Have circumstances changed to alter her view and that of other Ministers that the Government should not be involved in negotiations relating to the dispute? If the Prime Minister has anything to contribute towards a settlement, why did she not become involved at a much earlier stage?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, rightly, always agreed to see the TUC or any major trade union leader if they request her to do so, and she has done so on this occasion.
    Sir John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend make any specific statement about future proposals for the Kent coalfield, which is in a somewhat different position from the monolithic coalfields in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. The future of any individual pit or coalfield is a matter for negotiation at regional level.
    Mr. Mason: Has the Secretary of State carried out the promise that he made to me on 28 January that he would convey to the chairman of the NCB the request that the future of those miners arrested on the picket line and since then completely acquitted—there are now 1,190 of them
    716
    —should not be imperilled when the strike is over, or, in other words, that there should be an amnesty for those men? What was the NCB's reply?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, I have conveyed that point. I have not yet received a detailed reply from the NCB. When I do, I shall certainly let the right hon. Gentleman have it.
    Mr. Powley: In view of the substantial number of miners who have gone back to work of their own free will, will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the NCB the possibility of the board making a statement to the effect that those miners who choose to stay on strike after a predetermined date — say, in three weeks' time —should be told that their services are no longer required in the industry?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware of the statement made by Mr. Willis on breakfast television this morning that the gap between the two parties is now very small? Will he request his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she meets the TUC, to consider the miners and the miners' wishes? If the Prime Minister is to bridge that gap—which she certainly has the authority to do—she should base her judgment not on revenge on personalities but on the needs and wishes of the miners, who want a fair and honourable settlement.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. There has been no stage in the dispute when the offer available has not been to the advantage of the miners and their families and communities.
    Mr. Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the words of Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the Leicestershire NUM, today? He said that the economy of pits has always been a subject that he has discussed both locally and at regional level. If that is good enough for Leicestershire, is it not good enough at national level.
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Not only that, but Mr. Lawrence Daly has put in writing that when he occupied a vital post in the NUM he accepted the essential nature of the need to close uneconomic pits. With the Coal Industry Act 1977, the last Labour Government also made provision for the eradication of uneconomic pits.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to abandon the requirement that the NUM should sign a document before talks could begin is welcome, as is the Prime Minister's final realisation that she must meet the TUC in order to bring the dispute to an end? However, is he also aware that despite his regular statements in the House over the past six or eight months to the effect that the strike was crumbling, the Government have not succeeded in getting a majority of NUM members to return to work? Those who have returned have done so because they have been starved into submission. Like the majority of the British people, as revealed in the polls, NACODS and BACM—many senior managers—do not regard the Government's handling of the dispute as in any way creditable.
    Mr. Walker: The Government's handling of the dispute cannot be compared with that of the right hon. Gentleman's which, from the beginning, has been full of wholly wrong predictions. Last November, there were 94 pits where no one was present. Today, there are nine. I can make clear the impact of that change upon those whose

    717
    views are close to those of the right hon. Gentleman by saying that last week Coventry and Bolsover collieries returned to normal working.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of people in this country are fed up to the teeth with hearing about what Mr. Scargill says or believes? Is it not a fact that with 46 per cent. of the miners back at work the battle is already over, and the rest of the miners should go back to work, too, because that is where the future lies?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The longer the dispute continues, the more damage is done to productive coal faces and to prospective markets. As I said in my statement, the Government hope that the dispute will quickly be ended.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on a day such as today, it would be regarded as more than a little insecure for a Minister to mislead the House? I have been trying since 14 January to ascertain the size of coal stocks, distributed and undistributed, for the end of the year 1984, and have been unable to get any further than 31 October. Perhaps the Secretary of State should now have the guts to tell the nation just what the coal stocks are so that he cannot be accused of misleading anyone.
    Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that it would be a good idea if, instead of waiting——
    Hon. Members: Too long.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Skinner: Rather than waiting for the Chairman of the Select Committee to tell the nation the real truth about the loss of £2,000 million to the Central Electricity Generating Board, ought not the Secretary of State to admit that the strike has cost more than £100 apiece for every man, woman and child in the country?
    Mr. Walker: I can confirm that the strike has been costly and a great tragedy, but it has been most costly to the coal industry, to coal miners and to miners' families. As to stocks, I know that when the January figures are published, the hon. Gentleman will be delighted at how very little they have fallen. I originally gave an assurance that there would be no power cuts in 1985, and I am glad to say that I can now give an assurance that there will be none until well into 1986.
    Mr. Skinner: We have had some.
    Mr. Walker: It is time that the hon. Gentleman listened to the 90 per cent. of NUM members who are at work in the Bolsover pit.
    Mr. Skinner: It does not matter to me if they all go back—I am not giving in.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State care to comment on an article in The Times this morning which suggests that he has taken over the role of negotiator for the NCB? On a local matter, will he consider the claim by local people in Fife for assistance from the EEC to restore work in the Seafield and Frances collieries?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, several forms of help from the EEC are being examined actively by the Coal Board.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Willis stated during the weekend that the document
    718
    was not a joint document but was prepared basically by the NCB? Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to facilitate direct negotiations between the NUM and the Coal Board so that a negotiated, honourable settlement that is acceptable to the NUM and NCB can be arrived at?
    Mr. Walker: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows —I made it clear in my statement—that this was not a document prepared by the TUC. I never claimed that. I have claimed, and I am sure that Mr. Willis agrees, that the document was prepared after considerable detailed negotiations and talks with Mr. Willis in an attempt to create conditions in which a settlement could take place. That was the basis of the document, which I think was good. I very much regret that it was not accepted.

    Electricity Generation
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of national electric power was supplied by coal-burning, oil-burning and nuclear power stations over the past 12 months; and how this compares with the previous 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The last 12 months for which figures are available cover the period December 1983 to November 1984. During that period, on a fuel used basis, the electricity boards in the United Kingdom produced 53 per cent. of electricity from coal, 29 per cent. from oil and 16 per cent. from nuclear. The respective percentages in the previous 12-month period were 75 per cent., 8 per cent. and 15 per cent.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Will he now care to estimate the cost to the electricity supply industry of those changed percentages?
    Mr. Goodlad: We shall have to wait until the strike ends before the total costs can be assessed.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures that he has given demonstrate the flexibility of the electricity supply industry in meeting our worst winter since 1947? With regard to cost, does he agree that coal now released from pit heads becomes a positive cash flow to the NCB and that therefore the costs are not as high as some have led us to believe?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm that the promotion of the idea of uneconomic pits is linked with a pro-nuclear bias which, if it succeeds, will mean longer dole queues and a commitment to a nuclear future because, if pits are closed, the Government will be able to argue that there is no alternative?
    Mr. Goodlad: No. The Government, like their predecessors who enjoyed the support of the hon. Lady, expect the electricity supply industry to pay due regard in its planning to the need for diversity in and security of supply, including an appropriate nuclear component. I hope that its commitment to the future of coal is beyond doubt.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Do not the figures show that ther is a good argument for more electricity from nuclear power? Is not French electricity among the cheapest in Europe precisely because more than half of it comes from

    719
    nuclear power? Furthermore, would not more electricity from nuclear power help us to solve the problem of sulphur dioxide emissions and the resulting acid rain?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes.
    Mr. Eadie: Further to the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on the question of cost, is he not falling into the bad habit of denying matters that have been widely publicised in the press—namely, that there have been additional costs of £2 billion? Is that denial similar to the earlier denial of his right hon. Friend, who tried to suggest that the document produced by the National Coal Board was a negotiating document, which it is not? The national executive of the NUM was told that the words of the document were set in concrete and could not be amended. How in the name of God can that be a negotiating document?
    Mr. Goodlad: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am keen to avoid all bad habits. I repeat, we shall wait until the end of the dispute to assess the costs of the oil burn.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the amount of coal imported into the United Kingdom during January.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): The information is not yet available.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that it is patently clear from the answers given this afternoon that the Government are prepared to absorb the high cost of imported coal and all other elements that contribute towards the cost of the dispute because, as the Institute of Directors said at the weekend—it has been far more forthcoming than the Government — before the Government can carry out their economic and other policies, it is necessary to crush the trade union movement?
    Mr. Hunt: When the Government came to office the United Kingdom was a net importer of 2 million tonnes of coal a year. By 1983 the position had been reversed, and the nation had become a net exporter of 2 million tonnes. Sadly, that position has now been reversed because of the dispute, and again the country is a net importer. That is yet another example of the enormous damage that the dispute has done.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Central Electicity Generating Board has not imported any coal during the dispute? Is that not a further tribute to the flexibility that is built into our electricity generating system?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CEGB has not imported any foreign coal since the strike began, because it has not needed to do so. The best way for our great coal industry to proceed and to preserve markets is to return to full production at competitive prices.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that much of the imported coal that is being sold for heating domestic appliances will not burn in them and that that therefore adds considerably to the problems of old-age pensioners,
    720
    especially those in my area? Will he undertake to look at the calorific value of that coal to ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, deliberate disruption of supply has caused and inevitably leads to hardship for many customers. I pay tribute to the coal distributive trades for having done their best to care for those who need looking after in our society. That is yet another example of the damage caused by the dispute.
    Mr. Woodall: Will the Minister confirm the statement that he gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? Is he aware of the grave concern that is being expressed by many domestic consumers about the quality of the coal that is now being delivered to them by distributors? Is he further aware that that coal is nothing but muck, that it spits, causes a great deal of hardship and anxiety, and is not worth the money that is being paid for it, which is almost twice as much as the price for domestically produced coal?
    Mr. Hunt: For many consumers it is better to have this dirty coal than to have no coal. This country produces very good quality coal, and it is about time that we returned to full production.
    Mr. Marlow: Is any restriction imposed on either the private or public sectors with regard to the importation of coal?
    Mr. Hunt: I shall look into that question as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rowlands: Has the Minister read reports of the evidence that the CEGB has most recently produced for the Sizewell inquiry about forecasts for future international coal prices, which show that they might virtually double within the next five years? If so, does it not cast doubt on the so-called criteria for uneconomic pits and revalue our coal reserves? Does it not also suggest that we should treat premature pit closures with caution?
    Mr. Hunt: I reiterate the words of the chairman of the NCB to the annual conference of BACM, when even at that stage he stressed that there is tremendous potential for increasing the future markets available to the coal industry. Those great markets for exports exist, but we can hardly take advantage of them when we are not producing coal.

    Energy Efficiency Office
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress of his Energy Efficiency Office.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many firms are known to be participating in energy efficiency schemes following contact with the Energy Efficiency Office.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The office continues to provide valuable support in my campaign. It has stimulated an upsurge of interest in energy efficiency measures. From the early morning briefings alone, contacts have been made with 13,000 senior executives, of whom the great majority have gone on to take action to improve their energy efficiency.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend have any more precise estimates of the total energy waste in

    721
    different classifications of energy building? Can he confirm that inefficient energy use in buildings can add up to no less than £1 per sq ft in such buildings?
    Mr. Walker: I can confirm that, and I am pleased to say that the various parts of the building industry and the architects are co-operating with us to a great extent to try to see that much more is done in this sphere.
    Mr. Speller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the number of contacts made, but in future does he expect to produce a realistic number of positive responses from people engaged in energy efficiency operations? Has he any idea of the amount of savings to be made in respect of CEGB sites?
    Mr. Walker: We think that many savings can be made in almost every sphere. In total, we believe that savings of £7 billion can be achieved in this country. The returns that we are receiving following our major demonstration schemes and the briefing of senior executives are very encouraging.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Secretary of State aware that just before Christmas 300 men in my constituency, who produced insulation to reduce the cost of energy, lost their jobs? Is not this office just a big con and a cover for the Government to pretend that they are doing something, when they are really throwing men on the dole? Would not that money be better spent on buying insulation for old folks' homes, thereby keeping men in jobs to produce the stuff?
    Mr. Walker: The leaders of the insulation industry have expressed their considerable gratitude and enthusiasm for all that we are doing.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Budget changes last year, which imposed VAT on double glazing and other insulation, have proved to be a disincentive to industry and to the private sector to put insulation measures into effect, and that this is completely contrary to the policies of his Department?
    Mr. Walker: It is true that VAT measures have an adverse effect on a whole range of spending, but that spending is spread widely throughout the economy. I can only say that total activity which is now taking place within these industries has substantially increased compared with a year ago.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many miners have returned to work since January 1985.
    Mr. David Hunt: I understand from the National Coal Board that, since 1 January, nearly 18,000 ex-strikers have returned to work.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those 18,000 courageous miners who have gone back to work? Is this not an example of miners voting with their feet, showing without doubt that they wish to work because they want to keep the industry secure?
    Mr. Hunt: Since the last negotiations broke down, more than 34,000 miners have returned to work, thereby showing that they want the NUM president to move. When will he begin to listen?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the move in sterling made all pits more economic?
    Mr. Hunt: The economics of a particular pit are a matter for consideration by the NCB on a whole range of issues. One of the important ingredients in the offer now before the NUM is the introduction of a modified colliery review procedure which will enable all those considerations to be taken into account.

    North Sea Oil Production
    Mr. Maloneasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to control the production of North sea oil.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Malone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition gave the clearest indication recently that the Labour party was intent on pursuing a policy to control depletion of oil in the North sea? As the oil companies assume at present that they will be investing between £50 billion and £60 billion in production facilities over the next 15 or 16 years, does my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of controlling depletion could scupper those plans and damage investment, especially in the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was surprised to read the recent remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, because they showed ignorance of the characteristics of our industry, and of the best interests of the economy. I agree with my hon. Friend, not least because he is my constituency neighbour.
    Mr. Rowlands: Given that the Government have decided against the Sleipner contract and that there will be a need for condensate gas in the near future, will there not have to be some kind of balance between oil and gas production in the North sea?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not notice what was said last week about Sleipner. The tremendous increase in our reserves is almost as great as that of the Sleipner deal itself. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my confidence that the industry has a very bright future indeed.

    Homes Insulation Scheme
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the funding allocated for 1985–86 towards the homes insulation programme.
    Mr. David Hunt: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rost: As the funding for the homes insulation programme is being cut from £31·5 million this year to £21 million next year, with an additional £7 million held back in reserve, what does my hon. Friend propose to do to ensure that those people who apply for home grants are not disappointed?
    Mr. Hunt: The 1985–86 allocation of £31 million for England is in line with the estimated spend in the current financial year. The 25 per cent. reserve referred to by my hon. Friend is designed to ensure that funds allocated to the scheme can be sent where they are needed and therefore are fully spent.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    New Parliamentary Buildings
    Mr. Yeoasked the Lord Privy Seal when the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) consideration of the plans for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building will be completed.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The New Building Sub-Committee is now considering the preliminary sketch plans report. I expect the Services Committee to have approved the final sketch plans before the summer recess.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members who, like myself, are sufficiently recently arrived in this place to remember what it was like to enjoy normal working conditions in other occupations, believe that the improvement in facilities would greatly contribute to improving the efficiency of hon. Members?
    Mr. Biffen: My advice to my hon. Friend is to make the most of his memories. Even so, the plans for phase 1 are up to schedule.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Leader of the House disabuse those of his hon. Friends who believe that when the GLC is abolished they will get office space across the river? Will he tell them that that office space, and more, will be needed for the quangos and joint bodies that will be set up to replace the GLC?
    Mr. Biffen: I must confess that if the House is to acquire outbuildings around Westminster, it would have all the disadvantages of a split-site comprehensive. Therefore, I am happy for once to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the GLC buildings across the river do not come into our thinking.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is there not a danger that the proliferation of parliamentary buildings will denude the Chamber and detract from the corporate life of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Biffen: On an afternoon when the Chamber is likely to be pretty lively, I agree with my hon. Friend.

    Statutory Instruments (Prayers)
    Mr. Beithasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his policy to provide time for debate on the Floor of the House on all prayers against statutory instruments for which such a debate is actively sought by hon. Members.
    Mr. Biffen: I seek to meet the wishes of hon. Members whenever possible, but it would not be practicable to find time to debate every prayer on the Floor of the House without major repercussions on other business.
    Mr. Beith: Why is that so, given that if a prayer is taken in Committee upstairs, the House has no right to vote on it, even when the Government suffered an adverse vote in the Committee?
    Mr. Biffen: I can remember that occurring once since I have been Leader of the House. However, the hon. Member makes a fair point that could be considered.

    Parliamentary Papers (Delivery)
    Sir Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to ensure that hon. Members receive their Votes within the walk area on time and not by post the following day.
    Mr. Biffen: A small number of hon. Members have had their Votes delivered by post since Christmas due to an unprecedented degree of sickness among the delivery staff in the Vote Office.
    Two extra staff have been employed since January in an attempt to ensure that the Votes are delivered on time.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful response. Does he agree that, in the outside world to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) referred, temporary staff would have been engaged on a day-to-day basis to do this work, as I understand they used to be? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether that can be done rather than increase the permanent establishment?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall have my hon. Friend's point examined.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will the Leader of the House ask his Committee to look into the problem of communications with hon. Members in the House? Is it not nonsense that, when nearly every other establishment of this size has radio paging or a similar system, hon. Members still sometimes receive notices of meetings hours after the meetings have finished and green cards from constituents hours after the constituents have gone home?
    Mr. Biffen: Radio paging has been considered recently by the relevant Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. But I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question, which goes very much wider than the original question, and I shall refer it to the Services Committee.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Why in this modern day and age does there need to be such a service in any event? If hon. Members who live within walking distance of the House, as I do, cannot be here on time, what precious benefit is there in keeping this archaic system going?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is politically long enough in the tooth to know that the withdrawal of any service, however meritorious, and can be sustained, gives rise to such an outcry that no one will lightly undertake it.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better if hon. Members came into the House to collect their Votes rather than have them delivered to their banks and private law offices? When will Conservative Members recognise that being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point, only less elegantly, as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). This service is widely appreciated in the House, and I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who wants matters improved.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but surely the best way is to deliver the Votes direct to hon. Members' offices in the House or, if they work outside the House, to their addresses outside.

    725
    More importantly, will my right hon. Friend check on the speed of deliveries? I was informed that I had been selected to serve on the Committee which was to consider the Local Government (Access to Information) Bill eight days after my appointment. There is something wrong with communications in the House.
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's second point goes very much wider than the original question, but I shall consider his first one.
    Mr. Skinner: If the delivering of the Votes had to abide by the same kind of philosophy as that espoused by the Prime Minister and her colleagues, especially the Secretary of State for Energy, about whether a service was making a profit, would not this one come under the category of an uneconomic unit of production and have to close down? If that philosophy can apply to coal mines, why should it not apply to this service as well?
    Mr. Biffen: Delivering the Votes is a non-economic activity. Therefore, it is a call upon the resources which have to be created by the productive sector of the economy, which ought to include the coal industry.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Unions (Ministerial Meetings)
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met Civil Service unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Civil Service unions.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I last met the Civil Service unions on 4 December 1984 to discuss the Government's decisions on the 1984 report of the Top Salaries Review Body. The unions also took the opportunity to discuss with me some recent changes in travel and subsistence provisions.
    Mr. Davis: Is it not surprising that the Minister did not take the opportunity to discuss the problem of low pay and low morale in the Civil Service? Will he take this opportunity to deny the reports in last week's newspapers that if a civil servant engages in industrial action it will affect his promotion prospects?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I did not discuss low pay and the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised because it was not on the agenda for the meeting, nor was it raised by the representatives of the Civil Service unions.
    As for the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can deny that any new proposals are being brought forward. There is no general ban upon and no bar to the promotion of civil servants who may take part in industrial action, but, of course, this may be taken into account by those concerned as one of the factors that will determine their decision.
    Mr. Parry: Have there been any recent discussions or consultations with the Civil Service unions concerning the use of computers in passport offices? If so, what has been the reaction of the unions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That question ought to be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is now responsible for the Passport Office.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Did my hon. Friend raise with the Civil Service unions the increased effectiveness of Customs and Excise staff in preventing the illegal importation of drugs into this country and express to them the appreciation of the House? Do not these increased seizures justify and vindicate the Government's decision to use Customs and Excise staff more flexibly?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That matter was not discussed, but I am willing to follow my hon. Friend's invitation to pay tribute, which I hope I can do on behalf of all hon. Members, to the splendid work done by Customs and Excise staff over drugs seizures.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Did my hon. Friend discuss with the Civil Service unions those civil servants who were dismissed for breaking the rules of confidence of the Civil Service, such as my constituent, Mr. Robin Page, who was dismissed by a previous Labour Government for exposing the way in which Labour Ministers were misleading the House?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That matter was not discussed, but it puts into better perspective some of the hypocritical comments that we have heard from Opposition Members.
    Dr. McDonald: Will the Minister ensure that discussions with the Civil Service unions continue in order to draw up a new code of ethics to ensure civil liberties for civil servants? Will he also consider adopting as his model the American code of ethics, which asks civil servants to expose corruption wherever it occurs and to put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to the country above loyalty to persons, party or Government Departments?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The rules and guidance for civil servants remain as they have been for many years under successive Governments. Those rules certainly forbid breaches of trust, such as we have seen recently. If there is any need to reinforce those rules to make them clear to existing civil servants and future recruits, that will be done.

    Recruits (Quality)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the level and quality of new recruits into the non-industrial sectors of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Generally, recruitment to the non-industrial grades of the Civil Service is going well, but we are experiencing continuing difficulty in recruiting the numbers and quality that we need in some specialist areas, particularly where there is a national shortage of people with the relevant qualifications.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that new recruits are adequately informed about the need to respect the confidential nature of much of their work and about the correct procedures to take if, rightly or wrongly, they feel that they are being asked to mislead the public?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that proper guidance on all those matters is available.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it surprising that there is difficulty in attracting the right calibre of person when the demoralisation of the Civil Service is so obvious, when opportunities for advancement are few, and when it is clear that the Government do not think highly of civil servants? Will the hon. Gentleman take the earliest

    727
    opportunity to make it clear that he respects and admires the qualities of civil servants who have contributed so much to our past and to our future?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Again, I am happy to accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and pay tribute, as I have done many times before, to the overwhelming majority of civil servants who behave with loyalty and the highest integrity. As a country, we should be proud of them. That is perhaps why one lapse from those high standards excites a great deal of criticism and comment.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain has one of the best Civil Services in the world, but that those who have the great responsibility for choosing new members must surely ensure that loyalty and trust are the first things to look for and that character counts as much as brains?
    Mr. Hayhoe: All those matters must be taken into account; and we must follow the time-honoured arrangements, which are that ability, qualifications and the rightness for the job must be the qualities looked for by the Civil Service Commission in appointing new members to the Civil Service.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that his tribute to the work of the Civil Service will be much appreciated, but will he ask his colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister as head of the Civil Service and other senior colleagues, to make similar remarks about the Civil Service? Is he further aware that there is grave anxiety about the calibre of recruits to the Civil Service and the future of the Civil Service if morale stays at rock bottom as a result of constant attacks upon it by senior Ministers and the present policies on pay and cutbacks?
    Mr. Hayhoe: Constant attacks are not being made. Rather, constant tributes are being paid to the civil servants who carry out their work with great dedication.

    Unions (Ministerial Meetings)
    Mr. Soleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet the Civil Service trade unions; and if staffing matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have at present no plans to meet the Civil Service trade unions, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed to meet representatives of the Society of Civil and Public Servants on Monday 25 February to hear their views on the extension of unified grading in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Soley: When the Minister does meet them, will he take the opportunity to clarify his answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and explain what he means when he says that industrial action will be taken into account in promotion? Does that not mean that the Government are trying to act yet again as judge, jury and prosecution? Surely it means that if a person has been involved in industrial action, that will be taken into account and used against him when considering promotion prospects.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I should be happy to discuss such matters with the representatives of the Civil Service unions, if they so wish. But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's clarification or interpretation of my earlier remarks stands up.

    Equal Opportunities
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will now institute measures for sex monitoring in the Civil Service in accordance with the recommendations made in the revised draft code of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Arrangements which accord with the monitoring recommendations of the code are already in hand.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I seek his assurance that now that the EOC's code has been laid before Parliament, the Civil Service will lead the effort to achieve equal opportunities for women in employment?
    Mr. Hayhoe: We shall certainly be following the code's conditions and seeking to implement the code to the best of our ability.

Questions to Ministers
3.30 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point of order today, but this is a very important issue. Last week I tried to table two questions: one to the Attorney-General, and one to the Secretary of State. They were both refused. The first question to the Attorney-General asked what his recommendations—
Mr. Speaker: I must stop the hon. Gentleman, because he knows the rule. It is not in order to rehearse in the Chamber questions that have been turned down by the Table Office. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that matter, he should tell the Table Office and get in touch with me, and I shall then look into it.

Guinness Bottling Plant, Liverpool
3.31 pm
Mr. Robert Parry: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision by the Guinness company to close its bottling plant in Liverpool."
In view of the high level of unemployment, particularly in constituencies such as mine, I believe that there should be a debate on the loss of several hundred jobs on Merseyside. The company's decision means that 200 jobs will be lost in the Toxteth area of my constituency. Several jobs will be lost in the Speke constituency, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and 70 jobs will be lost at Runcorn. This is the second Guinness factory to close in my constituency in the last couple of years. As my constituency—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen with care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Parry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As my constituency has the highest level of male unemployment in the United Kingdom, approaching 40 per cent., I submit that the Guinness closure is a serious matter. In the past week or so we have also been hit by news of the withdrawal of the Liverpool to Isle of Man crossing, and by news that the Cammell Laird plant is to shed more than 400 jobs. Thus, in the course of a week or so we have received news that more than 700 jobs are to be lost. Incidentally, those job losses will mean that 100,000 jobs will have been lost on Merseyside in the last five years under this Government. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, to accept my application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure of the Guinness plant in Liverpool."
The hon. Gentleman knows well that the only decision for me is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Severe Weather Payments
3.33 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the allocation of exceptionally severe weather payments"
The matter is specific, because it concerns the way in which the exceptionally severe weather payment is operated. It is urgent, because old people in my constituency and elsewhere in Britain who should qualify, but do not do so, are suffering now as a result of the scheme's operation. Indeed, two old people in my constituency, one in South Chard and the other in Seavington, have died from hypothermia in recent weeks. If a method cannot be found to alter the way in which the scheme is operated, there will be more suffering, and possibly even more deaths.
My area of the south-west of England has been among the worst affected by the recent cold spell — [Interruption.] Conservative Members may consider this to be a joke, but I assure them that it is not. Needless to say, the weather is no respecter of DHSS boundaries. The whole of my constituency has suffered equally from the cold, yet not all of my constituents are entitled to severe weather payments.
About half of my constituency falls within the Bournemouth DHSS area. The entitlement of those who live in that area to severe weather payments depends on what has happened 40 miles away to the south, at the Bournemouth weather station. The other half of my constituency falls within the Bristol DHSS area. The entitlement of the people in that half is measured by what has happened 40 miles away to the north, at the Bristol weather station. As a result those who live in one half of my constituency are entitled to payment, while those who live in the other half are not.
We have the ludicrous situation that one old person can get the allowance, while another old person living 100 yd distant cannot get it. What logic is there in that? Thanks to inadequate housing, insufficient insulation and the astronomical price of coal, many old people are now having to pay £15 a week for the heat they require to keep alive.
The exceptional weather payment offers such people the only means of coping, yet many are denied help
732
because of the ludicrous bureaucracy of the present situation. There are more tragic deaths from cold waiting to happen unless the Government can be persuaded—[Interruption.]—to alter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Standing Order No. 10 application procedure is a cherished Back-Bench opportunity to raise important matters. I must be able to hear what the hon. Member is saying.
Mr. Ashdown: Many tragic deaths resulting from the cold will happen unless the Government can be persuaded to alter the regulations to cope with the realities of the situation, rather than taking refuge behind the "Mad Hatter" regulations of the DHSS. We need urgently to debate this matter if the lives of many old people are not to be further endangered.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the allocation of exceptionally severe weather payments following the death recently of two of his constituents from hypothermia."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I must give him the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Severe Weather Payments
  BILL PRESENTED
    TRADE UNION AND EMPLOYMENT ACTS (REPEAL)
    Mr. Ron Lewis, supported by Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Sydney Bidwell, presented a Bill to repeal the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

  Ordered,
  That the Insurance (Fees) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.— [Mr. Durant.]

Sinking of the General Belgrano
3.38 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before we enter upon this important debate, I quote some wise words from "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."
Today's debate raises very important issues on which hon. Members feel strongly. I hope that they can be fully discussed within our long-established rules governing orderly debate.
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I propose to apply the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 8·50 pm.
3.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the sinking of the General Belgrano was a necessary and legitimate action in the Falklands Campaign; and agrees that the protection of our Armed Forces must be the prime consideration in determining how far matters involving national security and the conduct of military operations can be disclosed.
The House will understand that I must make a lengthy and detailed speech on what is an important issue involving the rights of Parliament and the duties of Ministers, our national security, and the relationship between Ministers, their colleagues, and civil servants.
It may be helpful if I summarise at once the ground that I intend to cover and the approach that I intend to adopt. I intend to outline the background that led to the decision to sink the Belgrano. I shall set out rather more fully the events that surrounded the decision itself.
I was not involved in the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had any contact, directly or indirectly, with the Law Officers or their officials in that context. In general, with one exception, we were not consulted about the case or the papers submitted to the court. The Attorney-General has set out the position to the House in the clearest language. I have nothing to add to his statement.
My only involvement in the conduct of the case came many months later, when it was necessary to consider requests from Mr. Ponting's lawyers that classified documents belonging to my Department should be disclosed to the court. I was consulted over the disclosure of one of those documents—the one now known as the "Crown Jewels". After consultation with senior colleagues and the Government's security advisers, it was decided to provide that document under special conditions.
The disclosure of a number of internal Ministry of Defence documents to the court creates a most unusual situation. Advice to Ministers on policy matters is disclosed to this House only in carefully defined areas, such as the outcome of studies related to efficiency. It is a wholly necessary position carefully to restrict such disclosures.
If civil servants are to have confidence that they can put their views fully and honestly to Ministers, if the concept that advice given to one Government is not made available to another is to be maintained, and if the proper accountability of Ministers—and not civil servants—to Parliament is to be preserved, we must maintain that
734
position. Failure to do so would change fundamentally the position of the Civil Service. Particularly, it would rapidly lead to the politicisation of the Civil Service, which very few would want. [Interruption.]
The essence of the debate centres on the allegations made by a civil servant about the behaviour of Ministers. Mr. Ponting has made the most serious allegations—many of them repeated yesterday—about my conduct in discharging my responsibilities as the Secretary of State for Defence. Most extreme and unfounded allegations have been made about the Prime Minister and about my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. [Interruption.] In those quite deplorable circumstances, the Government have decided — exceptionally — to reveal the advice given to Ministers by officials. I have no option but to quote from the advice that Mr. Ponting gave me. When I do so I shall make available the full text of his advice to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and place copies in the Library of the House.
I further intend to enable members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to have access to the document known as the "Crown Jewels", under appropriate security arrangements, and I propose to discuss with the Chairman of that Committee how best that can be done.
The House will want to judge Mr. Ponting's claims in the light of the advice that he gave to Ministers at the time. I shall deal specifically with the events associated with the letter written on behalf of the shadow Cabinet by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the letter that I received in March from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the preparation, in the light of those letters, of the document known as the "Crown Jewels", and the subsequent handling of the questions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I shall refer in particular to the suggestion that has been made, quite wrongly, that Ministers misled the House in May in answer to parliamentary questions.
I shall want to deal also with the events that occurred later, when the Foreign Affairs Committee requested a note of all changes in the rules of engagement issued to Her Majesty's forces in the South Atlantic in the Falklands campaign. Our response to that request, which has become known as the "Stanley Memorandum" — although the request and the reply were approved personally by me—is that specific subject of the Opposition amendment today. It is that memorandum which, until yesterday, Mr. Ponting appeared to argue had finally persuaded him to leak documents and breach the trust of a civil servant to Ministers. For him, that memorandum was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back. On that basis the Opposition have been persuaded, I presume, to draft their rather narrow amendment. We shall see whether the House believes that it was any better served by Mr. Ponting than I was.
When I first became personally involved in this matter I had no first hand knowledge of the events that had taken place in the South Atlantic in 1982, save as a member of the Cabinet involved in general policy discussions, or as a result of media coverage. I recall that the decision to send the task force was given all-party support by the House in 1982. However, the House will also remember that the hon. Member for Linlithgow never agreed with that judgment. Some would regard that independence of mind on his part as an act of personal courage. No one would

735
question his right to reach such a view, however much one disagreed with it, and no one could disagree with it more profoundly that I did, and still do.
The views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow were clear from the outset. On 7 April 1982 he told the House:
"Some of us believe that the fleet should turn round and come back to Portsmouth and Rosyth as soon as possible." —[Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 1037.]
On 19 April the hon. Gentleman told the House:
"Is it not an illusion to think that the Amercans will be less than evenhanded".—[Official Report, 19 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 25.]
On 13 May the hon. Gentleman told the House:
"The Argentines have a very tough marine corps of at least 6,000 officers and men who are highly regarded by professional marines in this country. The conscripts will fight as if they are fighting in a holy war. There will be massive casualties; that fact should be faced."—[Official Report, 13 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 983.]
On 8 June the hon. Gentleman suggested that Britain was
"slithering into a British Vietnam in the South Atlantic."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 32.]
By 21 December 1982 the hon. Gentleman was telling the House:
"The sinking of the Belgrano, when the right hon. Lady knew what she did about peace proposals, was an evil decision of an order that it would not have occurred to me to attribute to any other … politician of any party since I have been in the House".—[Official Report, 21 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 901.]
During my earlier days as Secretary of State for Defence, from the beginning of 1983, it was the hon. Gentleman alone who pursued a campaign based upon that hostility and with changing centres of attack. The Government's position was clear. Towards the end of April 1982 the first elements of the task force were moving towards the Falkland Islands. As they moved southwards from Ascension Island, they were vulnerable to attack. While an exclusion zone had been established around the Falkland Islands to avoid Argentina consolidating her illegal occupation, measures to defend our own forces had overriding priority.
On 23 April the Government issued a warning to the Argentine Government which was conveyed to them by the Swiss. I shall read it in full. It was as follows:
"In announcing the establishment of a maritime Exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under article '51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection, Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries, or military aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft including civil aircraft engaging in surveillance of these British Forces will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly."
That was the end of the warning.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: From that time on, why were the rules of engagement changed at all if they were so clear?
Mr. Heseltine: The rules of engagement govern the orders and discipline within which the British Fleet operates. The warning that I have read was given to the Argentines.
At the end of April the task force was close to the Falkland Islands. It had limited defences against attack, particularly from the air. It was operating 8,000 miles away from home against forces operating close to their
736
own mainland. Argentina could bring to bear both land-based aircraft and those on the aircraft carrier the 25th of May, which greatly increased the reach and flexibility of the Argentine air threat. Argentine ships could move quickly from the safe haven of areas close to the Argentine coast to positions where they could threaten our forces. The Royal Navy had no such easy options.
The first hostilities around the Falkland Islands took place on 1 May. That day Vulcan and Sea Harrier aircraft attacked Argentine positions on Stanley airfield to enforce the total exclusion zone. The task force itself came under attack for the first time from the Argentine air force and some Argentine aircraft were shot down. There was no doubt in Argentina about what was happening. Argentine radio on 1 May claimed that they had attacked the task force.
On 2 May there were clear and unequivocal indications that the task force was under further threat from a strong and co-ordinated pincer movement by the major units of the Argentine navy, including the cruiser General Belgrano and the aircraft carrier. The Prime Minister and her War Cabinet were advised of the threat in the light of the best military and intelligence assessments and were advised by the Chief of the Defence Staff that the rules of engagement should be changed to permit attacks on Argentine warships outside the exclusion zone.
No Prime Minister could have hesitated in the face of that advice. The rules of engagement were changed, not only to cope with the threat from the Belgrano but to cope with that from other Argentine warships on the high seas. Argentina had been clearly warned on 23 April that a threat to interfere with the mission of British forces would encounter the appropriate response.
On 4 May, Sir John Nott described to the House the circumstances of the attack on the Belgrano, saying that she had been detected at 8 pm on 2 May when the group of ships of which she was a part was closing on elements of our task force. Both the Falkland campaign White Paper and Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse's official dispatch also referred to detection on 2 May. We know that, in fact, she was sighted on 1 May. I will explain how the Prime Minister and I came to address this error in March of this year. The Prime Minister in her letter to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has fully explained the background to Sir John Nott's statement on 4 May.
Interest in these and other questions was heightened by the publication of a book on the sinking of the General Belgrano by Messrs Gayshon and Rice. From the time of publication in March 1984 a range of detail was available that raised a host of issues and questions. Two particular issues emerged: first, the date on which the Belgrano was detected; secondly, the course of the Belgrano and the orders under which she was operating from the time when she was first picked up by HMS Conqueror to that when she was sunk.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli wrote on behalf of the shadow Cabinet to the Prime Minister on 6 March 1984. His letter focused mainly on the issue of when the Belgrano had first been located and sighted, but also asked about the ship's course when it was sunk. His letter was referred to Mr. Ponting as the head of the appropriate division for advice and for a draft reply. I personally gave no guidance to Mr. Ponting about the advice that he should provide. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces went further and asked that the option of

737
admitting for the first time that the Belgrano was sighted on 1 May and not 2 May should be addressed. Mr. Ponting submitted his advice through my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and it reached my office on 21 March. I intend to quote from Mr. Ponting's advice and also from the manuscript note written on that advice by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I will, as I have said, make these documents available.
Mr. Ponting wrote:
"You asked for a draft reply to send to No. 10 for the Prime Minister to send to Denzil Davies and the Shadow Cabinet. Minister (AF) asked me to prepare a draft admitting for the first time that the Belgrano was sighted on 1st May and not 2nd May, this is draft 2 attached. I have however prepared an alternative reply, draft 1, which maintains the existing public line. There are no operational or intelligence reasons for withholding the 1st May date and the choice between the drafts is therefore essentially political".
Mr. Ponting went on to set out the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative course, but left the issue to me. He said in his advice that the choice was "essentially political". My right hon. Friend added a manuscript note making it clear that it was he who had sought drafts on both bases in referring the matter to me.
It is plain beyond doubt that my right hon. Friend was determined that I, not he, should be able to make a proper judgment about how the Prime Minister should be advised to reply to the shadow Cabinet. It is also clear that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was the first person whose name is associated with a policy of more, not less, disclosure. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces did not seek to take the decision, and merely ensured that I had the options in front of me.
In practice, I did not put either of Mr. Ponting's alternative drafts to the Prime Minister. The explanation is simple. On 19 March the hon. Member for Linlithgow wrote me a letter asking nine questions. In one respect the hon. Gentleman repeated the question about the date of the detection of the Belgrano, as had the letter from the right hon. Member for Llanelli. But the hon. Gentleman went on to ask a number of other questions concerning the course followed by the Belgrano, the details of the attack on her, and others relating to the Argentine aircraft carrier.
I decided that, as a result of the events that I have described, I could not properly discharge my duty to Parliament unless I had before me an account of events in the South Atlantic in a detail that no one until that time had considered necessary. Mr. Ponting was asked to prepare that document—the document known as the "Crown Jewels".
I must now read to the House the instructions that were sent to Mr. Ponting about what was required. The House will remember that the central issue of this debate is whether Ministers sought to cover up the events that we are discussing. My private secretary, Richard Mottram, wrote to Mr. Ponting on 22 March. I quote two passages of his minute:
"The Secretary of State wishes to know the substance of what happened at the beginning of May 1982 in relation to the Belgrano and the Argentine aircraft carrier in order to judge how much of this can properly be made public without security implications. For the purpose of considering the substance, he would be grateful for a detailed chronology of the events leading up to the sinking of the Belgrano. This should cover the answers to the questions raised by Mr. Dalyell in his latest letter together with those to the following questions."
738
Having listed a range of other questions that might be worth exploring, Richard Mottram went on:
"This list of questions"—
that is, his list of questions—
"is simply those which occur to me and is not meant to be exhaustive. What the Secretary of State is seeking is a comprehensive account of events which covers all the information and not just that which underpins the main defensive line we have used hitherto. I would be happy to have this in log form with the relevant documents enclosed — given the possible sensitivity of some of the information involved there would be no need of course to copy it widely within the Department.
Additionally, I should be grateful for a draft reply to Mr. Dalyell's latest letter together with advice on whether the line proposed to be taken with Dalyell affects the line proposed to be taken with Denzil Davies."
Mr. Ponting's reply—[Interruption.] The House is fully aware that it would be inconceivable if the Civil Service were not to ensure that, if the Prime Minister is answering specialist questions, what she says is consistent with the advice from the specialist Department concerned. Mr. Ponting's reply to the minute is the document which is publicly known as the "Crown Jewels". It consists of Mr. Ponting's advice, an unclassified draft reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and a log, and supporting documentation, dealing with highly sensitive operational and intelligence aspects of the sinking of the Belgrano. The document is classified "Top Secret. Codeword". That classification would have been applied by Mr. Ponting, reflecting the classification of some of its source material.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: What is the difference between determining the line and telling the truth?
Mr. Heseltine: "Determining the line" is simply the language that is commonly used in the Civil Service to describe the advice that Ministers are given for public disclosure. The hon. Gentleman will remember those words from his experience as a Minister in the Labour Government.
I should like to deal first with the conclusions which Mr. Ponting reached. He concluded that, on the basis of the information in the "Crown Jewels", the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and his supporters could be refuted, but, because of the classification of the material, it was not possible to use it in public to refute detailed allegations.
As to what should be said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, Mr. Ponting's advice was that the draft reply was simple because, whatever general line was taken, these issues related to detailed operational and intelligence information. He therefore submitted a draft reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, which read as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of 19th March.
As I expect you know the Prime Minister has, in a letter to Denzil Davies, confirmed that the Belgrano was sighted on 1st May. However, the other questions you have raised in your letter all concern detailed operational and intelligence matters on which I am not prepared to comment."
Those are not my words, but Mr. Ponting's. They represent Mr. Ponting's considered advice to me on 29 March as to how I should reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. That advice presented me with difficult problems in carrying out my responsibilities to Parliament for the defence interests of the country and my responsibility to Parliament to provide it with as much information as is compatible with that security.

739
Mr. Ponting's role in the "Crown Jewels" is clear. He informed me that the long running arguments of the hon. Member for Linlithgow did not stand, that an effective negation of his case was incompatible with national security and that the hon. Gentleman should be sent a six-line reply closing down that line of inquiry. I could simply have accepted Mr. Ponting's advice that day and sent a reply on the basis that he proposed, but I refused to accept his advice.
I was scheduled to leave for a NATO meeting the following Monday, so there was therefore great urgency. I called a series of meetings on Friday 30 March and Sunday 1 April. Their purpose was to address how far information could be disclosed in answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Linlithgow without security implications. We had before us Mr. Ponting's advice, which leaned towards disclosure on when the Belgrano was sighted, but which was categorically opposed to answering the questions asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, on grounds of operational and intelligence security.
The first meeting ended inconclusively. I decided that I would report matters to the Prime Minister. However, after the meeting broke up, I discussed further the form of my advice to the Prime Minister with my permanent secretary, Sir Clive Whitmore. My private secretary was also present. The conclusion that was reached was recorded and I am making available a copy of that record. My problem was to define as responsibly as I could the line up to which I could reveal information to Parliament, but beyond which I could not go without damaging national security.
The conclusion that I reached provisionally was that it might well now be possible to reveal that the Conqueror first detected the Belgrano group on 30 April 1982, and first sighted the Belgrano itself on 1 May, but that the Government should not allow themselves to be driven beyond that point, whatever the pressures. Those conclusions were made known to Mr. Ponting at that time. He never queried them. They are totally inconsistent with Mr. Ponting's account in The Observer yesterday.
Mr. Dalyell: If this is the line that the Secretary of State is taking in relation to Mr. Ponting, as counsel said in court, he was not counsel for Mr. Dalyell but counsel for Mr. Ponting. Nevertheless, if this is the line, does the Secretary of State not think that he ought to have gone to court No. 2 at the Old Bailey himself, rather than send Richard Mottram, and submitted himself to examination by counsel?
Mr. Heseltine: I think the hon. Gentleman will understand on reflection that, as I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have made clear, I had no part to play in the conduct of the case against Mr. Ponting. With the sole exception of the question arising out of the release of the "Crown Jewels" on security grounds, if it had been considered necessary or desirable by those conducting the case to have called me to the court, I should, of course, have been prepared to go. They did not ask me to go or consult me about whether they should ask me to go, and I was not called. I believe that that is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I reported my preliminary conclusions that Friday afternoon to the Prime Minister, but I was still not wholly
740
satisfied. I was determined to talk to the head of the appropriate intelligence agency and other intelligence experts outside the Ministry of Defence, in addition to my own advisers on these matters. That I did on the afternoon of Sunday 1 April. That meeting addressed in full the intelligence background to the action taken by the Government on 2 May 1982 and what might be said in response to the claims which were being made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, Messrs. Gayshon and Rice and others about the interception of Argentine orders to its fleet. The House will appreciate that the information then appearing in the British press and in the books that I have mentioned was largely the product of Argentine sources, which were anxious, no doubt, to probe the scale of our understanding of their activities.
It was obvious that once the Government had confirmed that the Belgrano had reversed course at 9 am on 2 May and had headed for a number of hours in a westerly direction, the focus of attention would be on the intelligence assessment which led to the decision to sink the ship and upon allegations about Argentine orders to recall the fleet to port, and whether these had any connection with the so-called Peruvian peace initiative.
It is possible to answer a question on a matter of fact which is not of itself classified, but if that single answer then becomes, as one would anticipate that it might, a precedent for a series of similar questions, that series could lead rapidly into matters that are classified. As events have shown, the disclosure of information about the movements of the Belgrano has led precisely to detailed questions, the answers to which would breach national security. The advice put to me by the Government's intelligence authorities at the time was that it would not be possible safely to comment on these matters. They gave me their reasons, which were compelling, and Mr. Ponting was present. I concluded, therefore, that the preliminary judgment that I had reached on Friday 30 March should stand—that we should not enter into a debate with the hon. Member for Linlithgow about events at the beginning of May 1982. That judgment reflected Mr. Ponting's advice.
It has now been alleged that that decision was to do with political embarrassment. I deny that allegation utterly. At that time I recommended that we should face political embarrassment involved in correcting the date when the Belgrano had been detected. I concluded that to maintain the statement made originally to the House by Sir John Nott was no longer right. I therefore advised the Prime Minister, who immediately and without qualification agreed.
Consequently, the Prime Minister replied to the right hon. Member for Llanelli on 4 April essentially on the basis of the advice that I had given the previous Friday. I had a further brief word with my right hon. Friend on Monday 2 April, at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for State for the Armed Forces was present. That was the only occasion on which he discussed these matters with the Prime Minister. He did so at my invitation and in my presence. The Prime Minister's reply was in much fuller terms than Mr. Ponting had originally recommended and along the lines that I had suggested.
The dispatch by the Prime Minister of her letter to the right hon. Member for Llanelli opened the way for me to deal with the original nine questions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow in his letter to me of 19 March. I was about to do that when the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime

741
Minister pursuing issues raised in her letter to the right hon. Member for Llanelli. The hon. Member for Linlithgow wrote a four-page letter which covered the Belgrano's course, our intelligence capability, the motivation behind the decisions and issues concerning the rules of engagement. When referring to the Prime Minister's letter the hon. Gentleman said:
"You stressed that on 2nd May we had indications about the movements of the Argentine fleet which lead to Admiral Woodward's request for a change in the Rules of Engagement. What precisely were those indications? … My information is that the Argentine fleet was by that time under orders to return to base and you knew that. Gayshon and Rice in their book set precise times (2007 hours on 1st May and 0119 hours on 2nd May) when those orders were sent by Admiral Allara, and by the Naval Command in Buenos Aires. The text of one of those messages is included in their book."
The hon. Member for Linlithgow, within one day of the Government's response to the shadow Cabinet, was attempting to draw us precisely into those areas of security which we had anticipated he would and on which we knew we would not be able to comment. We could not have had a speedier or clearer vindication of our judgment that the hon. Gentleman would not rest until our security and intelligence protection was stripped away.
In line with the approach that I had previously discussed with the Prime Minister, it was suggested that my right hon. Friend should reply very briefly to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, making it clear that his purpose in asking these questions was to establish his contention that the attack on the Belgrano was related to Peruvian peace proposals—all of the allegations appeared yet again in his letter. In those circumstances, it was not useful to prolong the exchanges. That was what Ministers decided. The Prime Minister replied along those lines on 12 April, but before she did so, Mr. Ponting, as one of the responsible officials, was invited to comment on the approach that she was considering. On 10 April he said that he would not dissent from the suggestion that the Prime Minister should avoid detailed exchanges with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and that a general reply would be sufficient.
The House will realise that, because the hon. Member for Linlithgow had written on 5 April to the Prime Minister and attention was focused on her reply, I had at this stage yet to reply to the nine questions in the hon. Gentleman's earlier letter of 19 March, which had been at the heart of the "Crown Jewels" exercise, during which Mr. Ponting had already submitted to me one draft reply, which I have read to the House.
On the same day that the Prime Minister sent her general reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow —1 April — Mr. Ponting submitted further advice on the questions put to me on 19 March.
Mr. Robert Sheldon rose——
Mr. Heseltine: The advice that Mr. Ponting gave me was diametrically opposed to that in his earlier draft. Although he told me on 29 March that it was not possible to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow because they touched on operational and intelligence matters, on 12 April he told me that the answers were not classified and should therefore be given.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, having read Mr. Ponting's advice, minuted
742
me to point out that it was inconsistent with the line that the Prime Minister had just taken with the agreement of all involved, including Mr. Ponting, in her reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
Mr. Sheldon rose——
Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way, but not in the middle of a sequence of events which it is important for the House to hear in one piece.
My right hon. Friend the Minister could not have behaved more properly or more speedily. But it would not have made any difference if he had not sent me a minute, because I was already fully aware of the background to these issues and that for no apparent reason Mr. Ponting had changed his advice and now sought to reverse my earlier decision.
Mr. Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman is making a great deal of the fact that Mr. Ponting was giving advice of a kind that fitted in exactly with what the right hon. Gentleman wished. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that civil servants do that all the time? When I was on the Fulton committee, I saw that happening all the time. Parliamentary secretaries always provide the sort of information that they know will be required by a Minister. That happens all the time and is not a cause for surprise.
Mr. Heseltine: That is one of the most scurrilous attacks on the Civil Service that I have ever heard. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr. Heseltine: The House has heard me read my private secretary's instructions to Mr. Ponting to provide me with the truth. There was no possible, conceivable pressure on Mr. Ponting to do anything but to tell me the whole story at the time.
As I said, Mr. Ponting, for no apparent reason, had changed his advice and sought to reverse my earlier decision based on that advice. I therefore replied in general terms to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 18 April in line with the decision which the Prime Minister and I had taken on the basis of the advice of our most senior advisers on matters affecting national security, and in conformity with Mr. Ponting's earlier advice and agreement. Mr. Ponting made no protest about my answer, either to me or to his superiors through the established channels of complaint open to members of Her Majesty's Civil Service.
Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Minister ever had a coherent explanation for Mr. Ponting's change of advice, until yesterday. In The Sunday Times Mr. Ponting gave his explanation. He stated:
"When the 'Crown Jewels' were actually written, I had four days to do it in. It was very complex and I did not have time for analysis. It was only later that I realised that much of the information was not classified and could be released."
For the House to judge the credibility of this explanation, I shall set out the actual time scale of Mr. Ponting's involvement. Mr. Ponting had been looking into some of these issues since the letter of the right hon. Member for Llanelli was referred to his division at the beginning of March. Certainly he had been the head of the division only since 9 March, but he was an experienced official and could draw on the advice of other experienced officials. He had far more time to analyse these matters than the Ministers who had to account to Parliament and to draw on his advice and the advice of the other experts

743
concerned. In any case, on 10 April, after about five weeks in the job, he was advising that the Prime Minister should send a general reply, and two days later he proposed that I should do the exact opposite.
We should now move on to the heart of the Opposition's amendment—that my memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee provided a misleading account of changes in the rules of engagement during the Falklands campaign. We should move on, not only because it is specifically referred to in the Opposition's amendment, but because until very recently it was said to have been Mr. Ponting's shock at Ministers' handling of that evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that forced him to overturn all the instincts, after 14 years in the Civil Service, that told him that loyalty was to Ministers and to the Department. Those words came from The Observer yesterday. We should move on if we accept Mr. Ponting's version of events—that is, his version of events until a week ago.
Far from acting in protest against the Foreign Affairs Select Committee memorandum, we were still 11 weeks away from the submission of that memorandum. Far from being driven to near breaking point by ministerial consideration of the handling of parliamentary questions in mid-May, Mr. Ponting began the process of breaking his loyalty to Ministers and to the ethics of Her Majesty's Civil Service on 24 April, when he sent an anonymous letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. As I have told the House, I had replied to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 18 April in line with the policy advice that Mr. Ponting himself had originated, and which the Prime Minister and I had accepted. For no good reason, Mr. Ponting later tried to persuade me to change that position. He failed. Within days of receiving a copy of my letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, he began the process of feeding ideas and questions to the hon. Member for Linlithgow anonymously.
Mr. Dalyell: The ideas on the rules of engagement came from me, as will be witnessed by the discussions that I had with Professor John Erickson of the University of Edinburgh. As we are on this subject, let me quote a letter from the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee — [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—1 June 1984. It stated:
"Dear Tam, Thank you for your letter of 19 May, to which I am sorry not to have been able to reply sooner. I will certainly keep confidential the letter you were kind enough to send me. I would doubt whether it really alters the situation. That situation will be reflected in the answers to your questions and I regard the letter as more in the nature of an encouragement than a breach of any confidence."
That was the view of a senior member of the Conservative party.
Mr. Heseltine: In no way would I wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I think I heard him say that the letter he wrote was dated 19 May, but the anonymous letter that he received was on 24 April. I think the hon. Gentleman said that the ideas about the rules of engagement were his. I hope the House will remember that the hon. Gentleman has claimed those ideas for his own, when later I explain certain factual contributions. I shall take the opportunity to remind the House of that precise intervention later in my speech.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman should get his officials to phone Erickson.
Mr. Heseltine: As I said, within days of receiving a copy of my letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, Mr. Ponting began the process of feeding ideas and questions to the hon. Gentleman anonymously.
On 19 August 1984 the hon. Member for Linlithgow was quoted in The Observer as having received three documents, the first of which was dated 24 April and sent to him at the House of Commons in a plain envelope similar to that containing the other papers which he subsequently received in mid-July. When this article appeared in August, there was little that those concerned with security in my Department could be expected to do. No one knew at the time where that anonymous letter had originated.
On the night of Mr. Ponting's acquittal—a week ago today, on Monday 11 February—"News at Ten" carried an interview with Mr. Ponting which was, I believe, a shortened version of one shown earlier that evening on Channel 4. The film showed Mr. Ponting typing a letter. It showed the envelope in which it was sent, addressed to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and postmarked 24 April. I shall place in the Library of the House a copy of the contents of that letter transcribed from the copy shown on the television screen.
I shall now read the contents of that letter — [Interruption.] I should alert the House to the fact that the envelope on the screen was clearly dated 24 April. Again, I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member for Linlithgow. He says that the letter was undated, but the envelope was dated by the post officials, and I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman later admitted that he had the letter on 24 April. I do not think that there is any difference between us on the technical question of when he got the letter, although there may be differences between us about what happened as a consequence.
In reading this letter I must now fulfil my undertaking to remind the House of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow said a few minutes ago—that the ideas about the rules of engagement originated with him. The letter stated:
"Dear Mr. Dalyell, For what I hope will be obvious reasons I cannot give you my name but I can tell that I have full access to exactly what happened to the Belgrano. You have probably seen by now that Michael Heseltine has not covered any of the questions that you posed in your letter in March. This was against the advice of officials but in line with what John Stanley recommended. None of the information is classified and to get answers you should put the questions down as PQs. The answers will be quite interesting. In addition you might like to consider another linked question. Did the change in the Rules of Engagement on 2nd May refer only to the Belgrano or did they go wider? When were the Rules of Engagement changed to allow an attack on the 25 de Mayo? Was this on 2nd May or was it earlier. If so, when?
You are on the right track. Keep going."
It will be seen that this letter was sent on 24 April. If Mr. Ponting is the author, as he claims he is, it is not consistent with his argument that he was driven to leak by my behaviour or by the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in May or July. In the news programmes in which it was shown, the impression was created that he was forced to write anonymously because of the exchanges that he had had with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in May about the handling of parliamentary questions. I shall come to that issue in a moment. The only problem with this version of events is that not even my right hon. Friend can take actions in May which provoke a civil servant to

745
write anonymously in April. I know that my right hon. Friend is regarded in some quarters as having the most extraordinary powers. He was even accused two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow of managing to doctor Admiral Fieldhouse's official dispatch in 1982, while at the time he was serving the Government as a highly successful Minister for Housing and Construction.
Mr. Dalyell: Remember his Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies' connections.
Mr. Heseltine: We have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend, but even we do not think that he has powers of this supernatural quality.
What was the true sequence of events? As I have said, Mr. Ponting appears to have written anonymously to the hon. Member for Linlithgow very soon after he had seen the terms in which I had written to the hon. Member. There was not much time devoted to agonising. As we know, since the full text of the letter became available a week ago, he suggested that the hon. Member for Linlithgow should do two things: first, that he should put down for answer in Parliament the unanswered questions from his letter of 19 March; secondly, that he should ask some new questions about changes in the rules of engagement.
As we now know, the hon. Member for Linlithgow acted on the first suggestion separately from the second. He put down as questions to me some of those left over from his earlier letter. He also asked a related question to the Prime Minister about how many times contact was made and lost between Conqueror and the Belgrano on 1 and 2 May, what were the reasons for the loss of contact on each occasion, and if she would make a statement. At the same time, on 1 May, he wrote me a further letter asking me to answer his questions.
The answers to the parliamentary questions were addressed first and came in the normal way to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. All but one of the questions in the event fell by the wayside because the hon. Member for Linlithgow was suspended from the House. The one that remained was to the Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was in touch with No. 10 Downing street about it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces asked for Mr. Ponting's views on 9 May on the suggestion that the Prime Minister should reply in part:
"It is not our practice to comment on military operational matters or the details of military operations."
Those who regard that phrase as sinister might reflect that Mr. Ponting himself had recommended some six weeks previously that the hon. Member for Linlithgow's questions should not be answered because:
"all concerned detailed operational and intelligence matters on which I am not prepared to comment."
The hon. Member's question, if answered in full, would have gone to the heart of our submarine capability. An answer, if given, would add nothing to the essential story about why and how the Belgrano was sunk. Mr. Ponting put up advice on 9 May saying that the formula suggested by my right hon. Friend could not be sustained and recommended again that I should answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow's questions.
There was no reason to change the approach agreed earlier. It misled no one—certainly the hon. Member
746
for Linlithgow was under no illusions about what it meant. It was not necessary to deploy the sentence to which Mr. Ponting objected. It is ridiculous to suggest that there was no operational sensitivity about disclosing details of Conqueror's sonar stalk of the Belgrano. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered the question on 17 May, she followed the strategic approach which I had agreed with her, but the sentence to which Mr. Ponting objected was not in the answer. In other words, the real lesson of these events is that I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces went to some lengths to consult Mr. Ponting and to try to take account of his views. He, meanwhile, was conducting an argument with us, having already started writing anonymously to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
Before we leave the anonymous letter of 24 April, it is worth recalling the second of Mr. Ponting's suggestions. This is the point at which the hon. Member for Linlithgow was telling us that he had originated the process of interrogation. Mr. Ponting offered the hon. Member for Linlithgow some new questions on rules of engagement. When the hon. Gentleman wrote to me again on 27 May, there, as large as life, were Mr. Ponting's anonymous questions repeated word for word. So much for the suggestion that it was the hon. Gentleman who conceived that these were questions that should be asked.
The constitutional novelty that the House is expected to support, if the Opposition have their way, is that the most trusted civil servants, in the most secure parts of our defence establishments, should be free anonymously to draft questions for Opposition Back Benchers to submit to Ministers on which the self-same leaking civil servants may then brief the Ministers on the answers which they consider appropriate. The Opposition may perhaps be beginning to wonder whether they have been any better served by Mr. Ponting than I was. I now come, finally, to the issue of the memorandum that I submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee on rules of engagement.
I say "I submitted" deliberately, because that memorandum has come to be called the "Stanley Memorandum". The memorandum was presented to Ministers by Michael Legge, head of defence secretariat 11, and his minute is known as the "Legge Minute."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure about him?
Mr. Heseltine: If it helps the hon. Gentleman in his characteristic attempts to denigrate everything that is said in the House, I must tell him that Michael Legge is an exemplary and talented civil servant.
I made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee, when I gave evidence to it, that it was a memorandum which I approved and which is therefore my responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces certainly advised me—that is what he is there to do—but I decided to send in the memorandum, and I am wholly responsible for what happened.
So what did happen? The Foreign Affairs Committee was not investigating the sinking of the Belgrano. The terms of reference of its inquiry are clear. They were:
"To examine progress towards the restoration of diplomatic and commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina since June 1982; to examine the future constitutional and economic development of the Falkland Islands; and to

747
examine the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the UK/Argentine dispute over the Falkland Islands in the light of the establishment of a democratic regime in Buenos Aires and in the light of previous failures to secure such a settlement."
In his letter of 28 June the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee——
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Select Committee decided to conduct two inquiries, one with the terms of reference that he has just quoted, and the other on the events arising out of the happenings on 1 and 2 May. There were two separate inquiries.
Mr. Heseltine: If what the hon. Gentleman says is the case, I unreservedly accept that point. [Interruption.] However, that does not change the significance of the letter that we received in the Department from the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee. This letter set the terms upon which the original advice and memorandum were placed. It asked for:
"A note of all changes in the Rules of Engagement issued to HM Forces in the South Atlantic between 2nd April and 15th June 1982 and confinning the accuracy of Mr. Pym's statement to the Committee on 11th June that changes in the Rules of Engagement: 'happened quite a number of times in the course of the war.'"
This request presented my Department with a difficulty. A comprehensive list of all the changes in the rules of engagement would have been classified, but we were advised that the Committee would prefer the note to be unclassified. Ministers therefore received a draft addressing the issue which had provoked the original inquiry, but in a document which was not in itself classified.
The memorandum was not misleading. It never purported to be a comprehensive list of all the changes in the rules of engagement, and it could never have been read as such. If the Foreign Affairs Committee wished, in the light of our advice, still to receive a comprehensive list, it had a simple remedy open to it, and that was to ask again for such a list. I would have supplied it on a classified basis and, indeed, subsequently I did.
The House will realise that I discussed the matter with the Foreign Affairs Committee when I appeared before it. It would be quite wrong of me to anticipate its views, but I must provide for the House my views on the significance of the so-called Legge minute advising me how to respond to the Select Committee's request.
Paragraph 1 of that minute sets out the basis of the request from the Committee which I have read to the House. Paragraph 2 gives five reasons why I should not comply with the Committee's request in full. The first reason transcends all the others, and I shall read it to the House:
"Firstly, the rules of engagement themselves are classified and are drawn from the Fleet operating and tactical instructions, which is a classified document. The Committee has indicated that they would prefer the note to be unclassified."
The second reason leaves no responsible Secretary of State any discretion, and I shall read it to the House:
"Secondly, some of the rules of engagement are still in force for our Falklands garrison. We run the risk of undermining their effectiveness if they were published and debated openly by the Foreign Affairs Committee."
The third and fourth reasons are about the time involved and the problems of converting the rules to layman's language. They are not compelling.
The fifth reason is presumably that which motivates the Opposition today. It reads:
748
"In addition, a full list of changes would provide more information than Ministers have been prepared to reveal so far about the Belgrano affair."
Taken out of context by someone unaware of the circumstances, that sounds damaging. But in the context of the first two reasons it is clearly not the reason why I did not give the Foreign Affairs Committee a full list of rules of engagement changes. My duty, first and foremost, is to national security. The House will realise that in this case Ministers followed the official and expert military advice of the Department, and I have never doubted that it was right.
The House will know that as soon as the memorandum had been sent to the Select Committee, Mr. Ponting leaked it to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who took to the Foreign Affairs Committee the document containing the advice of his, Mr. Ponting's, colleague, Michael Legge. Mr. Ponting's explanation is that this was the straw that broke the camel's back; that his sense of integrity no longer permitted him to hold back from sending papers that he leaked to a wider world. Of course, he had been writing anonymous letters before that, but that is the explanation about which we have been told.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose——
Mr. Heseltine: There is one small gap in the logic of Mr. Ponting's position. Perhaps it would have a momentary credibility if Mr. Ponting's first exposure of his colleague Michael Legge's work was when it was presented, beyond Mr. Ponting's influence, to the Foreign Affairs Committee. The facts are diametrically opposed to this version of events.
Mr. Spearing rose——
Mr. Heseltine: Michael Legge's name appears at the bottom of the Legge memorandum. Michael Legge was the head of defence secretariat 11 at the time. But the memorandum was not the sole product of Michael Legge's division. It was the joint work of two civilian divisions, together with military advice. Michael Legge was one of those divisions.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Michael's leg was pulled.
Mr. Heseltine: It was, by Mr. Ponting. But the truth is that the leg that has been pulled further and faster in this debate is the leg of the Opposition, and it is not surprising that they have not even one leg left on which to stand.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can see for himself that the Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that you can see that the Secretary of State is not giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, (Mr. Dalyell). But, through you, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has seen me seeking to intervene?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State saw the hon. Gentleman rise, but he can say that for himself.
Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Heseltine: No. I hope the House will feel that I have given way to hon. Members at points which have not interrupted the flow of what is a complicated explanation. It is very important that the House hears this critical analysis, because this is at the heart of the Opposition's amendment.
As I was saying, this memorandum was the joint work of two civilian divisions, together with military advice. Michael Legge's was one of those divisions. The other division was Mr. Ponting's. Michael Legge submitted his first advice to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 6 July. On the same day, he sent me a copy. He also sent a copy to Mr. Ponting, whose junior officials had co-operated in its production.
Ministers made no change to the basic approach in that draft memorandum. It was ready to be issued to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 July. Mr. Ponting, upon whom I was entitled to rely for advice, spent 10 days in absolute silence. He made no protest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He made no protest to me. He made no protest to any of his senior colleagues, only some of whom had been involved in earlier discussions. If he had had this sense of outrage about what his own colleagues were advising, why did he not challenge their advice? Why did he not try to stop the memorandum from going to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the first place?
I was entitled to expect that a man in such a position of trust would give me his full and dispassionate advice, but he did not. Parliament is expected to believe that, before Ministers make statements to the House or its Committees, civil servants in senior positions will advise on the text of such submissions. Mr. Ponting did not.
So we have another constitutional novelty. A senior and trusted civil servant upon whom Ministers were entitled to rely for loyal and conscientious service claims it proper to sit in silence believing that Ministers are deceiving Parliament so that at the moment that it happens he may leak anonymously the advice of his own Civil Service colleagues which he has done nothing to counter.
The Government, the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I, and those official advisers with whom we have worked in a spirit of trust and mutual loyalty, have fully discharged their duties and have misled no one. The House will judge whether Mr. Ponting can say the same.
What lay, and still lies today, at the heart of these issues is the safety of British service men serving in the South Atlantic. Ministers were faced over the weekend of 1–2 May 1982 with clear evidence that the Argentine navy was planning to attack the task force. A major part of that threat was the General Belgrano. The task force commander decided that he must respond by attacking the Belgrano and so remove that source of danger to his ships. Exactly when the Belgrano was first sighted and exactly where she was when sunk were not relevant to the starkly dangerous and uncertain situation that our forces were in.
Ministers would have behaved with the utmost irresponsibility if they had rejected the advice of the Government's military advisers and not given the task force commander the authority that he had sought. They gave me that authority. HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano. The Argentine navy was effectively knocked
750
out of the conflict. The Government have already published a great deal of information about these events of nearly three years ago. I should like to be able to give the House every single detail, but I cannot today, just as my predecessor could not at the time. Some of the crucial information came to us from the most sensitive sources. Those sources are as vital to us and to our armed forces now as they were in 1982.
I, as the Secretary of State for Defence, have to balance my responsibility to give information to this House with my duty to safeguard national security, and in particular the security of our forces. That is a difficult line to draw. But I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have always made it clear that that was what we were doing. Ours have not been the actions of people engaged in a hole-in-the-corner cover-up, in an attempt to mislead this House. Ours have been the actions of Ministers exercising the highest and most difficult responsibilities of our office.
4.50 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"believes that, by seeking to conceal information from, and to purvey distorted and misleading information to, the House of Commons and its Foreign Affairs Committee on the subject of the sinking of the General Belgrano, Ministers have betrayed their responsibility to Parliament.".
As was to be expected, the Secretary of State tried to carry out a character assassination of Mr. Ponting. Indeed, it was entirely to be expected because that, at the end of the day, is the only case which the Secretary of State can try to put at that Dispatch Box. He gave an account of a very unreal world in the Ministry of Defence. This terrible man Ponting, who had been given the Order of the British Empire on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, was trying to prevent information from being disclosed to Parliament when over a period of three years these innocent Ministers—the Secretary of State, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Prime Minister—were desperately keen to let Parliament have all the information that they could about the Belgrano. That is the unreal world in which the Secretary of State seems to have been living, because the world at the Old Bailey a few weeks ago was quite different.
The Opposition do not condone breaches of trust by civil servants or by Ministers who have a duty to account to this House, but at the Old Bailey a civil servant, who had spent 14 years in the Civil Service, risked prosecution and a gaol sentence of at least six months. That was the kind of sentence that Sarah Tisdall received when she was prosecuted by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. This civil servant apparently did not want to disclose any information. He carried out the wishes of Ministers. Then, by some kind of magic catalyst, he ended up at the Old Bailey where his whole career and future were put in jeopardy. That is the kind of unreal and selective account which the Secretary of State has tried to put before the House this afternoon.
The Secretary of State referred to the trial. He could have challenged some of the evidence given by Mr. Ponting at his trial at the Old Bailey—[Horn. MEMBERS: "How?"] How? By calling witnesses to refute that evidence. Is the Secretary of State saying that counsel for the Crown and the Treasury Solicitor did not know what

751
evidence was being given when they sat in court day after day? The right hon. Gentleman could have refuted that evidence.
Mr. Heseltine rose——
Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the Secretary of State in a moment.
That evidence could have been refuted where it should have been refuted. The first place to refute it was before an Old Bailey jury on oath. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the guts to go to the Old Bailey——
Mr. Heseltine rose——
Mr. Davies: I shall give way when I have completed this part of my argument. The Secretary of State did not have the guts to go to the Old Bailey. Instead he sent his poor, unfortunate private secretary. Those of us who have served in Government know of the difficult and conflicting loyalties faced by a private secretary: that on the one hand he has a loyalty to his Minister and that on the other hand he is a member of the Civil Service. It is a very difficult job. The Secretary of State, in a cowardly way, sent his private secretary to give evidence for him at the Old Bailey.
Mr. Heseltine: I realise that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) does not understand how — [Interruption.] I have no idea what papers were put before the court. I have not seen the transcript of the trial proceedings. I was not asked to go to the court. The conduct of these matters is wholly outside the influence or control of Ministers.
Mr. Davies: Nobody is asking Ministers to influence or control anything. My point is that if the Secretary of State objected to the evidence given by Mr. Ponting—and now he has objected to it—why was Mr. Ponting's evidence not objected to at the time it was given? Obviously the Secretary of State has not read the newspapers during the past few weeks. He did not know what was going on at the Old Bailey and it did not interest him, although his Department was heavily involved. Although his private secretary was at the Old Bailey, the Secretary of State knew nothing about it. I remind him of what was said at the Old Bailey by Queen's Counsel for Mr. Ponting at an early stage in the trial.
Mr. Tony Baldry rose——
Mr. Davies: Mr. Ponting was acquitted by the Old Bailey jury. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State was heard in silence. If the shadow Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.
Mr. Davies: Mr. Ponting was acquitted. I should have thought that the party of law and order would have some respect for courts of law and British juries.
Perhaps I may remind the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who apparently did not read the newspapers, either, although he featured in them almost every day, of what Mr. Laughland, counsel for Mr. Ponting, said right at the beginning of the trial:
"Let me make our position perfectly plain. This trial is not about spying. It is a matter of lying, of misleading Parliament."
That is what the trial at the Old Bailey was about. This debate is about the consequences of that trial and about the not guilty verdict; it is about the extraordinary revelations,
752
which the Secretary of State has not refuted, about the conduct of Ministers that came out at that trial; it is about a conspiracy to withhold information from this House for a period of almost three years; and it is about the breach by Ministers of the sacred trust of accountability which we believe they owe to this House. Let us be quite clear. The trial at the Old Bailey was not in reality the case of Regina against Ponting; it was the case of Thatcher, Heseltine and Stanley against Ponting. Much to the chagrin of the Secretary of State, the jury held for Ponting.
The Secretary of State went over the history of the matter and I shall try to do so, I hope, at shorter length, although I am not criticising him for the length of his speech. The whole tangled web, as the House knows, which the Government have sought to weave, as we believe, over almost three years in this matter follows from a statement that many of us in the House heard on that fateful day, 4 May 1982. Sir John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, told the House that the battleship, the General Belgrano, had been first sighted on 2 May and was sunk the day it was sighted.
Mr. Richard Hickmet rose——
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way at this stage. I should have thought that that is a fairly uncontroversial statement.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The General Belgrano was a cruiser, not a battleship.
Mr. Davies: I am sorry.
The statement which Sir John Nott made was untrue. But we have always accepted, and we say it again now, that that statement—that untruth—was a genuine error which was made without any bad faith, in the heat of armed conflict and armed battle.
I believe that there are few hon. Members—at least, I hope so—if any hon. Members who would argue that the high standards of accountability which the House demands of Ministers should be lower in time of war than in time of peace. But most hon. Members would also recognise that in time of war it may well be much more difficult to maintain those high standards. However, the duty on a democratic Government is to put the record straight immediately it is possible for them to do so, and, by putting the record straight, discharging that duty which a Government owe to the House of Commons.
It would be dangerous for our democracy if Governments felt that they did not have to put the record straight and it would be very dangerous if we in the House were to condone that behaviour, because then we would be saying that the standard of accountability is lower in times of war than in times of peace.
The first charge that we make against the Government is that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, fell down on that duty of accountability and failed to set the record straight as soon as it was possible to do so. There were plenty of opportunities to do so. There were plenty of opportunities for the Government to set the record straight about the incorrect date of 2 May which, as I have said, was not given in bad faith.
First of all—perhaps not first of all, but certainly there was the White Paper published in December 1982 which repeated the same false statement about the date of 2 May, although Ministers, certainly at the Ministry of

753
Defence if not other Ministers, knew at the time that that date was wrong and knew when the Belgrano was detected. Again, the same false statement was put into the London Gazette. We have read the accounts about Admiral Fieldhouse. Whether he wanted the date changed, I do not know, and I do not propose to go down that particular road.
Another 15 months went by during a period, as the Secretary of State has said, of controversy, of questions in the House, of statements by people outside the House, of letters to newspapers, articles and books written, and nothing at all was said or done about the matter. Finally, on 4 April 1984 the truth was dragged out of a reluctant Prime Minister—15 months after the White Paper which could have contained the statement.
As the Secretary of State has said, the truth came in a letter from the Prime Minister in response to a letter which I sent to her on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet. That letter said that an auxiliary oiler accompanying the Belgrano was spotted on 30 April 1982; the Belgrano group was detected on 1 May and the Belgrano was sunk on 2 May.
Mr. Hickmet: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to ask him a serious question which is central to the motion and the amendment thereto. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was no alternative but for the Conqueror to sink the Belgrano? Does he further accept that that ship was not sunk in an effort to scupper the so-called Peruvian peace proposals?
Mr. Davies: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the statement was made on 4 May but I shall answer his question. I made a statement on the BBC "Today" programme in my capacity as deputy defence spokesman for the Labour party the morning the Belgrano was sunk. When asked about the sinking, I said that if the General Belgrano was a threat to the Royal Navy and to our task force, appropriate action should be taken. But I said at the time that I did not know—I did not have the facts to know — whether it was a threat or not. Unfortunately, with all the prevarications and cover-ups that have been going on, we still do not have the facts. But when we get all the facts I shall make up my mind whether it was a threat. [Interruption.] I see that the Prime Minister finds this amusing. But let me return to the letter. She did not find the letter very amusing, as I shall try to show in a moment. During the whole two years, not only did the Government deliberately fail to give us those three dates instead of 2 May, but the Prime Minister had the effrontery to stand at that Dispatch Box on 21 February 1984 and try to pretend to the House that we had all the facts about that available to us in the House.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the exchanges which took place on 21 February at Prime Minister's Question Time between my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Prime Minister on that very matter. My hon. Friend said:
"As the captain of the Conquerer has said in print that he was following the General Belgrano for at least 30 hours and the Government persist in claiming that the General Belgrano was detected on the same day as it was sunk,"—
that is the very point—
"who is telling the truth or, bluntly, is it the submarine commander or the Prime Minister who is lying?"
Mr. Speaker said:
754
"Order. The hon. Member must not use that word. I am sure that he will rephrase that final comment."
My hon. Friend is adept at rephrasing his questions, so he asked:
"Is it the submarine commander or the Prime Minister who is telling the truth?"
The Prime Minister said:
"The full facts were given in several replies in the House and, I believe, in an Adjournment debate, in an article by my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary and one by the former ambassador to the United States. All the facts are there. They support the Government's case." — [Official Report, 21 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 695.]
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 6 March and she replied for the first time and gave the dates on 4 April. All the facts were not there. [Interruption.] Or perhaps all the facts were there, but they certainly were not here, in the House. Perhaps now at least—I put it very kindly—the Prime Minister will have the good grace to come to the Dispatch Box and say that on that occasion her statement was wrong—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Lady at least owes the House an apology for that. I was about to say what happened after that single revelation of the truth. However, according to the Secretary of State it was Mr. Ponting who was stopping Ministers from divulging any information. That terrible man Ponting again — the Secretary of State straining at the leash and Ponting holding him back. But the reality — not the unreal account that the Secretary of State gave us this afternoon —is that pretty soon afterwards Ministers decided that they would not really answer any more embarrassing questions about the Belgrano. Whatever the motive, that is what ultimately led to the sending of the Legge memorandum by Mr. Ponting to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and to the prosecution and acquittal of Mr. Ponting at the Old Bailey.
Viscount Cranborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall not give way, as I wish to develop the point. It is worth recalling——
Viscount Cranborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall not give way.
Although the Secretary of State has been very reluctant even to look at the transcript of the trial, it is worth recalling what Mr. Ponting said on oath and under cross-examination on day seven of the trial about Ministers and the Legge report. Moreover, our court procedures are respected in this country. What Mr. Ponting said under oath about the Legge report sums up the whole problem facing the Government. He said:
"I thought it"
—the Legge report—
"was clearly showing that ministers were misleading a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and that they had misled the House of Commons consistently for two years before that." The Secretary of State did not know that. Apparently he did not know that Mr. Ponting had said it. But there it is —he said it in the Old Bailey.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Davies: There are no prizes for guessing who those Ministers were: the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and, indeed,

755
because of her ultimate responsibility, the Prime Minister. I do not think I need spend too much time on the position of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The trial evidence speaks out clearly and devastatingly about his position in all this. The Secretary of State did not try very hard to retrieve the Minister's position for him. He did not manage to do that this afternoon.
I shall quote further from the transcript. Incidentally, that trial was instigated, of course, by the Government and the Attorney-General. It was the Government's trial. They brought Mr. Ponting to court. Perhaps it was not the Prime Minister. She knew nothing about it. The Secretary of State did not know anything about it. No one else knew anything about it, but the Attorney-General did, and he decided, on behalf of the Government, to prosecute Mr. Ponting. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to read out Mr. Ponting's evidence, which was given on oath in that trial, as it directly relates to Government Ministers and to how they acted throughout this affair.
On day six, this is what happened:
"Mr. Ponting described how Mr. Harford"—
we have not heard about him, but apparently he was Mr. Ponting's deputy—
"told him that the government was concerned over a letter"—the famous letter again—
"that had arrived from Mr. Denzil Davies, MP … Mr. Laughland"—
the Queen's Counsel defending Mr. Ponting—
"asked Mr. Ponting what Mr. Harford, his subordinate, told him that he was doing about it … He told me that he was working on the two drafts as requested by Mr. Stanley … What had been—did he tell you—his instructions from the Minister for the Armed Forces?"
I must say that the Secretary of State's account of minutes written by civil servants when he did not tell us what ministerial instructions they had received shows that he lives in an unreal world. I shall repeat that question again.
"What had been—did he tell you—his instructions from the Minister for the Armed Forces?"
The Minister of State will have his opportunity. He did not take it in court, but he will get his opportunity. Indeed, he did not take the opportunity to try to refute these statements. He did not adduce any evidence to try to refute them. The answer to the above question was:
"That he was to prepare two draft replies, one of which would give a truthful account of the events and the correct date of sighting and detection and one of which would not, and Ministers wished to be able to choose which one they would use."
So there were to be two sets of replies, one true and one false, two sets of passports and two sets of accounts. According to evidence given on oath, that is apparently what civil servants are being asked to provide. The statement continues:
"It was unusual; I had never come across such a practice before in my Civil Service career"—
Mr. Ponting had been in the Civil Service for 14 years—
"Did Mr. Harford do as he was bidden? … Yes, he produced the two drafts for me, together with a covering letter, minute"—
to which the Secretary of State has, I believe, referred. Indeed, he received it. Later Mr. Ponting added, referring not simply to the letter but to other matters as well:
"Because the line suggested by Mr. Stanley was neither truthful nor correct, and it was an attempt to refuse to answer any future parliamentary inquiries whether from the dreaded Mr. Dalyell or from any other Member of Parliament."
So there was a refusal to answer questions. That was what was said on oath at the Old Bailey, and it was not
756
challenged by any evidence called by the prosecution. That is the position — [Interruption.] Conservative Members are getting excited.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment.
The House can judge between the Secretary of State's version this afternoon which was given after the trial, after the hoped-for conviction had not been obtained and after Mr. Pontin's acquittal, and the evidence that was given on oath at the trial. As far as I am concerned the answers given at the trial show that the Minister of State acted wholly dishonourably in this regard. After that, he cannot command the confidence of the whole House when he makes statements and——
Dr. Hampson rose——
Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment, but this is an important part of my speech.
The Minister cannot command the confidence of the whole House when he makes statements, drafts answers and makes speeches. Without any personal malice or gratification on my part—there may be more malice on Conservative Benches — I say to the Minister that he should take the honourable course and resign the high office that he holds.
Dr. Hampson: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with a central and critical point. Despite the recollections of Mr. Ponting in court, my right hon. Friend said what the instructions to civil servants were, that the documents would be published in this House and that we should then see exactly what was instructed to civil servants. It sounded to me—and I think that it would have sounded to most hon. Members in the Chamber today—that it was perfectly clear that the only reason why two drafts were done—one, in Mr. Ponting's words, more truthful than the other—was that the Minister for the Armed Forces asked for that second draft to be written.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Davies: That is precisely the point we are making.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I urge Opposition Members to let the shadow Minister be heard.
Mr. Davies: I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), the Secretary of State's former Parliamentary Private Secretary, for helping us in the matter.
I now come to the part played by the Secretary of State for Defence who, rightly, gave an account of the letter of 6 March, a copy of which no doubt arrived on his desk from the Prime Minister's office, and presumably he was asked to prepare a draft. As he said today, the right hon. Gentleman then asked for an inquiry to be carried out into the whole matter, a perfectly proper thing for him to have done as he had not been Secretary of State at the time when these matters took place. He is reported to have said that he wanted to satisfy himself that there was "no Watergate here" — an interesting choice of phrase — and Mr. Ponting, the trusted civil servant, one of the faith, was put in charge of that general inquiry.
Eventually we got the truth. At the end of the day, after much beating of breasts and heart-searching, the correct date was given. I understand that so many problems were involved that even the hapless Lord Whitelaw was called

757
to Chequers on a Sunday to try to advise on these matters. I think that I see the Prime Minister shaking her head in dissent. Maybe that was not true, and she may wish to deny it. If the Prime Minister indicates dissent, I believe her. I had better believe her because I do not have the secretarial facilities to do otherwise. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: After that brief moment of candour, down came an iron curtain and it was decided, not by Mr. Ponting but by Ministers, that all further embarrassing information about the Belgrano, apparently even information which was not classified, was to be withheld from Parliament. No more embarrassing questions were to be answered, not from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow or from anyone else. To borrow a phrase from Watergate, Ministers decided to "tough it out" and, on the subject of the Belgrano, to suspend all or most democratic and parliamentary accountability.
Who decided that? Was it the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister? Did the Minister of State, through the faithful former Parliamentary Private Secretary, relay all the requests and orders to the Secretary of State? I do not know the answer, but the Prime Minister must have known about them. She could not possibly not have known about the decision.
Thus, the decision was taken to "tough it out" after that one moment of revealing the truth. The Secretary of State did it quite well, although he tried to obfuscate matters and put out a bit of smoke this afternoon. His first act, as we know, was not to answer — he tried to pretend that somehow it was because of a letter that had gone to the Prime Minister — those nine questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow.
We have been told an interesting doctrine about refusing to answer. It goes something like this: "We cannot answer this question because, if we do, this terrible fellow who is asking it and with whose views we do not agree may not be satisfied with our reply. He may make a speech about the matter. He may have the effrontery to stand up in the House of Commons and attack the Secretary of State. We cannot answer his question No. 1 because he may then ask question No. 2. Perhaps we shall not be able to answer that, or, if we are able to do so, question No. 3 could be difficult."
That was the strange, almost potentially dangerous, doctrine that apparently the Secretary of State enunciated from the Dispatch box this afternoon. It was extraordinary. Why not answer questions on their merits? Why not answer seven or eight, or however many, of the nine questions if certain of them involved classified information, and then worry about the other questions later? That would have been the proper way of doing things in this House.
Mr. Baldry: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that a balance must be found between full accountability on the one hand and national security on the other? Where is that balance to be found?
Mr. Davies: I shall come to the question of national security shortly.
As well as blocking questions, the "Stanley memorandum", as it was called— as the Secretary of
758
State said, he approved it — went to the Select Committee. It was sparse and the Legge memorandum said, in effect, "We cannot send a more full account partly, though not entirely, because it would not be consistent with the line that Ministers have taken in the past." I accept that there were other reasons——
Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
Mr. Davies: It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head in dissent; it is in the Legge memorandum. One reason why there was not full disclosure was that Mr. Legge—and maybe Mr. Ponting as well — said that if the Select Committee got the information, then, to paraphrase, the line that Ministers had taken in the past would be breached.
It was not denied this afternoon that the Government were concerned to try to block questions and withhold information. Their case at the end of the day, as always, is, "We had to do those things. Government responsibility is difficult and there is the higher and greater good. It is all being done for the sake of that higher and greater good." Apparently the content and scope of that higher and greater good is to be decided solely by the Government, being judge and jury.
Let us consider what is this higher and greater good. It has had different incarnations from time to time. The first incarnation we could call national security. Mr. Amlott, the Government's prosecutor—I need not quote from his speech, it was reported widely in the newspapers —made it clear that national security was not involved.
We move on to the next issue, which is the terrible issue of intelligence, which presents a difficult problem. It is clear that there was a difficulty there——
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty there.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: Not as great a difficulty as I suspect the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has.
In considering the question of intelligence, I quote for the last time from the Ponting trial. On day 7, Mr. Amlott, the Government's prosecutor, pressed Mr. Ponting hard. I could read five or six pages from the transcript on the subject of intelligence. Possibly the final question in the cross-examination was:
"Do you accept that Mr. Heseltine was basing his decisions upon sound and sensible arguments that were put to him."
Mr. Ponting replied:
"No, I do not. The basis of this decision was clearly political, that to reveal this information would compound the political difficulties that the Government were in in changing their explanation. Nowhere in any of the documents inside the Ministry of Defence or produced in this court"
—I am sure that must be true—
"is there any written explanation that the reason the Government will not reveal this information was that at some point it would touch on intelligence information. That explanation has been given only subsequently, namely, since September of this year."
Indeed, in the Prime Minister's letter to me of 4 April, where she tried to justify the change of date—the letter, according to evidence that was given, was beefed up a bit when it got to the Prime Minister's Office, but I do not make any criticism of that — did not mention

759
intelligence. On that occasion operational matters were the higher and greater good used to justify the failure to give information.
Then as the last refuge — it is in the motion—we have
"the protection of our Armed Forces"——
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Yes, we all agree with that. But it was not protection of the armed forces: it was the protection of Ministers.
Ministers at various times over the two or three years have misled the House about the date of the detection of the Belgrano, about the course on which it was sailing when it was sunk, about its course 11 hours before it was sunk, and about the changes of course of the Belgrano. They have refused to answer legitimate questions where no matters of national security were involved, and they did not give full and frank information to the Select Committee. It was all about the protection of Ministers, the protection of the reputation of Ministers, and the protection of the reputation of the Prime Minister herself.
Dr. David Owen: To buttress the right hon. Gentleman's point, is it not a fact that if the Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Fieldhouse, had thought it right to mention in his dispatch the true date of the first sighting and also of the detection of the General Belgrano, surely there could not possibly be any risk to the fleet or any security risk for the future. That is why the Prime Minister should have corrected the matter in the defence White Paper six months afterwards.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If Admiral Fieldhouse felt that there was no problem, what were the operational matters 15 months later that apparently caused the Government to refuse to give the full information?
The Prime Minister must accept her full responsibility for the affair. She told this House—we have been over it and I mention it again—that we had all the facts when we did not. She failed to correct false statements in official documents. She said in a television interview, in the middle of the general election campaign, that the Belgrano was not sailing away from the Falklands when it was. She certainly was part of a decision—if not the instigator—to try to "tough it out". She has zig-zagged far more on this matter than the old General Belgrano ever did. The whole shameful business is a consequence of her style of government, I am sorry to say.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member suggested that the concept of intelligence arguments had not been brought into the justification until rather recently. I remind him of the letter that I quoted to the House. It was associated with Mr. Ponting's first findings on the matter—the draft letter that he wanted me to to send to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In that letter he said that
"the other questions you have raised in your letter all concern detailed operational and intelligence matters on which I am not prepared to comment."
It was on Mr. Ponting's advice that I took the original decision.
Mr. Davies: I did not say it; Mr. Ponting said it on oath. That evidence could have been produced in court but the prosecution failed to do so.
We have a style of government that demands total fealty from all individuals and all groups. It is a style of government that shows contempt—the Secretary of State
760
talked about the Civil Service—for civil servants and for their advice. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister does not know it, perhaps she should start talking more widely among civil servants. If they have shown the faith, then they are all right. The irony was that Mr. Ponting had shown that he was one of the faith. Apparently Sir Derek Rayner gave him a book to read called "Your Disobedient Servant." Mr. Ponting read it rather too well, it seems. He was of the faith; in fact, he was apparently summoned to meet the presence in the inner sanctum. The trouble was that when he got there he did not like what he saw. It is a style of government that I believe will get shriller and more strident as Britain's economic decline sadly accelerates.
I suspect that the events of the past few weeks and the economic clouds that are gathering mark the beginning of the end for the Government, and I suspect that the Prime Minister in her heart knows it, too.
5.36 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has missed a golden opportunity — one of the opportunities that probably come only once in a whole political lifetime. He heard the devastating exposition of the facts by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. If the right hon. Gentleman had risen in a full House, with the country listening to the debate, and had asked leave to withdraw his party's amendment, he would have dispelled the largely unfair belief that the Labour party did not want to see us win the Falklands war. [Interruption.] He had the chance and he did not take it.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of character assassination against Mr. Ponting. In the remarks that followed, I shall not say that he condoned, but he went very far towards condoning, Mr. Ponting. Indeed, we have seen the spectacle of two Privy Councillors from the Opposition Benches appearing on the same platform as Mr. Ponting. Are we to have the canonisation of Mr. Ponting? Is he to be the next Labour candidate for Bethnal Green and Stepney?
I hope that the Labour party will forgive me if I venture to say that it has not conducted its campaign on the Belgrano issue with great skill. The Leader of the Opposition began by alleging that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had exercised political pressure on the Attorney-General to bring the prosecution against Mr. Ponting. I should have thought that any leader of the Labour party would think twice about making such an allegation. After all, that is the charge that the Conservatives brought against the Labour party in 1924 in the Campbell case — that the Cabinet had exercised pressure on the Attorney-General not to bring the case. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman's tactics and ours is that we defeated the first Labour Government, and his torpedo misfired.
I shall deal now with the sinking of the Belgrano itself. There is not a great deal that one can say in detail about the problem of intelligence. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is a man of honour. I can think only that he might have been naive in that matter. Had all the questions that he put been answered, it might have been of assistance to hostile forces. I can only hope, although I do not believe that it is so, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not already gone too far in meeting his requests.

761
With regard to the politics of the matter, only two charges could conceivably be made against the Government. One is that the sinking of the Belgrano scuppered the Peruvian talks, and the other is that the ship was outside the exclusion limit. The only thing that I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider is this. Suppose my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her colleagues in the War Cabinet had ordered the Conqueror not to torpedo the Belgrano; suppose, as a result, we had incurred heavy casualties, although not necessarily defeat; and suppose that some hon. Member with the assiduity of the hon. Member for Linlithgow had researched the matter and found that we had deliberately not taken the opportunity to sink the Belgrano. Can one imagine what the reaction of the House would have been if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had come to the Dispatch Box and said, "I did not do it because I hoped that we might get an agreement through Peru," or "I did not do it because it was just outside the legal exclusion limit."? Does the House think that the Leader of the Opposition would have hesitated to attack? I think that even he and the right hon. Member for Llanelli would have made mincemeat of us on such an occasion, not that their gladiatorial skills are all that great.
Mr. Dalyell: At all times the Government knew the position of the Belgrano. They knew that it had 6 inch guns with a range of 13 miles. They knew that the Hipolito Bouchard carried the M38 Exocet guidance system made by us, so they knew that the range was 20 miles. At all stages the capability of the Argentine service group was known, so what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is purely hypothetical.
Mr. Amery: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that war is a matter of risk. We had to take risks. We took a tremendous risk in launching an invasion of islands 8,000 miles away without proper air cover. In that case, we could not take any extra risks, just for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
I come to the matter that is of deep significance and underlies the debate. Regrettably, it has come to light in the debate. It is the relationship between Ministers and officials. It is a matter to which we must give important thought. Many of us in the House have held office of one kind or another, and we know what a strange experience it is when one is sent to help to preside, or to preside over a Department. One is a Member of Parliament. That is one's authority. One is responsible to the House. One is appointed by the Prime Minister, who has the support of the majority of the House. Two or three of us at the most go to the Department and find ourselves surrounded by hundreds or, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, thousands, of officials and officers.
Who are these officials and officers? They are not elected; they are selected. They are chosen by other officials. They are deployed and promoted by other officials. Of course, occasionally if some are more congenial than others, political favour gets them advanced to one place or another. Indeed, that happened to Mr. Ponting. But, by and large, they are an autonomous body. They are the servants of the Crown, on loan to the Ministers of the day. They enjoy very special privileges. Broadly speaking, they have a freehold on their job until the age of 60. They cannot be sacked unless convicted of
762
felony, habitual drunkenness or bankruptcy, or previously sodomy, but that does not apply any more. They cannot be dismissed; they are there until the age of 60 and at the end of it they have an indexed pension. Moreover, they enjoy great influence over the formation of national policy. And they are immune from criticism.
Anybody who has been through the experience of government knows that one can get things done only if a good relationship can be achieved between the Minister and his officials. It must be based on frankness and fullness of discussion, often late at night. It must be hardheaded, but also sometimes lighthearted. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, (Mr. Clark), has been taken to task for talking about Bongo Bongo land at a private meeting. Unless one can do such a thing and talk on those terms with one's officials —[Interruption.] I hear some hon. Members laughing, but it is a great deal better than the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who talked in public about his critics being
"stoned out of their tiny Chinese minds."
One must be able to talk absolutely off the record and absolutely frankly. If that breaks down and one no longer has the confidence that Ministers can discuss tactics and options with their officials, and their officials can do so equally with them, we come to a serious crisis in constitutional government. It is not just a question of confidentiality; it goes to the root of our parliamentary government.
What is the story? Over the years, the Sovereign has ceded almost the entirety of the power of decision to Ministers representing the majority in this Parliament. That is the way in which we are governed now. The prerogative, if it remains at all, is very small. The Sovereign has surrendered the power of decision, and so have the Sovereign's servants, the officials. They advise and carry out things, but the Ministers decide. An official who tries to override Ministers, whether subversively or openly, is trying to claw back some of the prerogative which, over the years, the Sovereign has surrendered to Parliament.
Therefore, when right hon. and hon. Members sit on the same platform as Mr. Ponting, they are lending themselves to condoning someone who has struck at not only the confidentiality between employer and employee, but at something which goes much deeper than that; indeed, the rights of Parliament. What we claim as Parliament is that we and we alone have the right finally to decide the policy of the nation. If we condone what has been done by Mr. Ponting, Miss Tisdall and the others, we are striking at the root of the privileges on which we depend as the elected representatives of the people. It is the coalition between the permanent Civil Service, descending from the Sovereign, and the temporarily elected majority of the country that is the basis of our current national unity.
5.57 pm
Mr. David Steel: Very little has been said so far in the debate about the use of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting. I want to begin by making it clear that when the Secretary of State said today that Mr. Ponting had betrayed a trust, that could not be denied. Of course, he betrayed a trust. Let us be clear about what he

763
did. He did not seek to betray his country. He was not seeking financial gain by selling stories to the newspapers. He was not giving away secret information. He was seeking to relay non-secret information to a Member of the House. So why was he betraying that trust? He was betraying it because he wished to expose what he believed to be a breach of a higher trust—that which should exist between Ministers and the House of Commons. It is important to put it in the right context. It is for that reason that I take the view that officials in the Ministry of Defence were right in their initial approach to Mr. Ponting, which was that he should be subject to disciplinary procedures within the service rather than prosecuted.
I do not want to go back over the ground of who did or did not authorise the prosecution, because it is consistent for Ministers to say that that matter was entirely for the Law Officers and they were not involved. Of course, I accept that. However, equally well known is the Prime Minister's view of such conduct. The Secretary of State was quoted by Sir Ewen Broadbent as saying that, if he had anything to do with it, he believed that the Director of Public Prosecutions should proceed to a prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that civil servants, Law Officers and the DDP were operating within a climate in which they knew that the political masters wanted to get Mr. Ponting through the courts. That was a mistake.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of what has happened and what we now know, if the right hon. Gentleman were a Minister, would he employ Mr. Ponting as a civil servant?
Mr. Steel: I have already dealt with that point. I have made it clear that Mr. Ponting was guilty of a breach of trust, so inevitably he would have to leave the service. I then went on to deal with the prosecution and use of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It is important to make a clear distinction between the action that should have been taken in each of those areas.
Second, I wish to consider the sinking of the Belgrano itself. It is a truism that in time of war unpleasant things happen. It is even more true that in time of war unpleasant decisions have to be taken. In time of war too the Government of the day are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the support of the House. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that the Government received the benefit of the doubt and the overwhelming support of the House throughout the operation of the task force. It is going slightly beyond that and something of a nerve, however, for the Government to ask the House in their motion tonight to recognise that the particular decision at a particular time to sink the Belgrano was necessary and legitimate when they have openly admitted that they are denying us the information on which the decision was taken.
The House was not told of the background to the War Cabinet's decision, so we must assume that the War Cabinet believed that it was important to immobilise a major section of the Argentine navy early in the dispute to protect the task force, that the original intention was to go for the aircraft carrier but that at the end of the day the Belgrano happened to be the chosen target. As we were not members of the War Cabinet, we do not know. That is merely one possible and logical explanation.
Mr. Heseltine: It may be possible and logical, but it is not the explanation that the Government have given. We
764
have made it clear that there was clear evidence that the Belgrano posed a threat. That is the explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is being very fair, but in doing so he must recognise that Governments sometimes have to take decisions and that the whole explanation can never be made public.
Mr. Steel: I accept that. That is why I say that those of us who were not in the War Cabinet could only wish Ministers well and hope that they took the right decisions. Of course, the Belgrano and other ships were a threat. I hope that the Secretary of State is not suggesting that the Belgrano was peculiar to that category.
The fact remains that in the heat of the battle the then Secretary of State, Sir John Non, gave the wrong information to the House. It is clear that that was not his fault. Nevertheless, Parliament was given the wrong information about the circumstances in which the Belgrano was sunk. It was after that—I do not know at what stage — that Ministers became culpable. In the White Paper published in the autumn the true facts were still concealed from the House. A year later, in a "Nationwide" question programme during the general election campaign in May 1983 the Prime Minister specifically said that the
"Belgrano was not sailing away from the Falklands".
As we now know, that was the exact opposite of the truth.
Throughout 1983 and early 1984, in a whole series of answers given in the House, in broadcast interviews and in letters to Members, a familiar phrase appeared to the effect that the Belgrano and the task force could have been only a few hours apart converging on each other, leaving a somewhat ambiguous impression that they were in fact converging, although we now know that they were not.
The House is entitled to ask two questions which the Secretary of State has so far failed to answer. I hope that the Minister of State will answer them when he winds up the debate. First, at what point in the saga did Ministers discover that the information given to the House was wrong? Secondly, how long would they have continued to give the wrong information to the House if the truth had not been dragged out of them by a series of letters and questions from Members, with or without the assistance of Mr. Ponting? Those are the important issues on which the House should concentrate.
Dr. Alan Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman has already agreed that these things happen in war. Does he also agree that information which could on the face of it seem innocent may be impossible to disclose because it leads on to other information which could help the enemy?
Mr. Steel: I am coming to that. The House has never asked for intelligence information across the Floor, but that is a very different matter from the non-classified information that was constantly misdirected to us.
I believe that there are three important reasons why Ministers were wrong not to correct the information at the earliest opportunity. The first, putting it crudely, is the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As is well known and as the Secretary of State has fairly said, the hon. Member for Linlithgow has pursued a particular line of reasoning and attitude to what happened to the Belgrano. He has been virtually alone in the House—others may agree with him, although I do not know of many—in suggesting that the Belgrano was deliberately

765
sunk as a political act to prevent the conclusion of the Peruvian peace proposals. That is a very serious charge. Because wrong information was originally given to the House and bits of correct information dribbled out in subsequent months, credence has been given to the hon. Gentleman's charges and great damage has been done to the interests of the Government and of this country, especially in its relations with South America. Far from damage limitation, I believe that the Government have been guilty of causing damage in that respect.
The second reason is a parliamentary reason. I have always been a keen supporter of the Select Committee system. Looking back over the many years of the Falklands saga, I believe that if a Select Committee had considered the matter dispassionately some years ago a solution might have been found. The appointment of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is most important, but it will be hobbled in its opportunities to work properly if Ministers refuse to produce the information that it requests. There is a well known tradition and precedent, that security information is sidelined when it comes before a Select Committee, so I see no reason why, as late as July 1984, the full information was still not volunteered to the Select Committee. The Secretary of State now says that he will talk to the Chairman of the Select Committee with a view to producing the information, but what is so different in the quality of that information as between July 1984 and February 1985? I believe that there is a very good parliamentary reason for concluding that the Government were wrong to continue to act as they did.
Mr. Heseltine: I went into this at some length and I quoted the request. We were asked for a non-classified response to be published. That is the point. Had we been asked for a classified account or one that could be sidelined, we would have provided it, as we subsequently did. The record is clear. We were asked for a non-classified document.
Mr. Steel: My experience of Select Committees is that a sidelined document is not a classified document. The Secretary of State should have responded with the quality of information sought by the Select Committee, removing security and intelligence matters from it.
Mr. Spearing: It is important to have the record straight. The request was made and inquiry was made of the Clerk, who said that the Committee would have preferred it to be non-classified, but that in no way excluded the possibility to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has referred.
Mr. Steel: I was not aware of that as my party is not represented on that Select Committee. Nevertheless, I have every confidance in it and I believe that its importance and its requests should have been more seriously heeded by Ministers.
Third, I believe that Ministers were wrong because the result of their attempt to conceal information from the House was that information on movements of the fleet, signals and so on — some from naval sources — was dragged into screaming headlines month after month. Far from the issue being disposed of once and for all last year, it has continued to be a running sore, not just in our
766
political system but in our military system. There is a clear analogy with the way in which the Government treated GCHQ. Until the Government started acting against it, GCHQ was a relatively secret headquarters. All that the Government achieved by blunderbussing away at union rights there was to advertise the place to the whole world. There is a clear analogy between their clumsy treatment of that issue and their clumsy treatment of this issue.
For those three reasons, I believe that Ministers acted incorrectly in misleading Parliament. I draw an important distinction. If the House had been given correct information from the beginning, it would have been quite fair for the Secretary of State to say at the Dispatch Box that at a certain point the Government must draw the line and that the House must accept that they cannot answer further on military and security matters. That would have been an honourable position. However, when the House has been given wrong information from the beginning, it is not honourable to hide behind a smokescreen of military operations and security. That is the difference. The House should not accept the use of such camouflage.
There are some lessons to be learnt from this escapade. First, national security simply cannot be what a Minister says it is. There must be some other way of judging what national security is. I do not wish to embarrass the Leader of the official Opposition, but I understood that the Leader of the official Opposition was always consulted on security matters. I very much hope that the poison penfriend correspondence of the last week or so will not endanger that tradition. Under the normal conventions of the House, the Leader of the official Opposition, at any rate, is entitled to be shown the full information, which he has not so far seen.
Second—we have argued on security matters before, and I am not making a new point—there is a case for a small committee of senior Privy Councillors representing the different parts of the House to overview security matters. That would give the House some confidence that national security is not the same as avoiding the political embarrassment of a Minister.
Third, after this case, we must surely see the last of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It is not good enough for the Government to say that others have tried to change the law before, that there have been White Papers, Green Papers and Bills, but that the matter is terribly difficult. There should be, in this country, a public right to information with certain specific and limited exempt categories such as national security. I hope that the Government will learn that lesson and comment on that point tonight.
6.3 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: In a short speech, I wish to refer briefly to four of the personalities involved in the matters under discussion. First—to get him out of the way—I take the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I heard the hon. Gentleman on the radio this morning—when does one not?—saying that there would be no slanging from him today. I hope that that will turn out to be the case, but if it does, it will be a departure from form. This debate falls not long after yet another of the hon. Gentleman's vicious personal attacks on the Prime Minister.
I did the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of warning him that I would find it necessary to speak about him today.

767
When he made a personal attack on me on 8 June 1984, he showed me no similar courtesy. Nor, after that episode, did he make any apology to me.
Mr. Dalyell rose——
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman need not apologise. I do not expect it from him.
Mr. Dalyell: On 12 or 13 May the hon. Gentleman had called me a political aerosol. That was my reason.
Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers what he said to me on 8 June. If not, I will remind him. He said, having referred to me as having answered the Adjournment debate on 12 May 1983 on the sinking of the Belgrano:
"He must be responsible for the whole cacophony of statements to the House that are turning out to be untrue. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman must have known while he spoke from the Dispatch Box that they were untrue." —[Official Report, 8 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 609.]
That was a more serious charge than the—I confess—somewhat dismissive comparison that I made with reference to the hon. Gentleman. I do not insist on an apology, because I do not expect one. In what he has done in this affair, the hon. Gentleman carries no credibility and does not deserve a great deal of attention.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear to the House what an obsessive campaign the hon. Member for Linlithgow has pursued on the sinking of the Belgrano. For once, perhaps, I may pray in aid Mr. Ponting, who made it clear that in his opinion—as in the opinion of a great many others—the whole idea of a link between the Peruvian peace proposals and the sinking of the Belgrano was totally ludicrous. I trust that the hon. Gentleman read the report of that part of the trial, and I trust also that in future he will stick to some harmless cause such as proving that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays. Inside and outside the House, the hon. Gentleman is generally recognised as being as daft as a brush.
The Leader of the Opposition would like to be taken somewhat more seriously. I hope that he will be kind enough to listen to me for a moment, because I wish to refer to his prepared and rehearsed response during Prime Minister's Question Time the other day. He said—and meant, in saying it, to be offensive —that he did not believe my right hon. Friend. Such words are, of course, in order, but I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman understands precisely how offensive they were. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say to the House that he confidently expected to be the next Prime Minister, most of us would say that we did not believe him, but there would be no offence. It would be a simple difference of opinion. There would be nothing unparliamentary or unusual there. However, let us suppose that I said that I believed that the right hon. Gentleman had been a party to the conspiracy to unseat the Labour Chief Whip from his constituency. The right hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, hotly deny it. If I were then to say to him, with no evidence one way or the other, that I simply did not believe him, he might think that I was being offensive. That comparison may help the right hon. Gentleman to understand how damned offensive he was the other day. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had every right to be angry. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not
768
understand, or he did not care. In either case, he is clearly unfit for his office, which is taking him further and further out of his depth.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to a split, or dual, personality—to the leader of the Liberal party, and to the leader of the Social Democratic party, who is still with us. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) made a curious speech, in which he made some superficial and uninformed references to GCHQ. To suggest that the Government, by their actions against the unions, went out of their way to advertise the existence of GCHQ begs the question of what the unions themselves thought they were doing when they went on strike. The right hon. Gentleman is no great expert on such matters. He was the wrong chap to make the alliance speech.
If hon. Members study the Order Paper, they may also agree with me that the alliance has not been clever in framing its amendment. The alliance simply wishes to tag the official Opposition's amendment on to the Government's motion. That is a classic example of alliance politics, always trying to have everything both ways. It is a beautiful example of boneless wonderism, but no doubt the two right hon. Gentlemen consider that they have been very clever.
Of course the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) could have found words of his own. On 13 February he wrote an offensive letter to the Prime Minister. It did not attract much attention, but it is still on the record. Not for the first time, he accused my right hon. Friend of a systematic attempt to mislead the House. Despite my right hon. Friend's replies to the accusations, the right hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow, simply goes on repeating the same old dirt.
The right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary for two years or so. It may be that he would not be included in any shortlist of great Foreign Secretaries, but that may be simply because he did not have very much to do. However, there was one matter which must have created a little work for him — attempting to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would say of his conduct of those affairs that there was never an occasion on which he concealed or withheld a single fact from the House. Is he prepared to say that he never did that, even for good, understandable and entirely patriotic reasons? I doubt it very much. If he admits that there are times when concealment and the withholding of information are in the national interest, why does he prate so much about systematic attempts to conceal? He is too disingenuous by far, and the country is beginning to rumble him.
I should like now——
Mr. Allan Rogers: Come on, Scargill next.
Mr. Onslow: That comment is typical of the hon. Gentleman.
I should like now to consider Mr. Ponting. I imagine that the whole House, even the leader of the Liberal party, probably agrees that the Civil Service is better off without Mr. Ponting. A lot of his fellow civil servants think that he is no loss to them. Right hon. and hon. Members who have read today's Daily Telegraph will have seen that the general secretary of the Ministry of Defence Staff Association, Mr. John Wilks, has said some things in fairly clear terms about Mr. Ponting's conduct.
Mr. Robin Corbett: He would, wouldn't he?
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of these matters, but he might be a great friend of Mandy Rice-Davies for all I know. He said:
"it is the duty of MPs to control ministers,"
and added:
"It is not a duty of civil servants, however senior, because they are not elected by anyone. They are employed and paid to do the job defined by Ministers and Parliament. They are, and they should be, very much at the 'beck and call' of Ministers. The kind of reasoning which places the civil servant above his civil master is the kind of reasoning which is swiftly leading to the destruction of our system of demoratic elected government."
Mr. Ponting should take those words to heart.
It is not wholly unknown for people who join the Civil Service to change their views as they go through their career. There is more than one hon. Member who was formerly a civil servant and who must have taken a view about his position as a servant of government which led him to come here. Perhaps I can bore the House for a moment with my own experience. At the time of Suez, it became clear to me that there would be times during my Civil Service career when I might well find myself unable conscientiously to put forward the point of view of the Government of the day. It was a fairly short step from that to recognise that the right thing to do was to leave the Civil Service. I was fortunate enough to get here.
Perhaps Mr. Ponting also has ambitions to get here, but the Labour party has spurned him and the SDP has so far said nothing—it might be open to offer——
Mr. Bowen Wells: He is a member of the SDP.
Mr. Onslow: Is he? The point here is that Mr. Ponting should have thought these things through much earlier in his career. If he had done so, he should have been able to see that he too might have a crisis of conscience. In that case, he need never have undergone the conflict to which he now claims he had to submit himself. He is not a great loss. A man of greater intellectual honesty would not have brought any of this upon himself. The most important legacy he leaves us is the task of considering, not how to reform section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, but the essential feature of the conduct of government—how to re-establish the mutual trust and confidence between Ministers and their advisers, which Ponting has deliberately and arrogantly done so much to destroy.
6.13 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was perfectly fair for the Secretary of State to outline my opposition to the Falklands war. It is quite true that, on 2 April, I contacted my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) about his being cornered by Brian Widlake on "The World at One" into saying that the Labour party would use force in certain circumstances. It is true that, on 3 April, I interrupted the Prime Minister during her speech to ask her who she imagined our friends were in Latin America on this issue. It is true that, on 4 April, I made a long and well-reported speech in Scotland to my constituency party in which I said that this was the most ill-conceived expedition to leave these shores since the Duke of Buckingham went to La Rochelle. It is also true that I went to see the Prime Minister on 21 April to express deep concern about air cover in the light of what happened to the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.
770
It is also true that I did not in early May get concerned with criticisms about the Belgrano. It so happened that, on 4 May, I had tabled the following question to the Prime Minister:
"if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands."
The Prime Minister replied:
"My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Defence will be making full statements after questions on recent diplomatic and military developments respectively."
I then asked:
"When the Prime Minister referred to political control, did she herself, personally and explicitly, authorise the firing of the torpedoes at the General Belgrano?"
The right hon. Lady answered:
"I assure the hon. Gentleman that the task force is and was under full political control."—[Official Report, 4 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 16.]
A lot of this is about crisis management. The truth is that I did not start asking questions about the Belgrano until early July, and I did so because there was a report in The Scotsman to the effect that, when he was asked a question that flowed exactly from what John Nott had told the House — why he had sunk the Belgrano — the submarine commander said that he had not sunk the Belgrano off his own bat, that he was a first-time submarine commander and that he did it on orders from Northwood.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Quite right, too.
Mr. Dalyell: Right. That is deeply different from the line of the statement that John Nott made in the House. We have checked the tapes, and John Nott's statement came over as the Belgrano was closing on the task force. "Elements of" the task force was added later. In view of what the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has said, I should like some Government statement on the position of Glamorgan, Arrow and Ardent. That matter ought to be cleared up in the Minister's winding-up speech.
The sinking of the Belgrano was not simply a matter of 368 lives and the escalation of the Falklands war from second to fifth gear. She who ordered the sinking is also she who has her finger on nuclear weapons. As long as she remains our Head of Government, what happens at a moment of possible humiliation and defeat is a matter of lasting importance. We should therefore not have any of the argument, "This all happened three years ago."
The difficulty is that the truth was not told. For more than two years we were told repeatedly that the submarine Conqueror had detected the Belgrano on Sunday 2 May. I knew that that was not true, and I think that it is better to be completely candid with my parliamentary colleagues of all parties. In August 1982, I was told by a member of the family of one of the crew of the Conqueror that I had better delve into what happened. In September 1982, quite voluntarily, I must report to my colleagues, I was given the diaries of a member of the crew — Lieutenant Nahrendra Sethia. I must admit that I was a bit suspicious at first because they were beautifully written and I wondered how it was possible to write such a coherent account, given the circumstances of a submarine. However, I made cross-checks.
I should like to say something bluntly to all my parliamentary colleagues. The House might be wondering why the hon. Member for Linlithgow has been the

771
receptacle of so much information, only latterly from Mr. Ponting, but from many other sources, including members of the task force. It was not because of the colour of my politics. [Interruption.] I received the information because many people felt that the position was not quite right. Members of the Royal Navy said that the sinking of the Belgrano was not cricket.
It became clear to me from cross-checking that the diaries were right and that the Belgrano and her escorts, far from being detected on 2 May, were detected before 1600 hours on Friday 30 April on her passive sonar by the submarine Conqueror. That was later admitted in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). After 1600 hours, at periscope depth the Conqueror closed in on the Belgrano and her escorts. Throughout the morning of Saturday 1 May at a distance of 4,000 yd, the Conqueror monitored the Belgrano and her escorts "razzing"; that is, replenishing at sea. Therefore, the submarine had the Belgrano at her mercy. If it is true that the Belgrano had to be sunk because it was an immediate threat to the task force, why was it not done on that Saturday? Why was it postponed? That is the question the Prime Minister must answer.
Mr. Michael Mates rose——
Mr. Dalyell: We had Admiral Lord Lewin's word on 30 January 1983 that there had been no communications difficulties.
Mr. Mates: This stake goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is about political control. The captain of the Conqueror was not authorised to attack Argentine surface ships outside the exclusion zone on that day. For that reason, Admiral Woodward sent him home to Northwood, which sent him to the Chief of the Defence Staff, who asked the War Cabinet—the political control —to have the rules changed.
Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State knows that that is an own goal. The Secretary of State emphasised in his opening remarks that the original rules of engagement were to cover everything. Therefore, either the Secretary of State or the hon. Member for Hampshire, East is right.
Mr. Heseltine: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes this matter extremely seriously. The reason why there was no question of the sinking taking place when he described it was that the Government had not been advised by their military advisers to do so.
Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that, as one scrapes, all sorts of new creepy-crawlies come to light. The Belgrano was far more of a threat at that time than later. Therefore, why does the Prime Minister say that it was an immediate threat? The narrative is important— —
Mr. Heseltine: When the hon. Gentleman says that the Belgrano was far more of a threat at that time than later, to whom does he think the Government should listen—to the hon. Gentleman or to the Chief of the Defence Staff?
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman talks about listening. I suggest that he should listen to our excellent communications centre at GCHQ. That is where the listening must be done.
At a distance of 10,000 yd the Conqueror followed the Belgrano for more than 30 hours. If we are to be told that the Government did not know exactly what was happening, heaven help their political control. At 8.07
772
—the Secretary of State got it wrong, and we must be accurate—an order went out from Walter Allara, the operational commander on board the carrier on 25 May, to return to Statten Island. That was confirmed by the naval command in Buenos Aires at 1.19 the following morning. Both those orders, like every order, were intercepted and sent back to Ascension Island by AD470 high-frequency Marconi transceiver equipment, through Chile, and through the Americans, who had a satellite in polar orbit.
That brings me to a direct question. The Observer of 6 January states:
"The intercepted Argentine signals were decoded and telexed at the time directly to Navy HQ at Northwood and to Mrs. Thatcher's office at Chequers."
The paper did not get that information from me. There were other sources. Indeed, it would have been odd if there had not been. Therefore, for more than five hours those at Chequers and the Prime Minister knew perfectly well what the orders to those ships were. The question therefore arises: why was the order given at lunchtime on 2 May when the Belgrano was far less of a threat that it had been earlier and when its direction was known? It was because—I disagree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about this — the Prime Minister knew something else that Sunday morning — that the Government of Peru had put forward peace proposals.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose——
Mr. Dalyell: For the sake of argument, I can concede that reasonable men can have differences of opinion about whether the Peruvian peace proposals would have worked. I believe, on the basis of a great deal of research and from talking to people, that they would have succeeded. Other reasonable people may not believe that. However, what the Prime Minster and the hon. Member for for Woking said in the debate was that no news of the Peruvian peace proposals reached London until three hours after the sinking of the Belgrano. Ever more precisely, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and to the shadow Cabinet the Prime Minister said that the first sign of the Peruvian peace proposals reached London at 11.15 pm on Sunday evening. That is not true.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose— —
Mr. Dalyell: On 21 October, after some correspondence and, in case there is any misunderstanding, at my own expense on an academic fare, I went to Lima for four days. I sat for 75 minutes in the office of Belaunde Terry, who told me that the Argentine had been extremely close to the British, that he had received great kindness from the British and that Peruvian and American troops were at first proposed. The Peruvians were not acceptable to us and the Americans were not acceptable to the Argentines and, therefore, the troops were to be Canadian, Mexican and West German. The Argentine soldiers were to leave the Falkland Islands, and the task force was to turn back. In that case the Prime Minister would have been deprived of her military victory, which the Falklands issue is all about, as I made plain at an early stage.
I sat in the house of Manuel Ulloa, the Prime Minister of Peru at the time, and the chairman of the development committee of the World Bank. There were no language problems as his daily reading was the Wall Street Journal. He said, "What do you take us for? We were negotiators, and as serious people we were in touch with both sides."

773
I specifically ask about the role of Lord Hugh Thomas. Oscar Mauortua, the head of the President's office, spent two years at Pembroke College, Oxford. There were no language problems there. He said that the whole Government of Peru came to a stop at that time, and added, "I know that your Government knew all about it all that Sunday and probably that Saturday."
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Dalyell: No, I shall not give way.
It may be that the Peruvian evidence is not sufficient. We should therefore look at the American evidence. In his memoirs, the Prime Minister's admirer, Alexander Haig, said that acceptance was gained in principle from both parties or, pressed by Emery, down to one or two words. We had better be clear about Gayshon. For 30 years he was head of Associated Press in London, and his interest in this subject was aroused because never in all that time had he known so many inconsistencies in British Government explanations.
Mr. Onslow rose——
Mr. Dalyell: Haig was supported by other senior Americans. If Conservative Members do not like the American evidence, they should consider what happened here. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) is not taking part in the debate, and I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) is not present. It was the right hon. Member for Hertsmere who let the cat of of the bag. When pressed by Emery, he said that he knew all about the Peruvian peace proposals, and added, "Primarily those of President Belaunde." If the right hon. Member for Hertsmere knew, did the Prime Minister not know?
Mr. Onslow rose— —
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Woking and I remember brass tacks. The hon. Gentleman let it out of the bag. I asked him about this and he told me that the Foreign Office knew on the Sunday morning. In that case, did not the Prime Minister know? Let us have an explanation.
Mr. Onslow: Now, as then, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he does not listen to the answers that he is given. It is clear that he flatly refuses to accept my word about anything, and on that basis I am under no obligation to accept his. The hon. Gentleman knows that evidence on this whole matter has been taken by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Is he content to abide by its judgment, as I shall be?
Mr. Dalyell: Many of these issues cannot be decided tonight. In some ways it would have been wiser to await the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, but again I ask whether, if the Foreign Office knew, the Prime Minister knew.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose——
Mr. Dalyell: It would have been much better had the Government come clean on these matters, because, who knows, there may be a diplomatic version of Clive Ponting. Certain people know the truth. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Traitors."] The word "Traitors" is not very sensible in relation to people whose priority is to Parliament rather than to Ministers.
Sir Peter Blaker rose— —
Mr. Dalyell: People have asked, "Why rake all this up?" The least important reason is that we are spending £3 million a day, and, unless the truth is out, how will the Prime Minister and the Government ever be forced to change policy? There are other considerations.
The Argentines are now far better armed than they were in April 1982. They have the Otamelara and the Meko 360 frigates, powered by Rolls-Royce engines and using David Brown gearboxes, Decca navigation equipment — all made by us. They have the Israeli adapted Nesher 5s which can actually loiter and fight. Therefore, this is not a question of the past—[Interruption.] Alfonsin will not start another conflict—[Interruption.] That is the answer to the Falklands. Juan McCafferty and Pablo Llewelyn are the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh communities. I agree with our excellent ambassador in Peking, Sir Richard Evans, who said that the legacies of history should be solved by peaceful means. There are differences between Hong Kong and the Falklands. One is that there are 1,000 million Chinese and 3 million front-line soldiers, and one does not send a battle fleet against that.
Legitimate questions have been asked time and again, and we have seen the legacy of untruth. Exactly what is there to hide? What will we be if, as Members of Parliament, we do not insist on getting the truth when we know we are being lied to? If we do nothing, democracy itself is injured, and that is why some of us go on.
6.35 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate because I believe that we are tackling an issue that is central to the relationship between Ministers and their civil servants. I wonder whether at any stage following a war this House has ever considered in detail an action in that war in such detail as the action that we are again considering today.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) again repeated nearly all the arguments that he has put before the House on previous occasions. It is regrettable that in doing so he should issue an open invitation to civil servants in the Foreign Office to come forward—presumably to him—with further leaked information. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he seemed to indicate that that might happen, and as well as saying that in his speech, I heard him say it last night on television.
The relationship between a civil servant and his Minister is very much under the microscope in this debate. If Mr. Clive Ponting really had his conversion on the road to Damascus at the moment the memorandum was to be presented to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, what on earth was he doing in April when he was playing with that typewriter? If this was a man of great integrity, why for two months did he embark on a process of obvious deception of Ministers for whom he was working and of civil servants with whom he was working? That question needs to be, and should be, answered.
If a Minister cannot trust his senior civil servants—and Mr. Clive Ponting was a senior civil servant—the corollary is that Ministers will start to look for people whom they can trust in senior positions. That is what happens in the United States, and that is why each time there is a change of Administration in that country there is a change in the entire top echelons of the civil service.

775
I do not believe that any hon. Member of any political party would like to see that situation prevail in the United Kingdom.
There has to be trust between Ministers and their civil servants. If civil servants disagree with their Ministers, procedures are open to them to make their views known. What is astonishing in what we have been told this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is that Mr. Clive Ponting at no stage seems to have recorded his reservations on, his objections to, or his displeasure with, what was going on. Far from it—he continued to advise Ministers and to put drafts in front of them which it now appears he may have believed were the drafts which the Ministers wanted to see. That can be the only explanation for his behaviour if, at the same time, he was putting contrary information into the hands of the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
We have also had, not quite so vociferously this afternoon following my right hon. Friend's speech, a concerted attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—we have had it in the media as well. We have been led to believe that my right hon. Friend was personally responsible for everything that is alleged to have been going on. We are told that he has been operating behind the back of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in some kind of collusive arrangement and liaison with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence left me in no doubt where responsibility for the decisions that have been made lies. It lies at his door, and he was at pains to point that out.
My right hon. Friend was also at pains to point out that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces tendered his advice, as he should do as junior Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his final decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was able to weigh up the value of that advice, of the advice that he received from his civil servants and, in one instance, the value of the changed advice that he received from one particular civil servant.
The other issue that has come up, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow raised it in his speech yet again, is the Peruvian peace initiative. Having had the opportunity to work in the United Nations, in the Secretary-General's office, and to see how these negotiations go on, I find it incredible that this or any Government would conceive it necessary to take a decision to sink a cruiser purely to scupper a peace initiative that was reportedly going on in Peru. If our diplomats are not capable of dealing with such initiatives if our Governments disagree with them, what are they earning salaries for? It is absurd to pretend that negotiations of that nature could in some way bind a Government who were not a party to it. Any settlement of such a dispute can be achieved only if the two or three parties—in this case the two parties—concerned are in agreement with it.
At the time the discussions were going on, we were faced with the decision of what to do about the General Belgrano. I cannot believe, when the advice was that that cruiser was a threat to certain ships within the task force, that the Government would say that they would not listen to such advice because they felt that they should wait another 24 hours or 48 hours, even if it meant a ship being sunk, to see what the outcome of the Peruvian initiative would be. The Government and the War Cabinet had far more important issues on their minds. In the light of that
776
advice, I do not see how any Minister, or the Prime Minister, could have come to the House after the event to defend not sinking the cruiser if there had been some tragedy within the intervening period.
Another issue, which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has already raised, is that of the Official Secrets Act, which has come under much scrutiny in recent weeks because of this case. It is suggested that the Government should look again at this Act to see whether section 2 should be scrapped and replaced. It is worth recalling that in 1979 the Protection of Official Information Bill failed in its passage through the House of Lords and had to be withdrawn. There is every reason for the Government to look at the Official Secrets Act afresh, because if they do not do so it is likely that in a few years' time we shall be confronted with another situation such as this.
The only sensible way forward would be for all parties to co-operate and try to decide what instrument needs to be put in its place. The confidential relationship between civil servant and Minister has to be protected if we want to continue with the type of Civil Service that we have, of which we are so proud, and which many other countries envy us for having.
6.46 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The point that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) has made about reform of the Official Secrets Act is important. It is sad that, in the light of the court's decision that Mr. Ponting was not guilty—although one would not have thought so — and the fact that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General mounted the prosecution, the Government did not say anything about that this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in my time as an Army Minister 20 years ago, when I was in the Northern Ireland Office and then when I was Home Secretary, has chased me and was often a damn nuisance. The way that some Conservative Members who were tittering and giggling about the role of my hon. Friend is a reflection on them. If it had not been for him, this question would not have been discussed. He is an honourable man and some of those hon. Members who giggled are not fit to clean his boots. I could tell the House of the issues on which he has been wrong, but the best thing to tell the House is what he has been right on—and if he has forced civil servants to sit up and answer the question, he has done us all a service.
During the Crimean war, there was a radical, Independent Member of Parliament for Sheffield called John Roebuck. Some 110 years later, when Asa Briggs wrote his book about Victorian people, he reported there were still people in Sheffield who said to their kids when they kicked up rough, "Don't come the old John Roebuck with me." Not many of us will be remembered in 110 years' time for being in the awkward squad. My hon. Friend is in the awkward squad, and when I saw the Secretary of State for Defence giggling about him I felt slightly sick.
All this business started about nine months ago I know one thing, which is the beginning of the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West. Ponting should not have been charged under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. He should have been dealt with by the administrative procedures of the Civil Service—for the moment I am

777
begging the question of the House of Commons. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had been Secretary of State for Defence when this happened, Ponting's feet would not have touched the ground as he left the Department. We should not have dealt with the matter under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. There has been talk as though we were discussing Mata Hari, section 1 or spies, but as the Government said in the case, we are talking about an incident in which no security was involved. Mr. Ponting goes out into the world knowing that he was found not guilty by a jury at the Old Bailey, but found guilty today by the Secretary of State, with no suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman should be cross-questioned.
During the trial, I was asked to appear as an expert witness because I had served on the Franks committee in 1972 and had signed its report, just as I signed the report of the Franks committee about the origins of the war. It recommended that there should be only one narrow band in which anyone was prosecuted under the criminal law, and that the remainder should be dealt with by the due processes of the Civil Service.
I am not prepared to change my mind. I do not say that because I am in opposition. I told those who asked me to bear in mind three matters. First—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—once the task force had sailed, the lives of service men should not have been put at risk. That is clear in my mind. My father died as a result of the first world war. I was brought up to despise flag-wagging politicians and flag-wagging newspaper proprietors. The right hon. and hon. Members who were shouting earlier in the debate are the ones who never heard a shot fired anywhere. I feel strongly about this matter.
If politicians send service men 10,000 miles from home, those men have to be protected. If my kids had been there, I would have expected the politicians to protect them. Like my hon. Friend, I accept that we do not know the half of it, but I know one thing, because I was on the Franks committee. It was the Argentine navy which "potched" around for those four or five days. No one knew what those ships were doing. They could quite easily have sent signals saying that they were going home, knowing by that time that their signals would be picked up. I would not have trusted the Argentine navy. I told the court that that had to be made absolutely clear, and incidentally I was told that Ponting felt exactly the same.
There is another reason for my view. I played a part in the Cabinet and the OPC in 1977 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and others, including the 'right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), sent a submarine and two frigates to the South Atlantic with rules of engagement. The implication was clear. I knew what I was doing when I agreed. If it had gone wrong and there had been any action, they were there as a deterrent. I am not prepared to change my mind.
I am not involved in the Belgrano incident. I regard the first part of the Government's motion as irrelevant. I had to be clear that there was no security involved, and the man prosecuting on behalf of the Government admitted that no security was involved in any shape or form.
778
To me, security is of the greatest importance. When I became Home Secretary I realised that the problem with any official secrets legislation is who is to define what is and what is not security. However, there are matters which no parliamentary Committee would drag out of me. That will have to wait until the expiry of the 30-year rule or the 50-year rule. There are some matters on which I took personal decisions which were right, but I would not reveal them to anyone.
Security matters to me, but it did not matter here. There was no breach of security. So why all the fuss about the Select Committee having these documents? Now it can have them. But it could have had them in the first instance. When they get into the Old Bailey, there can be no security about them.
The Ponting case is not a security matter. I have told the House what was recommended by the Franks committee, but there is another reason why I say that. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) knows it, because I took the opportunity to raise it with him the other day.
On 22 November 1976 when I had been Home Secretary for two months, I announced in the House that the Government intended to legislate to repeal section 2 on the basis of the Franks report. It was my first policy in that office. I had Franks on my mind, and I wanted most of all to repeal section 2. I told the House so, but argued the case that there should be a degree of liberality about Cabinet documents.
Before I made that announcement, the Attorney-General of the day talked to me from that distance that all Attorneys-General talk. Everyone was in favour of my proposal. There had been previous debates. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House were in favour of it and it was not party political. The Attorney-General said to me that, just as the House had decided on a free vote against capital punishment and the Home Secretary had said that he would not be using his prerogative to recommend that anyone should be hanged, on the same basis I should tell the House that, when he looked at the public interest, there should be no prosecutions for anything other than serious breaches of security. Therefore, it is not surprising that I think exactly the same way now.
There is no Law Officer present today, and I understand why. However, Sam Silkin's letter to The Times last year was called in aid by the Prime Minister. Sam Silkin said that the Prime Minister asserted that
"'the Law Officers did not seek the view of, or consult with, any other Minister, nor was the view of any other Minister conveyed to them, before they took their decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting'. As a statement of fact I do not question this assertion. Had it been incorrect the Law Officers would certainly have corrected it."
It is unfortunate that the impression has been given during the past 10 days that the Law Officers should not consult Ministers. According to Sam Silkin, this has been the convention for 50 years.
Sam Silkin came to me about two cases. I can remember the details of one because I have been writing about it quite recently. A Ministry of Defence official in Northern Ireland gave some documents to a civil servant. We did not know where they came from. As my mother used to say, "Sins catch you out", and the police found out. That man was not prosecuted. Sam Silkin came to me and asked me what I thought in the public interest. I replied,

779
"Leave it alone, Sam"—not "play it again, Sam." "It is not worth prosecuting." The outcome would have been exactly the same as the Ponting prosecution.
Then we had the ABC case. I was Home Secretary. I knew nothing about it. The idea that the police tell the Home Secretary about a case is not true. It was not my job as Home Secretary to know what it was about. Sam Silkin came to me in that same diffident way saying that he was considering the case. I asked whether it involved section 2 or section 1. He said that section 1 was involved. I replied that I did not want to know about section 1. I said that if it were section 2 and serious, on the basis of what had been said from the House the case should proceed. It did, and the men got off.
I do not understand what happened last week. It is quite proper for the Law Officers to say that they did not consult. The question is: why did not they consult? No one's views were sought. There was no consultation. Apparently no Private Office minutes went to No. 10 Downing street. Anyone who has been in government knows that a Minister does not breathe in his Department without news of it getting to No. 10. But apparently nothing was done in this case. Ewen Broadbent went to the Director of Public Prosecutions but did not say a word about the views of the Secretary of State. That is fair enough, but it is the first time that that has been done for a very long time.
As The Times said last week, what makes the Act work is that, unless great care is taken, everyone will be in court. It is only the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General saying, "Don't be daft. Leave it alone as a matter of political judgment," as The Times described it—more correctly, "in the public interest"—that prevents a great many more prosecutions.
So what happened? Apparently the Solicitor-General sat in a room, pulled all the curtains, locked the door and considered the public interest. He would not talk to anyone. He decided to consider the public interest. But did he rely on political osmosis, or did he rely on extra-sensory political perception? In any event he got it wrong.
When I listened to what was said last week, it was a case not of the dog having barked in the night but of the dog not having barked in the night. The Government got it wrong. There should not have been a prosecution. The Government made a mistake. The Prime Minister and the whole bang shoot should have made their view known to the Attorney-General or to the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General should not have taken the decision by himself.
I want to ask one question. I have checked with Mr. Speaker that I can raise it. Lord Lewin is being investigated under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches shouted today that male Mata Hari had been done and that Ponting should be crucified on the hill of Golgotha. Nobody would dream that the man had got off. I imagine that it was rather like what happened during the French Revolution. Those who shouted at that time had their heads cut off eventually. I have been looking at the Conservative Benches to see who is going to be done. Is it not the joke of the century that Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Lewin, is to be looked at because he has spoken to journalists and broken the Official Secrets Act? Even if one blows in the wind, one breaks section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. So Lord Lewin is going to be done. But the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General will not
780
consider the public interest. They will sit down close together and the answer will be that they will not prosecute.
There is a section of the Official Secrets Act that has not been mentioned by any hon. Member. Do hon. Members know that one can self-authorise oneself if one is a Cabinet Minister? Therefore, the Official Secrets Act is not being broken throughout all the chat on a Thursday afternoon, for when one gets up the line one is self-authorising. I say to the House that Admiral Lewin is also self-authorising. I shall not say what Admiral Lewin would say, because it would be unparliamentary. He is not going to be done, but the Government say that they are looking at it. How crazy can the Government be when they say that one of their trusted advisers, a man whom I greatly respect, is going to be looked at to find out whether he has broken the Official Secrets Act?
The whole Ponting affair was a grave mistake. It was wrong to prosecute. It was badly handled. The Government's attitude to secrecy has been completely revealed. This is no way to stop leaks. I do not enjoy leaks by civil servants. A day or so ago civil servants apparently leaked what had happened in a Cabinet sub-committee. They leaked that, as a result of what a general had said about chemical warfare, the Government had decided to reconsider it. It is indefensible that civil servants should have leaked that information, but I do not want those involved to appear at the Old Bailey on criminal charges. When the Government find out that something like this has happened, they ought to get shot of such persons. They ought to be moved.
I did not have the chance to argue this case in court. They did not ask me about it. There I was, all prepared, and nobody gave me the chance.
Mr. Baldry rose——
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Rees: I have a question to put to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. What a rotten title! I used to be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Army, and then for the Royal Air Force, which was bad enough. Minister of State for the Armed Forces sounds like Chile or Czechoslovakia. It would be better if we returned to the system whereby somebody was responsible for individual services, for which one had an emotional responsibility. I know that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be more partial towards the Royal Air Force than towards any of the other services. I understand that, but it is a different matter.
It was announced over the weekend that the Ministry of Defence police are investigating whether Mr. Ponting committed perjury. That has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry of Defence police who are accountable to the Minister. The Metropolitan police are not accountable to the Home Secretary for operational matters. They are completely independent. Who told the Ministry of Defence police to investigate whether Mr. Ponting had perjured himself? It has nothing whatever to do with the Minister or with anybody else. Who told the information department at the Ministry of Defence to assume the sort of role played by Eastern European police forces? The great glory of our police system is that on operational matters they are independent. In Northern Ireland it was not always like that. We had to pull it back from political control.

781
Over the weekend another meeting took place. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) is here. Last night I watched him on television, and he said, "I've got a leak. I'm joining in." The press got on to the Ministry of Defence, which said, "It's got nothing to do with us. We never comment on leaks." We have been so immersed in this in our house over the last week that we said, "Poor old so-and-so, he's going to be up for breaking the Official Secrets Act as well."
Mr. Mates: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is entertaining the House hugely, but surely he is not trying to make a serious allegation. If he is, he is suggesting that it is one and the same thing for a private citizen, a Back-Bench Member of Parliament like myself or, indeed, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to divulge information that has been brought to us. We are not civil servants or Ministers and therefore are not subject to the Official Secrets Act.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. A great number of hon. Members are waiting to catch my eye. Long interventions make for long speeches.
Mr. Mates: A personal attack, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has just been made on me. Surely I am entitled to answer it. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that it is often our duty as Back-Bench Members of Parliament to bring into the public domain information which is of concern to one's own constituents. That is quite different from Mr. Ponting.
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Official Secrets Act covers every man and woman in this country. The hon. Gentleman broke the Official Secrets Act. Good luck to him. I say that because I was schooled to believe that if it is serious, let the law do what it likes with such people, but if it does not matter, do not potch around with the criminal law. Under the Official Secrets Act, if one reveals who supplies the cakes to the Ministry of Defence canteen, one can be done under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It is only the Attorney-General who can prevent that from happening. He can say that to prosecute is not in the public interest. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is prosecuted, I promise to go and give expert evidence at the Old Bailey when this person appears there.
Mr. Baldry: If the right hon. Gentleman finds the Official Secrets Act so abhorrent, I just cannot understand why the last Labour Government did not take steps either to repeal or to reform it.
Mr. Rees: I have had a note which says "Sit down," but very quickly I shall tell the House. First, we did not have a majority. Secondly, I said to my colleagues that there was no point in going ahead with it. I got into trouble in 1969 over the reform of the House of Lords, when the Home Secretary said to me "You take it, Merlyn. We have got an agreement with the Opposition". I ought to have known what that meant. He had been around a long time and the Bill was dead. The Opposition did not co-operate. I have been in Northern Ireland and the Opposition did not give us any help then over pairs and so on, and I was not prepared to take on the Official Secrets Act.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening attentively and, indeed, I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's
782
speech, but the 10-minute rule is now in operation and the right hon. Gentleman has really reached the end of his time.
Mr. Rees: I simply say that there is good reason for not prosecuting Pouting. I have here notes from people who have written to me telling me about heads of the Civil Service who have done what Ponting did in the past 30 years. One of these thought that if he were caught he would get 14 years, which must have been for an offence under section 1, but he did not. There might come a time when a civil servant has to say that Parliament is being misled. Pouting is not on the scale of the big issues in Germany. I accept that. But the House had better put its mind to what will happen if the House is misled. Mr. Brian Walden says "Humbug." That tells us more about Mr. Walden than it does about his ministerial knowledge. The House was misled. The information was only dragged out. That is why I certainly will not vote for the first part of the first motion, but I shall vote gladly for the second.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the 10-minute limit is in operation. If hon. Members give way to interventions there will be no additions for injury time.
7.11 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: The speech of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) began well but the knock-about turn which constituted the last three quarters of it was, candidly, unworthy of him and unworthy of the importance of the occasion. I wonder whether the public at large will be satisfied with our proceedings today. We are discussing a matter of the utmost importance and it may well seem to the public that either we are raking over dead men's bones about the sinking of the Belgrano, or, perhaps, that Her Majesty's Opposition and the alliance parties have pursued the personal obsessions of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) ad absurdum.
We should be discussing today how the House can seek to exercise a measure of parliamentary control and monitoring of the Executive in time of war and how Her Majesty's Government in time of war can exercise control on behalf of Parliament of operations conducted by Her Majesty's forces in the field.
I remember the first debate that we had on the Falklands war following the invasion of the islands when my boss, the then Secretary of State, John Nott, made perhaps the only major mistake in his reports to the House in that he adopted a partisan tone and it was fatal. From then on deliberations over the important matters that ensued were essentially bipartisan. This was one of the aspects of our parliamentary consideration that most impressed the British people. It saddens me that now, instead of drawing the appropriate conclusion, we have lapsed into the worst aspects of partisanship.
I do not want to go back in history too far, but it is worth recalling the immensity of the task that faced our armed forces. The armada that the King of Spain sent to the English shores in 1588 did not stand a lesser chance of success than our task force in setting off for the Falklands. We had no strike carriers. We were critically vulnerable to Argentine land-based air power and carrier-based air power. The Argentinian aircraft carrier The 25th of May was a major threat. In addition, we were operating at extremities of range with no bases of our own. In those

783
circumstances it was critically important to put the Argentine navy out of the war, to ensure the maximum air cover for our fleet in difficult circumstances and to provide a sufficiency of air superiority to enable our forces to be put ashore on what had then become hostile islands in adverse sea and climatic conditions.
On 1 May we already had the first sign of how extreme the threat was. The Argentine air force was thrown into action against the task force for the first time. There was a major air engagement. Winston Churchill said about our crews in the battle of Britain in August and September 1940:
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
The same applied in full measure to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harrier crews embarked on HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. They had only 19 aeroplanes, very few air crews and had to operate round the clock for considerable periods against repeated attack.
On 1 May the Glamorgan was bombed. Luckily, the bombs did not strike home. Arrow was strafed. The first personnel casualty was incurred and it was clear that unless a major Argentine capital vessel was put out of action and soon, the risk to Her Majesty's task force would grow. In those circumstances, the Cabinet was right to modify the rules of engagement to allow the commander of Conqueror, who had been shadowing the General Belgrano, to attack, sink and destroy the vessel. There is no doubt that the destruction of that ship, which was second only to the carrier The 25th of May in importance in the Argentine navy's order of battle, put the Argentine navy out of the war and constituted a dramatic turning point in the conduct of the operation.
Mr. Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a second ago the Secretary of State for Defence interrupted me and denied that sequence of events? He said that the Belgrano was a threat. I put forward the same theory as the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wilkinson: I regret that I gave way. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention was as inconsequential as his speech.
The point at issue is that throughout the war the Secretary of State had the difficult task of reporting to Parliament, often at extremely short notice because the Argentine radio and other propaganda media were transmitting their version of events. For example, when HMS Coventry went down we had the difficult decision of whether to make a report immediately to the House or whether to try to analyse such reports as could be obtained from the South Atlantic and to make a more considered report. The Secretary of State always tried to make a report at first opportunity.
At the instance of the sinking of the Belgrano there was an error both about the course being steamed by the Belgrano and about the timescale of the sighting and the attack. As the Argentine Government did not rescind the state of hostilities that, formally at least, still applied, Her Majesty's Government were right not to modify the statement that Sir John Nott made. The Government did so when it appeared later that the intelligence and security criteria were not as valid as had previously been the case. But we should not delude ourselves about the imporance of what is said and done here in the House.
My time is short but I want to make one observation. I well recall an occasion when John Nott came to my
784
party's defence committee. In the course of that meeting he made no reference to the future conduct of operations on East Falkland, and that was after the San Carlos landing had taken place.
Yet the next day it was suggested in the press that John Nott had perhaps hypothesised that the next line of advance might be to Goose Green. Then, of course, when Two Para had the very difficult engagement there and sustained heavy casualties while capturing Goose Green, it was alleged that it was because John Nott had leaked and divulged sensitive information to our Back-Bench defence committee, and that the Argentines had got wind of the line of our forces' advance and had been prepared for the attack. This, of course, was not so. It was purely a bit of conjecture on the part of a particular journalist, and demonstrates the importance of very strict security control over statements made to the House.
In the last analysis it should be remembered that the House is charged with great responsibility. If we had so voted, we could have prevented the task force from sailing and could have interrupted the course of operations. But once such operations are engaged upon, it is the duty of every hon. Member to act responsibly and to bear in mind security considerations. I believe that the Government have done that, and that the amendments of the Opposition and their alliance friends are wholly irresponsible.
7.20 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: The debate focuses attention on the relationships between Ministers and their civil servants, between the Government and the House of Commons and between the Government and the country.
First, I must take issue with the Secretary of State, and with the way in which he tried to accuse Mr. Clive Ponting by using such phrases as badly serving both him and the House, making the most extreme and unfounded allegations, breaking his loyalty to Ministers and the ethics of the Civil Service, and so on. Mr. Ponting is one of my constituents. He did not act in a particularly saintly way, but he faced the genuine human dilemma of whether to keep silent or break the supposed trust that Ministers had in him. In my view he made the right decision. He should have been disciplined for it, but he should not have been prosecuted for it as a criminal. For the Secretary of State to come to the House and to try to portray him as some sort of criminal simply in order to deflect criticism away from the actions of Ministers is unworthy of his office and of the duty that he owes to the House.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, as I have only a short time in which to speak, and there are important points to be made.
The Secretary of State indulged in a selective rewriting of history. I shall give a brief example. He spoke about the Legge memorandum and about the way in which it had supposedly been some sort of joint production between Mr. Ponting's department and that of Mr. Legge. Of course, there was some consultation with officers under Mr. Ponting in the course of drawing it up, but it is to rewrite history to try to extrapolate from that that there was a joint effort at work, and that Mr. Ponting was somehow putting his whole effort behind it while at the same time going behind the Minister's back to criticise it.

785
The Secretary of State made great play of the element of trust and loyalty that he expected from his civil servants. But one is entitled to ask, "Trust and loyalty to what?" It is one thing for a Minister to require trust and loyalty in the genuine service of the Government and the country in an honest way that demands integrity. That is the sort of loyalty that civil servants should display. But no Minister has a right to demand such trust and loyalty when it is required in order to aid and abet the deception of the House. That is the key point.
In that connection, it is worth reflecting on what the judge said at the trial. In his summing up he defined the interests of the state as being entirely and solely the policies of the Government of the day. That was the most dangerous thing that a judge could say in defining the interests of the state. I remind the judge of a pamphlet written by Sir Patrick Devlin, now Lord Devlin, in 1956. He wrote about judges and juries and said two extremely important things. First, he said:
"the executive has found it much easier to find judges who will do what it wants than it has to find amenable juries."
Secondly, he said:
"trial by jury … gives protection against laws which the ordinary man may regard as harsh and oppressive."
The jury decided to give Mr. Ponting protection not simply against the act that he had committed but against the nature and use of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act under which he was prosecuted. The judge said that the interests of the state were synonymous with the decisions of the Government of the day. Of course, if that doctrine was taken to its logical conclusion it would point the path of tyranny. As democrats, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be wary of that.
The arrogance of power which assumes that the Government are always right, and which dislikes and tries to clamp down on all sorts of dissent in a democracy, is aided and abetted by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and bears the stamp of everything that the Government have done in the past few years. It was that arrogance that led them to deceive the House and to prosecute Mr. Ponting. The lesson to be drawn is that when Governments try to withhold information and to treat Parliament and the nation with the arrogance that says that they and only they have the truth and are right, it is often impossible for the general public to make any assesment of the tangle that ensues, or of how right or wrong the Government and their decision-making processes are.
That is why section 2 is nonsense. It is not just nonsense because of its catch-all quality or because, as has been noted, someone can be prosecuted for revealing who supplies the tea to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but because it can be used by the Government to defend their arrogance in power and to defend political decisions that have nothing to do with genuine national security. Of course, there must be protection for genuine national security matters, but everyone, including the prosecution in the Ponting trial, agrees that on the two occasions when Mr. Ponting leaked information, national security was not in any way involved. That is the point.
Perhaps section 1 of the Official Secrets Act should be more clearly defined and tightened up in case national security is at stake, but let us get rid of section 2 and the uses to which it is put, including the use to which it has
786
been put by this Government. They have used it purely for political ends and have not used it in the interests of the nation as a whole.
7.30 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: In recent days, when I have seen accusations in certain national newspapers that the Prime Minister and others have been misleading Parliament and the people, I have kept hearing the words of a hymn that we used to sing at school:

"Once to every man and nation,

Comes the moment to decide,

Between the sides of truth and falsehood,

Between the good and evil sides."

Tonight the House must make something of that choice, and there seem to be some inescapable truths which we must take into account.
When the Argentines invaded the Falkland Islands it was the first time, perhaps since the Nazis were expelled from the Channel Islands, that an alien power, by force of arms, had sought to invade sovereign British territory and to subjugate fellow British subjects under the rule of a foreign flag.
Argentina acted with unqualified aggression; aggression which had no possible excuse or justification. At the darkest of moments the people of the Falkland Islands were entitled to look to us in Britain, to defend their freedoms, to come to their rescue and to restore to them our protection.
A moment of decision had come in our nation's history. We could have fudged it. Perhaps under less resolute leadership, we might have fudged it. But the inescapable truth was that, at that moment, we had a clear duty to the men and women of the Falkland Islands and, further, a clear duty to the people of the whole world to demonstrate that aggression would not succeed. That duty demanded, if all else failed, a determination and willingness to use force to free the Falklands. Some could not see the clearness of the choice.
When, on 7 April 1982, Sir John Nott told the House of the sailing of the task force — of ships such as Brilliant and Broadsword, Hermes and Invincible, Alacrity, and Apple Leaf departing—and even as our sailors were setting forth for the South Atlantic, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was asking what was the cost of it all. What is the cost of freedom? Would we be free today if our fathers and forefathers had tried to give freedom a price? Freedom is beyond cost.
When our sailors, soldiers and airmen were in the South Atlantic, there were those such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow who spared no opportunity to encourage despair, despond and defeatism. On 7 April 1982, as the nation was praying God speed to the task force, the hon. Gentleman said:
"Some of us believe that the fleet should turn round and come back to Portsmouth … as soon as possible." — [Official Report, 7 April 1982; Vol. 21 c. 1037.]
On 14 April the hon. Gentleman questioned our air cover, spoke in detail of the planes in the Argentinian air force and reminded the House of the fate of HMS Prince of Wales. He recalled that the original Scharnhorst was sunk in the battle of the Falkland Islands and that, because of those seas, there had been few survivors. He asked for how long we could maintain a blockade 8,000 miles away from base in the Roaring Forties at the beginning of an Antarctic winter. We know the answer to that question. It was until we had won through. But what comfort those

787
statements must have been to the enemy and what chill they must have caused to the families of those in the task force.
On 10 May the hon. Member called into question the support that we could expect from our European partners. On 13 May he told the House that the Argentine had a tough marine corps and that there would be massive casualties. On 20 May he sought to warn of defeat of the first magnitude and on 24 May he called into question the support we could expect from our American allies.
The hon. Gentleman must answer to history and his conscience for his statements. I say that we would do well to be wary as to how much credence we give to the accusations of those who seek to give freedom a price and whose words must have given comfort only to Britain's enemies.
We then come to the inescapable truth of the sinking of the Belgrano—that it was sunk solely because it was a threat to the task force and a threat to the lives of our sailors and soldiers.
As Mr. Ponting acknowledged at his trial, there was a clear military case for attacking the Belgrano. He said that he had seen the Foreign Office papers and he had seen nothing to suggest the contention that the ship was sunk to end any Peruvian peace plan.
Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) told the same court with candour:
"if 10,000 men were 8,000 miles from home, the politicians had to act quickly to protect them, even if that meant sinking the Belgrano."
The simple and inescapable truth is that the sinking of the Belgrano was a necessary and legitimate act to protect British lives.
Contemplate the reaction of Parliament and people if the Belgrano had not been sunk and if the Belgrano had then attacked our ships, causing casualties and loss of life among our sailors. Is that what some hon. Members would have preferred? Because an enemy ship was sunk, many British service men are alive today who might otherwise have been at the bottom of the south Atlantic.
It then being clear that the sinking of the Belgrano was a legitimate and necessary act, it follows that there was no action that needed to be covered up.
The next inescapable truth is that, in dealing with the facts surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano, or with any other defence matter, we will always have to balance national security with public accountability. It is clear that any effective rebuttal of the case of the hon. Member for Linlithgow was incompatible with Britain's national security. That is because the hon. Gentleman was clearly determined to tear away all of this country's security and intelligence protection — a nine-question letter to the Secretary of State, for example, the answers to which could have been of considerable assistance to our enemies.
Later, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
"My information is that the Argentinian fleet was, by that time, under orders to return to base".
One can only speculate as to where that information came from. He continued:
"You state that on 2nd May we had an indication about the movements of the Argentinian fleet … what precisely were those indications?"
Confronted with such questions, the answers to which could only have compromised our nation's present and future security, Ministers properly limited the scope of their replies. They would have been failing the nation if they had done otherwise.
788
The last inescapable truth is that the motivation for these attacks by the Opposition, including the Social Democrats, is not because they really believe that Parliament has at any time been deliberately misled, but because of their desire to try to impugn the integrity of the Prime Minister.
The former Speaker of the House, Viscount Tonypandy, reminded us yesterday aptly of the Prime Minister's courage:
"I think that, had a man been Prime Minister, he would probably have lost his nerve long before. Any man would have gone back to the United Nations to make sure that he was not going to be ostracised by the world community, in much the same way as the Opposition were putting themselves in the clear if things went wrong.
Britain would have lost all influence in international affairs if Mrs. Thatcher had submitted to the pressure and gone back to the UN.
It would have meant that, never again, would Britain take any decisive action to defend her people. The Prime Minister showed remarkable courage and determination throughout … By her action, she saved the good name of Britain."
We know that, the people of Britain know that, but the Opposition, realising the strength of her integrity, seek, by whisper and innuendo, to impugn that integrity.
That is what today's debate is all about. The Opposition will fail because the people of Britain will say of them as they have said of others before them:
"Frustrate their knavish tricks. Confound their politics."
7.37 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I doubt whether this is a good occasion on which to refight the naval strategy of the Falklands war, first because the Ministers now responsible were not in office at the time.
I doubt whether it is a good idea, either, to try to reopen the Ponting case, because the jury has acquitted him. I doubt whether we are doing justice to the importance of the issues that face us if we think that the responsibility can be placed simply on the shoulders of what are quite minor figures in the story.
I shall, therefore, draw attention to what I believe to be the real importance of the debate, for which it will be studied in future years, long after the names of the participants, and maybe even the Falklands war are forgotten. That is that we are discussing today a central question, which must be decided, as to the proper relationship between the Cabinet, the Commons and the courts. That is what the debate is about—[Interruption.] —and if the House will listen, I will establish the point.
It arose, in the first instance, because the Cabinet, who are there by virtue of having won the election, and exercise the prerogatives of the Crown, believe, and have argued, that civil servants, once appointed, are bound in duty simply to work for the Ministers of the day, and that point was put powerfully by the Secretary of State in his speech.
I wonder whether hon. Members think that what happened in the Ponting case happened there for the first time. I remind the House of a report in the Daily Telegraph on 13 November 1976. Under the heading:
"Whitehall spies fed Churchill secrets in the 1930s" the article stated:
"Sir Winston Churchill received hundreds of secret documents surreptitiously removed from official files sent to him in breach of the Official Secrets Act when he was fighting appeasement as a back bench MP. Mr. Martin Gilbert, Sir Winston's biographer, reported that these documents had been found in the Churchill Archives at Chartwell and said 'there was total, consistent and persistent breach of the Official Secrets Act'."

789
I do not know, looking at it now, whether Conservative Members think that it was wrong for senior civil servants to keep Mr. Churchill informed when he was a Back Bencher. I remember, as a boy, in 1937, seeing Mr. Churchill sitting where the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup (Mr. Heath), now sits. Were the civil servants wrong to inform Mr. Churchill? They thought they were doing a public duty. Mr. Churchill was getting information which allowed him to destroy the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain, in much the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has undermined the credibility of the Government in regard to the Falklands war. But whatever view we take, we must not think that that question has always been resolved in one way.
I happen to think that civil servants, Ministers, Members of the House of Commons and political parties should never put their consciences in hock to anybody else. If we think that a course of action is wrong, we have a duty to say so. Our religious liberties in Britain would not have been won if people had not broken the law in order to worship as they wished. It was that which laid the foundation for our political liberties.
Was it right of the Attorney-General to prosecute Mr. Ponting when Mr. Ponting was informing a Member of Parliament? There is a precedent for that. I cited it the other day, Mr. Speaker, in a rather unhappy exchange with you about privilege. In 1938, Mr. Duncan Sandys, a Member of the House and a territorial officer, received information from a fellow territorial officer as a result of which he tabled questions in the House of Commons. Following that, Mr. Duncan Sandys, although an MP, was told to appear before a court martial. He sought the support of the House. The House, in a famous Select Committee report on the Official Secrets Act, published in 1939—my father was a member of that Committee, so I was brought up on the doctrine within it—made it clear that Parliament would not allow people to be prosecuted when their only offence was to tell Members of Parliament things that they should know in order to perform their parliamentary duties. Indeed, the House laid down clearly in that decision in 1939 that to prosecute in regard to information falling under the Official Secrets Act, when it is given to a Member of Parliament, is in itself a breach of privilege. Indeed, I believe that the Attorney-General, in bringing that prosecution, was guilty of a contempt of the House.
A great deal of correspondence took place last week between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister concerning the method of prosecution. The Prime Minister spoke as if it were a terrible thing that there should have been any consultation. But the Prime Minister is head of the Civil Service and head of the Armed Forces — indeed, with the nuclear button, she is especially responsible, without any holidays as part of the package. The Prime Minister is also head of the security services and, of course, she is the head of the Government. Therefore, it is inconceivable with the Whitehall network that exists that any contemplated prosecution, under section 2 of the Act, of a most senior civil servant, known to the Prime Minister personally, would not have been reported to No. 10 along the network. The prosecution would not have taken place if the Prime Minister had not given assent. Perhaps, like Henry II, all she said was
790
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"
and left it to others to do what was necessary. No one will persuade me that the Prime Minister was not involved. But in any event she should have been involved.
There is a precedent for everything. In 1924 the Labour Government fell over the Campbell case because the Labour Prime Minister intervened to bring about the dropping of a prosecution. There was a general election and Labour was defeated. Mr. Baldwin, the Conservative Prime Minister, in answering a question about prosecutions, said that
"when the proposed prosecution is of such a character that matters of public policy are, or may be, involved, it is the duty of the Attorney-General to inform himself of the views of the Government or of the appropriate Ministers before coming to a decision."—[Official Report, 18 December 1924; Vol. 179, c. 1214.]
Therefore, if the Attorney-General did not tell the Prime Minister of his intention, he was in breach of a clearly established rule set down by a previous Conservative Prime Minister.
There are other aspects, all of which bear on the relationship between the Cabinet, the courts and Parliament. Where a Minister says to a judge, "That is a matter of national security", I believe that the judge has a duty not to disregard fairness. In his judgment in the GCHQ case Lord Fraser said:
"The decision on whether the requirements of national security outweighed the duty of fairness is for the government and not for the courts; the Government alone has access to the necessary information, and in any event the judicial process is unsuitable for reaching decisions on national security."
If a Minister, using the prerogative that he has temporarily acquired by election, says, "This is a matter of national security", the courts now will not even attempt to be fair. Indeed, in the Ponting case, Mr. Justice McCowan said that
"the interests of the state"
were the same as
"the policy of the Government of the day".
That is a doctrine that every dictator in history would have liked to enshrine in capital letters above his presidential palace. It would be a deadly danger for any party, Conservative, Labour or other, to allow such judgments of the courts to go unchallenged. If we were to accept, in the Commons, that doctrine about national security, the Commons would be capitulating to a Government who had decided to rule by prerogative instead of by accountability to the House of Commons. That is what the debate is about, and it is much more important than whether we can catch each other out with little quotations.
The Secretary of State for Defence has made great play —I am not being personal—about the need to protect the troops. What he is clearly saying is that the Government received all their information about the movements of the General Belgrano from United States intelligence. Everybody who knows anything about such matters knows that we do not have satellite intelligence in the South Atlantic; the Americans do. The Americans intercepted the Argentine messages and sent them to GCHQ. We are not talking about protecting a soldier from being shot tomorrow by a sniper. That is what is usually meant by protecting the boys in uniform in the middle of a war. At the insistence of the Americans, the Government are protecting the fact that it was American intelligence that won the Falklands war by giving us the necessary

791
information. I believe that as a quid pro quo the trade unions at GCHQ—which is a part of that international intelligence system—had to be abandoned.
These are central questions that reopen matters that I was brought up to believe were settled in the 17th century — that the prerogative could not be used so that Ministers could take matters to the courts and get the judgments that they wished; that the prerogative could not be used in Parliament to buy the silence of the Commons in order to accept whatever a Government said; that the prerogative could not be used to put at risk a man of conscience who chose that course rather than his career. Unless this House comes back to those questions and resolves them, we shall find that the so-called Belgrano-Ponting case will turn the clock back not to Victorian days but to a much earlier, less glorious and less democratic period in our history.
7.48 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: I was not intending to mention the name Ponting in my short remarks because, unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I want to concentrate on the main issue for debate tonight the Belgrano incident. (Interruption.] But I cannot forbear from mentioning one aspect that came out of the trial which has not so far been mentioned, because I feel very deeply that the worst offence that Mr. Ponting committed was when he was being questioned by Detective Chief Inspector Hughes. It was mentioned in court and I have the transcript here. Chief Inspector Hughes said:
"I have good reason to suspect that you are involved in passing confidential documents to Mr. Tam Dalyell … For that reason I am going to caution you".
Mr. Ponting said:
"Good God, you don't suspect me".
Then he went on to imply that his own personal staff might have photocopied and leaked those documents. He implied that Mararet Aldred, his principal, Nick Darms, his HEO, and even his own PA, Mrs. Ritchie, might have been the persons who committed the leak. If that is the way that that senior, trusted, civil servant behaved towards his own staff, we are well rid of him.
What saddens me is that two senior right hon. Members who have both held high office, the right hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—alas, only one of them is here, and I am friendly with and respect the other greatly—should rejoice and drink champagne with that sort of a man. It is not worthy of them.
The second thing that Mr. Ponting said, I am afraid, made my blood rise even higher and made me glad that I said what I said yesterday about some of the feelings within the Royal Navy about what was going on. This comes out of yesterday's edition of The Observer:
"I was asked to rephrase the letter (to be sent to Denzil Davies) placing greater emphasis on the Argentine attacks on 1 May. This proved somewhat difficult because the level of attacks had actually been very low and ineffective."
What arrogance that from a comfortable seat in Whitehall Mr. Ponting can judge the effect that the Argentine air force had on our sailors down there who were trying to fight a war. That is why I said yesterday —I do not want to go all through it again today as there is not the time —that some constituents of mine who were down there and did fight came to tell me that they felt very badly indeed that the feeling is still around that
792
all was not quite well over the sinking of the Belgrano. They were in the ships that were attacked. The particular individual who was down below in the Glamorgan when those two bombs went off thought that his end had come. He thought that either they had hit a mine or that they had been torpedoed, so great were the shock waves from those two 1,000 lb bombs from the Argentine air force. In nobody's mind who was there was that a minor or light incident. It was after that that they went to do another job away from the main part of the task force. They were closer to the Belgrano than perhaps has been admitted.
I do not take issue with the Ministry of Defence about that. I do not quarrel with its decision not to give away the position of any of our ships because once it has done that it must give the position of them all. It is the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who has been constantly trying to find out where our submarines and ships were, all information that would be of the greatest value to the enemy, that would give away our——
Mr. Heseltine: There has been a certain amount of interest in this matter. My hon. Friend has taken a great deal of interest in it and asked some questions on the assumption that some of our ships were much closer than it was assumed that they were. We have examined the matter again, and I believe that that is not the case. The issue is clear. The House will understand that calculations were made not only on the precise position of the ships but on the rate at which they could close. Sir John Nott, who was Secretary of State at the time, gave the figure of about 200 miles. I think that it was probably more than that. Perhaps the closest was about 260 miles from the task force. The issue was one of calculation—how quickly the ships could converge. It was because the calculations within the Ministry showed clearly that the risk existed that the answers were given in the way that they were.
Mr. Mates: I do not wish to quarrel with what my right hon. Friend said, nor do I expect him to come out with any of the details. The reason why I am saying this is that I want to make this point. It was perfectly clear to every single member of the task force who was at sea that every single Argentine ship was a threat, wherever it was, because the ships were not out there for any reason other than to threaten our task force and to attack it. At the end of the day, when our men have come back home, they resent very deeply what the hon. Member for Linlithgow says, such as "The Belgrano was going home", "The Belgrano was no threat", "The Belgrano was too old to do any damage to any of our ships". Those facts are simply not the case. The threat was real and not imagined. From what I have been told, the fear in which those brave sailors lived was very real as well.
However, there is one source to which we can go. I know that this has been said before, but it was a long time ago, and most people, I believe, have forgotten it. It is what the Argentines said that they were doing. It all came out in a "Panorama" programme when Fred Emery was describing the events. He said:
"It was 'go' for the Argentine fleet. Then he described how the fleet set sail. Then the Argentine admiral Lombardo said:
'We thought that the British were going to concentrate near Port Stanley and we tried to attack isolated ships or small groups of ships out of that region'."
That description applies exactly to the small group of ships to which I referred. He continued:
"The Air Force were going to attack the ships near Port Stanley".

793
Fred Emery said:
"and the same order to attack isolated British ships that was given to the 'Belgrano' and her ships as well?"
Lombardo said:
"Not up to this moment because she … and the other two escort ships, were going to make an—I don't know how to say in English …
Fred Emery suggested "A pincer movement?" and Lombardo said "Yes". Emery said:
"That's the first Argentine admission the 'Belgrano' was part of the pincer movement to join battle with the British."
What could be clearer than that? What could be clearer than the Argentine naval chief of staff himself setting out on British television what the Belgrano and its group were about? The interview goes on, and once again we refer to the words of the admiral. This is fairly crucial because it is connected with the change of course. Lombardo said that at about midnight the ships were given orders to come back. Emery asked, "To come back where?" and the admiral said:
"To their former positions. That is to say, the two groups in the north to their continent and the group in the south to their States island."
Emery asked:
"Was that a political decision or just a military decision?"
Lombardo replied: "Military decision, sir." The fleet was ordered to turn around for military purposes for one reason and one reason only, that the Argentines had got our intentions wrong. We were not landing when the Argentines thought we were landing or where they thought we were landing. They realised, too late as it turned out, that they were in mortal danger of attack from the task force. That is the sole reason why the Belgrano was ordered to turn round. Anyone who says that it was going home on a Sunday afternoon, back to port, does not know what he is talking about because there it is out of the mouth of the Argentine admiral himself. The captain of the Belgrano himself, captain Bonzo, said:
"If I changed course, it was to complete an anti-submarine tactic so as not to maintain a predictable course for a long time."
If there are hon. Members who will not believe my right hon. Friend or who did not believe Sir John Nott, and they can honestly tell us that they do not believe the naval chief of staff of Argentina either, all that I can say is they do not want to know the truth. The truth is that that ship was a danger. It was a great danger to our task force, particularly to those parts of it that were close to it. At the end of the war the fact that the Belgrano was sunk and the entire Argentine navy went home must have saved countless British lives.
In the middle of all that, for Opposition Members to quibble about the time, place and course, the detail and the distance, is to miss the main point because Opposition Members who were staunchly behind the Government during the war—I am happy to say that that is most Opposition Members—accepted the needs and risks of that war. It is only the few who have sought to make mischief, who have consorted with people who are prepared to deceive and to lie, simply to try to discredit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's handling of the war, who do no service to this country. When they laugh and joke about mistakes and when they rejoice that errors have been made, they do no service to this country either.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be as responsible and statesmanlike when he winds up today as he was when he
794
spoke about the terrorist attack in Brighton. We would look forward to hearing from him that this war was conducted honourably and responsibly because he knows that that is the truth. I hope that he will share that truth with us.
7.59 pm
Mr. Ian Mikardo: If it is thought that this debate should be about what happened during the weekend when the Belgrano was sunk, I should point out that there is no reason to have a debate on that today. We could have debated it at any time in the past year or so with as much knowledge and authority as we now have. The time to debate that matter is not now but in a few weeks' time when we have the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which has been going into the matter in great detail.
When I hear dogmatic views expressed, as we heard from the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), I recall that having spent months going through a mountain of evidence I still cannot make up my mind about the truth of the matter and I look forward to considering it further. How hon. Members who have not looked at the evidence can be so sure and so dogmatic passes my comprehension. As a member of the Select Committee, I take the view that the Government are throwing a grave insult at that Committeee. Having already insulted it by withholding information from it, the Government are now gravely insulting the Select Committee by trying to get the House today to pre-empt and thus devalue its work and its report.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I may refer only to those parts of the Select Committee's work that are already publicly available. It is well known that the Select Committee has been working on this inquiry for some time — well known to everyone except, apparently, the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said today that the only thing being investigated by the Select Committee—he even read out the terms of reference—was the future of the Falklands and the peace process. We concluded that inquiry months ago and issued a report. The Secretary of State himself gave evidence to the Committee. The report itself, under the heading
"Foreign Affairs Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Wednesday 7 November 1984, right hon. Michael Heseltine MP"
has the following title in bold type:
"The events surrounding the weekend of 1–2 May 1982".
When it became clear that the Secretary of State did not even know to what inquiry he had given evidence, I began to doubt the creditworthiness of the rest of his speech.
We are still taking evidence and the Secretary of State has today promised us two further pieces of evidence. He seemed to be claiming some special credit for letting us see the "Crown Jewels" — more than somewhat belatedly, as we had to drag it out of him—but no credit is due to the Secretary of State as it would have been unthinkable for him to withhold that evidence from the Select Committee. If it was not devastatingly damaging for the judge, the jury, the lawyers and their staff and the court officials and servants to know what was in that document, there can be no reason to withhold it from two right hon. and nine hon. Members of this House. I am surprised that the Secretary of State is not requiring us to be vetted by an Old Etonian as was the jury in the Ponting case.
When the House has the Select Committee report, irrespective of the conclusion that we reach about the

795
Belgrano—I do not yet know what conclusion that will be—the House will clearly be in a much better and more informed position to pronounce on the matter than it is today.
The justification for today's debate is a justification for a debate on a quite different subject—the revelations and the things that crawled out of the woodwork during the Ponting trial. Those disclosures have confirmed and supplemented what we already knew about the Government's lying to the House, lying to the Select Committee and lying to the country. I use the word "lying" advisedly, strong though it is, because it is a cardinal principle that suppressio veri is equivalent to suggestio falsi, if only because it violates the second of the three requirements—the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The Legge minute has been mentioned several times. In that minute, a civil servant advised his Ministers to deceive the Select Committee by withholding information. What must concern the House is not that Mr. Legge offered that shabby advice to the Minister for the Armed Forces but that the Minister, with the consent of the Secretary of State, accepted and acted upon it. We now know from the evidence that the Minister for the Armed Forces accepted it enthusiastically—a good deal more enthusiastically than his boss the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State today listed the reasons which Mr. Legge gave for deceiving the Select Committee and which the Minister accepted. Those reasons were wholly bogus, hollow and meretricious and were clearly exposed as such in the Select Committee's examination of the Secretary of State, to which I referred earlier. If any hon. Member doubts my word about that, he should read the evidence, which makes it absolutely clear that those reasons did not stand up under questioning.
As time is limited, I mention just one of the reasons given by Mr. Legge for withholding the information. He said that the rules of engagement
"would have to be paraphrased at some length since their format would be almost incomprehensible to the layman".
Yet those rules were given to the War Cabinet, and all the Ministers who were members of the War Cabinet were laymen. I cannot imagine why it should be thought that what was intelligible to the laymen in the War Cabinet would be beyond the understanding of those on the Select Committee. Was the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), for instance, assumed to be less intelligent and not so quick on the uptake as, say, Lord Whitelaw? The very idea is enough to make a cat laugh. The Secretary of State himself subsequently admitted that it was nonsense when, despite all the reasons that he listed for not giving the rules of engagement to the Select Committee, after much travail he finally gave them to us a few weeks ago. Layman though I am, I had no difficulty at all in understanding them.
One further matter arises out of the Ponting trial. I mention it again as it deserves special attention. A number of people have said that they could not understand why the Government made the mistake of prosecuting Mr. Ponting and that they could not understand what the Government hoped to get out of it. I was not sure myself when I first thought about it. In the light of what has happened, I now know what the Government hoped to get out of putting Clive Ponting in gaol. They hoped to establish, as the judge tried to establish, that their lying to the House was
796
in the national interest. They wanted to protect themselves against any criticism from the Select Committee or anyone else and to be able to say that, however reprehensible the deed, it was done in the national interest.
The aquittal gets rid of all that well and truly. Twelve British citizens have summarily dismissed the judge's monstrous opinion — clearly shared by the Prime Minister and at least some of her Ministers—that the national interest is whatever the Government of the day want to do. That is a monstrous doctrine, because if confers on a Government a cachet of papal infallibility. I do not doubt that all Governments do what they judge to be in the national interest, but no Government have the right to assume that their judgment can never be wrong.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has reached the end of his time.
Mr. Mikardo: I shall just finish my sentence, Mr. Speaker, if I may. No Government should assume that they can never be wrong and that what they do cannot sometimes therefore vary from the national interest. As has been said, that is the cherished doctrine of General Pinochet and of General Jaruzelski. It is the codex of all courts in police states. Before the time of our present Prime Minister and Mr. Justice McCowan, that doctrine was unheard of in our country.
8.10 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: First, I assure the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—for whom I and the whole House have great respect, and who made the only worthwhile contribution from the Opposition Benches—that I would not join in any chorus of criticism of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. I think that he is a bit cracked, if he does not mind my saying so, but I believe that he is absolutely sincere. However, the trouble with people who have bees in their bonnets—and it is right that there should be such people—is that they often find themselves unable to see the wood for the trees.
At least the hon. Gentleman's position is more honourable than that of the Opposition. He consistently opposed the sending of the task force to the Falklands. The Opposition were in favour of sending the task force. However, their amendment shows that they are not even prepared to agree that
"the protection of our Armed Forces must be the prime consideration in determining how far matters involving national security and the conduct of military operations should be disclosed."
In that respect the Labour party suffers by comparison with the Liberal party, whose amendment recognises that factor.
As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, the Ponting trial is over and done with. It has given rise to a great deal of nonsense. Anyone who believes in trial by jury — as I certainly do — must accept the verdict, and that is the end of the matter so far as the courts are concerned. Whether it was right to prosecute is, with hindsight, a matter that can be discussed, but it would be a bad day for British justice if prosecutions authorised by the Attorney-General were automatically assumed to merit conviction, and it would also be a bad day for British justice if an Attorney-General were deterred from prosecuting for fear of an acquittal and a row in Parliament.

797
However, that is not the important issue, nor is the absurd accusation that the Prime Minister lied to the House. The antics of the Opposition over the prosecution were especially ridiculous. Everyone with the slightest intelligence knows that the Attorney-General authorises all prosecutions. The tedious correspondence has bored the pants off everyone and resulted in the Leader of the Opposition making an ass of himself and having to climb down. Likewise, Mr. Ponting himself is not the main issue. However, we are entitled to express nausea at the ridiculous attempt in some quarters to canonise a thoroughly dishonourable man.
Mr. Ponting talks about the right to know, but he did not want anyone to know of his sneaky activities. He did not have the guts to resign, he was prepared to employ double standards in the advice that he gave to Ministers, and he posed as a hero only when he was caught out. Far from regarding him as a hero, I believe that most people would regard him as an unprepossessing and sanctimonious creep. We need not worry about Mr. Ponting. He will soon be a gimmick candidate for the Social Democratic party and will appear endlessly on BBC panel and parlour games.
The Opposition have fallen over themselves to praise Mr. Ponting. I do not mind the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) defending his constituent. However, the Opposition's attitude is in marked contrast to the treatment of my constituent, Mr. Robin Page, a DHSS civil servant, when Labour was in office 15 years ago. Mr. Page was disturbed at the way in which the Labour Government were misleading the House over supplementary benefit frauds. He wrote an article — I accept that he was wrong to do so under a pseudonym —in which he criticised the misleading of the House. He was dismissed by the late Dick Crossman and threatened with the Official Secrets Act. He lost his job and all his pension and gratuity benefits.
The Labour doctrine at that time was as follows. The then Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, now Lord Ennals, said:
"It is intolerable for anyone to feel such confidence in his own righteousness that he is entitled to break the rules of the Civil Service confidence and at the same time stay in his job and denounce the Department in which he serves. I do not see how any Government could work if civil servants were permitted to behave in that way."—[Official Report, 23 February 1970; Vol. 796, c. 955.]
Will the Leader of the Opposition support the re-establishment of my constituent, who has written to him with that request, or will he apply double standards to the cases of the two civil servants? If he does so, the Opposition will be guilty of humbug.
The direction in which the Belgrano was sailing—or, indeed, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), its distance from our ships—is another irrelevancy. It is not of any more vital current importance than the direction in which the Bismarck was sailing in the second world war. The matter is interesting to military historians and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, but everyone else — especially those whose relatives served in the task force — is simply relieved that it was sunk.
What Ministers reveal to the House is, however, a matter of importance. Undoubtedly the maximum information should be disclosed, but there is a very real
798
dilemma that cannot be ignored. Not everything can be revealed. The public understand that, even if the media do not. Where the security of the nation and the safety of service men are at risk, the right to know must take second place. The public would never forgive Ministers who put at risk a single life merely to satisfy the whims of cranks and political opportunists.
As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, the important issue for the future is the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. When I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I was warned by a senior civil servant that the old standards of loyalty were disappearing and that one would be wise not to rely on civil servants in the future as one had done in the past. I found that very sad. I did not really believe it, but that change of atmosphere led to the increased use of political advisers.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield brought in powerful Left-wing political advisers, who cocooned him from the civil servants. I do not think that he was wrong to do so, because I do not believe that the present leak will be an isolated case. Leaks will occur again, and will lead to parties, of whichever complexion, bringing in their own Civil Service, on the lines of the system in the United States, the French Chef du Cabinet system, or, indeed, the more extreme systems of other countries. I believe that that would be a retrograde step, as a responsible Civil Service acts as a shock absorber to ambitious and over-excitable ministerial springs. Our Civil Service has given us an enviable stability in comparison with other nations.
Ministers may disregard all the other nonsense talked in the debate, but they should address themselves to the problem of how to deal in future with relations between officials and Ministers. The Government must consider the general morale within a service upon which we depend. Is all well in that connection? Only Governments can put matters right.
I remind the House again of the wise words of Lord Ennals:
"I do not see how any Government could work if civil servants were permitted to behave in that way."
I take precisely the same view of Mr. Ponting in this case. Much deeper issues are raised in the debate than what happened in the South Atlantic two years ago. Ministers should apply their minds to those issues, and the House should reject the Opposition's absurd amendment.
8.19 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) is absent, as he referred to the Lombardo interview on "Panorama". The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Defence and I assume that he has read the note written by one of the advisers to that Committee, which says of the "Panorama" interview:
"This interview has been seized upon by the government as confirming their fears of 1 and 2 May. It was mentioned for example in the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Foulkes. It has, however, been suggested that Lombardo now feels his remarks were quoted out of context. The phrase 'pincer movement' is probably an overstatement. The Belgrano's Task Group 79.3, comprising some of the least modern ships of the Argentine Navy, was clearly not earmarked for a major offensive role. The sort of manoeuvres described do not conform to a classic pincer movement."
Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this evidence been published?
Mr. Douglas: It is not evidence. It is a note of advice given to hon. Members. I should not quote evidence.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that it is not normal to report the internal proceedings of a Select Committee.
Mr. Douglas: You have my assurance, Mr. Speaker, that I have not quoted evidence. It is a note or observation, and I am prepared to submit it to any hon. Member. I have quoted it merely to contradict some of what the hon. Member for Hampshire, East said.
I do not propose to follow the events of 1 and 2 May because the Select Committee on Defence and others might prise the information out of the Government in due course. I see no reason why the so-called "Crown Jewels" should not be made available to Select Committees that are interested in these matters. Having accepted that view, I trust that the Government will ensure that such information is speedily given to the Select Committees.
I accept that intelligence and operational matters must be kept secret, but the House has not considered how we were operating during Operation Corporate. We never declared war on Argentina but operated under article 51 of the United Nations charter. There might have been good reasons for our not declaring war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave some. One is that, if we had declared war, the United States would have had to make its stance clear; and in those circumstances security and intelligence information from the United States might have been withheld. We should be clear about what we were safeguarding in trying to bottle up the events of 30 April to 2 May 1982. It is one thing to do that at the time, but quite another to do it two or three years after the event.
The kernel of the case against the Government has little to do with Ministers but a lot to do with the Prime Minister's presidential style of government. The nation will be suspicious that she, who is a tenacious lady—much respect has been paid to her today — surrounds herself with people who give her the answers that she wants. That is extremely dangerous. Hon. Members have referred to the dogs that have not barked. I do not mean to be disrespectful to Conservative Members, but some of those dogs are conspicuously absent from this debate. I refer to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins). When Lord Carrington and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne faced difficulties concerning Operation Corporate, they took the opportunity to resign, but the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East got no such opportuntity. The nation will recognise that in this cover-up. The Government operated under perhaps a mistaken view of the diktat of the Prime Minister. Ministers gave her the information that she wanted. That might have involved the Attorney-General. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) gave a potent view of what ought to have happened in regard to the political considerations that should have been in the Attorney-General's mind. There are real dangers in the Prime Minister's approach, which must be halted.
I should like finally to consider the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). One of the reasons why we have parliamentary privilege is to
800
defend our constituents, not ourselves. I have told my constituents and my constituency party that if everyone else in the land thinks that they are wrong but they can convince me that they are right, it is my obligation, with the use of parliamentary privilege, to defend their interests in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow takes the view that his responsibility is to prise the truth out of the Government. That might annoy or upset the Government, but that is what we come here for. There is a distinction between the will of Government, the will of the House and the good of the nation. Through this debate, we are getting a clearer understanding of how the Prime Minister operates. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) questioned the use of "civil servants" in Cabinet. We have a 10 Downing street Cabinet Office which is stacked full of yes-men and women for the Prime Minister. There are dangers in this form of elective dictatorship, especially when the party in government has a large majority.
I welcome this debate and the exposure of the Government's misleading the House and the Select Committee, but I shall welcome it even more if it is clearly understood that some members of the Cabinet should occasionally stand up to the Prime Minister.
8.27 pm
Mr. John Browne: What greater test can any Government face than to fight a military campaign and have a disloyal adviser in a key area of defence? I am reminded of the betrayal of the Spartans at Thermopylae to the Persians.
In what other country would the Government have to balance disclosure against national security in such a blaze of examination, comment and publicity?
Mr. Mikardo: The United States.
Mr. Browne: No, not the President.
Mr. Mikardo: Yes.
Mr. Browne: What party would place its own fortunes so obviously above the national interest to try to bring down a democratically elected Government who, above all others since the war, have faced and continue to face our national interests with courage and integrity?
The Falklands campaign was relatively small but involved intelligence and tactics that still form part of the everyday and overall defence of our nation. We should never forget that, daily, we face a struggle to retain our freedom. Our armed forces must remain vigilant constantly. Our intelligence and tactics are of great interest to the enemies of our freedom.
The Falklands campaign was one of the finest feats of arms in our entire history, in which a decisive factor was the sinking of the Belgrano, which itself was based on intelligence. It would be greatly against the interests of our country to disclose the sources of that intelligence. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked brazenly about the United States being the source of that intelligence. What does he hope to achieve by saying that? If it were true, and I emphasise if it were true, its disclosure could only damage the interests and influence of the United States throughout Latin and South America. It would also damage our relationships with the United States.
We must remember that the Falklands campaign is still operational. We have soldiers, sailors and airmen there

801
today, who must live in a state of war readiness. The disclosure of the source of the intelligence and the tactics are still appropriate to them.
The Government must daily live under the unenviable burden of balancing disclosure and secrecy in the national interests. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am convinced that the Government have balanced disclosure and secrecy in the national interests. I wholly support them in continuing to do so. They have achieved this balance, despite a thoroughly devious and disloyal adviser in a senior position in a key Ministry.
Let us now consider what our constituents think about this matter. I do not believe that the general public care when the Belgrano was sighted, where it was facing when it was engaged, or how far it was from our ships. Most of them do not give a hoot. They are extremely glad that it was sunk.
Our constituents could be excused for feeling that Mr. Ponting was treacherous, especially in the light of our debate. It appears that he did not act in search of a political idealistic truth, nor even for political reasons, but for party political reasons. I accept the court's decision, but I have a big job in persuading some of my constituents to accept it.
The Ponting case has many effects. First, it adversely affects the relationships between Ministers and civil servants. We have an excellent Civil Service, which has extremely high standards, is basically non-political and acts in the national interests. We now have a problem of confidentiality, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out. Secondly, the case has the effect of causing potential delays in political decisions in future wars. That is serious. We face daily the problems of Queen's Order No. 2, and, as my right hon. and hon. Friends will know, I often ask questions about it. In certain circumstances, it may be considered too dramatic a move to mobilise our reserve forces under that order. It would take a major political decision to do that. That is the fear of many military planners, and that presents a genuine risk in our defence posture. The case will affect adversely difficult political decisions that will have to be made in future for the exercise of Queen's Order No. 2.
The debate makes it clear that the decision to sink the Belgrano was utterly correct. Even the Argentinian admiral agrees that he would have done the same in the circumstances. Nevertheless, correct or not, the decision took courage and decisive action. What of the future? We may not be in the fortunate position of having such a decisive and courageous Prime Minister. The effects of this scrutiny of and back biting about a tactical decision in a battle serve our country ill.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) criticised section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Many hon. Members realise that there are things wrong with it, but his credibility vanished when he made a naive statement about GCHQ. Many hon. Members have known about GCHQ, but we have also known that the institution had been infiltrated. It is a top secret location instituted for communications, yet union rules forbade even the searching of brief cases of those leaving the base. It was an amazingly insecure place. Undoubtedly it took courage to re-establish security there. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that
802
section 2 needs to be replaced or substituted, but, until hon. Members can agree on an effective substitute, it should remain.
This debate has shown conclusively that the Government acted decisively, correctly and courageously, and they should be praised for it.
8.36 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: Unlike the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), but like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken, I opposed the decision to recapture the Falkland Islands by force. All the information that has subsequently been given to the House has more than confirmed my judgment.
It was obvious to any layman at the outset that the task force was embarking on an objective which involved great dangers. The information shows that we were lucky that only 255 members of the task force and 754 members of the Argentine forces lost their lives. Many more could have been killed. Inherent in the decision to recapture the Falklands by force was the fact that the Government would subsequently embark on their Fortress Falklands policy. We are spending thousands of millions of pounds a year on that policy, which is indefensible. I say that not in an attempt to be wise after the event but because it is important that the House should learn the lessons of the Falklands exercise. In so far as I would criticise Governments about what happened in the Falklands, the main responsibility lies not with this Government but with all the Governments since 1965, who failed to respond to the resolution carried in the United Nations General Assembly, which called on Argentina and Britain to resolve the issue through negotiations. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands should have been negotiated, and the best deal obtained, during those years when there were democratically elected Governments in Argentina.
The debate is not a general debate about the Falklands, nor the sinking of the Belgrano, but about the circumstances of the trial of Clive Ponting. This afternoon the Secretary of State went to great lengths to discredit Mr. Ponting. To some extent he seemed to attempt to retry him with himself as the prosecuting counsel. Most Conservative Members were clearly convinced by the Secretary of State, but I was not. Time will tell, but the crucial issue that the Secretary of State did not address himself to was the verdict of the trial. The decision was a historic vindication of the jury system. As the defence solicitor for Mr. Ponting said, it was a political verdict at a political trial. That decision is historic because the crucial issue in the trial was the constitutional one, which involved the decision of Ministers to provide misleading information to the House. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman seeking to make out that civil servants made suggestions that resulted in misleading information. That has been the policy for months. At one point it almost seemed as if the right hon. Gentleman was trying to criticise Mr. Ponting for coming forward with proposals to continue the Government's policy of misleading the House of Commons.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate so effectively for the Opposition, quoted the answer which the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 21 February. Indeed, my hon. Friend has pursued these matters diligently over the years. That was an important answer. It was not just a spontaneous answer

803
to a supplementary question. It will be recalled that that question had stood on the Order Paper for two weeks. It specifically asked the Prime Minister why she would not set up a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano. We know that the Prime Minister's answer was far from the truth. There is also the whole question of the so-called Stanley memorandum.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, this is not about the Legge minute or about what civil servants wrote. They were simply doing what the Government wanted. The issue is that the Government chose to submit the memorandum to the Select Committee. That memorandum was designed to mislead the Select Committee, which had asked for information on the changes in the rules of engagement.
Dr. Hampson: Surely the Select Committee asked for a document that was not classified, and that is what it got. When it asked for a classified document with full information, it got that.
Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentlman reads the Legge minute, he will understand what I am referring to. That memorandum was at best intended to prevent the Select Committee from getting the information that it sought.
It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have now decided to allow the Select Committee to see the document known as the "Crown Jewels". When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was most adamant that it should not see that document. It is obviously important that the Government have now decided to make it available. When the Minister of State replies, I hope that he will make it clear that there is no qualification other than that of the most elementary precautions that one might take, and that all members of the Select Committee will see the whole document.
The crucial issue is the Government's responsibility to Parliament. Our unwritten constitution does not work if Parliament cannot depend on Minister's telling the truth. They have not told the truth on this issue. Incidentally, I hope that the Select Committee will explain why the truth has not been told. I still find it mysterious that the Government should have maintained this deception for so long if, as the Secretary of State has said, there was nothing to hide. That is the task of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and we shall see whether it is able to provide an answer to that question.
This whole debate will be a tragic, wasted opportunity if it does not lead the Government to reconsider their position and to abandon the approach whereby they are prepared deliberately to mislead this House. That is the crucial historic lesson of that vetted jury which declared Mr. Clive Ponting innocent.
8.43 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Three dates are crucial to the argument about the sinking of the Belgrano. The first is 2 April 1982, when Argentine armed forces invaded the Falkland Islands, engaged in combat with the British armed forces there, captured the British armed forces and expelled our governor. That was every bit as much an act of war as when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. From that moment onwards, the armed forces of the Crown were perfectly entitled to sink any Argentine warship anywhere, except in neutral waters.
804
They needed no permission in international law from the Prime Minister, or any declaration of war. War came into existence when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
The second date — and this has not yet been mentioned in the debate—is 25 April 1982. On 26 April 1982 The Times carried an article from Nicholas Ashford, dated Washington, 25 April, and headed:
"Costa Mendez says it is technically war".
It stated:
"Senor Costa Mendez underlined how seriously he considered the situation when he told reporters on his arrival in New York that Argentina was now technically in a state of war with Britain."
Therefore, for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to refer to the sinking of the Belgrano in a state of war as "murder" is forgivable only in someone who is not responsible for the words that he utters.
This is crucial. Why should the House want to debate the sinking of the Belgrano, any more than the shooting down of an aircraft? Time and again, at Question Time and in defence debates, Opposition Members have come back to the sinking of the Belgrano and have used words which they knew to be untrue when they described it. It was a perfectly legitimate act of war, as would have been the sinking of the aircraft carrier The 25 of May, whatever course she was on and whatever orders she had received. This is the central truth of the matter.
My only other comment is to invite the House to recollect how even the Israeli intelligence forces were wholly deceived by the signals put out by the Egyptians before they attacked in the last war between Israel and Egypt. If the House remembers those two things, it will have grasped the central point and the complete justification for the sinking of the Belgrano.
8.47 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is a long-term Member of the House. He will know that the Opposition are not refighting the war. We are concerned with the fact that Ministers have sought to conceal information from the House of Commons and its Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
If Conservative Members vote for the motion tonight, they will do so before having the benefit of a White Paper — which has often been called for—and before they have the benefit of the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a number of matters relating to the attempt of Ministers to keep certain material from the House and its Foreign Affairs Select Committee. We know that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was not too keen on divulging material. Indeed, we know that he was less keen than was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
We were told in court evidence last week that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces went to No. 10. The private secretary to the Secretary of State, Mr. Mottram, was examined by Mr. Laughland, counsel for the defence, and we know that Mr. Mottram wrote the following memorandum to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The evidence states:
"The Secretary of State"—
for Defence—
"would prefer to reserve the argument that you could not reveal operational matters for those cases where it was the professional judgment of those concerned within the department that there were genuine security objections to giving that information?"

805
Mr. Mottram replied:
"Yes."
It is a pity that neither Minister is here, because it is clear from that that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was, in common words, trying to use the formula of "operational matters", contained in this memorandum, rather than the well-tried formula, subsequently used by the Secretary of State, of, "I have nothing to add to the letter that my right hon. Friend sent to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)." From that court evidence alone, it can be seen that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was attempting to keep information out of parliamentary answers, beyond rules and precedent.
I wish particularly to look at the matters relating to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It was the Legge minute, about which we have already heard, that caused Mr. Ponting to reveal this information to the Select Committee, and so to the House. The Legge minute told Ministers that they should not reveal, or if they did it would be more than they had done already, the rules of engagement of 30 May and the extent of the changes in the rules of engagement of 2 May. These matters were in the Legge minute, and it was these matters which this afternoon the Secretary of State claimed were matters of security. I believe that he was attempting to put up a false front to defend, not the safety of our armed forces, but the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the conduct of the Prime Minister.
In the court case, evidence was given not only by Mr. Mottram but by the secretary who wrote that minute, Mr. Legge, himself. Mr. Legge was cross-examined by Mr. Laughland about the matter. Mr. Legge had received a minute on this matter from Mr. Darms of another Department, and Mr. Laughland said:
"No. Even that would show that on 30th April the Government had authorised what is called 'the engagement of', that means the attack on, the carrier even outside the total exclusion zone?
A. It was permitted, yes.
Q. Was there, to your knowledge, some disadvantage of a national nature, security nature, in revealing that that had been authorised from the 30th April?
A. Not that single piece of information, but the grounds on which it was taken.
Q. And also, of course, the danger to which you were being alerted was that the change on the 2nd May wasn't just to sink the Belgrano, but really authorised attacking all or any Argentine warships over a very large area, whether inside or outside the TEZ.
A. Again, the reasons — — The fact itself would not be sensitive, it is the reasons for the decision."
The House will remember that this afternoon the Secretary of State—I am glad that he has now come into the Chamber — implied that he had declined to answer the questions of the Select Committee, which asked for the dates, the reasons for and the outcome of the changes of the rules of engagement, because security was involved. In the evidence from the trial that I have read, no less than the assistant secretary, on oath, said that those matters were not security sensitive. That backs up the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition because it shows, beyond question, that the Secretary of State, backed up by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, acting on the advice of Mr. Legge's minute, was attempting, and initially successfully attempting, to withhold information from the House. That is what my right hon. Friend's amendment is about.
806
If that is so, it is up to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces when he winds up the debate to deny those facts, or they stand. If they stand, they are bound to raise further questions, which Conservative Members should ask themselves. They will raise questions which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be bound to ask. What is more important, they will raise questions which people outside the House will continue to want answered.
Before Conservative Members vote for the motion, they should ask themselves some questions. First, why has this motion been rushed on to the Floor of the House before a more considered one? Why are the Government trying to fight the battle of the Falklands again on the results on a court case at the Old Bailey? I can only suggest that the defence that they are trying to make—on security—is really a defence of the Government's past conduct rather than an attempt to defend the rights of the House and of the British people.
The last question that I put to Conservative Members is one that they will be asked in due course. Events will take their course, more will be revealed and there will be questions. At the next general election, this is one of the questions which the electorate will ask of all hon. Members who vote for the Government's motion: why was this motion put down, on what basis of evidence did you vote for it, and why did you not vote for the Opposition's amendment? The person who will have to answer those questions more than any other is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the Prime Minister.
8.56 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for having allowed me four minutes.
This is not the first time that we have considered an issue of this nature. The closest parallel was the sinking of the French fleet by the Royal Navy at Oran in 1940. On that occasion, 1,297 French sailors lost their lives. Sir Winston Churchill said:
"This was a hateful decision, the most unnatural and painful in which I have ever been concerned … No act was ever more necessary for the life of Britain and for all that depended upon it."
That act was regarded as regrettable, but it was not regarded with remorse.
We should look on the Belgrano episode in the same light. I shall point out some evidence that has not yet been mentioned. Lord Lewin said in the Sunday Telegraph on 8 April 1984 that
"the Belgrano constituted a potential threat to the Task Force and she had been used to direct aircraft which scored near misses on Task Force ships."
I take it that he meant by that that the Belgrano had been helping to direct the aircraft that attacked the Glamorgan, and only just missed it with two 1,000 lb bombs.
The role of the civil servant was referred to by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) at the conference that he addressed at the weekend. He spoke of Mr. Clive Ponting having a higher duty. It is only fair to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said to me when he was a Minister some years ago and I thought that he had overruled his civil servants. On 17 June 1976, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"As the hon. Gentleman knows, officials of the Department give evidence on behalf of Ministers. Officials have

807
no views. They are the spokesmen of the Government of the day." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 June 1976; c. 419.]
If it was the view of the right hon. Gentleman on 17 June 1976 in the Committee which considered the Health Services Bill that officials had no views, it is obvious that he has changed his mind. But in the very unlikely event that he obtains office again, how may we be certain that he will not revert to his old role of treating civil servants as having no views?
When a great deal of circumstantial evidence is provided about an act—and during my brief stay with the Army this struck me very forcefully—it is possible to discern the pattern or secret behind it. But, to be absolutely safe, it is difficult to know with certainty how much evidence can be safely provided without revealing the nature of the secret or secrets. I suggest that where the lives of a great many British service men are at risk, they must be protected by keeping those secrets intact and safe. It is my view that the satisfaction of the obsessional curiosity about intelligence of anyone is not worth the life of a single British soldier.
9 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This has been a debate in which there have been several speeches of high quality. However the most significant speeches are those which have not been delivered. In the Conan Doyle story, "Silver Blaze", Sherlock Holmes drew attention to what he called the curious incident of the dog in the night time. Watson replied that the dog did nothing in the night time, to which remark Holmes responded, "That was the curious incident." In this debate, there have been not one but two silent dogs — the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. Their silence is as significant as anything that they might have said had they spoken. It is as though we have sat through a performance of "Hamlet", but without Gertrude and without Guildenstern—though, of course, we are about to hear from Yorick.
With the failure of the Prime Minister either to speak today or to answer the detailed questions put to her in correspondence by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I suppose that we shall never know the full truth behind the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting. What is perfectly obvious is that there are a lot of people who want to make it clear that they had nothing to do with it.
The Prime Minister memorably told the House last week that she was on holiday when the decision was taken. The Attorney-General owned up that he, too, was on holiday. During a press conference at Rosyth dockyard, the Secretary of State for Defence declared mysteriously that he was out of his office at the time, but the Prime Minister later said that he, too, was on holiday or, as she put it, "on leave" — rather appropriately for someone who likes to dress up in combat gear. As for the Minister for the Armed Forces, he was on holiday as well.
One can imagine the inter-office memorandum that flew around Whitehall that carefree August:

"We're all going on a summer holiday

No more working for a week or two."

The House will recall that the words go on:

"Everybody has a summer holiday

Doing things they always wanted to

So we're going on our summer holiday

To make our dreams come true."

808
All these vacationing Ministers have carefully worked out alibis. So what is the solution to the mystery? The answer is that the person responsible for the decision to prosecute was the Solicitor-General. Yes, the butler did it.
But we all know that the Secretary of State for Defence wanted it done. He told Sir Ewen Broadbent, his second permanent secretary, that in his view Mr. Ponting should be prosecuted, and I understand that a minute of that meeting was taken.
What was it that made the Secretary of State so convinced that this civil servant should be put on trial. After all, Mr. Ponting was not the only person who had prima facie broken the Official Secrets Act by revealing information about the sinking of the Belgrano. Commander Christopher Wreford-Brown, the captain of the Conqueror, the submarine that sank the Belgrano, revealed the true date of the sighting of the Belgrano nearly a year before the Government admitted it. He was in clear breach of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, yet nearly two years later he has not been prosecuted. In June 1984, Lord Lewin, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, revealed to journalists details of the role of the top secret hydrophonic towed array system in detecting the Belgrano, information that the Secretary of State said today it was unthinkable to reveal. And eight months later Lord Lewin has not been prosecuted.
Even if one considers only the papers that Mr. Ponting leaked, the person who received those papers—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—was liable for prosecution, yet he, too, remains at large. Nor has it been suggested by anybody that Mr. Ponting violated national security. Indeed, prosecuting counsel at the trial said specifically:
"It is not suggested that the disclosure, in fact, damaged national security."
This assertion was clearly repeated by the judge at the trial who, it is fair to say, sought scrupulously not to bias the jury in favour of Mr. Ponting. The judge said:
"Mr. Amlott, for the Crown, has at all stages made clear that it is not suggested by the Crown that the disclosure made by the defendant to Mr. Dalyell in fact breached national security."
So why was it Mr. Ponting who had to be put on trial and, if at all possible, sent to gaol? It was because he had committed the unpardonable sin of drawing the attention of a Member of Parliament to the fact that for months on end Ministers of the Crown had not only been misleading Parliament but that their action had not been inadvertent or accidental, for those two leaked documents demonstrated that certain information had either been deliberately withheld from Parliament, even though hon. Members had asked for it and it was not classified information, or else had been supplied to Parliament in a form and manner that were calculated to mislead. That is why the discredited section 2 of the Official Secrets Act had to be brought into operation, a section which the present Home Secretary in this House described, when in opposition, as "simply indefensible." Mr. Ponting had blown Ministers' cover and disclosed their cover-up, so he had to be the subject of a political trial—a show trial.
The hope of Ministers must have been that a verdict of guilty would vindicate all they had done. It could also be politically useful in reviving the patriotic fervour of the Falklands period itself. The Government, after a favourable verdict, could once again drape themselves in the White Ensign, even though their true colours were the Jolly Roger. So the Ponting trial was all set to be a

809
triumphant revival of that successful favourite, "Oh, What a Lovely War!" Unfortunately for the Government, its real title turned out to be "The Man Who Knew Too Much."
It has repeatedly been pointed out today that until April of last year the Government had consistently given the impression that the Belgrano was sighted on 2 May 1982, the day on which it was sunk. That was the information supplied to this House by Sir John Non, then Secretary of State for Defence, on 4 May when the sinking of the Belgrano was announced. In fact, the Belgrano was sighted on 1 May and located on 30 April.
It was only in her reply to a letter sent from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. (Mr. Davies) dated 4 April 1984, a reply that took more than four weeks to draft, that the Prime Minister finally admitted the correct date. That letter also purported to provide for the first time information relating to the change in the rules of engagement that authorised the sinking of the Belgrano. But even after that letter the Government still refused to give to the House details of the course of the Belgrano before she was sunk or of the public warning that was issued in connection with her sinking.
It was the problem of how to reply to my right hon. Friend, together with a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, that led to a series of grubby, squalid meetings at the Ministry of Defence and in Downing street.
Before the spring of last year, Ministers had regularly seen to it that false information about the sinking had been communicated to Parliament and to the country. On 14 December 1982 a White Paper on the Falklands war was published. Paragraph 110 of that White Paper opened with the words:
"On 2 May HMS Conqueror detected the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano".
When Sir John Nott told Parliament, two days after the sinking of the Belgrano, that she had been sighted on 2 May when it was really 1 May that mistake was excusable in the aftermath of the engagement and taking into account possible difficulties in communication. But by the time of the publication of the White Paper the true date was known. What was a pardonable mistake in May had become an untruth in December.
Moreover, on that same date, 14 December, a dispatch on the war from Sir John Fieldhouse, the Chief of Naval Staff, was published in the London Gazette. Sir John had wanted to put the true date of the sinking, 1 May, into the dispatch, but his dispatch was doctored in circumstances which are still not clear, and the false date was substituted for the true one.
As time went on, further items of false information were supplied to the House by Ministers. Statements remained in Hansard, in a White Paper presented to the House and in the London Gazette which not only were misleading but which Ministers knew to be misleading. No effort was made in the usual and accepted way to correct them. They were simply left on the record. Not a single correction has ever been volunteered by the Government. Every admission has had to be squeezed out of them.
Then the letter arrived from my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The first reaction that came from the Secretary of State was creditable. Being relatively new to his post he wanted to know the facts about the Belgrano and that is why Mr. Ponting was asked to compile the
810
background brief that became known as the Crown Jewels. The Secretary of State is reported to have said at the time that he did not want another Watergate. There is one considerable difference, among others, between this affair and Watergate. At least Nixon had the tapes to help him remember what lies he had told.
At the end of March, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State finally got round to considering what advice to give to the Prime Minister on the reply that she should send to my right hon. Friend. Two meetings were held at the Ministry of Defence, one on 30 March and the other on 1 April. What emerges clearly from the trial evidence, not simply from Mr. Ponting, but just as plainly from Mr. Mottram, the Secretary of State's private secretary, and also from internal memoranda which were produced, is that the aim of those meetings was not to decide how best to tell the truth to Members of Parliament. No, Mr. Speaker. The objective of Ministers throughout was to see what they could get away with; what they could palm off on Parliament.
Indeed, the Minister of State had asked for two draft replies to be prepared——
Mr. Heseltine rose——
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way when I have finished my passage, as the Secretary of State said.
The Minister of State had asked for two replies to be prepared, one of which would give a truthful account of the events and the other which would not. That request caused such bewilderment that the Minister of State confirmed his instruction in writing. Which draft did the Minister of State prefer? The game is given away by the documents placed in the Library today by the Secretary of State. In his minute accompanying those drafts, Mr. Ponting wrote: "Minister (AF)"—that is the Minister of State—
"asked me to prepare a draft admitting for the first time that Belgrano was sighted on 1 May and not 2 May, this is draft 2 attached."
The Minister of State could not wait to scribble next to that the words
"No. Drafts on both bases were sought."
Would he have scrawled those words if he was content with the truthful version?
Mr. Heseltine: The House will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has skipped time in order to give credibility to a wholly misleading account of the events. The purpose of those two meetings that took place on the Friday and the Sunday was to decide how to cope with the request for information in the light of Mr. Ponting's advice that the answers were to do with intelligence and operational information.
Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Ponting is not answerable to the House, but the Secretary of State is. It is he whom we are holding to account this evening. The trial evidence—
Mr. Heseltine: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the truth?
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman can no doubt give lessons in that.
The trial evidence makes it quite clear that the Minister of State wanted the evasive version to be sent. The information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli had requested was unclassified, but the Minister of State insisted that it was classified. When the meeting decided that at any rate the true date of the sighting should

811
be supplied, the Minister of State disagreed. The Secretary of State, with the permanent secretary, then went across the road to see the Prime Minister. They left at 4.30 pm and returned at 7.30 pm. In his evidence to the Select Committee on 7 November 1984 the Secretary of State said:
"the only time that I have been to the Prime Minister to reveal something that I felt had to be put right in terms of the record of the House of Commons, she could not have been quicker in urging me to make the earliest possible rectification."
Nearly three hours seems a long time to make a decision that could "not have been quicker".
Even so the answer sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli was in part misleading due to the intervention of the Minister of State. It was he who recommended that there be inserted in the Prime Minister's reply an extract from a lecture by Admiral Woodward, which included the statement:
"I therefore sought, for the first and only time throughout the campaign, a major change to Rules of Engagement to enable Conqueror to attack Belgrano outside the Exclusion Zone."
The letter from the Prime Minister went on:
"Ministers agreed to the proposed change in the Rules of Engagement at about 1 pm London time on 2 May."
It is quite true that that is what Admiral Woodward asked for, but it is not what he got. The War Cabinet certainly agreed to a change in the rules of engagement, but the minute leaked by Mr. Ponting pointed out that
"the change on 2 May was not restricted to Belgrano but included all Argentine warships over a large area."
Conservative Members cheer. But that is why Sir Clive Whitmore, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, supported inclusion of this passage with the memorable justification that it was "not a direct lie." Sir Clive is, of course, a former private secretary to the Prime Minister.
So, content that they were not telling a direct lie, the Ministers approved the draft and sent it across to the Prime Minister. She then, at noon on 2 April, held a meeting with Lord Whitelaw and the Chief Whip
"to consider the political aspects of the letter",
or, to put it another way, to consider the political risks of telling part of the truth even if part of it was not a direct lie. That letter was duly sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli.
The problem still remained of what reply to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Mr. Ponting offered a draft which would have for the first time admitted that the Belgrano had reversed course on the day she was sunk. That information was unclassified, but the Minister of State opposed its being provided and the Secretary of State accepted the Minister of State's advice. In dealing with that letter, the Minister of State opposed providing the requested information and said in a memorandum:
"It is not our practice to comment on military operational matters."
The memorandum went on:
"Mr. Stanley personally has no difficulty whatsoever on operational grounds in declining to give this information. The text of the draft letter to Mr. Dalyell attached to Head of DH5 Minute abundantly illustrates, in Minister AF's view, the depth of the water the Secretary of State would get into were he to send it."
The Minister of State said that it would be "a danger to answer." A reply was sent which provided no information. My hon. Friend was not to be put off, and tabled a series of parliamentary questions. It was then that the Minister of State suggested that a reply should say:
"It is not our practice to comment on military operational matters or details of military operations."
812
But Mr. Ponting pointed out that it was not possible to sustain that line because the Prime Minister had provided operational information. The Secretary of State rejected the Minister of State's suggested reply, but he did not provide the information that my hon. Friend had requested.
Again, seeking further to avoid providing information to my hon. Friend, the Minister of State sent a minute, which stated:
"The Minister has subsequently discussed a slight variation in the Secretary of State's answer with No. 10 so as to provide a justification for effectively declining to answer Parliamentary Question 3143C."
On another occasion when two writers, Mr. Arthur Gayshon and Mr. Desmond Rice, put a series of questions on the Belgrano sinking to the Ministry of Defence, officials prepared replies. But the Minister of State prevented the replies from being sent, saying that he did not wish to encourage any debate whatever about the Belgrano.
Yet again the Minister of State held a meeting with Admiral Sir Peter Stanford, Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff. He asked Sir Peter to agree with him that all information relating to the Belgrano was classified. Sir Peter refused to do so.
In May of last year the Minister of State sent a minute to Mr. Ponting saying that all future questions on the Belgrano should be given the reply that it was not the Department's practice to comment on military operational matters. But that was not so. The Department frequently comments on military operational matters.
Then last June came the request from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for a note
"listing all the changes which had taken place in the Rules of Engagement for the Task Force during the conflict, together with the dates and the reasons for the outcome of those changes."
Such was the climate of deception and misinformation in the Ministry of Defence that one official, Mr. Baker, sent a minute saying:
"I should be grateful for any corrections of fact or emphasis, particularly from DS5B, with relation to the Belgrano aspects lest I have departed inadvertently from the public line and risk a breach in our united front."
That was a united front against a Select Committee of this House — [Interruption.] — and Mr. Legge submitted another minute which offered a series of reasons for not providing the information requested, among which was:
"a full list of changes would provide more information than Ministers have been prepared to reveal so far about the Belgrano affair."
The Secretary of State said that that reason was irrelevant. If it was irrelevant, why did Mr. Legge feel it necessary to give it?
So on the instructions of the Minister of State a draft reply was prepared for the Select Committee which very specifically and very deliberately did not provide what was requested. What is more, it repeated in paraphrase a passage in the Prime Minister's letter which had been dubbed by Sir Clive Whitmore as "not a direct lie". The Secretary of State agreed that that unsatisfactory and misleading memorandum should be sent.
It was not only the Minister of Defence who was involved; we have also to consider the role of the Prime Minister herself for a period of nearly two years. The Prime Minister, in a series of parliamentary answers and letters to MPs, provided information that was inaccurate, misleading or both.
The Prime Minister stated:

813
"The 'General Belgrano' and her escort had made many changes of course during 2 May." — [Official Report, 16 December 1982; Vol. 34, c.199.]
But, in fact, the Belgrano made one major change of course, reversing her direction away from the task force.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked the Prime Minister to make available, on Privy Councillor terms, a full account of the events leading up to the sinking of the Belgrano, the Prime Minister replied:
"No. There is nothing that can usefully be added to what has already been said."—[Official Report, 28 February 1983; Vol. 38, c.11.]
But there was a great deal which could usefully be added, and the Prime Minister herself added it, not on Privy Council terms but in letters to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli 13 months later and to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) five months after that. So that reply from the Prime Minister was also misleading.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked about the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano, the Prime Minister said:
"The full facts were given in several replies in the House. All the facts were there."—[Official Report, 21 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 695.]
But the full facts had not been given; all the facts were not there. Within six weeks more facts were given to my right hon. Friend, and in the following September more facts still were published, so again the Prime Minister's remarks were false.
On 4 April came the Prime Minister's letter to my right hon. Friend which included the alleged information about the rules of engagement—the information described as "not a direct lie"—so that was a misleading answer.
In a reply yet again to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, the Prime Minister said:
"The circumstances leading to the sinking of the Belgrano were described in my letter to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on 4 April."—[Official Report, 17 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 225.]
But, quite apart from the misleading passage in that letter, the right hon. Lady had not described all the circumstances that could be published, since more information was provided in her letter of 19 September to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. My hon. Friend received that response following a letter that he sent to the Prime Minister after the documents leaked by Mr. Ponting had been published in the New Statesman.
It was only at that very late point, with the facts already published against the Prime Minister's wishes, that the Prime Minister could bring herself to come clean, but even so she could not control her penchant for peddling misleading information. In a letter dated 8 October 1984 to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) she said:
"The Belgrano certainly made many changes of course during May 2nd."
That reply was in direct contradiction to paragraph 10 of the annex to her letter of 19 September.
In the light of that conglomeration of misleading answers—[Interruption.]—how can the Prime Minister possibly justify the statement that she made last Thursday, when she said:
"There has been no attempt whatsoever to mislead the House."
She was much nearer the mark when she said on the same day:
814
"I think that if there is a charge to be made against me, it is that I have given too many facts that might best not have been given." — [Official Report, 14 February 1985, Vol. 73, c. 479–80.]
Yes indeed. The trouble is that all the facts are different. The fact is that this Government prosecuted Mr. Ponting, but it is the Government who were convicted. The Government who prosecuted Mr. Ponting are a contemptible Government. They are a dangerous Government. They are a Government fashioned in the image of their Prime Minister. They are a Government who must go.
9.29 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The accounts that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has given of the events in the Ministry of Defence are a complete travesty of what occurred. In his speech this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his view, and our view, of what occurred, and I am confident that reasonable people in the House—I hope, on both sides—will find in favour of the views given by my right hon. Friend.
As the right hon. Members for Gorton and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to the two drafts, which is a matter of importance to me, I shall refer to it. It is the case that I requested Mr. Ponting to produce two drafts in response to the letter of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I shall explain why once again. The chronology starts with a question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked in 1982. The question was:
"at what time contact with the 'General Belgrano' was first made by one of Her Majesty's submarines."
The question fell to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), to answer. My right hon. Friend was advised in writing that the information sought was classified, and he was advised not to give it. My right hon. Friend therefore replied on 10 December 1982:
"It would not be in the public interest to give this information."—[Official Report, 10 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 621.]
That was the existing public position, coupled with a statement made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in another place on 13 July 1983, when my noble Friend said that the reference to 2 May in the Falklands White Paper
"was not intended to indicate when the cruiser was first located." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1983; Vol. 443, c. 884.]
When the letter from the right hon. Member for Llanelli arrived, I could have asked Mr. Ponting to prepare just one draft in accordance with existing ministerial statements, and it was perfectly proper for me to ask for a draft on that basis. But I actually went further. I took the initiative, and I was the first Minister to do so, in asking Mr. Ponting to go further than Ministers had done before and to prepare a draft acknowledging that the Belgrano was sighted on 1 May rather than 2 May. To twist and distort my request into saying that I asked for two drafts to be prepared, one telling the truth and one telling a lie, is frankly a monstrous slur—[Interruption.]
The debate has centred on information and on the responsibilities of Ministers for the disclosure of information to Parliament. I shall devote my remarks to that central issue. In deciding how much information to disclose surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano,

815
Ministers in fact had three options. They had the option of full disclosure, the option of no disclosure and the option of partial disclosure.
Full disclosure was only a theoretical option. In practice, the security and operational sensitivities surrounding the sinking were such that it would clearly have been wholly irresponsible to go down the path of full disclosure. I do not believe that that is seriously challenged.
A policy of non-disclosure was, however, an option. It would have been a perfectly respectable option and one well grounded in the statements of successive defence Ministers in successive Governments. The last time this issue was addressed by a Select Committee of the House was in the 1971–72 Session when it was considered by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions. That Committee's report listed in appendix 9 all the matters about which successive Administrations had refused—I quote the word "refused"—to answer questions. It is a remarkably long list. In the list of matters on which the Ministry of Defence had refused to answer questions is "operational matters".
Since that Select Committee report, successive Secretaries of State for Defence have been asked to list the subjects on which it is not their practice to answer parliamentary questions. On each and every occasion when that question has been asked, the Secretary of State concerned has included "operational matters" among his subjects. That was true of the answer given by Mr. Mulley, as he then was, on 2 May 1978. It was true of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) on 9 November 1979, it was true of the answer given by Mr. Nott, as he then was, on 11 November 1982, and it was true of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 June last year. When my right hon. Friend gave his answer that it is not the practice to provide information on operational matters, that answer occasioned no comment, no criticism and no challenge.
Against that background, Ministers would have been perfectly justified from the outset in adopting a policy of non-disclosure, certainly in anything like the operational detail that has been given both in this Parliament and in the last Parliament well before Mr. Ponting commenced his activity. The fact is that from the very beginning Ministers went considerably further than they strictly need have done in disclosing the details of this particular operation. The easy option of non-disclosure was rejected and the difficult option of partial disclosure was adopted from the outset. That was a very creditable decision on the Government's part and should be recognised as such.
Having rejected non-disclosure, it may be asked why Ministers had to stop at partial disclosure and not go the whole way. Some say that the reasons were political. We argue that they were of a genuine security and operational nature. I will take the political aspect first.
The thesis that the Belgrano was torpedoed for political reasons to torpedo the Peruvian peace initiative is, I believe, now completely discredited and has even been repudiated by Mr. Ponting. No other significant political reason has ever been advanced as to why Ministers should have something to hide in relation to the Belgrano. The thesis that there has been a cover-up for political reasons, big or small, does not wash, never has washed and never will wash.
816
The House might reasonably conclude, therefore, that the only conceivable reason why successive Ministers since May 1982 have been forced to adopt a policy of only partial disclosure is that of security and operational considerations of the very highest importance. The House would be right to come to such a conclusion.
I will now deal with those considerations as best I can in this public forum. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), and to others of my hon. Friends, for stressing the key importance of protecting sensitive operational information.
Whether on Belgrano matters one takes as one's watchword the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or whether, as is apparently the case on the other side of the House, one takes as one's watchword the words of Mr. Ponting, one cannot escape the conclusion that issues of the very highest security importance surrounded the sinking of the Belgrano.
In her letter to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 19 September last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"I must make it clear that it would be, and will remain, quite wrong for me to disclose all the material that was available to Ministers at the time. To do so would still risk irreparable damage to national security and could put lives at risk in the future."
These words were chosen very deliberately and with immense care. They represent not one degree of exaggeration.
Those who prefer the words of Mr. Ponting need look no further than the classification of the detailed account that he wrote for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State into aspects of the sinking of the Belgrano. As the originator of that account, Mr. Ponting was responsible for its classification. He classified it "TOP SECRET — CODEWORD", the highest security classification that there is. Mr. Ponting was therefore equally clear that issues of the highest security importance were at stake.
However, there is one further aspect of security matters in relation to Mr. Ponting of which the House should be aware, as it bears directly on the view that the House may take of how Ministers have acted. I have seen it widely reported that Mr. Ponting knew all. Mr. Ponting did not know all, and Mr. Ponting did not know the most important of all.
I do not think that any reasonable Member of this House can doubt that from the time when the Belgrano was sunk a very real security constraint has materially affected how much information Ministers could give to Parliament. The constraints on Ministers in disclosing information about the sinking of the Belgrano have also had a vitally important naval operational dimension. This was a submarine operation. Of all the conventional weapon systems — on land, sea and air — there is no system where it is more crucial to protect information about capabilities and about the conduct of operations than submarines.
The Falklands conflict represented far and away the most important operational deployment of the Royal Navy's submarines since the second world war. By the same token it represented, and it still represents, far and away the most important opportunity for hostile intelligence—Soviet intelligence as well as Argentine

817
intelligence—to obtain an insight into our submarine capabilities and into their methods of operation. [Interruption.]
All the public attention has tended to be focused on just one of our submarines—HMS Conqueror.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose——
Mr. Stanley: In the words of the debate, I will complete my passage. Then I will give way.
In fact, it was just one of our submarines that deployed to the South Atlantic during the conflict; we deployed a total of six—HMS Conqueror, HMS Courageous, HMS Onyx, HMS Spartan, HMS Splendid and HMS Valiant. One conventional submarine and no fewer than five SSNs, the nuclear powered attack submarines, were deployed.
In dealing with parliamentary questions, we had therefore to take into account that what questions were answered about one SSN would prospectively have to be answered about the others. And we have indeed had questions about the activities of HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan as well as about HMS Conqueror. We had to take into account that what we revealed — even on an unclassified basis—might be prejudicial to our conduct of SSN operations in the future.
We had to take into account the exceptionally important and sensitive roles of SSNs in the NATO theatre.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Answer the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stanley: We had to take account of the fact that our SSNs have certain capabilities in common with our Polaris SSBNs and that therefore insight into the capabilities and methods of operation of one could have implications for the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the debate."] We also have to take account of the fact that, however much information we gave, more and more questions were asked in more and more detail. Those questions took us into every major area of the capabilities of our submarines.
Mr. Ashdown rose——
Mr. Stanley: Those questions took us into their sources of intelligence, their methods of communication, the capabilities of their sonar and the performance of their tactical weapons system. Ministers have been accused of being cautious about the giving of information in relation to the Belgrano. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the debate."] Against the background——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it is intolerable that he should be interrupted from a sedentary position by so many hon. Members. He has a right to be heard.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members would like the Minister to answer the debate, which is about the Old Bailey trial and how it came about.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is endeavouring to answer the debate.
Hon. Members: No, he is not.
Mr. Stanley: I am indeed trying to answer an issue of central and fundamental importance. Ministers have been accused of being cautious about giving information in regard to the Belgrano.
Mr. Ashdown rose——
Mr. Stanley: I regard caution not as a matter for criticism but as a matter for commendation. Yes, we have been cautious. We will continue to be cautious. We are right to be cautious and we should be failing in our responsibilities if we were to be anything other than cautious.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister has read us a long passage explaining the high national importance of deepest security for our submarines. Will he explain whether that is the true reason for the necessity for the security of our submarines? If so, how come one of the logs went missing?
Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still conducting the inquiry. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stanley: I wish now to deal with the Leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). I have heard him argue that as it is now nearly three years since the conflict ended, the security objections have surely fallen away and all can now be revealed. [Interruption.] I have heard him say that many times on the radio, and I am glad if it is not his view. Anyone who thinks that, because almost three years have passed since the Falklands conflict, the security objections have fallen away shows no understanding of defence and security realities. A key job of hostile intelligence is to assess how we may carry out future submarine operations by analysing those that we have conducted in the past. We are not in the business of giving gratuitous help to those people.
Mr. Steel: I have never dissented from my view. When did Ministers first know that the information they were giving was wrong?
Mr. Stanley: As I have said before, the 1 May date was classified and held to be classified virtually until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). That was the advice that we had.
Mr. Kaufman rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister was not giving way.
Mr. Stanley: I assume that Ministers will have been aware during 1983.
Mr. Kaufman rose——
Mr. Stanley: That is why my noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave the answer that she did in another place.
Mr. Kaufman: If the date of the sighting of the Belgrano was classified until the Prime Minister revealed it on 4 April 1984, why was not Captain Wreford-Brown prosecuted for revealing it a year before that?
Mr. Stanley: As the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, that is a happy question for the Law Officers, not for me.
Dr. Owen rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members heard the Minister say that that was a happy question for the Law Officers. As a Law Officer is present, perhaps he can give us an answer now.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that point of order. Mr. Stanley.
Dr Owen rose— —
Mr. Stanley: This will be the last time I give way.
Dr. Owen: On 14 December the Commander in Chief, Admiral Fieldhouse, submitted his dispatch, which he had presumably written a few days earlier and which included that date. Why would he have included that date if he thought that it was highly secret information which should not be revealed?
Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered that question during Prime Minister's Question Time, when she said:
"I understand from Admiral Fieldhouse that during the drafting of his dispatch from Northwood he queried the date in the sentence on the detection of the Belgrano but agreed that it should be left as 2 May in order to protect sensitive operational and intelligence information."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 164.]
That was the position.
It has been suggested that the dilemma of answering the key question in this debate of how much operational information should be released could be resolved by releasing everything that is itself unclassified and withholding only that which is classified. That has a certain superficial attraction. Unhappily, security and intelligence matters are very much more complicated, as the previous Government recognised in its 1978 White Paper on the Official Secrets Act. The key passage which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already highlighted bears repeating, because it is a policy statement by the previous Government of profound importance, and one which we ourselves endorse.
The previous Government said:
"The Government has concluded that information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. This is pre-eminently an area where the gradual accumulation of small items of information, apparently trivial in themselves, would eventually create a risk for the safety of an individual or constitute a serious threat to the interests of the nation as a whole."
That is a very important statement. Intelligence is the business of completing a jigsaw, in which some of the pieces are kept secret and some of them become public. The more public pieces one puts on the board, the easier it is to deduce the remainder.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister quoted from the 1978 White Paper and the statement that I made in the House. I used those words, but said that, as with Franks, whatever the subject—be it defence, intelligence associated with it or law and order — what matters was that it was serious. That does not apply to Ponting, which is what we are concerned about tonight. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman on what he has said, but that is not what the Ponting case is about.
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the security dimension in relation to the Ponting case, which I agree was not a significant element, and the security dimension relating to the sinking of the Belgrano, which was of profound importance.
Mr. Spearing rose——
Mr. Stanley: I shall not give way again.
It is for the House to decide whether, in pursuing a policy of partial disclosure in relation to the Belgrano, Ministers have got the balance right between giving too much information and too little. My personal view, for what it is worth—[Interruption.]—is that in no way can it reasonably be claimed that Ministers have given too little information. It could well be argued that in our attempts to allay the Belgrano mania the information we have already given is too much. As the Prime Minister said in reply to questions last week, we may indeed have erred on the side of giving too much. The House should be mindful of that.
I hope that the House will not mind if I conclude on a personal note. Over the last fortnight or so, I consider that I have been subjected to a campaign of character assassination, the like of which I would not have believed possible if I had not been the object of it. I have been accused of more or less everything under the sun, except of actually sinking the Belgrano myself. The accusations have ranged from the ludicrous, like the claim of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I had altered Admiral Fieldhouse's official despatch when I was still a Minister in the Department of the Environment, to other accusations that I take with the utmost seriousness. The accusation that I take most seriously is that I have somehow behaved improperly towards this House of Commons. That accusation I completely reject.
The Opposition's amendment to the Government's motion refers to the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, but it wrongly assumes that Defence Ministers have only one responsibility to Parliament — the responsibility to give information. Defence Ministers have two responsibilities to this House, not one, and that second responsibility is the overriding one upon them. We have the overriding responsibility to this House for the proper discharge of our duties as Defence Ministers, for the protection of the defence interests of our country and for the protection of the lives of our service men in any future conflict. We have discharged those duties responsibly and properly.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 350.

Division No. 110]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Alton, David

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Anderson, Donald

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Ashdown, Paddy

Bruce, Malcolm

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Buchan, Norman

Ashton, Joe

Caborn, Richard

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Campbell, Ian

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Barnett, Guy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Barron, Kevin

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Cartwright, John

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Thomas

Benn, Tony

Clay, Robert

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

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Harry

Blair, Anthony

Coleman, Donald

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Conlan, Bernard

Boyes, Roland

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

821

Corbyn, Jeremy

McCartney, Hugh

Cowans, Harry

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McGuire, Michael

Craigen, J. M.

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Crowther, Stan

Maclennan, Robert

Cunningham, Dr John

McNamara, Kevin

Dalyell, Tarn

McTaggart, Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Madden, Max

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Marek, Dr John

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

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Deakins, Eric

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dewar, Donald

Maxton, John

Dixon, Donald

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dobson, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Dormand, Jack

Meadowcroft, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Michie, William

Dubs, Alfred

Mikardo, Ian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Eadie, Alex

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eastham, Ken

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Ellis, Raymond

Nellist, David

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ewing, Harry

O'Brien, William

Fatchett, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Faulds, Andrew

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Fisher, Mark

Park, George

Flannery, Martin

Parry, Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Patchett, Terry

Forrester, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Foster, Derek

Pendry, Tom

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Penhaligon, David

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Pike, Peter

Freud, Clement

Prescott, John

Garrett, W. E.

Radice, Giles

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Randall, Stuart

Gould, Bryan

Redmond, M.

Gourlay, Harry

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Hardy, Peter

Robertson, George

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rogers, Allan

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Rooker, J. W.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rowlands, Ted

Haynes, Frank

Ryman, John

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Heffer, Eric S.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

Home Robertson, John

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Skinner, Dennis

Howells, Geraint

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

Hoyle, Douglas

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

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Snape, Peter

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

So ley, Clive

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Janner, Hon Greville

Stott, Roger

John, Brynmor

Strang, Gavin

Johnston, Russell

Straw, Jack

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Charles

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Kirkwood, Archy

Tinn, James

Lambie, David

Wainwright, R.

Lamond, James

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Leadbitter, Ted

Wareing, Robert

Leighton, Ronald

Welsh, Michael

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

White, James

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Wigley, Dafydd

Litherland, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Winnick, David

Loyden, Edward

Woodall, Alec

822

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. John McWilliam and

Mr. Robin Corbett.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Dover, Den

Aitken, Jonathan

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Alexander, Richard

Dunn, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Tony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Amess, David

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Ancram, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Arnold, Tom

Emery, Sir Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Evennett, David

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Fallon, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Farr, Sir John

Baldry, Tony

Favell, Anthony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Beggs, Roy

Fletcher, Alexander

Bellingham, Henry

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bendall, Vivian

Forman, Nigel

Benyon, William

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Best, Keith

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forth, Eric

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Fox, Marcus

Blackburn, John

Franks, Cecil

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Peter

Fry, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gale, Roger

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

Galley, Roy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bright, Graham

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brinton, Tim

Gorst, John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gow, Ian

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Browne, John

Grant, Sir Anthony

Bruinvels, Peter

Greenway, Harry

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gregory, Conal

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Budgen, Nick

Grist, Ian

Bulmer, Esmond

Ground, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

Grylls, Michael

Butcher, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

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

Hannam, John

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Chapman, Sydney

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Chope, Christopher

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, W. S.

Hayes, J.

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

Hayhoe, Barney

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayward, Robert

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Heddle, John

Clegg, Sir Walter

Henderson, Barry

Cockeram, Eric

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Hickmet, Richard

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Robert

Coombs, Simon

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cope, John

Hind, Kenneth

Corrie, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Couchman, James

Holt, Richard

Cranborne, Viscount

Hordern, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Howard, Michael

Crouch, David

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

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

823

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Newton, Tony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hunter, Andrew

Normanton, Tom

Irving, Charles

Norris, Steven

Jackson, Robert

Onslow, Cranley

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Jessel, Toby

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ottaway, Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parris, Matthew

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Patten, John (Oxford)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pattie, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Pawsey, James

King, Roger (B'ham N field)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

King, Rt Hon Tom

Pollock, Alexander

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Porter, Barry

Knowles, Michael

Portillo, Michael

Knox, David

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

Lamont, Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Lang, Ian

Powley, John

Latham, Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lawler, Geoffrey

Price, Sir David

Lawrence, Ivan

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lee, John (Pendle)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Raffan, Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lightbown, David

Renton, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lord, Michael

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Luce, Richard

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Lyell, Nicholas

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

McCusker, Harold

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Macfarlane, Neil

Rost, Peter

MacGregor, John

Rowe, Andrew

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Ryder, Richard

Maclean, David John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

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

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Madel, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Maginnis, Ken

Scott, Nicholas

Major, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Malins, Humfrey

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Malone, Gerald

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Marland, Paul

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marlow, Antony

Silvester, Fred

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mates, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maude, Hon Francis

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Speed, Keith

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Speller, Tony

Mellor, David

Spencer, Derek

Merchant, Piers

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Squire, Robin

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stanley, John

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Steen, Anthony

Miscampbell, Norman

Stern, Michael

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Moore, John

Stokes, John

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Sumberg, David

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moynihan, Hon C.

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mudd, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Murphy, Christopher

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Neale, Gerrard

Terlezki, Stefan

Needham, Richard

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Nelson, Anthony

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Neubert, Michael

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

824

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Warren, Kenneth

Thornton, Malcolm

Watson, John

Thurnham, Peter

Watts, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Tracey, Richard

Wheeler, John

Trippier, David

Whitfield, John

Trotter, Neville

Whitney, Raymond

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wiggin, Jerry

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Wilkinson, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Waddington, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Wolfson, Mark

Waldegrave, Hon William

Wood, Timothy

Walden, George

Woodcock, Michael

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Younger, Rt Hon George

Waller, Gary

Walters, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Ward, John

Mr. Carol Mather and

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes, 351, Noes, Nil.

Division No. 111]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Aitken, Jonathan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Alexander, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Churchill, W. S.

Amess, David

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

Ancram, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Tom

Clark, SirW. (Croydon S)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Cockeram, Eric

Baldry, Tony

Colvin, Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Conway, Derek

Beggs, Roy

Coombs, Simon

Bellingham, Henry

Cope, John

Bendall, Vivian

Corrie, John

Benyon, William

Couchman, James

Best, Keith

Cranborne, Viscount

Bevan, David Gilroy

Critchley, Julian

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Crouch, David

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Blackburn, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dicks, Terry

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dorrell, Stephen

Bottomley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dover, Den

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

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dunn, Robert

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Durant, Tony

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Dykes, Hugh

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Bright, Graham

Eggar, Tim

Brinton, Tim

Emery, Sir Peter

Brooke, Hon Peter

Evennett, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Browne, John

Fallon, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Farr, Sir John

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Favell, Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bulmer, Esmond

Fletcher, Alexander

Burt, Alistair

Fookes, Miss Janet

Butcher, John

Forman, Nigel

Butterfill, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Forth, Eric

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

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

Fox, Marcus

Carttiss, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Cartwright, John

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Cash, William

Freeman, Roger

825

Fry, Peter

Lawler, Geoffrey

Gale, Roger

Lawrence, Ivan

Galley, Roy

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lightbown, David

Gorst, John

Lilley, Peter

Gow, Ian

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Grant, Sir Anthony

Lord, Michael

Greenway, Harry

Luce, Richard

Gregory, Conal

Lyell, Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Grist, Ian

McCusker, Harold

Ground, Patrick

Macfarlane, Neil

Grylls, Michael

MacGregor, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maclean, David John

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Hanley, Jeremy

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

Hannam, John

Madel, David

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Maginnis, Ken

Haselhurst, Alan

Major, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Malone, Gerald

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Maples, John

Hawksley, Warren

Marland, Paul

Hayes, J.

Marlow, Antony

Hayhoe, Barney

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hayward, Robert

Maude, Hon Francis

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Heddle, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Henderson, Barry

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mellor, David

Hickmet, Richard

Merchant, Piers

Hicks, Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Holt, Richard

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hordern, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Howard, Michael

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

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

Moate, Roger

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Monro, Sir Hector

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Moore, John

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Hunter, Andrew

Moynihan, Hon C.

Irving, Charles

Mudd, David

Jackson, Robert

Murphy, Christopher

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Neale, Gerrard

Jessel, Toby

Needham, Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Neubert, Michael

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Newton, Tony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Normanton, Tom

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Norris, Steven

Kennedy, Charles

Onslow, Cranley

Key, Robert

Oppenheim, Phillip

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ottaway, Richard

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Knowles, Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Knox, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Lamont, Norman

Parris, Matthew

Lang, Ian

Patten, John (Oxford)

Latham, Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

826

Pawsey, James

Stradling Thomas, J.

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Sumberg, David

Pollock, Alexander

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Porter, Barry

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Portillo, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

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

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Terlezki, Stefan

Powley, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Price, Sir David

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thornton, Malcolm

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thurnham, Peter

Raff an, Keith

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Renton, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Rhodes James, Robert

Trippier, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Trotter, Neville

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waddington, David

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rowe, Andrew

Walden, George

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Ryder, Richard

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wall, Sir Patrick

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Waller, Gary

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walters, Dennis

Scott, Nicholas

Ward, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Warren, Kenneth

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Watson, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Watts, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Silvester, Fred

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wheeler, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Whitfield, John

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Whitney, Raymond

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wiggin, Jerry

Speed, Keith

Wilkinson, John

Speller, Tony

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spencer, Derek

Winterton, Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wolfson, Mark

Squire, Robin

Wood, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Woodcock, Michael

Stanley, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Steen, Anthony

Yeo, Tim

Stern, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Mr. Carol Mather.

Stokes, John

NOES

Nil

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Robert Atkins and

Mr. Kenneth Hind

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognizes that the sinking of the General Belgrano was a necessary and legitimate action in the Falklands Campaign; and agrees that the protection of our Armed Forces must be the prime consideration in determining how far matters involving national security and the conduct of military operations can be disclosed.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme
10.27 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1985, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
The main purpose of the draft order is to introduce changes in the rates of grant paid to agricultural cooperatives. The House will recall that reductions have been made recently in the capital grant rates available to individual farmers and businesses. These have been fully discussed and approved by both Houses.
As I told the Standing Committee which discussed these changes on 23 January—these are the broad and most important changes—three factors guided us in making our decisions. First, there was the desirability of reflecting changing priorities as the situation in agriculture develops, especially in relation to products in surplus. Secondly, there was the need, to which we give increasing attention, to take account of the conservation aspects. Thirdly, there was the need for agriculture to play its part in the Government's programme of restraint on public expenditure.
The first and third factors are both directly applicable to the subject under discussion tonight. We believe it right that the co-operative scheme should also bear its share of the global savings that are being made, but we are applying a policy of priorities in deciding on the changes.
Before dealing with the details of the new rates, I shall comment on the level of Government support for cooperation. The co-operative development division of Food for Britain has a statutory responsibility to encourage, develop and promote agricultural co-operation, and in the current year Government financial support towards those activities will amount to just under £2 million. That expenditure is separate from that on the co-operative grants scheme, the AHCS, under which Food for Britain makes recommendations to the Agriculture Departments on the worthwhileness and merit of applications.
In the last two financial years, 1982–83 and 1983–84, those recommendations—which we have accepted and on which we are thus committed to pay—came to just under £4·5 million and £5 million respectively — an indication that producers are fully aware of the benefits which can accrue through co-operation and that they are prepared to invest to achieve them.
Grant aid plays a part in stimulating this producer investment, and it is right, therefore, that, in taking decisions about where any necessary reductions should fall, we should be mindful of the particular needs of different sectors and of the priorities we attach to their expansion in conditions which continue to develop and change. It is for that reason that we have decided not to reduce the level of grant rates for horticultural co-operatives.
The reasons for making horticulture an exception are, first, to recognise the particular needs of the sector; second, further to improve horticultural marketing; and, third, to take account of its priority status in Food for Britain's co-operative development division's operating strategy. There is a continuing need to improve our
828
marketing ability and competitiveness in that area, and horticultural co-operatives are gearing themselves well to meet the increasing and more sophisticated demands of their customers. We hope that by holding grants at existing levels this development will continue.
For sectors other than horticulture we are reducing the grant rates for buildings by five percentage points, from 15 to 10 per cent. for cereals co-operatives and from 30 to 25 per cent. for others. I should emphasise that no other changes are being made. At presently estimated levels of demand, savings should amount to about £300,000 in a full year.
As I have just said, in reaching those decisions we have been guided by the desirability of reflecting changing priorities as the situation in agriculture develops. One aspect of this is the need to take into account the surpluses of some commodities—and cereals is a good example. Due to the highly successful efforts, aided by substantial support in a variety of ways, we have moved in 10 years from being a net importer to being a substantial exporter of cereals. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the cereals sector is better able to withstand lower rates than others. Indeed, Food for Britain's draft co-operative development strategy recognises that major advances have been taken in this sector and that over 600,000 tonnes of sophisticated central storage are now owned by specialist co-operatives. Grants at 10 per cent., together with the commercial benefits which will accrue, should be sufficient to ensure that essential investment continues.
One particular feature of the AHCS is that grant rates generally are about 10 percentage points above those which apply to individual farms under the AHDS scheme. That is what is commonly termed the co-operative premium, which was introduced about five years ago to recognise the need for structured co-operative marketing. I know that Food for Britain regards the premium as an important aspect of the scheme and welcomes its retention.
The draft order that we are debating tonight is somewhat longer than would otherwise be the case for an amendment of this nature. There have been several amendments made since the scheme was last drawn up in 1971, and we are therefore taking the opportunity to consolidate at the same time. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the main difference—indeed, the only one to which I intend to draw the attention of the House at this stage—between this draft and the 1971 order as subsequently amended.
Paragraph 2 now includes a definition of horticultural produce for the purpose of distinguishing those activities which attract the rates of grant set out in division C of column 2 of the schedule. As I have explained, rates for those horticultural co-operatives remain unchanged. The definition is the same as that used in the agricultural and horticulture grants scheme.
The paragraph also contains a definition of "recognised group". That relates to items 14 °and 15 of the schedule and to grants of 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively for tractors and other machinery purchased by forage groups in certain hill areas. Although fairly small amounts of grant have been paid to such groups for a number of years under EEC directive 75/268, we have been advised that authority for such payments should now be provided for in the main scheme. At present those grants apply to the original less favoured areas but not to the extension

829
sought for so successfully by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1984.
I am pleased to announce, however, that after the scheme comes into operation, proposals will be considered from forage groups in those marginal areas. This, I believe, is a useful extension of Government support, and one that will be of benefit to livestock farmers in the more exacting parts of the country.
There are some other technical changes, but no others of substance from the 1971 order, and I commend this scheme to the House.
10.35 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: When I was listening to wind-up of the debate in Committee, I wondered how in this debate the Minister of State could keep to the same emotional level of intensity. I am grateful for the fact that in his speech he did not even try to do so.
We did the Government a favour, because in asking that the matter be dealt with on the Floor of the House we gave the Government the opportunity to withdraw the original scheme and relay it. Basically, as the Minister said, it is in line with the earlier scheme on capital grants. It is right to record that that has had a singularly mixed reception, particularly in the poorer farming areas. I welcome the part of the scheme that pertains to horticulture because, as the Minister rightly said, there is no cut in the capital grant there, and if those people are to adapt to markets, they need an adequate level of capital grant.
I should like to deal with the second reason that the Minister aduced for restructuring the grants in the way that the Government have chosen. They are aligning grants more accurately with the environmental pressures on farming. That point has been made repeatedly not only by the Minister of State but by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When he introdued the changes, he said:
"In making these changes we are reflecting the Government's declared aim of achieving a closer integration of conservation and agricultural policies". — [Official Report, 11 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 434.]
The Minister of State said:
"The second feature also reflects changing priorities. The changes take an important step forward in the integration of conservation and agriculture." — [Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee, 23 January 1985; c. 7.]
When the matter was debated in Committee, a great deal of heat and not much light was created by the fact that hon. Members were arguing about whether some people were trying to compare Governments, good or ill. That is not the matter in hand. I am prepared to accept what the Minister of State said, that as a matter of Government policy that they should try to deal with the changing balance in favour of the environment, but I must ask whether the structure of grants and the way in which the grants have been changed achieves that object.
What the capital grants have done in this scheme as in the other one, is to discourage the unsatisfactory things that are being done on farms today which are adversely affecting the environment, but the Government have not taken the further step, which is equally necessary, of encouraging good things to be done on the farms. Although it is not relevant to the debate, stonewalling, which was in the original grant, is academic if fencing is
830
cheaper. If there is a significant difference, that is so much dressing to the debate and will not play any particular part in it.
Capital grants can play a role in environmental care, but we must recognise that capital grants of themselves have a limited impact. Instead of mere discouragement of bad practice—although that is a part of better environmental care — we should have had a series of proposals for grants, if we are to rejig the whole system, which recognised that positive measures can be taken.
I shall give just one example of Welsh woodlands. It is now generally accepted that the oak trees in several Welsh woodlands are becoming overmature because of damage by animals to the young oak trees. A fencing grant to preserve the younger trees and woodlands could have been introduced specifically to encourage conservation. Machinery could also have been devised to help in the covering of bare peat areas, again encouraging conservation. But nothing of that kind has been done. My criticism is not that the Government have failed totally, but that they have wasted a chance. Having decided to rejig the capital grants, they should have done the job properly and rejigged them in such a way as to give proper encouragement to the good things rather than merely discouraging the bad things.
The Minister must accept that the main way to promote conservation is through management grants rather than capital grants. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has commented that farmers cannot live on capital grants for dry stone walls. They need an alternative income if they are to be encouraged to take conservation measures. We should therefore be looking for management schemes with a direct and significant conservation element.
The Select Committee on the Environment was a great deal harsher on the Ministry than was the RSPB. Its report make it clear that the present capital structure, far from encouraging conservation in agriculture, is one of the greatest factors in discouraging it. Paragraph 29 states:
"Nearly all witnesses were agreed that the present grant and price support structure was the major obstacle in the way of a comprehensive and successful conservation programme in this country."
The Government must look at the financial structure of capital grants—they have missed an opportunity this time, but I hope that it will not be long before the matter is examined again—to try to promote conservation. It emerged in paragraph 31 of the Select Committee report, which said:
"All of our witnesses, except MAFF, recognise the need for a serious change in direction."
The Select Committee concluded:
"We recommend that MAFF fundamentally change its approach on financial structures so that resources are redirected away from environmentally damaging operations and towards conservation-conscious methods."
Two things are therefore needed, but only one has been attempted by the Government in their reorganisation of the capital structure on this occasion.
I appreciate that this may not be the best time to mention the National Farmers Union annual conference to Conservative Members, but Farmers Weekly reported on it as follows:
"Extra grants to help farmers in their conservation efforts and to control pollution were demanded at the NFU annual meeting. The recently imposed cuts in farm capital grants were strongly

831
criticised. Speakers suggested that if the Government really wanted farmers to improve the environment, there would have to be extra money to do so."
The NFU has committed itself to a process and a policy of conserving the environment, but farmers often working at the margins in hill areas must have an alternative source of income if they are to he encouraged in that. The gravamen of our disappointment is that the Government have neglected an opportunity to put this right.
10.45 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lye11: I am happy to show that there is support across the Floor of the House for the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The headquarters of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is in my constituency and the postbag of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is full of letters urging him to promote positive management schemes for the protection of the environment and the benefit of farmers in marginal areas. I welcome what the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said.
I wish to address myself to capital moneys for cooperatives coming not from capital grants but from the co-operatives themselves. The tax treatment of moneys which represent profits of co-operatives are treated much less favourably than the profits that a farmer achieves on his own farm. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to treat with the Treasury on this matter so that the profits that are earned in a co-operative can be reinvested in the cooperative with the same tax benefit to the farmer who is selling his produce through the co-operative as would be achieved if they represented the profits from his own farm.
This issue has been drawn to my attention by Bedfordshire Growers, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will recognise as one of the best and most effective horticultural co-operatives in the country. At a time when we are having to reduce the capital grant, it is nonsensical that we should not be doing everything in our power to ensure that moneys from the best of all possible sources — the profits of the co-operatives—are reinvested in the co-operatives.
If a farmer is a member, for example, of Bedfordshire Growers, the co-operative makes a profit and he is asked —this request is often made of farmers by co-operatives including Bedfordshire Growers—to leave in his money as working capital for the co-operative, he will not have the same beneficial tax treatment as if he ploughed the money into investment in plant or machinery on his own farm. This seems to be foolish and to have no justification.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State approaches the Treasury he will be met with the suggestion that to allow such investment would be to permit abuses on a wider basis. The Treasury always says that sort of thing but I do not believe that it will be able to sustain the argument if my hon. Friend presses the case that I am urging. For such investment to be tax deductible by a member of a co-operative, it would be necessary to show that he was a member of a recognised co-operative and to produce accounts to show that it was in the co-operative that his money had been left. It would be for the co-operative to show that the farmer's money had been invested. In these circumstances, the chances of abuse would be extremely limited, if not nil.
832
My hon. Friend the Minister of State appreciates that co-operative marketing societies, whether in agriculture or horticulture, are important in enabling British farmers to compete, especially in the fresh vegetable market, both at home and in the hinterland on the Continent. I am sure that we should do all that we can to encourage them.
10.48 pm
Mr. MacGregor: I shall reply shortly to this short debate if I may have the leave of the House to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will recognise that all his comments except his opening welcome to horticulture grants were not relevant to the scheme that is before us. In the three factors that I outlined in the changes to the general capital grants scheme in Committee, the second factor, the environmental one, is not relevant to the particular changes in the co-operative sector. The co-operative grants are for a different purpose. Nevertheless, it has given me an opportunity to repeat some of what I said in Committee, and I am grateful to him for that.
The hon. Gentleman ought not to underestimate the extent to which we are shifting the balance in the capital grants system as the agricultural scene changes so that much greater attention is given to environmental considerations. We are making much more of a shift in that direction than did, the Labour Government. I admit that we are making changes in capital grants for other reasons, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman does no underestimate the extent to which we have had environmental considerations in mind when making changes this year and last. The hon. Gentleman said that the discouragement of what he described as bad practice was minimal, but I am sure that he does not underestimate the value of removing grants for pulling up hedges, land clearance and reclamation work.
Mr. John: I am happy to recognise that, and thought that I had done so in my speech. I also thought that I had eschewed comparisons of Governments and avoided mentioning the Environment Select Committee talking of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dragging its feet, for example. As I recognise the importance of what is being done, will the Minister recognise the importance of the further steps that should be taken, by which I mean encouragement of that which is right? "Thou shalt not" is an inadequate moral basis for life.
Mr. MacGregor: We are talking about thou shalt not get grants for doing things that are environmentally damaging. The hon. Gentleman obviously support what we have done.
Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister saying that the Ministry of Agriculture ought to he under an obligation to take environmental factors in to account when pursuing its main statutory duty?
Mr. MacGregor: I listened carefully to the Second Reading debate of the hon. Gentleman's Bill two Fridays ago. He will remember what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said. On one of the clauses in the hon. Gentleman's Bill, my hon. Friend advanced a convincing argument on constitutional matters. I am saying that we are taking environmental issues into account when making changes to the capital grants schemes.

833
I should like to consider just one more of what might be called the negative aspect —this year's significant changes in grants for field drainage. The changes are more significant than some of the other changes in, for example, the removal of grants for hedging. I hope that hon. Members appreciate the environmental importance of that.
Last year, we introduced, in the less favoured areas, advantageous rates of grant for certain environmentally desirable investments such as the building, replacement or improvement of walls built of a material traditional in a locality and the provision or improvement of hedges and shelter belts. I admit that that was not a huge leap forward, but it is a positive step. Other changes have been made, and they build up a picture. For example, £9 million of additional money has been given to the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council this year. It will obviously go to environmentally important subjects. Only recently, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced a new experimental scheme for the next three years in the Hapvergate marshes in Norfolk, in which the Ministry of Agriculture is participating to the extent of 50 per cent. funding and a considerable management input. That is an interesting experiment which has important environmental connotations.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken the lead in the past nine months—I have been assisting him in the Council of Ministers in Brussels on the new structures directive to try to get a conservation initiative written into it. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd knows, that structure will last five years. We shall continue with that initiative at the next Council meeting next week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have in mind the conservation aspects of the changes to capital grants.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) asked about the taxation of agricultural co-operatives. As he will know, that is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that the changes introduced to capital taxation in the Finance Act 1984 were intended to maintain broad neutrality of treatment between co-operatives and other enterprises. However, the Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives, with which I have discussed the matter, has made representations to the
834
Chancellor that the changes bear unduly harshly on co-operatives. I shall ensure that my hon. and learned Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
It has been a short debate. I have heard no criticism of the changes that we are making through the order—
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It would be a mistake to allow the debate to conclude without any criticism. I thought that the debate would be longer, and wish to interject briefly. What does the Minister believe to be the total financial savings from the cuts? He mentioned a figure of about £300,000 in connection with one part of the scheme, but I was not sure whether he was referring to the totality of savings.
Mr. MacGregor: I was referring to the totality. The figure is about £300,000 in a full year.
There seems to have been little criticism. I cannot count that intervention as a criticism, and, therefore, perhaps I can say that there is no criticism of the order. I hope that the House will approve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1985, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): In order to save the time of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 3 to 5 on the Order Paper.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955, as amended, which were laid before this House on 20th December, be approved.
  That the Potatoes (Assured Markets) Order 1985, (S.I., 1985, No. 63), dated 21st January 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
  That the Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 64), dated 21st January 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]
  Question agreed to.

  New London Taxicabs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Major.]
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Do you realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the traditional London taxi is about to disappear from the streets? I discovered that shocking truth recently, and what I found since leads me to believe that the House of Commons, all Londoners and all those who live in our other towns and cities where our London model is used should be made aware of the impending disaster.
  Most of us take the design of the taxi for granted. It has been with us for so long — its history reaches from Edwardian times and is based on the hackney carriage, although the present model was introduced in the 1950s — that it is easily recognisable to everyone. It is a singular design. In many cities travellers have to put up with mere saloon cars plying as taxis. That is part of the dull uniformity which is the curse of modern cities. In London we have a vehicle which was not only designed for its purpose but which over the years has been improved to meet changing needs, circumstances and standards.
  The London taxi can negotiate the busiest London street and can turn round in a remarkably small space. It can take up to four passengers safely, has room for an enormous amount of luggage beside the driver, and can accommodate a wheelchair in the passenger compartment. The London dial-a-ride system for handicapped people uses it with few complaints.
  As improvements have proved necessary, they have been made without altering the basic design. Taxi drivers are happy with it; Londoners love it; and foreign visitors are charmed by it. It is efficient, economical, reliable—who has ever seen a broken-down taxicab? — and popular. It is a triumph of design in that it marries practical experience of need with high aesthetic standards. Socially, it is a distinguished ornament of the British way of life. It makes a Cockney feel like a king; it is the poor man's chauffeured Rolls for a night; and top hat and tiara fit as comfortably in it as do busy businessmen with their brief cases. Why, therefore, is there any question of changing it? Why, when we have a winner, must someone insist on change for change's sake? Why must the London travelling public be forced to accept a token of dull uniformity in its place?
  I have gone into this in some detail. It appears that one of the villains of the piece is Carbodies Ltd., the very firm which makes the current design. It has apparently been working on a new design since 1976, and it has produced a prototype but does not expect to go into production for another year or more because of the numerous modifications needed. It does not seem to be in any hurry.
  Mr. Dennis Poore, the chairman of Manganese Bronze Holdings plc. which owns Carbodies, told me that the new model is required to meet European Community regulations. When I asked him what these were, he wrote on 8 October 1984 promising to tell me
  "within a week or so".
  I am still waiting—on 18 February 1985. A week is a long time in business as well as in politics!
  Another villain of the piece is my hon. Friend's Department, the Department of Trade and Industry. It
  836
  made the decision — incredible for a Conservative Government—to invest £.1·3 million in the new design in 1983. The GLC also paid over some money, but then we are used to the present GLC irresponsibly spending money like water.
  The Government cannot be so easily acquitted. When in a parliamentary question I asked what public funds had been invested in the new model, the Minister of State replied that the details were confidential. He added:
  "To attract support, all research and development projects must satisfy the published criteria for assistance under the support for innovation scheme."—[Official Report, 31 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 1023.]
  Innovation indeed! At the rate it is going, Carbodies' new design will be out of date when it is produced, whereas improvements to the existing model will keep it abreast of the times. Is more taxpayers' money to be wasted on this project? Does Carbodies want more before it completes it? How much money has been spent on it so far? How much has come out of the public purse? Will my hon. Friend answer those questions?
  The usual villain of these scenes — the European Community—can be acquitted. Any new taxi will have to comply with European Community regulations. But the present model has been granted exemption from European Community regulations relating to inferior fittings and exterior projections, according to the Minister of State's reply to my question on 31 October. The present London taxi meets current British national type approval requirements in all respects.
  It all sounds so depressingly familiar — change for change's sake, more and more public money invested in a project whose justification gets less and less.
  The new design, so far as it has been revealed in the prototypes, is unlikely to be popular with Londoners. Mr. Poore tells me that it is not based on the Range Rover, but that is the impression one gets. Taxi drivers who have seen it say that it is too small, too cramped and too low. All those whose opinions I have sought have condemned it. There has been little, if any, consultation with taxi drivers themselves, and none at all with the general public. Some organisations for the disabled have welcomed it, for it is said to incorporate a ramp and to permit the loading of a wheelchair somewhat larger than the size which the existing model can accommodate, but the difference is only slight.
  I recently received a letter from a London taxi driver who has been in the job all his life, except for when he drove a tank in Germany. His father was a horse and motor cabman before him. He says:
  "Since the war I have carried just three wheelchairs and their occupants, one of which was quite recently. One chair went into the boot, one chair went on to the luggage platform and one went inside. In no instance did the person involved have any trouble getting into the cab for the tip up front seats are ideal for any unfortunate person who needs a wheelchair and I feel certain no other vehicle can be as satisfactory as the present FX4. It is said that the new vehicle will create more jobs. I wonder what the present builders of the FX4 think of the idea."
  On the other hand, the extra features that the new design requires will add enormously to its price. One trade source told me that £10,000 was the likely minimum, and rising, compared with the lower price for the existing model. It is debatable whether all future taxis must be forced to incorporate a wheelchair feature when the demand can only ever be for a very limited proportion of the population. The very act of carrying a heavy wheelchair might involve drivers in awkward questions of

  837
  legal liability if accidents were to occur. Compared with modifications to the existing design, I doubt whether it is wise to claim, as Mr. Poore did last year, that the new model will add an extra dimension to the lives of the physically handicapped. It will be a cruel deception if, when the new model is on the streets, the process of getting wheelchairs into it via a ramp is so cumbersome and awkward that drivers will not welcome disabled passengers in wheelchairs.
  Since I began taking an interest in this matter, I have received many letters and messages of support for the traditional London taxicab from all over the world. Correspondents from the United States have been particularly concerned and have often expressed themselves in ways which may interest the House. Here is part of a letter from Mr. Samuel Gorovitz, of Maryland:
  "Like many fellow Americans, I have great fondness for England and for London in particular, and have visited many times. I have taken hundreds of photographs during these visits over the past twenty five years. Just a few weeks ago, I proudly hung on the wall of my home a 30" by 40" enlargement of the best of these pictures — a photograph of a taxi rank in Knightsbridge, taken in March of this year when my wife and I were there to visit our daughter, then studying at the University of London. That picture more than any other, captures for us the feel and spirit of London.
  The traditional London taxi is a symbol of England that is universally recognised and admired. That is not merely because of the aesthetic appeal of the design; it is also because of its association with the pervasive quality of the London taxi system —the envy of the world, and a standard of competence and civility that is unapproached anywhere else. It is thus no surprise that all those friends and neighbours with whom I have discussed this gloomy news have reacted with the same horror that prompts this letter now.
  Replace the traditional taxi, and you do not merely make a change in equipment, you change the face of the city. You destroy a visual image that says 'London!' in the most welcoming possible way to people throughout the world. You desecrate a national treasure, no less than by turning a stately home into an auto parts warehouse. No newer taxi, no matter what its performance characteristics, could fill the resulting gap.
  It is not that I oppose technological progress. On the contrary, I devote much of my time to advocating and facilitating it. But the best of the old must never give way to an unreasoned quest for the new. That is a lesson I had thought we Americans still needed to learn better from you British!"
  This is what Mr. Charles A. Cerami of Washington says:
  "I am sure you know the saying, 'Tout hommes a deux pays: le sien et la France'. There are countries and cities that have made themselves part of everyone's world. London has that status more than almost any other, and it benefits greatly from it. First in material ways—as British Airways and the Connaught Hotel would surely attest. More importantly in the knowledge that so many others stand with you in the love of your capital city … In this case, it is not merely a matter of sentiment. Taxicabs in most other cities are increasingly uncomfortable. Those of London are a splendid exception. Do not destroy what is good."
  London taxi drivers are a splendid body of people — kind, courteous, efficient and helpful with very few exceptions. They are proud of their craft and of their vehicle. Let us not prevent them from continuing to serve the people of London and its visitors to the same high standard as we have always enjoyed in the past.
  11.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful
  838
  to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for providing this opportunity for a debate on the new London taxi.
  I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's arguments in favour of the existing black cab—or the FX4 to give it its proper name — and I have much sympathy with his views. The familiar London taxi is undoubtedly considered by many to be an old friend. Indeed, its familiarity on the streets of London is such that the image of the taxi has become almost synonymous with that of the capital itself, both here and overseas. Precisely because it is so familiar, however, we tend to look at the black cab as we do other, rather older and less changing, landmarks and symbols of the city.
  In fact, the familiar black cab is simply the latest in a long line of mechanical, as opposed to horse-drawn, cabs which stretches back to August 1897 when the London Electric Cab company of Lambeth put on to the roads of London 14 yellow and black "Bersey" cabs nicknamed, I understand, "humming birds" and capable of attaining a speed of 9 mph. The "humming birds" lasted until 1899, when they were withdrawn on account of the noise they made and their low level of reliability, allowing horse-drawn cabs to make a comeback. The reprieve of the horse-drawn cab was only temporary, however, and in 1903 the first petrol-driven cab was licensed. Taxis initially sought to impersonate the horse-drawn cab, but as time went on other, more original, designs began to emerge, in line with the trend in motor vehicles generally.
  The point that I stress, of course, is that although the current black cab is sometimes thought of as an unchanging part of the London scene, it did, in fact, follow a number of very different vehicles, each designed to reflect the needs and wishes of the time. It was actually introduced in its present form just 30 years ago, in 1955.
  Although a short time in historical terms, 30 years is a long time in terms of vehicle development, and it is the age of the FX4 that is really its problem. Vehicle technology has advanced substantially over the past 30 years and, while many improvements have been built into the FX4, in the view of many the time has come for a major redesign of the London taxi to be undertaken. A number of manufacturers have been considering the design of a replacement for the FX4, and Carbodies Ltd., which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, itself manufactures the FX4, and which has been in receipt of support from the Department, is engaged in developing a new taxi, codenamed the CR6. My Department and the Department of Transport provided support for this project under the support for innovation scheme, the details of which, following usual practice, must remain confidential so I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific questions. We supported the project, first, because it seemed to us to be viable and, secondly, because it satisfied the criteria applying to the scheme. The design of the CR6 is aimed at meeting both present day and anticipated legislative requirements and to give both passengers and drivers the standard of comfort and performance that we have come to expect from modern vehicles.
  For instance, as my hon. Friend has already said, the CR6 has been specifically designed to allow ease of access for those confined to wheelchairs. This is an important development and one which should provide enormous benefit to those whose handicap means that at present any journey involving public transport can be achieved only

  839
  with the greatest difficulty. In a civilised society it is right that new designs of public transport should be developed to suit as many people as possible. As is apparent, taxi designs tend to have a long life and the CR6 may set the standard in this respect for the future. I think I am right in saying that it will be the first specialised taxi to have access for the disabled as a specific design objective. As such it will be well placed to take advantage of increasing international awareness and concern about the special needs of the disabled in public transport.
  On the question of the external appearance of the CR6, my hon. Friend dislikes the design and of course there will be others who agree with him. Personally, I find it distinctive and appealing, but judgments about such matters are necessarily subjective. This is an area where manufacturers must make a judgment based on their expertise, experience and understanding of the market, but it is, of course, the customer—the taxi owner—who will prove whether or not their judgment is correct.
  Indeed, as I have already said, I understand that other manufacturers have been considering the possibility of designing a replacement for the FX4 and I believe that at least one manufacturer is already planning to produce an alternative to the CR6. It is, of course, open to any vehicle
  840
  which meets the London conditions of fitness to operate as a licensed taxi in London. If my hon. Friend is correct in his view that the CR6 will prove unpopular, I have no doubt that other manufacturers will take advantage of the situation and ensure that alternatives are made available.
  I am fairly sure that I shall not be able to change my hon. Friend's opinion of the Carbodies CR6 here tonight. I would hope, however, that he will soon have an opportunity to view one of the prototypes at close quarters and to discuss with the manufacturers some of its advantages over the present vehicle. In time, I hope that he, along with the many other taxi-users in London will come to appreciate the qualities of the CR6 and that it will eventually capture a similar place in their affections as has the present taxi. If I may nevertheless offer just one crumb of comfort, I am told that the oldest FX4 still plying for hire today on the streets of London started work some 16 years ago, in 1969. London taxis are built to last and I am sure that the black cab will be a familiar sight on our streets for a good many years yet.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Jurors (Political Affiliations)
  Jurors (Political Affiliations)
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
  Greenham Common Demonstrators (Legal Aid)
  Greenham Common Demonstrators (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Clive Ponting
  Mr. Clive Ponting
ENVIRONMENT
  Use Classes Order
  Use Classes Order
  Gipsies (Designated Sites)
  Gipsies (Designated Sites)
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  GLC (Staff)
  GLC (Staff)
  Water Authorties (Rate Poundage)
  Water Authorties (Rate Poundage)
  Bedfordshire Structure Plan
  Bedfordshire Structure Plan
  Rochdale Metropolitan District (Grants)
  Rochdale Metropolitan District (Grants)
  Energy Conservation and Homes Insulation
  Energy Conservation and Homes Insulation
  Retail Chains (Planning Appeals)
  Retail Chains (Planning Appeals)
  Housing Grants (Leicester)
  Housing Grants (Leicester)
  Docklands STOLport
  Docklands STOLport
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Substandard Dwellings
  Substandard Dwellings
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  Home Improvement Policy (Review)
  Home Improvement Policy (Review)
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Local Authority Block Grants
  Local Authority Block Grants
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Severe Weather Costs
  Severe Weather Costs
  Local Authority Charges
  Local Authority Charges
  Haringey Borough Council (Expenditure)
  Haringey Borough Council (Expenditure)
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  World Bank (Africa Aid)
  World Bank (Africa Aid)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Health and Housing
  Public Health and Housing
  Drugs and Alcohol (London)
  Drugs and Alcohol (London)
  Public Witnesses (Statements)
  Public Witnesses (Statements)
  Greiss Test
  Greiss Test
  Police (Cautioning Practice)
  Police (Cautioning Practice)
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Warning and Monitoring Organisation
  Warning and Monitoring Organisation
  Fandango 85 and Wintex 85
  Fandango 85 and Wintex 85
  Regional Fire Advisers
  Regional Fire Advisers
PRIME MINISTER
  Ministers (Communications)
  Ministers (Communications)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Sudan (Ethiopian Refugees)
  Sudan (Ethiopian Refugees)
  Absence from Office (Contact)
  Absence from Office (Contact)
  Classified Information
  Classified Information
  Mr. Clive Ponting
  Mr. Clive Ponting
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Honeywell Information Systems Ltd.
  Honeywell Information Systems Ltd.
  Employment Statistics (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Employment Statistics (Yorkshire and Humberside)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Collective Worship
  Collective Worship
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure
  Shoggs Head Infant School, Barnsley
  Shoggs Head Infant School, Barnsley
  Unemployed School Leavers
  Unemployed School Leavers
CIVIL SERVICE
  Decision-taking (Delegated Responsibility)
  Decision-taking (Delegated Responsibility)
ENERGY
  Government Purchasing Policy
  Government Purchasing Policy
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Nuclear Material
  Nuclear Material
  Electricity Generation (Oil Burn)
  Electricity Generation (Oil Burn)
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  Nuclear Burst (Damage)
  Nuclear Burst (Damage)
  Coal-firing Scheme
  Coal-firing Scheme
  Departmental Adminstration
  Departmental Adminstration
  Oil-related Construction and Fabrication Industry
  Oil-related Construction and Fabrication Industry
  Enhanced Oil Recovery
  Enhanced Oil Recovery
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Electricity Boards
  Electricity Boards
  Sellafield and Springfields (Safeguards)
  Sellafield and Springfields (Safeguards)
SCOTLAND
  Handicapped Persons (Care Facilities)
  Handicapped Persons (Care Facilities)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Salmon
  Salmon
  "Broadleaves in Britain"
  "Broadleaves in Britain"
  Forestry Commission (Aerial Spraying)
  Forestry Commission (Aerial Spraying)
  Regional Fire Advisers
  Regional Fire Advisers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Adam Fergusson
  Mr. Adam Fergusson
  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  British Nuclear Fuels plc
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Sitting Hours
  Sitting Hours
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  European Community
  European Community
  Second-hand Cars (Consumer Protection)
  Second-hand Cars (Consumer Protection)
  EEC (Heads of Government Agreement)
  EEC (Heads of Government Agreement)
  Sex Monitoring and Positive Action
  Sex Monitoring and Positive Action
  Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984
  Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1984
  Industry (Bank Loans)
  Industry (Bank Loans)
  Pirate Radio
  Pirate Radio
  Imports and Exports (Middle East)
  Imports and Exports (Middle East)
  Ferrous Scrap
  Ferrous Scrap
  Support for Innovation Programme (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Support for Innovation Programme (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Regional Assistance (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Regional Assistance (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Retail Grocery Trade
  Retail Grocery Trade
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Microchips
  Microchips
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
TRANSPORT
  Ports (Road Links)
  Ports (Road Links)
  Scottish Lowlands Airport Policy
  Scottish Lowlands Airport Policy
  London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill
  London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Driving Test Examiners
  Driving Test Examiners
  Heavy Lorries (Water Spray)
  Heavy Lorries (Water Spray)
  Tanker Havens
  Tanker Havens
  A642
  A642
  A1 (M)
  A1 (M)
  National Bus Company (Subsidy)
  National Bus Company (Subsidy)
  Public Transport Facilities (Grants)
  Public Transport Facilities (Grants)
  Moore Lane Bus Station, Bolton
  Moore Lane Bus Station, Bolton
  Green Belt (Motorway Interchange)
  Green Belt (Motorway Interchange)
  Emery Airfreight
  Emery Airfreight
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Non-Scheduled Offences
  Non-Scheduled Offences
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Fair Employment Agency (Membership)
  Fair Employment Agency (Membership)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Geriatric Care
  Geriatric Care
  Old People's Homes
  Old People's Homes
  Property Conversions
  Property Conversions
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  Capital Grants
  Capital Grants
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOL
  Cereal Substitutes
  Cereal Substitutes
  Horse Breeding
  Horse Breeding
  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Dairy Quotas
  Dairy Quotas
WALES
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Teachers (Appointment Procedures)
  Teachers (Appointment Procedures)
  IDC Company
  IDC Company
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Rent and Rate Rebate Scheme
  Rent and Rate Rebate Scheme
  Patients (Rent)
  Patients (Rent)
  Public Relations Staff
  Public Relations Staff
  Departmental Manpower and Costs
  Departmental Manpower and Costs
  Administrative Costs
  Administrative Costs
  Hay Fever Vaccines
  Hay Fever Vaccines
  Sex Monitoring and Positive Action
  Sex Monitoring and Positive Action
  Resettlement Units
  Resettlement Units
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit (Residential Care)
  Supplementary Benefit (Residential Care)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Association of Community Health Councils
  Association of Community Health Councils
  Directors of Social Services
  Directors of Social Services
  Severe Weather Allowance
  Severe Weather Allowance
  Mr. Ernest Trevor Smart
  Mr. Ernest Trevor Smart
  Chatterton Hey
  Chatterton Hey
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Key Housing Association Ltd.
  Key Housing Association Ltd.
  NHS (Energy Conservation)
  NHS (Energy Conservation)
  State Retirement Pension Scheme
  State Retirement Pension Scheme
  Pensions
  Pensions
  United Nations Decade for Women
  United Nations Decade for Women
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Unemployed Persons (Statistics)
  Dental Undergraduates
  Dental Undergraduates
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community (Budget Rebates)
  European Community (Budget Rebates)
  Tax Inspectors
  Tax Inspectors
  National Insurance Surcharge
  National Insurance Surcharge
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Inland Revenue (Staffing)
  Inland Revenue (Staffing)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Family Income
  Family Income
  EC (Budget Contributions)
  EC (Budget Contributions)
  EC (Own Resources Payments)
  EC (Own Resources Payments)
  Customs Staff and Posts
  Customs Staff and Posts
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit

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

Rate Poundages and Interest Rates
Lord Dean of 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 what effect the increase in interest rates will have on rate poundages charged by local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, there is no direct relationship between the level of interest rates at a particular point in time and rate poundages, since in setting their rates local authorities must have regard to estimated average interest rates over the whole of the relevant year. The effect of an increase in interest rates on local authority finances will in any event depend on the balance between authorities' debts and investments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that there are calculations which suggest that, in global terms, the increase in percentage rates which local authorities will have to pay means that, between them, the authorities will have to find between £250 million and £300 million for no additional services? Does the Minister think that fair and just bearing in mind the fact that they have already had their resources severely cut by the Government, with resultant cuts in services?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think the noble Lord presses ahead too fast. To start with, we have not at the moment reached the financial year 1985–1986, when the new system will come in and a level of rates will be anticipated—and I gather the figure is 10.95. In this current year, about which we are now talking, they will of course be adjusted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware that the AMA, which is a responsible body, has produced figures which show that in real terms it will cost the local authorities the sums of money I have suggested. I find it hard to reconcile the AMA's views of the matter with those of the Minister.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the system changes at the end of this financial year. At the moment we do not even know what the interest rate will be at the beginning of the next financial year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, have the Government raised the expenditure levels for rate-capped authorities? If not, will not the cuts be of even greater magnitude for those authorities since they will be having to pay more interest on their loan charges and
386
will not be able to make that up except by making cuts in other areas of essential expenditure?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords, of course, the very fact that local authorities are rate-capped means that they may have more problems with their loans, but those problems are of their own making.

Television Licence Fee
2.41 p.m.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I just say one thing before the noble Lord rises to reply? I do not wish to make a correction here, but where in the Question I refer to "those of pensionable age", I really mean the infirm, the housebound and the handicapped.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding concessionary rates for television licences for the infirm, the handicapped and those of pensionable age.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, my Answer to the Question, which I believe is still relevant, is as follows. There is a long-standing concession for retired people in residential homes and some sheltered housing schemes, and this has recently been extended slightly to include disabled people living in the same kinds of accommodation. There is also a modest reduction in the licence fee for registered blind persons, but the Government have no proposals for introducing concessionary rates for all those who are infirm, handicapped or of pensionable age.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that many senior citizens in the United Kingdom to whom I have referred get very little pleasure out of life, through no fault of their own, and have to eke out their savings on a small pension and supplementary benefits such as they are? Is he further aware that even a token reduction in the television licence fee would be an immense and humane gesture from the Government to the old and the under-privileged for whom so often the only contact with the outside world is through the confines of the medium of television?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining the real value of pensions and related long-term benefits for retired and disabled people, and we believe in giving benefits in cash rather than in kind.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful answer. May I use the Question and my noble friend's helpful reply to ask whether he would agree with me that in order to make my proposals credible a means test would have in itself to be fair and also be seen to be fair? I should like the guidance of my noble friend the Minister as to whether or not this rather poignant proposal—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Viscount Melville:—should or would be implemented by a means test when dealing with cases of a low income bracket, or by any national or local authority or body?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said in my earlier reply, we are committed to maintaining the value of the help which we give. We believe that we should do so not by giving specific help for individual purposes, but by allowing people in receipt of help to decide how to use it themselves.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, while I see the Government's problem with pensions, surely in regard to the infirm and handicapped it would be possible to provide that their doctors could prescribe a TV. It is so important in the lives of people who have nothing else to do. It really is a matter of health, and I should have thought that this is an instance where doctors might be of assistance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not at all sure that that suggestion would be welcome to doctors, who would have to apply criteria which it would be extremely difficult to devise.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past many social services committees of local authorities have considered this question and in most cases have decided against such a scheme because there is no way in which one can really determine who is a pensionable person living entirely alone and so not attracting benefit for other people? It is really not practical to consider this for persons of pensionable age.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it were possible to identify single pensioners living alone, then I understand that it would cost about £95 million a year in lost revenue to give them a complete concession.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since virtually everyone owns a television, have the Government considered whether it would not be in their interests, and in the interests of everybody else, to abolish the licence fee and pay the BBC from general taxation, thus saving the considerable cost of collection of licence fees?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is generally understood that it is important that the BBC should be independent of government interference and direction. To make the BBC dependent upon direct funding from taxes would breach that principle. In any case, that is not at present in view.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister something that is distantly related to the original Question? I do not know whether this matter is the responsibility of the Government or the BBC, but may I ask this? Has the question of unpaid licence fees been under consideration recently; and can the Government say approximately how much is lost each year through non-payment of television licence fees?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that supplementary is so much further from the Question even than I have already been tempted that I cannot answer it.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, may I put one last and final question?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, on a point of order, is my noble friend aware that it is quite out of order to read material for questions? He should present his points orally and in the form of a question.
Viscount Melville: My Lords, my last question to my noble friend the Minister is this. Is he aware that so far as blind registered people are concerned, they have to pay £45.25 and yet receive no benefit from what they themselves cannot see?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is worth pointing out to my noble friend that, presumably, the blind person does not need colour television and would therefore be content with a black and white set at a licence cost of £15. I believe there is abatement of £1.25 of that fee.

Housing Legislation: Consolidation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molson: 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 expect to introduce a Bill for the consolidation of housing legislation by April 1985, in accordance with the hope expressed by the Lord Chancellor on 26th March 1984.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the consolidation of the Housing Acts from 1957 onwards continues to make satisfactory progress. No effort is being spared to complete the work and I hope to introduce it in the present Session.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his very encouraging Answer. I do so the more cordially because he responded so well to the pressure brought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who advocated that consolidation should take place as a matter of urgency. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can go a little further. In the case of a Consolidation Bill, it has to pass the Law Commission and then the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of both Houses. This can involve a certain amount of delay. Is my noble and learned friend able to hold out a real prospect that this Consolidation Bill will be on the statute book by the end of this Session?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope so. As your Lordships know, there is a special provision about Consolidation Bills: they virtually go on from Session to Session, although invariably they do not. I must thank my noble friend, and thank him sincerely, for what he said at the beginning of his remarks. There will be one main Housing Bill of nearly 600 clauses; two smaller Bills, one of about 100 clauses, and the

389
other—a landlord and tenant Bill—of about 30 clauses; and there will be a consequential provisions Bill. Therefore, it is a mammoth undertaking.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I express gratitude for the immense progress that has been made in the field of consolidation? Hardly a day passes without the noble and learned Lord announcing the content of pending legislation. May I ask whether he agrees that consolidation of legislation in the housing field is of great practical importance and is urgently needed? We trust that the hope he expressed nearly a year ago of achieving such consolidation within one year may be more or less realised.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Consolidation will not be by April, which was the hope that I originally expressed, but I hope it will be before the end of the Session. I realise the importance of this matter. We have a lot more consolidation coming, too, I am glad to say.

National Insurance Deductions: Low-Paid Employees
2.48 p.m.
Lord Monson: 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 why an unskilled individual working a 20-hour week whose pay is raised from £1.70 to £1.75 an hour must suffer tax and/or national insurance deductions at an effective rate of 315 per cent. on his additional £1 per week, given that a highly skilled individual working the same hours whose pay is raised from £14.75 to £14.80 an hour suffers tax and/or national insurance deductions of only 30 per cent. on his additional £1.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the effects to which the noble Lord refers are the inevitable consequences of the lower and upper earnings limit of national insurance contributions, as fixed in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said in another place, this whole question is being examined in the context of the social security reviews.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. Would he not agree that the combined rate of tax-cum-national insurance upon the earnings of lower paid workers is much too high, particularly when one compares Britain with other industrialised nations? Secondly, does he not agree that if the first £10 of weekly earnings were totally disregarded for the purpose of calculating both the employee's and the employer's national insurance contributions, at a total annual cost of a maximum of about £1.826 billion, then the net take home pay of low-paid employees would rise in real terms by more than 1 per cent., with higher-paid employees receiving
390
proportionally less, as seems only reasonable? Also, would not the poverty trap be considerably narrowed, and above all would not employers have considerably more incentive to take on juvenile and low-paid adult workers?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the poverty trap—or, as I prefer to consider it, the unemployment trap—is one of the most severe problems facing our political economy. I share with the noble Lord a lack of admiration, perhaps, for the 1975 legislation. It is for that reason that I am very glad my right honourable friend is engaged in looking at it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, has the noble Earl seen the suggestion, in an article by two Conservative Back-Bench MPs in The Times today, that the lower earnings limit should be raised to £60 and the upper earnings limit to £305? Does he agree with that? If it were implemented, would it not solve the anomaly which has been pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have not yet read The Times today, but I shall be doing so. The point is fairly taken, but may I refer the noble Lord and the House to remarks made last November by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security, who is responsible far contributions? He said:
"I do not think that any of us would say that we think that the existing limits for lower and upper earnings are perfect and should stand unquestioned for all time. Clearly, the operation of those limits is one of the aspects that we shall be considering in relation to the social security reviews."—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/84; col. 509.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as a matter of interest, can the noble Earl say how much money would be saved if the national insurance contributions were raised by an equivalent amount on the income tax and corporation tax of companies, and if the machinery for the collection of national insurance contributions as a separate entity were to be eliminated?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I could give that information only if I or my department had time to reach for our calculators. If the noble Lord will put it down in writing, I will try to answer it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his answers have been extremely helpful and sensitive to date? However, will he consider one particular aspect of the problem which militates against one-parent families, particularly widows and women who have been deserted? The difference between the threshold taxation allowance and the national insurance threshold is £1,231 in that case. It militates very hardly against widows and women who have been deserted by their husbands, and who are trying to make ends meet. Will the noble Earl ask the Chancellor to give particular attention to that aspect of the problem?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the problems facing single-parent

391
families are acute, and I know that my right honourable friend will bear them in mind as he looks at this whole vexed question.

Cinemas Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Change in functions of Commission]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State; and")
The noble Lord said: I very much hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to help us to the extent that we shall not wish to press this matter to a Division. It is not exactly a probing amendment but an amendment seeking further confirmation of what we believe is the position. The Minister was quite helpful at Second Reading both in answering questions and in making his own speech.
It is right and proper that, before I proceed to speak to the amendment, I should remind the Committee precisely what it is we are about at this particular part of the Bill. For many years under Governments of all complexions the new towns movement in this country has been added to and has spread. At the moment we have new towns at various stages: some have been wound up, some have been given winding up dates and some are anxious to have the dates which have been mooted extended to other periods. At the same time, as overwhelmingly the activity in new towns is in the realm of the development corporations, for each new
392
town we are faced with the main imperative of this Bill, which is to enhance the function of the Commission for the New Towns. In Clause 1 we are talking in terms of redefining the purposes for which the commission exists.
One of the anxieties not only of many new towns, which I believe is right, but of the people who are concerned with the management of the new towns is to feel that they will have the opportunity before winding up dates—and winding up dates are flexible—of achieving the maximum possible potential for which the new towns are capable of being developed. At the same time, there is also the other major factor that the Government have a policy of the sale of industrial and commercial assets—although other amendments which I shall deal with later cover the way in which that is taking place.
Amendment No. 1 refers to line 9 on page 2 and the matters that need to be considered when the commission carries out its function of disposing of properties. Under subsection (2) we are dealing with the considerations that the commission needs to have in mind. The first consideration is in subsection (2)(a), which states:
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there, and".
My amendment seeks to insert, as a further consideration:
"the need to achieve levels of population and employment for which the new town has been developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State".
I need to remind the Minister of what could be seen as conflicting views contained in the words used at Second Reading. The Minister said:
"The special involvement of the public sector through the ownership of land and buildings has been an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns. But when that induced growth has been achieved and there is no need for further growth, the case for that special involvement ceases".—[Official Report, 28/1/85; col. 468.]
There would be no dispute and this amendment would not be needed if that is where we rested; in other words, the general view would be that there is an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns but when that induced growth has been achieved—that is, only when that induced growth has been achieved—there will be no need for further growth.
Later, in column 486 of Hansard, the Minister said:
"Development corporations are set up with a specific task—that of inducing growth. Where that task is complete, the development corporation is no longer needed".
The premise is that only when the task is complete will the development corporation no longer be needed. There is no dispute about that. But also at column 485 (concerning Milton Keynes) and in column 469 (concerning Corby), the Minister indicated that corporations would be wound up before growth was complete and particularly where private enterprise and public sector involvement via the commission could finish off the growth.
3 p.m.
We are not arguing about the philosophy behind the Government's attitude to the new towns, but can the Minister assure not merely the Committee but the

393
many individuals whose livelihood is affected that the development corporations will be allowed—I am not talking about enabled—to continue their work provided that they are working towards population and growth targets which the Minister and Parliament have agreed? We want to know whether we can take it that in general the winding-up of the remaining new towns will take place only when growth is substantially complete and that is accepted locally. I realise that the Minister and his advisers may take a different view from local people about whether the development is substantially complete, but I should certainly like an answer to that question.
At column 469 the Minister said:
"Where it is necessary for them to undertake development and promotion they will be able to do so … To sell industrial premises at a proper price will need the local economy to be in as good a condition as possible".
Would it not be reasonable to accept the amendment so that there can be no dubiety about the fact that it is the Government's intention to allow new town development corporations to continue to do their work instead of passing it over to the commission?
This should not be a matter of great moment. The Minister can use a form of words. His record on intent and integrity is accepted and respected. I hope that he will understand the raison d'etre of the worries put to me by a number of people. There is a slight uncertainty, not because of the words that he used on the last occasion, but because very important matters are at stake. The various towns have different histories and need different treatment. The Government gave Corby special attention because of the enormity of the situation there, with the collapse of its economy which relied on the steel industry, and so on, and special steps were taken. I am not arguing for uniform treatment. But where a development corporation has within its grasp the ability to complete the programme which the Minister and Parliament have laid down, it should be allowed to do so before being wound up. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would add to the considerations to which the commission has to have regard—the need to achieve certain levels of population and employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, opposite explained, the thought here is that the commission should actively promote its town rather than taking a purely passive approach. I hope to persuade the Committee that the amendment is not really necessary.
Under the Bill as it stands, the commission has to hold, manage and turn to account the property that it receives from development corporations until that property is sold. The commission also has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of people living in, working in or carrying out businesses in the town, and must also maintain and enhance the value of land held and the return obtained from it. The commission also retains a power, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to develop land itself. It is not therefore limited just to whatever was passed to it when the development corporation was wound up.
These powers under the Bill give the commission all the remit that it needs to promote the town appropriately. As an example—and I am sorry that the noble
394
Lord, Lord Graham, takes me to task slightly for using Corby—at Corby what it can achieve in terms of job creation has been proved, working in partnership with the local authority. The commission will likewise take a responsible approach to the problems of each of the towns that it is due to take over. That approach will not be a carbon copy of what has been done. Indeed, the noble Lord said there would be different approaches in different places. In the very different circumstances of the initial London ring of towns, for instance, the examples are there. Skelmersdale presents a different set of problems and opportunities from Crawley, and the commission acknowledges that. I can assure the Committee that the commission will not be taking a purely passive asset-realisation rôle.
Noble Lords will, I trust, be persuaded that the amendment is unnecessary. Incidentally, although of course I go along with the need for responsible promotion of the commission's towns, I have to part company with the detail of the amendment. The amendment talks of levels of population and employment for which the new town was developed and which have been approved by the Secretary of State. In fact, the official Opposition will be particularly aware that new town target populations were amended several times, most notably by a Labour Government in 1977. The then Secretary of State announced drastic reductions to the targets of the third generation towns, especially Central Lancashire New Town.
For this reason, when in 1981 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced his own conclusions on the future of the third generation towns, he stressed that the population figures he was quoting should not be considered as targets. That was because the rate of population growth would depend primarily on the rate of demand for private house building and on the willingness of the private sector to invest. Much the same can be said about employment. Though the commission will wish to promote its towns, it must surely depend for job opportunities created on the decisions of the private sector.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the basic thought behind the amendment, that the commission should take a responsible role in promoting its towns, is one which I share but which is met perfectly adequately by the Bill as it now stands. The amendment would, I believe, add nothing, to the extent that it talks of target populations and employments. I believe that has been superseded by events. I trust that I have to a degree persuaded the noble Lord that his worries about the commission have been set aside, and I believe that later amendments will clarify some of the other points.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has assured me as to the intent. I am bound to say that the further away the body is from the real action, the more worried I become about its ability to do the job. In my view, the local council in certain circumstances is better able to do the job than the development corporation; and the development corporation is certainly better able to do the job than the commission. That is simply because those concerned

395
are nearer to the action. They live in the town. If they are councillors, they are elected by the local people. If they are members of the development corporation, they have their being in the area and move about in it.
The Minister will recall that I used the example of the Wrekin town council. Talking about wrecking councils, I do not doubt that the Minister could give me the names of one or two which are on his lips or those of his noble friends. But the Wrekin council drew my attention to a real problem. Once the commission for the new towns has responsibility, it will certainly not be able to devote as much attention to the new town (which is of course the new town of Telford) as did the development corporation. We know of the problems of the new town of Telford. It is made up of a lot of small and run down—almost industrially clapped out—places in that part of the country, brought together into the new town.
I raise the point because clearly it is a separate issue. I see that in this month's issue of the Local Government Chronicle, a great deal of the pages are devoted to the Wrekin Council. The headline is: "A lesson on how to devise a new corporate identity", and there are some interesting observations on what the Telford New Town Development Corporation is doing to carry out its work.
However, we are in the area where we have to trust that the Government have it right. That is quite uncertain. I certainly trust the Government as to their intentions, and those are that they want to make sure that what we are seeking in the amendment actually comes about without the necessity of having to write those words on to the face of the Bill. In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall accept his assurances that, whether or not the target populations are changed, there is the intention to maximise the benefit to the local people and to the taxpayer of using the resources which are there. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("and
(c) the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated." ")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 concerns the question of the considerations to be borne in mind but in a different way. We are talking in terms of the purpose for which the Commission for New Towns exists. The new subsections (1) says:
"The purposes for which the Commission exists are—

(a) to take over and, with a view to its eventual disposal, to hold, manage and turn to account the property of development corporations transferred to the Commission under this Act, and

(b) as soon as it considers it expedient to do so, to dispose of property so transferred and any other property held by it, due regard being had to the considerations"—

I repeat the word "considerations"—
"as specified in subsection (2) below".
I want to seek to add to the considerations which are, first of all,
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there",
396
and secondly,
"until disposal, the maintenance and enhancement of the value of the land held and the return obtained from it."
I then want to add, as a consideration:
"the agreement of the local authority in whose area the property or land is situated."
That is a simple point which I hope the Minister will accept. The council consisting of local people has been democratically elected, as opposed to the New Towns Commission which consists of placemen and women put there by the Secretary of State, and quite clearly with the powers in the Bill the council can be overridden by the Secretary of State if they do not do what he wants. I take the view that locally elected people have every right to be not just consulted but to be part of the decision-making process. If we put aside party politics, we are concerned with getting the best deal for the local people and, let me say, the best deal for the taxpayer. I do not put out of mind that one of the functions of this Bill is to satisfy the taxpayer that he is getting value for money in selling property at the right price at the right time.
We are talking in terms of disposing of commercial and industrial assets. I can recall that when this Bill was promoted, we said—and it continues to be said—that when new towns are given targets of the asset values that they must realise in a certain period, in effect it is a false market. If a new town is told that in the next year, or the next two years, the Exchequer expects that part of the asset value of the town shall be transformed from bricks and mortar, or factories, shops or offices, into cash which will come back to the Exchequer, then these matters do not remain secret. People who are interested in the market realise that the assets that have to be sold will very often be sold or could be sold at prices less than the market value.
3.15 p.m.
If the Minister tells us that that can never happen, that no asset will be sold at less than its market value, then we are in an interesting situation. That is because if no asset is to be sold until it commands its proper price—not its market price in a fair market: I am talking about a forced sale and a forced, false market which can be created—then the wind up of the new towns would take a very long time indeed. We know that the Government want the money. Besides having the imperative of getting out of the business of governing new towns, they want the money. The Treasury says to the DoE, "We want you to realise those assets". What we are saying is that the people who live in the new town and its area, and who are elected to the local authority which covers the new town, are every bit as entitled to be considered.
The Minister in other places has said that the consultation process will take place. This is all very well but what we are concerned about is not merely consultation: we are talking about something far more substantial than that. What we have here are the words of the Minister. The Minister for Housing in the committee in another place, (at col. 7 of the Official Report) said:
"The Bill lays on the Commission the duty to have regard to the welfare and convenience of those living, working and carrying on business in the towns where it has responsibilities. The basic step in carrying out that duty is to decide what will conduce to the welfare

397
of those who live and work there. The views of their elected representatives should play a full part in that process of consultation.".
In essence, what we want the Minister to tell us is what is wrong with writing on the face of the Bill that one of the considerations—it is only a consideration—that the Commission should take into account before proceeding to carry out its remit of disposing of the assets is that it should have the agreement of the local authority. There are other parts of the Bill which give the Secretary of State powers to override. But if the Minister is looking for sensible progress towards the completion of the new towns programme I hope that he will accept this amendment. It is reasonable, democratic, and in my view it would be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I rise for two reasons. The first is to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Stedman, who unfortunately cannot be here this Monday. The second reason is to mention that, due to some bureaucratic tangle, her request to have her name placed against a number of these amendments was lost in the system. That has been acknowledged by the system but I wanted the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to know that he was not alone, as it were. However, he is capable of handling these matters more than adequately.
The amendment has the full support of these Benches. I believe that my noble friend Lady Stedman referred to the background (in col. 474 of Hansard) at Second Reading. As she then said, we have had considerable representations from councillors in Milton Keynes on this same subject.
It seems to me that whereas Liberals have been suspicious of placemen, of commissions and corporations of one sort or another, and want to see local authorities move into the hands of local authorities as soon as possible, the work that has been done by the commissions is acknowledged as having been extremely successful. It seems to me a great pity that the transfer cannot be made as smooth and as much based on consensus as it might be. The provision to get the agreement of the local authority is an important facet in making sure that the timing aspect is in the interests of all concerned, and not merely of the Exchequer and the Government. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Government are trying to push this along faster than they should. I am sure that that is not in the Minister's mind. But it is a useful safeguard to have brought into the action the local authority, which has knowledge of the area which perhaps the Secretary of State does not possess.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether the noble Lord will clarify one matter. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would like her name associated with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Does she also want that in regard to Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6?
Lord Tordoff: In her absence I cannot be absolutely sure. I can perhaps feed this through the system at a later point. Certainly, the message was passed to the Public Bill Office. It is acknowledged there that, by some mischance, her name does not appear on the amendments. I do not think it matters frightfully
398
whether her name goes on, but I wanted it to be known that we support the amendments.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Lord because, later I may not be quite so amicable as I was previously. I wanted to make sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was included. I should like to deal with Amendment No. 2. Noble Lords have explained that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the commission consults local authorities about how the commission will exercise its reponsibilities in their towns. An identical amendment was, I believe, considered in Committee in the other place, where it did not find favour. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes. I stress again that I do not honestly believe that there is any need for this amendment. I shall try to persuade the Committee of the reason.
The Bill ensures that the commission, in pursuing its function, has to have due regard to the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on a business in each of the towns. Consulting the local authorities, who are the elected representatives of the people living in the towns, is an obvious element in discharging that responsibility. Indeed, the commission has already demonstrated its commitment to consultations where the joint industrial development committee has played an important part in attracting jobs to that town. There, again, I mention Corby.
The commission intends to establish local liaison committees in all the further towns where it will be taking over. Indeed, even though the commission has not yet assumed responsibility at Northampton, Redditch and Skelmersdale, committees have already been set up and have met. Northampton's committee met last Tuesday, 12th February, Redditch's met on 16th January, and Skelmersdale's, which met on 5th December, will be meeting again this coming Wednesday.
I have referred to the towns which the commission will be taking over. But the commission also works closely with the local authorities in the other towns where it has already taken over. We have no reason to believe that these existing arrangements are unsatisfactory or require any change in the statutory basis for the commission's work.
Ministers have repeatedly said that there will be no forced sales and no sales against best professional advice. The task of the commission to realise the assets will be, in part, to create a market in which this aim can be achieved. I must therefore recommend that your Lordships' Committee does not accept this amendment. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there is no need for it. Indeed, I would argue that it is wrong to try to tie down by statute the precise way the commission should discharge its statutory responsibility to have regard to the convenience and welfare of local people. The commission's approach will need to reflect the different situations in each of the towns. For example, the problems and needs of Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, the development corporations for which were wound up over 20 years ago, are very different from those of Corby and different again from those of the towns where wind up is shortly to take place, such

399
as Northampton and Redditch and, looking a little further ahead, perhaps, central Lancashire.
I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is all that it should be. It is not clear whether it deals just with consultations or whether, instead, it gives a power of veto. However, I do not rest my argument on the wording being wrong. The main point is that the amendment is not really necessary. I believe that it is inappropriate to meet all the circumstances. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and that he will agree with me.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is a fundamental difference. I have been trying to argue that the status and stature of elected councillors and the democratically-elected council are worth more than being embraced by the words,
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing".
The Minister did not say, though I am sure he would if I were to ask, of whom the local liaison committees will be comprised. No doubt they will very much reflect local organisations and so on. I am not concerned about that. Many of these councils will be Conservative and some will be Labour. I am not talking about the politics. As a former democratically elected local councillor, I am saying that the town council or the local authority should have a status. When the Minister says that there is no need for this to be written into the Bill, I maintain that there comes a time when we have to say not that we distrust Ministers, nor, above all, this Minister, but that all Governments and departments resist writing into a Bill more obligations on the department than are necessary. In this instance, however, I believe that it is right and proper that the amendment should be written into the Bill. I shall test the view of the Committee by pressing the matter to a vote.
3.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beswick, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gormley, L.

Brockway, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimond, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hampton, L.

Caradon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Collison, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Leatherland, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

McNair, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Maybray-King, L.

400

Mayhew, L.

Soper, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strablogi, L.

Plant, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seear, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Melville, V.

Avon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mersey, V.

Beloff, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Molson, L.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Orkney, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Pender, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Porritt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Quinton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Radnor, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Davidson, V.

Rodney, L.

De Freyne, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Denning, L.

Sandford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sharples, B.

Dudley, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Dulverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Soames, L.

Effingham, E.

Stamp, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glanusk, L.

Todd, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Hayter, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Marley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 in Clause 1 seeks to strike out lines 39 and 40, and I so move. This part of the Bill lays down what the commission shall not do, by virtue of Section 36, and it then proceeds to list a number of things it shall not do:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
I am seeking to convince the Committee that we ought to delete the words:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State.".

401
We are considering whether we are going to trust the commission to exercise many of its functions. We have already decided, by virtue of the Division we have just had, that we are not prepared to involve fully the local, democratically-elected council in the disposal process. In fact, we are not prepared to allow the commission to do what is laid down as an obligation without the agreement of the council. Having said that the commission shall not have the agreement of the local council we are now, in this part of Clause 1, saying that there is a range of things that the commission shall not do unless it has:
"the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
I know that the Minister is going to tell me that the words:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State",
are in legislation from time immemorial. He will be able to quote recent legislation.
What I want to ask the Committee is this. Is it not time that we curbed some of the powers of the Secretary of State and relied upon the good sense, the business acumen and sagacity of the people who the Secretary of State has appointed? Every person who will be on the New Towns Commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State. I make no political point. I simply mean that when the Secretary of State is given advice and looks at the range of men and women who are competent to serve, he decides that those people have his confidence, for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons may be political, though generally they will not. He makes his decision because he believes that the people are well able to look after his interests on the commission.
Yet we have, in this part of the Bill, a number of things that the commission cannot do unless it has his approval. Let me look at some of them. One is:
"acquire land or any interest or rights in or over land".
The commission shall not be able to do that:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
It shall not be able to:
"dispose of any property by way of gift or for a consideration which is less than the best reasonably obtainable",
that is:
"except under the general or special authority of the Secretary of State".
On the last amendment and the earlier one we were arguing about the rigged or the forced market—hurried sales. Here we have apparently the get-out for a commission which sells at what is recognised as less than market value, provided it gets the approval of the Secretary of State.
I believe that in recent times the Secretary of State has taken on enormous powers in respect of Section 137. I notice that the Minister who is sitting next to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, smiles; I take it as a smile rather than a grimace, though it could be a grimace in the light of the extra work that is being provided. There are enormous powers, involving millions and millions of pounds, and there are limits to the number of hands, feet and brains that can work at these matters—at least, I believe there are limits—in the Department of the Environment as well as anywhere else.
The simple premise that I am asking the Minister to accept is this. Having made sure that the Secretary of State appoints people to the commission to look after his interests, ought we not to take away the veto that the Secretary of State holds as regards what the commission do? Ought we not to take away the ultimate responsibility? I can well imagine that the new towns commission could take the view that "big brother" or "big sister" will continue to look over their shoulders, and that they need to have final approval as regards a great many matters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Taken literally, this amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to permit the Commission for the New Towns to do any of the things listed in Clause 1(3). This would mean that they could not acquire any new land, make any contributions to local authorities, make any loans, develop land or make any gifts of land. For that reason alone I would hesitate to recommend that your Lordships countenance this amendment. However, I do not want to rest merely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has explained that his purpose is not in fact to block all such things, but rather to discuss how the Secretary of State should exercise his powers to agree such things and the extent to which Parliament should be involved in that. It may help the Committee if I run briefly through the provision as it stands in the Bill. I do not want to dwell too long on this because the whole question was discussed at some length in Committee in another place.
Ever since 1946, when the Government of the noble Lord's persuasion first brought in new towns legislation, successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have had powers to give directions about the discharge by new town corporations of their functions. Since 1959 that has included the commission as well as new town development corporations. So there is, in principle, nothing new here at all.
Paragraph (a) deals with the acquisition of land. Although this control is new so far as the commission is concerned, it simply parallels a similar existing control on the acquisition of land by development corporations. I am referring to the control under Section 10 of the 1981 Act. It seems to me to be highly sensible that both controls should be on the same footing.
Paragraph (b) deals with the contributions by the commission towards the cost of amenities, supplies and services. This is simply a restatement of an existing control over the commission. The only change is that we are removing the present requirement for the concurrence of the Treasury as well as the approval of the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Committee would be happy to agree that there is no need for the Treasury to be involved in such details.
Paragraph (e) relates to the control over gifts and over disposals at a consideration less than the best reasonably obtainable. In effect, this is an existing control. The Bill, however, replaces a rather complicated existing scheme with a straightforward one. I think the main point here, which was discussed at some length in another place, is that we have no intention of using this power to allow the commission to give away or sell at an undervalue land which

403
should be sold on a commercial basis. I willingly repeat that undertaking. What we have in mind, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction explained in the other place, is to have a power where there is a clear social case for doing so. He quoted the example of the forthcoming transfer of the Castle Eden Dene Nature Reserve at Peterlee to the Nature Conservancy Council and the longstanding practices whereby land needed by local authorities for their functions, or land needed by Churches for places of worship, are transferred to those bodies on special terms. Those are cases of a type where the Secretary of State should be able to give his consent, and the Bill provides for that. Nothing more nor less is needed.
3.45 p.m.
The noble Lord has also stressed the question of parliamentary involvement in the Secretary of State's decision. I do not believe that these are matters that need to be put before Parliament individually before my right honourable friend can make a decision. The Labour Government did not think that this was appropriate when they first set the new towns legislation framework back in 1946, and nor have any subsequent Government.
We have had an interesting debate on this subject. Lord Graham's amendment would prevent the commission doing certain things absolutely instead of, as the Bill suggests, allowing them to be done in circumstances to be agreed by responsible Ministers. I believe that our way forward is the right way forward, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, can be persuaded—he is not persuaded, but he can be! The Minister has to satisfy me about the reconciliation of a matter which I just cannot, at present, accept. On the one hand, the Minister went out of his way just now to stress that no properties will be realised unless a proper price is obtained. Whether it is a reasonable price, the market price, or a satisfactory price, we are talking in terms of an asset which everyone agrees is worth, for example, £1 million. What the Minister is saying is that you cannot get rid of that asset for less than £1 million, or for much less than £1 million, without his approval.
On the other hand, we know that the Minister and his colleagues have remits from the Treasury, to produce monies. Let me give an illustration. The Treasury will from time to time say that in the year ahead the new towns will realise assets—for example, £100 million, £50 million or whatever it may be. In fact, the Minister has to answer this question now. Is it not a fact that there is laid upon the development corporations and the commission a target that they are urged (if they are not under a strict mandate) to achieve? I am referring to so many millions of pounds. For example, let us suppose that a development corporation is told that its share of the total is £20 million, and the Minister says that if it cannot get a fair price then it cannot sell anything because if it were to do so it would not be selling sensibly. Let us suppose that the new town development corporation says, "We cannot get £20 million for £20 million worth of assets.
404
All we can get is £12 million because of the market, a lack of buyers and a lot of economic imperatives". Will they in fact be able to get only £12 million for £20 million worth of assets, or do they not sell (which would be the course that a prudent businessman would take) until the market is right? And in that case, how does the Minister reconcile that with the demands of the Treasury?
I recognise that these are matters upon which we need to be clear. The Bill is making progress. There will be insufficient opportunities after today to come back to the matter again. We need to have the situation on record a little more clearly than has been the case in the past. It is no good the Minister and his colleagues saying, as they have done, that they have no intention of selling the taxpayer or the ratepayer short, and that they are not going to force sales. I have contacts with individuals on development corporations who tell me that, whether one uses the term "pressure" or "intimidation", or even "demands", there is pressure to produce the sum of money which the Treasury want at the end of the period. I believe that the Minister may be in a position now to be helpful to the Committee, and certainly helpful to people outside. If he is in such a position, then certainly the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is still able and open to be persuaded.
The Earl of Avon: To answer the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the disposal targets of each new town are settled in the light of all factors listed by the noble Lord. The demands of the Treasury are settled in the light of what is possible. We discuss with the towns what is possible and the targets take account of that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I understand that, in the light of what is possible, targets are set. My question is this. In the light of the reality of the next 12 months when the targets can be achieved only by disposing of property at less than its market value, to what extent are the demands of the Treasury paramount over the local authority needing to sell its property at a lower amount? I can understand that due account is taken of unemployment, depression, and so on. The Minister must bear in mind that this process has been going on for three or four years. The first such New Towns Bill was introduced in 1980, so we have had three or four years of experience. I want the Minister to say what happens if there is likely to be a shortfall on realisation of the Treasury's target.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to give the noble Lord an undertaking on this matter, but in all honesty I cannot. However, on my reading of the matter, in this particular aspect the Treasury certainly comes second, if I may put it that way. There is no question that the new towns do not have their own particular ability to deal as they wish without having to look over their shoulders at the Treasury.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is heartening. The Minister has been as avid a reader of what happened in the other place as I have. He will recall the arguments about the creation of company towns. This is a situation where certain companies dominate in the acquisition of assets, and instead of a new town being

405
owned by the taxpayer, certain institutions, particularly insurance institutions, invest in the town. A situation then arises in which, quite frankly, the only people who are able and willing to purchase are the existing large landowners. In those circumstances competition would be stifled. I look the Minister straight in the eye and accept what he says: that, without taking further advice, he would accept (as I would) that it would be in everyone's best interests to obtain proper value for an asset rather than that the Treasury should get what it wanted, whether it be £100 million or £200 million.
There will be an opportunity to return to this matter at another stage of the Bill, but I am satisfied that the Minister has done his best—that is, unless he wants to do even better? I see that he does not. Therefore, I shall let sleeping dogs lie and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to dissolve Commission]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("or") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 5.
Amendment No.5: Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("means") to end of line 3 and insert ("a democratically elected local authority." ").
Again, here we are talking about the rights of a democratically-elected authority, and this particularly applies to Amendment No. 5. At the top of page 4, subsection (7) says:
"In this paragraph 'accountable public authority' means any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown".
In this subsection I contend that "accountable public authority" means a democratically-elected local authority. I confess that some of this ground gives rise to a division of opinion. I want the people who will be involved below the level of Secretary of State and of the Commission for the New Towns to be democratically-elected, whereas the Bill says that those people will not be democratically-elected—they are the "placed" men and women of the Secretary of State. There is a basic dichotomy here. It is spelt out in this clause:
"… any statutory corporation a majority of the members of which are appointed by a Minister of the Crown".
In other words, it will be the Secretary of State versus the people. Of course, the Secretary of State is elected and the local council is democratically-elected. I want more of the action to be given to the democratically-elected local authority.
I believe that the Minister would be well advised to reflect on what I seek to do in these amendments. Bureaucratically, Bills can become Acts and various matters are proceeded with and then disappear, but we are trying to create a relationship between central Government and the local people which will not be sour. I can assure the Minister that these amendments have not been dreamed up merely to be awkward. They have been submitted by the associations of local
406
councils who do not believe that they are being given a fair crack at the whip in helping to run their communities in the future. I very much hope that, besides trusting his Secretary of State, the Minister will also trust the people. That is what I ask him to do. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: These two amendments were also put down and considered in the other place. The first would make any orders transferring the commission's residual property, obligations, and the like when the commission itself is to be wound up, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The second amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, addressed most of his time, would mean that, instead of being able to transfer such residual property to accountable public authorities—that is, statutory corporations, the majority of whose members are appointed by Ministers—the property would have to go to local authorities.
I hope to persuade the Committee that these amendments are not really required. The Bill as it stands ensures that Parliament will be directly involved in the main order; that is, to bring about the winding-up of the Commission itself, and any order which writes off any outstanding National Loans Fund advances which are still the responsibility of the Commission at that time. Those are major decisions and it is quite right that Parliament should be fully involved through the affirmative resolution procedure.
However, what we are discussing here are the residual assets, and where they are to go is, I believe, quite a different matter. These are consequential matters only. In fact, we may well be able to wrap up all these matters in a single order. If so, Parliament will see it all in the one place. But consequential matters like residual assets are just the sort of thing where one might need to have a second bite at the cherry, if I can put it that way. If so, it seems quite unnecessary that Parliament be involved again in that degree of detail.
There have been suggestions that there will be something furtive in all this or that the Secretary of State will be able to pass these assets to public bodies under his control and then deny that he has any responsibility for them. I believe that all this is far too melodramatic. The residual assets and liabilities will need a home. When a commission itself is wound up—and an existing public body could well be the sensible place for some of them—I can also assure your Lordships that there will be prior discussions with those bodies before any such order is made. We are not trying to hide anything or burden anyone unfairly. Nor is it right to think that such bodies have no minds of their own. The Secretary of State may appoint a majority of their members but, as recent events elsewhere have demonstrated, that certainly does not, and indeed should not, prevent them from speaking their own minds.
4 p.m.
Perhaps I may turn to the second amendment. This would mean that instead of going to a public authority, the residual assets and perhaps liabilities would have to pass to a local authority. This amendment fails to take account of the fact that the assets which should

407
pass to the local authorities—that is to say, the rented housing community-related assets—will already have done so. The assets that happen to remain at the very end could be a highly miscellaneous collection: the odd pocket of land, the odd easement, a maintenance obligation for a block of properties, or the like. It is highly unlikely that the local authorities would want to get involved at all in such things. They will already have received the assets they want in the way I have described. Again, I think that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has developed do not really correspond to the reality of the situation. I therefore hope that if he presses this amendment, the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I am interested in the confidence of the Minister that he and his colleagues know what local authorities will, or will not, accept. I know that some community-related assets were looked upon as burdens by councils; there can be arguments there. But is the Minister in a position to tell us to what extent consultations on this point have taken place between the ministry and those who represent local authorities? That would be helpful.
The Earl of Avon: The point I was trying to make in my remarks was that the local authorities would have had the opportunity to take what they liked and do what they wished. What we are talking about now is the residual element which they have not wanted, and probably therefore do not want.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I have misunderstood the thrust of the clause, then I accept that that is what I have done. If the Minister is saying that what we are talking about is taking over assets which in effect are liabilities—in other words, if you are taking over assets that nobody wants—they, almost per se, are liabilities. Although you might get something, the cost and the consequence of looking after it outweigh the value of what you have got.
Is the Minister saying that in effect the local authority would have the opportunity, by one means or another, to make sure that it will have those assets which are part of the development corporation and the commission's remit, and which it wants because it sees that it needs them or can make the best use of them? If that is so, I am prepared to accept the assurances of the Minister and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Grants to development corporations and Commission]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is the irritating habit of the Government to wrap up more than one big
408
issue in a single Bill. This is a new towns Bill. We understand the raison d'être for the Urban Development Corporation as opposed to the New Towns Corporation; nevertheless the Government must be aware of the enormous problems which many people have seen so far as the Urban Development Corporations are concerned. Before we allow Clause 6 to pass we have to examine the way the Government have gone about handling the situation.
There are two Urban Development Corporations—for Merseyside and the London Docklands. It is remarkable the extent to which the Government have stumbled along with the LDDC, aggravating more and more people and more and more organisations as time goes by. The Minister will have been made aware of the intensity of feeling against the operations of the LDDC, even by reading the proceedings on this Bill in another place. Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing, and on other occasions Mr. Guy Barnett, all Members of Parliament representing the riparian interests which are affected by the LDDC, not only in January, during the final stages of the Bill, but also on many other occasions drew the attention of the House to the undemocratic nature of the LDDC.
The Minister can argue—and there is an argument—as to whether, in the light of the history of the 1970s, it was right for the Government in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to decide that enough was enough; that what was at stake in London dockland was literally the creation of a new town. It was a new town in a place where there was much to do. It was not a green field site; there was a lot of dereliction and they said that what was required is what we now have. It is a body which is not democratically elected, not locally responsible, as opposed to what had been sought by the authorities throughout the 1970s in trying to create a democratic framework which would allow the development to take place.
I am not competent to argue whether the previous London docklands forum and the committee would have done any better or any worse a job. We know that in Clause 6 when it comes to a question of public monies, while it might not be a case of the sky being the limit, there is little limit to the amount of monies which the Government are prepared to make available to the LDDC to carry on its work. We have the opportunity of looking at some of the aspects of the situation which has emerged.
One of the great problems experienced by people in that part of London is in obtaining better housing. I saw in his place a little while ago my noble friend Lord Underhill. He and I, together with other noble Lords, visited the areas in connection with the GLC, not for the purposes of this Bill. We found daunting the prospects of providing better housing for the people who already live in the dockland area. We saw the Ferrier Estate, with 178 large developments—not tower blocks—with 16,000 people living on one estate. The properties were certainly in need of great attention.
One of the arguments of the Government is that a purpose of the LDDC is to provide opportunities for council tenants to move into homes of their own, at prices they can afford. A person who lives on the 17th

409
floor of a tower block in Greenwich is, first of all, not likely to find a buyer for his property. If he cannot sell it, he is not likely to be able to buy property right in Docklands.
The Sunday Times of 10th February, under a headline "The return of dock green", reported on a visit to the London Docklands to find out about the housing situation. There is a variety of experiences. There is, for instance, the case of Flat 2C in one block. The flat has a 36ft. long hall, fitted cloakroom, living room, kitchen, shower room, three bedrooms, one with an en suite bathroom, and parking space: price, £157,500—well within the bracket of a council tenant living on the 17th floor of the Ferrier Estate! The cheapest flat in the block, with only 1,325 square feet, is £85,000. We can also look at other properties, which are cheaper: £35,000 for one-bedroomed flats, £37,945 for two-bedroomed flats. The article says that these are typical of the prices asked in Docklands; and that commentators say there is a rapid improvement in amenities.
The point I want to make to the Minister is that the reality is that the LDDC exists. It is not challenged from that point of view. It has a job to do, but it also has a job to provide opportunities for the investor or the entrepreneur or the person who sees that there are opportunities to be taken, if not for quick killings certainly for profitable investments in a range of ideas. I want the Minister to tell the Committee what he and his Ministers are doing, in collaboration with the LDDC, to try to improve the atmosphere among existing councils and voluntary organisations.
I know that the Minister will tell us that they have tried and that they have sought to involve local people in a great many of these matters. I want the Minister to tell us whether he appreciates the enormous job that needs to be done not merely to create decent housing—that of itself is an asset—and cheaper housing, which would be a bonus, but to create a community spirit. Can the Minister tell the Committee more about the body called Inter-Action? Inter-Action is a body which the Government and the LDDC have created, promoted and supported to do a great deal of work among voluntary organisations. I have here a letter from the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council dated 10th January. It says a great deal, but I should like the Minister to deal with the following two points:

"(i) The LDDC had not carried out any serious study of whether there were any Newham body or bodies that could provide the services or projects the Corporation was prepared to let Interaction undertake.

(ii) Few, if any, of Interaction's main projects were readily at either officer's fingertips. Persistent questioning from Harold Wild on what was so special about Interaction's potential contribution failed to bring any clear response".

Without boring the Committee, the Minister is well aware that the Government attach great importance to what Inter-Action can do.
I have here a copy of a parliamentary Answer which was given to Mr. Nigel Spearing when he asked the Secretary of State what sums had been paid by the LDDC to the body known as Inter-Action. Sir George Young said:
"Inter-Action was appointed by the London Docklands Development Corporation on 1 August 1984 for £10,000 per
410
month short-term consultancy agreement to provide advice on community matters. The Department is currently considering an application from the corporation to provide Inter-Action with £1.024 million over a three-year period to cover the transfer of its base to the royal docks and establishment there of training, job creation and recreation programmes for local people and a general consultancy role on community issues."—(Official Report, Commons, 4/2/1985; col. 426.]
Of course, if the Government persist in foisting on to a local community, Docklands as a whole, their ideas of how such a community should go about creating the infrastructure, the housing and the factories, etc.—which they did by foisting the urban development corporation concept in the first place, undemocratically elected—and if, also, at a later stage, when it comes to creating a framework for voluntary organisations, it appears (I readily confess that I am not wholly knowledgeable about this) that the views of local people are being ignored yet again, the Minister must understand that this attitude will perpetuate earlier mistakes. The LDDC has an enormous responsibility. One of its responsibilities, besides producing a record of achievement which I acknowledge and which undoubtedly must bring great satisfaction to the Minister and to many others, is to try to work with local people.
I believe that this debate on Clause 6 stand part has not only provided me with the opportunity to say what I have said but also provides the Minister with the opportunity to be frank with the Committee and to give some assurance to many thousands of people who have approached me through their representatives —Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Mr. Guy Barnet—and expressed their dissatisfaction. Thousands of local people believe that they are not being as fully consulted, informed and brought along as local activists—not political activists—as they believe they are entitled to be.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like briefly to follow some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, particularly in relation to what he said about improving the atmosphere in the area mentioned. I am sorry I have not given the noble Earl the Minister notice about this matter.
My question is whether Clause 6, particularly the amendment in relation to Section 58A(2) of the New Towns Act 1981—I am sorry to make this technical in arriving at my point—will provide facilities in relation to the cultural side of activities in areas such as London Docklands. Subsection (2)(d) says that
"any other facilities similar to those specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above"
will become eligible for a grant. I am concerned, not merely with the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has emphasised, as to how people are being squeezed out of such areas as London Docklands because of the cost of accommodation becoming increasingly expensive, but with whether the Minister can say, either now or later, that the amendment in Clause 6 will cover general facilities, particularly in relation to art galleries and other cultural aspects, in the area.
The Earl of Avon: I am surprised at the amount of doubt on this clause that the two noble Lords have expressed—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, at considerably more length than the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—as I had thought that the provision was wanted and was what everybody needed.
This clause gives the Secretary of State new power to make grants towards essential but non-remunerative capital expenditure. New town development corporations have had to borrow to finance all the capital expenditure which they have needed to develop their towns. They have therefore had to borrow not only for expenditure which should produce a financial return but also for expenditure which does not. Corporations have also capitalised their revenue deficits and borrowed to cover them.
I should like to say a few words about how we intend to use the new power. It is not open-ended. We have thought it right to spell out fairly precisely the purposes for which the resources can be used. The largest item will be main roads. Good communications are a vital element in the development of the new towns but they produce no direct financial return to the development corporation and it is right, we believe, that such costs should be met by grant.
The next category is open spaces and landscaping, another vital element in creating an attractive environment in which people can live, work and play. Again, it produces no direct return and should be met by grant.
Finally, there are the amenities such as meeting halls and assembly rooms—very necessary for a balanced community. Grants will be available not only where the corporation spends the money itself but also where it makes a capital contribution towards such provision. This will enable development corporations to assist local authorities where a joint scheme is more sensible than going it alone. But it does not indicate any change in our policy as to what the development corporation should provide. As my honourable friend said at Second Reading, we expect local authorities to play a proper part in providing the facilities needed for a new town just as much as elsewhere.
If the Bill is approved, the total is likely to run at some £39 million a year. Individual schemes will be approved by the department under arrangements which we will agree with the corporations concerned. We shall steer a sensible course between the two extremes of allowing too little and too much. We intend to strike the right balance to allow corporations to finish the task of developing their towns on a sound financial basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked about the UDCs. These were created because the local authorities in these areas were not achieving the results which were needed to regenerate them. This is not the place in which to go into the question of why that is so, but in 1980–81 Parliament agreed that a new initiative was needed. The Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 provided the framework. The orders in relation to the London Dockyard Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development
412
Corporation, approved by this House, set the machinery in motion.
Noble Lords spoke of the problems facing tenants who wanted to buy. The experience of new towns has shown that to produce a balanced community, all levels of society need to live in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, particularly mentioned Inter-Action. There have been some recent meetings between the LDDC, the London Borough of Newham and the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council. I gather that the result of these is that Newham are to write to the corporation setting out their views for consideration by the corporation's executive board when the project application is discussed. If the project is approved, LDDC intend to seek the views of the Newham Voluntary Agencies Council on each scheme that Inter-Action put forward as part of their consultancy. I believe that the LDDC is a most exciting project and I am quite happy to rest on whatever the results will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me about the particular facilities for culture. I think that in my reply I covered that subject quite well. I believe that this clause is a good clause and I am very surprised that it should be in any way questioned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe that I indicated that I rose to speak on clause stand part as an opportunity to look at dockland issues in general. In case I did not make it clear, the thrust of the clause is wholly acceptable so far as I am concerned personally and, I would say, acceptable also to those behind me. The Minister was very fair and, I think, proper in outlining to the Committee the reasons why this clause will be helpful, not just to the docklands but also to other new towns. The distress that I feel is that there is an opportunity, as I believe the Minister will recall and the Official Report will reveal. This is not the time to query whether there should be a Docklands Development Corporation or not. It is a fact of life. What we and the people who have this responsibility are about is making it work to the best advantage of the people who live in docklands.
I have looked at the record of achievement and I am bound to say that, both in annual reports and in other ways, there is an impressive record of achievement so far, though queries have been raised by a number of bodies as to whether the number of jobs that have been created are actually new jobs or real jobs.
I have already touched upon the need to satisfy the community that it is going to get adequate coverage in the voluntary sector. The housing sector, frankly, is a real mess. I start from the needs of the local people. If, in fact, a local authority had developed the land, the Minister could rest assured that the people who would have been occupying the houses that were built on the land would have been, in the main, local people occupying houses built by the local authority, and quite clearly, with so many high-rise developments, there were certainly going to be low-rise developments too.
I mentioned the cost of housing, or the prices that are being asked. The noble Earl will be well aware, having read the reports in another place, that in Southwark and in Tower Hamlets, in Greenwich and

413
in Stepney, Members of Parliament were able to bring to the attention of the House properties that cost £250,000 and £300,000 because of their particular situation. When we are talking in terms of housing, we certainly would not be envisaging prices of that kind. Clearly, they would be asking such prices only if people, in the main, were willing to pay them. I am concerned not so much about the people who have the money to pay for a property which is worth a quarter of a million pounds, as about the people who appear by the general policies of the Government to be forced to recognise that, if they are living on the seventeenth floor of a tower block in Greenwich or anywhere else, that is where they are likely to stay for a very long time. The LDDC in my view—and, it may well be, Merseyside as well—is not able to do very much about this. However well it is doing in other ways, I am worried about the people who have got a real burden to bear, but I am satisfied that the Minister has confidence that, with the consultations that are to take place, it is possible for a better atmosphere to be created. I very much hope so. That is all I have to say before the clause is agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; report received.

Mineral Workings Bill
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avon, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to enter former mining land etc.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert ("and "land" includes any structure or building thereon.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3, which is in the same terms.
Amendment No. 3: Clause 8, page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and "land" includes any structure or building thereon.").
The object of this amendment is to clarify in Clauses 7 and 8 what is understood by the word "land". I am raising this matter because of the structure of this Bill. As I indicated at Second Reading, the first six clauses deal with very specific problems in relation to mining in very specific areas which are set out parish by parish in the schedule. To that area, this Bill is of the greatest importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indicated at Second Reading.
Then come in the Bill far wider powers under Clauses 7 and 8. It is unusual, as I indicated at Second
414
Reading, for wide powers particularly relating to entry on to land to be put in a Bill which starts off with such specific and limited clauses. I quite understand the reason given by the noble Lord the Minister at Second Reading for this, but when wide powers in relation to entries on to land are inserted in any Bill, as was said in another place, naturally, very careful consideration should be given to safeguarding the interests of the owners and of persons who have interest in that land.
The local authority is empowered under the terms of Clause 7 to enter land for the purposes of carrying out certain works. I need not deal with the kind of works which it is authorised to do, but does that mean that it is only concerned with the surface of the land or is it also concerned with buildings on the land? As, again, I indicated on Second Reading, there may be a very simple answer to what is of course a probing amendment—that the word "land" includes hereditaments, which includes buildings. Therefore, my amendment that there should be added at the end of line 3 on page 5 the words,
" 'land' includes any structure or building thereon"
is unnecessary. However, it is not clear from the Bill as it stands whether the definition in the various Town and Country Planning Acts will be accepted or what should be the definition of the word "land".
The matter can be of significance as regards the word "land" because persons having interest in the land are allowed to make claims for compensation. Consequently, if the interference is merely in connection with the land or with chattels on the land, the scope of compensation will be different from the scope if there were buildings and other structures on the land which it was necessary to enter into.
In the part of Wales where I come from I am aware that a problem arises in connection with holes in the ground and where underground mines have been covered and subsidences arise. As to derelict land—and in Wales we well know what derelict land means, because so much of Wales has been disembowelled for many reasons during the last century or so—it often happens that a man will be able to get a patch of derelict land and perform certain work upon it so that its value may go up as a result. He may put structures on it; he may have a factory. For instance, I recall a large quarry which is being used now by small businesses in the village of Kilgerran with which I am associated. Therefore, this amendment does not contain any kind of semantic approach. It merely asks for clarification by the Minister as to what is the scope of the word "land" and whether it includes structures or buildings placed thereon. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for explaining his amendment so clearly. I rather thought at one stage that he was going to deal with all three of his amendments together, but I understand he is dealing with the first and the third. In essence, he asks whether buildings are included with "land" so far as the compensation and other provisions of the Bill are concerned. The answer is, Yes, because as regards this Bill we have to go back to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act

415
1949. In that Act, the definition of "land" is to be found in Section 114(1), where it says:
"… 'land' includes land covered by water … .".
The rest of the definition is not relevant for our purposes because it relates to Scotland and Clauses 7 and 8 of this Bill do not extend to Scotland.
Incidentally, I should like to apologise to the Committee and correct something I said on Second Reading. This Bill does extend to Wales, although I said on Second Reading that it did not.
The definition in the 1949 Act must, however, be read in the light of Section 22(1) of, and Part I of Schedule 2 to, the Interpretation Act 1978. Paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2 provides a definition of "land" for the purposes of any Act passed after 1850 and before 1st January 1979, which is—and I quote—that,
" 'land' includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments, houses and buildings of any tenure".
I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord on two counts. First, I am obliged to him for his reply in dealing with my specific amendment. I am also obliged to the noble Lord for correcting a matter that I was going to raise on the Question that the clause shall stand part in relation to Clause 7, because there is quite clearly a misunderstanding somewhere. He said on Second Reading on 28th January, at col. 466 of Hansard—and I quote:
"The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also asked about Wales. I should tell him that the derelict land survey of 1982 covered only England and so Wales is not included in this Bill".
If we look at the last clause of the Bill—Clause 11—we see that the Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland but it says nothing about Wales. If the Minister had been right in saying that the Bill does not include Wales, then of course I would have had to put down another amendment. However, I accept that this is a misprint in Hansard and that Clauses 7 and 8, and indeed the whole Bill after Clause 6, include Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: Just to put the record straight, may I say that there is no misprint in Hansard. They reported faithfully what I said. The fact is that what I said was totally incorrect, and it is for this that I gave the apology earlier.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is characteristically very fair, and I accept that it was a mistake made by him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 15, after first ("chattels") insert ("or any depreciation of the value of an interest in land occurs.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of considerable importance in relation to the scope of claims for compensation which arise under Clause 7 after the local authority has entered upon the land to do certain activities. I submit that the clause should also give as a ground for compensation any depreci
416
ation of value of an interest in the land if that occurs as a result of the entry by the local authority's representative on to that land. May I say that I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord the Minister for the long letter he has written to me explaining why, in the opinion of the Government, it is not necessary that a further ground for compensation, based on the fact that there may be a depreciation of the interest in the land, should be inserted.
Those very words are inserted in Clause 8. Clause 8 has again wide powers for entry on to the land in order to carry out certain works—perhaps different works. It is provided in one phrase that a person having an interest in the land has, as one of the grounds for claiming compensation, the fact that there is a depreciation of the value of an interest in the land. The answer of the noble Lord the Minister to that point is to tell us to look at the powers in Clause 7 and compare them with the powers in Clause 8. He says that, in so far as Clause 7 is concerned, the work to take place by the local authority on the land is different from the work that would be taking place with regard to the powers under Clause 8. The Minister goes on to say:
"It is extremely unlikely that either activity would result in any depreciation in the value of the land and it is for that reason that no provision has been made for compensation in this respect".
In view of that reply, I must ask your Lordships to look in more detail at the powers given under Clause 7 to the local authority to do some work on the land. The clause refers to,
"A person duly authorised in writing …
(a) to carry out works under section 89(2)".
As the noble Lord the Minister has agreed that the word "land" includes hereditaments—buildings and structures upon it—when the works under Section 89(2) are considered it might therefore affect the buildings; and not only might it affect the buildings, it might also affect the whole nature of the area. If a farmer, for instance, owned the land and was trying to tear some kind of a living out of the very poor and difficult soil, he might want to sell the land with the structures and so on upon it. But the value of the land might be affected by the entry on to it by the local authority's representatives. It is true that under subsection (3)(b) the authority's representatives go onto the land only to survey it; and under subsection (3)(c) the entry is in order to survey the land for different purposes. The Minister pointed out in his long letter that all the representatives are going to do, apparently, is survey and monitor, but even a survey of the land, a monitoring of what is taking place on the land, may affect the financial interests of some person in relation to that land.
Therefore it seemed to me only reasonable that there should be included in Clause 7 a power that will enable a person with interest in the land to have as a further ground for compensation the point that the value of the land might have depreciated as a result of the operations of a local authority's representatives. In other words, although it is more likely under the operation of Clause 8 that damage to the land would be sufficient to alter the value of the land and cause some depreciation in the value of it, it is also possible in my view that such work as the local authorities are permitted to undertake under Clause 7 would also affect the value of the land. I therefore beg to move

417
that another ground on which a claim for compensation under this clause could be founded is where there has been a depreciation of the value of an interest in the land.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord is arguing for compensation to be paid in respect of any depreciation in the value of the land caused by the powers given in Clause 7 of the Bill. That would bring the clause into line with the provisions of Clause 8. I sought to quell the noble Lord's anxieties on Second Reading, in columns 465 and 466 of the Official Report. However, I had the feeling that I might have failed and subsequently I wrote to him explaining this in more detail.
The drafting of the Bill reflects the differences between the two clauses. If, like the noble Lord, I may pre-empt the Committee a little, Clause 8 is concerned with operations for the purpose of reclaiming or improving land under which underground mining operations other than coal mining—which has its own legislation and which is not affected by this Bill—have been, but are no longer being, carried out, or of enabling it to be brought into use. In this case it is quite possible that a person with an interest in the land in question could suffer damage, loss, disturbance, or depreciation. That is why the compensation provisions in subsections (9) to (11) have been inserted in the Bill.
Perhaps I may now return to Clause 7, the subject of this amendment. The noble Lord is still concerned with compensation. But there is an essential difference between the purposes of the two clauses. Clause 8 is as I have described it; Clause 7, on the other hand, is concerned only with entering and surveying. It does not matter, as I understand it, for what purpose the entering and surveying is done; the clause itself only directs such things that shall happen in those two operations. Here the damage liable to be committed is negligible, but, even so, subsections (11) to (13) again contain compensation provisions commensurate with the level of damage which could reasonably be expected to occur. This level—and I am not talking about monetary value—is naturally considerably lower than under Clause 8, as it is extremely unlikely that operations under Clause 7 will result in any depreciation in the value of the land. It is for this reason that I must resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord has taken a narrow view as to the scope of the activities that might take place under the authorisation given by the local authority. I come back to this point; we have now agreed that the land includes hereditaments—structures upon it. Persons are coming in to survey the land. That piece of derelict land—I have some in mind—with its structures on it will have officials descending on it; for how long is not clear. They are coming in to make a survey. I do not know whether the survey will involve the moving of the structures—in which case of course compensation is allowable. Under the clause any damage to the structures would be a ground for compensation. If one looks at the situation broadly and with full commonsense in regard to how some of this derelict
418
land is being used, surely local authority authorised persons should not be allowed to go along to the land without there being some ground for compensation for depreciation.
The authorisation to the local authority under Clause 7 is in three parts. Two parts give the local authority powers to survey the land. But the first part in subsection 3(a) is to carry out works under Section 89(2) of a previous Act. Therefore it would appear to me at any rate that while two of the subsections deal with surveys, the other subsection deals with carrying out works. The carrying out of works, even under Section 89(2), could in my view in certain circumstances have some effect on the value of the land.
I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister wishes to make any further reply, having regard to my lengthy observations. It seems to me that even if the Government say, and the distinguished civil servants dealing with this matter so advise the Minister, that it is unlikely that damage will arise as to the value of the land, there is a chance that there might be damage. In those circumstances I move this amendment to give the persons having interest in the land a further ground for compensation with regard to the value which is depreciated.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, presses this matter, perhaps I have not made myself clear. Of course there is compensation for damage, negligence and matters of that nature. And if the local authority were to break into a house and had to smash a lock or splinter a door with an axe, then of course compensation would be paid.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I accept that.
Lord Skelmersdale: But I cannot see in what circumstances depreciation would arise in this particular case. As I said earlier, the power under Clause 7 is to enter the premises but not to undertake the works—and a survey is most unlikely to cause long-term depreciation of the land. Indeed, the whole object of the exercise is to improve the value of the land and not depreciate it. The power to undertake reclamation work in Clause 8 includes depreciation as a compensatable factor. In those parts of the Bill where it really matters, this provision is already included.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has really failed to meet my point or to see the circumstances under which I deem that the value of the land could be diminished. I accept of course that if anybody forces an entry into a building by means of an axe then, as the noble Lord indicated, compensation would be allowable under a further subsection of this clause.
Assuming that, suppose that the building was destroyed. Would the local authority reinstate the building? I do not know that they would agree to reinstate the building. If they were to reinstate the building, possibly the value of the land might be increased. But perhaps the owner would want to sell the land before the building was reinstated, and therefore a building that had been partially destroyed would affect the value of that land.

419
I do not propose to press this matter in view of the lengthy reply which the Minister has given orally and of his helpful letter. I will consider what he has said and what he has written to me, and will reserve my position for a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Works on former mining land etc.]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions.
—(1) This section applies to any existing ironstone planning permission, as defined in subsection (4) below:
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the mineral planning authority under sections 45, 51 and 51A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, an existing ironstone planning permission shall remain in force after the commencement date subject to section 44A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, but only for the winning and working of ironstone and minerals overlying such ironstone for, or in connection with, the manufacture of iron and steel and where such ironstone and minerals overlying such ironstone are to be transported from the land to which the existing ironstone planning permission relates by railway or some other means not involving the use of a public highway.
(3) An application for planning permission shall be made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for the winning and working of minerals after the commencement date on land to which an existing ironstone planning permission applies where such minerals are to be used wholly or partly for a purpose other than that specified in subsection (2) above unless a planning permission for the winning and working of minerals on that land other than an existing ironstone planning permission is in force at the commencement date.
(4) In this section—
"existing ironstone planning permission" means a planning permission in force at the commencement date for the winning and working of ironstone (whether or not such permission includes the winning and working of overlying minerals) by surface working on land situated within the ironstone district where such permission was granted on a planning application referred to a Minister of the Crown for determination by a direction issued under the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act 1943, the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 or the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"Mineral Planning Authority" has the same meaning as in section 1(2B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.").
The noble Baroness said: I am aware that this amendment was moved in Committee in another place but it was withdrawn pending the Minister's visit to Northampton, which is one of the places most concerned with ironstone permissions. That visit took place on 28th January, which was the day of the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. So information about the Minister's visit was not available here on that day and, perhaps because it was pending, this particular subject received very light treatment on 28th January. We now hope to be told the Minister's views on his visit and to receive in addition answers to some other questions.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I give something of the background to the problem, as this was not gone into at the time. These ironstone permissions were originally granted by the Minister in the national interest, and the direction that this should
420
be so has been maintained throughout subsequent legislation, to enable Government policies relating to steelmaking to be implemented. Permissions were granted for the working of ironstone and overlying minerals; usually limestone, sometimes with a stratum of clay.
In the case of Northampton, total permissions covered 22,000 acres, so the problem there is particularly acute. I propose therefore to pay a little more attention to the problems of Northampton, although other areas are similarly affected and the same principles should apply. Those areas are Humberside, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Leicestershire.
In Corby, in Northampton, steelmaking has—as everyone in the Committee will know—ceased, and a substantial part of the permitted areas remain unworked or partly worked. It is those areas which cause concern to the county council. Permissions remain in force, and on the sites which have been partly worked they are subject only to the statutory 60-year time limit—of which 57 years remain. Although all permissions were granted for the express purpose of ensuring a supply of ironstone for steelmaking in the national interest, it is being claimed that the permissions allow the extraction of minerals for other purposes, since planning permission does not usually control the destination or use of a mineral after extraction.
Ironstone was taken to the steelworks by means of a mineral railway, so when the Minister granted the permissions no issue arose about the effect of large numbers of heavy vehicles moving to and from the working areas by road. If the overlying limestone is now worked separately for commercial use, it would have to be transported by road. This would frequently involve use of substandard and unsuitable roads, and would also cause severe environmental problems in the villages near the areas; many would be affected. The little mineral railway which was used for the ironstone workings has been entirely removed.
The sites to which the permissions relate usually have an access that was used as a service access into the ironstone workings. Therefore, there would be no need to apply for planning permission for access to roads now. Many of the sites are in environmentally sensitive areas, and public expectations about the need to conserve the environment and about protection from heavy road traffic have become much greater in recent years. Also, the size of the vehicles likely to be involved aggravates the problem.
The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to allow the existing ironstone permissions to remain valid for the purpose for which they were originally granted; that is, for the supply of ironstone by mineral railway for steel-making—but applications for further planning permission would be required if the minerals were to be worked for other purposes. This would preserve the right to work the minerals in accordance with the intention of the original grant but would enable the county council to exercise planning control over use for other purposes—and, in determining any application, to take into account relevant planning considerations such as the effect of traffic, the effect on the environment, the provisions of the county structure plan and any minerals subject plan. The

421
present position has made a nonsense of the structure plan and has delayed production of a mineral subject plan, which is still not forthcoming.
It has been suggested that I should speak also to Amendment No. 6, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I do that now:
Amendment No. 6: Clause 11, page 9, line 3, after ("6") insert (", (Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions),").
However, before I leave Amendment No. 4 I should like to ask the Minister this question: what action does he propose to take to resolve the problem of the ironstone permissions following the visit of Mr. Macfarlane on 28th January?
Turning now to Amendment No. 6, its effect would be to allow the mineral planning authority to impose restoration and after-care conditions on existing ironstone permissions without liability to compensation. The original consultation document, of which I have a copy, was sent to the authorities affected in January 1984. It included in its proposals, in paragraph 5(c):
"To impose restoration and after-care conditions without any liability for compensation to existing ironstone permissions".
Naturally, that was agreed to by the authorities concerned but it has now been dropped from the Bill without any explanation being given. Can the Minister explain why that is not included in the Bill?
5 p.m.
The existing restoration conditions may not be effective to achieve modern standards and those that pre-date the Minerals Act 1981 will not have aftercare conditions attached. The absence of an ironstone restoration fund will add to the county councils' problems; whilst the operator no longer has to make a fund contribution. Since the Government are committed to the "polluter pays" principle, it seems reasonable to expect that the purpose of this amendment is acceptable to the Minister. If the "polluter pays" principle is not to apply in these cases, can the Minister explain why? I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not quite sure whether this is, in fact, an amendment probing the Government's intentions or whether it is real, but I should like to proceed, with the Committee's permission, by assuming that it is a bit of both.
Clearly, the purpose of this new clause is to confine extant planning permissions for the winning and working of ironstone and overlying minerals in the ironstone district to minerals extracted for use in the manufacture of iron and steel. Equally, such permissions are intended to be kept alive only where the minerals are to be transported from the site by railway or by some means other than on the public highway. Furthermore, all ironstone permissions within the district which do not meet these criteria are to be revoked so that any person who wishes to extract or to continue present extraction of ironstone or overlying minerals for purposes other than iron and steel manufacture should be required to make a fresh planning application.
The Committee will be aware that a clause very similar to this was tabled during the Committee Stage of the Bill in another place. Indeed, the noble Baroness
422
said so. I know something of the background to the problem because the Northamptonshire County Council wrote to me about it on 18th January and because, as I said at Second Reading, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State went to see the problems for himself on 28th January. I promised to report on this at Second Reading and I now very gladly do so. He returned very sympathetic to the problems which some of the authorities in the ironstone district may now have to face and at his request officials of my department have arranged to meet the Northamptonshire County Council to discuss how best those problems may be overcome. The noble Baroness sought to pre-empt, in her own quiet way, the results of that discussion and, obviously, I am not prepared to follow her down that route. Equally, the noble Baroness did not know that discussions were likely to take place, so perhaps honour is satisfied.
These problems are not those which arise from the abolition of the ironstone restoration fund. Even were the fund to remain in existence its resources could not be made available for the reclamation of land which had been worked for limestone—or for any other material—unless that mineral had been worked in association with ironstone. The local authorities, I know, recognise this. The noble Baroness, will, I am sure, accept that these problems only occur in areas within the old ironstone district; and she discussed some of the modern contingencies that would be considered if such planning permissions were to be given in today's climate. She referred to the railway and, perhaps in certain places, the unsatisfactory state of the roads for moving heavy lorries, and so on. Even so, I must say that I do not think it is appropriate to seek a solution through this or any other public and general Bill.
It is a fundamental principle of planning control that each individual development should be considered on its planning merits. It would be a radical departure for the system to be used to make blanket revocations and modifications in the way that is now being suggested. It would also, I suggest, set a controversial and undesirable precedent, because, although some mineral workings would thus be permanently discontinued, the planning merits of others would justify the granting of a new permission. In such cases, all that would have been achieved would have been to place a new layer of inconvenience, delay and expense on the minerals industry, whose direct contribution to the national economy is considerable and whose ancillary activities often provide jobs in areas where employment opportunities are otherwise scarce.
So far as the restriction on the method of transporting the minerals is concerned, that is clearly a matter which needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The old railway line by which ironstone was originally transported through the ironstone district to the British Steel Corporation's Corby works is closed, as the noble Baroness said. Many sites now have no alternative to transporting the minerals by road, and it is for the authority to decide—in the light of the circumstances pertaining to a particular site and at a particular time—whether the transportation problems are such that the relevant planning permission should be modified or revoked.

423
I suggest that it is both illogical and improper to seek to impose such controls on a particular class of planning permission within the ironstone district in such a blanket fashion. The intention of the ironstone provisions of this Bill is to place those with an interest in ironstone land in the ironstone district in exactly the same position as those with an interest in other minerals in other parts of the country. It makes no sense then to impose on that section of the industry contraints which positively disadvantage them in comparison with minerals interests elsewhere.
Most of these old permissions were given at a time when the British steel industry was bouyant and it is true that they were called in by past Government Ministers who were anxious to ensure that adequate supplies of ironstone were available. The conditions attached to those permissions were consistent with the planning standards of the day, and it is only the passage of time with its altered economic and environmental circumstances which may now have rendered some, though not all, of the permissions inadequate.
Parliament has vested the main responsibility for mineral planning control in the mineral planning authorities. Those authorities have power under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—as amended by the Minerals Act 1981—to revoke or modify extant planning permissions in their area, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If authorities in the ironstone district decide on the planning merits—which is what we are talking about—of the particular case that it is appropriate to revoke or modify a particular ironstone permission, then the proper course is for them to exercise the powers already available to them. I know that some authorities may be reluctant to resort to those powers because they would then become liable to pay compensation for any loss or damage arising from the modification or revocation order. But since such liability can only arise from a decision made by the authority—in the light of the planning consideration relevant to the individual case—I do not think that the Committee should judge that to be inappropriate.
The noble Baroness also spoke very quickly to Amendment No. 6 which, in a sense, is consequential on the new clause in Amendment No. 4. That amendment suggests that this new clause, if approved by the Committee, should be given early introduction. I suggest that it should not. The Committee will be aware that the normal convention is to delay the introduction of new provisions for at least two months after Royal Assent in order to allow those likely to be affected to take advice on the implications for them and to make necessary arrangements. We have, exceptionally, felt able to propose the early introduction of the Government's ironstone provisions in this Bill because they have been subject to wide consultation with all those likely to be affected. Thus, people have already had plenty of opportunity to make preparations. As I have explained, the new clause is a sweeping new measure with wide implications for landowners and the Midlands ironstone industry. It has not been subject to consultation and it will, therefore, be unreasonable to give it an early introduction.
Lord Beswick: I am bound to say that the Government are being somewhat casual about this. As the Minister said concerning this particular part of the country, the matter was raised in the other place in Committee and there the Minister gave an undertaking that he would visit the site to see for himself what was involved. I should have thought we should have had the benefit of that report before we considered the Bill at Second Reading.
After all, this is supposed to be a revising Chamber and we revise a piece of legislation after it comes from the other place in the light of all the available information. But the Government chose precisely the day on which the Minister was visiting the site to put the Bill before the House on Second Reading. Therefore we could not intelligently discuss what observations the Minister had to make as a result of his investigation on the spot.
Now I have my name down to this amendment, and again up to the time of moving the amendment I had absolutely no idea of what the Minister said after his visit to the site. If we are to disuss this sensibly, surely it would have been helpful to have the benefit of the observations to take them into account either when drafting or considering the amendment.
As my noble friend said, the problem with which the two amendments deal concerns especially the county of Northamptonshire. I should like to say a word or two about the problems that have been confronted there because they have had some quite special characteristics. The county has always faced them constructively. In my view, they deserve special consideration now. I can recall—I do not know how many other noble Lords were around at the time—that the decision was taken to shift an industrial complex from Scotland down to this English county. It meant uprooting a community. The people came down to Northamptonshire and started work in the new site around Corby. There were considerable social and economic problems as a result of that transfer. The Government of the day endeavoured to be helpful to the county and made special planning provision with regard to the extraction of the ironstone from those areas for the benefit of the steelworks that were erected at Corby.
Then in this decade there have again been upheavals. Quite above the heads of the county authorities—they have not been responsible in any way—the decision was taken to close down the steelworks and quite appalling new social and economic problems were created by that decision. The efforts to rebuild the economy and the community life in Corby seem to me to reflect great credit on all concerned. I feel that they should have had much more sympathy and consideration from the Government in this problem.
This particular problem arises because planning permission was given in a situation which does not now exist. That great steelworks is no longer there. The need to rip up the countryside and extract the ironstone does not now exist. But it seems to me, and the Government have admitted it, that the permission then granted in the late 1940s and 1950s was rather widely drawn. Had the Government of the day been able to look ahead and see the possibility of the contraction of one of the most important industries in

425
the country, I am quite sure that the wording would have been such that it would not now be possible to use it or to exploit it for the purpose of the limestone workings.
The Government say that the proposals in this Bill will not in any way affect the future treatment of limestone workings in the area. Of course they will not. That is what we are complaining about. There ought to be some control over the future limestone workings in this area. If the limestone is to be worked, it should be worked under a permission granted for the purpose by the county planning authorities.
5.15 p.m.
The Government in the Commons, and again here today, stated that it would be wrong if blanket revocations and modifications were made to existing permissions. But this amendment which we are now considering—and it is not really a probing amendment; it is an amendment which could be accepted and written into the Bill—does not propose any blanket revocations. It is proposing that permission granted to meet a very special situation be revoked now that that special situation no longer exists. Any future workings of limestone should be under new permissions granted to meet a new situation.
The Government, I understand, are still complaining that there have been no consultations. I am not sure what happened when the Minister went up there. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but I understood him to say that there had been no consultations. That is the excuse that the Government gave in the Commons, but I thought that consultations had now taken place. If there are to be further consultations, certainly I am sure that my noble friend would agree that we should wait to see what the outcome is. But in the meantime, I hope that the Minister can say that the problem will be considered much more sympathetically than would appear to be the case at the present time.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should take that attitude. On the point of consultations, he most certainly misunderstood me. What I said was that consultations on the Bill have already taken place. They have been very wide. Therefore it is possible to have an early introduction of the Bill. However, consultations, should they be needed, on the new clause of the noble Baroness have not been held, which is the reason why I would counsel a delay in introducing the new clause beyond, I think it is, 1st April 1985, as proposed by Amendment No. 6.
I must reject the charge that the Government are being unsympathetic—
Lord Beswick: I am sorry, but I still do not understand what the noble Lord is saying about consultations. Are there impending consultations about this particular problem with which the amendments are concerned?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, there are pending consultations, which I referred to, I think, in the opening paragraph of my response to the noble
426
Baroness. The consultations on the Bill as it stands have already been held. They have been widely held, which is the justification for asking your Lordships to approve the Bill's early operation after Royal Assent. However, with the best will in the world, although consultations have already been started with the Northamptonshire County Council, consultations with other bodies—for example, landowners and the mineral operators themselves—have not yet been held because we have not got a basis of discussion with the local authorities on which to hold them. I was suggesting that that was a very good reason for delaying the operation of the new clause.
Lord Beswick: I am not talking about the Bill as a whole. I am talking about the particular problem with which these two amendments are concerned. If I understand the noble Lord to say that there are consultations taking place or to be held, can we take it that the Bill will not be progressed any further until we have had the result of the consultations?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I think that it would be unreasonable to do that in any event. But what I was saying was that consultations on the problem to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention are going on at the moment, but they will be incomplete consultations until such time as the mineral operators and the landowners have also been included within the consultation process.
Perhaps I used a little bit of shorthand when I said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary returned very sympathetic to the problems which some of the authorities in the ironstone district may now have to face. As the Committee already knows, the exact position is that my honourable friend visited Northamptonshire on 28th January and was given a very clear exposition by the county planning officer of the problem, as he saw it, that a number of the existing ironstone planning permissions would also allow the working of other minerals. He also saw examples of quarries where limestone was being worked from such permissions.
My honourable friend noted that at a number of those quarries the operators had submitted a new planning application and the limestone was being extracted in an environmentally acceptable way under conditions imposed by the county council.
The problem appeared to be concentrated on one or two quarries where the county council did not want to see any limestone working at all. This, of course, would be under modern-day conditions. My honourable friend understood why the council might take this view. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are planning permissions which have been in existence there for many years and the rights of those with an interest in the land and the minerals under it must be safeguarded. My honourable friend considers that it would be quite wrong for Parliament to sweep away those rights at a stroke in some possibly unprecedented blanket way, and the position at each site must be considered on its merits, as, indeed, the council has been happy to do at those sites where new limestone permissions have been issued.
As I have already made clear, my honourable friend has also suggested to the council—and they have

427
welcomed this—that the Department of the Environment officials should discuss further with the county planning officer and his staff the options available to them at any particular site about which they are concerned. These options will include powers such as prohibition orders introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act, 1981, once Parliament has approved the necessary compensation regulations and I hope that it will have the opportunity to do so before the Easter Recess. As far as I know, that is the complete and up-to-date position as of this moment. As I said on Second Reading, if there is any more to report, I will inform your Lordships.
Baroness Nicol: If I may mention the last point first, I would say that the 1981 regulations are a long time a-coming, and we have no clear idea of what will be in them. If we could have a foretaste of what might be in the regulations, it would be helpful. However, far from delaying the Bill in order to take account of any consultations that are going on, it has been suggested, in the usual channels, that in fact we hurry it through and that the interval between now and Report stage should be reduced. I mention that point for the information of my noble friend Lord Beswick, who is concerned about the progress of the Bill.
To say that the authority concerned has the power under the existing legislation, provided that it pays compensation, may be appropriate when we are talking about just one or two permissions. But in the case of Northampton there are so many permissions that it just is not possible for them to examine them in the way they would wish. The district valuer reached the conclusion that if—and this is unlikely—Northampton wished to extinguish, or to put conditions on all the existing permissions which have been partly worked, it would cost in the order of £6 million. Obviously, with rate capping that is simply not within the reach of the authority at the moment; so that answer by the Minister will not do in this situation. As my noble friend Lord Beswick said, Northampton is a special case, with special difficulties, and it really should be taken out of the common run in this particular case or for this particular legislation.
The idea that the mineral owners or mineral permission holders should be protected is all very well as far as it goes. However, at the moment there is a growing acceptance by the farming community that they have to work along with environmental considerations and bear in mind community needs. They are reaching this situation of their own accord, in their happy way, with a few exceptions, and their products are just as valuable to the well-being of the country as are those of the mineral extractors. It seems to me that in this regard we have had a very glib answer, which is not acceptable. The Minister did not answer my question as to what happened to the "polluter pays" principle. If it is applicable in other cases, why is it not applicable here? If the mineral extractors are polluting, in the sense of destroying the environment, why does the county council have to pay to protect the environment from their depredations?
The Minister did not answer, either, the question as to what action the Government propose to take generally on the ironstone permissions. We have been
428
fobbed off with the idea of other discussions. But that will not do, either. The Minister must have some idea of what will be proposed.
What about the structure plan, which I asked about originally? The structure plan is a nonsense in Northampton at the moment because many of the permissions are in direct conflict with the provisions of the structure plan which were approved by the Minister in 1980. The provision of a mineral plan has been awaiting some kind of determination in regard to these areas and it, too, is at a standstill. We cannot just dismiss the whole matter in terms of existing legislation; it simply will not do. I hope the Minister has some more answers.
Lord Skelmersdale: Quite honestly I think I have answered as fully as I am able to at this particular time. I have been asked whether consultations are going on; and the answer is, yes. I have been asked about various matters. All I can add to what I have already said is to tell the Committee a little about the regulations, though of course they have not yet been published and I am under a certain amount of difficulty so far as this goes. It is intended that the regulations will provide for the abatement, in certain circumstances, of the amount of compensation which a mineral planning authority is obliged to pay in respect of loss or damage arising from an order made by the authority under Part III of the 1971 Act to amend an extant minerals planning permission. Such orders may, for example, revoke or modify a permission, require the discontinuance of mineral working, prohibit the resumption of mining operations which have ceased, or impose requirements in relation to a site where mining operations are temporarily suspended. As I have said, this is not the complete story because we do not have the regulations in front of us.
In her last speech, the noble Baroness gave the impression that there are so many permissions extant in the ironstone area that the county treasurer had suggested that in Northamptonshire alone it would cost £6 million in compensation. I think that is what she said—
Baroness Nicol: The district valuer.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry; the district valuer has suggested that it would cost £6 million in compensation if they were all to be revoked. But it is by no means clear that they are all unacceptable, even in today's terms. Therefore I would most certainly query the figure of £6 million. So far as rate capping is concerned and the question of whether the local authority would be able to find any money for such compensation—which is really what the noble Baroness is asking—compensation is calculated and is funded in a variety of ways, and sometimes, in particular circumstances, as I understand it, involves central Government. Whether this would be so in that particular case I do not know and I am sure that this is one of the matters with which the consultations will be concerned.
Lord Beswick: May I just press the noble Lord? He is being very patient, and I am sure that my noble friend Baroness Nicol and I are grateful to him. He

429
emphasised the importance of the consultations. Will he now give an undertaking that he will use his very considerable influence to see that the Bill is not rushed through the House and that there is ample time for the consultations to take place, so that when we come to the next stage of the Bill we shall have the benefit of knowing what has been discussed and possibly agreed?
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer is no, because during the consultations the Government will not be in a position to make a final agreement, for the reasons that I have already given to the noble Lord.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have listened with great attention to the debate on this matter. I have great sympathy with the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in relation to the apparent shyness of the Government to give any further information in regard to these consultations. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has asked for an undertaking that the Bill will not be pushed through quickly before some of the results of these consultations can be disclosed. I wonder whether I can be helpful and ask for an assurance from the Minister, who, in my view, even this afternoon, has shown his great sense of fairness, frankness and courtesy in so many matters. Will he give an assurance that the observations and submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will at least be brought to the notice of the Minister in the other place concerned with the matter, in case the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, should carry considerable weight with him when he sees them in writing?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I most certainly give that assurance. I have no doubt that my honourable friend will take full cognisance of what has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during this short debate. I cannot, however, give an assurance as to the effect that this will have on the final outcome of the discussions, or whether it will affect the subsequent proceedings on the Bill.
Baroness Nicol: Before withdrawing the amendment, which it is my intention so to do at this stage, I should like to say that I do not consider that Amendment No. 6 is entirely consequential on Amendment No. 5. It seems to me—
Lord Skelmersdale: We might have been talking at cross-purposes. Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon Amendment No. 4. It has nothing at all to do with Amendment No. 5, so far as I can see.
Baroness Nicol: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I had meant to say that Amendment No. 5 is not consequential upon Amendment No. 4.
Lord Skelmersdale: Absolutely. I was not speaking to Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Nicol: I do not wish to press the Minister beyond what I know he can say today. I have, however, asked one or two questions to which I should
430
like answers. I am concerned particularly about "the polluter pays" principle. Either we subscribe to it or we do not. I should like to know why it is not applicable in this case. I should also like to know why paragraph 5(c) was dropped from the Bill. It appeared in the original consultation document as a proposal to impose restoration and aftercare conditions without any liability for compensation to existing ironstone permissions. It is important that the Committee should know why this was left out when it was included as a proposal originally in the Department of the Environment document dated 19th December 1983.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness asks why paragraph 5(c) was dropped. I am advised that this is an extremely complicated matter and that I would be well advised to write to the noble Baroness and to put a copy of the letter in the Library. As to "polluter pays" principle, I do not see how that charge can be levelled at me, the Government or anyone else. We are considering existing planning permissions, no matter whether they were made in 1951, 1931 or whenever. So far as the permissions go, they were made, as all planning permissions and planning consents are, under the conditions pertaining at the particular time they were granted. If, in the light of circumstances—which, incidentally, is the root of my cause on this amendment—such conditions change and the local authority takes it upon itself or, in this case, the mineral planning authority takes it upon itself to revoke or alter the consents in any way, then, of course, it is up to them, having made their own decision, to do so; but in that event compensation may well be payable.
Baroness Nicol: I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister on paragraph 5(c). In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("The imposition of restoration and after-care conditions.
.—(1) The provisions of sections 164 and 170 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as the case may be, shall not apply to an order made by the mineral planning authority under section 45 of that Act modifying an existing ironstone planning permission by imposing new or altered conditions or new or altered after-care conditions or to an order made by the mineral planning authority under sections 51 of that Act imposing new or altered restoration conditions or new or altered after-care conditions on a use of land which is taking place pursuant to an existing ironstone planning permission.
(2) In this section—
"existing ironstone planning permission" has the same meaning as in subsection (4) of section (Existing Ironstone Planning Permissions) of this Act;
"mineral planning authority" has the same meaning as in section 1(2B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"restoration conditions" and "after-care conditions" have the same meaning as in section 30A(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.")
The noble Baroness said: It was my intention not to move this amendment, but the Minister indicated that he had not spoken to it. If that is right, I move the amendment formally and invite the noble Lord to reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: It occurs to me, having had a few seconds' peace from the flak of the last half hour or so, that what I am about to say may help considerably your Lordships' future consideration and discussion on the last amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to protect mineral planning authorities from having to pay compensation in the event of their deciding to exercise powers under Sections 45 and 51 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to modify an old ironstone permission to impose conditions requiring restoration and after-care of the site when extraction is completed.
It is understandable that mineral planning authorities might seek to be absolved of their compensation liabilities in the event of their deciding to modify an extant ironstone permission. They will be aware that we, at one time, considered whether such a concession should be made to them. But for a number of reasons we concluded that it should not.
Before I discuss the merits of the proposal, I should first explain that it would not be necessary to amend this Bill in order to relieve mineral planning authorities of their compensation liabilities. That power already exists. The Secretary of State has powers under Section 178A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as amended by the 1981 Minerals Act, to make regulations for the abatement of compensation which may include provision as to the circumstances in which compensation is not to be payable. I have already referred to the forthcoming laying of these regulations.
We concluded that it would not be appropriate to exercise that power to remove the compensation liability in respect of the modifications of extant ironstone permissions within the ironstone district because the effect would be potentially to impose a penalty on those with an interest in Midlands ironstone which was not imposed on minerals interests in other part of the country. That would clearly be inequitable.
Furthermore, the compensation burden faced by those authorities is not likely to be great. All extant ironstone permissions in the ironstone district are already subject to conditions requiring the restoration of the land after ironstone extraction, either as a requirement of the express planning permission or by virtue of the Ironstone Areas Special Development Order 1950. Restoration—which is the most costly part of the reclamation process—is already, therefore, a requirement of the permissions.
I accept that few, if any, of the old permissions will also require a full aftercare scheme to be carried out on the land after restoration, though some aftercare work is often required by the terms of the operator's lease from the Royalty owner. The Committee will appreciate, however, that in such cases only a modest amount of additional treatment may be necessary to bring the aftercare to modern standards.
Where an authority decides to add an aftercare requirement to an extant permission—and to add nothing more—the amount of compensation which they have to pay will be able, under Section 10 of the 1981 Minerals Act, to be abated by the full amount to be prescribed in regulations which it is hoped to lay before both Houses next month.
432
The compensation abatement provisions of those regulations will be applied throughout England and Wales to orders modifying extant permissions for all sorts of mineral working except National Coal Board workings, to which other compensation provisions already apply. It would be extremely difficult to justify making different arrangements for ironstone permissions in the ironstone district. As I have said, this does, I think, have a bearing on our last discussion. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to consider the two together.
Lord Beswick: The noble Lord may be able to help me as I have great difficulty following this. I think I am right in saying that throughout the first part of what he stated he referred to ironstone workings. The problem in Northampton is created by the fact that the permission that was granted to extract ironstone had the effect, incidentally almost, of allowing the working of limestone. What is at issue now is not the extraction of ironstone, because there is no steelworks in the area to use the ironstone. But there are people who want (I have already used the phrase) to exploit this loophole for the purpose of extracting limestone. Do I take it that the power of the Minister to abate any compensation provisions would apply to the limestone working equally with ironstone?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes. I think the point here is that, had the ironstone not been there, these particular permissions that we are talking about would not have been granted in the first place. I accept that ancillary to the ironstone permissions there are permissions to extract for other minerals, particularly limestone. I am not sure that this gets us any further, but I should say that of course where those conditions for other minerals apply then that is what we are talking about now that the ironstone extraction no longer goes on.
Baroness Nichol: I think that I detect a glimmer of hope in that reply, and in order to have time to study it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Recreational Gardening Bill [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will have a more relaxing time than he has had dealing with ironstone and other matters. We are getting back to the soil. In moving that this Bill be now read a third time I should like to say that I hope that one day in the distant future a government will consolidate and update the allotment legislation which exists. There is a need for

433
that which successive governments have so far failed to meet.
The Bill before the House is a modest measure but it effects a number of important reforms. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides the means of closer contact between the local authority and allotment tenants. I should like to quote from an article in Garden News, dated 16th February, to show the sort of thing that could arise as a result of this contact. The article is written by a character called Jack the Carrot. He says:
"I think we are very fortunate in Islwyn Borough, where I live, to have a good working relationship with the council. Our allotment site is council owned, like many others in the area. And every three months of the year, we as an allotment group meet the council sub-committee to discuss our problems and needs regarding allotment activities".
I hope that the new Clause 1 will achieve something on those lines in many other areas.
In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, devolved management of allotment gardens is brought into the legislation. Here, considerable savings of manpower and cash could be effected by the local authorities making agreements with the allotment tenants' associations. In Clause 2, allotment gardening is given recreational status in legislation. Although this is generally accepted by the Government and some local authorities, it is necessary that it be given legislative effect and be confirmed by a decision in the High Court.
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, a standard for allotment gardens is set to be achieved in order to meet modern reasonable requirements. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, protection is given to land acquired by deed of gift of legacy. In Clause 1(2) the expression, "statutory allotment gardens", is defined in legislation for the first time; hitherto there has been no legal definition.
Those are some of the important provisions of this Bill. Other necessary provisions are made. During the various stages of the Bill I have made—I think the Government will concede this—maximum efforts to meet Government criticisms. I am not ungrateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, because, although he pulled my leg at times, I have given his comments very serious consideration. This Bill is supported by allotment organisations, national and regional, and there are now no objections from local authority associations as all their points have been met.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I am grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their interest and support. I have found many keen gardeners in your Lordships' House, and, as the Bill passes to the dangerous waters of another place, I am not alone in asking the Government for at least a fair wind and some degree of patient tolerance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
5.46 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we live in hard times, both in the weather and in the economy. As your Lordships will know, it has been my constant theme, throughout the debates on this Bill and its
434
predecessor, not to do anything that might foster among local authorities a feeling of being got at by Parliament. I accept that during the passage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has fallen over backwards to lighten this burden. However, as he well knows, there are up and down the land councils which are unlikely to have the records in a form which the Allotments Society would be able to use under the proposals contained in this Bill. Nonetheless, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his co-operative attitude throughout our debates.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first I should like to thank my noble friend for his persistence. I think that the Minister will agree that at each stage of the Bill my noble friend has listened very carefully to the legitimate queries that the Minister has advanced. The queries have been largely on the grounds of practicality. Each time the Minister has made a point my noble friend has sought to come back with an improvement or something to take it into account. Although the Minister is right to say that there will always be some authorities which legitimately will say it is difficult, I am heartened by the remarks of my noble friend, who indicates that at this stage it appears that the local authority associations, which of course cannot speak wholly for every single one of their members, are saying that what we are seeking to achieve is achievable.
At the end of the day, as with all legislation, there is an onus upon the local council to actually decide it is going to do something about a duty which is laid upon it; and that is where I think there is going to be some difficulty. I hope very much that the Minister will seek not to impede the Bill. As my noble friend has said, all he wants is the assurance that in another place it will be treated with the seriousness and, I believe, the good will that has been seen from your Lordships on all sides of this House. My noble friend has made it crystal clear that there is a need for this legislation. I believe that the benefits are real. I congratulate my noble friend on the valuable contribution that he has made for millions of people who rely upon some improved framework for their allotment work in the future.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
5.50 p.m.
Read a third time.
Viscount Colville of CulrossClause 2 [Resolution by trustees of old charity to alter objects]:
Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out this minor drafting matter. I think that, in accordance with the style of legislation these days, "shall"—in the two places with which the first two amendments deal—is

435
better than "must" and is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power for certain charity trustees to transfer whole property to another charity]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("must") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Form of resolution by charity trustees under Section 2]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the charity").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I accepted Lord Airedale's amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, I missed the consequential amendments that were necessary in the schedules. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 put the matter right.
Amendment No. 4: Page 11, line 22, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the……… Charity").
I have to admit that when working through Schedule 2 one is required to he fairly nimble footed to see whether it is the transferor or the transferee charity that is being referred to at each point. But it is something that has to be dealt with anyway, and I am only slightly adding to the burden of those who will fill in the form. I think that there will be guidance on it and I do not think that too much difficulty will be experienced. This is a necessary consequential amendment as of course is Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Form of resolution by charity trustees under Section 3]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That this Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, having been slightly at odds with my noble friend and certain other Members of the Select Committee during previous stages of the Bill, I should like to take the opportunity of saying that I regard it as an excellent and useful Bill, and that I wish it well both here and in another place. I should like to congratulate and thank the Members of the Select Committee for all the work that they have done to make this Bill possible and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Colville on the skill, tenacity and at times cunning with which he has piloted this Bill through the House.
436
There is just one point of substance which I should like very briefly to make. When the Bill becomes law, as I hope and believe it will, it seems to me that its effectiveness will depend almost entirely on the extent to which the trustees of small charities, and of course the local authorities, are made aware of its contents. Obviously, the larger local authorities will become aware of it, and no doubt the Association of Parish Councils can tell the smaller ones. However, I do not think that many trustees of small local charities will become aware of the contents of this Bill just by reading the newspapers. In my view it will be essential that the Charity Commission, with what help the Government can give it, takes steps to try and circularise as many of the small charities as they can, and to make known to the trustees of the small charities not only the obligations which the Bill places upon them, but the opportunities which it opens up to them. If this can be done, I believe that the Bill will go a considerable way towards tidying up what has long been an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is without any doubt a pleasant occasion in that it enables many of us to pay some tributes. I entirely agree with the tributes that have been paid so generously by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. However, we owe him a debt of gratitude, too; we owe it also to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The Faithfull-Maude-Renton Bills are indeed the parents of the present legislation. It is pleasant to continue because in our wisdom we referred both Bills (with some parts of which some of us were dissatisfied) to the Select Committee. We are indebted to that committee for the work that it did and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his chairmanship of that committee. Lastly, we turn to the noble Viscount whose skill has already been described in apt terms by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I cannot improve on that description. I, too, am an admirer of his subtlety—and I use that term in the nicest possible sense. It is the noble Viscount who has piloted this Bill through.
On Second Reading I dared to mention the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maude—namely, that one was worried about the fact that we might pass legisaltion in connection with small charities that by and large were beyond the ken of man, of local councils and of everybody else. Although legislation might seem extremely useful and we would have felt that we were doing our duty by enacting it, the real practical point—as the noble Lord has pointed out—is whether or not the trustees will know about the provisions of the Bill.
I know that the Charity Commissioners have in advance prepared a document dealing with the provisions of the Bill. However I feel—and I say this with the greatest respect—that not even a pamphlet of the Charity Commissioners is likely to have the right result. I say this expressly: in my view, the Government should take upon themselves the responsibility—it may well be in county papers rather than in the national press—to see that the provisions of this Bill are advertised and well known. I should have thought that if there were a suitable little poster to that effect, it would be extremely appropriate for it to appear in the local village church on the notice board

437
and in places of that kind, including town halls. I throw that out as a mere suggestion.
When a Bill of this importance, although it is a modest Bill, comes before us, I do not think it is entirely appropriate that one should make long speeches on the Motion That the Bill do now pass because we had our opportunity earlier. Nevertheless, there is one other matter which is allied to the point that was first made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Maude. It was touched upon in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The noble and learned Lord moved an amendment which was subsequently withdrawn for good reason. The noble and learned Lord referred to the report of the Select Committee and he quoted paragraph 49 which said:
"Of the 144,000 registered charities … only about 10,000 render accounts to the Commissioners".
The noble and learned Lord then said:
"The rest are dormant or obsolescent. About the others the committee gave a particular example of the position in Humberside. An investigation carried out between 1978 and 1979 found 120 inactive charities with balances of accumulated income of £ 107,000".
I omit some sentences from the quotation. He then continued:
"What is the machinery in the Bill to persuade those people to do their duty?"—[Official Report, 28/1/85; col. 530.]
6 p.m.
The noble and learned Lord then referred to Clause I and somehat plaintively asked whether it really was to be left to members of the public to find out that such charities are not fulfilling their duties or that the trustees are dead, and to report all this to the Charity Commissioners, and to ask what will be the practical effect of that. It is a matter that arises from the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, was making.
I believe that the answer which was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was partially helpful when she indicated that the Government would monitor this Bill over the next few years to see how effective it proves. I am sure that when the noble Baroness made a statement of that kind, she did so well knowing that the machinery of monitoring will be substantial and that it will not just be a gesture, because I believe that we badly need this Bill to bite. As some of the aged among us know, unless one is supplied with teeth, the bite does not happen. Therefore, I hope that, if possible, the noble Baroness will be able to say in rather more detail what this monitoring process will be.
Having said that, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches but bearing in mind that this is a Private Bill, I wish the Bill good sailing and a happy and successful voyage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, refer to the "faithfull Lord Renton". I may have misheard him, but although I have always regarded myself in that light, this is the first time that it has ever been put on record in either House, and I am most grateful.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I referred to
438
the Faithfull-Maude-Renton Bill. Most likely the noble Lord did not hear the name Maude in the middle of Faithfull and Renton. If the noble Lord wants a compliment from me, I shall say that I have always found him faithful to principles with which I personally do not agree but for which I have the greatest respect.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that correction. I think that one should pay tribute not only to my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, but also to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, because without their joint efforts I do not think we should be having this Third Reading tonight. I pay tribute, as I did earlier, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and in Lincoln's Inn we are indeed proud of his achievement on this occasion. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
As the part-author of the 1960 Act and as this is the first major attempt to amend it, I should be grateful if your Lordships would bear with me while I make one or two comments which I hope will be found constructive about the implementation of the Bill, if and when it reaches the statute book, as I sincerely hope it will.
My noble friend Lord Maude has said that small charities should be informed. That is not an easy matter. I am sure that the Charity Commission will do its best; but the Community Councils Association, which was formerly called the Parish Councils Association, will perhaps be the best instrument for achieving this. As regards public information and information about charities, we also need to go a step further because great opportunities are given by Clause 3, which will enable moribund charities, which are really incapable of fulfilling their purposes because their resources are insufficient, to go to larger charities fulfilling similar purposes.
Therefore, as I ventured to mention on Second Reading, we need to ensure that the Charity Commission will publish information about those small charities so that Clause 3 can be used to devote all the resources of moribund charities to the benefit of living charities which are doing a good job. So a further administrative step is needed to turn this Bill into a reality.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to say how pleased we are with the progress that has been made on this Bill in your Lordships' House, and of course I should like to add my words of gratitude, which have already been very well expressed by everybody, to the Select Committee which was so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whose work has resulted in this Bill. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Colville who has taken forward the work of the committee. We admire the "flair"—which I think is a new word—with which he has guided the Bill through this House and the clarity of his explanations on the finer points. It was particularly agreeable to listen to the typically generous remarks of my noble friend Lord Maude, and also to the interesting remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that the Government are already aware of interest being shown

439
in the provisions of the Bill by trustees. The Bill is biting already. I understand from the Charity Commissioners that there has been an encouraging level of interest in its provisions and I think we can be reassured that, if it is successful, the Bill will be a most useful reform.
The Bill will open the way forward for a number of trustees of local or small charities which are having difficulties in putting their funds to a sensible and an up-to-date use. I agree with my noble friend Lord Maude that the Bill's success will depend on how far trustees become acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be looking at the most effective ways of giving publicity to the Bill and its provisions, including posters. Therefore, there is nothing left for me to say except that I am happy to support the Third Reading of this Bill and to wish it a safe passage from now on.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, to some extent your Lordships have taken most of the speech out of my mouth but it would be only proper for me to make two or three remarks. The Members of the Select Committee have stayed very much in touch with each other during the parliamentary process of the Bill through this House. Indeed, a number of them are here this evening. I believe that we all recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—that, had it not been for the original initiatives of my trio of noble friends, all of whom are here tonight, we should never have made this progress at all. They kept at it, and although there were points of disagreement we now seem to have reached a conclusion with which nearly everyone is happy. That is a very remarkable achievement and it is really due to them in the first place. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to them for what they did.
I agree with every word that has been said about the need for publicity and I am delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Trumpington say what the Home Office will do. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is quite right that the Charity Commission has already prepared a leaflet. I am not sure that it has not actually started circulating it—I hope that that is not a premature step—but at any rate it is ready and it can be issued as and when the Bill succeeds—if it does—in another place.
However, there is one other point worth making and it concerns the remarks that were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just resurrected. Others have spoken about dormant charities or charities with very elderly trustees. The Select Committee was given some examples of charities with very ancient trustees who felt that the job was no longer something that they could undertake. In those particular instances they had sought the help of one of the larger national charities which had taken the small fund under is wing and had gone through the process under the 1960 Act with success.
With this new Bill there will be much more incentive to do something like that and it will not necessarily depend on the initiative of one of the larger charities. Let us suppose that an elderly charity trustee
440
feels that the matter is too much for him and that the objects of his charity are out of date. It will now become very much easier for him to do something about it. It will be much easier if you can find the trustees, or for charity trusts which have been dormant to be put into quick good order by the appointment of new trustees, who can then use the provisions of either Clause 2 or, particularly. Clause 3, whereby their tenure of office may be very short but the charitable funds are brought back into circulation. That is the advantage of the simplicity of the two pieces of machinery now incorporated in the Bill.
It will not be a major, herculean task for those trustees to go through the whole question of cy-près, or the appointment of new objects, or anyhing like that, under the 1960 Act. The new machinery is quite simple. The combination of the publicity and the simpler procedures ought to be wholly beneficial. That having been said, I am delighted that there is this new interest about which my noble friend spoke.
I hope it will be agreed on all sides that this House has improved the Bill. I think the Members of the Select Committee are in no doubt that it has. What encourages me most of all are the remarks of my noble friend Lord Maude, to whom I add my gratitude for his most generous speech this evening. He could well have been disappointed at what happened last week. He is not. With characteristic good humour this evening he has now wished the Bill well, as a whole, on its way to another place. I thank those who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill, I think on behalf of all members of the Select Committee. We hope that my honourable friend the Member for mid-Suffolk, to whom I propose to entrust it, will manage to steer it through another place so that we may see it back in due course.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Straw and Stubble Burning (Control) Bill.
This Bill is Mark III. Mark I was the Bill I introduced in the last Session and Mark II was the Bill that emerged from your Lordships' House, greatly amended, and was killed stone dead by the Government when it was introduced into another place by my honourable friend the Member for Thanet.
I present this Bill to your Lordships in the belief that it represents a realistic compromise between the interests of the arable farming industry and of the general public, on the other hand, who have for a decade or more suffered from the effects to health, convenience and amenity which the burning of straw and stubble imposes on those who live in the towns and villages of Great Britain in the country areas where arable farming is practised, or who go there for recreation. It will, I hope, help to prevent the damage to the environment and to the interests of conservation

441
which the practice of straw and stubble burning entails.
In drafting this Bill I have given a great deal of thought to the arguments and criticisms advanced in the debates we had in the last Session on my original Bill. I have seen the important experimental work being undertaken by ADAS under the guidance of Dr. Davies in Cambridge. I have had the advice of Mr. Benyon, of Leicester University, who has given a great deal of time to the study of the problem. Professor Cracknell, of the Carnegie Laboratory of Physics in Dundee University, has undertaken monitoring of the burning during the recent harvest by means of ultraviolet ray photography via satellite. I have been in touch with the National Farmers' Union. I know from my contacts with the Association of District Councils that, while they still want a total ban, they strongly support this Bill the Second Reading of which I am now moving.
I have also studied the very promising developments which have taken place in the methods of straw incorporation involving, for an increasing number of arable farmers, an appreciation of its advantages. I have noted the advances which have taken place in the industrial use of straw as a fuel and as a raw material. I have now, as well, a better appreciation of the transitional problems which face farmers owing to the differences of size and capitalisation of holdings of arable land and the vagaries of soil characteristics.
All this has convinced me that straw burning as at present practised in Great Britain is both a waste of a potentially valuable raw material and an intolerable public nuisance; it has also convinced me that within four years, if research and development at present being undertaken is maintained and accelerated, alternative agricultural and industrial uses for straw will be available, and that at the end of that time it should be banned; that after the ban the Ministry of Agriculture should nevertheless have power to license burning in special circumstances. I believe that any farmer licensed to burn should make a financial contribution to further research and development, and—of this I am quite certain—that the present by-laws and the NFU code, while helping to prevent a repetition last season of the disastrous experiences of 1983, are not effective.
A comprehensive survey after the 1984 harvest carried out by the Association of District Councils showed, first, that 138 authorities out of the 200-odd which had adopted the by-laws considered that the by-laws were inadequate. So far as I know, only one, Salisbury District Council, refused to adopt those by-laws, although it covers a substantial arable area. One hundred and six district councils said that a ban was the only way of dealing with the problem; 56 were, at the time of the survey, contemplating prosecutions against farmers who had broken the by-laws. Indeed, a photograph taken by the Carnegie Laboratory on the last Saturday in August showed 15 illegal straw fires in areas of Britain which were clear of cloud, and I suppose that there were double that number or even more in the other parts of the country which could not have been photographed.
Further, 143 authorities received complaints from the public, which included allegations of weekend
442
burnings and damage to trees and hedgerows. Your Lordships may have seen reports of one particular incident in Lincolnshire where there was widespread damage. The report of that incident in The Times reads as follows:
"On Monday winds fanned stubble fires throughout the county causing more than a dozen fires to get out of hand, destroying 74 acres of standing crops and more than five miles of hedges and banksides. Families were evacuated at Reepham, near Lincoln.
"Mr. Colin Brereton, the county's deputy fire-prevention officer, said yesterday: 'Even fires which were lit in accordance with the stubble-burning code got out of hand, but a number of others have been reported to the district councils, who decide whether to take action under local by-laws.' ".
All this took place despite the fact that the weather during the last season curtailed the burning, and it is estimated that 2,500 arable farmers undertook no burning during the harvest at all. The fact that a substantial number of farmers have given up burning, and that a majority have observed the by-laws and done their best to mitigate this public nuisance, shows that the industry is alive to the extent of the problem. Indeed, as your Lordships will remember, the deputy chairman of the NFU recognised in a speech last year that an eventual ban was inevitable.
But I suggest—this is the point made in my Bill—that time must be given for further research into incorporation, as Dr. Tinker of Rothamstead said at a recent NFU conference. There must be developments into alternative uses for straw and the production of the necessary machinery. We must recognise that in certain cases, even after four years (the time given in the Bill for that to take place) straw burning may still be justified in accordance with good agricultural practice, provided that it does not represent a hazard to the public interest. All this is reflected in the provisions of the Bill which I am now moving.
Clause 1 gives the Minister of Agriculture power to prohibit straw and stubble burning, after the straw has been removed, after 1st January 1989, unless a licence has been obtained. This gives four years before the ban comes into operation. It also allows the Minister to differentiate between the burning of straw and the underlying stubble and the stubble itself which, though undesirable from many points of view as the Lincolnshire incident shows, is a lesser hazard. I must confess that it has been brought to my notice that it has some classical precedent in that it is referred to in the Bible. The right reverend Prelates will know Isaiah 47.14 and Joel 2.5.
In Clause 1(2) I have followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that any order should be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
In Clause 2 the Agriculture Minister, after 31st January 1989, may issue a licence to permit straw or stubble burning for the harvest period in any one year. When doing so he must take into account the special characteristics of the soil on the farm, the requirements of good agricultural practice and the location of the land. By "good agricultural practice" I have in mind the particular point that the extent of the arable acreage and the resources of a farm may not make it possible from a financial point of view to undertake investment in the additional specialist machinery which incorporation would need.

443
So far as the safety of the public and the public interest are concerned, your Lordships will see that the criteria that the Minister has to take into account are the location of the land in relation to housing, hospitals, highways, areas of natural beauty, public recreation and sites of special scientific interest and, in general terms, protection of the environment, the safety of the public, the safeguarding of property and the prevention of damage to health.
In Clause 3 the Minister may require the payment of a fee for the licence. This will mean that the cost of administering the Bill will not be a charge on the Exchequer. In addition there will be a fee of £5 for every hectare, which is about £2 per acre, which will be devoted to research and development into alternative agricultural and industrial uses for straw.
It is possible that by 1989 £5 will be too small a sum to exact for this purpose. At present it means that any farmer obtaining a licence to burn 250 hectares will pay, in addition to the licence, about £600. If the burning takes place over 100,000 hectares the money available for research provided by that would be over half a million or about 30 per cent. of the Government's present financial support for such research and development. Your Lordships may feel that the payment should be £10 or more per hectare rather than the present fee. I happily acknowledge that this idea came from a suggestion made by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells in last year's debate.
Under Clause 4 no one convicted of an offence against the by-laws after the enactment of the Bill may be issued with a licence. This will eliminate the cowboys and irresponsible farmers. I understand that this, in principle, has the support of the NFU. It will be a powerful sanction during the next four years.
Clause 5 is the same as in last year's Bill. Again your Lordships may not feel that the penalties are sufficient in terms of the inflation over the next four years.
Clause 6 is again the same as in last year's Bill, but the definition of "straw" is extended to include the waste residue of oil seed rape and pea and barley crops. This addition has been made because the Home Office is at present preparing amendments to the model bylaws to include these crop residues.
I could have presented your Lordships with a mass of detail about the relevance of different types of soil to straw burning; the effect which the practice has on the environment; the damage and discomfort it has inflicted on neighbourhoods during the last harvest which have been reported to me; the outcome of the research that has been undertaken by Rothamstead, Letcombe and ADAS during the last 12 months; the developments which have taken place in the industrial use of straw; the availability of new machinery for incorporation, and a great deal more besides. But I will spare your Lordships all that. I am convinced that legislation to ban straw burning is certain within the next five years. It is in the public interest that this should be done. It is also in the interest of the arable farming industry that it should be done in such a way as to take full account of the problems and the interests of those whose livelihood depends on arable farming.
444
I believe that this Bill meets all these considerations. It is fair to the farmers; it will protect the public; it presents no administrative expense to the Government; it supports research and development and it penalises those who, irresponsibly, bring the farming industry into disrepute. I hope that I shall have a constructive response in this House from my noble friends who represent the farming industry and from the Minister who will later give us his comments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Alport.)
6.27 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the one thing we must do is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on what he has described as his Mark III effort. I had it down as Mark II: I had forgotten about Mark I. His persistence is to be admired, and also his persuasiveness, because he has done much research into everything that has happened since the last Bill. He has included what the councils have done, and the number of fines and the damage, including that unfortunate case in Lincolnshire. I am not sure where he obtained all his particulars about the number of farmers who have given up burning, but he made an interesting point there. There is no doubt that the noble Lord has persuaded himself, and is now doing his best to persuade us and everybody else, that a complete ban will be necessary in due course.
The noble Lord approached me earlier, when he put the Bill forward at First Reading, and said that he had given me almost everything I wanted, going by what I said in the Mark II debate last year, particularly on the licensing issue. I certainly put forward the idea of licensing, but I wanted to make it automatic: that someone was licensed to burn straw, and if that person went against the regulations and the by-laws the penalty would be a ban for a short time—perhaps for only a year, but the period could go up to a ban for life. That was my idea on Second Reading. I feel that his idea of making people apply for a licence, while still charging for it and adding to it a sum of up to £10 per hectare, must be a major job. He said that it would not cost the Ministry anything extra. I would doubt that very much. To carry out a licensing system of roughly, I would say, 100,000 cereal-growing farmers in this country would be a pretty big job in itself.
The noble Lord made the point in the Bill, and in his speech, about what could be done with straw. He said that he would require £5 or £10 per hectare (or whatever he managed to get hold of) for research. I think that the Minister will probably give us the figure, but I understand the Government are spending a very large sum of money at the present moment, and there is no lack of commercial research into all the uses that could be made of straw. So I do not think that that is really necessary. I, myself, along with my youngest son, who farms with me, have looked into what we might do if the noble Lord was successful and straw burning was banned. One thing we looked into was the case of making it into fuel that could be used in normal households, and not in big straw-burning boilers. The cost is very high. We bought a few bags of it to try in our wood-burning stove. Although it is very good and

445
this particular manufacturer mentioned that he could not meet the demand, against the same weight of wood there is no comparison whatever. It really is quite expensive, although it produces heat and a nice fire.
We all know that during the war an enormous amount of straw went into paper-making, but people do not like paper with straw-coloured bits and pieces through it. They want a nice, clear sheet of paper. Use for packing cases seems to be a good suggestion; and, of course, we and a lot of people are using treated straw for stock feed. So I do not think that the noble Lord can say that there is not enough research going on into the use of straw. I would remind him that some six million tonnes (as I think is the figure) of straw is burned every year; and it is a major job to get that into anything other than incorporation. Incorporation is all very well. There are arguments both ways. You have to put on more nitrogen to break it down. On strong land, the kind on which I farm, it is a very difficult job, particularly if it is a wet year. Also, there is some evidence—I do not know how accurate it is—that you can actually do harm if it is not properly incorporated over quite a few years.
The point that I should like to make is that since the noble Lord's last Bill we have had the by-laws which were created with the help of the NFU and everybody concerned, and I think that, on the whole, these bylaws have been fairly well obeyed. Admittedly, there have been cases where accidents occurred. But these were not necessarily created by the breaking of the by-laws. They were sometimes created by outside agencies altogether, having nothing to do with the actual burning of the straw.
I should like to criticise three points in the by-laws. One is the heaping of the straw, or what is done to carry out the by-law which says that you must remove straw 25 metres from any hedge, tree, telegraph pole and so on. The method usually used is to sweep the straw into heaps 25 metres away, and burn it. My experience has been that that has given more heat and burned the hedges or the trees or what-have-you worse than if you had burned it lying flat as it was combined. That is one point. I have had that confirmed by quite a few other farmers.
The other thing is this question of not burning at weekends or holidays. At harvest time we work a seven-day week. A lot of people work a seven-day week all the year round. We happen to be dairymen. During the harvest, we work a seven-day week and for very long hours. In my opinion, it is quite ridiculous that for over a period of a month, probably, there is a regulation that we cannot burn on a Saturday (or, for that matter, a Sunday) although the straw is then dry enough to burn. You could easily have a whole week wet, and it would be a very bad thing if that happened and a farmer could not burn on a Saturday.
After all, it is not a very big thing: two or three weekends in a whole year if straw burning were allowed instead of being prohibited.
There is another small point, and that is the phoning of everybody—your neighbours, the fire brigade and the district council. I had to phone several times, and I could hear the sigh at the end of the phone as we phoned the fire brigade in Harlow, who had probably had 20 to 30 phone calls inside an hour to say that
446
some people were going to be burning straw. My neighbour said to me, "Let's have a pact. Let's stop all this phoning and such-like". I think that may be exaggerating the matter, but I wanted to make these points on the by-laws.
I, personally, and we on this side of the House, take no great exception to the noble Lord's Bill, but we are not sure that it is going to do anything more than the by-laws are doing at the moment. Frankly, as a farmer, I do not see that we can stop straw burning as an agricultural process. The noble Lord made several points. There is the question of stubble sanitation. There are continuous cereal growers in much of the country, and we must look these days at stubble sanitation, which is very important. Straw burning is one of the things that helps sanitation to a tremendous extent.
As I say, we take no great exception to the Bill, but when it comes to Committee stage there will be some amendments that we shall put down on the question of licensing, and so on. Otherwise, I should not like to think that the noble Lord is correct in saying that he is certain that in five years' time there will be a complete ban on straw burning. He mentioned the fact that that would be of great benefit to various people, including farmers. That point I am not so sure about, if I may say so.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, brings these Bills before us—this is the third one—and puts his case with great eloquence. Many of your Lordships may feel that this particular model is not nearly so traumatic as far as farming is concerned as the previous ones. But I would suggest that, even if that may be so, that is no reason why it should ever become an Act because I think that it has a lot of undesirable features to it. I admit that there has been trouble this summer, again, much to my sorrow, but I think that it was very small compared to previous years. Once more we had a dry harvest; although, looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I know that in the eastern counties it was damp, because I passed that way at the end of harvest.
But I should like to point out to your Lordships that in every community of people, whoever they may be, there are always one or two people who put themselves beyond the pale, and farmers are no exception to that. I am quite certain that whether or not one uses a satellite, one will always be able to find people doing wrong at harvest time. This is a point to which I might return later, because I feel that the definition of "harvest time" must carry with it some difficulties in a Bill of this kind.
There is no real need to track over again all the reasons why farmers burn straw. They were covered very thoroughly a year ago, or even less than that. We discussed here the fact that the plant breeders had produced much better crops for us, which, combined with the skill of the farmers, carried to the grain plants a lot of corn but left on the ground a tremendous amount of straw, compared to previous years. We discussed the matter of cereal diseases and how these had to be combated. We discussed the business of saving fossil fuels and we discussed not least the fact

447
that it might be rather cumbersome to license this particular operation which, I submitted, anyway had become a part of agricultural husbandry.
The Bill now before us is much the same, and the arguments put forward in favour of burning, done extremely carefully, are as good now as they were a year ago. But I think there are two points of difference that we should look at. The first is—I have touched on it already—the attitude of farmers and the adoption, as the noble Lord has so rightly said, of the by-laws by a large number of councils, though not Salisbury. I have to admit that I farm two miles south of Salisbury, but it was nothing to do with me, and I can assure your Lordships that without the benefit of the by-laws we objected to not being allowed to burn on Sunday; people in Wiltshire have behaved impeccably well.
I believe that the whole attitude of farmers and the way that they have gone about this question, together with their awareness and their care have shown a very considerable improvement on previous years. It seems to me that the suggested guidelines—suggested by the Government and then adopted by councils—is a better way forward than this Bill would appear to me to be at the moment.
The second point of difference is, of course, the Bill itself. It represents a postponement, so far as I can see. Unfortunately, so far as I can also see, in essence nothing else much has changed at all. It contains roughly the same kinds of procedures and much the same kinds of penalties. So far as I am concerned, the authorities are still left with the same impossible judgments relating to all manner of matters, ranging from soil types to public health and atmospheric pollution. Short though it is, it appears to me as an impracticable Bill which I believe would be very, very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture to administer fairly. There are too many things to be decided upon and there are too many imprecise statements in it.
There is another matter I should like to mention; it is the whole question of postponement. We are talking about this Bill being enacted in 1989, and here we are—not very late, but late enough—on a Monday evening on 18th February 1985. With the greatest respect, I think that we should be debating this Bill in 1988. I honestly believe that bringing these Bills forward one by one—because I imagine we shall be looking forward to the next mark and the next mark—represents a waste of parliamentary time and of the time of your Lordships.
I should like to finish by going briefly into the details of this Bill. I think that it would be very hard for the Minister to decide who should and who should not be licensed. I believe that the matters which are raised under subsection (2) would be even harder and would make it almost impossible to be fair; I refer to soil types and that kind of thing. It would lead to all kinds of conflicts. The cost of the licence—although the noble Lord would disagree with me—sounds very severe. Farming profit, or so it seems to me anyway, is probably going to descend by a percentage—about 12 or 15 per cent. As I said on the last occasion, this seems the wrong time to penalise the farmer. Let us hope that by 1989 things will be looking up again in the countryside, but we cannot be quite sure of that.
448
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has covered the research aspect very well. It is being researched; I think it is being researched by the Government, and also privately. I have myself put some money into an affair which is examining the relationship between a yet-to-be-invented baler and the Heston—I think it is called—a high-density baler, because the density of bales is very pertinent to this whole question and also to the transport aspect.
Perhaps the vaguest of all the matters in this Bill is that relating to the harvest period. This period surprises me. If any of your Lordships were present for the Food and Environment Protection Bill, you may remember that I was rapidly corrected by my noble friend Lord Belstead, when he was able to tell me that the Definitions Act 1978 considered water to be in fact land. I have a fairly mixed farm and my harvest period goes on the whole year round. I harvest milk, I harvest pigs, I harvest all kinds of things. It is a Committee point, perhaps, but to think of "the harvest period" is as awkward as thinking of straw. What is straw? That must be defined at some stage, perhaps in Committee, and we need to know whether potato haulms come into it or not, and so on.
I think I have spoken quite long enough. Your Lordships will know that I am against this Bill, because on the whole—and I am sure I am right here—I think it is unnecessary. It is very reasonable to expect further and steady improvement, as the noble Lord himself more or less said, in the behaviour of farmers over this difficult question—and difficult question it is—of straw burning. I think the Bill is impractical and has been brought before your Lordships at the wrong time. I do not know whether or not your Lordships are going to give it a Second Reading, but I must admit that I hope it does not reach the statute book.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not know whether I am right in the impression that the proceedings so far—perhaps it is pushing my luck a bit to say so—seem to be rather less inflammatory than they were at this time last year. We have had a very moderate speech from one farmer, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and a very full account of the reasons why another farmer, the noble Earl who has just sat down, would not like this Bill to have even a Second Reading. They have expressed their views in very reasonable and moderate terms.
I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that the Private Member's Bill, or the promoter of a Private Member's Bill, has, if I may use an agricultural metaphor, a very hard row to hoe. Very often he has to come back Session after Session before he succeeds. A very notable example was the Bill to enable a man to marry his deceased wife's sister, which Gilbert and Sullivan called "that annual blister". What I should like to say to the noble Earl is that the Bill was eventually enacted, and so I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, upon his persistence. I hope that this Bill, if not enacted this year, will be so next year.
Certainly I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has done a very great deal to improve the Bill and has taken on board most if not all of what I consider to be

449
the valid criticisms that were raised at the Committee and Report stages of his Bill last year. For myself, I still consider it right to legislate for a fixed date beyond which straw and stubble burning will be controlled and only exceptionally allowed under licence. This was the relevant recommendation of the Standing Commission on the Environment, which reported just about this time last year. It was a very authoritative body and, if a body of such distinction reports to that effect, it should carry very great weight with Parliament and with the Government.
I should like to give credit where credit is due. It would be churlish not to because I am quite sure that the farming community, in particular the cereal farmers, took a most responsible attitude during the last burning season. I know there were one or two exceptions—the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned one, in Lincolnshire, I think, and no doubt there were others—but there was nowhere near the same irresponsible burning as there has been in previous years. One might really have expected there to be more incidents than there when one considers what a long hot summer it was.
This improvement was to a large measure due to a realisation on the part of farmers that they must be good neighbours. There is a much greater feel of cooperation—dare I say almost friendliness?—between those who farm and those who care for the environment. Great credit must be given to the National Farmers' Union for drawing up its code on straw and stubble burning. I hope that the farmers themselves will take some comfort from the fact that their image, which was somewhat tarnished, is buffed up by their very good record last year. It is now rather brighter than it was in the view of the general public.
I have one or two detailed points on the Bill which I shall reserve for Committee stage. I shall not follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and detail them, except to say that I am slightly unhappy about the licensing under Clause 2 being carried out by central Government. I wonder whether it should not be done more locally, possibly by local authorities. Perhaps I have not read it correctly but it seems to be such a regional matter that it should be licensed in the regions and not centrally.
My major point concerns the amendment of the Highways Act 1980, the provisions of which are totally inadequate. I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for giving me in a Written Answer of 5th July last year details of what had been put in the NFU code. The code refers to the offences which may be committed under Sections 131(1) and 161(2) of the Highways Act 1980 and advises farmers to burn well away from public roads and not within 100 metres of a motorway or dual carriageway. That is more like it but I do not think that something of such importance should be dependent upon a code drawn up by the NFU and the observance of that code by farmers.
Clearly, if it was correct in 1980 to make provision under Sections 131 and 161 of the Highways Act, there is no doubt that, now there is a greater realisation of the danger to the public from burning close to highways, the Highways Act should be amended, and amended soon. I should have thought that, if the Bill
450
of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is to flourish, this would be a very good means of incorporating amendments to the Highways Act. Alternatively, if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not to be kindly looked upon—I very much hope that that is not the case—there could be a separate Private Member's Bill in order to amend the Highways Act 1980.
I should like to say once again on this very narrow question of burning near highways that I give credit to the NFU because not only did it issue this guidance but that advice was featured by the Agricultural Training Board for use in training courses for farmers and farm workers on the safe burning of straw and stubble. The message is getting out, but to rely on a code and on the voluntary observance of the code is not good enough when the general public are put in danger, as they certainly have been when there has been very bad straw burning—not so much stubble burning—by highways.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord John-Mackie in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his persistence. The noble Lord has two qualities: persistence and independence. Both have been recognised by the party of which he was previously a member. In fact one might say that they have been conceded to him in your Lordships' House—not that we notice any difference from the time before, but I thought he put a very formidable case indeed before us this afternoon.
I am, quite frankly, a little surprised at the catalogue of complaints that local authorities have received during the last harvest. My own observation in Surrey led me to believe that there had been an improvement, possibly because the guidelines against stubble burning over weekends seemed to be observed more fully than before. But this is a matter of public interest and concern, and the farming industry, like all other industries, must adjust itself to the wider well-being of the public at large.
The burning of stubble, especially at weekends, when many people are hoping to get some more peaceful enjoyment of the countryside, is a public nuisance and it really ought to be banned as a public nuisance. In some parts of the country stubble burning has to be added to the other nuisances—aircraft and motorways—which are growing in number as there are additions to the range of human experience and enjoyment. This matter must be looked at from that point of view first of all.
We have to ask ourselves why it is that this has become a nuisance. When I was young, I spent most of my boyhood in a very beautiful part of agricultural countryside in Leicestershire, in the Vale of Belvoir. I do not remember any burning of stubble in those days. It seems to me that stubble burning is a development of more modern cereal growing methods—probably due to the kind of machinery that is now used in cutting and harvesting. The farming industry should adjust its methods to overcome this particular problem.
Another reason why we are more conscious of stubble burning today than in the past is the large

451
increase in the acreage now under cereal crops. When we are sniffing the smoke and cleaning all the smuts off the tables in our houses, we are entitled to ask ourselves this question: what is all this in aid of? I heard some astonishing figures the other night to the effect that only one half of our cereal harvest last year was needed for home consumption, both for the baking industry and for animal feedstuffs. The rest was being taken over at intervention prices by the EEC; so more than half is being grown for storage. It may be grown to sell cheaply to Soviet Russia—what else may happen to it I really do not know. But far too much acreage is now apparently under cereals. Other cereals may take the place of wheat, oats and barley and there is a great deal of discussion concerning that matter at the present time.
I believe that a good deal of change will come about in the pattern of agriculture over the next five years, and that it will be likely to help rather than hinder the purpose of this Bill. As to what other crops could be grown is a matter for discussion and consideration. but they may not require quite the same treatment on the ground as is apparently needed, in the view of the farming industry, in the case of conventional cereal crops.
Be that as it may, this practice is one that we should prepare to get rid of. All concerned should make up their minds on the fact that the public and Parliament will not stand for this a great deal longer. It may be that agriculture will have to lower its self-esteem in the economics of the country. In some respects, agriculture has attained a position of eminence in our economic life which the next few years may diminish to some extent. So the purpose of this Bill is one that we should support.
In introducing Mark 3 of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has shown tolerance in meeting the criticisms which were levelled against his earlier versions. This Bill is so tolerant that it would be wise of the agricultural interests to grab it while it is going. As the years go by, the approach of Parliament and the public is likely to grow more severe.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I, too, bridle a little at the licensing provisions, but these are only a measure of the tolerance which the noble Lord has introduced into his Bill. I would hate to think that this could be the beginning of a straw and stubble burning licensing authority, or anything of that kind. The centralisation of licensing always has its dangers because one knows what bureaucracy does—it multiplies. It cannot escape from the institutional life of which bureaucracy becomes a part. There can be no informal treatment of the public. They are all entitled to the same considerations of their claims as anybody else. We have to bear in mind that all bureaucracy is the administration of the law, and that requires much greater care than any other kind of administration. I should hope that by 1989 the need for any degree of licensing will be very small.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he must remember (and I know and am taking into account his age) that when he was a boy living in the Vale of Belvoir, there was simply no grain
452
grown there at all. I remember an old huntsman telling me that he used to ride all the way from Lincoln to Belvoir Castle without crossing a ploughed field. Also, is my noble friend suggesting that we should cut down food production, irrespective of what is happening at the present moment, when 800 million people in the world are living below a decent level of nutrition?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, I take all those points into consideration—but there is no clear indication at the present moment that surplus production in foodstuffs in some countries is reaching the third world of starving millions. The organisation of the world's food supply really needs brushing up. A fresh look needs to be taken at the organisation of the world's food in order to see how the world is going to be fed. There will be economic aspects attached to this; there seems to be no escape from that. That has to be so either at Government level or at private level, but money will enter into it—either in the form of taxation or in the form of profit on production.
Not even the Soviet Union has rid itself of economics yet. There will be impediments. I fear, in the way of the redistribution of food production; but let us see how that works out, too. A good deal may happen in many directions over the next five years. It will be very sad if something does not happen, for the world cannot go on as it is at the present time; something better must be done. However, I do not believe that this Bill will make any real difference to the level production of foodstuff production that we should be capable of achieving in the years to come. It is a question of technique, of machinery, and of plant genetics. All modern development and research can be brought to bear on this problem.
I hope that we shall support this Bill again today, and eventually give it further consideration, as may be necessary, and pass it in a suitable form before we have finished. That is needful. I do not know how many times one must go on doing this before someone takes better notice. Since the Government killed this Bill stone dead in another place last year, they cannot kill it any more dead in another place this year. I hope they will not try to do that. I hope that in another place interest will be taken in this Bill and that it will be given a fair wind there. It deserves that, and I feel that there will be a good deal of support for it. Once again, I support the Bill, and if the House is in a mood to divide, then I shall vote for it.
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, notwithstanding some of the objections which have been raised against this Bill, not least by the National Farmers' Union and the CLA, I am bound to say that, in principle, I find myself in support of this Mark III Bill. I say "in principle" because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has gone some way to undermine the whole principle and essence of this particular Bill, which is a requirement for licensing, as opposed to his previous Mark II Bill.
There are some rather obnoxious aspects in the Bill which I do not think many of your Lordships could accept. For instance, we have already dealt with an outright ban, but he kept referring to a ban in 1989. The business of asking farmers to pay £2 an acre for

453
straw that is burnt will be quite unacceptable to the farming community. There are other similar objections. To say that anyone who breaks or goes against the current model by-laws will be banned from having any form of licence in the future is terribly draconian. If we could put issues of that sort, which are Committee issues, on one side and look at the principle, which I believe to be a requirement to have this activity properly licensed, we may be able to view it in a slightly different frame of mind.
My noble friend Lord Belstead rightly pointed out on the previous occasion that we should try these model by-laws to see how they work, and so on. This we did, and I am delighted to feel (as I am sure everyone else is) that they are working and that they are seen to be working. That is absolutely splendid. I do not think that by-laws administered by local authorities is the right way to deal with the administration of the control of straw and stubble burning. To start with, the local authority is not the right department (for want of a better word) to deal with this. The Ministry of Agriculture should be the department to issue licences. Secondly, I am not sure that by-laws are good enough in this instance. There is a great deal of strong feeling about having straw and stubble burning banned altogether, as we have just heard. If we could be seen to be going some way towards meeting the understandable objections from the people whom one might call "the outright banners", it could take some of the wind out of their sails and take a little of the carpet from under their feet. If we could be seen to have a licensing system and have the matter more legally under control, I cannot see that it would be doing the farming community any harm and it would achieve very much the same objective as the model by-laws are achieving at present.
The system of licensing and the granting of a licence could incorporate all the provisions and the guidance given in the model by-laws as to how one should burn straw, when one can, when one cannot, and so on. In this respect, I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to allow the burning of straw and stubble at weekends and not just limit it to what one might commonly call the working week. During harvest time the working week, as far as I am aware, is virtually 24 hours a day for seven days a week. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that no burning should take place at weekends. I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead listened to what the noble Lord said, and perhaps we could have a look at it for next year's guidance on model by-laws.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was very concerned about how the licensing system would work, and raised every conceivable difficulty that he could think of because, I think, he is basically opposed to the principle of the Bill. I do not honestly see there should be any difficulty. At the moment we have a law which states you may not burn heather in this country, or in Scotland, outside certain dates. If you need to do so you apply to the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture for a licence to burn heather. I do this frequently, and I have never been turned down. I may have been asked the reasons why and have had to explain that, for example, it has been a very wet winter and it has
454
not been possible to get it done, and so on, and have been told to make sure that I tell the fire brigade and to make sure that I do certain things. It is all perfectly fair and correct, but one must have a licence. It presents no difficulty. One has to think about it. If you leave it to the last minute, that is obviously being rather careless; but if you ask in good time—say, a month ahead— there should be no bother.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I do not think I raised all manner of difficulties. I think the word I used was "cumbersome".
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, my noble friend is most probably perfectly right, but I am afraid I did not in fact hear the word "cumbersome". Any regulations can be cumbersome, and I could not agree with my noble friend more; but, as I said earlier, it is more desirable to have this legally licensed rather than under a by-law; that is my point.
I believe the Bill to be necessary for the reasons I have given. I think that the outright banners will win the day if we are not seen to be doing something to meet their objections. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the essence of this Bill is the principle of licensing, and nothing else. We all agree that control of some sort is required. The question is: how? Do we rely on model by-laws, as they are at the moment, and the local authorities, or do we have legislation organised by the Minister? I support the latter course, and, therefore, in principle I support the Bill.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not intend to restate yet again the case that farmers should be allowed to dispose of straw by burning. Your Lordships have been over that course too many times, and, at the risk of being out of order, the weight of this file on the subject, as your Lordships can see, bears testimony not only to the correspondence on it but also to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Alport.
The question I ask your Lordships—and it is the same question as that asked by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, but I put it slightly differently—is whether the Bill is necessary, whether it will serve any purpose other than perhaps engendering a little heat, or whether it will disrupt and harm the progress that has been made by the industry, helped by the Ministry of Agriculture, to improve the arrangements for the safe disposal of straw. That progress has been admitted by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I believe the Bill will hinder that self-evident progress, will waste your Lordships' time in repetition and will uncessarily inconvenience the ever-willing staff of your Lordships' House.
There is ample evidence that the present system of by-laws, drafted in line with the National Farmers' Union's code of practice, is working exceptionally well. That has been admitted on the Floor of the House this evening by, I believe, every noble Lord. It has been effectively enforced. Indeed, as a farmer I would say it has been viciously enforced by local authorities—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said last year, as reported in column 247 of the

455
Official Report for 14th February 1984, when he said to me, referring to the code of practice:
"It cannot be enforced. The NFU have no powers to enforce it. It is simply something that is put on paper and sent out to farmers. They are asked to observe it and they do or do not, as the case may be".
The noble Lord should try saying that to some of those who have disobeyed the code this year. He would learn from them some very interesting agricultural language. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who brought up this question of enforcement, will also ask some of those who have broken the law and been before the courts.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I just interrupt my noble friend for one moment? Is he referring to the code, and, if so, what sanctions are in fact behind it, or is he referring to the by-laws? I should be interested to know whether the NFU in fact fines its members if they break the code or puts them in gaol. What does it do?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord would ask me that question. I think that he is splitting hairs. The code is put forward, and from that code the by-laws have been drawn up. It is the by-laws that enforce the code. Almost without exception—we have heard from my noble friend Lord Radnor about various small exceptions in Salisbury —in the arable growing areas the by-laws are virtually in line with the code.
So far as the details of the Bill are concerned, there are inevitably many flaws. Clause 4 appears to envisage both a licensing system and an existing bylaw. Clause 2 places an intolerable burden on the unfortunate official who is to decide who is and who is not to be given a licence—a point brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Radnor. That would separate farming burners from non-farming burners. There is a parallel problem, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to come to Anglesey to see what has happened in the case of less-favoured areas, when one farmer is less favoured and the next one is not. It has put farmer against farmer. His licensing scheme could well do the same.
Sadly, I fear that the noble Lord was too busy last year to visit my straw-burning farm to see the problem, so I expect that he will be too busy to come to Anglesey to see a similar problem. In fairness to the noble Lord, why should he so inconvenience himself for me? He is not a farmer. In fact he stated that his straw-burning Bill last year was an excursion into agricultural politics. I hope that his concern for agriculture will extend and blossom. As an industry we have the odd problem which we should very much like to solve.
But one rule that the noble Lord seems to have ignored—and it is common to agriculture, industry and indeed war—is to reinforce success. The code of practice, backed by by-laws, has most certainly been a success. Why, in the name of heaven, change it when it is just getting off to a good start? The noble Lord has not shown me that he knows more than the Ministry of Agriculture or indeed the industry, who have
456
worked out the code, or that his licensing system is better. That is the question on the Bill. Is his idea better than ours and the ministry's?
It may be that the noble Lord feels that I have been unduly harsh about his Bill, and so I have to give him credit for reminding the industry—and I really mean this—of the seriousness of the problem; the industry knows it. We have learnt our lesson. I have even left my flock in the middle of lambing to come to tell him on the Floor of the House that I realise the seriousness of the problem. We shall continue to realise that and to improve the code and the other advances that we have made this year.
In the interests, I believe, of better and safer straw burning, of not wasting your Lordships' time and that of those who serve us here, of keeping the peace between farmer and farmer and of not increasing bureaucracy and indeed costs. I cannot, I am afraid, support the noble Lord's Bill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that I think that this Bill is more reasonable than the previous one. I congratulate him on the way that he has gone into this and on his better appreciation now of the difficulty that the industry is in. If licensing were to be brought in, I think that it would certainly be much better done by the Ministry of Agriculture.
May I say a word about my position in this? I farm; I rarely burn straw, luckily, but I understand the position of others who need to do so. I also have a lively appreciation of the need to maintain the quality of life in the country, and I do not like to see it unduly affected any more than does anybody else who is not connected with agriculture. But it is important to accept a reasonable balance, and I hope that I can represent that. If one lives in the country, one must within reason accept the sights, sounds of and smells of agriculture. That has always been the case.
Thus far we have decided to proceed by way of a code and by-laws. I am not convinced that it is necessary or right to superimpose a licensing system on top of that because it could well prove counterproductive. The ministry input for licensing might well be better spent on research into other disposal means. I think that the input into licensing would either be highly significant or else there would be virtually a total ban on straw burning. I am not sure whether one really feels that that is the right approach.
I think that we must be making a great deal of progress as it is. That is my experience. There has been no great trouble over this in the area of Sussex where I live. The straw-burning season was certainly considerably less intrusive than before. Many of the councils in Sussex have adopted by-laws. It is possible that my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten us about that. But I believe that it has gone very well. The code has—must one not admit?—made straw burning a pretty inconvenient and difficult exercise now. Quite apart from the code, there have always been the difficulties imposed by wind and weather, the presence of roads and of overhead cables from neighbouring houses, the Clean Air Act, and so on and so forth. All the indications point to these

457
restrictions having an increasing effect which will continue over the next few years, during which, I am quite sure, we shall see less straw being burnt.
I am quite sure that farmers would rather not burn straw if they can avoid it. There has been a notable interest in alternative means of disposal, be it incorporation, treatment for animal feed, or whatever. Wherever one goes—to agricultural shows and elsewhere—there has been much consideration of it. I have great confidence that British agriculture will prove very adaptable over this, as it has done over so many other matters. Despite the heavy pressure the industry is under, I am sure it will respond the best it can. I understand that there is considerable Government expenditure on straw-related research. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us a little information about this.
There are several smaller matters, relating to the Bill, about which I am not happy. I cannot see that we should have the same objections to stubble burning as we do to straw burning, because there is nothing like the volume concerned and it is the volume that produces the ash which I believe is one of the greater problems.
When I read the definitions in the Bill, I see that the licensing will give authority to the "owner or owners". I think the licence should definitely be issued to the occupier, because otherwise the liability may fall on the owner of the land and I do not think that that is appropriate.
However, I must say that I do believe that the present approach is best and I do not favour the Bill. After all, the code is always open to review. I do not think that one should impose an additional control system. I should have hoped that my noble friend Lord Alport would be satisfied with again having drawn the attention of the House to this matter and that he might not have felt it necessary to take the Bill further.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, to start with, in all honesty, I must declare a slight vested interest in this debate, in that my employer might be involved in machinery that would be ancillary to the disposal of straw. But, having said that, I can say that my particular specific employment with that firm is in a field that is not directly related. Therefore I feel that I can speak without any constraint in this debate.
I want to raise two specific points directly. The first is in terms of the efficient utilisation of resources. In the week when we have heard the very sad reports of a mother and her two children dying of cold in this capital city of ours, London, I think it is relevant that we use every opportunity, every occasion that we have, to investigate and promote alternative forms of energy from whatever source. We must recognise that to burn straw and stubble in the open fields is a complete waste of a resource that could effectively be utilised in a number of different ways.
I think a number of noble Lords speaking prior to me have identified the concept of using straw as an alternative fuel. In this day of modern technology, of biological advances, it is not too abstruse to think in terms of straw being a useful chemical resource. I just put that forward in the hope that some research may
458
have been done and we may hear of some research on that basis. However, even if we consider straw and stubble simply as a fuel resource, it is a very significant fuel resource.
The other particular aspect that I should like to raise is the aspect of equity, equality. We must all be aware that there are various by-laws or self-imposed restrictions by the farming community on the burning of straw and stubble. By the very fact of the different geographical location of farms and their relationships to motorways, hospitals or urban communities, that will involve a certain penalty on those farms that are located close to those, one might say, significant intrusions into the farming scene. I suggest that if we arrive at a situation where all stubble burning is banned except where there is a financial penalty that the farmer may incur to engage in stubble burning, that will be a positive advantage to the farming community, in that it will set them all on an equitable base: they will all have to desist from stubble burning.
I hope that the inclusion of a specific time for this Act to come into being—although no doubt in Committee this specific time will be argued over one way or the other—will give an incentive to those organisations which are engaged in the research, development and production of facilities to deal with the residue that is left, if straw and stubble is not burnt—dare I say it?—to the benefit of the community at large. I think that that aspect of the Bill here before us is very useful. In finishing, I indicate my support for this Bill and hope that we can give it Second Reading.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Wynford: My Lords, may I please say that I fully support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in what he says, and perhaps I may add just one or two remarks of my own. Is not the cart being put before the horse by this Bill? A date is selected for what amounts to complete prohibition, except under licence, on the burning of straw and stubble. That date is selected completely without reference to the alternative methods of disposing of the straw, including the method of incorporation, which no doubt will take its place.
What will happen about the public nuisance? The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to straw and stubble burning as a public nuisance. What of the public nuisance of huge numbers of lorries moving about our roads—roads large and small—with high loads of straw around which and over which the recreating public, who are driving behind, will not be able to see? What will happen when this situation arises at the very height of the holiday season? The mind boggles at this situation. I believe that the public will then become even more frustrated. I believe I can hear them crying out, "Why don't they burn it in situ and let us get on the roads?"
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, you will not be surprised to learn that I support the intention behind Lord Alport's Bill, as I have supported his earlier efforts. It is questionable as to how much of the improvement which took place last year—and there was an improvement—was due to the weather (becaue the

459
conditions of last year were considerably better from the straw burning point of view than they were in 1983), and how much of the improvement was due to a fear of legislation, because there was so much publicity given and so many sabres were rattled during the autumn of 1983 that I think people were very much more careful in obeying the by-laws.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that had the code remained a code and not been turned into by-laws, I suspect that we would not have had, even with the better weather, such a good summer in 1984. A good summer is a relative term. There were still, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport said, a considerable number of difficulties caused up and down the country. I shall not go through all the figures again but I have the same ones. I checked with my own authority this morning to make sure that I was right. They said, "We had a good year. We only had 35 or so serious complaints". If that is a good year, think what it is like, my Lords, in a bad one!
My noble friend Lord John-Mackie said that you cannot stop burning as an agricultural process. Indeed, up to now, we have not been able to do so. I learnt only today that it existed in mediaeval times when it was known as swealing. So it has been with us for a very long time but not on the scale that we now endure. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that 1988 would be a more appropriate time to bring forward the Bill if we want action in 1989. With the greatest respect, we have to give very much more notice of intention to bring in this kind of control. The time period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is just about right.
The legislation to be created by the Minister is correct but I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and, I think it was, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the licence should come from the local authority. They know their area. They know the characteristics of the farms in their area. They even know the characteristics of the farmers. In fact, there is scarcely a local authority that could not provide a good guess list of which farmers would keep their licences and which would not.
The solution, finally, will only emerge when we find a real alternative use for straw. That is something we have not yet done. I have the excellent report from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with which I am sure all noble Lords are familiar, which was issued last July. It is an excellent document and very objective. It seemed to me, in wading through the very difficult sums, that the most significant and the most optimistic exercise from the point of view of research would be the creation of a papermaking mill in this country to make paper from straw. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie said that the quality of paper made from straw pulp was unacceptable. However, that was duing war time. There are now much better ways of doing it. I should like to quote briefly from the report which states:
"It must be stressed that the foreign experience is that straw produces a very acceptable pulp for papermaking which compares favourably with wood pulps".
I shall not continue at great length because it is rather boring for noble Lords to have it read to them. However, later in the report, one discovers that of 6·7
460
million tonnes of paper consumed in a year, we produced 3·2 million tonnes at home When one considers that we had to import over 3 million tonnes of pulp or wood, one sees that there is a real market for the paper. When one also considers that in order to achieve that pulp, forests have had to a be felled, which is against all the wishes of most conservationists I know, there seems an added incentive to pursuing the idea of paper pulp as an alternative means.
The scheme, according to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would put farmer against farmer, as other legislation has done. But the licences are only lost, or gained, if it is viewed that way round, by good practices. We want to see good practices by all farmers. Surely, that is within the reach of all farmers. I am happy to say that this very afternoon I held up the farming community, in the context of another Bill, as an example of how a money making organisation could learn to live with the requirements of good environmental practice and the needs of the community. The farming community has gone a long way along this road—to an extent that would have been unbelievable only a few years ago. I am sure that, in the matter of straw burning, they will be able to take whatever steps are necessary to reach the right point, given time.
In the meantime, we have to keep up the pressure. If we sit back and do not do anything, everyone will forget again, the by-laws will lose their force and the code of practice will come to naught. It is only by measures such as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has suggested that we can keep the issue before the public and keep it particularly before the farming community. I hope that the Bill will be taken through all its stages and that it can eventually become law.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask why she feels that there could be a paper mill to make paper out of straw when practically all the paper mills that make paper out of wood have closed in this part of the world? We are sending our timber to Norway to have it repatriated as pulp to cash in on the cheap hydro-electric power. Her proposal does not seem realistic to me.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I was quoting from the report which undoubtedly expressed our need for paper pulp. The Government are looking for ways of creating what they call real jobs. This seems an excellent way of doing so. It seems to me that investment in this kind of industry would be good for the country in many ways, in creating jobs and in service to the farming community which would help it to overcome this difficulty. I believe that it is possible.
7.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this Bill takes a different approach from the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, a year ago, but I have to say that it raises new problems. Before adding the Government's voice to what your Lordships have been saying in this short debate, may I remind the House of what the Government have tried to do since we debated the noble Lord's previous Bill a year ago? The

461
summer of 1983 was, of course, an exceptional one. The very dry weather and high winds made for difficult burning conditions. We received many justifiable complaints. That was a source of real concern. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture was determined that such a situation should not recur in 1984. We felt that stricter local authority by-laws offered the best prospect of achieving good controls in time for the 1984 harvest. Those new model by-laws were issued in March last year. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, gave an account of the number of local authorities which had adopted the by-laws; but, basically, they were adopted in most of the areas in which cereals are grown.
To minimise inconvenience to the public, the new by-laws introduced a ban on burning straw or stubble at weekends and on bank holidays—a matter that has been discussed this evening and which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned as though a ban did not exist in the by-laws, whereas it does. The area that can be burnt at one time was also restricted both for reasons of safety and to minimise the problem of smuts being carried up into the air on thermal currents created by the heat. Ash is not allowed to be left lying on the surface of a field for more than 36 hours. The requirements for fire-breaks were considerably strengthened, as were the requirements about the supervision of burning operations. The maximum penalty was increased, as your Lordships will remember, to £2,000 under the inflation-proofing arrangements of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
All these changes were intended to provide greater protection not only for people but also for the environment in general. In addition, we put a great deal of effort into publicising the need to observe the by-laws by using press, media and television to the full, by sending advice direct to farmers, and by using agricultural shows and other events to get across a slogan which was coined—namely, Burn Straw and Nothing More. The National Farmers' Union also produced an excellent new version of its straw and stubble burning code, with advice about good burning practice and a summary of the by-laws. A copy of that went to every cereal grower in England and Wales.
The reason why I have ventured to catalogue those matters is that, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening have recognised, the result was a very considerable improvement in 1984 and a sharp fall in the number of complaints. I am not complacent about this. The Government recognise that weather conditions were very much better than in the year before. On the other hand, there was of course a record grain harvest, and the new by-laws must have had a very real impact in dealing with the very heavy quantities of straw which were produced.
There is still room for improvement; I should be the first to say that on behalf of the Government. We are now looking at whether additional measures are needed, particularly in regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about the heat generated by piling up straw along the edge of a fire-break, even though it is within the field and as much as 25 yards away from particularly vulnerable objects, which was one of the improvements the bylaws brought in. We are also looking at the important point which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of
462
Brompton, raised about the great dangers when smoke crosses roads. Farmers cannot relax, I know, after a comparatively better year, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Radnor that there has been a great improvement. I believe this shows both that the industry is genuinely trying to set its own house in order and that the model by-laws can provide an effective means of control.
One of the messages we tried to get across last summer is that there are alternatives to burning, and farmers should use them whenever they can. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for recognising that a lot of research and development is going on. If my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton will forgive me, I shall not embark on any great explanation of this, even though he asked for some information, except to say that the publication which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was good enough to bring with her to the House today was produced by what was called a straw utilisation group, drawing together farmers, industrialists, researchers and representatives of Government departments, which tried to find solutions and produced that particular report.
We have found that in many cases we have got answers to the technical problems. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was asking why, as there obviously are answers, they cannot be followed. The difficulty is the critical economic problems, particularly the problems arising from the very high costs of handling and transporting straw, which so often make the use of straw not competitive economically with other materials. Although certainly some progress is being made regarding alternative uses—indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that certainly some progress is being made with more incorporation—we are nonetheless left with 5 to 6 million tonnes of straw to be disposed of each year. Apart from everything else, it is a fire hazard in itself, and it really is far better to burn it under controlled conditions than to wait until there is an accident or someone sets it alight involuntarily.
This Bill gives an option of prohibiting straw and stubble burning at any time after 1st January 1989. It would also allow certain farmers—for example, those working with heavy soils, where incorporation would perhaps present problems—to continue burning through a licensing scheme. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has included a good deal of latitude in the Bill. I appreciate that there is no obligation to introduce a ban by a specified date. Nevertheless, without taking Committee points, I would say that there are considerable difficulties in this approach.
Is Clause 1 intended to allow a partial ban, for example, limited to certain geographical areas? Having listened to the noble Lord, I think it is. That would make for different standards in different parts of the country and it would face the Government of the day with a whole series of almost impossible decisions about what the practice ought to be in each individual district. Is Clause 2 intended to give the Government discretion to introduce a country-wide licensing scheme to control rather than ban burning? Again, having listened to the noble Lord's speech, I think that the answer is, yes. I would say only that if this Bill were

463
to become law, it certainly would need to put something in the place of the by-laws. I say that because the straw and stubble burning by-laws are made under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, which specifically precludes by-laws if provision for that purpose is or may be made under any other enactment. The legal advice I have received is that the by-laws would almost certainly become null and void in January 1989 if this Bill became law, even if Ministers did not feel that 1989 was the right time to bring in a ban.
However, annual licensing would impose an enormous administrative burden. This was a point made by my noble friends Lord Radnor and Lord Stanley; and I think with reason. We are talking of the possibility of about 25,000 licences being issued, as compared to only six licences which were issued for heather and grass burning last year. I think it is reasonable for my noble friend Lord Radnor to say that it would be cumbersome to have to reach all the various value judgments that the Bill would try to lay upon the licensing authority in deciding whether or not a licence should be granted.
I suggested that the by-laws had shown themselves to be effective and to be fair. Under this Bill, as it stands, only the owner could hold a licence or be prosecuted for an offence. I agree with my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that this is something which would certainly have to be clarified. If I may say so, another point which would need to be attended to is that there is no procedure for review if someone is banned from applying for a licence. That is contained in the Bill, which says that if you are convicted under local by-laws then you would be banned from making such an application. I cannot immediately think of any other legislation which imposes that kind of penalty for an offence of that nature.
I hope that I have said enough to suggest that there would be some very real practical problems in proceeding with the Bill as it stands. The year 1984 was markedly better than 1983, and I hope that, with normal weather, this improvement will be maintained in 1985. The by-laws and the NFU code ought to be given a chance to do their job, whereas if we were to have this Bill I think that the farming community will wonder why their genuine efforts to improve the situation last year are to be rewarded in this way. If my noble friend Lord Alport will forgive me for saying so, I do not think this is the way to proceed. I hope that my noble friend will not proceed with the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down—
7.59 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have set out their views? I should like to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Belstead, for the much more sympathetic way, if I may say so, in which he has treated this particular Bill than was the case with my earlier efforts—Mark I and Mark II—on the last occasion. I should like to thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who was absolutely right in
464
saying that part of the object—not the whole object, but part of the object—is to keep up the pressure. I have not the slightest doubt—and plenty of evidence has reached me—that the fact that your Lordships went through the whole process of debating the Bill last year was noted in the country districts of England and, no doubt, Scotland as well, and they realised that every effort had to be made to prevent some of the disasters that took place in 1983. I can assure your Lordships that it has not only been the code which has achieved this: it has also been the rather long and late periods that we have devoted to discussing this subject, which received much more publicity in the provincial press than they ever received in the London press.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that there would be an automatic licensing—or at least that is what he would like. Of course, after the granting of the first licence, unless the conditions change, the licence would presumably be issued without further difficulty each year—each harvest period—to the farmer who applied for it. If the ownership of the farm changed, then a new licence would have to be obtained by the new owner. The noble Lord said that he did not think it was necessary for the farming industry to make contributions to research because so much money was available anyhow. However, the noble Lord omitted one point. The public do count in matters of this type. What the public would like to see is the agricultural industry paying and providing funds themselves for research rather than relying entirely upon the Exchequer and the general taxpayer to provide the money for research into new methods of disposing of straw or using it industrially.
My noble friend Lord Radnor comes from Salisbury. Perhaps he does not know, but I can tell him that the reason why the Salisbury District Council did not adopt the by-laws was that the majority of the members of the Salisbury District Council are farmers or members of farmers' families, and they voted against doing so. So perhaps if there were a change of complexion of the district council it might not be one of the very few district councils in agricultural areas that did not adopt the by-laws. I can assure my noble friend—because I have made special investigations into this matter—that through the Agricultural Development Advisory Service and the Grain Council there would be no difficulty in being able to inform the Ministry of Agriculture of the differing character of the soils in which the farmers are growing their crops when the application is made. It really is not a great administrative problem.
My noble friend the Minister said that at present licences are issued by the Ministry for other things. I am quite certain that there would be no great bureaucratic problems involved if licences were issued for straw and stubble burning. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose support I willingly acknowledge once again and for which I am very grateful, talked about the surplus of grain. This is one of the problems, one of the paradoxes of the present situation. There has been tremendous success, but what is the result of the last harvest? I may have the figures wrong, but I thought I saw on the television the night before last that the cost of storing the surplus grain produced in the last harvest was £300 million. If that figure is right, then certainly the cost is very great.

465
Our problem is that we are increasing the production of grain at a time when we cannot use it, and we are doing so in a way which at the same time—as I have tried to make clear in my remarks to your Lordships—is causing a substantial public nuisance.
There have been many other matters raised but I do not want to keep your Lordships too long. However, I must make a suggestion to my noble friends on this side of the House in particular who have spoken for the arable interest. Perhaps I may mention that I have also received the whip from the National Farmers' Union and it seems to me that the whips of the National Farmers' Union are responded to with greater alacrity than sometimes the Whips provided by my noble friends in this House.
However, I must say to my noble friends that they must look at themselves in the mirror of public opinion. Many years ago public antagonism was directed at the "beer barons" who used their influence to safeguard and promote the financial interests of the industry in which they were engaged. Today the talk is about "grain barons"—the arable farmers who by straw burning create a major public nuisance, who allegedly oppose efforts to prevent that nuisance, who are intent on their own financial interests and who pursue them regardless of the health, convenience and safety of the public. The National Farmers' Union realises the dangers which increasing public anger at certain aspects of modern agricultural methods has aroused among the general public. Yesterday in the Sunday Times, the agricultural correspondent, Mr. Moore, wrote as follows:
"The union has become alarmed that, in the past few years, public interest in farming has focused on the grants and subsidies farmers receive, as well as issues like stubble-burning, hedgerow scrubbing and even defiance of the law … To counter this unfavourable image, the union is to launch a publicity campaign, and may also use billboard and television advertising on specific issues".
Support for this Bill—admitted even by the National Farmers' Union to be a great improvement on my Mark I and Mark II—would be a better indication of the industry's determination to acquire public understanding and esteem than all the clever and expensive copy and design of some advertising agency. For instance, a lady wrote to me after the last harvest to say that she had nursed her dying husband through the sweltering weeks of the last harvest period when he was desperately in need of the comfort of fresh air. She wrote:
"My husband's bed was downstairs, near the French door, which mostly had to be wide open as it was so very hot. It certainly was most distressing to find my husband and all the bedclothes again and again covered in sooty 'bits', some quite large. Somebody was stubble burning again!
"How do you clean a patient, who is in the most dreadful pain and cannot move on his own, and all the bedclothes, perhaps more than once as day, without causing him further distress, pain and discomfort? Once I even tried to 'hoover' him clean.".
Your Lordships may say that that is one small incident, but that is the type of problem which this is producing for countless people—not perhaps in such dramatic and sad circumstances—in villages and homes all over the country. The farming industry must understand this. If they do not understand it, then I can assure them that, although my efforts may always be frustrated and defeated, in due course the practice of straw and stubble burning will be banned, and in that banning consideration will not be given, as I have
466
tried to do in my Bill, to the needs of the farming industry. In any event, the lady to whom I have referred will not be impressed by the most ingenious posters concocted by the National Farmers' Union. Despite the code and the by-laws, I had a sheaf of letters from all over the country after the 1984 harvest asking me to continue my efforts.
This is not a waste of your Lordships' time. In this particular case your Lordships are giving time to something which is of great importance to many people. If my noble friends defeat the Second Reading of this Bill or, for example, at the Committee stage attempt to emasculate it by amendment or by some procedural device (as happened last year) then, with your Lordships' permission, this Bill will be withdrawn and introduced into the other place. It will then be for the Government to decide to order their Whips to kill it by procedural means, thereby giving the impression that they are dancing to the tune piped by the National Farmers' Union. It will also provide an interesting commentary, as far as concerns the people who have suffered year after year from the practice of straw-burning all over the country, on the sincerity of the attempts of the arable farming industry and the National Farmers' Union to put its house in order.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  TORTURE: UN CONVENTION
  TORTURE: UN CONVENTION
  ATMOSPHERIC CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR EXCHANGES
  ATMOSPHERIC CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR EXCHANGES
  PRISON VISITORS: ETHNIC ORIGINS
  PRISON VISITORS: ETHNIC ORIGINS
  OFFSHORE GAS: LANDING IN UK
  OFFSHORE GAS: LANDING IN UK
  CORMORANTS: LICENCES
  CORMORANTS: LICENCES
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
  HONG KONG: PROPERTY RIGHTS
  HONG KONG: PROPERTY RIGHTS
  OVERSEAS VISITORS AND VAT
  OVERSEAS VISITORS AND VAT
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS
  NEW FOREST BUCKHOUNDS