Sitting of 12 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Brecon and Radnor, in the room of Tom Ellis Hooson, Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
  NEW WRIT

    PRIVATE BUSINESS
    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    Considered.
    Amendments agreed to.
    To be read the Third time.
    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (TROWSE BRIDGE) BILL [LORDS] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Sports Council
    Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he plans to meet the new chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the future development of the Sports Council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I meet the chairman frequently and will be meeting him next week. A meeting to discuss the council's corporate plan has been arranged for 4 July.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that his appointment of John Smith as chairman of the Sports Council is popular in sporting circles, and that we wish him well? Does he recall the remarks of the new chairman on his appointment, when he said that he would take the appropriate initiatives to heal the wounds between the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the Sports Council and to bring about the unity necessary to rebuild sport in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister use his best endeavours to assist Mr. Smith to bring about that desirable aim?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the new chairman of the Sports Council, who will be an admirable successor to Mr. Jeeps. Obviously, the House is aware that the rapport between the
    876
    Sports Council and the CCPR has been of major concern to the hon. Gentleman. He has rightly identified a most important issue. The governing bodies can take courage from what the new chairman said at the inaugural press conference as a most constructive way forward. I am happy to tell the House that the new chairman has already met the chairman of the CCPR to discuss effective measures for future co-operation. I am at their disposal to help in any way that I can.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Can the Minister tell us anything about the progress of the Government, with or without consultation with the Sports Council, in dealing with the football violence that besets the entire country? Is he aware that it is now 13 weeks since the Prime Minister took her initiative and that in that time none of my hon. Friends, nor anyone with responsibility in the Labour party, has been consulted, despite our offer of help and the plea of the Government in seeking help? When will we be consulted? When do the Government intend to introduce legislation? Bearing in mind that there are only 11 weeks before the season starts, how on earth can we pass legislation and get the money and the work done in time for next season?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am at the disposal of the House. The question refers to the future development of the Sports Council. I am more than happy to discuss these important issues. A meeting is to take place later this afternoon with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister, other Ministers and the football authorities. Next week I am chairing the third meeting of a working party to assess the cost and effect of the work that will have to be done before August and the kick-off for the new season. I have concluded the first round of a meeting with Ministers of the eight countries in Europe to decide how we can improve and develop the importance of football within Europe. This series of measures is designed to ensure that recent tragic events are never repeated.

    Oil (Onshore Drilling)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the environmental implications of current and planned onshore drilling for oil.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): My Department's circular 2/85 provided guidance to mineral planning authorities in preparing development plan policies and deciding individual applications. On 3 June we published a booklet setting out the environmental safeguards at each stage of development. These seek to achieve the right balance between the nation's need for oil and its concern to protect the environment.
    Mr. Wainwright: I welcome the booklet, but can the Minister give an assurance that the damage to the quality of local life in all future drillings will not be any greater than that splendidly achieved at Lockton in north Yorkshire during the past 10 years? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he applies the Lockton standard firmly, there need not be any public alarm or significant damage to the quality of life?
    Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his most helpful comments. Many people are quite rightly

    877
    concerned about the environmental implications. If we are to maximise this country's potential wealth and oil reserves there must be drilling, but it must be done in an environmentally acceptable way. The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a way in which it can be done very well, and it is our objective to extend those standards.
    Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that drilling for exploratory wells is about to commence in Poole harbour? We accept its necessity and appreciate the co-operation and planning on the part of BP in all its operations both in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) at Wytch farm. If the Wytch farm standards are applied elsewhere, the public interest will be served both from the point of view of recovering oil and of protecting the environment.
    Mr. Baker: Again I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know only too well the pressures placed on Members of Parliament as a result of such developments, but it has been shown that such developments can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way. I, too, commend the arrangements that BP has made, together with Dorset county council. Indeed, I am glad that this has not become a party political matter, because it is in the interests of the country as a whole.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: When cases go to the Secretary of State on appeal for his consideration, will the Minister ensure that some degree of equivalence is applied to them? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State gives the same consideration to the people of south-east England when they find a few nodding donkeys near their gardens as was given, for example, to applications for opencast coalmining in south Wales, with its consequent ravaging of the environment?
    Mr. Baker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. There are three stages to the development of oil: exploration, appraisal and development. At each of the three stages there has to be a separate licence and a separate planning application. We also insist upon proper restoration and after-care. However, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If we had imposed some concern for restoration and after-care on the industrial development that took place in the 19th century, we would not have so many of the industrial scars that we see today.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: In the context of mineral extraction, if my right hon. Friend has a chance to speak to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy, will he put it to them that if it is their intention to proceed with turning Solihull into a coalmining community, it must be done with the maximum environmental sensitivity—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is about onshore drilling for oil, and his point seems rather wide of that.

    Improvement and Repair Grants
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he collects information on how many local authorities are currently giving discretionary improvement and repair grants.
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities currently have a
    878
    block on accepting or processing new improvement grant applications; how many of those are in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Responsibility for administering the home improvement grant system rests with local authorities. The Department does not collate information in the form requested on the grant approval practices of individual authorities.
    Mr. Fraser: The Minister's answer shows how little interest the Government have in repairs. May I inform the hon. Gentleman that only a handful of local authorities now deal with new applications for improvement and repair grants because of the cuts in housing investment programmes and the freezing of capital receipts? There was a pre-election boom in improvement grants, but there are now thousands of disillusioned people — many of whom are poor—who cannot have any repairs carried out because they cannot obtain help from the local authority. If Environment Ministers are to be more than just the Treasury's errand boys, when will there be a resumption of a reasonable level of repair grants? According to the Minister's own figures, there are 3·5 million unsatisfactory dwellings in this country.
    Sir George Young: The local authority is obliged by law to process and award mandatory grants. In Lambeth, discretionary grants are being considered by the local authority. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year the likely spend on improvement grants will be well in excess of the £90 million spent when he and his Government were last in office.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not Waltham Forest, which incidentally is Tory-controlled with Liberal support, one of the increasing number of local authorities putting a block on improvement grants? Does that not mean that many people in Leyton are having the vital means to combat dilapidations cut off? What action will the Government take to restore grants, or will they openly confess that their policy is that good housing is expendable?
    Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government make an allocation available to Waltham Forest for housing, and it is up to the authority to decide how much to allocate to improvement grants and how much to other aspects of housing policy. We have made it clear that we hope that it will give priority in improvement grants to those on low incomes, the disabled, and those living in statutory improvement areas. The expenditure on improvement grants in Waltham Forest is likely to be substantially in excess of that six years ago.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a problem in the midlands as well as in London? In the light of the Green Paper, which talks about loans, will my hon. Friend have another look at the basic implementation of improvement grants, and in particular at what the late Anthony Crosland introduced in the late 1960s, because that system worked and people who applied for grants got them?
    Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently issued a Green Paper outlining some new proposals for improvement grants and that will provide the opportunity, which my hon. Friend is seeking, to inject some helpful comments on how we might improve the

    879
    system. Until the system is changed, people are entitled to apply under the legislation as it is; and, as I have shown, that is a fairly generous regime.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the deteriorating condition of our housing stock will be adequately tackled through the system proposed in the Green Paper of replacing grants by loans that must be repaid when the owner moves? Will that not simply be a tax on moving and make it even more difficult for the unemployed to get on their bikes?
    Sir George Young: An essential component of the Green Paper is the suggestion that the private sector should play a far greater part in restoring the housing stock, together with the owner-occupier. It is not right to expect the public sector to bear the burden of modernising the housing stock. At the end of the day, the responsibility should rest with the owner of the property.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Green Paper on improvement grants contains much that is immensely worth while, particularly, for example, on the simplification of the designated areas and the definition of what is an unfit property? Therefore, is there any likelihood of early legislation on this important subject?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will have to await the Queen's Speech to see our legislative proposals, but she is right to draw our attention to the suggestions in the Green Paper. The abolition of the rateable value, for example, will bring entitlement to many more people who are denied it at the moment, and there is a suggestion that there should be more generous compensation for those affected by clearance. There is much in the Green Paper that is worthy of support.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that in the Rotherham metropolitan borough more than 600 applicants for improvement grants have been disappointed in recent months, and that that is happening at a time when hundreds of building workers are unemployed? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Green Papers are no answer to the urgent need for the improvement of Britain's housing stock and the creation of jobs?
    Sir George Young: It is up to the hon. Gentleman's local authority to decide how much of its resources to make available for improvement grants. I hope that it will take note of the hon. Gentleman's view that it should give greater priority to this than to other aspects of the programme. As to the Green Paper, if its proposals were followed up there would be better use of public money in that it would be targeted at the people and the buildings that need public sector help.

    Asbestos and Toxic Substances
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that local communities, community councils and local councils are consulted prior to the dumping of asbestos or toxic substances in their areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): Deposit of such wastes is already subject to licensing by county councils in England and by district councils in Scotland and Wales. All authorities can be expected to take account of local opinion in their decisions. In England, county councils are obliged by law to consult district councils.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister consider it reasonable that his Department should have exploited a licence which was granted to deal with the dumping of domestic asbestos in Glenboig so that it will now have to cope with the whole of the Trident project and the vast quantities of asbestos arising from it? Is it fair that mining communities, which have already had more than their fair share of pneumoconiosis and other problems, should now have to put up with such dangers to their health and that of their families?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Whatever is done with asbestos waste, it must be done safely in regard to local communities and any other people in the area. I gather that the PSA's contractor, Shanks and McEwan, was asked on Monday by the sheriff court to have further consultations with the Monklands district council, and it will do so shortly.
    Mr. Chapman: Has my hon. Friend had time to consider the implications of and opportunities provided by the new technological process of vitrification of asbestos waste, following the Adjournment debate which I introduced two months ago? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, if it can be done economically, it will remove the anxieties of hon. Members on each side of the House as well as those of local authorities and communities?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The process is indeed relevant to the problem raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and is under study.
    Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of disquiet in my constituency about the burial of asbestos waste? Is he aware that 100 tonnes of asbestos waste have been buried by the Central Electricity Generating Board on the site of Cliff Quay power station? Is he satisfied that the regulations governing the burial of such waste are adequate? Will he not hesitate to come before the House and seek to alter the regulations if he has any doubts in his mind arising from evidence from Ipswich or any other part of the country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that any Minister must give that assurance. We have had the recent Doll inquiry into asbestos dangers, and the regulations seem to be satisfactory, but if any serious doubts were brought forward my Department would treat them as a matter or urgency.
    Dr. Cunningham: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumours that several hundred thousand tonnes of asbestos waste are to be dumped in Glenboig? Is it not curious that a contract which was let for the disposal of domestic waste is now apparently turning into one for the major disposal of asbestos from the nuclear submarine programme? Is that not a very unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    Why does the Secretary of State not call in this proposal to dump large amounts of asbestos in the way proposed, especially bearing in mind what he said when publishing the report of the hazardous waste inspectorate? The Secretary of State then said that the report "shows a disturbing situation. It describes a level of performance in both public and pri/vate secto/rs /which too frequently falls below acceptable standards."—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 166.].
    Mr. Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not out of order for an hon. Member to make a quotation during Question Time?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was rather a long one. It is not in order for the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to read the passage, but he may paraphrase it.
    Dr. Cunningham: Has not the Secretary of State's own inspectorate reported that the methods currently employed for the disposal of such wastes are very unsatisfactory? Will he now call in the proposal?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the outcome of Monday's hearing. As was shown, the licence is adequate, but the sheriff has asked for further discussion between the contractor and the Monklands district council. My own Department is considering all the options. Understandably, this scale of operations was not envisaged originally, and we must see that the matter is dealt with properly.

    System-built Housing
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an inquiry into the problems of system-built local authority housing and its implications for future housing investment.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The Building Research Establishment has carried out studies into problems associated with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed before 1960 and has published reports. It is now making a study of more recent large panel systems of construction. My Department has written to all local authorities asking them to let us know what work they believe is needed to renovate the houses and flats which they own, including system-built dwellings. When I have the results of this inquiry, I will consider the implications for future housing investment.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not necessary for the Government to give a clear commitment that they are prepared to make financial resources available to deal with this massive problem? If the Government do not make those resources available, they will condemn many thousands of people to live in housing that is environmentally and socially unfit in many respects. People look to the Government for action. What action will the Minister take?
    Mr. Gow: I have already explained to the House that the Building Research Establishment is inquiring into this matter. Sixteen full-time members of the staff at BRE are engaged in the study. I prefer to defer a decision on future investments that will be needed to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred until after we have studied the reports from local authorities. I look forward to my meeting, which has been arranged for today week, with the hon. Gentleman and the chairman of Leeds city council housing committee.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already taken action with the implementation of the Housing Defects Act 1984? Does my hon. Friend welcome the agreement which appears to have been reached between the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council? Building societies are to recommend to their vendors the
    882
    fact that building societies will now be able to lend mortgages on PRC houses, thereby enabling people whose houses have been blighted to take advantage of the grants under the Housing Defects Act and once again restore a free market to this vital section of the community.
    Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He might have reminded the House, although he did not, that the Labour party voted against the Second Reading of the Housing Defects Bill. I welcome the progress that has been made by the NHBC and the building societies to arrive at an acceptable method of repairing defective houses. We do not yet have those acceptable methods of repair, but I hope that they will be in operation before the summer.

    Housing Standards
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of homes in the United Kingdom regarded as being below tolerable standards.
    Sir George Young: The 1981 "English House Condition Survey" estimated that 1 · 1 million dwellings in England were unfit for human habitation. An updated estimate will be provided by the next survey to be held in 1986.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), that only by providing proper improvement grants to private owners will we keep pace with the deterioration in housing stock? Is he aware that people in local government well remember what happened some years ago in the cities when the rate of grant was reduced from 75 to 50 per cent? Suddenly, private owners were unable to carry out the necessary renovations of their houses. Unless proper improvement grants are made available to those people, will we not be faced with having to demolish and rebuild some properties at far greater cost?
    Sir George Young: I must question the assumption at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that it is up to the taxpayer to maintain the condition of privately-owned houses. In the first instance, it must be the responsibility of the owner-occupier to maintain his house in good condition. Where that has failed, there is a case for public sector intervention in certain cases. It would be wrong to imply, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the emphasis on restoring the condition of private housing stock rests with the taxpayer.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial reduction in the number of houses below a tolerable standard north of the border owes a great deal to the success of the Government's policy on housing improvement grants? Does he also agree that, judiciously used, housing improvement grants can do a great deal to improve housing stock and to create employment in the construction sector? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues press the Treasury to make appropriate resources available for this important grant?
    Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Department of the Environment has done well in relation to improvement grants. The figure increased from £90 million to £900 million over six years at a time of

    883
    restraint on public expenditure generally. I hope my hon. Friend also agrees that, within public expenditure constraints, we have tried to make improvement grants a priority. I was encouraged to learn of the good results in Scotland. I am sure that the policy over the past five or six years has resulted in large numbers of houses in England being improved.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that the Government's only response to the problems of deteriorating and defective housing has been to cut local authority investment programmes by more than half in cash terms in the last five years and to prevent local authorities from using their own capital receipts to assist with the problem? Is he aware that that demonstrates yet again the Government's contempt for the badly housed, of whom there are hundreds of thousands?
    Sir George Young: I reject that analysis entirely. The policy of the Government has been to engage the resources of the private and public sectors to tackle the housing problems and to generate a large volume of receipts for local authorities from vigorous sales as a result of the right to buy, which was opposed at the time by Labour Members. I repeat that the answer to the problems caused by poor housing conditions does not rest solely on more public money being provided. We must also get the resources of the institutions and owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept, however, that it is far cheaper to improve a house than to knock it down and build another? Is he aware that where clearance has taken place the social problems that have resulted have far outweighed any savings that my hon. Friend thinks there may have been in terms of improvement grants? Will he reconsider the importance of improvement grants, which I believe are good for the community, good for first time house-buyers, good for the country and ensure good value for money?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend will re-read the Green Paper—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides want to hear the Minister's reply.
    Sir George Young: If my hon. Friend re-reads the Green Paper on improvement grants which we published a few weeks ago he will see that the Government share his desire to maintain the housing stock in good condition. However, we say that it is more important in the future to engage the resources of the private sector as well as those of the public sector so as to make even faster progress than we have so far made. I hope he will agree that the Government's commitment to getting the private institutions—building societies, pension funds and the building industry — to put more into it is wholly consistent with our philosophy and will enable us to make faster progress than we would were we to rely solely on publicly funded improvement grants.
    Mr. Cowans: The Minister should be deeply ashamed to stand at the Dispatch Box and announce to the House and, more importantly, to the country, that 1·1 million houses are not in a tolerable condition, especially at a time when he is cutting not only improvement grants but the financial wherewithal to solve the problem. Is it not
    884
    patently obvious to him, even at this stage, that his policies have failed? Will he go back to the drawing board and re-think the whole issue, not just because of what Labour Members think about his policies, but on behalf of the people who are living in the houses in question? Is he aware that if he does not do that he will be condemning them to living in the sort of intolerable conditions in which he would not be prepared to live? Will he please have a re-think and produce a new solution, knowing that his policies have patently failed?
    Sir George Young: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the figure of unfit houses that was revealed in the 1981 survey was lower than the figure shown in the 1976 survey. [Interruption.] The 1976 figure showed fewer unfit houses than there were in 1971, and the 1981 figure showed fewer unfit houses than there were in 1976. It is not true to say, therefore, that there are more unfit houses. The answer to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we have recently outlined some fresh initiatives in relation to home improvements to enable faster progress to be made, and I look forward to seeing his response to our Green Paper.

    Rent Acts
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his review of the Rent Acts.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The Government hope to introduce legislation to encourage the supply of more homes for renting in the private sector, but probably not during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Dobson: In view of newspaper rumours that the Cabinet has decided not to go ahead with the lifting of all rent restrictions, can the Secretary of State confirm that this is because the Prime Minister suddenly realised what the electoral consequences would be for her personally in Finchley if she lifted all rent controls in a constituency where no fewer than 23 per cent. of the households are living in privately rented accommodation, compared with 12 per cent. in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that anyone other than the hon. Gentleman is talking about lifting all rent controls from privately rented property—[Interruption.] The fact of the matter is that the Labour party has done all that it can over the years to undermine the private rented sector and is determined to do nothing whatever to help it in the future. A heavy load of responsibility rests upon the Labour party.
    Mr. Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are a substantial number of empty dwellings which were previously privately rented, particularly in London, which, if brought back into use, would go a long way towards solving the housing problem, and that the best way of achieving this aim would be to revive the private rented sector?
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the fact is that to restore the private rented sector so that it can play a proper role in housing the people of this country requires the confidence of landlords. Whatever proposals we introduced before the next general election would

    885
    inevitably face the negative threat of repeal by the Labour party. That is why it is more sensible to consider introducing legislation early in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Secretary of State long ago gave up the policy of building houses and that he has now gone back on the policy of improving houses and reforming the Rent Acts, what housing policy do this Government have left?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. There has been a huge recovery in the building of houses for sale. He will have seen the latest forecasts of the House Builders Federation. It expects substantially to increase the number of starts this year.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by causing housing shortages the Rent Acts have been responsible for more misery and unhappiness than almost any other social question? Is it not shameful of the Government to have abandoned the cause of the repeal of the Rent Acts?
    Mr. Jenkin: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have done no such thing. We share his view that there is a very important role to be played by the private rented sector, but if it is to play that role the Government have to enjoy the confidence of landlords and of those who would build and let. That is unlikely to happen as a result of any legislation passed before the next general election, and that is why I have decided to postpone it.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not the case that the Minister for Housing and Construction has suffered a bitter political disappointment? His plan to abolish the Rent Acts and rent regulations have been vetoed by the Cabinet. One notices that he has not resigned. Is the Secretary of State aware that it will come as a considerable relief to many private tenants in London and elsewhere that there is to be no abolition of security of tenure and of the rent regulations, which, if it did come about, would cause the same misery as the Tory Rent Act of 1957?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There has never been any proposal to abolish rent control for sitting tenants. That was made absolutely clear. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, in part at least, the problems of homelessness can be traced to the decline in the private rented sector, he is even more blind than I thought.
    Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread disappointment at his announcement today? Many people feel that the problems of the homeless could very largely be met by liberalising the Rent Acts so as to bring into occupation the large quantities of empty housing that exist in this country?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. If landlords are to be persuaded, after legislation, to let their empty property, they need to have confidence that they will be able to regain possession. Because of the threats of the Labour party that any such legislation would be repealed, there does not seem to be a great deal of sense in seeking to introduce legislation in this Parliament. My hon. Friend referred to empty properties. For some time we have been turning our attention to ways of trying to reduce the number of empty properties in the public sector, which has become a major scandal.
    Mr. Straw: We are glad to have the confidence of the Secretary of State that Labour Members will be sitting on the Treasury Bench after the next election. One reason for that will be that we put the security of tenants above the profits of landlords. Although the Secretary of State and Conservative Back Bench Members bleed their hearts out for the homeless, do they not understand that the last time the Conservative party went down the road of Rachmanism and de-control—in 1957—the House was told that that would lead to an increase in private rented homes and a decrease in homelessness. However, it led to the fastest decline in the private rented sector since the war. Is the Minister aware that if the Government reintroduce the de-control of new or existing tenancies it will lead, not to an increase in rented accommodation, but to a decrease, hardship and Rachmanism?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand what he is talking about. Is a landlord more likely to bring pressure on a tenant to vacate his premises if that tenant is paying a low protected rent, or if he is paying a market rent? If there were de-control of new lettings, with tenants paying market rents, that would restore the balance. The hon. Gentleman has made the attitude of the Labour party crystal clear, and has fully justified our decision to wait until the next election.

    Countryside Commission
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the level of funding for the Countryside Commission annually since 1979 at constant prices.
    Mr. Waldegrave: At constant prices and 1985 value, Countryside Commission expenditure has increased from £9 million in 1979 to £15·3 million this year. But the earlier figure excludes staff and accommodation costs, which were met directly by the Department until 1 April 1982. On a comparable basis, the increase in real terms is about 35 per cent.
    Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, and I am sure that the House will support funding the Countryside Commission in a reasonable way, because it must discharge many difficult duties. Can he say what will happen when the GLC and the metropolitan councils are abolished? At present, they undertake duties and responsibilities that will fall upon the Countryside Commission after abolition.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yesterday I met the chairman and senior officers of the Countryside Commission to discuss its corporate plan, and we discussed this matter in some detail. It will be a factor that we shall take into account when deciding the funds to be provided to the Countryside Commission next year.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that the Opposition believe that the voluntary amenity and conservation bodies are essential in the protection of the countryside? Will he confirm that, although the budget of the Countryside Commission has been increased, strings have been attached to it? One such string is that the amount provided to the voluntary societies is strictly limited. Will he increase that limit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Countryside Commission put that point to us yesterday, and we shall take it into account.

    887
    It is not unfair to reflect the priorities of the Government and the House in the plans of the Countryside Commission, and the corporate plan is designed to be a reasonable consensus on the priorities.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that one success of the Countryside Commission has been the establishment of demonstration farms, which have shown that productive agriculture and imaginative conservation can work hand in hand? Should we not follow up that success, and could not our aim of good stewardship for the countryside be furthered by giving great publicity to the demonstration farms?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The growth of farming and wildlife advisory groups, with the help of the Countryside Commission, has been an outstanding success in countryside policy in recent years. I hope that progress will be continued, and, if possible, accelerated.

    Council House Sales (Bolton)
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the projected number of right-to-buy purchases in Bolton for 1985–86.
    Sir George Young: In its 1984 housing investment programme return, Bolton reported expecting 17 low-cost home ownership sales and 400 other dwelling sales in 1985–86. Authorities were not asked to separate right-to-buy sales.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend look into the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey? They have a clear right to buy their council house, but are being obstructed by the joint efforts of Bolton council and the Greater Manchester council.
    Sir George Young: As, at long last, it is now Labour party policy to support the right-to-buy, I am sorry that this obstruction is continuing. I shall indeed see whether rights which Parliament intended to go to Mr. amd Mrs. Bailey are being unduly delayed or obstructed by two Labour-controlled authorities. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as I can.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Eastham and remind him that the question relates to Bolton.
    Mr. Eastham: Are not an increasing number of people who were encouraged to buy their homes now asking local authorities to repurchase them because of poverty and unemployment — [HoN. members: "In Bolton."] — in Bolton and the rest of the country? Does the Minister keep statistics on the number of people who wish to resell their houses to local authorities?
    Mr. Speaker: In Bolton.
    Sir George Young: Repossessions of properties mortgaged to local authorities have fallen from 1,100 in 1981–82 to 800 in 1983–84.1 am sure that those figures are as relevant to Bolton as to anywhere else.

    Home Improvement
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of Ştate for the environment what representations he has received following the publication of the Green Paper on home improvements.
    13. Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the Green Paper on home improvement grants.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: To date I have received four considered responses and a letter from an hon. Member on behalf of a constituent. There have also been a number of requests for a longer consultation period, and on 10 June my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that the period is to be extended from 9 July to 30 September.
    Mr. Hughes: With 1·1 million unfit dwellings, including 500,000 with outside toilets, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that this Green Paper, based on the means test principle, in no way matches the immensity of the problem? Should not the Secretary of State ensure that local authorities are given the wherewithal to tackle this vital work?
    Mr. Jenkin: Overwhelmingly, the maintenance and improvement of private houses is, and always has been, carried out at the expense of their owners, with or without loans from building societies or banks. We expect that to continue. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support a system whereby help from the taxpayer should be confined to those who really need it. It makes no sense to tax the public to pay for home improvements when owners can well afford such improvements themselves.
    Mr. Latham: As early legislation on this Green Paper seems doubtful, will my right hon. Friend re-write the section dealing with rip-offs by cowboys? Is he aware that there is an extremely disappointing response in the Green Paper and that much stronger consumer protection measures are necessary?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that that is one of the matters to which we shall give great attention once we have received representations on the Green Paper. I hope that the extension of time for the submission of responses will be welcomed, not least by the building industry, which is looking forward to playing a fuller part in securing the maintenance, repair and improvement of the private sector.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's home improvements policy is bordering on the farcical? It is clear from the postbags of most Members of Parliament that at the first meeting of a local authority at the beginning of the financial year more applications are submitted than there is money available, and that for the next 11 months local authorities tell applicants that no home improvement money is left.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the proposals in the Green Paper are a considerable simplification of the system, particularly of the different categories of grant. They draw a clear distinction between the mandatory improvement of houses, for which grants will continue to be available., and the discretionary repair and improvement of houses, for which a system of loans is suggested. In both cases this will be based on the means of the owner. This is a very much more rational system for securing public help for those owners who cannot afford to do the work themse/lves. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would support that as a considerable improvement on the present system.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that expenditure arising from improvement grants is a very cost-effective way of maintaining the quality of our housing stock from the taxpayers' point of view and that it gives rise to a great deal of labour-intensive activity, adding demand to the British economy? In the light of that, does he agree that it is not the most appropriate area in which to seek savings?
    Mr. Jenkin: I hope that my hon. Friend will have taken comfort from the most recent figures published by the Department, which suggests that in the first quarter of this year total expenditure on repairs, maintenance and improvement was 10 per cent. up on the previous quarter and 8 per cent. higher than for the comparable period of the previous year. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition will applaud that, because that is how to get houses repaired and improved. Even more significantly, that increase in total expenditure comes at a time when the peak of expenditure on improvement grants has already passed. I take much comfort from that.
    Dr. Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement on page 1 of the Green Paper that there are 3·5 million unsatisfactory houses is a damning indictment of Government policy in the last half dozen years? Why will the Government not come clean about the proposed changes? There are no figures in the Green Paper relating to compatibility with the social security review, and no figures are given in the social security review either. Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Government are trying to disguise the fact that they intend to make major savings in this area in which investment is desperately needed? Will he also publish figures, as the Secretary for Wales has recently done, giving an analysis of renovation grants? Is he aware that the analysis shows that the system is working quite well in Wales, in that the average household income for recipients of grant is just over £5,000 and 72 per cent. of those who received grants had savings of less than £1,000, so people on low incomes are clearly benefiting from the system?
    Mr. Jenkin: We intend to publish the full results of the English distribution of grant inquiry in the autumn. Annex 1 to the Green Paper sets out the main findings in some detail, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the full figures will follow later.
    Mr. MeadowcroftThe Green Paper rightly includes an annex about improvements and adaptations for the disabled. Does the Secretary of State intend that that should also cover improvements and adaptations for the elderly? Is he aware of the splendid "Staying Put" scheme sponsored by the Anchor housing association, and will he encourage the provision of loans for work of that kind?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am well aware of the excellent work of the Anchor housing association through that scheme. I hope that the proposals in the Green Paper can be used to reinforce that work. I must, however, put it firmly to the House that it makes no sense for the taxpayer to have to put his hand in his pocket—we are always being told that people pay tax at far too low a level of income—to finance work on other people's houses when those other people could well afford to do the work themselves. We shall help those who need help, but not those who can afford to do the work themselves.

    Water Supplies (Nitrate Content)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now come to a decision on the applications from water authorities for exemption from the regulations limiting the nitrate content of public water supplies.
    Mr. Gow: The Council of European Communities' Ministers has laid down, with effect from the 15 July, a maximum concentration of 50 mg of nitrate per litre of water. Under article 9 the directive allows for derogations to be made and I have received 49 applications for derogation. I will announce my decision shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister accept my sincere congratulations on having so far resisted the enormous pressure on him and the Secretary of State to approve derogation,s which would be an environmental disaster and a potentially serious health hazard? Does he agree that it would be unthinkable for the Government to agree even to a temporary derogation, against the clear views of the World Health Organisation, without steps being taken to reduce the appalling use of nitrate fertilisers on farm land, which merely pollutes public water supplies?
    Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend will know that the advice of the World Health Organisation does not accord with that which we have received in the report of the joint committee on medical aspects of water quality, which was published in April last year. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows as well as any hon. Member, this is an extremely serious matter. I would want to give it more careful consideration. I shall meet our principal medical advisers before I come to a decision.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why should we allow farmers to continue to use large quantities of nitrogen fertilisers which pollute our water supplies, endanger health and threaten wildlife, merely to produce large quantities of unwanted food, which must be stored at great expense to the taxpayer? We would not allow manufacturing industry to get away with that, would we? Would it not be more sensible for the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to stop farmers from using excessive quantities of nitrogen?
    Mr. Gow: The House will know that, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, a water authority can prosecute in appropriate cases when there has been pollution of a water supply. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, following discussions between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and me, a code of good agricultural practice, which deals with nitrates among other things, was issued in January. I hope that farmers will follow that advice. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend, I shall continue to monitor the situation.
    Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend has told the House how important this matter is. Can he therefore explain why the Government are cutting the subsidy for research at the Freshwater Biological Association, which is in my constituency, when such an important part of its research is concerned with the effects of nitrates on water supply?
    Mr. Gow: Although there might be/ some reductions in my noble Friend's constituency, there is an increase in other research, notably at the universities.

    House Building (North-West Region)
    Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Secretary of State for
    the Environment if he will make a statement on the house
    building programme in the north-west region.
    Sir George Young: About 20,050 dwellings were completed in the north-west region in 1984, compared with 18,250 in 1983 and 17,450 in 1982.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that those figures are pathetic when set against the need for housing in the north-west region? When the Secretary of State visits the north-west next week, and especially when he visits the city of Salford, will he please listen intently to the representations that will be made by that authority about the devastating effect on its housing programme of the severe cuts in housing investment programme money during the past six years?
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is looking forward to his visit to the north-west in a few days' time. He will, of course, listen attentively to representations made by local councillors about the gravity of the housing situation there. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that the figures that I gave show a welcome increase in the number of completions in the north-west region.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is important to consider the house building programme in the north-west, the building programme in the southeast is equally important? A planning application in the south-east region had a public inquiry two and a half years ago, and one single inspector has yet to make up his mind one way or the other.

    Local Authorities (Services)
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of
    State for the Environment whether he will carry out a
    survey of all local authorities to establish the changes in
    support for: home helps, nursery education, capitation,
    revenue support, mentally handicapped, the elderly,
    concessionary fares, adaptations under the Chronically
    Sick and Disabled Persons Act, community facilities,
    industrial promotion and repairs and maintenance to local
    authority property.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have no plans to extend the surveys already undertaken by my Department to collect information on local authority expenditure on these services.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If a genuine survey were conducted, would it not reveal that support for home helps, nursery education, capitation, revenue support, mentally handicapped—[HoN. members: "Reading."] Yes, it is a long list—the elderly, concessionary fares, adaptations for the chronically sick and disabled, community facilities, industrial promotion budgets, repairs and maintenance to local authority properties — for every-thing affecting local authority programmes — has been cut to shreds? Why should Labour-controlled authorities, which were elected with a mandate to retain services, feel compelled to implement cuts imposed on them by the Government which offend the spirit of their manifestos?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman claims that there have been cuts in social provision in his area. By 1983·84, there were 10 per cent. more home helps than there were four years previously and 3 per cent. more nursery pupils, over the same period. Expenditure on concessionary fares increased by 90 per cent. over the same period. In the area covered by his district council, concessionary fares have increased by 89 per cent. Nursery school expenditure in Cumbria increased by 38 per cent. and home help expenditure increased by 69 per cent. I hope that he will personally thank the Prime Minister for the increase in social provision in his area.

    Division (Member's Name)
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Speaker: Last night, after the 10 o'clock Division, the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) complained that, after having passed through the Aye Lobby, he found that the Tellers had already left. Mr. Deputy Speaker undertook to inquire into the matter. Inquiries have shown that the hon. Gentleman was in no way to blame. Accordingly, I direct that his name should be added to those recorded as voting in the Aye Lobby and that the total number should be corrected.
    Mr. lan Mikardo: I/ a/m deeply grateful for what you have said, Mr.Speaker. I am sorry for any trouble that I may have caused to anyone.

    Pensioners' Heating and Communications
    3.32 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to guarantee supplies of gas and electricity to pensioners and to abolish standing charges for pensioners for gas and electricity and to abolish telephone rentals.
    Last winter was an especially cold and unpleasant one and many people used extra heating during the winter to maintain some degree of comfort in their homes. I am sure that Members of this place did so, along with many pensioers throughout the country. Those hon. Members who did so will have no problem in paying last winter's gas and electricity bills, but many pensioners have been in some fear ever since the end of the winter, as they do not know how they will be able to pay their bills. The bills will be especially high because the winter was particularly severe.
    It is important that we discuss the effects of the high costs of heating and cooking on pensioners and try to do something to alleviate them. Many statistics are available, but one that stands out a mile is that the deaths of the elderly are greater by 22 per cent. during the winter months than they are in the summer months. This is because the elderly cannot cope with the cold. Unfortunately, because of the high costs, many of them do not heat their homes to the level that they should. Many suffer from hypothermia and tragically many die as a result. The House should consider this matter seriously.
    The number of pensioners whose gas or electricity supply is cut off as a result of inability to pay the bill is considerable. During December 1983 to December 1984, there were 92,825 electricity cut-offs. The most recent estimate suggests that about 4·5 per cent. of that number were pensioner households, which means that over 4,000 pensioners had their electricity supply cut off during that period.
    The electricity and gas boards both claim that the number of cut-offs has reduced since the introduction of direct payment schemes, whereby pensioners and other poor people have their gas and electricity bills paid direct. That may be a satisfactory way for the boards to collect their money and to make the enormous profits that they now enjoy, but it results in a squeeze on the household budgets of pensioners and others who are the poorest in our society. This means that they lose out in other directions. For example, they may not eat properly and they may be unable to go out or do anything else to support their standard of living.
    The aim of the Bill is, first, to guarantee supplies of gas and electricity for pensioners so that they cannot be cut off in any circumstances. That aim is based on society recognising that pensioners hold a special place in society and have special needs and that cutting off their gas or electricity is dangerous and could lead to their death.
    I also suggest that we go some way towards alleviating pensioners' hardship by abolishing standing charges for them. The system of standing charges has been in operation for some years. It was supported by a report from the Price Commission on gas prices in 1979 and 1980 which claimed:
    "The economic rationale for a separate standing charge for domestic credit customers is that it ensures that prices charged are more closely related to costs than would be the case if a single
    894
    rate per therm were charged at all levels of usage. The supply of gas involves fixed costs per customer unrelated to the volume supplied."
    I object to the fact that the report says that the introduction of standing charges would protect the largest consumers of gas and electricity, whereas I believe that we should be protecting the smallest consumers. The standing charge system means that the smallest consumers pay the most for gas and electricity. Because of that, a rebate system was introduced which meant that no consumer would pay more than half the bill in standing charges.
    The problem with the rebate system is that it has not necessarily exclusively benefited pensioners. A report from the South of Scotland electricity board, and a number of others, shows that the main beneficiaries of the rebate scheme have not been pensioners but have been the owners of second homes which are the cause of great anxiety in Wales, Scotland and some parts of England.
    Although the boards concede that the standing charge falls unfairly on the smallest consumers, they are now trying to withdraw it on the grounds that the only people who have benefited to any great extent are the owners of second homes. The boards are deliberately and callously ignoring the plight of pensioners and other small consumers who have to pay far more because of the standing charge system.
    My Bill therefore proposes to end the rebate system and abolish standing charges for pensioners only so that the owners of second homes, who can well afford to heat their first home and probably their second home, do not benefit on the backs of pensioners and the good campaigning that the pensioners' organisations have done over the years.
    The cost of standing charges varies, but added to the standing charges for gas and electricity and the telephone rental, they can easily amount to between £20 and £40 per quarter for a pensioner household. That is a scandalous amount and a major attack on living standards.
    It is important that if the Bill is passed into law, as I hope it will be, hon. Members realise that I am not proposing to abolish standing charges for pensioners merely to increase the unit costs of gas, electricity and telephones for every other consumer—that would also obviously affect pensioner households — but that the Government should use public funds to ensure that there is no further increase in those prices for anyone because of the abolition of standing charges for pensioners.
    Any examination of the financial results of both fuel boards in the past year would show that they could well afford to do that. In the year 1983–84, the Electricity Council returned a profit of £623 million, the British Gas Corporation returned a profit of £668 million and, over the past six months alone, British Telecom returned a profit of £684 million.
    According to the Government's figures the cost of abolishing standing charges for gas and electricity would be only £300 million in one year. The British Gas Corporation levy last year was £522 million. The Government could well afford to abolish standing charges, and it would be a major benefit to pensioners.
    I do not believe that the Bill would end the horror and poverty that many pensioner households face day in, day out, and the fear that many of them have about heating their homes adequately or even cooking a hot meal on a cold evening because they cannot afford the bill. However, it would go some way towards alleviating that poverty.

    895
    It is amazing that, in a few moments, the Secretary of State for Defence will be telling us of the bottomless pit that defence expenditure has become. The cost of just one quarter of the Trident programme will be £2.5 billion. The cost of abolishing standing charges for pensioners could be paid for by not proceeding with the ludicrous proposal to build a major international airport at Port Stanley. There are hundreds of other examples in the defence Estimates that could be used to pay the cost of my Bill.
    It is unlikely that any hon. Member will rise and oppose the Bill. In some ways, I should be glad if hon. Members opposed it, because at least we would hear their arguments for charging pensioners and poor people more than wealthy people for gas and electricity.
    Many pensioners' groups throughout the country have written to me enclosing copies of letters received from their own Members of Parliament who say how much they support the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity for pensioners and the abolition of telephone rentals. Some of those letters come from surprising quarters. I shall not detain the House by reading out the names of the hon. Members involved, but when I have completed my researches I shall publish all the names and I think that we shall find that they make up a majority of the House. The nearer we get to the general election, the larger the majority will be.
    I am sure that you will be glad, Mr. Speaker, to give me the opportunity to read out those names and to prove that there is a majority — albeit many of the hon. Members in that majority are practicing self-imposed silence — for the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity for pensioners.
    I hope that the House will take the problem seriously and will support the Bill to end the fear that many old people face as they try to meet last winter's bill and their trepidation about their inability to keep themselves warm or adequately fed next winter.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Miss Joan Maynard, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. David Winnick.
    pensioners' heating and communications
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to guarantee supplies of gas and electricity to pensioners and to abolish standing charges for pensioners for gas and electricity and to abolish telephone rentals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  Defence

    first day's debate
    3.42 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
    That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985, contained in Cmnd. 9430.
    Mr. Speaker: I announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
    In view of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in this important debate, I intend to impose the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. However, I hope that those who are called before 7 o'clock will also bear the limit in mind.
    Mr. Heseltine: The White Paper provides both the background to Government policy and the essential facts which underlie it.
    The House will be grateful to the defence Select Committee for its first and third reports, which have been published this week. The House will understand if I do not address today the issues raised in the first report on merchant shipping. It would be premature to do so, and the Committee itself has made it clear that it accepts this view.
    On the third report, I welcome the Committee's comments on the presentation of the White Paper and I will ensure that they are passed on to those responsible within my Department.
    I shall attempt today to address some of the issues raised by the Committee. In particular, I shall address two of its main themes: the absence of any major change in policy in the White Paper and whether in the long term we can sustain our present commitments within the sums of money likely to be available.
    This year has seen a major reorganisation of the Ministry, which came into effect on 2 January. It is, I think, well established that we have concentrated on the output we get from the rising defence budget and on the enhanced value to be derived from a policy of increased competition. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be commenting in detail tomorrow on this aspect of our work.
    In this year's White Paper, while continuing the emphasis on value for money questions, we have also sought to look in depth at defence policy. Chapter 2 of the White Paper addresses the United Kingdom's role within NATO, the Alliance's defence posture, including the application of new and emerging technology, and Britain's interest and responsibilities outside the NATO area. In chapter 3, we look at the European contribution to the Alliance and how the Europeans might strengthen their cooperation with one another. The White Paper includes an essay on NATO's strategy of flexible response and alternatives to it.
    That is a formidable weight of material. It points to the considerable success of these policies. I would argue that that success is the best case for stability. If it is not necessary to change, why should we contemplate it? The Defence Committee acknowledges the consistency of policy but seems to be searching for a longer-term political and strategic prospect. It seems to be arguing for a review

    897
    of policy priorities. I would not wish to appear complacent, but we should not indulge in a destabilising process of review unless the case for such a review is proved. To imply that change is needed, without suggesting the direction that it should take, carries with it the risk that confidence will be jeopardised because those in positions of responsibility lack belief in their own policies.
    The starting point, therefore, for addressing the case for a new approach to strategy must be to address the adequacy or otherwise of NATO's present strategy of forward defence and flexible response. Has it served us well? Does it remain relevant to today's strategic circumstances? It is likely to be invalidated by developments we can already see, not just in technologies, but much more important, in political relationships?
    It is the direct consequence of the strength and cohesion of the North Atlantic Alliance that Europe enjoys continuing peace and prosperity today and in such marked contrast to the circumstances of 40 years ago, which we are remembering this year. In those 40 years there have been enormous changes in the economic circumstances of Europe, but the underlying strategic realities, which developed in the immediate aftermath of the war, remain the same. In western Europe we must face the weight of Soviet military power, and the reality of a country which has been prepared to use that power in support of its political influence over the territory of others. We must deal with a country which combines the long-standing Russian obsession with secure borders with a much more modem mission to bring the world to communism, which is over-armed beyond the point of any rational assessment of its defence needs, and which has shown in the 1950s and 1960s in eastern Europe and in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan a willingness to use those arms.
    The clear lesson of the last 40 years is that the Soviet Union is prepared to extend its influence worldwide when low risk opportunities present themselves. It is not prepared to do so in every case. The Soviet leadership is cautious and careful. The risks will be carefully weighed. The essence of NATO strategy has been to ensure that there were no risk-free opportunities of aggression against a member of the Norm Atlantic Alliance. Its success then and now rests upon the Russians being in no doubt about both our ability and our will to defend ourselves and our allies.
    I do not wish to exaggerate the Soviet military threat, but neither should we see it as less than it is. In this year's White Paper we have expanded the analysis of the balance and included the necessary caveats about the comparisons we make. The underlying military reality remains as daunting as ever: in conventional forces, in chemical weapons—about which the defence committee expresses its concern — and in the Soviet Union's huge and growing nuclear arsenal. There are chilling comparisons there for all to see. The White Paper sets out the facts very carefully. There has been no shift in Soviet policy except in its intensification.
    The task then remains as it has done over the past three and a half decades: to maintain a credible deterrent within a coherent alliance. A wholly European alliance today could not provide an effective deterrent. What, then, are the prospects for sustaining the present uniquely successful alliance between the north American and the European
    898
    peoples? There are, of course, those who suggest that the United States may turn its back on Europe as the balance of population and of interest in America increasingly turns to the Pacific. There is nothing new in this argument— it is not even just a post-war argument—but it ignores the huge American political and economic interest in Europe, as well as the closest historical and cultural ties.
    Provided that we in Europe are prepared to sustain our commitment and contribution, we believe that a transatlantic partnership is the logical outcome of enlightened self-interest. The decisions taken by NATO defence Ministers in December about infrastructure and stock levels, and in May about the follow-up on conventional defence improvements are important, demonstrating the support for the Alliance not only of Britain but of the rest of the European allies.
    Our commitment to the Alliance is not simply a matter of money, or of conventional effort. Every member of the Alliance enjoys the benefits of the peace provided by the mix of forces underpinning NATO's present strategy. The nuclear element of that mix has to be sustained and modernised, no less than the conventional element. Only the most catastrophic consequences will follow if individual countries pick and choose between those elements of our strategy that they are prepared to sustain, those risks that they are prepared to share and those that they would prefer to leave to others. Of course, no one can prevent them from pursuing such a policy, because each of us is a sovereign nation, but the process of opting out and leaving others to take up the strain, and to carry a higher share of the responsibility, is a policy calculated to whet the appetite of a Soviet Union watching for the weak link and the risk-free opportunity.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Alliance and all its partners have been determined to modernise and to continue to improve their nuclear capability and that it is that which has brought the Soviet Union, at long last, to meaningful negotiations to try to achieve arms control?
    Mr. Heseltine: To all except the most narrow-minded, that is self-evident and I shall return to that point later.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is Ascension Island being used as a target area for cruise and MX missiles?
    Mr. Heseltine: When I referred to all except the most marrow-minded, I had not realised how quickly that would be demonstrated.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State answer the question?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is—
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. That is why the policies put forward by—
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State is not giving way.
    Mr. Heseltine: That is why the policies put forward by Labour Members represent just such a recipe for undermining the cohesion of the North Atlantic Alliance. Labour's policy of removing all American nuclear bases and weapons and of abandoning Britain's independent

    899
    deterrent, and its search for a continentwide European nuclear-free zone would leave this country and Europe defenceless against nuclear blackmail; defenceless, that is, unless we are to look to the United States to protect us from the huge Soviet nuclear threat while we sit smugly in some cosy haven of moral superiority. The truth is that the abandonment by Britain of the basis of our defence policies since the war would be such a dramatic shock to the Alliance as to call the whole enterprise into question — which is, of course, exactly what a significant number of Opposition Members would like to achieve.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that paragraph 105 of the Defence Estimates says of the Soviet Union:
    "The roots of Soviet policy are complex. The Soviet Union … is a country obsessed with its own security".
    If the Government accept that the Soviet Union is obsessed, as I believe it is, with its own security, is it not clear that its policies — I do not accept its internal system—towards the border countries and Afghanistan have resulted from its concern for its security? Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself not to some narrow issue but to the wider question of why the Soviet Union has arrived at its policy?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House should listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, because he is right. Every advance that the Soviet Union makes has been based upon an assertion of its own insecurity. However, the consequence for those into whose country the Soviets advance has been suppression by the Red Army. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should always withdraw, step by step, to leave a vacuum so that the Soviet Union can fill it. That is an intolerable assessment for any hon. Member.
    Mr. John Powley: Does my right hon. Friend recall the strategy employed in the 1930s by the Hitler regime, and the domino effect of picking off one weak nation after another, which inevitably led to the 1939-45 conflict? Is that not similar in many ways to the strategy being employed by the Soviet Union, which is trying to pick off weak nations to advance its own ideology, both political and military, in the 1970s, the 1980s and, possibly, the 1990s?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right, and it is precisely because the Labour Government of the 1940s saw clearly the dangers of repeating what happened in the 1930s that they helped to invite the Americans to join the NATO Alliance. They were right to do so.
    I have no apologies for offering no new policies, and for not seeking to change the strategy that had served us well. I advocate continuity because the policies have brought success. This is not an argument for complacency. Our security policy rests not only upon the military forces necessary for a deterrent, which must be kept up to date, but on achieving agreements with the Soviet Union that would enable both sides to enjoy security with lower levels of armaments. These are not two separate aims; they are inextricably linked. The Soviet Union will not negotiate seriously if it believes that its interests can be achieved by other means. We saw between 1979 and 1983 a sustained propaganda campaign over the potential deployment of intermediate range nuclear forces. Before that, the Soviet
    900
    Union had already deployed its SS20 intermediate nuclear threat, but when it did that, there was little protest on the streets of this country.
    When we gave notice that we had to maintain the NATO deterrent, we were told by the Labour party, and by the protest groups so closely associated with it, that the Government's determination, and that of its Allies, to introduce Pershing II and cruise missiles, had destroyed the prospect of arms control. We were told that, if we proceeded with the modernisation of our intermediate range weapon systems, the Russians would walk out, and that the peace of Europe would be threatened.
    However, the truth is that today the Soviet Union is back at the conference table, not because the West indulged in any one-sided gestures but because the Soviets realised that we had the will to go through with the necessary modernisation of our forces in the absence of arms control agreement. That is particularly because the one-sided disarmers had lost the democratic debate in the West. Once again, our policies worked, and the forecasts of the Left were revealed for the simple media fodder they really were.
    The White Paper sets out the British Government's efforts in support of arms control. We must prevent the erosion of existing arms control agreements on strategic nuclear missiles and on anti-ballistic missile systems. We shall in that context strive for new agreements in Geneva.
    If nations were to adopt the view that arms treaties and agreements are short-term pauses between technological breakthroughs of different weapon generations, then the arms control process would simply come to a halt. America has proved, in the SALT II context, that she has a wider vision. I believe that the whole House will wish to commend the announcement by President Reagan that the United States will continue to observe the SALT II constraints. It is a vivid demonstration of the seriousness with which the United States approaches arms control. We look to the Soviet Union to show an equally scrupulous attitude to its obligations and to negotiate seriously at Geneva towards real reductions in nuclear arsenals.
    Our approach to the strategic defence initiative was set out in the four points agreed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States at Camp David, and which were reaffirmed in February this year. The British Government support the need for research under that initiative, which is only prudent in the light of longstanding Soviet research in similar fields. We are at present discussing with the United States Administration British participation in the research. Such participation must bring clear benefits for our own defence effort and certainly must not represent a one-way traffic in expertise and technology. I agree with the Defence Committee that those issues need urgent consideration, which they are receiving — and that we should work closely with our European allies on them. We intend shortly to define the way forward.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: One of the arguments in favour of our participation is a transfer of technology. Why should the United States expect to share the fruits of research and development in this area when it was so reluctant, in other areas such as the gas pipeline, to share technology with West European nations?
    Mr. Heseltine: As I think the gist of the Select Committee report — I fully accept it — is that no

    901
    European country, and certainly not the United Kingdom, will negotiate with the United States on the basis of one-way traffic in technoloy in this context, the answer to the hon. Member's question is clear. That thought will be at the forefront of the consideration that we as Ministers bring to the issue. It is already very much on the table in the dialogue between the United Kingdom and the United States. I have no doubt whatever that exactly the same thoughts will occur to our European allies.
    Returning to the strategic defence initiative, the more fundamental issue of whether such systems should be deployed, although they are now being widely debated, is a decison for the future. It raises the profoundest strategic as well as technical issues. The United States Administration have set out the criteria which would need to be met in judging the feasibility of new technologies which may emerge from SDI research. They recognise that the defensive systems would have to be survivable in order not themselves to become tempting targets for attack They recognise that they must be cost effective at the margin, so that they are not simply countered by the other side adding offensive capability necessary to overcome the defence. Those are in themselves demanding criteria.
    Above all, as the Select Committee recognises, the question which has to be addressed is the circumstances in which the deployment of SDI defences would enhance deterrence. What measures would be needed in other areas, particularly to rectify the conventional imbalance, in order to achieve this, and would they be in fact and in practice negotiable? The British Government's interest in those issues relates to the wider strategic questions which are at the heart of the alliance strategy.
    As a nuclear power we have, of course, a particular interest and expertise, but that is not the driving force of our concern. I particularly welcome the Defence Committee's recognition that a new era of strategic defences would be unlikely to arrive while Trident is in service. The case for Trident is set out in the White Paper and I do not intend to expand on it today. I repeat that which perhaps needs no repetition — that the Government's commitment could not be more certain. We intend to take the steps necessary to maintain Britain's independent deterrent.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have been looking through the White Paper and trying to find the costs which are allowed for in the Trident programme for the communications system between the sea-based submarines, which could be up to 6,000 miles away, and the politicians, to ensure that there is effective control. I realise that that is an extremely expensive system. It does not appear to be in the accounts in the White Paper.
    Mr. Heseltine: I assure the hon. Gentleman that neither the Labour Government that presumably he would have supported in an earlier generation nor this Government would be so inept as to have inadequate communication systems on such a critical aspect of our defence capability. That Labour Members should laugh at such a statement merely reflects their naivety, because the Opposition have consistently supported the concept that Britain should have a Polaris independent nuclear deterrent.
    Mr. Bennett rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: If there is some specific breakdown of costs about which I can help the hon. Gentleman, I shall try to do so, but I assure him that the communication systems between our submarines and the Government will be impeccable.
    I have concentrated so far on the problems of East-West relations and on our contribution to NATO. The Alliance is the foundation of our security, and about 95 per cent. of our defence budget is devoted, directly or indirectly, to alliance tasks. But neither we nor our allies can shut our eyes to the world beyond the NATO area. We still have some residual direct security responsibilities for the remaining dependent territories. We therefore retain garrisons in such diverse locations as Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Our determination to continue to fulfil those responsibilities could not be more clearly illustrated than by the new Mount Pleasant airport in the Falklands, recently opened by His Royal Highness Prince Andrew.
    The construction of the airport—a truly astonishing civil engineering feat—will enable us to reinforce the islands rapidly in the event of a crisis, to achieve savings in the cost of the garrison, and play an important role in the economic and social development of the Falklands. But our interests outside NATO are not restricted to those direct responsibilities. We must be prepared to bear our share of responsibility for protecting trade routes and for promoting peace and stability in those areas where local conflicts could spread and risk wider East-West confrontation.
    Mr. Gerald Malone: As my right hon. Friend is talking in the context of our naval forces, he may well be aware of recent press speculation about the future of two types of vessel, known as OPV2 and OPV3. Those vessels were perhaps of some interest to a shipyard in my constituency, Hall Russell, which was hoping to bid for them. As there is considerable uncertainty about them, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is provision for either vessel in his programme, and specifically whether it is the case that, if there is no such provision, they have been deleted at the instance of the Royal Navy or for some other reason?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, that offshore patrol vessel is a subject that the Royal Navy is exploring. It has been having conversations with industry. It may or may not wish to make a bid for the cash to pay for it. At the moment, no such cash provision has been made available. In any case, the appraisal of such a project would have to go through the central evaluation processes of the Ministry of Defence. That has not happened, and there is no way in which I have approved that the programme shall proceed. But it is perfectly healthy and reasonable that individual parts of the Ministry of Defence should have dialogue with industry about what possibilities may exist.
    Several/ Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I think it is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It is not a project in our main programme, and I do not think we want to be diverted into the minutiae of possibilities which are a considerable way from my decision-making process. If it is convenient to the House, we shall follow up that matter in the debate tomorrow.

    903
    We must be prepared to bear our share of responsibility for protecting trade routes and promoting peace and stability in those areas where local conflicts could spread and risk wider East-West confrontation.
    The White Paper describes the various ways in which we contribute to these objectives — for example, our world wide network of defence facilities, our military assistance programmes and our contributions to peace-keeping forces. Ultimately, we maintain a capability to intervene militarily, either to protect our own interests or in response to a request for help from our friends. Drawing on the lessons of the Falklands conflict, we have made great strides in enhancing the mobility and flexibility of our forces to deploy rapidly at long range in a crisis. The use of such forces would be regarded very much as a last resort, but if they are to be effective in any crisis, they must be not only properly equipped but well trained.
    We plan, therefore, to conduct a major strategic mobility exercise next year to demonstrate the ability of our forces to respond rapidly to a crisis outside the NATO area and to test the improvements we have made in our command and control arrangements.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the savings that will be made by building the Mount Pleasant airport and the costs involved in maintaining the Falkland Islands. How many years will it take to recoup the enormous cost of building the airport?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that I can give that answer, because this is a military commitment which is essential to the original commitment to free the islands. Once the Labour party joined the Government in supporting the decision to send the task force, there was a defence commitment. Anyone with responsibility cannot now renege on that commitment. It is therefore part of our defence determination that we should have this defence facility. It will enable us to do the job much more rapidly and at a lower cost. The hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways in suggesting that there is a practical alternative. The criticism, if there is one, is that Governments of both parties did not provide an effective airport in the Falklands many years ago.
    Mr. Jerry Wiggin: While on the subject of mobility and the lessons of the Falklands conflict, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons learned from the Falklands war was the great importance of the helicopter on the battlefield? Is it not amazing that the appropriate military departments within the Ministry are taking another nine months to assess air staff target 404, which can readily be filled by the W30 helicopters that are manufactured in and around my constituency?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's concern for Britain's defence interests is well known. Perhaps he will forgive me if, in the present circumstances, I do not become too deeply drawn into those matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman understands the sensitivity of this issue. The Army is reviewing the requirements. It must be my responsibility as Secretary of State for Defence to be sure that the Army is satisfied before I take any decisions. I am not trying to impose a political judgment upon the military requirements in these circumstances.
    I turn now to the scale of the defence programme. In 1985–86, the defence budget will be about £18 billion—
    904
    an increase of more than £1 billion in cash terms over 1984–85. By the end of this financial year, we shall have completed an unprecedented period of seven years of consecutive real growth in the defence budget. British defence expenditure is the highest in total and per capita of the major European members of the Alliance. The proportion of the budget spent on equipment is the highest of any NATO country. I cannot help wondering sometimes, as I read the critics of our defence policy, just how uneasy they might feel if they lived in one of our neighbouring Alliance countries, facing much the same threat but having so much smaller a defence budget with which to counter it.
    But what are we getting for the money we spend on defence? Chapter 4 of the White Paper sets out in detail the equipment that is coming into service or being developed for the armed forces. Let me pick out some of the highlights.
    For the Army, the re-equipping of armoured regiments with the Challenger tank continues. I am able to announce today that an order for further Challenger tanks is being placed with Royal Ordnance plc, to equip a sixth Challenger regiment. The infantry's mobility and protection will be improved by the introduction of the MCV80 and Saxon armoured personnel carriers, and it is already being issued with the new SA80 small arm.
    The artillery supporting these troops will receive the multiple launch rocket system. In the same time frame, we will be replacing the ageing 105 mm Abbot with the collaborative 155 mm SP70 self-propelled gun. The artillery's target acquisition will be improved with the Phoenix remotely piloted aerial reconnaissance vehicle, and the battlefield artillery target engagement system will enable us to employ our artillery resources to the best possible effect. In air defence, Rapier is being improved and work is going well on the new short-range high-velocity missile to complement Javelin.
    Finally, we will get the best possible value from all these weapons through the introduction from this year of Ptarmigan, a secure field trunk communications system unmatched anywhere in the world, and Wavell, our first major venture in computer-assisted command and control.
    The majority of the RAF's front line assets are being replaced with new aircraft and new weapons. Nine Tornado GR1 squadrons have now formed and will eventually build up to 11 squadrons. The Tornado GRl's armoury will include the JP233 cratering and area denial weapon, deliveries of which will begin later this year, and the ALARM defence suppression weapon, planned to enter service in two years. Deliveries of Tornado F2, the air defence variant, have begun and the operational conversion unit was formed on 1 May this year. The number of air defence squadrons in the United Kingdom will be increased from seven to nine. In the ground support role, the Harrier GR5 will replace the Harrier GR3 and will be armed with an improved version of the BL755 anti-armour weapon, which will enter service with the GR3 this year.
    Mr. John Wilkinson(Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend did not mention a replacement for the Jaguar. The House will be very much aware of the ministerial meeting to be held on 18 June in this city on the European fighter aircraft. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, in those important ministerial discussions, he will ensure

    905
    that the RAF's key operational requirement and the industrial considerations which are so crucial to this country are met?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will allow me to come to that point a little later.
    Since entering office in 1979, we have ordered 45 ships for the Royal Navy. In the last year and a half, we have ordered or set in hand procurement action for five completely new classes. The first class of the type 23 frigate and the type 2400 conventional submarine are on order. We have invited or received tenders for the single-role minehunter, the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel and the Trident ballistic missile submarine.
    The highlight of the next few years will be the entry into service of the type 23 frigate with Harpoon, vertically launched Sea Wolf, Sonar 2050 and the EH 101 helicopter — all advanced equipment of the highest quality and capability.
    I note the concern expressed by the Defence Committee on the ordering rate of destroyers and frigates. Our commitment remains to a force level of about 50 in the longer term. We intend to sustain an ordering rate of broadly three new frigates a year from the first follow-on type 23s. Since 1979 we have spent over £2 billion more in real terms on the conventional Navy — excluding Falklands replacements — than if spending had been maintained at the 1978–79 level.
    Important though our equipment plans are, the capability of our forces rests equally upon the quality and motivation of those in the armed forces and of the civilians who work alongside them. I will certainly ensure, as the Select Committee has requested, that more is said about this area in next year's White Paper.
    It may be helpful if I say a word about recruitment and retention in the armed forces.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: What decision has my right hon. Friend reached about the replacement of the existing specialised ships for 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines? If we are to reinforce the northern flank in war, it is important to be able to get there.
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall be coming to that subject later.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I hope that hon. Members will agree that I have given way sufficiently. I have much more to say, and I wish to make progress.
    I come now to recruitment and retention in the armed forces. Volume 2 of the White Paper shows that, between April 1979 and January 1985, the strengths of trained United Kingdom regular forces increased from about 284,000 to about 297,000. The figures do not support the more extreme reports of increasing overstretch that have appeared in the press. Recruitment is generally good, except in some technical areas where there is fierce competition from the civilian sector.
    Outflow from the armed forces is certainly increasing as the economy picks up. [Interruption.]If opposition Members do not understand that in large parts of British industry there is now a significant scarcity of skilled and trained people, they have no idea of the rate of change in the industrialisation of the western world.
    906
    Although there has been an increase in the outflow as the pressure from industry increases, the figures must be seen in perspective. The outflow in the last financial year, at about 34,500, is up on the previous year, but it is also about 15,000, or 30 per cent., lower than the figure in 1978-79, before we came to office.
    The Government are committed to maintaining the remuneration of the armed forces at a level sufficient to meet the requirements for trained manpower arising from our defence policy. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week of the Government's response to the 1985 armed forces pay review body report showed in the clearest and most tangible way the considerable commitment that we have made and have maintained.
    We attach equal importance to the strength of our volunteer reserve forces, The Territorial Army currently stands at 73,500, compared with 59,000 six years ago, and the planned expansion to 86,000 by the end of the decade continues to progress. We are pressing ahead with the expansion of the home service force, initially to a strength of about 5,000.
    Recruitment to 38 new home service force companies formed earlier this year is going well. We are proceeding with plans to increase the strengths of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Force. This expansion of our volunteer reserves represents a particularly cost-effective way of augmenting the front line capability of our regular forces.
    I come now to the defence programme in the longer term, to which the Defence Committee devoted much of its report. I say straight away that there is much in the report with which I agree. It provides a useful historical perspective on the Government's commitment to the aim of increases, in the region of 3 per cent. a year, in defence expenditure in real terms.
    Given the background which I have described, of the substantial increases in defence expenditure since 1978-79 and of our position relative to our allies, the Government have made it clear for a number of years that after 1985-86, we should seek a stable level of defence expenditure. This is a British decision in a British context. We continue to subscribe to the resource guidance of the Alliance as a whole, which includes the 3 per cent. aim as a general guide. Many members of the Alliance have a long way to go before the effort begins to approach that of the United Kingdom.
    That said, I agree with the view expressed by the Defence Committee that more emphasis should be placed in the future on outputs rather than inputs as a public and political measurement of defence effort. Personally, I believe that the conduct of many other areas of public policy would benefit from such a change. As the Committee points out, a financial increase is not by itself a measure of increased efficiency, and greater efficiency may enhance military capability at no additional cost. It is to this prize of increased efficiency that our efforts in the years to come must be increasingly directed. ▪
    In addressing the implications for the defence programme of the ending of the 3 per cent. aim, it is also important to recognise that this change has been assumed in our plans for a number of years. The Committee recognises that 3 per cent. growth has never been the basis for expenditure plans after 1985-86. The programme set

    907
    out in the White Paper "The Way Forward" in 1981— which included provision for Trident—assumed such a growth rate only until that year.
    I cannot say precisely how the defence budget will develop in volume terms in the next few years. This depends on a range of factors, some positive, some negative. I cannot engage in a detailed line-by-line, figure-by-figure analysis of the gloomy picture painted by the Defence Committee.
    On the Defence Committee's assumptions, it foresees a potential squeeze on the defence budget in real terms, postulating a worst case in which the budget would be £970 million lower in real terms in 1987-88 than in 1985-86. Later in its report, the Committee points to possible offsetting efficiency savings amounting, again on its assumptions, to some £700 million. Although the pluses almost equal the minuses, the conclusion is drawn that they will not be enough to redress the balance; but on the Committee's own arithmetic, the figures are marginal in terms of a total defence budget of some £18 billion to £19 billion a year.
    The Committee justifies its concern by reference to the policy to which I am wholly committed, of maintaining flexibility in the defence programme. It must be said that it is seen in a sinister light, as preparing the way for a defence review by stealth.
    The truth is less dramatic. The truth which guided my Department's response to the committee's requests for information on our future programme was not new. The Ministry of Defence pointed out to the Committee in 1981, for example, that it was not possible to provide details about the equipment provision in our long-term costing. The Ministry said then that over a 10-year period, the costing becomes increasingly speculative the further forward one tries to look, and that in many cases the assumptions used can be no more than conjecture by officials about how Ministers will settle issues which have still to be clarified and have not yet been put to Ministers.
    The status of these planning documents has not changed in the intervening period. My ministerial colleagues and I have sought in the last year or so to institute management arrangements for the programme which fully reflect the increasingly speculative nature of the costing and properly differentiate between the extent of ministerial commitment to individual projects and to the stages within them.
    We have also taken account of the politics of defence budgeting, which is like the politics of all other kinds of public expenditure planning. It will, I suspect, come as no surprise to the House to hear that my Department's forward programme is changing constantly for a variety of reasons — changes in military specification, technical difficulties, industrial slippage and so on. These adjustments attract little attention and only the major ones ever come across the desks of Ministers.
    All these changes are described as adjustments, but there is one category of adjustment which is different. That is where a Minister changes a programme assumption to take account of whether there is actually the cash available to meet everyone's aspirations. That is called not an "adjustment" but a "cut". Such language is the time-honoured practice of every interest seeking to extend or maintain its programme.
    Frankly, the only significant change in the Ministry of Defence is that I have joined that club on behalf of the taxpayer. We now plan our programmes to live within the cash available to meet them. Just because a Department
    908
    is large and its budget huge, there is no excuse for ignoring the basic rules of prudence that characterise the private sector but not public expenditure planning.
    There is, then, no hidden motive behind my reluctance to disclose all the assumptions being made in 1985 about the programme stretching 10 years ahead and beyond. We are continuing properly to plan on a long-term basis to sustain our commitments and the defence roles identified in the 1981 and 1982 White Papers. The resources which can realistically be postulated for defence in the longer term are sufficient to sustain these roles and to provide for the major re-equipment programmes of the services, currently foreseen. Whatever the pressures arising from cash planning, the fact remains that defence expenditure is now some £3 billion higher than when we came into office. We have a steep increase which we know only a Conservative Government would have provided.
    Of course I know of the understandable and legitimate concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Select Committee for the proper defence of this country, but as I read the Select Committee report I could not help wondering about the role of the Opposition Members on the Select Committee, when only two years ago the Labour party went into a general election seeking to reduce defence expenditure by one third. Now they tell me that £3 billion a year more is not enough. The protestations of the Opposition about the defence programme are, in truth, humbug.
    Mr. Robert Banks: One way in which
    savings can be made is through greater co-operation between our European partners in NATO. Can my right hon. Friend say a word about the work of the independent European programme group and how it can be worked into the programme to our advantage?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is most kind in anticipating what remains of my speech. I shall not give details of numbers and in-service dates stretching 10 years ahead. They would, in any case, be overtaken, for a variety of reasons. Nor do I see any case for rushing decisions to replace capabilities until the military requirements and options for meeting them have been properly studied and set alongside other priorities. It is these considerations, rather than funding difficulties, that have governed our approach to future amphibious capability, upon which the Select Committee has commented. The right way forward is to release cash progressively on new equipment against tightly drawn contracts, to maintain a careful balance between commitment and cash and to keep options open in the longer term in order to take account of strategic circumstances, technological opportunities and cash availability nearer the time.
    I must say a little more about the amphibious capability replacement, about which I have told the House the precise story. If the idea should once get about in the Ministry of Defence that that part of each individual armed service was likely to get preferment over all the rest of the priorities by leaking its concern either to the press or to hon. Members in order to embarrass Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, it would bring our legitimate planning process to a grinding halt. That is precisely what has happened in this case. I am not prepared to be sucked into that process.
    Mr. Douglas: That is a terrible accusation.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Member wants to call it a terrible accusation, so be it but if he should ever serve in a Government, which I doubt, he would find that life is not so rosy as it looks from the Opposition Benches.
    Let me say a word, finally, about our programme to improve efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will no doubt discuss tomorrow our efforts to increase competition in defence procurement. The problem of defence equipment inflation at a faster rate than elsewhere in the economy, to which the Select Committee on Defence rightly draw attention, is, I believe, a product of our practice in defence contracting in the past, with too many contracts being placed on some form of cost-plus arrangement.
    If one wants to ensure that one's prices move up ahead of inflation, cost-plus contracting is the surest way to achieve it. I do not want to minimise the difficulties in moving towards more competition, particularly in areas of high technology. It is difficult to offer a global figure for savings when so few contracts placed in one year are comparable with contracts placed in the next year, but the results to date have been most encouraging.
    I told the House recently that, as a result of competition, we were able to buy the Royal Air Force's trainer replacement at a saving of about £60 million, or 35 per cent, less than the estimates upon which the Department had previously worked. Today I am able to announce a decision to place an order for 1,048 mechanised combat vehicles with Guest, Keen and Nettlefold and Sankey. The total programme cost of about £725 million shows a saving of over £100 million against our internal estimates and is a direct result of our policy of increasing competition throughout our procurement policies.
    The House may wonder just where, in practice, the concept of a defence price inflater came from. This is not a policy which will win universal acclaim from defence contractors, but their long-term viability depends upon their ability to remain competitive. It depends also upon their capacity to continue to match American defence technology.
    I do not believe that, in the years ahead, this will be feasible on a national basis, with one European country competing with another. The search for increases in collaboration is not simply concerned with achieving economy. The hugely fragmented European defence industry will not be a match for the competition, particularly with the likely impact in America of the strategic defence initiative programme, unless urgent efforts are made to eliminate wasteful duplication and to enhance co-operation on research and development. The meeting in London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred, of the independent European programme group next week will be an important test of the willingness of European defence Ministers to take concrete measures in these areas rather than simply to articulate aspirations and aims.
    Next week will also see a further meeting of defence Ministers, another matter about which my hon. Friend asked me, involved in the five-nation European fighter aircraft programme. It would be quite wrong of me to say that no differences remain between the collaborative partners. There are still very large differences of view, but I cannot emphasise too strongly the desire of the United Kingdom to bring about a successful collaborative fighter
    910
    aircraft programme that meets the air staff's requirements, and with equitable industrial arrangements. We in this country seek a true partnership.
    I would not expect my colleagues in Germany, France, Italy and Spain to attempt to explain away in their countries a deal that was against their national interests. I will certainly accept no such arrangement on behalf of this country. However, the longer that European resources are frittered away on overlapping research, development and production facilities at a national level, the longer we allow the major world powers to widen the technological gap that is already an awesome chasm.
    Finally, I draw attention to a third plank in our effort to make the most efficient use of defence resources: our drive to prune overheads and, to the maximum extent possible, to direct resources to the front line. The army's exercise Lean Look moves 4,000 men to the front line from the administrative tail. The Royal Navy is to find by increased efficiency the men necessary to man those eight destroyers and frigates wh*ich, under previous plans, were to have been placed in the standby squadron.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I am nearing the end of my speech. In the case of civilian staff, numbers at 1 April 1985 stood at about 174,000, some 74,000 lower than when this Government came to office, and some 7,000 lower than a year ago. The scale of this reduction and the willingness of our civilian staff to adapt to change in accordance with the Government's priorities are insufficiently appreciated. I am immensely grateful for the efforts that they make.
    The measures I have described to improve efficiency and to improve the competitiveness of our defence industrial base are of major importance, but they are not, and they never could be, my key responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to sustain the professionalism and the fighting power of our armed forces and to work with our allies to maintain a uniquely successful and long-lasting alliance for peace. The policies set out in the 1985 statement on the Defence Estimates are designed to achieve those aims. I commend them to the House.
    4.39 pm
    Mr. Denzil Da vies: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985, Cmnd. 9430, in particular the Government's policies of buying, at an ever-increasing cost, the Trident nuclear system, will inevitably lead to further damaging cuts in Britain's real defence and in our conventional contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; believes also, that in view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's present strategy of "first use" of nuclear weapons, a reduced conventional contribution will increase the risk of a nuclear war in Europe; calls upon the Government to cancel Trident, to remove all nuclear bases from the United Kingdom and work within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a substantial reduction in, and eventually the elimination of, battlefield nuclear weapons; notes with alarm the decline of the Merchant Navy; and urges the Government to take positive and immediate steps to arrest and reverse that decline.'.
    The Secretary of State made the speech that I had expected him to make. Indeed, it was not greatly different from his speech last year. I do not complain about the fact that he took an hour to make it, because there were many interventions. However, he failed to answer two questions

    911
    put to him by Opposition Members, and I hope that the answers will be forthcoming before the end of the debate. During that hour, the Secretary of State had a bash at the Russians, as he did last year. Then he started on the Labour party. Then we went to the Falkland Islands and to Hong Kong. We spent some time on the strategic defence initiative and arms control, and he spent about five minutes on the Select Committee's report about future programmes. The Secretary of State said that he would not attempt a line-by-line, figure-by-figure analysis of all the gloomy reviews. He has better things to do than that. He told us that, in the long term, everything would be all right. We do not know about the long term, but in the shorter term, which we can see easily, the Secretary of State will have serious problems with his defence budget.
    I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman about one thing. He made the point clearly that it is for the sovereign nations of NATO to make their decisions about their defence policies within the Alliance. He instanced the ending of the commitment to increase spending by 3 per cent. Indeed, President Reagan made a sovereign, unilateral decision, which turned NATO's strategy upside down, in relation to the SDI. We do not agree with it, but we accept the right of a sovereign Government to determine their own strategy.
    The White Paper, like last year's White Paper, does not deal with the real problems of defence policy and expenditure that will occur in the next few years. The only difference between last year's White Paper and this year's one is that another year has gone by and the time for difficult decisions is getting closer. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to hide behind MINIS, contracts and tenders. Difficult decisions will have to be taken by him or by his successor.
    It will come as no surprise to the House or to the Secretary of State if I say that the White Paper did not receive rave notices. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph the day after the White Paper was published stated:
    "Heseltine's Fudge. If the statement on the Defence Estimates were the accounts of a public company they would have at best sent the share price sliding and at worst been qualified by the auditors. The picture which Mr. Michael Heseltine… is trying to present to the world has only a passing resemblance to reality."
    During the same week, The Economist said:
    "This bland document has avoided all important decisions and contains no signposts to future defence policies … Mr. Michael Heseltine gives the impression that he does not grasp the problem."
    That is unfair to the Secretary of State. He grasps the problem in the sense that he understands it; he does not grasp it in the sense of having the courage to do something about it.
    Those were the first-night reviews. They have become worse. Yesterday morning, an editorial in the Daily Mail stated:
    "When two plus two makes three—are Britain's Defence Estimates a confidence trick?"
    It comes to the conclusion that they are.
    The worst condemnation comes from the Select Committee on Defence, over whose report the Secretary of State skated. The Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), bitterly criticised the Ministry of Defence for giving vague and evasive answers, and for not giving the Committee any information about future requirements. From my reading of the report, I have the clear suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman is up up to his old game of hiding behind national security when trying to avoid political
    912
    embarrassment to himself, to the Department and to the Government. It is not the first time that he has tried to do so in respect of Select Committees and inquiries in the House.
    The Secretary of State knows what the problem is. He may not be as brilliant at reading balance sheets as is the former chairman of the Conservative party and former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). We heard the other morning that he is extremely good at doing that. But the Secretary of State knows the score. He knows that he does not have enough money to pay for Trident and to maintain an adequate conventional capability in our defence. Although the right hon. Gentleman would not analyse the problem, I shall do so. It comes from two sources, the first being the public expenditure White Paper that was published in January. The phrases in his speech, including "value for money", "fighting for the taxpayer", and "making sure that the taxpayer gets a good deal", are a smokescreen for cuts. The problem also stems from the Government's decision to buy Trident.
    Last year, the Secretary of State lost the battle with the Chancellor, and we wait with interest to see what happens this year. We hear on the grapevine around the Palace of Westminster that this year will be stand-and-fight year. I have heard phrases such as, "Doing a Pym". That is not a reference to the recent footballing activities of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym). It is a reference to his time at the Ministry of Defence, where the folk memory is that he resisted cuts in conventional defence, thereby sowing the seeds, some people say, of his eventual demise. I do not know whether it is wise to adopt similar procedures, and no doubt the Secretary of State will decide for himself.
    However, once the Secretary of State conceded a zero growth budget for the years after this, it was inevitable that there would be cuts in defence expenditure. I shall try to show why.
    Dr. Hampson: Where are the cuts, and what are the alternative policies proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Davies: That was not up to the usual standard of the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I shall try to explain the cuts in a moment.
    After 1985–86, Britain will have a zero growth budget based on Treasury assumptions. The crucial assumption is the Treasury's figure for inflation, which is called the GDP deflator—I see the right hon. Member for Spelthorne nodding, so I must have got that right. The GDP deflator is not a forecast but half assumption, half forecast. This year, the figure is 5 per cent.; for next year, it will be 4·5 per cent.; and for the year after, it will be 3·5 per cent. I am talking about general inflation in the economy, not about defence inflation. If inflation exceeds those estimates, there will have to be cuts in defence expenditure, unless the Treasury changes the figures or it gives the Secretary of State more money, which is unlikely, since the figures relate not only to the Ministry of Defence but to all public expenditure by the Government.
    Let us assume that the Treasury figure is not exactly right and that inflation will be 5 per cent. this year, 5 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after. That is a fairly reasonable assumption. On the basis of those figures that will take away an extra £900 million, or 6 per cent.,

    913
    from the defence budget next year and the following year. That is where the cuts will come from, and the margin need only be 1 to 1.5 per cent, each year.
    Those figures do not take account of what is called defence inflation. All we can say about that is that generally in the past the increase in the cost of equipment has tended to be greater than the rise in inflation in the economy. I do not know why, but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has a point when he says that it is partly due to inefficiency and other reasons. I do not dispute that.
    Let us then assume that defence inflation for those two years is only 1 per cent, a year greater than the rate of inflation. That will put at least another £500 million on the defence budget in those two years—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State mutters, "No," but he should bear in mind that the Select Committee assumed a 2 per cent. defence inflation figure. Assuming that the general inflation targets in the economy are met, that 2 per cent. amounts to a reduction of £960 million. Again, that is around 6 per cent.
    Indeed, the chief of the general staff, Sir Edwin Bramall, said that it would be between about 4 and 7 per cent., and Mr. David Greenwood, a distinguished defence analyst who has not yet been attacked by the chairman of the Conservative party for heresy—I can therefore quote him—said that there will be a funding loss in excess of £2,000 million by 1988-89. It may not be as high as that, but even on different Conservative assumptions it is clear that the Secretary of State or his successor will be faced with a funding deficit — quite apart from Trident—of between £1,000 million and £2,000 million purely because of inflationary assumptions.
    That is a horrendous problem, but what about Trident —the Tory party's sacred cow, Trojan horse or cuckoo in the nest? Apparently we are to have a zero growth defence budget. In my view it will be a minus growth defence budget for the reasons that I have just given. But even a zero growth defence budget does not solve the problem of Trident. Over the next three years the costs of Trident will escalate, and by the end of the decade will rise by about £1,100 million a year.
    Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
    Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State could have denied that had he wished, because it was in the Select Committee report.
    Mr. Heseltine: I could stay on my feet a long time denying the rubbish to which we are listening, but when the right hon. Gentleman reads Hansard he will see that he said that the cost would go up by £1,100 million a year. In the peak year, the highest estimates for all the costs of Trident are about £1,000 million.
    Mr. Davies: I said that the cost would go up to that figure—[hon. members: "No."] Well that is what I meant to say. But it does not invalidate my case. The costs of Trident are now increasing rapidly, and it is no good the Secretary of State smiling because he thinks he has made a debating point. The fact remains that over the next few years the costs of Trident will escalate rapidly within a zero growth increase in the defence budget.
    If the defence budget increases by nothing and the costs of Trident increase rapidly, the money will have to come
    914
    from elsewhere in the defence budget. I should have thought that was pretty obvious, even to the Secretary of State. That money will have to come from the rest of the defence budget, and it can come only from hardware, equipment, stores, and supplies relating to conventional forces or from military and civilian manpower. The money cannot come from anywhere else, and the Secretary of State knows it.
    We have been told in the past that it was perfectly possible to accommodate Polaris and Chevaline—[AN hon. member: "It was the Labour Government who proposed Chevaline."] I do not deny it. I clearly mentioned it and I expected that sort of reaction. The Secretary of State said that in the past we managed to pay for Polaris out of the defence budget. The total cost of Polaris and Chevaline at 1984-85 prices came to £4.5 billion. If one compares exactly like with like, the total cost of Trident at 1984-85 prices on Government figures will be £9.2 billion. Therefore, Trident costs twice as much as Polaris, and it will account for a much greater proportion of the defence budget than Polaris and Chevaline ever did.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reasons that caused the Labour Government secretly to go for Chevaline are exactly the same as those that have caused the present Government—many of us believe rightly—to mantain a new independent nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Davies: I am sorry that I raised this matter. That intervention was wholly irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. I thought that we would have a fairly serious debate on the Defence Estimates and the White Paper, and the point I am trying to make is that Trident costs vastly more than Polaris.
    We have been told several times that although Tornado cost more than Trident the Government managed to pay for that. But Tornado was never paid for out of a zero growth defence budget. At the time when money was spent on the Tornado aircraft, we did not have a zero growth defence budget. Had that been attempted, there would have been the horrible problems which the Secretary of State will now have to face when the costs of Trident begin to escalate.
    Mr. Heseltine: As Tornado was largely financed out of a budget that was much smaller than the present budget, and as that cost much more than Trident, why is it so impossible to pay for Trident out of a much larger budget?
    Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State again misses the point. It is certainly possible to finance Trident out of the budget. All I am saying is that it cannot be financed without deep cuts in our conventional forces and our conventional contribution. In the case of Tornado, the budget was increasing every year. We shall now have a zero growth budget—effectively a minus growth budget —and it will not be possible to finance Trident out of it without substantial cuts in our conventional defence.
    We are not comparing like with like when we compare expenditure on Tornado with expenditure on Trident. Trident is a last resort weapon. It is an extraordinary defence policy when apparently the Secretary of State will have to reduce expenditure on front-line weapons of first resort such as tanks, ships and submarines in order to finance a weapon of last resort. That is a topsy-turvy way of running a defence policy.

    915
    The money will have to come out of the conventional budget — from equipment, spares, stores, fuel or manpower. If it came entirely from equipment it would mean a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. cut in the equipment budget. If it came entirely from manpower, it would mean a drop of about 30,000 in civilian manpower and 50,000 in military personnel, roughly equivalent to the British Army of the Rhine. I accept that it will not be done in that way, that there will be an attempt to spread the misery, but there will be manpower cuts and jobs losses. The Secretary of State talks about efficiency, but since the Government came to power, despite 2.5 to 3 per cent. growth in the defence budget, nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost in the military and civilian industries and areas of defence policy. If the cuts take place, that figure will almost certainly double in the next few years. There will be pay restraints, cuts in fuel and stocks, slowing down on acquisitions, and a running down of equipment beyond its economic and military life span.
    Viscount Cranborne: Is the Labour party advocating an increase or a decrease in defence expenditure?
    Mr. Davies: We are advocating the cancellation of Trident because we do not believe that it can be financed without cutting the conventional defence budget and our conventional contribution to NATO.
    The greatest burden will still fall on the Navy. The Navy will suffer again as it has suffered in the past because in many ways it is easier to reduce expenditure on the Navy. It is not possible to withdraw the British Army of the Rhine and in any case there would be no public expenditure saving. If the Secretary of State gets his European fighter aircraft, or 25 per cent. of it, at a cost of £6 billion or whatever, he will not want to cut that, so the cuts will fall on the Navy— on frigates, landing ships, submarines and all the equipment used by the Royal Navy.
    The Secretary of State said that he intends to maintain orders for three type 23 frigates per year. That will cost almost £500 million. The Government will have to do a great deal better than they have done in the past five years, because that is twice what the Government ordered between 1979 and 1984. In addition, there will be £850 million for amphibious ships required by the marines in Norway as well as the cost of replacing out-of-date equipment and conventional submarines which have become too noisy. We are being asked to believe that all this can be done with a zero growth defence budget, while the cost of Trident escalates rapidly at the same time. No one believes that and it is unworthy of the Secretary of State to pretend that he can do it by means of various devices or wheezes.
    The Navy is easy to cut because, unlike the Army and the Air Force, it has never fitted easily into NATO's overall defence strategy.
    Sir Patrick Wall: That is ridiculous.
    Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to my argument before saying that it is ridiculous. NATO's strategy has always been and still is that conventional war in Europe will be short. The massive superiority that the Soviet Union is supposed to have—
    Mr. Stefan Terlezki: It does have massive superiority.
    Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. He can challenge me later if he wishes.
    The massive superiority that the Soviet Union is supposed to have means that conventional war in Europe is estimated to last no more than six or seven days, after which we use the battlefield nuclear weapons. If that is so, there is no point in having a navy because it takes 10 days for the transport ships to come over from the United States, by which time the war will be over at least in its conventional form. That has been NATO's thinking for a very long time and the Navy does not fit well into that kind of thinking.
    The reality is quite different. Although there is superiority in certain areas, there is not any great overall superiority in the Warsaw pact. I believe that if war ever comes—we hope that it never will—it will be a war of attrition in central Europe and will last much longer than the five to 10 days currently envisaged by the NATO planners. In a war of that kind, a navy and especially a navy in the Atlantic is extremely important.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on completely wrong hypotheses. As a member of the NATO Assembly. I have spoken to a great many people and I know, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will confirm, that no one in NATO is making such assumptions. If the hon. Gentleman will put forward a sensible argument, we are quite willing to have a sensible debate.
    Mr. Davies: Of course such assumptions are made. The situation may be changing now, but that was the original reason for the battlefield nuclear weapon—to make up the difference between Stalin's hordes and Western conventional defences. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong, he can make his own arguments in his own speech.
    The Navy will therefore suffer again as it has suffered in the past.
    Sir Patrick Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Eastlant, NATO is 80 per cent. dependent on the Royal Navy, particularly in the first three days? Has he never heard of the GIUK gap or the 190 nuclear submarines in the Soviet northern fleet? All those things are at the heart of NATO's strategy. The hon. Gentlenan clearly has no concept of NATO's maritime strategy.
    Mr. Davies: I understand that very well, but I know from my conversations with the people concerned that they do not have enough ships. Because the Navy does not fit easily into that kind of strategy for a continental war, it is always easier to impose cuts on the Navy.
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to get the signals to the Fleet wrong on this. When we are fighting this land war in Europe, how are we to get the stores across the Atlantic to support the armed battle without ships defended by the navies of the Western Alliance?
    Mr. Davies: That is exactly my point. That is the case for the Navy. The Secretary of State is in no position to talk about stores because he will be cutting conventional defence so we shall not be able to make that kind of contribution by positioning stores in western Europe so that it is unnecessary to bring so much across the Atlantic.

    917
    The motion also refers to the decline of the Merchant Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will deal with that aspect tomorrow. I wish to deal with the subject of battlefield nuclear weapons because they are extremely dangerous and, as the Secretary of State admitted in evidence to the Select Committee, they are at the core of NATO's strategy. On this issue, this year's White Paper is as distressing as the White Papers last year and the year before. We believe that over a period NATO should get itself into a position to change its present strategy of first use of nuclear weapons. We agree with the article published by General Sir John Hackett in the International Defence Review last year. He said:
    "I am totally persuaded that the defence of Western Europe must be, however it is conceived, conventional."
    In the past few years, there have been signs of some movement within the NATO bureaucracy to try to move away from reliance on battlefield nuclear weapons. General Rogers has made a number of speeches emphasising the need to strengthen conventional defence and some -action has been taken. Some of us, perhaps naively, -saw this as a small step away from reliance on battlefield nuclear weapons. At Montebello in 1983 NATO ministers agreed to reduce these weapons by 1,400 to 4,600 and to remove completely all atomic demolition mines.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the concept of first use is made necessary by the conventional imbalance? Is he suggesting, therefore, that the NATO countries should spend the same proportion of their economy on defence as the Warsaw pact countries spend?
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that intervention. We can argue about how it should be achieved, but if there were a conventional balance there would be no need for battlefield nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State would not agree with that, and nor would Lord Carrington or General Rogers. I detect a feeling—the Secretary of State said this to the Select Committee—that we must still have battlefield nuclear weapons, even if we had a conventional balance between the Warsaw pact and NATO.
    Some of us thought that there would be some relaxation on the nuclear side as a result of speeches by General Rogers and of the Montebello agreement. I might be being unfair, but it looks as though that was a smokescreen for strengthening and increasing the lethality of battlefield nuclear weapons and was not a genuine attempt to move away from their use and closer to a better conventional balance.
    Apparently, the new weapons are far more lethal and have a much greater range than the older ones. The atomic demolition mines, which are to be taken away, were a greater danger to the German population and our soldiers than to the enemy. I understand from newspaper reports —perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm this—that the Government are considering another mine which is to be called the advanced atomic mine, or ADAM for short. It is extremely sophisticated because it can be carried in a rucksack. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, will resist bringing another ADAM to the Ministry of Defence.
    918
    I do not know whether the Government are thinking along these lines, but they should tell the House far more about their plans for battlefield nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State mentioned the new 155 mm atomic shell. Will the Government decide whether to accept it for the British Army of the Rhine? Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us whether the matter is under active consideration. Perhaps he could tell us what decision will be taken. Many members of the United States Congress have said that we have agreed to the modernisation of those weapons.
    Mr. Keith Speed: Does the right hon. Gentleman include nuclear depth charges in those strictures? If he does, how will he deal with modern Soviet submarines which are virtually unsinkable by conventional weapons?
    Mr. Davies: I fully understand that, in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, what has been suggested is included. I was considering battlefield nuclear weapons in that central zone of Europe where they are especially dangerous. Both sides have them, and we argue that both sides should remove them as far away from the border as possible because of the danger of war breaking out and of those weapons being used.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman understands the tactical need for these weapons, will he ensure that the Americans are still allowed to base none of them in Britain for the protection of our submarines?
    Mr. Davies: We have said clearly that we will not accept American nuclear weapons on British soil. Such a decision must be taken by a sovereign British Government. I agreed with the Secretary of State when he said that it is ultimately the prerogative of sovereign Governments to take that decision.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there is no legitimate deterrence against this form of Soviet weapon and that our submarines cannot be protected except by this nuclear capability, what sort of protection will he offer our submarines?
    Mr. Davies: I did not say that. I said, in regard to battlefield nuclear weapons in central Europe, that there is a serious problem because Warsaw pact and NATO troops are so close together. If war broke out in that part of Europe, it could easily become a nuclear war, which would raise the problems of political control.
    Mr. Speed: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need for nuclear depth charges?
    Mr. Davies: We have said clearly that we will not accept American nuclear bases on British soil.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: So what protection will the right hon. Gentleman give?
    Mr. Davies: We understand NATO strategy, which is based on flexible response. The weapons that the hon. Gentleman talks about are part of NATO strategy. My party has made it clear that it wants to work in NATO to change that strategy because we believe that it is out of date.
    Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: No. My speech will be as long as the Secretary of State's if I continue to give way. I should like

    919
    finally to consider the strategic defence initiative. I believe that it will be extremely difficult to prevent the star wars initiative from becoming an arms race in space. We agree with the Government's analysis and with the analysis in the lecture that the Foreign Secretary gave about the dangers and the philosophical inconsistencies in star wars. I do not believe that it will be easy to stop star wars. I do not accept the rather simplistic distinction that the Government try to draw between research and develop-ment. If anybody believes that American industry will stop at research and not go on to development, they have not read about or understood what has happened in the arms race during the past 30 years.
    Star wars fits perfectly into the American psyche because it tries to wrestle with difficult moral problems. I respect that side of it. It is an enormous moral problem to base defence policy on mutually assured destruction. Stars wars rejects that, the Government's policy, and therefore NATO strategy. Star wars is part of the American dream and the belief that technology can solve moral and political problems. Moreover, a lot of money will be made out of it. I find it extremely difficult to believe that, when those three factors come together, the star wars project will be stopped at research.
    Many people who have created star wars regard it as an attempt on the part of the United States to return to the golden age of the 1950s when that country had superiority in nuclear weapons. Caspar Weinberger said it clearly. He is reported to have said:
    "If we can get a system which is effective, we will be back in the situation we were in when we were the only nation with a nuclear weapon".
    That is quite clearly an attempt to gain nuclear superiority. It cannot be gained on earth any more because Russia will try to catch up. I should like the Government to show a little more resolution and to come out with other European Governments in NATO and say, "We do not favour star wars and are not prepared to participate in the research and we believe that it will lead to another nuclear arms race."
    Perhaps I might conclude by quoting a distinguished American scientist, Professor William E. Burrows, who wrote in the Spectator of 30 March:
    "But where is this race likely to end? American fighting mirrors, laser battle stations, space planes and manned attack platforms will sooner or later co-inhabit the heavens with their Soviet counterparts. Orbiting lasers made in California will be closely followed by space mines made in Yaroslavl, and although the lasers may be technically superior to the mines, that will count for little or nothing if the mines do their job at the crucial moment. It will therefore be deemed imperative to develop weapons that can attack the mines before they attack the lasers that are supposed to attack the ICBMs that are launched to attack the cities and silos. The prospect—now nearly at hand—of extending the vast and intricate network of super-sensitive warning systems and hairtrigger explosives hundreds and thousands of miles straight up is stupefying. The earth itself will have been turned into a gigantic orbiting bomb."
    That is an extremely realistic assessment of what will happen, and I hope that the British Government will say that they will have no part in it.
    The choice presented by the White Paper is clear and simple. We can have strong conventional forces and no Trident or weak conventional defences and Trident. The Government have chosen to have Trident. We believe that that choice diminishes the defence and security of Britain and increases the risk of nuclear war in Europe.:
    5.20 pm
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the debate he referred to the fact that the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am Chairman, had commented that he did not devote very much space in the White Paper to broad policy issues. However, he spent quite a bit of the first part of his speech doing that, for which I was grateful. I hoped we might hear something of the same from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) but we heard nothing of the kind. I do not have the faintest idea what he thinks about policy except that he does not understand NATO policy at sea. The right hon. Gentleman did a good deal of reading from newspapers — whether they form the basis of Labour party policy or not, I do not know There was some questioning of my right hon. Friend, perfectly properly, but the right hon. Gentleman quoted many figures and got most of them wrong. He would do much better to stick to the figures in the Select Committee report, which are correct. It is unfortunate that his are not. He should follow our figures rather than invent some of his own, which are demonstrably wrong.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Demonstrate that they are wrong then.
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman said that three type 23 frigates would cost £500 million. They do not, and this is stated in the White Paper. They cost £110 million each. If he cannot multiply 110 by three he should not be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. According to the Opposition's amendment, the Labour Party's policy is to cancel Trident, to remove all nuclear bases from the United Kingdom and not to allow nuclear depth charges anywhere near the country, to do away with battlefield nuclear weapons and do something about the Merchant Navy.
    I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman say one word about our conventional forces. Does he think they are the right size, too big or too small? He should have spoken about that. No doubt when the debate is wound up by one of his hon. Friends we shall be let into the secret. That is all we know, at the moment, about Labour party policy —cancel Trident, get rid of nuclear bases, and hope for the best. At least the amendment which has been tabled by the leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) does not go quite as far as that. He also wants to cancel Trident but he wants to strengthen Britain's conventional defence. I am sure that he will tell us, if he is called, by how much he thinks it is necessary to strengthen Britain's conventional defence to provide the same level of deterrence that is provided by Trident. How many divisions, how many ships and how many aircraft will that involve, and what will be the cost? If that is his proposition, he owes it to the House to elaborate it, and I hope and believe that he will.
    My right hon. Friend spoke about the comments made in the report by the Select Committee, but before I refer to those comments I want to speak about something that was not in our report. Nowhere in our report do we quarrel with the Government's assessment of the level of defence that it is necessary for us in the West to maintain
    Annex A of the defence White Paper, which I do not think the right hon. Member for Llanelli has read, sets out starkly the balance of forces between the Warsaw pact and NATO. In every area except one, the Warsaw pact

    921
    countries have a superiority over NATO. In nuclear terms, they have more strategic systems, more intermediate systems and more short-range systems. In conventional terms they have more soldiers, twice as many tanks, twice as many aircraft and more than twice as much artillery. At sea, they have twice as many submarines. In surface warships in the north and in maritime aircraft, NATO enjoys, for the time being, a marginal superiority. The Warsaw pact has total superiority in chemical weapons. It has hundreds of thousands of tonnes and we have none.
    If ever there was an example of the futility of unilateral disarmament gestures, this is it. Nearly 30 years ago—I think it was in 1957 — Britain decided not to use chemical weapons and disposed of all that it had. We threw them into the Atlantic. The only response was the continuation of the Russian research, development and production of these fearful weapons, so that we are now at a total disadvantage. If anyone seriously believes that gestures of unilateral disarmament work, I can only say that he needs his head examined. History shows that such gestures do not work.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of manufacturing the same gases and chemical warfare weapons that the Russians possess?
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, Sir. I am in favour of preventing them from being used. The West has prevented those or any other weapons being used against it for 40 years by employing the nuclear deterrent. The idea that, with a grand gesture, one can throw away a weapon and expect a potential enemy to do the same has no basis in history. We all wish that this state of affairs did not exist, but it does. It is the height of irresponsibility to seek to diminish the level of defences that is set out in the White Paper.
    The second point I want to make, which is not spelt out in our report, is that we recognise and applaud the efforts that the Secretary of State is making to improve efficiency and to obtain better value for money. He mentioned a number of them and they are noted in our report.
    The transfer of manpower from tail to teeth is still proceeding. The contracting out of functions has produced some savings and will produce more. The increasing number of purchases of equipment by competitive tendering, which my right hon. Friend spoke of, is increasing, although I must confess to a doubt as to what level that has reached. The White Paper speaks of something like 60 per cent. but the only figures I can find suggest a level of about 38 per cent. No doubt that is something with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement can deal later. There are prospects of savings by international collaboration and no doubt the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence will produce some savings too. I accept that it is too early to judge the extent of the savings that will flow from these efforts but they could and should produce useful ones, thereby enabling us to have more defence for the same money, which is what we all want.
    The Government told us in the 1984 public expenditure White Paper that after the current year, no extra money will be available for defence. That was the starting point of the Select Committee's inquiry. The Committee took the Government's statement to mean that there would be no growth in real terms or, to put it another way, that there
    922
    would be level funding in real terms. That leaves aside Falklands-related expenditure, which has always been additional and which will be declining. The Select Committee took evidence to try to determine what the Government's policy would mean in terms of trying to defend ourselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, pounds do not defend us; we are defended by the weapons and the manpower that the pounds buy.
    The Committee discovered, as it has reported and as everyone knows, that level funding in real terms does not mean what many take it to mean. We were given three reasons for this, and they were not those elaborated by the right hon. Member for Llanelli. First, the cash which is available each year is adjusted from year to year by means of the GDP deflator. That involves a guess or an estimate of or an allowance for increases in the retail price index.I am sure that in theory that mechanism can produce the
    same level of funding.
    However, what the right hon. Member for Llanelli may have missed, but what my right hon. Friend knows only too well and has spoken about, is that the prices of tanks and guns increase more quickly than those of motor cars and cookers. I do not know why that is so, but my right hon. Friend has given some reasons why this happens. Over the past 10 years, the increase in price over the RPI, which is called the relative price effect, has been nearly2 per cent. That involves a great deal of money and the difference that it makes in any year is over £500 million. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Committee's figures. They are not the Committee's figures. They are his. Every figure that the Committee quoted was given to it in evidence by him or his officials. The Committee has merely written them down and added them up.
    The second reason, of course, is the fact that the defence budget is sensitive to the exchange rate. The document before us today assumes a rate of $1.38 to the pound. We are all aware that the rate today is about $1.26. That makes a difference of £180 million.
    The third reason is the cash allowance for pay. That is at a figure of 3 per cent. per annum. The Committee was told in evidence that every 1 per cent. above that costs £31 million at 1983-84 prices. Last week's events precisely illustrate our anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last Thursday that as from 1 April this year service pay would be increased—as recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body — and would add 7.3 per cent. to the pay bill. No one grudges the services a penny of that increase, but where will the money come from? The Prime Minister gave the answer. She said:
    "The additional costs … will be offset by economies or reductions elsewhere in the defence programme." — [Official Report, 6 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 194.]
    At 1983–84 prices, the additional costs over the 3 per cent. allowed come to £133 million.
    Perhaps I might remind the House—
    Mr. Douglas: One type 23 frigate.
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: I was going to remind the House that it is rather more than the cost of a type 23, which is given as £110 million, or, if the House prefers, it is slightly more than the cost of the 130 Tucano trainers that the Royal Air Force is buying from Short Bros Ltd.
    Dr. Hampson: My right hon. Friend raised an interesting point yesterday in his questioning of Mr.

    923
    Levene. It is a pity that the point was not pursued. At the end of five years, Mr. Levene was hoping to have a 10 per cent. reduction in his budget which, on a cumulative basis, means savings of billions of pounds on procurement at a time when he is running a budget of £8 billion to £9 billion.
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: My hon. Friend may have been looking over my shoulder when I was making my notes. I wonder whether he will allow me to come to that point in a moment.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Was the figure of £960 million, which the Select Committee used as a deficit figure, arrived at on the basis of the Treasury's GDP deflator assumptions on inflation or on higher figures? Did the Committee assume that there will be no slippage in terms of general inflation?
    Sir Humphrey Atkins: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the document. The figure is not £960 million; it is £970 million. He will find on page 32 how we arrived at that calculation. It is not difficult.
    The Committee used the figures that it obtained from the Treasury with the assumptions that the Committee made about the GDP deflator. It would be much quicker if the right hon. Gentleman would do me that courtesy. I mentioned the frigate. The Committee expressed anxiety about the rate of frigate ordering. My right hon. Friend mentioned it. It gave us enormous satisfaction last year when he announced that he was reversing the policy of his predecessor, Sir John Nott, and was going to keep 50 frigates in the active fleet. The trouble is that many of them are becoming old.
    I understand that frigates last 25 years. By 1991, 18 of our fleet of destroyers and frigates will be that old. There are 11 on order at the moment. To keep up our numbers, a further seven must be ordered, not before 1991 but in time to be in service by 1991. I think that I am right in saying — I am open to correction—that they take the best part of five years from ordering to joining the fleet. That means that they must be ordered by the end of next year if my right hon. Friend is to live up to his undertaking. He may say that he only needs to order five because we have 52 and he undertook to keep 50. That is a point that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to elaborate a little further when he replies, because that was my right hon. Friend's undertaking and we are anxious that it is apparently not being met at the moment. We should like to hear that it is.
    I should like to return to the subject of level funding, which we are asked to accept and which turns out to be a diminution in the money available, as best we can calculate, of £970 million—6.1 percent. of the total.
    There seem to be three ways in which that gap can be covered. The first is a further reduction in the number of civilians employed. My right hon. Friend has announced his target of reducing the number of civilians employed by a further 8,000 by 1988. That will save him something under £100 million. The second is a further contracting out. I do not know how much of that can be done. It may be a little but I question whether those two together come to more than £200 million. We therefore fall back on competition.
    My right hon. Friend recently appointed Mr. Peter Levene as the chief of defence procurement. He gave evidence to the Committee yesterday afternoon in public
    924
    —anyone could have come to listen and some people did — and he was asked how much he could save by introducing policies of futher competition. Naturally, he could not give a figure as he had not been in position long enough to make such a projection.
    If about another £800 million in savings are needed, that is almost 10 per cent, of the procurement budget. My right hon. Friend will agree that not all the procurement budget is susceptible to competition, although he is an enthusiastic supporter of competition. This is an enormous saving, and my right hon. Friend believes he can make it. I hope that he can, but I hope he realises the considerable task that he has set Mr. Levene.
    Theoretically, it would be possible to save money on manpower. However, the Committee took evidence from many people, including the principal military adviser to the Government, the chief of the defence staff, Field-Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall, who told us several times that he could see no room for further reductions in manpower. If the Government accept the field-marshal's advice, all the saving must come from equipment. As I have said, my right hon. Friend appeared confident that he could make this saving, and I only hope he can.
    Finally, little has been said in the debate or in the White Paper about service men and women. There are not many of them, but they carry a tremendous burden. This country is different from others. The Committee members were recently in Norway and we visited neutral Sweden. Both those countries have what they call the concept of total defence. That means that the defence of the country is everyone's business. They have compulsory national service, but everyone, whether in the services or not, regards it as their business to lend a hand with defence in the military sector or, when they grow older, in the civil defence sector.
    That has never been the case in this country. Defence in this country has always been the business of the few people we hire to carry it out for us—the services. We have fine services and we must make sure that they get the best equipment and training, proper pay and all the support that we can give them. Our services are small, but I often recall the story, which may be apocryphal, of two naval ships passing in mid-Atlantic. The American ship signalled to the British ship, "Greetings from the largest navy in the world." The reply came back, almost at once, "Greetings from the best."
    We have the best Navy and the best forces, and it would be wrong not to pay tribute to them.
    5.40 pm
    Dr. David Owen: I have no difficulty joining the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) in paying tribute to all three of our armed services. The quality of our service men and women is exceptional.
    We can all be pleased that since 1977 we have fulfilled our obligations to improve the conventional forces of NATO better than any other country in western Europe. However, the debate focuses on the main issue facing this country, which is what is to happen to our defence spending after 1986.
    The Select Committee will have done a great service if it has awoken the House and the country to the reality that stares us in the face. As the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said, decisions have been announced in public

    925
    expenditure White Papers for the past two years and some of us have been trying to draw attention to the problems that will face this country in a year's time.
    The House now has the opportunity to face the reality. The Select Committee's report is devastating. Let us be under no illusions and let us have no more talk about level or stable funding. It is clear that from 1986 onwards the defence budget will be falling inexorably and remorselessly.
    If we pursue the Trident nuclear option, the cuts in our conventional defence spending will be even greater. The Secretary of State inherited the Trident decision, but he must realise that if the Government or the country wish to pursue that decision—I believe that it was a mistake and I have opposed it since 1977—they must find the extra resources to maintain our conventional defence forces. We cannot duck that choice.
    The Select Committee concludes that planned defence commitments cannot be met within planned levels of spending. It says that beyond 1985-86, the defence budget will fall in real terms by 0.5 per cent. in 1986-87 and 0.7 per cent. in 1987-88, on a Falklands-exclusive basis. The Committee believes that the ending of the 3 per cent. real increase in spending will lead to
    "cancellations, slowing-down of acquisitions and the running on of equipment beyond its economic life span."
    The report concludes that better management and savings through efficiency reforms will not be sufficient to avoid a decline in "overall capability" and the possible "elimination of a major commitment."
    The report comes before the House with all-party support and, by any standards, it is a devastating criticism. The Secretary of State should have devoted much more of his speech to grappling with the issues. The report highlights a major gap between what is planned for defence spending and what the Government are making available. It estimates that the real reduction in defence spending by 1987-88 will be £970 million, compared with the 1985-86 budget — a cut of 6.1 per cent. on a Falklands-exclusive basis. That is made up of a sterling-dollar depreciation of 2 per cent., pay awards exceeding the Government's target by 1 per cent. and a higher rate of inflation in defence equipment costs — the relative price effect—of 3.1 per cent.
    The right hon. Member for Spelthorne was right to remind us that the report is, if anything, unduly optimistic, despite presenting the figures that I have given as a worst-case scenario. We heard last week of the armed forces pay award of 7.3 per cent., costing £200 million per annum and exceeding by 4 per cent. the Government's target; the Select Committee report assumes only a 2 per cent. overshoot.
    The Select Committee report also assumes a sterling-dollar exchange rate of $1.26 and the rate last week fluctuated between $1.24 and $1.26. I agree that it is almost impossible to predict exchange rates, but the figure in the Select Committee's report was a fairly generous assumption.
    The report assumes increases in defence equipment costs of 3.1 per cent. above inflation, but many senior and serious figures who have examined the escalation of defence expenditure pitch the figure much higher. One does not have to go all the way with David Greenwood
    926
    —whose unit in Aberdeen has done some good work— who claims that the figure should be 6 per cent., but I am sure that 3.1 per cent. is an underestimate.
    The Secretary of State is right to claim some credit for his drive for cost-efficiency savings. We all recognise that a long overdue extra effort has been put in into that area. I have been violently critical of the way in which Mr. Levene was appointed. It was a disgrace to the Civil Service and to the House, but he is there and we had better accept him. We must hope that he can produce savings to justify his salary and the manner in which he was appointed.
    Let us examine where our existing spending on conventional defence has brought us, even with the extra money that has been put in over the past 10 years. I do not agree with all the strictures in a recent article in The Economist, but it is worth considering how a fairly objective source views our defence effort. It said:
    "The … Army is already the most poorly equipped of all the main armies on NATO's Central Front. It has less heavy artillery than the Dutch; fewer tanks than the French, the West Germans or the Americans (in Europe); and a lop-sided anti-aircraft system based entirely on missiles—no guns at all. It needs more equipment than is now in its long-term plans—not less."
    Many people will be arguing for a replacement for our fighter aircraft, but it is not even in the long term costings. That is the undisclosed problem. All the senior service men know that they cannot have, on current plans, the fighter aircraft. The Secretary of State and his officials are right to negotiate for a European replacement, but the aircraft is not in the long-term costings. If that is to go in, what will come out?
    The Secretary of State has refused to answer questions about the replacement for Fearless and Intrepid. He seemed to think that the Royal Marines were putting undue pressures on him, but many of us saw in 1980 and 1981 that the Royal Marines were nearly taken out during the Nott review and we are not prepared to sit back and say nothing about our fear that a squeeze will be put on an element of our armed forces which often does not have strong support in the Ministry of Defence.
    We have the right to say that we believe that the amphibious wing is an essential element of our defence forces. We want reassurance that there will be a replacement for Fearless and Intrepid. Perhaps it will have to be a cheaper ship, because it is hard to see how we can replace those ships with another of the same type.
    The Herald Tribune, which is usually reliable, carried a report of the recent meeting of NATO's Defence Ministers. It said:
    "The ministers also reaffirmed, as expected, their long-standing goal of increasing each member country's military spending by at least 3 per cent. a year after inflation."
    I could not believe that, so I got hold of a copy of the communiqué of the meeting of Ministers. The Spanish Minister put in a reservation and I was sure that our Secretary of State must have done so. Not a bit of it. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to come to the House and tell us that he still reaffirms that commitment.
    The resource guidance in the communique says:
    "Notwithstanding the above efforts to improve the output from existing expenditures it will be necessary to increase the allocation of resources to defence in real terms with most nations achieving rates of real increase higher than those in the past…The 3 per cent. formula is confirmed as a general guide."

    927
    It is not fair, reasonable or honest for the Secretary of State to be a signatory to that communiqué without making the facts clear to his allies and friends.
    Last Monday, when I visited Congress, I asked some of the senior people there whether they knew what was happening to the British defence budget. They had not a clue. They had not absorbed what would happen between 1986 and 1988. [Interruption.] I talked to senior people there. They all paid tribute to the fact that during the past 10 years Britain had been the best contributor to NATO's defence budget. Now there will be absolute reductions.
    Mr. Michael Mates rose—
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech in his own way, if he has different information on that.
    Mr. Mates: I do not know who the right hon. Gentleman saw in Washington, but two months ago our Committee was there and we met the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the House, which were fully aware of what we were about to do. Indeed, we discussed the fact that the Americans were about to have to do the same.
    Dr. Owen: If the Americans make defence cuts as deep as those we are making in Europe, we in Europe shall have to face serious effects. I repeat my remark that the senior people of Congress to whom I have spoken have not faced up to the reality of how deep the cuts will be. When they do, there will be a serious backlash. Indeed, it is only recently that this House has begun to face up to that.
    This is the last year in which we can make a decision not to go ahead with Trident without effectively pouring money down the drain. The Government must reassess the Trident decision. The Economist stated about the cancellation of Trident:
    "If the government fails to do it, it will be condemning the conventional forces to damaging cuts in both numbers and effectiveness. There is no sensible alternative to solid conventional forces, whereas there are sensible-if-second-best alternatives to the Trident nuclear deterrent."
    I have never denied that if one compares Trident with other systems in terms of sophistication, capacity to penetrate anti-ballistic missile defences, and having sea room for submarines, Trident is the best system available. There is no question about that. I am extremely glad that the United States has the Trident submarine missile system, as we all should be.
    The United Kingdom however, will pay a heavy price if we pursue the Trident system. We must face up to that for many reasons.
    Dr. Hampson: What about the The Sunday Times?
    Dr. Owen: The Sunday Times can have its views. All quotes are selective, and the hon. Gentleman must know that. We can produce many different newspapers and, indeed, we could start quoting from the Morning Star, if we really wanted to.
    The House must assess the best balance of defence spending for a country which faces serious economic difficulties, and which is no longer a super-power. Many of us see a value in retaining a nuclear deterrent, if we can possibly afford it, have supported and will continue to support Polaris, but are prepared to admit that Trident is not a natural follow-on from Polaris. It represents a substantial increase in cost, megatonnage and warhead numbers.
    928
    There are other options, which must be studied. There is the straight option of replacing Polaris. Although that is difficult, British Aerospace believes that it could do that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) can make his own speech. I would not choose that Polaris option. We must discuss the matter with the French. It is outrageous that we in western Europe can pursue western European defence in the Western European Union in complete isolation. The present dialogue between Germany and France is more intimate, with far greater exchange of information and even strategic thinking, than that between Britain and France. We should certainly study the M5 missile, which the French will order to replace their M4 missile. I doubt whether there will be much difference in cost. The United States navy is already using another option, which is to have cruise missiles and to put them on to submarines. Further options are land-based or air-launched cruise missiles. They are all serious options.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: No.
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head and disagree, but he was party to the original decisions. Many hon. Members and people in the armed services, such as admirals, generals and air marshals, believe that it is time that the issue was reassessed because the price is so formidable.
    I fear that if we cling to the belief that it is Trident or no other nuclear deterrent in the United Kingdom, we may end up with nothing. If we want to be reminded of that, we need only read the motion in the name of the leader of the Labour party. I do not find it difficult to understand why he signed the motion, but I have difficulty in understanding why the right hon. Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) signed it. After the election he seemed to be aware that there were reasons for the Labour party's defeat. In an article in The Times in July 1983 he wrote:
    "the notion that we might give up our nuclear protection if others did not do the same was overwhelmingly rejected.
    Opposition to our policy was intensified by the confusion that surrounded our proposals. We said that NATO remained our protection. But we refused to accept our NATO obligations."
    In July 1984 an article in The Times stated that when the right hon. Gentleman commented on the new Labour Party defence paper he said:
    "for Britain to play a non-nuclear role and remain a proper member of NATO, as provided for in Labour's defence policy, contained 'a certain ambiguity which we have got to resolve'."
    It appears that he has resolved that ambiguity by giving up. He has put his name to a resolution that we should remove all nuclear bases from the United Kingdom.
    The devastating consequences of that need to be faced. It is reasonable and understandable to argue, as many people will argue, that we cannot afford to remain a nuclear weapon state. But to argue that NATO should not retain nuclear weapons and, as a principal ally of the United States, to argue that we should not facilitate the United States remaining a nuclear weapon state, and that we should back away from the nuclear deterrence of NATO is an outrage.
    When the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who tried to weave his way through an impossible task, was asked about nuclear depth charges, he was completely floored. I am talking not only about United States nuclear depth charges, but British ones. Are we not to allow the Navy to use British nuclear depth charges, which is about

    929
    the only weapon system capable of dealing with deep-diving Soviet nuclear submarines? They are one of the most serious threats to merchant shipping in a war. The right hon. Gentleman argues that a war in Europe will continue for a longer time than was thought. If that is so, we must ensure tht we have stores and conventional back-up to sustain Europe. He was right to point out that, if that happens, our Navy will need not only ships, but the weapon systems to deal with the Soviet Union and its ever-increasing weaponry sophistication. Does the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that the Navy should not be allowed to use nuclear depth charges?
    There is the extraordinary question about battlefield nuclear weapons. I have long argued against them, and that we should withdraw them from within 150 km of the East-West frontier. That should be done as a British and NATO decision. Britain should argue for it, but it should be a collective decision within NATO. One can afford to take battlefield nuclear weapons out if one has intermediate missiles in Europe. We must face that. We cannot possibly withdraw battlefield nuclear weapons from a 150 km zone and have no United States based nuclear deterrents in Europe.
    We should recognise that, having taken the NATO modernisation decision, it allows us to withdraw battlefield nuclear weapons. The criticism of NATO strategy is that although it almost accepts the worry that many of us have about the early use of nuclear weapons and the problem of "use or lose" by having nuclear weapons close to what could be an accidental border incident, we have the capacity with cruise missiles to remove battlefield weapons. As the House knows, it should be possible to take out Pershing II as part of negotiations on our intermediate range nuclear forces. It was always part of the modernisation decision that it was neccessary not merely because of the SS20, but for a United States presence in Europe with nuclear weapons.
    Thus it was always slightly false to say that, if the Soviets withdrew all their SS20s, we would withdraw all our cruise and Pershings. In the arms control negotiations it would be much better to return to the "walk in the woods" formula.
    The Secretary of State was right to praise President Reagan's recent decision to continue SALT II. If President Reagan is going for a serious arms control agreement, he will have to take several decisions that Mr. Weinberger and his hitherto Right-wing Republican friends will not like. It was important that, in keeping to the numerical limits of SALT, President Reagan not only made that decision, but said the he was prepared to dismantle the Poseidon submarine. The negotiations in Geneva will be very difficult, and every pressure will be put on the western members of Nato in order to split them apart. But as long as the United States is negotiating seriously, and is not breaking the SALT II treaty limits, and as long as the President—who never supported that treaty anyway —is within those limits, we are in the serious ball park of proper negotiations. Of course, the Soviet Union will use propaganda. In many senses, the United States does the same — [Interruption.] Of course it does, and everybody knows it. There is a propaganda battle going on for public opinion on both sides.
    But the serious negotiations will be those that we do not hear about. They will be back-channel negotiations, and
    930
    they will not come until the middle of next year. We probably will not hear much serious output until the end of next year. But it is vital that we should keep to the strategy of negotiating for deep cuts, and that the SDI should be seen as something that is done for research and development way into the future. The United States and the Soviet Union have been carrying out such research for more than 15 years, but because it was hyped up by the so-called star wars speech, everything has got out of proportion.
    It is perfectly clear to most people that the deep cuts negotiating strategy is still viable and credible, and an essential step in creating confidence in the United States that there could never be any Soviet first strike potential. It is very much in NATO's interest that we should hold the United States to that negotiating strategy. Moreover, it is very much in the interests of western Europe that we should not be seduced into supporting the Reagan concept of the SDI—the impervious defence—by being sucked into the research and development. We shall not get any of the serious research and development anyway, as most of it will be highly classified and kept in the United States.
    It was a good decision to support the EUREKA programme, which is a predominantly civilian programme. It was also a good decision to invest in science and technology that is co-ordinated throughout western Europe. Indeed, the Secretary of State rightly attaches great importance to that. Hon. Members would be most unwise to feel that we were strengthening the Alliance by pursuing and supporting too enthusiastically a mistaken policy initiative in terms of the SDI. Let us have research and development by all means — [Interruption.] I believe that one should not, under any circumstances, deploy. Hopefully, we could give some confidence to the Soviet Union by amending the ABM treaty so that there can be no deployment unless there has been at least a four to five year warning. Under the present ABM treaty, one is perfectly entitled to carry out research and development, but one is not allowed to deploy. However, the problem is that only six months' notice has to be given. If we could suggest an amendent to that treaty, it would be the best way of ensuring that the effective research and development carried out by the United States and the Soviet Union could go ahead with no risk of deployment for at least four to five years. That would be a sensible strategy. As a nuclear weapons state, we have the right to challenge, on occasion, the United States— our friend and ally.
    Britain should also be pursuing more vigorously a comprehensive test ban. That is the one negotiation in which Britain is a party to as a direct partner with the United States and the Soviet Union. It was wrong to decide to withdraw and to postpone those negotiations, and the sooner that we get back on track, the sooner we are likely to see some discipline in the non-proliferation treaty. After all, we face the real risk of Pakistan making a nuclear explosion within the next year or so. Thus, a comprehensive test ban should be another of our priorities.
    We have much more chance of our voice being heard in the United States if we pay our proper share of the conventional defence of western Europe. On present plans, the United States will be extremely worried about our defence policy and about the cutback in our conventional forces.
    6.5 pm
    Sir Patrick Wall: I hope that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will forgive me for not pursuing his argument about the financing of our defence policy. However, I agree with him that it is good that that matter has now been thoroughly ventilated in the House. The argument will obviously continue when we come down to brass tacks in the next few years. I also of course agree with what he said about amphibious warfare ships.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an excellent speech, in which he dealt with the strategic position in the world today. With the advent of Mr. Gorbachev, a new situation now exists between East and West. Mr. Gorbachev is young and intelligent, but he is still a product of the old regime and was put into power by it. We must remember that the attitude displayed by Mr. Gorbachev, the Politburo and the marshals is becoming more and more bellicose. The situation will worsen unless Mr. Gorbachev is allowed to direct money away from arms and towards improving agriculture and the Soviet Union's economy.
    We should appreciate that the leadership of the USSR is becoming more aggresive. One need only consider Russia's 25,000-tonne Typhoon submarines, its continual deployment of SS20s, the armoured helicopter regiments or the 30,0000 men in the Spetanaz force who are ready to be dropped from Aeroflot aeroplanes in order to assasinate military and political figures in NATO countries. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's military exercises always end in nuclear war or chemical warfare. As has been said, we cannot reply to the latter. What will happen if the USSR's economy deteriorates even further and if the unrest in the satelite countries and in the component parts of the USSR becomes more violent? I suggest that Mr. Gorbachev may well then have to choose between aggression or disintegration.
    The European Community is being undermined in every way by the Soviet Union—by spies and agents provocateurs, through the use of organisations such as CND and even by the use of some trade unions. I believe that there will soon be an effort to woo the Federal Republic of Germany away from NATO. Even more importantly, there will be continued efforts to split NATO America from NATO Europe by means of the arms control talks at Geneva. I suggest that that will be done by the Soviets making minor concessions on IMF, which Europe would obviously like, provided that the United States agrees not to deploy its ABM system when its research is completed.
    Even Opposition Members must realise that the United States is the key to European defence. The anti-American remarks of some Opposition Members only provoke those who believe in fortress America. I shall tell the House of some remarks made at a recent Pacific caucus in Hawaii. We were told that 60 per cent. of American people do not care what happens outside the United States and that because of continual criticism from abroad, they are turning more and more inwards. We were also told that the United States does 25 per cent. more trade with the Pacific basin than with Europe. Furthermore, it was said that with a major Soviet build-up in the Pacific, the NATO area could no longer have priority. It was also said that the United States had created 14 million more jobs in the same time as Europe had lost 4 million jobs. We were told that
    932
    the EEC was frozen into rigidity and was squabbling over minor matters. Finally, we were told once again that Europe must do more for its own defence. We were reminded that the Nunn-Roth amendment was lost by only eight votes.
    We must remember that we depend on the United States. If the Opposition policy set out in the amendment were adhered to, I fear that we would have little support from the United States, and we should be out of NATO. We depend on the United States because today the United States ICBMs are obsolete compared with those of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we have MX, Midgetman and the Trident D5. As the right hon. Member for Devonport has said, the latter is probably the best weapon in the world. Tactically, we rely on the United States for Pershing II, ground-launched cruise missiles and cruise missiles in submarines and surface ships. Conventionally, we shall rely on new detection, ranging and weapons systems which will, probably in the next decade, render tactical nuclear weapons obsolete and unnecessary.
    There is a weakness. We all know that USSR now has sufficient ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles for a first strike. What is not realised is that they have been spending the equivalent of $2 billion a year on civil defence. That is apart from anything that they have spent on anti-ballistic missile equipment or research. They have had an ABM system for over 10 years, and Marshal Sokolov has said publicly that the USSR has been conducting space research for quite a long time, which is why it will eventually give way on SDI research, but will do everything that it can to prevent deployment of any successful anti-ballistic missile system produced by the Americans.
    This means that, in certain circumstances, the Soviets might risk a first strike, believing that they can absorb the American second strike because of their civil defence expenditure and the excellent provisions that they have for civil defence. As most of their launchers are re-usable, they could then make a third strike. This is why they are opposed to the SDI and an anti-ballistic missile system. No one would launch a nuclear attack in the knowledge that only a small percentage of their missiles would get through. That is only common sense.
    If the Americans can put men on the moon, they will eventually find the answer to the ballistic missile. After all, this will protect Europe as well as America. If an ICBM is fired from central Russia, no one knows whether it will be directed at Washington, London or Paris, so if it is brought down at the boost stage, which is the easiest stage to attack it, both Europe and the United States will be protected from that missile.
    The term "star wars" has been bandied about the House already, but this should refer to ASATS—anti-satellite satellites. SDI is quite a different matter. In ASATS, the Soviets are well ahead of the West, but SDI is a non-nuclear defence, which I should have thought would logically be supported by the Opposition and the CND if it were not for their anti-Americanism. It is neither destabilising nor decoupling. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that whatever happens we must join in at the research and development stage.
    A vast new technology will be provided from this research, continuing for the next few years. If Europe is not in it, it will become second class in all these important phases of advanced technology. We now have a real chance for co-operation because we can offer something.

    933
    Europe is ahead in electro-optics and in some aspects of radar and particle beams. We can offer something in technological exchange with the United States. We must seize this opportunity.
    I turn to economic strategy and I shall repeat to the House some of the words that I used in my presidential speech to the North Atlantic Assembly:
    "We believe that it is increasingly evident that Alliance security is composed of three independent parts — political, military and economic. We have managed a broad consensus on the first two, but we have not even begun to approach consensus on economic strategy. NATO must have an effective resources strategy in spite of individual nationalism."
    For 10 years, a sub-committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), has been meeting the armed services committee of the House and the Senate in Washington. We have made some progress, but once the military industrial pressures are exerted on the American Government, progress becomes slower and slower.
    I will give some examples of lack of Alliance economic strategy. First, we sell the Hawk to the United States for naval training but we buy Brazilian aircraft for RAF training and so lose major European orders for weapons systems. Secondly, we insist on building Nimrod AEW instead of participating in the NATO AW ACS project, thereby losing millions of pounds. Thirdly, we go on talking about the European fighter aircraft, knowing that the French will sabotage the programme unless they get a major part in it. This has already happened with the Franco-German helicopters which the Germans will now get only in the mid-1990s, when they expected to get them in about three years.
    NATO now has four main battle tanks—Challenger, Abrams, the MX and the Leopard 2. Any commander of NATO will say that he would take any one of the tanks, but only one and not four, with different weapon systems and different ammunition and all the supply difficulties that that will necessitate in time of war.
    I will give two more examples. We have the best lightweight torpedo in the world in Sting Ray, which the United States navy will not touch. America is inventing its own advanced lightweight torpedo, which will not be ready until the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, they have obsolete lightweight, air-launched torpedoes for the rest of this decade.
    Furthermore, I am told that our latest aircraft, the Tornado, cannot re-arm on German airfields, and that the German Tornados cannot re-arm on British airfields. I hope that this is not true, and I hope that this point will be dealt with in the winding-up speech.
    No one can deny that an Alliance economic strategy is essential. Industry is prepared to co-operate, but European Governments—I am not talking about our Government —put nationalism first and may well lose world war 3 should it ever come about. At present, they are losing billions of pounds in duplicating research and develop-ment. As the Select Committee on Defence has pointed out, "structural disarmament" will play havoc with our forces in the next few years. All this is in spite of the fact that the NATO nations have a gross domestic product two and a half times that of the Warsaw pact. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already taken a number
    934
    of steps in the right direction in trying to get an Alliance economic strategy, but I think that he will agree that the Alliance has still a long way to go.
    On the maritime strategy, I am glad that the Government are maintaining their promise to continue a force of 50 frigates and destroyers, but that means that, with no reserves, only about 42 to 45 will be operational at any one time. As has been said, to keep a total of 50, three type 23s must be ordered each year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmed that this will be done, but when will it start? That is the key to the problem. We have not yet ordered the first of the type 23s. When will that be? Some say that it will be two years hence, and if that happens we cannot maintain the promised frigate force.
    I have another question that would probably be better asked tomorrow. Why are we not ordering more Goalkeepers instead of the Vulcan Phalanx, particularly for the batch III type 42 destroyers? They have a greater range and are more effective than two Vulcan Phalanxes. I should like to see them in our aircraft carriers. As the Secretary of State will know, I have been pressing for years for Seawolf. I am very pleased that they will be in the type 23s, but I believe that our aircraft carriers still lack proper protection, and I should like to see Seawolf mounted on sponsons in our aircraft carriers.
    Amphibious warfare ships had almost been phased out, and then came the Falklands campaign. Without Fearless and Intrepid, the Falklands campaign could not have been mounted. Those who are interested in amphibious warfare and know something about it have a right to be heard in this House. A decision on their replacement should be made this year. If a decision on replacing Fearless and Intrepid is not made this year, my fear is that there will be further procrastination. If the fears of hon. Members on each side of the House that there is to be retrenchment in defence expenditure are well-founded, we shall never get those replacement vessels, and that will be disastrous for maritime nations such as Britain. It will also be disastrous for NATO policy on the northern flank.
    Some years ago, in answer to a question in this House, I was told that there are only three hards in northern Norway where roll-on, roll-off ferries can land, so we have to have amphibious ships to land Royal Marines or soldiers on the northern flank. I hope that my right hon. Friend will once again study the lessons of the 1940 conflict in that part of the world.
    I suggest that the next five years will be dangerous years. Defence should not be cut but expanded; otherwise we and our children will suffer the consequences. Should we ever have the misfortune to have a Socialist Government again, it is clear from their amendment today that we would be out of NATO and well on the way to becoming a Soviet satellite.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. John Silkin: In one respect the House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall). Despite my disagreement with his analysis, his speech, like the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), attempted to give us an overall strategic view, and the first day of the White Paper debate should in particular concentrate much more on that aspect.
    I remember the Secretary of State, when I had the pleasure of shadowing him a little while ago, promising

    935
    that he would give us this year an overall philosophical commentary; he was not prepared to do it last year. I found it notably lacking in his speech today.
    I shall start not with the future but with the past. Five weeks ago today we were celebrating the 40th anniversary of VE day, and inevitably those of us who took part in the second world war felt the stir of old memories. I remember that on VE day, when the Japanese launched a particularly violent kamikaze attack upon our ships in the Pacific war, my leading telegraphist, who had been listening to the BBC, turned to me and said, "Do you know, sir, it's a public holiday in England."
    It is all very well to boast, as the defence White Paper does, that we have had over 40 years of peace in Europe. That, in a sense, is Europe's public holiday, but in a very real sense our public holiday has been paid for by turmoil in other continents.
    In the White Paper, the first section, headed "Forty Years of Peace", says about the second world war: "it had begun in Europe but engulfed the world." Let us get our history right. The second world war effectively started in Asia, when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1932, and it spread to Africa when Ethiopia was invaded by Mussolini in 1935. The European engagement was the sequel to those acts of warfare in other parts of the world. If we look at things from that perspective, the boast of 40 years' peace becomes startlingly irrelevant.
    Since the second world war there have been 140 armed conflicts in other continents, all of them continents in which the Third world dominates, and it does nobody any good to boast of our public holiday while the poor and the weak of other nations are paying the price for our complacency. Taken at any level, surrogate wars fought by the clients of the super-powers in the poorer parts of the world may yet escalate into life and death struggles by Europeans, just as the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese empire led inexorably to the domination and destruction of Europe itself.
    The peace of Europe has to rest on something much more than the reltive strength of NATO or the Warsaw pact. Over 50 years ago, Winston Churchill warned:
    "A United States of Europe might revive on a scale more terrible the rivalries from which we have suffered so cruelly in our own age. A day of fate and doom for men will dawn if ever the old quarrels of countries are superseded by the strife of continents."
    Churchill's day of fate and doom has already arrived. It is so much part of our lives that the military strategists see it as a safe and stable system. It is not a healthy system; it is Orwell's 1984 in embryo. But the trend continues, assisted as it is by high technology. As the rivalries between the super-powers and their super-blocs become more intense, so too does the spread of the weapons of high technology to the Third world. It is not the technology of peace, of peaceful industrialisation, but the technology of warfare. In that, the clients of the super-powers can boast a scientific expertise unknown in history.
    The tragedy is that the vast regional military alliances have not made the world more secure; they have contributed to the increasing danger in which all of us find ourselves. If we are to protect ourselves, every nation— particularly every small nation—in the world has to be protected, too. Therefore, there remains a role for the United Kingdom well outside NATO, not as an imperial power but as the friend and safeguard of smaller nations. But such a task is too great for one country alone. It is here
    936
    that the United Nations should be playing a much fuller part. If it is not doing so, some of the responsibility must rest with us.
    We have a tolerably good record, under successive Administrations, of response to United Nations' resolutions and requests. We have not so good a reputation in creative thinking or in assisting the United Nations to make the kind of change that Dag Hammerskjold, for example, would have wished.
    Yet high technology today could be playing its pan in giving the security that smaller nations require. The French, for example, are very keen on pressing forward the idea of UN surveillance satellite systems. They would have the beneficial effect of ending the monopoly powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. They would give even the smallest member of the United Nations the same access to satellite intelligence as is now available to the super-powers.
    The tragic absurdity of the present position was well illustrated during the Falklands war. It is said that the United Kingdom was dependent for much of its intelligence upon the United States satellite intelligence, while at the same time the Soviet Union, with its own satellite military intelligence, was supplying the Fascist junta in Argentina. The same generous assistance is available for the clients of the super-powers in the Middle East, in Africa and in Asia—but only, of course, when the super-powers deem it wise to do so. This can have tragic consequences, most notably in the 1973 Middle East war.
    Would the 1973 war have even started had not the Americans denied intelligence on Arab troop movements to the Israelis? Once started, it could certainly have been stopped sooner had President Sadat known the true position of Israeli forces in the Sinai. It was that ignorance that led him to turn down a peace proposal from Dr. Kissinger. The war continued and more men died.
    It is time that, as part of our own defence policy, we were encouraging the United Nations to develop along the lines that the French have suggested. If such items of intelligence were available to all UN nations equally, the world could be spared many of its tragic conflicts, and the power of the super-powers cut down accordingly. But we should go further. We should be encouraging the provision of permanent United Nations peace-keeping forces to prevent all dangerous military developments and to take action when necessary.
    As everybody knows, a peace-keeping force is envisaged in the charter itself. Of course, the apologists for the super-powers will tell us that it is not practical; that the Soviet Union and United States would be so fearful that UN forces would be used against them in their acts; of aggression that they would veto any such proposal. The super-pessimists would add that the cost of keeping millions of men under arms is so high that none of the possible paymasters would be willing to foot the bill. In fact, the cost is much less than was originally envisaged, since we are talking about a relatively small force capable of rapid deployment for use in damping down the fires of small armed conflicts before they burn up a whole continent.
    In this way, the Security Council veto becomes an important safeguard, since it enables the super-powers to feel that their existence is not threatened. Small forces of this kind could easily operate from strategic areas all over the world, including the Falklands, Belize, Gibraltar and

    937
    many other colonial and former colonial territories to which importance was first attached because of their strategic position but whose economic future is in doubt. Of course, this will not bring perpetual peace. As Thomas Jefferson said:
    "An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest onfederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry."
    Quarrels do not have to lead to war, and it is with the elimination of war that defence is directly concerned.
    Until the world is prepared to trust its own global institutions to preserve peace, nations will have to look at their own defences, either in concert with others or, where necessary, alone. Whether as a member of NATO or, in its global role, as part of the greatest association of nations — the Commonwealth — or in defence of its own territory, Britain must look to her maritime capability. It is here also that the defence White Paper is so worrying. In paragraphs 458, 459 and 460, the defence statement implies that our Merchant Navy is sufficient to meet all our defence needs. By studying the wording carefully, one sees that it is even doubtful that the Merchant Navy meets our NATO obligations. We have been told that an internal study began in 1984, although we have not been promised that the study will be published.
    Could the magnificent part played by the Merchant Navy during the Falklands war be repeated 8,000 miles from our shores? Many of us doubt it. Could the Merchant Navy ever feed and supply this island in a prolonged war? Many of us doubt that too. We must remember that the highest rate of casualties of all the belligerent forces in world war 2 was suffered by the Merchant Navy—one in three did not come back alive. We ignore our Merchant Navy at our peril.
    What applies to the Merchant Navy applies in equal measure to the fishermen; yet, of the five trawlers that took part in the Falklands war, only two now remain in British ownership. The statement says:
    "with the exception of large deep-sea trawlers for MCM operations, there are sufficient ships in each category to meet our defence needs."
    Even ignoring the conclusions of the Defence Committee's report, that is a pretty large exception.
    I hope that Britain will play its part in leading the world to a saner and more peaceful future, but, whatever our future role may be — as a supporter of the United Nations, as a member of NATO, in defence of the Commonwealth or alone—it remains true today, as it always was, that our safety chiefly depends upon the men and ships of our country. That is what the Secretary of State for Defence has neglected, and therein lies the major weakness of the defence White Paper.
    6.33 pm
    Sir Edward du Cann: The background to this debate are the Defence Estimates, in the massive, well-argued and well-written White Paper, and the third report of the Select Committee on Defence, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins). My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done the House a great service in their admirable analysis. I hope that I do not offend the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) by saying that he got the matter exactly right in pointing out that the financial questions raised by the third report must be answered. If
    938
    there is one Secretary of State who is capable of handling this difficult matter and the escalation of costs, it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We wish him success.
    Select Committees are very much at their best when they concentrate on the financial aspects of the Government's actions. If we who are privileged to be the representatives of the people wish to exercise some control over the Executive, we can do that best by concentrating on the financial results of the Executive's proposals. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and his colleagues have been concerned with this point is a healthy and admirable sign.
    The speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was muddled in the extreme. It must be difficult to be an Opposition spokesman on defence. Apart from that, the only part of the debate so far which I have not understood was what followed from the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport. Again, I hope that I do not offend him by agreeing with him. I thought that much of what he said was cogent and important, but I fail to understand how he squares it with his alliance with the Liberal party. The SDP and the Liberal party seem to be not merely poles apart but worlds apart in their approach to defence. It was engaging to watch the right hon. Member for Devonport being cheered on by the assembled cohorts of the SDP—there are at least four of them here — while the Liberals behind him sat in embarrassed silence. While the alliance is divided on this important matter, I fail to understand how they can present themselves as an alternative Government or even, as they modestly beg to do, as possible partners in a political compromise at some time in the future.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Edward du Cann: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak in a moment. We shall look forward to hearing him.
    Mr. Ashdown: Give way.
    Sir Edward du Cann: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he cast the mote from his own eye? Does he not recognise that there are substantial differences within his party on defence—for example, the Conservative party is by no means united on the Trident issue. Does that not reveal significant problems within the Conservative party, from which he wishes to turn our attention? Will he recognise that the differences between the SDP and the Liberal party on defence are significantly fewer than the differences in either of the other two parties?
    Sir Edward du Cann: I hoped, by refusing to give way immediately, to save the hon. Gentleman from making an ass of himself. There are no differences in the Conservative party with regard to defence. We agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that it is appropriate to examine alternatives. Of course all the options must be considered all the time. It is the business of government to be pragmatic, to be ready to examine alternatives if necesary. The Liberal party wants unilateral disarmament—
    Mr. Ashdown: Nonsense.
    Sir Edward du Cann: —and the SDP properly professes that Britain should be sensibly defended. The conflicts between the two parties are vast. It is no good pretending otherwise.
    Like the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), I wish to make two points. One is a local point, to which the first report of the Select Committee on Defence referred — by a curious irony that report was published after the Select Committee's third report—and the other is an international matter. The first point relates to the Merchant Navy. The substantial and continuing decline in the British merchant fleet puts the British economy, in peace as well as in wartime, in deadly peril. I believe that action to remedy the position is overdue and urgently needed.
    In paragraphs 458, 459 and 460, the defence White Paper made three important statements on the Merchant Navy. It said that a continued reduction in the fleet's size "could" endanger our ability to fulfil our NATO obligations. As the right hon. Member for Deptford said, that commitment is in jeopardy today. The White Paper stated:
    "with the exception of large deep-sea trawlers for MCM operations, there are sufficient ships in each category to meet our defence needs."
    I believe that statement to be, at best, highly questionable and, at worst, untrue. The United Kingdom fleet consisted of 686 ships at the end of last February. Ten years ago, at the end of 1975, there were 1,600 ships. The deadweight tonnage last February was 18 million. Ten years ago it was 50 million. The latest bulletin of the General Council for British Shipping states:
    "no major change is seen in the rate of decline in the United Kingdom fleet, which, since 1978, has been about 100 ships per annum."
    In wartime, the merchant fleet has special tasks. Apart from bringing to the UK essential cargoes — energy, food and raw materials—it has other duties, such as the reinforcement and resupply of our forces, the need to provide ships for special military tasks in support of the Royal Navy and as, as they say, "forces' multipliers" to add to the Navy's strength. There are also auxiliary tasks. If there were a conflict, heavy losses would have to be made good. They have been estimated at between 40 and 50 per cent. initially.
    In terms of numbers of ships, tonnages and classes of vessels, what is required can easily be quantified. Thus, we are speaking of facts; we are not dealing in abstruse calculations. We can calculate easily and quickly what we need and what we have, and the conclusion is inescapable. In wartime, Britain would have too few ships to support a war economy and supply and reinforce our forces.
    I have not commented on the shortage of seafarers, of personnel. The present total of those at sea is about 40,000. In 1939, the year war broke out, the number was four times that, about 159,000. The number of trained officers and men going ashore has now reached 5,000 a year. Again, this is fact, and it is much to be regretted. So, even if the required number of ships could be found— say, by requisition, charter or purchase — there is the gravest doubt whether sufficient numbers of trained men would be available to man them, and shortly we shall have no reserves of manpower.
    An immediate matter was referred to by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. If there were, next week, another Falklands conflict—which we pray there will not be—it is unlikely, as the right hon. Gentleman
    940
    said, that Britain could find the merchant ships necessary. This morning's Lloyd's List contains news of another old Falklands ship being sold. That is a measure of the recent decline in our country's maritime strength, and it is continuing.
    Inadequacy in time of conflict is serious enough. In peacetime the implications are equally horrendous. Employment in the industry, as I have illustrated, continues to fall. There is a smaller contribution to the balance of payments than there should be—currently £1 billion a year, with import savings in addition, although that is not a small sum by any means.
    Employment in associated industries is increasingly at risk. Insurance, charter through the Baltic, engineering, ship design, ship repair, shipbuilding and electronics are all involved. Worst of all, British exporters and importers are now increasingly dependent on their competitors' fleets.
    The White Paper's third important statement affecting the Merchant Navy was that factual studies into the situation would be completed this summer. It repeated, in effect, what the Minister of State said in a debate on the Royal Navy on 29 November last year, as many hon. Members now present will recall. How is that study progressing and when will it be completed?
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree what Ministers so far have not been willing to agree, that when it is available it should be published. The subject is of such importance that we need the widest possible debate on it so that we may propose remedies. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and his colleagues could produce this admirable document in a matter of weeks, I do not see why we should have to wait any time for the Government's report to be ready. The situation is so grave that, as I have suggested to her, the Prime Minister should appoint a single Minister to oversee the present situation and to propose remedies.
    What is so worrying about my right hon. Friend's Select Committee report is that it discloses a complete lack of clarity and purpose on the part of Ministers. It appears that this subject has been relegated not just to the second or third division but to the fifth or sixth division. It should be brought up to the first division.
    The report finally refers to
    "the risk to national security inherent in loss of independence in the carriage of seaborne commerce."
    It suggests that it would be dangerous should this country become vulnerable, because that would be a temptation to a would-be aggressor. It states:
    "The striking contrast between British, and indeed Allied, maritime resources and those of the Warsaw Pact countries, in inverse proportion to the relative dependence of each alliance on sea communication, is extremely disturbing".
    I am surprised that my right hon. Friend used such moderate language because, as the White Paper points out, the Soviets have moved from being a coastal to a blue water force. The Soviets have now overtaken Britain and the United States as a merchant shipping power. In the early 1970s, the United Kingdom had about twice the merchant shipping of the Soviet Union. By the 1990s, the Soviet fleet will be twice the size of the merchant fleet of the United Kingdom, and all those serving in it will be auxiliaries for the Soviet navy. The situation is extremely serious and we must deal with it. To paraphrase what Churchill said in another context, we need and shall demand action this year.

    941
    There is a parallel with the state of the merchant fleet in the deplorable state of the British air cargo industry, in which I have an interest, which I have previously declared to the House. I have raised the subject on a previous occasion. I never understand why it takes us so long to see what is going wrong with our merchant fleet and appreciate our lack of carriers in the air. On a parallel point, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that an early decision is made about the Army's need for helicopters. Westlands is badly in need of work. In addition, it has the ideal solution in the W30 helicopter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that an early decision is made about that, too.
    The other main point that I wish to raise also parallels what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said. It concerns the nuclear threat to peace. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that large conflicts often begin from smaller incidents in faraway places which we in this country may not take too seriously. He was also right to point out the great dangers that derive when surrogate wars are being fought. The Soviets do that all the time, particularly in Africa. Angola is a notable example. One could give others.
    Much popular anxiety relates to the apparently implacable positions of East and West—indeed, that is the theme of the White Paper — with the tyrants confronting those who live in freedom and who are prepared to defend it. My right hon. Friend spent much of his speech on that point. Most attention, therefore, is focused on negotiations between the Soviets and the West for limitations or reductions in the nuclear strength of both, and it is right that that should be the case.
    At the extreme end of the argument there are those who propose that our country should unilaterally abandon its nuclear defences altogether. The Liberal party does that, apparently. There is a precedent in contemporary experience, for this argument. We had it during the time of Hitler's rise to power in the years before 1939, with frightful consequences. There was, among other factors, the expressed longing of the British people for peace, of which one could give many examples — the notorious Oxford debate, the Fulham by-election in 1933. That longing for peace, though honourable, undoubtedly led the Nazis to believe that they would be safe in pursuing aggression in the Ruhr, Austria and Czechoslovakia and that there would be no opposition in Europe. Our inaction, as we now know, was a fearful error. The White Paper is right to remind us of a lesson that too many people are ready to forget. I hope with all my heart that we have learned that lesson.
    I believe that, just as the use of the nuclear weapon in 1945 shortened the war against Japan, to which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford referred, and saved many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of British, American, Australian, allied and Japanese lives, so the possession of nuclear weapons by East and West has kept the world safe, in most of my adult lifetime, from serious conflict. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I agree with it. I do not believe that their possession by East and West —even though their stockpiling is worrying—has made conflict more likely. The chief threat, in my view, lies elsewhere and it is high time that we gave it more attention. It lies, in a word, in proliferation.
    942
    What are the facts? The spread of nuclear technology since 1945 has been extensive and it is continuing unchecked. Five countries are known to possess nuclear weapons: Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China. However, there are commercial nuclear power reactors—about 350 of them—in 26 countries. More than 50 nations have nuclear research facilities. Perhaps a dozen countries can physically reprocess nuclear fuels; that is, they have the capacity to produce the materials needed to make nuclear devices. The areas involved are often potentially, in conflict terms, the most volatile: Pakistan and India, to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli referred, Iraq and Israel, and Libya, for example. Inevitably, too, there is the lurking spectre of the nuclear terrorist. It is to this developing and fearsome scene that I believe that we should now give our careful attention in the nuclear debate.
    The United Nations sponsored nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1968, mentioned in the White Paper, expires in 1995. It will be discussed in Geneva in the autumn of this year by almost 100 countries. It must be renewed. The inspection apparatus of the International Atomic Energy Authority needs urgent reinforcement. That strengthening must be made available and confidence in its competence, which at present seems to be much lacking, restored.
    The whole purpose of the expenditure which these Estimates represent is the maintenance of peace. The influence and experience that, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford suggested, we possess in our country and which this House, broadly speaking, endorses, should not only be used for the physical defence of these shores—that is the conventional understanding of defence — but must be used more widely and constructively to curtail proliferation of the nuclear capability and to control it.
    I hope that the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is doing will provide the foundation upon which the Government can build and take the initiative in what I believe to be as important a matter as any that has to be discussed, decided and acted upon by this House.
    6.54 pm
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech in detail, but I was extremely interested in the amount of time that he devoted to the Merchant Navy. He was right to do so. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he suggested to the Treasury Bench that it was high time that we as a maritime nation had a maritime policy and a maritime Minister. If he did, he has my full support as he prods his Government from time to time. I wish more power to his already powerful elbow.
    I begin my contribution to the debate by quoting from the personal message I gave my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, North during the last general election campaign:
    "The awful prospect of a nuclear holocaust appals every thinking person. We must, in concert with our allies, work towards multilateral disarmament, nuclear and non nuclear. We simply cannot afford to embark on the Trident missile programme costed at 1981 prices at ten thousand million pounds, which, with the enormous escalation of sophisticated weapons systems, I know from my experience, will cost no less than 50 per cent. more, long before the system is ready for use. The only

    943
    way in which we could afford such a programme would be to deny the British Army of the Rhine the weapons they would need should the unthinkable war in Europe happen. Equally, the Royal Navy, on which we rely to keep the Western approaches and the Northern Atlantic open to our merchantmen, would have to be run down as indeed the Tories intended prior to the Falklands War. Had Argentina stayed her hand for a few brief months, the planned naval rundown would have already gone so far as to make the action we rightly took, impossible to carry out."
    I do not retract one word of my message two years ago to my constituents on Trident. It was prophetic, because the escalation in cost to which I then referred was achieved in 24 months. Nobody can say that as a prophet I was exaggerating. My prediction of an increase in cost of over 50 per cent. before Trident comes into use has already been proved to be very much of an underestimate. The final increase in cost will be much nearer 100 per cent., or £20 billion. I stand firmly by everything that I said in 1983. The third report of the Select Committee on Defence heavily underlines all the points that I made to my constituents in 1983. I am more than delighted that my 1983 statement on defence issues has been supported by such an august body as the Select Committee on Defence. The whole House is indebted to it for the excellence of its report.
    In its reports, the Select Committee states that there is the gravest possible threat that our conventional defence forces will be weakened if this Government continue down the lunatic road towards the deployment of a nuclear weapons system that we cannot hope to sustain within the constraints of our defence budget. And constraints there are. I am sure that, like each of his predecessors, the Secretary of State for Defence is only too painfully aware of these constraints. Apart from the perils of inflation for the defence budget there is, as he knows, the added burden of defence inflation which applies in full measure not only to the Trident programme but to all of the sophisticated equipment that is needed by our troops in the field.
    That problem worries me most of all because, as I have said many times in defence debates, the sharp end for the British forces will be the central German plain. Our prime duty is to provide our forces there with the quality and quantity of hardware and software that they will need to ensure, by their own defence, the holding of that part of the front, which is so vital for the defence of Western Europe. That is where any conflict will take place, and that is where our commitment should be emphasised.
    Therefore, why should we risk our forces by committing an ever-increasing amount of our limited defence budget to pursuing the Trident system, whose major purpose is to send American defence contractors laughing all the way to the bank? British contractors will get precious little from the thousands of millions of pounds that will be spent on the programme.
    Naval orders will have a great influence on the well-being of many of my constituents employed by British Shipbuilders. I am anxious to know how, when and where those orders will be placed, and how the orders will be used. I must ask bluntly—I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will take this point on board— whether orders will be used to make some yards attractive to private investors for what I would call the Prime Minister's obsession—privatisation. Conversely, will the denial of orders be used to decide which yards will be set up for closure? The Secretary of State has the power of life or death over shipbuilding communities, as Mr. MacGregor does over coal-mining communities. The
    944
    Secretary of State frightens me, because he is essentially southern-based and does not see much further than Potters Bar or, to be fair to him, British Aerospace at Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City.
    I have said in the House previously that shipyards such as those on the Tyne, not least Swan Hunter, cannot survive without significant naval orders. I hope that the Secretary of State will, in reaching decisions in the future, remember that the north-east of England has largely been bled to death by the Government's policies. Those decisions will determine the future of or continuance of shipbuilding on the Tyne.
    I should say something about President Reagan's star wars—the strategic defence initiative. To his credit, the Foreign Secretary quickly saw the dangers in undermining arms talks between East and West but, sadly, since "Her Parliamentary Majesty" has now spoken, Britain will back the President in research into star wars. Nothing could be more calculated to signal a move into another major arms race, which is not the way to world peace. With all the horror of the Third world, which we have seen on our television screens with monotonous regularity in recent months—the starvation of many thousands of children in Africa—there is a greater need than ever for nation to speak unto nation with a determination to find a way to break the lunacy of ever-increasing expenditure on arms. We must progressively, in tandem, reduce the burdens of armaments on East and West so that we may make progress on the road to a world where the constant fear of war no longer prevails.
    7.4 pm
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is still in the Chamber, because I owe him an apology. We all know him as the inventor of the wheel and the holder of the original patent on sliced bread, but of course we should not laugh at him, and I am sorry that I was moved to do so during his speech. When he mentioned being in a serious ball park, I asked one of my hon. Friends sitting beside me, "What does one talk about in a serious ball park?" His answer was so apposite and humorous that I had to laugh out loud. The right hon. Gentleman will probably work out what my hon. Friend's reply was, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will get there presently.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) told us of his doubts about the adequacy of the British merchant fleet to meet the strains that might be put on it in time of war, as well as the obligations and opportunities to which it must respond in time of peace. I understand and accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not reply today to the report of the Select Committee on Defence. I also know some of the reasons for the decline to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton drew attention. They include the deliberate policy adopted for many years by the Eastern bloc of trying to steal our trade; the activities of previous Governments in lending money to Eastern bloc and Third world countries so that they could buy ships to undercut our merchant fleet; and all the other pressures, including the 40-40-20 policy. I am not sure that the decline is reversible. It would be interesting to know what it might cost to reverse it.
    Against that background, we must consider maritime re-supply in time of war. The alternative of pre-positioning food and fuel for the civil population as well as of warlike

    945
    stores for our forces must be examined, and we should also consider the priority of airlifting many of the stores that we need. I hope that when the Department has received its consultants' report and when Ministers report to the House on it, they will take those points into account, because they may open the way for the redeployment of scarce naval surface resources that we have available in the north Atlantic.
    Whatever happens with re-supply, it is essential that our home base should remain inviolate. Home defence is enormously important. I was glad to see in the White Paper that exercise Brave Defender will be held this September, in which our home defence forces will be tested. I hope that as many Members of Parliament as possible will be invited to witness that exercise. I am far from certain that our home defence resources are adequate. I do not know how many vital installations we have, but I suspect that there are enough to tax the 100,000 regulars and reservists whom we are told we have available, let alone the 65,000 of them who will take part in the exercise.
    I hope that the Government are serious when they say that they are considering the possible expansion of the Home Service Force, which at present has only 5,000 members. That really is not enough. If the Select Committee were to examine the matter, I suspect that it would discover that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), plenty of people in Britain regard defence as "everyone's business", and would be prepared to give up some of their time voluntarily to release our invaluable regular service men and women for other tasks and to strengthen our ability to keep the home base secure.
    The reasons why we must do that are admirably set out in paragraph 410 of the White Paper, which states:
    "The importance of defending the United Kingdom goes beyond even the fundamental need to protect our own country and its people… it is therefore in the interests of the whole Alliance that we should be capable of deterring such an offensive or, if it were launched, of defending ourselves and our territorial waters against attack."
    We must have adequate home defence.
    The Labour party's policy would destroy the Alliance and thus make home defence irrelevant. The policy is well expressed in the following terms: we have an Opposition who are committed
    "to outright unilateral disarmament. The United States is to be kicked out of our aircraft bases and ports in the UK which they have been using as part of our NATO commitment to the nuclear deterrent."
    I am paying the right hon. Member for Devonport the compliment of quoting from a document which seems to have been circulated by the SDP to most of the 14-year-olds in my constituency. It is rather like some of the circulars householders get on solar heating—superfici-ally convincing, but not at all strong on costs. But that is the SDP's policy in a nutshell.
    Two things emerge from what the right hon. Gentleman said. First, it is impossible to envisage the SDP combining with the Labour party in a hung Parliament. It is also wholly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to pretend that there is not an enormous divide within the so-called alliance on the question of defence. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is not too clear about what he himself wants. He simply throws a whole lot of options in the air—
    946
    some serious balls, if I can put it that way — even though he knows that they are all dismissible. For example, there is the question of continuing with Polaris or converting our submarines to cruise. The right hon. Gentleman never quantifies or costs these things. He just tosses them in the air. In so doing he displays the same kind of naivety that runs through so much of the SDP's approach to often serious matters.
    For instance, on the Falklands, the document from which I have already quoted states:
    "the SDP believes that the Government should bring an end to the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds on Fortress Falklands and should open a dialogue with the new democratic government of Argentina."
    And if they did, it would be from a position of utter weakness. Just about the same strength is inherent in that position as there would be if we went to the French and said, "May we please you join you in your M5 missile?" That is an incredibly naive and unsustainable approach to such serious matters. When people consider what the SDP has to offer, I hope they will realise that solar heating might actually be a better bargain.
    There is one final matter that I hope the Government have understood. It is the RAF that is responsible for the air defence of the United Kingdom—not the French air force. If we are to purchase a replacement aircraft for our air force, it must match our needs. Such a purchase should not be dictated by the siren claims of European collaboration or the ambitions of the French aircraft industry in the field of international sales. We need an aircraft that suits the RAF, and a British design must be best.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have reminded the House that the 10-minute rule is operating until 8.50 pm.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The White Paper was right to refer to the fact that it is 40 years since the end of the second world war. I mention that because it seems that the strategic attitude of the Government, the United States and the western Alliance is automatically to assume that the only enemy in the world is the Soviet Union.
    Since my youth I have never agreed with the internal regime in the Soviet Union. I have protested probably more than most hon. Members about the internal suppression of those in the Soviet Union who want to create free and independent trade unions and institutions and wish to see democracy in that country. I was probably the first Labour Member to protest about what happened when the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan. I protested about Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I shall continue to make it absolutely clear that the internal regime in the Soviet Union has nothing whatever in common with democratic Socialism. Indeed, it is the very antithesis of what we believe in.
    The commemoration of 40 years of peace has stirred old memories. I was very young when I joined the RAF. During my four years in that service I spent 18 months with the United States 8th Army Air Corps. I wish to make it clear that today we are able honestly to debate and argue our points of view because of the deaths that unfortunately occurred during the war. As well as our own people, 20

    947
    million Russians died. We must never forget that, nor should we forget the devastation that took place in that country.
    We must never forget that their cities were razed to the ground, that whole areas were overrun by the Nazis and that the Russian people were subjected to untold horrors. We must never forget that millions of Russian people were sent to the various prisons and concentration camps. We therefore owe a debt to those people in the Soviet Union who fought so hard to enable us to be free.
    At the end of the war the Soviet Union became obsessed with security. It created buffer states, suppressed the democracy that was beginning to develop in many of those countries, and has expanded in other directions since— all because of its obsession with security and the belief that never again will 20 million Russian people be destroyed.
    There is now a new leader in the Soviet Union. Some say that he is a hard-liner, while others say that he is a soft-liner. I do not know. Indeed, it is difficult for any of us to know. When Khrushchev took over as leader—and he was not a democrat—he began to open the doors of the prison camps. He also made it clear that the Stalinist regime was not acceptable for the future. There are those who would like to return to Stalinism, but my point is that we cannot continue in the way that has been suggested by some hon. Members who say that the Soviet Union is the enemy and should be more or less destroyed. [HON. members: "No."]
    In the event of a nuclear war there will be no winners. We shall all be losers. Arthur Koestler said that when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the character of war changed totally and that from then on we were talking of the possibility of war which would destroy the world. That is the prospect with which we are now faced, and that is what we must understand. That must be borne in mind when we discuss our defence policy.
    I agree with those hon. Members who have said that we must have genuine defence. I am not a pacifist. I believe in genuine defence. Those who believe that nuclear weapons are the only means of maintaining peace are honest in that belief, but they should accept that others who believe that we should get rid of nuclear weapons are equally honest. We are not Soviet agents or subversives. We simply believe that so long as nuclear weapons exist and we do nothing to get rid of them, we shall build them up until one day some idiot will push the button, and that will be the end of society for ever. All our ideological discussion about capitalism and Socialism or whether we are Christians or Moslems or anything else will mean nothing. That is why we argue our policy as we do.
    The document setting out the policy carried at last year's Labour party conference states:
    "We are also committed to the unconditional removal of all US nuclear weapons and nuclear bases from British soil and British waters … Labour will therefore take appropriate action to ensure that the US Government removes its nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems from British territory and British territorial waters."
    We are then accused of wanting to sell out to the Soviet Union and become a satellite of Russia, but that is not so. We are saying that we must begin somewhere to get rid of nuclear weapons. It would be marvellous if, at the international level, the great powers could sit down and agree that from tomorrow all nuclear weapons will be
    948
    abolished, but as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) has said, that is not likely to happen— what is happening is proliferation.
    Somebody somewhere must begin the process of removing nuclear weapons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I raised the issue of NATO.[Interruption.] It is difficult to argue a case properly when one is limited to 10 minutes. How many minutes do I have left? [HON. members: "One."] There is a contradiction about our policy and if we carry it through we shall undoubtedly run into difficulties with the United States and our allies in NATO, but we must face that fact because we must try to change NATO policy. If NATO policy cannot be changed, in the end we shall have to come out of NATO. In the process we must try to start to get rid of nuclear weapons so that our world, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will have a future. If we do not do that, there will be no future.
    7.22 pm
    Mr. Peter Viggers: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as my own comments will follow exactly the line that he followed. I am fully conscious of the difficulty of comparing forces as between the Warsaw pact and NATO. It is not easy to compare weapon with weapon. Nevertheless, by any standards the Warsaw pact forces are superior to those of NATO. We can make all possible allowances for Russia's traditional sensitivity about being encircled by potential enemies. We can make allowances for the fact that a staggering 20 million Soviet citizens were killed in the last war and for that country's determination that that should never befall it again. We can also make allowances for the technical superiority which still exists in many sectors of the NATO forces. After allowing for all those factors, however, the preponderance of military might in the Warsaw pact cannot realistically be attributed to self-defence. The threat is there and it is real.
    It is generally assumed that an attacker needs three times the forces of the defender to be successful in an attack and the Warsaw pact is within that range in a number of key areas such as tactical aircraft, tanks and artillery. NATO does not need parity. We have said time and again that none of our forces will ever by used except in response to attack. Nevertheless, we need to be near enough to the one-to-three relationship to be certain that we shall not be attacked and that there is no risk of our forces being underestimated. We cannot safely let the balance swing too far away from us. I therefore support the Government's action in increasing our spending by 3 per cent. per year in line with NATO targets, which we have achieved through to this year. I also strongly support the commitment to NATO by the United States in the deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe and I support the continuation of the independent nuclear deterrent through the purchase of Trident.
    A great deal of the sometimes rather fruitless dialogue about peace and how to achieve it stems from the fact that many people misunderstand the nature of peace and talk as though peace were something for which we should strive. I give a short but telling quotation from Henry Kissinger. He said:
    "Many people seem to regard peace as a kind of terminal state in which nations live in harmony and the need for further effort

    949
    disappears. Unfortunately this conception doesn't correspond to the reality. In our time peace is a process not a condition. There are no final happy endings."
    That is important, because so often people who campaign for peace seem to project peace as though it were some kind of secret, enchanted garden to which they alone have the key. The reality is quite different. Peace is what we have now. It may be a rather unhappy peace, but peace it is and we must work to maintain that measure of stability.
    Maintaining peace is a time-consuming, expensive and frustrating activity requiring patience, skill and the avoidance of provocative acts. The true peace campaig-ners who keep the peace for us are the men and women of our armed forces. We are at peace, but various factors could destabilise the situation. I shall identify three of them.
    The first is Russian militarism. I have already referred to the weight of the Warsaw pact forces, but the disturbing fact is that recently they have been growing much more rapidly. The deployment of SS20 missiles in Europe left NATO no alternative but to proceed with its dual track decision in 1979 and to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles. Cruise missiles are a symbol of American determination to support NATO rather than a matching of missile for missile. Russia must surely also realise, and the hon. Member for Walton must realise, that launching a new submarine every five weeks when Russia has no maritime routes to protect cannot be regarded otherwise than as an offensive act and something from which the Soviet Union should desist.
    As the hon. Member for Walton said, we are all heartened by the appearance of Mr. Gorbachev as the Russian leader. His interest in industrial and civilian matters in this country was encourging, but there have been no signs of any change in ideology and it may be asking too much to expect that. What we can perhaps hope and negotiate for is a reduction in the military manifestations of that idealogy, and I believe that that is entirely appropriate.
    Recently I had the honour to attend a conference on disarmament convened in Mexico City by the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union at which most of the leading nations of the world were represented. I was surprised to see how few friends Russia had among the non-aligned countries. It is bereft of friends, apart from those countries which are politically subservient to it. That should be encouraging to us as a democracy and it should give Russia cause for thought.
    The second destabilising factor is identified in the public mind as the strategic defence initiative, star wars. The United States and Russia are both working on new technology, but the media concentrate on the American efforts. Russia has the world's only operational anti-ballistic missile system, which defends the Soviet civil and military command authorities around Moscow. Russia has also been proceeding with a much larger high-energy laser programme than the United States, with about 10,000 scientists and engineers working at six research establishments, and Russia has developed prototype laser weapons. Moreover, 80 per cent. of Russian space launches are purely military. The United States and the United Kingdom cannot stand aside from this new technology.
    950
    I support completely the considered and thoughtful line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his major speech on this subject. I should like to add only that the strategic defence initiative is defensive as regards ballistic missiles and it may have many other applications which do not relate to nuclear and ballistic weapons. I anticipate that the strategic defence initiative will throw up a great deal of technology which will be extremely useful with conventional military weapons.
    The third destabilising factor is those who work from within the country to weaken our defences. Some people who are concerned with pacifist issues and anti-nuclear campaigning are non-political, though any person of independent mind would be disturbed to find so many Communists and Trotskyists working within the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and allied activities. CND is active in trade unions, churches, schools and local government.
    There are many examples of local government activity, such as the development of nuclear-free zones, which are hostile to the basic thrust of our defence strategy. I could quote many examples, some of which are trivial and others which are frivolous. For example, South Yorkshire county council has erected 21 nuclear-free zone boundary signs at a cost of £100 per sign, and Sheffield city council sent a councillor and two officers by air to an international conference on nuclear-free zones in Cordoba, Spain. Such activity goes on throughout Europe and I therefore welcome the fact that the North Atlantic Assembly is considering means of stepping up our information services in NATO so that people in NATO can see the importance of the defence effort put in on their behalf.
    I was impressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) who spoke about the total defence concept in Norway and Sweden, where everyone is responsible for defence. We do not have such a policy but we cannot afford to relax when so many of our citizens undermine the main thrust of our defence effort. I believe that we are winning the battle, but we cannot afford to be complacent.
    7.32 pm
    Mr. Robert Atkins: I am extremely grateful for being called. I do not intend to delay the House for long and I apologise for raising an industrial procurement matter. I am lucky to have a chance to speak at all.
    I want to talk about the European fighter aircraft, which decision is due next week, or ought to be. There are several constraints on its development. First, there is an in-service date requirement of 1995 for the Royal Air Force and other European air forces. Unless the go-ahead is given very soon, we shall not meet that in-service date. The letter sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by companies in various industries suggesting that the European staff target would be met does not meet the agreement of many in the British aerospace industry. I hope that he will consider that carefully and take advice from the British aerospace industry, as he has done till now.
    Secondly, there will be a threat to jobs if the fighter aircraft project does not go ahead. There will also be a threat to the continuity of the British aerospace industry if we do not get something working swiftly. I refer not simply to my area and the rest of Lancashire but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

    951
    The third constraint concerns sub-contractors who must look to their future interests. They are already faced with the prospect of having to take bilateral decisions to involve themselves in contracts to ensure their future. That would damage the strength of the consortium which hopes to gain the European fighter aircraft project go-ahead.
    The fourth constraint is French intransigence. I have raised this matter many times in the House and do not apologise for doing so again. Their lack of interest is clear from the evidence that is available to those who take an interest in these matters. I recently went to Munich and was at the Paris air fair last week, where I was able to talk to people in the industry and the armed services, all of whom believe that the French are being deliberately intransigent and are not interested in getting involved in the project. The French have recently suggested to the armaments directors that there should be an evaluation of a navy version, which would delay discussion for yet another six months or so and enable them to demand more than their fair share of the jobs.
    I have a copy of a document, circulated at the Paris air show, from the French trade unions which states:
    "This is why the Federation of Metal Workers, CGT and all of the Unions in the French Aeronautical and Avionic Industries demand that the future defence aircraft be manufactured entirely from products currently under construction by various French Companies."
    The document continues with a diatribe against the British aerospace industry and European industry as a whole. That confirms my information that French industry does not want to be involved in the project.
    We are not being intransigent or chauvinistic. Although we have the fallback of the P-120, which will be a British version, with our European colleagues—West Germany, Italy, Spain and perhaps the Netherlands and Belgium— we are offering to build an aeroplane which we would like the French to be involved in. We want the French to be involved, provided that they recognise that they must come in on equal terms and share the work fairly. If they are not prepared to do that—they have shown that they are not—we must be prepared, with our partners, to tell the French at next week's meeting in London that the French can join us or stop mucking us about. We need a decision, and swiftly.
    We must bring pressure to bear at a political level on West Germany. It is clear from my information that the West German industry is extremely keen to continue its involvement along the lines of Panavia and MTU, which have been responsible for manufacturing the Tornado and the engine for it. The industry has already said that, unless a decision is taken in July, it will have to make further decisions and involve itself in further discussions with American industry. There are already discussions with Northrop and Rockwell about the possibility of fulfilling their requirement. That must not happen, so we must persuade the West German Government to commit themselves to us, as they have until now, and to persuade the French to participate. If they do not, they must be told next week that time has run out.
    We must have a commitment next week and the project must get off the ground as soon as possible. I am grateful for this chance to emphasise the strength of the anxieties.
    7.37 pm
    Mr. Gavin Strang: I should like to concentrate on disarmament issues. The first page of the Defence Estimates says:
    952
    "Given the present scale of NATO's defences, we have no reason to believe that Soviet leaders have any immediate intention of attacking NATO countries; but we cannot ignore the fact that those same leaders continue to improve the Soviet capability for such an attack."
    There will be broad agreement that the Soviet Union does not intend to attack Western Europe. In the main, I agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who described how the Soviet Union extended its hegemony over Eastern Europe through military force.
    It will also be common ground that we cannot base our defence policy on our view of Soviet intentions. We must base it on Soviet capability. However, that also applies to the United States. We must consider how the Soviet Union perceives the United States — as the most powerful military power in the world, especially in terms of nuclear technology. It is ringed with nuclear weapons in Europe and nuclear weapons are being developed in China.
    We must understand the Soviet leadership's attitude in terms of that country's history, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton described, and in terms of the huge military arsenal with which it is confronted. The Reagan Administration was elected on a ticket of massively expanding the United States's military budget. The nuclear arms race has been tremendously exaggerated by the United States. In November 1983, the CIA said that it had exaggerated the increase in the Soviet Union's military capability. More recently, in 1985, it acknowledged that it had overestimated the increase in the Soviet Union's military capability.
    We have seen the destabilising development of nuclear weapons systems. In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) — this is referred to in the evidence of the Select Committee on Defence which was published yesterday—the Secretary of State said that the policy of mutually assured destruction had been of incalculable value. However, that policy was not planned. It was one at which the two super-powers arrived. That policy has long since been undermined by technology—for example, the development of accurate counter-force weapons, which by definition are first-strike weapons. As counter-force weapons such as the Trident D5 system have undermined the deterrence element in mutually assured destruction, so is the strategic defence initiative enormously destabilising.
    I assert categorically that there is a consensus of leading scientists and physicists in the United States who do not believe that it will be possible to achieve the SDI's ultimate objective of complete protection for the United States population from the Soviet Union's ICBMs. What is more likely to be attained in a decade or two is an imperfect system of protection basically for United States missiles. This involves a further element of destabilisation, at least in the transition phase. That is why we must recognise that the strategic defence initiative, as perceived by the Soviet Union, represents a dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race.
    Many prominent members of the Reagan Administration are on record as opposed to arms control. In the main, the record of that Administration has been one of opposition to arms control. What has been the record of the British Government? It gives me no pleasure to say that anyone looking objectively at what the Government have done in this area over the past five years cannot describe their actions as anything but deeply depressing.

    953
    First, Britain has been at the forefront in Europe in supporting Reagan's escalation of the nuclear arms race. The White Paper refers to the partial test ban treaty that was negotiated by Lord Stockton. The stance of Lord Stockton must be contrasted with that of the Prime Minister. In December, she described herself as President Reagan's greatest fan. She went to the United States and gave strong support to the star wars policy.
    What is our record in the United Nations? I have a document which sets out the voting records of the various member countries last December on nuclear disarmament issues. In the limited time at my disposal I shall take only a couple of examples. Resolution 39/52 is headed: "Cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons".
    The resolution begins:
    "Convinced that there are adequate existing verification measures to ensure compliance with a nuclear-test ban and that the alleged absence of verification means is nothing but an excuse for nuclear proliferation".
    That was carried by 112 votes to three with 23 abstentions. It is no surprise to learn that the United Kingdom was one of the three member countries who opposed the resolution. The document from which I am quoting shows that that was frequently the case.
    I shall give one more example. Resolution 39/61 is headed:
    "Implementation of the Declaration of the denuclearisation of Africa." The resolution includes the words:
    "Appeals to all States that have the means to do so to monitor South Africa's research on, and development and production of nuclear weapons, and to publicise any information in that regard."
    The resolution was carried by 147 votes with five abstentions. Again, the United Kingdom was one of the member countries which abstained. At the same time, the Government call themselves multilateralists.
    The current disarmament talks are referred to and listed in the White Paper. Included in the list are the MBFR talks in Vienna. The parties to the talks are NATO and the Warsaw pact. I had the privilege last week, with some of my hon. Friends, of discussing these issues with Lord Carrington and other NATO personnel. It seems that there is a feeling in NATO that we should reconsider our position and accept that there is a discrepancy between our estimate of the Warsaw pact's forces and the strength which the Warsaw pact is prepared to acknowledge in central Europe. We should accept the disparity. Rather than pursue a reduction in force numbers — a goal in which no progress has been made over the years—we should go for fixing a ceiling on the number of forces in central Europe and try to make some progress in arriving at an agreement on conventional forces.
    The British Government's contribution to the crucial bilateral disarmament talks in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union cannot be described as helpful. It is certainly not helpful to come out strongly in support of the strategic defence initiative. It is not helpful to insist that in no circumstances will Britain's nuclear weapons be included within the ambit of these important talks.
    I raised in the House last Friday the non-proliferation treaty review conference that will take place in September and progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. A debate was initiated on Thursday evening by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right
    954
    hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) replied. He sought to argue that progress on the NPT review conference had nothing to do with progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. That was absolute nonsense, as anyone who knows anything about the subject must acknowledge.
    When I initiated an Adjournment debate on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the Government came up with the stale response of verification problems. Everyone knows that that is not the problem. The United States pulled out of the comprehensive test ban treaty talks because it did not want an agreement. It is a subterfuge to argue that we do not have the technological means to police underground nuclear tests and to monitor them down to a few kilotonnes. United States scientists have acknowledged that we have the technical means to do so. We have the means to achieve an effective test ban treaty involving the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain, and with the 120-odd non-nuclear power, signatories, we can improve the non-proliferation treaty. Let the British Government take an initiative for progress in this area at least.
    7.48 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) will forgive me if I do not take up his final argument in detail. I shall concentrate on Trident, the British nuclear deterrent, European collaboration and the strategic defence initiative and their impact on Europe.
    I acknowledge that any defence expenditure imposes strains on all services when they are subjected to the financial constraints that are set out in the White Paper. However, I object to the assumption that one item of defence expenditure must go to pay the penalty of such financial constraint. That one item, as seen by the Opposition, is Trident.
    Trident is cheap. It is the most economic and cost-effective piece of defence equipment that Britain could possibly have. The cost will be spread over 15 years. It is argued that if we did not have it we would have to strengthen our conventional weapons. What could be bought with about £10 billion? Over 15 years it would buy us about three armoured divisions, and it is a darned sight more expensive to run armoured divisions than to have nuclear equipment. I do not accept that the cost argument has been made out.
    I suspect that for political reasons it does not suit the Labour party in its present mood to have a British nuclear deterrent. For reasons that I do not wish to go into because of the limited time that is available, the Liberal party is choosing to face both ways. The Liberal party and the alliance know that if they were to come down heavily on one side or the other they would find themselves in one hell of a row. Of course, it is easy to fudge the issues. However, I ask them to bear in mind the suggestion that has been made by some of their spokesmen that cruise missiles or an extension of Polaris offer a way out. I have never met a serious military expert who takes the view that they provide an effective deterrent. The economies that would be involved in such a policy would be minimal. If we are to address ourselves to economies, the argument is reduced to shreds. We must grasp the nettle. We either want to remain a serious nuclear power or we do not. I believe that we should. There are strong reasons why there should be a deterrent in European hands. If the Opposition want to surrender that, they have the choice of leaving the

    955
    supreme decisions in these matters to the United States —always assuming that the United States will see our quarrel as its quarrel and will always wish to put its cities at risk to defend us—or they must recognise that the only European deterrent would be in French hands. I do not find that acceptable.
    One way of overcoming the difficulty as we begin to look to the future is to see how we can extend European collaboration and have a European deterrent, while such a thing is regarded as necessary. In that context, European collaboration takes on a wider dimension. It is ludicrous to have one deterrent which is solely British and one which is solely French. There can be significant savings if we pool our resources. That is for the longer term. In the meantime, the Government are correct to stick to Trident.
    The strategic defence initiative is another sphere of collaboration. My reaction to it, with that of other people, was somewhat unfavourable. I thought that star wars was just an extension of nuclear war into space. How wrong I was. It was argued that the concept jeopardised the arms contact talks. That could not be further from the truth. I believe that it was the SDI concept which bought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table.
    What I find interesting about the initiative is that in the long term it offers the hope of making nuclear ballistic missiles obsolete. In the short term it will mean a shift of emphasis away from deterrence based upon nuclear retaliation to a greater reliance on non-nuclear defence systems. Surely we can all unite on that.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that we could not rely on SDI because some weapons would get through, and that the idea of having a type of balloon over the United States which would make it impervious to nuclear attack is crazy. I agree with him. I cannot see that happening, but who knows? There are plenty of experts in the United States who believe that it is possible to develop a defensive system which would make impossible a pre-emptive first strike which would destroy the United States military capability. Although some weapons would get through, not all would. That would seriously question the Soviet Union's ability effectively to destroy the United States.
    An effective strategic defence system which would enhance the survival capability of our present nuclear deterrent forces should be supported because it would ensure that a growing proportion of Soviet missiles would no longer reach their targets. For that reason, I believe that a strategic defence system is important.
    There is another reason for supporting the initiative. Why should we let the Soviet Union monopolise the system? Why should Western Europe not have some idea of the technology involved in the strategic defence initiative, because it will have tremendous implications for civilian industry? It will give European technology an insight into the new technologies and will provide advantages for industry.
    The alternative is to be left out—that surely is not good for us—and increasingly to become a second-class partner in the NATO Alliance.
    We should look to see how far we can evolve new defensive techniques which would benefit our industry through co-operation with our Western European partners. The French EUREKA concept seems somewhat vague. It has yet to be spelt out. It does not concentrate, as the United States initiative does, upon strategic defence, but it is a concept that we should welcome.
    956
    I see no conflict in this country embracing the invitation of the President of United States to involve ourselves with SDI and the French offer to all Western European nations to co-operate in providing a wider basis for European technological co-operation.
    On the narrow point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), it seems to me that the significance of the EFA project is that if we in Europe cannot get together on something that we know to be vital to conventional defence and for employment in our respective countries, and which has important civil applications for our industry, what hope have we of being able to co-operate in the wider spheres to make it possible for us to have realistic and cost-effective defence budgets? That is the challenge thrown down by the White Paper and the report of the Select Committee on Defence.
    7.57 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) said that the Liberal party and the SDP were somehow undecided about Trident. He is confusing his party with ours. Both parties have clearly stated their opposition to Trident. It is the Conservative party that is divided on the issue.
    I should like to deal with a small procurement issue and some more general points. This will come as no surprise to the Minister. I appeal to him to give us a decision soon on the air staff target 404. He is aware of the value of that contract and the input of Westland plc to the services. He is aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has invested in the project and that we could obtain significant orders from abroad. It has been one and a half years since the proposals were put to the Minister. It is time that we heard what was to happen. Any decision would be better than none. We naturally hope that he will go for Westland plc and the AST 404. If he does not, I hope that he will at least give us the imprimatur of saying that the Ministry of Defence believes that Westland plc can provide the appropriate aircraft. Even if he cannot do that, will he tell us when he will make the decision?
    On the broader issue, a sensible defence policy comes out of a rational assessment of the facts. In a free democracy it is vital that the public have access to the facts so as to provide a rational defence policy with public support. It is especially important that the House of Commons is presented with a true picture and is not misled.
    A key element of our present defence policy is NATO's declared readiness to use nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack by the Soviet Union. Many regard that as militarily dangerous and normally reprehensible. However, the Government case is that the superiority— a point made by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—of the Warsaw pact is so great that such a policy is necessary. The key question is: are they right?
    The central element of the Government's argument is that the gap in the NATO and Warsaw pact conventional forces is so large that we cannot bridge it and that therefore it is necessary to use nuclear weapons to offset the disadvantage. The consequence is that instead of the deterrents at two levels that I should like to see—one to deter at the conventional level and one at the nuclear— we have left ourselves with only one response to any Soviet action—the nuclear one.
    With low and inadequate conventional forces, and a sole response — the use of nuclear weapons — to any

    957
    Soviet aggression we have a policy the consequences of which are nuclear weapons constantly held on the hair trigger and a threshold to nuclear war which is dangerously low.
    Whether such a policy is necessary depends on the real balance of conventional forces between the Warsaw pact and NATO. One would imagine that the Government would give us the true facts on that. However, it appears not. They seem to prefer to misrepresent the facts to the House and to a wider public—some people might even say, distort and mislead. That appears to be the case in serious documents such as the Defence Estimates and annex A to the Estimates.
    I shall first deal with the issue of money spent on defence. The Estimates tell us that some 14 to 16 per cent. of the Soviet Union's income as a nation goes on arms, and that is about three times the NATO average. That is true, but it is misleading. NATO spends more on arms than the Warsaw pact. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's figures the Warsaw pact spends about £151 billion as against NATO's £307 billion. We may not accept the SIPRI figures, but what about those of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in its document on the military balance 1984-85? It gives the Warsaw pact as spending £278 billion and NATO £308 billion. NATO spent more on defence than the Warsaw pact.
    As a percentage of GDP, the Warsaw pact's spending may well be higher than NATO's, but we do not win wars on a high percentage of GDP spent on defence. Strong defence systems are based upon the total amount of money that is spent on defence. Even on the IISS figures, NATO spends about 1.6 times the amount spent by the Warsaw pact. NATO is stronger in other areas as well; it has 1.6 times the manpower and 2.5 times the gross national product of the Warsaw pact.
    The disparities are not confined to national statistics. More glaring examples of misleading statistics appear in annex A of the Defence Estimates. The figure on page 54 shows the nuclear weapons held by each side and the Warsaw pact column is substantially higher. No overall figure is given, but the implication is that the Warsaw pact has massive superiority. However, the chart uses missiles and not warheads. Now that we have multiple independent re-entry vehicles—independently targetable warheads— would it not be better to use those instead of missiles? The document "British Defence Policy" is even more exaggerated in giving superiority to the Warsaw pact.
    If we look elsewhere we can obtain more honest representations of the balance. For example, the United States congressional budget office study "Modernising US Strategic Offensive Forces" uses individual warheads in its calculations because, it claims — more honestly than ourselves—that that
    "indicates the potential targets which can be struck."
    That approach is fairer, but it seems that it does not create the impression of Warsaw pact superiority which the British Government want to create.
    The United States figures show that NATO is superior. The Warsaw pact has 9,000 warheads compared with the 11,000 of the United States. In addition, our Estimates exclude the capability of Trident. The congressional study includes "hard target capability" — the capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon with a 50 per cent. chance of a
    958
    hit at a point close enough to exert 4,000 tonnes per sq in overpressure at a certain point—presumably, the missile silo. The report says that there will be no sea-based capacity for such hard target capability for the Americans until Trident D5 is delivered. Indeed, the report goes further:
    "The sea-based forces will have to await the introduction of the Trident II(D5) missile in the 1990s to achieve a hard-target capablity."
    That is a vital report, because it shows that Trident will give Britain a first-strike capacity. I accept that the Government have no intention of striking first, but they will have that capacity and we cannot blame the Soviet Union if it takes that into account in its calculations.
    The United States Under-Secretary for Defence told a Mitre conference in 1981:
    "Equipped with D5 Missiles, the Trident submarines will have a 'counterforce capability' — even a pre-emptive capability."
    That is frightening, but it is at least honest. How different it is from what we are told in our Defence Estimates. Paragraph 10 of the Trident essay says:
    "The United Kingdom's deterrent force, when equipped with Trident, will remain the minimum size compatible with cost effectiveness and credibility".
    In fact, according to the American statements, Trident gives us a pre-emptive, first-strike capability.
    The clever manipulations and deceptive under-statements extend to the conventional balance. Indeed, some of the most glaring examples appear in the conventional balance tables in the Estimates. Figure 10 of annex A shows that the USSR has more divisions than NATO. It fails to say that a United States division has 40 per cent, more manpower than a Soviet division.
    Figure 9 shows the numbers of Warsaw pact and NATO forces. The Warsaw pact is shown as having a superiority of about 150,000, but the figure does not make it clear that all the Warsaw pact forces in Eastern Europe are included, but only the forces assigned to NATO on the mainland are included. Some British and French troops are left out.
    The United States is more honest. A congressional researcher, Anthony Cordesman, who has done much work in this area, reckons that about 256,000 men in France and 70,000 soldiers in Britain are excluded from the figures. Anthony Cordesman's figures, backed up by Mearsheimer, show that NATO has a majority of forces on the ground—1,113 million against the 933,000 of the Warsaw pact.
    Figure 9 gives a ratio of fighting units of 1.2:1 in the Warsaw pact's favour, but a different picture emerges in the figures for tanks. Annex A suggests that the Warsaw pact has a majority of 2:1. Here is revealed an especial sleight of hand. NATO chooses to have tanks in balanced units with other forces. The Warsaw pact's theory of victory is to have heavy tank concentrations. We choose our balance of forces according to our theory of victory, but when we represent the balance of forces, we choose the Soviet theory of victory to assess the impact. That is dishonest and it causes the West always to look bad. We simply move the goalposts.
    I could develop some technical points about tanks, but time will not allow that. The United States Department of Defence is more honest and straightforward. Using a sophisticated armoured division equivalent, in which it took all divisions on the central front and weighed them against three charateristics—mobility, surviveability and

    959
    firepower—it decided that the ratio was not 2·1:1, as suggested in our Defence Estimates, but 1·1:1—an insufficient superiority to mount a successful attack.
    Annex A puts the Warsaw pact's superiority in aircraft at 2·1:1. I begin to wonder whether the Ministry's figures are just sloppy or are deliberately intended to mislead.
    Calculations suggest that in bombs and weapons delivered at 100-mile and 200-mile ranges, NATO has a superiority. All this adds up to the fact that the gap between the strength of our conventional forces and those of the Warsaw pact is not so great that it could not be bridged in a way that would give NATO effective conventional deterrents as well as nuclear deterrents.
    If that is so, we are much closer than the Secretary of State would like us to believe to the point where we could abandon a defence posture that relies on the fact that we would be the first to use nuclear weapons in a time of conflict. Abandoning that posture would make the world a safer place.
    Finally—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong):Order. The hon. Gentleman has exceeded the time limit.
    8.7 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made an incredible and irresponsible speech about the nuclear deterrent and his wish for unilateral nuclear disarmament, which would leave us in a weak position.
    I welcome and support the Government's policies set out in the Estimates, their strong attitude on the nuclear deterrent and the overall strategies, which are designed to maintain peace.
    I have recently returned from a defence visit to Belize where I was reminded of how essential it is for us to have effective helicopters in support of our services. I was impressed by the commander of the British forces, his staff, the Army and RAF units and the resident battalion, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment.
    We must come to a conclusion on our medium and long-term strategy towards Belize. We are there to help to defend it against Guatemala and we use the country as a first-class training area for our forces. I hope that we shall be there for a considerable period and, if we are, I hope that the Ministry of Defence will investigate the accommodation for soldiers and airmen in the airport camp. It is too cramped for a tropical climate and way below the standard that we require on a regular base.
    The Estimates cover much sophisticated weaponry that involves high technology. We must never forget that the morale of the men and women who form our forces is most important, and that we want it to remain as high as possible — that is, extremely high. We must never become impersonal or remote from their aspirations. Issues such as pay, promotion, postings, and overseas allowances, matter greatly to them. Issues such as local overseas allowances must be presented better than they were this year. It was not only tough on the commanding officers who had to explain the matter to their units, but on the men. Whatever the practical reasons, which were brought out in the Select Committee's report, to find that the allowance in Germany had been substantially cut was tough. Allowances have been increased elsewhere, but when one has had an allowance for a long time, it comes as a surprise when it is removed at short notice.
    960
    Ministers must do all that they can to cultivate a personal touch with our forces. Too many skilled men and women are leaving the forces, a point which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence touched on. I take his point that as the economy may be picking up and as men in the forces are extremely skilled, it is understandable that they are attracted away. To prevent that we must provide good conditions of service, good pay and a promotion structure which enables them to see a long way ahead. After giving them an expensive training, we do not wish to lose them and, more important, their experience, because industry can offer them better conditions. To look after our men and women is a first priority, which has been highlighted in articles in The Daily Telegraph. They reinforced what I have been thinking for many months.
    I compliment the Royal Air Force on the remarkably high standard of airmanship that it maintains year by year, supported by a host of ground services and control units. Airmanship of the Hercules, which have been going to the Falklands, and of the Red Arrows, of which I have seen two excellent displays during the past few weeks, is of the highest quality. We have made one decision and must make another, and both are crucially important. The first decision related to training aircraft. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will never again embark on a cheapest tender policy. It may have reduced the eventual price well below what was anticipated, but the Ministry's attitude must be to go for the best buy. It is necessary to take into account the quality, specification, performance and handling of an aircraft and balance that against costs. To go for the cheapest aircraft, even if its performance is acceptable, is not to buy the best aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
    I wholly support my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden(Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) about the European fighter aircraft. It is essential in the medium and long term that we in the United Kingdom get the best aircraft that we can and the one that we want. I know that it is a complicated issue and that my right hon. Friend is doing his level best in discussions with our European partners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, if we cannot reach an agreement in Europe about this type of issue, the future does not look too bright. The House will wholly support my right hon. Friend if the British aircraft industry is substantially involved in the EFA.
    My right hon. Friend touched on the reserves. I am involved in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The seven regiment squadrons, the maritime headquarters unit and the handling squadrons have turned out to be a great success in terms of value for money for the Royal Air Force. The fact that the regiment squadrons are now in the line of battle shows that they are trained to the highest standard. They are part of the first-line defence of RAF aerodromes. To maintain the enthusiasm in the Auxiliary Air Force, Territorial Army and home defence force we must ensure that they have plenty of the best possible equipment. Reserve forces undoubtedly like to have good equipment with which to train at the weekend, and take great pleasure in using the highest quality equipment.
    Bearing in mind all our operational and financial difficulties, we must continue as best we can to give the squadrons and Territorial Army the opportunity of going abroad every few years for their summer training. That is a great incentive and most important.

    961
    Overall, having listened to the debate and the discussion of the Select Committee's report, I am confident that the Government are firmly committed to the best possible defence forces. I welcome the fact that during the past seven years we have been able to increase expenditure in real terms year by year. That is a fine commitment, and one of which Conservative Members are proud. I hope that we shall be able to continue with that in future. Today the Secretary of State gave us a good report, which I warmly support. I look forward to another year of complete support for our forces.
    8.17 pm
    Mr. Gordon Brown: The underlying theme of the debate, acknowledged if under-played by most Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), has been the Government's growing revenue crisis. The immediate shortfall in Government funds has not spared the Ministry of Defence and now threatens to engulf it. The shortfall in the defence budget is obvious not only from the report of the Defence Select Committee, but from the Defence Estimates. It is caused by Trident, which Mr. David Greenwood of Aberdeen university says will involve a £4 billion gap in the defence budget by 1988.
    The implications of the gap are most obvious in the effectiveness and readiness of the Navy. According to a defence document that I have been given, the Navy will have less money in real terms in the years to come. It will be undermanned and overstretched, with perhaps 11,000 fewer men in the 1990s, possibly 17 fewer escort vessels, and with a wholly inadequate merchant fleet available for logistic support.
    If that were not difficult enough, we have a shortfall in new naval building, increasing demands on aging frigates and submarines at sea and, therefore, an increasing requirement for dependable and speedy refits on land. We therefore need more investment in, and more commitment to, the royal dockyards. Yet the Government have chosen to risk everything by proposing to end the centuries-old public stake in the royal dockyards and to throw them to the hazards of a franchise market.
    According to the Secretary of State, the defence gap, which we know exists in the funding available to the Ministry, is to be bridged not by a realistic reappraisal of our defence commitments, as promised by the Secretary of State last year but, as the Defence Select Committee says, not yet delivered. It is not to be bridged by cutting the expensive commitment to Trident, which will remain a wholly unusable weapon of indeterminant cost, nor by any enhanced contribution from the Treasury, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is already hovering on the edge of bankruptcy in other areas.
    Under this Government, the gap between our requirements and our resources, between our growing burdens and falling budget, is to be bridged by ideology. There is to be more competition, more contracting out, more privatisation and more franchising. Somehow the gap in our defence budget is to be bridged by what has been called the voodoo economics of privatisation. From what they call open competition, the Government, as the Select Committee reports, hope for savings of £566 million, but admit that it may be only just over £100 million, or nothing. From contracting out services, another
    962
    of the Government's favourite themes, the Government hope—according to the Select Committee—for savings of £400 million but concede that they may be only £100 million. Indeed, they might be nothing. From these experiments, the Government hope for savings of more than £1 billion. The Defence Committee says that the savings may be less than £500 million or, indeed, they may amount to nothing. The Government hope to cut costs by 40 per cent., but have to concede that the figure may be less than 10 per cent., and it may even be nothing.
    The Government are gambling on the outside chance that when it comes to all the support services and the management of the dockyards, the private sector is cheaper simply because it is the private sector. That is not defence economics or even the economics of the grocer's shop, to which we have become accustomed under this Government, but more like the economics of the betting shop.
    Nowhere is the Secretary of State's gamble more irresponsible than in the case of the royal dockyards. They are to be subjected to the disruptions of privatisation on the basis, as I have said before, of a sketchy and contemptible document written by the highest paid civil servant in the land, but which would not rate even a bare O-level pass in business studies.
    The proposals, which threaten a private take-over of the dockyards, the dispersal of naval refitting work round the country, and a disruption of the integrity of the naval bases at Plymouth and Rosyth, ignore the experience of every country that possesses a nuclear deterrent and discard every respectable report that has been done on the dockyards, including one by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) under this Government.
    What evidence can the Secretary of State or the Minister give us for their gamble that as they privatise, they will economise, when the whole assumption of their case is that defence work should be carried out in the public sector only when there are "significant" financial advantages? In other words, if the dockyards are cheaper in open competition, they may nevertheless lose the work because of the Government's dogmatic commitment to privatisation. With no evidence beyond simple prejudice, the Secretary of State and the Minister are gambling on the supremacy of the private sector in the management of our naval refitting, against the contention of all previous reports that the dockyards have a far better and proven track record as being more efficient, cheaper and better in time and quality than the commercial shipyards.
    In January, the Secretary of State for Defence announced a comparison exercise between the private and public sectors in the refitting of submarines and frigates precisely because, as he admitted, he could not yet expect the private yards to submit "realistic tenders". The comparison exercise was to take at least two years. Now that we are only a few months into that exercise, which was to test the Minister's theories, we are told in a document entitled "The Rosyth Challenge" the con-clusions. They are:
    "That the indications are that the dockyards are more expensive"
    than the private shipyards and that consequently there must be a 15 per cent. reduction in dockyard costs and a 5 per cent. reduction in dockyard staff. It is said that if the dockyards do not respond quickly by the end of the year, they could start losing large elements of their programmes, including the Leanders and the type 42s.

    963
    Hon. Members may find it deeply suspicious that, a few weeks after the Minister announced a two-year long competition, he should be able to announce its results, and that in doing so he should ignore the uncomfortable but clear fact that the private shipyards doing the refit work in that exercise have become wholly dependent on the expertise, equipment and even the personnel of the much despised dockyards. The refitting work has been proved to be beyond their own skills and sophistication.
    If the private sector is over-stretched and manifestly inadequate to the task of refitting one submarine and one frigate, how could they cope — if the dockyards were run down—with 46 escort vessels, 24 submarines and even with four Polaris deterrents? The Government have forced the royal dockyards to enter a competition in which the winner and the loser have already been declared, and in which the Ministry of Defence has chosen to add insult to injury by demanding that the public sector should subsidise its competitor in the private sector. Even then, the Ministry's whole philosophy is to say that even if the public sector is cheaper and proves that it can do the job at a lower cost, it will not necessarily get the work.
    Surely Admiral Leach should be taken seriously when he said last month that he was very "proud and deeply grateful" for the
    "professional alacrity of the dockyards in a crisis". He added:
    "It is a little premature now to kick them in the teeth".
    The Defence Estimates, and particularly the dockyards experiment—where dogma matters more than evidence —represent the triumph of ideology over experience. In defence, in particular, the national interest is not the sum of the private interests in the economy. The House should reject proposals for privatisation that are doctrinaire, dangerous, unproven and unpatriotic and that have been discarded in the freest of free economies in America, and which, like Trident, have nothing to contribute to the real defence of this country.
    8.26 pm
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I support the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in one respect, and that is in accepting the importance of the role of the Merchant Navy in war. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) also made that point. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). However, we cannot possibly estimate whether Russian policy, under the titular headship of Mr. Gorbachev, will change. Consequently, our efforts for peace must continue along the same lines until we see some sign of change on his part.
    I shall concentrate on the defence of our homeland and installations, as the Government have described in paragraph 448. As I hope to show, there will simply not be enough men, after mobilisation, to man those vital installations.
    1 think that it is agreed on all sides that the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact are in all cases superior to our own. During exercise Lionheart, it was shown that the time taken for reinforcements was good, but that it would take the United States a considerable time to provide reinforcements. Consequently, we would be entirely reliant on nuclear weapons for our defence.
    The third paragraph on page 6 of the Estimates makes it clear that the possession of Trident and of our nuclear capability is likely to inflict unacceptable damage on the
    964
    Soviet Union. Surely that in itself makes the case for possession of such weapons, helping the peace initiative and strengthening our hand in any negotiations. The Defence Estimates also point out that Trident may result in sacrifices. However, I believe that Trident is so essential that we must keep it. Indeed, it is even more essential given the enormous stocks of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union. I hope that we shall hear more about what we are doing to protect our soldiers and civilians from any such attack.
    Star wars may have helped peace negotiations with the Soviets, but I believe that there are many technological defects which could put that project, as a practical proposition, far into the future. Nevertheless, it may help in our negotiations, as the Soviets are obviously worried about it. We cannot possibly be sure that some of the technicalities such as thermal measurements are perfected, and therefore it may be some time before it is put to practical use.
    We have to concentrate on what we have at the moment. We know, and I have tried to show, that the superiority of the Warsaw pact powers means that we are dependent upon our nuclear capabilities. However, we have to remember that when mobilisation occurs, the Defence Estimates show that 100,000 service men will go out of the country. That leaves us bare, in spite of what the Government are doing to create the new home service force. I do not believe that this will be sufficient to guard our installations. It would require only a small number of dedicated people to cripple our strategic installations and we have to face the fact that these people will be disguised. The people who have to detect them should be from the locality.
    The Government's policy is to attach members of the new force to TA or regular units. They are all over the country but we should have a force, as has been suggested by Lord Hill-Norton, consisting of local people, perhaps armed with weapons that are inexpensive and not up to date, that can act as an organised and disciplined force to help to catch and, if necessary, to tackle these intruders. They would act as a sort of auxiliary army. With 100,000 troops leaving the country we would be left very thin on the ground.
    We do not want a private army, but home defence, as outlined by Lord Hill-Norton, could be an invaluable asset to our army defences and to the Territorial Army and the reserves. The Government should give careful considera-tion to this and, during exercise Brave Defender perhaps, some experiments could take place. Any force must be responsible and under military authority. The cost would be small, but what it would give to defence would be great. I commend Lord Hill-Norton's proposition and I hope that he will be able to enlarge on it in the other place. I do not ask for an answer today, but we should have this point in mind, and give it serious thought. Perhaps during exercise Brave Defender, we could see how it would work with what we already have.
    On a purely domestic level, I thank the Government for helping to expedite the rebuilding of Victoria barracks in Windsor.
    8.33 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett1 shall not follow up the arguments put by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) about reviving Dad's Army, but I shall follow up the point that he made about

    965
    Trident being so vital. In doing so, I pursue the question that I put to the Secretary of State about whether Trident is credible if the Secretary of State cannot tell us how political control of the possibility of launching the Trident base missile will be achieved.
    The Secretary of State appeared to want to brush that point aside, but it is extremely important. He suggested that there is no difference between Trident and Polaris, and that whatever system is used for communication with Polaris would be suitable for communication with Trident. But that is not true. Part of the point about Trident submarines is that they will have a far greater range and will also operate at a far greater depth. Therefore, it is extremely important to know how we shall maintain political control from this country to wherever the submarines are.
    The lessons of the Falklands war show that one of the major problems in war is communication. Commander Lewin in many of his remarks has suggested that. Ministers, in justifying their instructions to the Conqueror and the timing of the sinking of the Belgrano, have always used the argument that they had to worry about communications and had to use a fairly broad-brush approach. I think that everyone wll accept that such a broad-brush approach would be unthinkable for Trident missiles. Therefore, it is important that the Government should convince us that they have an effective system of control.
    As I understand it, the Government did not have a system of communication with the Polaris submarine down in the South Atlantic during the Falklands war, or with much of the task force, that was not dependent on the United States satellites. We did not have our own independent communications system but were dependent on the United States. Therefore, it is not a question of having an effective system for Polaris that can be upgraded for Trident—we probably do not have a system that will operate over such a range. If Trident is to be credible, we have to have instant political control over it, and it has to be independent of the United States.
    I understand that the system for control being considered is based on an extremely low-wave radio system that would involved having aerials strung out over large parts of the countryside. The site would be obvious to everyone because of its size and scale, and to a certain extent it would be vulnerable to enemy attack. Therefore, we must ask some strategic questions.
    I also understand that an installation of that size and complexity of technology, with the problems of ensuring that it could not be interfered with by radio waves, would be extremely expensive. What costs have been allowed for that? The alternative is that it would be possible to do this via planes, but we should have to have special planes for the purpose. The difficulty there is that such planes would have to follow a regular pattern, and from that it would be possible to work out the patterns of the submarines and in the end they would be vulnerable to attack. That would be equally, if not more, expensive.
    It is possible that we could use the same system being considered by the United States for the control of its Trident, which is to use the Nav Star satellites. However, although the United States is planning to put up 18 of these, it is questioning whether they might not be vulnerable to attack and whether they form the
    966
    system that it wants. Could we claim that we have a credible independent system if we have to rely on the United States satellites? I should have thought that that was not the case. We could consider putting up our own satellite, but that would have such a disastrous economic impact on the programme that it would not be credible.
    Where in the White Paper are the specific sums of money to ensure political control over the possibility of launching missiles? Has the Minister looked at the technical problems involved? Would they not involve reducing the distances that the Trident submarines could travel from Britain, and their effectiveness? How much money will be involved? Unless the Minister can answer these and other questions that have been asked about Trident, we must come to the conclusion that Trident is not credible. The British people do not want it and we cannot afford such a system, which will be disastrous for the country, for our economy and for our moral standing in the world.
    8.39 pm
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me after the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I was interested to hear what he said about Trident and communications. Obviously, he has done a good deal of work on the subject. I understand that much of what he said is erroneous but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) talked about Trident being unusable. If deterrence works, of course it is unusable—that is the whole concept of credible deterrence. Before dealing in more detail with Trident, I should like first to mention the local overseas allowance.
    As the Member for Norfolk, North-West, I naturally have an interest in LOA because there are many service men in my constituency. There are many RAP bases nearby. There is a strong service tradition in west Norfolk. The Minister will be aware of the grave concern in Germany. I read his speech in the Adjournment debate about four weeks ago. We all know the figures of loss of pay of certain types of officers and soldiers. I believe that the matter was handled very badly and insensitively. The Government's high standing with the services in Germany took a serious knock.
    In the Adjournment debate, the Minister said that many of the troops were away from their units when the decision was announced, and heard about it through the media. That is not good enough. It would have been far better if unit commanders had been given a week's embargo on the announcement and had had a chance to tell the people in their units what was to happen.
    The Minister knows my interest in the small firms sector. I welcome the document, "Selling to the MOD". I also like paragraph 513 of the defence statement, which mentions that much more attention is being paid to smaller firms, and that the Ministry is looking for greater opportunities for the small firms sector. It mentions that 40,000 copies of the document have been distributed to small firms. Are there any data on how successful the document has been? Are there any figures available? What does the MOD categorise as a small firm? Is it a firm employing under 200 people, under 100, under 50 or under 20? I should like to see figures for the different categories.

    967
    I should like to be able to say to the many small firm lobby groups that we have been successful in the policy of trying to help the small firm sector through MOD procurement, but we need more information about it.
    The decision on Trident is without doubt the most momentous that any Government have had to make since the last war. The crucial starting point is to ask ourselves whether the United Kingdom needs an independent nuclear deterrent. As the White Paper says, deterrence is a matter of perception, and nuclear weapons in the possession of the United Kingdom greatly complicate the calculations of a foreign aggressor. As the Secretary of State said, we might at some stage in the future—I hope not, and he said that he hoped not — see an Administration in power in Washington that is more isolationist and more Pacific-oriented. If that were to happen, we would be left alone.
    I am convinced of the need for an independent nuclear capability, but that capability has to be credible. If it is not credible, it is a complete waste of time and money. I was initially opposed to Trident, which is undoubtedly a Rolls-Royce system. Just as I do not want to see the Secretary of State driving around in a Government Rolls-Royce when a Rover or a Montego will do, likewise, if there could have been a Rover or Montego as a credible alternative to Trident, I should have liked to see that option adopted.
    It is incumbent upon anyone who argues against Trident to ask himself about the other options. We have heard tonight what they are. The first is to retain Polaris. I do not believe that that is a sensible option. The submarines will be worn out by the mid-1990s and it will be very expensive to refit them completely.
    Although the Chevaline warhead is British, the missile is American, and there would be serious problems in maintaining the production lines in America.
    We have heard about cruise from the leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). It is accurate and is a much-favoured alternative in some quarters, but its range is very short, and that would lead to problems with the detection of submarines. But the main problem with cruise is its overall lack of credibility as a strategic deterrent, because it would not have the necessary assured penetrability.
    I have looked very carefully at all the arguments, and initially I favoured the cruise option, but now I am 100 per cent. against it as a strategic nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom.
    There was some talk of building a new British deterrent, but that would be a much more expensive option than the others. There was mention of co-operating with France. I should like to see that at some stage in the future, but in the short term it is completely unrealistic. Therefore, I am led, albeit reluctantly, but remorselessly and irresistibly, to Trident. Of course its power is unimaginable. We all know that the explosive power of one full submarine complement of 16 missiles is 640 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. Naturally, that leads to disquiet.
    We have heard from the Labour party about escalation in the cost of Trident. We do not need many lessons from Labour Members about the escalation of cost. Recently I looked at Barbara Castle's diaries; under the date 11 November 1974 she described a Cabinet meeting when the decision was taken to go ahead with Chevaline. The figure then mentioned by the Prime Minister was £24 million. By
    968
    March 1976 it had risen to £584 million. We all know that the final cost is getting on for £1 billion. The Government have been very open about Trident, but the Labour Government were utterly secretive about Chevaline, and also about the initial negotiations that might even have led a Labour Government, had they stayed in power, to adopt the Trident option in 1981. Despite the escalation in cost, I still believe that Trident is extremely good value for money.
    Our contribution to Trident research and development is very small — about $116 million. The argument about the exchange rate has often been greatly exaggerated. The Henley forecasting centre said that, even with an exchange rate of 63 cents to the pound, the extra cost would be only about $1·5 billion. We know that that will not happen because the pound looks like remaining a good deal stronger than some people might have expected it to be.
    Trident will, of course, have a major impact on the defence budget, and I accept the implications of the Select Committee report, but we have to cater for Trident; we have to go ahead with it. The first duty of any British Government is defence. The first social duty of any British Government is defence. The overwhelming majority of people in Britain want an independent nuclear capability. That is why I firmly believe that, if an overwhelming argument is made for an independent nuclear deterrent, it has got to be credible and it has got to be Trident. If it is not Trident, then that appalling, horrific scenario of a nuclear holocaust, far from being less likely, will become more likely.
    8.47 pm
    Sir Antony Buck: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). I apologise in that I was not here earlier. I have been out of the Chamber for a while, because I was tempted away to a NATO reception, organised by the NATO defence college. When the Minister replies to the debate, he may wish to say something about that very interesting organisation, which was responsible for my being absent for part of the debate. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, was invited to the reception. At any rate, he will be glad to learn that his hon. Friends were represented there.
    The NATO defence college should be the think tank of NATO, which it is not at the moment. It has a course to which we send people of moderately high calibre. There is room for a considerable expansion of that NATO facility.
    I should like to make some general remarks on the defence White Paper. With good Tory logic, it has a blue cover, which is now a continuation of tradition. For the first time, the defence White Paper contains what might be regarded as a child's guide to defence control. The major arms control and disarmament agreements and talks are set out on page 4· I always think that it is important to discuss simultaneously our defence capacity and capability and the arms control initiatives that Britain and the Alliance are taking.
    I do not think that we have a monopoly on concern for defence matters, but I do not see many of the unilateralists here. To a large extent, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) shares with me a mutual and

    969
    balanced force reduction approach rather than a unilateralist approach. We have had the common privilege of being Ministers with responsibility for the Navy, and I think that we agree that the unilateralists are the enemies of the multilateralists. If the tough men of the Politburo are to be persuaded to have meaningful negotiations around the table on START, SALT, MBFR and so on, it is important to keep up our defensive position. If they see that we are unilaterally tearing down our armaments system, they will never negotiate.
    It is useful to consider what has already been achieved in arms control and disarmament agreements and talks as set out in the White Paper. The 1985 Antarctic treaty prohibited military activities in that region. That is significant in relation to the Falklands. I should like an assurance that the treaty's provisions is not being abrogated and will not be under any circumstances by those who are potentially hostile to us. The 1963 partial test ban treaty banned nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater. That vitally important agreement has been observed by all sides. I do not believe that there are any signs that it will be abrogated.
    The 1967 outer space treaty, the 1967 treaty which established a nuclear weapon-free zone in Latin America and the 1968 non-proliferation treaty which inhibited the spread of nuclear weapons to further countries are also significant. I hope that the Government will state the extent to which those treaties have been obeyed. I should like a frank appraisal of the position, because there has been speculation in the newspapers about the possible nuclear capability of several countries. This knowledge is highly relevant to a consideration of our defence policy. I am concerned about the rumours that certain countries have breached the 1968 non-proliferation treaty. We must ensure that the provisions of the treaties are monitored properly and are enforceable. If they are not enforced fully, public opinion must be brought to bear on the Governments concerned.
    The sea-bed treaty prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons on the sea bed. The SALT I agreement limits strategic nuclear missiles. The 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty limits deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. The 1972 biological weapons convention, the 1977 environmental modification convention, which banned the use of techniques to change the environment for hostile purposes, and SALT II are also mentioned in the White Paper. Some agreements have been of considerable value.
    It would be useful at some stage of the debate to have a situation report—in Ministry of Defence terms a "sit-rep"—on the integrity of the agreements and the current position with regard to MBFR talks and the talks in Geneva and Stockholm, which are rightly set out in page 4 of the White Paper. I welcome the White Paper's change in format. I welcome its appraisal, although I should like it to be fuller, of our progress towards what we all want -—a reduction in arms on both sides of the iron curtain.
    Recently, I returned from a visit to the mid-west of America, which is one of the areas most remote from Europe. It was a personal visit, not one focusing on defence. I know that the hon. Member for Attercliffe shares with me an admiration for many of the facets of the defence efforts of our American allies. I was asked to go
    970
    to the mid-west under the auspices of the English-Speaking Union, because that area is visited less than certain others. If we ordinary Brits, as we are known, go to New York or other places that are frequently visited, that means virtually nothing. However, in the mid-west —an area that can claim to be the heartland of America — Englishmen and Members of Parliament have a certain rarity value. We should pay high tribute to the people of the mid-west because they are interested in hearing people talk about defence matters. It is remarkable that the people of the heartland of America are not more isolationist than they are because even New York is a long way away.
    I pay tribute to our American allies for being prepared to retain more than 100,000 troops in Europe. This is tied up within the points adumbrated in the White Paper.
    I have probably one more minute in which to speak.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member has had 10 minutes. He must bring his remarks to a close.
    Sir Antony Buck: I welcome the White Paper. It is sensible in its consideration of disarmament as well as armaments. I pay tribute to our armed forces. They are the finest in the world. I have seen them in many theatres, and in Northern Ireland they perform their task with greater restraint than could any other forces. I am glad to have had this opportunity to make those comments.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome this opportunity to speak in what is clearly a defence debate. I say that because any expenditure that we make is designed not for offensive purposes. We are therefore discussing defence in all its aspects, and the White Paper is concerned with defence.
    Throughout the debate, differing views have been expressed about how best we can defend our interests, and I do not doubt the integrity of those whose views differ from mine. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends hold differing opinions about how best we are to achieve value for the money that we spend. Hon. Members are bound also to hold conflicting views according to constituency interests. I have a constituency interest, but I will not home in on that tonight.
    I wish, first, to deal with deterrence. It is reasonable in a debate such as this to ask whether the nuclear deterrent has worked. We propose to spend money over a long period pursuing what has been the policy of successive Governments since the nuclear deterrent was first introduced by a Labour Government. Thankfully, successive Labour Governments have pursued that policy. Those who believe in the nuclear deterrent take that view.
    To judge whether the deterrent has worked, we must examine the situation in the world. We live in a troubled and dangerous world in which war tends to be the norm. There have been close on 150 wars since 1945. That being the pattern throughout the world, why has there been peace in western Europe? After all, we have forces facing each other and there is a huge political and ideological divide.
    Western Europe has been following free world policies and the countries of eastern Europe have been following the policies in which they believe. Those who have visited the Berlin wall, let alone the other side of the iron curtain, will not deny that the divisions are real, not imagined.

    971
    Why, then, in a world that has suffered so many wars, have we in western Europe enjoyed peace? It is up to those who wish to abandon the nuclear deterrent policy that successive Governments have pursued to persuade us who believe that the deterrent works that their policies, whatever they are, will not jeopardise peace.
    I have homed in on western Europe because it would be unrealistic to suggest that eastern Europe has been at peace since 1945. We cannot ignore the events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The tanks rolled and changes were brought about by force of arms. There were opposing forces. Change was being brought through the use of armed might.
    What divides people? It is interesting to note that a substantial number of the wars that have occurred since 1945 have their origins in differences in religious beliefs. Listening to some of the bishops, we might believe that if we practise our Christian principles and tell others that we are practising them, those unbelievers or non-Christians will emulate us.
    The evidence throughout the world proves the opposite to be the case. People of different religions who cannot agree on how to live in peace normally end up at war. In other words, many wars occur because people hold different religious beliefs. Some occur because people hold different ideological beliefs; the different ideologies come face to face, the people cannot live in peace, and a war results.
    What, therefore, convinces those who do not believe in the deterrent that we should abandon policies which successive Governments have pursued and on which they have been prepared to spend sums of money?
    Nuclear weapons are the least expensive of all weapons. When one examines the effect of modern warfare and the cost of inflicting damage to the extent that it would deter a would-be aggressor and inflict an unacceptable degree of damage, one has to consider how it could be achieved at a price that we are prepared to pay.
    If we decided tomorrow, as some people suggest, to abandon our nuclear capability, how could such an unacceptable degree of damage be inflicted with conventional weapons for the price of our expenditure upon four Polaris submarines? If we believe that deterrence has worked and if we are prepared to continue to invest the amount of money that is necessary to maintain four submarines for the next 30 or 40 years, the obvious choice is Trident.
    Some would argue that Trident is too expensive. I have always taken the view that if my children, and my children's children, never see a war in western Europe, Trident will be seen to have been a bargain, because deterrence has worked. It is up to those Opposition Members who wish to abandon the policy that many of them supported when they were in government to convince me, and others, that the risk ratio will not be altered by its abandonment and, more importantly, to convince me that they can put in its place conventional weapons that will deter a would-be aggressor. It will be no use to appeal to my Christian beliefs. I learned as a very young man in Government service that the fact that I was a Christian had no influence upon the Jews in Palestine or upon the Arabs. My Christian beliefs were put to the test at a very early age. I realised that my Christian beliefs were hardly the kind of shield that would prevent me from becoming the victim of an aggressor.
    972
    We in Scotland have a particular interest in the Trident programme. First, it will provide much-needed jobs n Scotland. Anybody who recommends the abolition of the Trident programme has to convince me, and other Scots, that after its abolition the base at Rosyth would continue to employ the same number of people and to do the same kind of job as it has done so successfully for so long. The arguments I have heard largely from the Opposition, have not convinced me, nor have they convinced many of my fellow Scots. We believe that the continuation of the Trident programme will mean that jobs are guaranteed. It may come as something of a surprise to Opposition Members that Governments and Opposition parties make promises about which the public are a little sceptical. It is only when the orders are placed that people believe that jobs will be guaranteed. That is why we in Scotland have an interest in Trident.
    As an ex-airman, I am interested in what the White Paper says about the Royal Air Force. I, like many other hon. Members, recognise that Europe needs an air superiority aircraft, or call it what you will; all sorts of grand names will be given to it. We are referring to an aircraft that will be capable of surviving the air battles that could develop in western Europe.
    Anyone who has studied battle aircraft will know that an aeroplane that cannot survive at below 15.000 or 20,000 ft in difficult conditions and terrain will not do its job effectively. The most recent glaring evidence of that was the destruction of the Syrian air force by the Israeli air force. It was one of the most outstanding air battles of all time. I cannot think of another battle where one air force destroyed so many opposition aircraft without suffering any losses. It was achieved because the Israelis had the right equipment for the job that they wished to do. No matter how good and how well-trained pilots are— RAF pilots are without doubt the finest in the world and the training system produces pilots of outstanding calibre —
    if, as we learnt to our bitter cost in the 1939 to 1945 war, we ask pilots to fly aircraft that are not equipped to do the job, losses will be substantial and the task will not be carried out.
    I approve of our attempts to collaborate on a European fighter aircraft. If Europe is to mean anything, we must learn to live and work together and to make products that do the job. We must bury our nationalist attitudes—we all possess them, not least the Scots. However, we must listen to what the RAF says about its needs for an aeroplane that will fight air battles in western Europe. We ignore its advice at the peril of future pilots, and that is a price that I will not pay. I am sure that we shall find a solution, but I warn Ministers that the French are good at organising things to suit themselves. I wonder whether they are concerned with air battles in western Europe or whether they have other targets.
    One aspect of the RAF that has interested me all my adult life is its reserve forces, which for many years have been run down. Recently, we started to reactivate the auxiliary units. I welcome that good move. The evidence from the operation of those auxiliary units and the calibre of the volunteers who have been attracted must convince even the most sceptical that the programme is worth while and is extremely good value for money. More importantly, we have attracted the volunteer services of some of the best people in the country. There must be considerable scope

    973
    for enlarging the air force reserves at a price that we can afford, so that they can do the job that is necessary if they are ever asked to do it.
    However, I make the strong plea to the Government to think about reactivating a flying branch. After all, the RAF is about flying; everything else is secondary. Its purpose is to fly to defend the country. If we want people to drive lorries and carry out other tasks, other services and units could do it much better. But no one flies better than the RAF. If, as I hope, we enlarge the RAF reserves and auxiliaries, I would further recommend that they should be under one command. It is a mistake to have different commands, or to have no clear structure of one air officer commanding those responsible for auxiliaries and reserves. I include in that the volunteers who serve the air cadet branch of the RAF, from which a substantial number of RAF recruits come.
    The officers who serve those cadet forces, particularly the Air Training Corps and the combined cadet force, have civilian backgrounds that encompass many different professions, disciplines and experiences. I have always been amazed that we have on tap so many willing people who give of their time for nothing, yet we do not list their full-time jobs—
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that at least one other Labour Back Bencher wishes to catch your eye.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I hope that I shall be able to call other hon. Members.
    Mr. Walker: I hear you loud and clear, Mr. Speaker.
    These debates largely concentrate on the major issues. I believe that I am the only hon. Member who is a serving RAF volunteer reserve officer, and it would therefore be wrong if I did not raise this subject. I hope that the House will bear with me in those circumstances.
    I felt that I had to speak about the nuclear submarines in Scotland because of the Scottish dimension, and I am sure that the RAF would expect me to put some of those thoughts on record.
    The many disciplines and experiences of the volunteer reserve officers who serve with our air force cadets could be used in emergencies if they were used on the same basis as the Territorial Army. There is much scope for using those people. I speak as their shop steward, and I know they hoped that I would get that message across loud and clear. They are willing and prepared, and we get them for nothing. There cannnot be a better bargain than that. In fact, the only time that these men draw pay is when they are on full-time service. Their volunteer service is given free.
    I thank the Government from the bottom of my heart, because in 1962 I wrote a paper on replacing the gliders in which the cadets were trained. I waited a long time before the money was forthcoming, but I thank the Government Front Bench as well as my noble Friend, Lord Trefgarne. All Defence Ministers contributed to the positive action that resulted in the brand new glider fleet for our cadets. I promise that it will be another 20 years before I ask for more replacements.
    9.18 pm
    Mr. Bob Clay: I wish to raise some questions about the proposed American nuclear-tipped artillery shell and its deployment in Europe. I have corresponded with the Secretary of State about this and have received an interesting reply today.
    At defence Question Time on 26 February, Labour Members asked why Dr. Wagner, a senior official in the United States Administration, told congressional hearings that NATO Ministers had agreed to the deployment of the new 155 mm shells in Europe, although Ministers had told the House of Commons that no such agreement had been made.
    There were further denials in the House of Commons, but on 1 May Dr. Wagner told Congress that this had been agreed. He said that NATO Ministers endorsed a number of improvements, and listed the new artillery shells as one of them.
    Since that denial in the House of Commons, Congressman Fazio has put the record to Dr. Wagner at further congressional hearings. He read the record of what was said in the House of Commons and asked, in effect, who was telling the truth. On that occasion, Dr. Wagner said that the statements of British Ministers must have been made for political reasons and for domestic consumption.
    The explanation that I received from the Secretary of State today concludes:
    "I am of course not responsible for decisions taken by the United States Government, or evidence given by their officials to the United States Congress. I agree that Dr. Wagner appears to have taken a different view to mine in his testimony. But the facts as understood by the British Government are as I have described them."
    It is now clear that a senior American Government official at congressional hearings in the United States is saying something totally contrary to what British Ministers have been telling the House of Commons. There is a direct conflict of evidence. To put it bluntly, the Secretary of State in his letter to me seems to be saying in a polite way that Dr. Wagner is misleading Congress because if that is not so British Ministers must have been misleading the House of Commons. Both sets of statements and evidence cannot be true.
    As the Secretary of State now accepts that different evidence has been given in the United States he should explain to the House what steps he has taken to ask the United States Administration to sort the matter out because things are being put on the congressional record which imply that British Ministers have lied to the House of Commons. In those circumstances, one would expect representations to be made to the United States Administration—I should like to see evidence of this— to stop this going on and to clear the matter up once and for all.
    This matter is extremely important not just because of the question of veracity and the discrepancy between the records of Congress and of this House but even more fundamentally because this all stems from the claim at the nuclear planning group meeting at Montebello in 1983 that stockpiles in Europe were being reduced, when in fact older weapons were being taken out and replaced by far more dangerous weapons in terms of escalation of the arms race.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Boring.
    Mr. Clay: Conservative Members may find it boring, but to me a decision that effectively escalates the nuclear arms race and lowers the nuclear threshold in terms of battlefield weapons in Europe is one which, even more than previous decisions by the British Government, the United States Administration and NATO, endangers the whole future of the world.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Boring.
    Mr. Clay: The hon. Gentleman may find it boring but to me it is a serious and terrible matter. It is essential that we should have a clear understanding about whether Ministers have been misleading this House or whether Dr. Wagner has been misleading Congress.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: When the Secretary of State presented his annual defence White Paper I was reminded of a conjuror. The right hon. Gentleman flourished facts and figures like Paul Daniels plucking aces out of the air, but from the right hon. Gentleman's hat came no mere rabbit but the most sophisticated weapons systems, and one wondered how long he could go on getting away with it. The Navy is to get the latest type 23 frigates and the type 2400 diesel-electric submarine. The Army has the Challenger battle tank and will get new personal arms for the infantry. The RAF has the Tornado interceptor and the prospect of a successor programme. A division-sized unit — 5 Airborne Brigade backed by 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines — based in the United Kingdom is earmarked for out-of-area capability and deployment.
    If all goes as the Government plan, the result will be numerically smaller but better equipped and thus more effective forces. Naturally, Conservative Members seemed excited by what the right hon. Gentleman said and early contributors to the debate described his speech as excellent. Growing scepticism set in later however. According to the Secretary of State, there is to be a host of new and expensive weaponry, enhanced fighting capability, and no change in the plans to go ahead with the Trident strategic deterrent programme. Yet we gathered from the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), that there will be a cut in real terms in the resources devoted to defence from 1986-87.
    As yet, unlike two years ago, there are no screams of anguish from the Treasury, so we must ask whether the Secretary of State's scenario is realistic. If Conservative Members say yes, we are bound to ask where the money will come from. We can already spot signs of how the trick is being done. Cuts in service manpower levels are being maintained and the services are being made responsible for finding any extra men that they need by economising elsewhere—in the tail, for example.
    Mr. Heseltine: Quite right.
    Mr. Duffy: I understand that argument, but I wish that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) to say where the cuts were coming from, were here to hear the Secretary of State say that.
    In the Navy, shore training is being trimmed, flying time for Royal Air Force pilots has been reduced and the
    976
    Army faces a reduction in the manpower pool that it uses to keep units up to strength when men are sick, away on leave or on courses.
    The first concession made by the Secretary of State was his admission to an outflow. In other words, there is a problem of retention. It was revealed that outflow is on the increase — 34,000 last year. Incredibly enough, he blamed competition from industry, yet there is massive unemployment and no sign of employment picking up.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Would Labour give them the pay rise?
    Mr. Duffy: Again, it was the right hon. Member for Spelthorne who wrung from the Secretary of State the admission that the pay rise might yet cost the fleet a new frigate. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) would not jibe like that if it were to cost him the successor to the Tornado.
    There is a growing reliance on Territorials and reservists, not to reinforce the regulars but to bring them up to their war strength. In an attempt to combat rising equipment costs, the Government are making a great effort to increase competition in the defence procurement process. The defence bill will keep increasing while the Treasury demands—and gets—cuts. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State had the effrontery to charge the right hon. Member for Spelthorne and, through him, the Select Committee with a gross distortion of their presentation to the House. They were charged with unnecessary concern for a new policy at the risk of destabilisation.
    The right hon. Member for Spelthorne was quite properly concerned about how the defence budget would be managed in the future, especially in the early 1990s. The report says that, although defence spending in 1986-87 and 1987-88 will grow in cash terms by 2·8 per cent. or 1·8 per cent. respectively,
    "the outlook in real terms is gloomy",
    there being a fall in both years. On the basis of Ministry of Defence data, we find that, within two years, the defence budget, excluding the Falklands, will be £970 million lower in real terms. The outlook in the short term is not too bad, but is this the thin end of the wedge? Alarm bells are not necessarily ringing yet, but are these portents as Trident begins to bite? Shall we see programmes slipping to the right?
    Now that the Ministry of Defence no longer needs to spend its annual budget or lose it, there is greater scope than ever for letting expensive new re-equipment programmes drop behind schedule. It is plain from the defence White Paper that the Secretary of State is studiously avoiding firm schedules and timetables. There is a choice example of this in paragraph 206. The issue was taken up in the debate on last year's White Paper. T'here was anxiety among Conservative Members as well as Labour Members about how we were responding to the pleas of SACEUR — General Rogers — and others to achieve better sustainability, notably in bread and butter items such as ammunition stocks. The Secretary of State sets out specifically in paragraph 306 what the Germans are doing to increase spending. He tells us by how much they plan to increase expenditure and by how much they intend to continue doing so. What about the United Kingdom? It seems that funds have been earmarked over the next few years. No figures are given for the United Kingdom.

    977
    The management of the defence budget in the 1990s will present major problems. No one who heard the Front Bench opening speeches could possibly doubt that. As the extraordinary report of the Select Committee on Defence states:
    "These will lead to cancellations, slowing down of acquisitions and the running on of equipment beyond its economic lifespan."
    Given the present equipment programme, there will be enormous scope for the Secretary of State to glaze over the details of procurement.
    The Royal Air Force is in the throes of its greatest re-equipment programme for 30 years. The aerospace industry's greatest worry is that it should have a follow-on aircraft. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has observed that the successor programme is not even in the long-term costings. The Army's modernisation programme centres on the new Challenger battle tank. We had a further statement on procurement of it this afternoon from the Secretary of State. The Army also has on order new combat vehicles for the infantry. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman that GKN Sankey, quite properly, is to be given orders beyond the initial one of 250 vehicles, for which tenders have been announced. Members on both sides of the House will have been glad to hear that announcement.
    It is clear that the Navy will have to fight to maintain its surface fleet of frigates and destroyers at its present long-term strength of 50. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne argued that five vessels will have to be ordered by the end of next year to preserve the present age structure, which is perhaps more important than numbers. When the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) challenged the Secretary of State to say when he would follow on the first order of a type 23, he did not respond. Anxiety was expressed over replacements for the two amphibious landing vehicles, HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. We heard about the Government's commitment to the northern flank but we did not hear about the need for a national capability in the event of ruined ports.
    There is the sorry story of the delayed entry into service of the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, to which reference is made in paragraph 413 of the White Paper. That has not been mentioned so far during the debate, together with the enormous escalation in cost. That reminds us that programmes can slip without the encouragement of the Secretary of State.
    What of the other two problem areas that have not been mentioned so far but which I hope will be taken up by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement? I hope that he will address himself to the delays in the development of the Tornado F2 radar. Has agreement yet been reached on a common new IFF system?
    The details of equipment collaboration on an Alliance basis are set out on page 17 of the White Paper. Programmes are in development or in early study phases, such as the multiple-launch rocket system and terminally guided warheads for that system, TRIGAT, ASRAAM, the long-range stand-off missile, the NATO frigate, the naval ASW helicopter and the Harrier GR5 as well as the European fighter aircraft. I recall again the fears of the Select Committee on Defence on
    "cancellations, slowing down of acquisitions and the running on of equipment beyond its economic lifespan."
    978
    Is there a Member present who is prepared to wager on the survival of the collaborative programme? If there is, I wonder what odds he would lay against the emergence of it in its entirety in the 1990s. The evidence the Select Committee has received from the MOD has not allayed its or our fears.
    The Secretary of State was extremely fortunate this afternoon in his right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The House knows that the right hon. Member is a kind, gentle and courteous man. If his damning report, couched in such blistering language, had been in the hands of some other hon. Members whom we all know, the Secretary of State would have had a much more difficult time. This is not a reflection on but a compliment to the right hon. Member for Spelthorne. If the report had been in the hands of some hon. Members it would have been a much more potent and destructive instrument. I shall give a further quote from the document:
    "Our purpose was frustrated by vague and evasive answers and elegant but unhelpful hypotheses especially regarding the planning assumptions, the in-service dates and the phasing of expenditure."
    I cannot recall a report like that from a Select Committee. Does it, then, make sense to allot to Trident a large slice of a fixed defence budget with all that means in terms of the dilution of the national contribution to NATO's non-nuclear order of battle?
    That is the key question before the House tonight, yet the Government say in paragraph 113:
    "it is our firm belief that no alternative use of British resources would provide anywhere near such a strengthening of collective Alliance deterrrence to aggression."
    Let me repeat that, because it is basic to the Government's position on Trident:
    "it is our firm belief that no alternative use of British resources would provide anywhere near such a strengthening of collective Alliance deterrence to aggression."
    That claim confuses British policy and commitment with the Alliance's capacity and need. Consequently, Trident threatens to become a wasteful duplicative system within the Alliance, not just within the United Kingdom. Ultimately, as the Select Committee warned in paragraph 102 of its report, it puts the conventional equipment budget at risk.
    That is where the Opposition come in, because that is how we see the way forward — through a renewed emphasis on conventional arms and increased cooperation, not just within Europe but within the Alliance, and a renewed strengthening of arms control.
    The past year has seen a growing public debate, as the defence statement acknowledges, about NATO's strategy of flexible response and forward defence in the light of changes in the military balance and about the roles of conventional and nuclear weapons. It is to the credit of the Secretary of State that that point has been covered. The Select Committee, correctly, claims some credit for that. Those of us who have taken part in defence debates in recent years will recall that some hon. Members present can claim credit for the new format.
    The Opposition believe that if the NATO strategy contained on page 12, and especially its underlying argument of flexible response, is to remain credible and acceptable, there must be an enhancement of conventional forces. We recognise that the two factors of overriding importance to defence planning are the time factor and the force levels. The NATO concept of an integrated forward

    979
    defence requires, without a doubt, a crisis management decision-making process which could function rapidly, well and cohesively. NATO's response to the threat requires an improvement of conventional force levels.
    Two basic needs cry out for attention. First, there is the need to eliminate existing shortcomings and realise agreed goals, especially in sustainability and infrastructure. Secondly, there is the need to modernise and increase active and reserve forces in quantity and quality.
    The Opposition are not asking for much. We are not asking for the most sophisticated and advanced systems. We are, like a growing body of opinion within the Alliance on the professional side, asking for improvement at the other end of the spectrum. Lord Carrington made such a plea at the conference to which the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) referred earlier. The hon. Member for Beverley, re-elected as president of that assembly, stated as much in his opening address.
    Another matter that we believe that the United Kingdom should pursue more vigorously — there were urgent calls for this from both sides of the House—is co-operation, on both a European and an Alliance basis. Over the years, European co-operation on defence equipment has become increasingly important and there are three main reasons why closer European arms co-operation has become imperative. The first is the sharp rise in the real cost of weapons systems from one generation to another, which results in most countries buying ever fewer aircraft, ship missiles and other major weapons systems.
    Research and development activities in the various European nations overlap, leading to duplication of effort and considerable waste. Moreover, the benefits that could be derived from the economies of scale cannot be exploited. We simply must seek military value for the taxpayers' money spent on defence, particularly as it is unrealistic to expect Governments to spend much more on defence equipment at a time of low economic growth and mass unemloyment. The only course is to get better defence from the resources available, as David Greenwood argues.
    Secondly, we need to maintain a healthy scientific, technological and industrial base in Europe. We have heard arguments about the importance of strengthening the independent European programme group.
    The most important reason for co-operation is the urgent need for greater military efficiency within the Alliance. There are many examples illustrating a lack of standardisation. For years I have heard pleas in the House for improvements in standardisation, rationalisation and operability. I looked up recently some of the facts that the hon. Member for Beverley gave us about duplication in the Alliance. If hon. Gentlemen check those facts, they will be appalled at the overlapping in the Alliance and the consequent wastage.
    The view of the Government, as stated in para. 127 of the Estimates, is that the prospects for arms control in the coming year are, as ever, difficult to predict. I wonder whether the Government are being a little too gloomy. Of course, none of us can deny the difficulties to which they refer, but that does not mean that the Opposition will not be looking for progress in the next 12 months, first, because we passionately desire dialogue and a peaceful, soundly based settlement of disputes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) stressed, and, secondly, because, with the arms build-up
    980/
    and the economic crisis affecting not only the Alliance, but the Third world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) reminded the House, it is vital that if the mad arms race is to be stopped, the balance of forces must be reduced by negotiation. That is not only our wish, but, we firmly believe, the desire of the countries of Eastern Europe.
    However, if there are to be genuine discussions, one must stop doubting the other's sincerity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) argued. Nothing is more sterile than the almost systematic rejection of any approach.
    The leaders of nations have to give each other more trust, because their peoples want that; they want to overcome fears and insecurity in international relation-ships. History abounds with examples. We heard an encouraging argument on those lines from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford. If the confidence to live and let live is built up on both sides it should not prove impossible to reflect a new-found security by means of progressive disarmament proposals.
    Here is a job for all of us, but especially for our political parties and our leaders. The present situation is grave. Those with political power must have the will to discover a better way to achieve peace than through amassing nuclear weapons. The future of humanity depends on it.
    9.43 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Before answering the detailed points made in the debate, I shall spend a little time talking about the jobs that are dependent on our expenditure in both the public and private sectors of our economy.
    We calculate that the jobs of about 1·2 million British people—about 5 per cent. of the employed labour force —are dependent in some way on defence expenditure. That 1·2 million breaks down as 325,000 in the armed forces, 174,000 employed by the Ministry of Defence, and 700,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom industry. Of those 700,000 jobs, almost 400,000 stem directly and indirectly from our equipment programme. A further 130,000 jobs are sustained by defence equipment sales overseas, from forecast receipts of some £2,500 billion in 1985–86.
    The real increases in equipment expenditure since 1979–80 have not been matched by increases in employment, mainly because of a significant improvement in United Kingdom productivity, but also because of an increasing emphasis on less labour-intensive project areas, such as software.
    However, looking to the future, it is not easy to project the jobs trend. On the one hand, the ending of the 3 per cent. real increases, the drive for greater efficiency, and the increasing emphasis on software point to job reductions, but on the other, the savings that we are now seeing from competition provide the resources for additional or enhanced procurement programmes, and increasing international collaboration should theoretically provide an opportunity for greater export sales.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, when he opens tomorrow's debate, will talk at length about procurement and the increasing success of competition policy and defence sales.
    I should like briefly to pay tribute to those civil servants whom we employ, whether they be in the Procurement

    981
    Executive, in our research establishments — I have visited nearly all our main ones since I have held this office —the dockyards or elsewhere.
    Throughout the Ministry of Defence there is a continuing drive to increase productivity and efficiency, and to involve the private sector wherever possible. I make no apology for that. However, that does not mean that we are not deeply appreciative of those who work for us— their loyalty, integrity and skills.
    The opening speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), of whom we are fond, was rather disjointed. He did not seem to have his heart in the subject in the way that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) did in his more heavyweight philosophical speech. We had extensive use of the Walworth road cutting service, and selected quotes from the Select Committee report, but two questions from Conservative Members scuppered him.
    Early on, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) asked specifically whether it was Labour policy to increase or decrease defence expenditure. We received no answer to that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) would care to reply to it. Clearly, he wishes to remain silent. Therefore, we have had no answer to that question.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) asked about nuclear depth charges. The right hon. Gentleman gave an extremely muddled answer, which exposed the ludicrous unilateral posture of the Labour party. That was exposed, emphasised and commented on by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and the right hon. Members for Llanelli and Devonport talked about the pressure on our budget. By April 1986 we shall have completed seven consecutive years of real growth. The United Kingdom budget is the second highest in NATO in absolute terms and per capita, our gross domestic product percentage is the highest of our major European allies, and the proportion of the budget that we spend on equipment is the highest of any NATO country. On NATO force goals the Select Committee commented:
    "high force goals have been set by the United Kingdom and a high proportion of these have been met."
    Regarding the future, we never planned to have 3 per cent. real growth after 1985–86. The Select Committee sees "worst case" projection of the defence budget in 1987–88 as £970 million less in real terms than that in 1985–86, but that is based on rather speculative hypotheses. At the same time, the Committee sees potential for £700 million savings by efficiency measures. Even on its own terms, the gap is extremely small in proportion to the £18 billion to £19 billion overall figures for defence. But the benefits of competition could well be greater than envisaged by the Committee. Earlier this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the £100 million or so saving on the MCV80 competition, with the contract going to Guest, Keen and Nettlefold. Of course, we also had the competition for the RAF trainer which produced savings of about £60 million.
    982
    But the fact remains that defence expenditure is now at a level that is £3 billion higher per year in real terms than when we came to office. That is an extremely good record, of which Conservative Members can justifiably be proud.
    Several hon. Members raised the subject of Trident. Arguments against Trident, which we have all heard before, have been repeated. However, I shall comment briefly on the Government's position. Incidentally, I was particularly grateful for the support of several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). We are committed to the maintenance of an effective British strategic nuclear deterrent. It is a policy that has been followed by successive Governments since the 1950s. It convinced them and it convinces us.
    The reasons for the selection of Trident to meet that commitment have been fully spelt out in our open government documents and our defence White Papers. I commend to the House the discussion of the case for Trident that is set out on pages 6 and 7 of the 1985 statement on the Defence Estimates that we have been debating.
    I turn now to the points raised today and to the question of cost and affordability. The latest estimate is just under £93 billion at 1984–85 prices. Trident costs are often referred to in the press and by the Labour party as "spiralling" or "out of control" or, if they are feeling charitable, as just "escalating". Such phrases are repeated ad nauseam, but they are simply not true. Let me say in the clearest possible terms that there has been no real increase in the estimate for Trident D5 since it was first announced — no real increase at all. The difference between the current and original estimates is due entirely to inflation and exchange rate movements. Over the same period, however, the defence budget overall has increased in real terms. Thus, there is room both for Trident and for improvements in our conventional capability.
    We listen carefully to the right hon. Member for Devonport when he talks about conventional expenditure. However, his arguments about their being a realistic nuclear alternative to Trident in the 1990s are not very convincing. With respect, it is not satisfactory at this stage to talk about possibly running on Polaris with increasingly expensive refits, or perhaps encouraging British Aerospace to produce a new weapon. [Interruption.] I believe that on previous occasions the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the running on of the Polaris fleet. He also mentioned the possibility of cruise missiles on submarines. In our view, those are not serious or realistic options.
    Dr. Owen: The Pentagon has spent money on putting cruise missiles on submarines. That has not been done for no purpose. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, they are not the ultimate deterrent, but they are an adequate deterrent.
    Mr. Lee: That would be right as part of a mixed force, but there is no realistic alternative to Trident when it comes to our major strategic deterrent and our weapon of last resort.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lee: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.

    983
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) and for Attercliffe mentioned escort numbers. We are committed to maintaining 50 escort vessels. We are talking broadly of ordering three type 23 frigates a year. The order for the first of class, HMS Norfolk, was placed last year with Yarrows, and tenders for the following three —O2, O3 and O4—will be invited in the late summer.
    Several hon. Members mentioned amphibious capabil-ity. I can say that Fearless and Intrepid will certainly continue in service well into the mid-1990s. Studies are in hand for a capability beyond the 1990s, and decisions will be taken by Ministers in that whole area later in the year.
    A number of hon. Members have spoken about merchant shipping, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), who always speaks about merchant shipping. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) also spoke on the subject. As the House knows, our merchant fleet plays a significant role in our defence planning. Consequently, as the defence White Paper makes clear, the recent decline in the merchant fleet has caused us concern. I repeat that, at present, the overall size of the merchant fleet is adequate to meet our foreseeable defence needs, with the exception of deep-sea trawlers for the minesweeping role. I believe that I am right in saying that the Select Committee acknowledged that. In the case of deep-sea trawlers, we have studies urgently in hand to find alternative ways to meet the requirement.
    Because of our concern at the possible prospects for the future, the Department of Transport commissioned its study of future availability of merchant vessels to meet our requirements. That study will very shortly be completed, and as soon as its results are available, they will be carefully examined. I cannot predict in advance what the results of the study will be, but I note the comments on publication made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, and we shall consider that.
    The strategic defence initiative is a research programme intended to investigate the technical feasibility of defences against ballistic missiles. Such research is permitted under existing treaties, and it is entirely prudent that the United States should conduct this work. I am grateful for the contribution made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) in supporting our Alliance and our American allies.
    As for the broader implications of SDI, the Government's position rests firmly on the points of agreement reached by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with President Reagan in December of last year. First, the United States, and Western, aim was not to achieve superiority but to maintain balance, taking into account Soviet developments. Secondly, SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiation. Thirdly, the overall aim is to enhance, not undercut, deterrence. Finally, East-West negotiation should aim to achieve security with reduced
    984
    levels of offensive systems on both sides. This is. the purpose of the resumed United States-Soviet negotiations on arms control, which we of course warmly welcome.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we hope that our scientists will be able to share in this research. We are actively discussing with the United States and with our European allies the details of this complex matter.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) referred to the problems of Westlands. Obviously, it is of considerable strategic concern to the United Kingdom, and we want the company to continue. The Ministry of Defence has about £150 million-worth of orders with it, for a mix of 29 Sea Kings and 13 Lynx helicopters, which should be completed by around spring 1987. We are discussing further possible orders of Sea King and Lynx.
    The W30 has been mentioned, but it would be wrong to buy costly items of equipment from Westlands until the services have established a firm requirement for it. The delay is due to a genuine review of the Army's needs. Its decision on the requirement will not be made until late autumn. Nevertheless, because of the strategic importance of Westlands, we are watching over the situation and the takeover extremely closely.
    A number of hon. Members have spoken about EFA —my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), as usual, and my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North.
    As we are approaching a crucial period of negotiations the House will understand that I cannot say a great deal about the EFA project tonight. There have been differences between the partners over a number of issues. None the less, progress was made by Ministers in Rome towards an agreed position on the size of the aircraft.
    The next round of discussions will help to show whether our further requirements — on, for instance, design leadership and work share—can be met. I can assure the house that we would not be prepared to enter into the programme if it undermined the future well-being of British industry.
    I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble about an early decision. As a Lancashire MP myself, I understand the present concern in British Aerospace at Warton and Salmesbury.
    Several hon. Members have mentioned problems relating to recruitment and retention. In 1978–79, the total premature voluntary retirement by male members of the Armed forces was just over 12,000—a rate of 4·4 per cent. It fell to 1·7 per cent. in 1981–82, and the latest figures for 1984–85 show a level of 2·5 per cent. I acknowledge that there is a rising trend of applications to leave the forces prematurely, and the House can be assured that we are keeping the question under very close scrutiny.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood/ adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    South-East Dorset
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Robert Adley: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of raising a matter that is of continuing concern to and in my constituency and throughout the county of Dorset. There are four county constituencies in Dorset, and I do not think that my hon. Friends will argue too much with me if I say that overall mine is the most vulnerable to the matter that concerns me tonight — the persistent and ruthless pressure for development in south-east Dorset.
    Therefore, my purpose is to ask the Minister—whom I am delighted to see in his place—a simple question. Will he convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the view of the Dorset Members of Parliament—certainly the four of us who represent the county constituencies — that we look to see a reversal of the Government's policy, which at the moment appears to be one of development at all cost?
    My. hon. Friend the Minister has today been much concerned with sporting matters. I shall make one sporting allusion, if I may. If he regards this Chamber as a stadium, and his right hon. Friends and himself in the Government as the players on the pitch, those of us behind him, the supporters, in many of the shire counties, are feeling restless over the erosion of the green belt and the constant pressures for development. I hope that he will see his way towards ameliorating the present policy. If he does not, I fear that some members of the supporters club may desert him or, even worse, may eventually come down on to the pitch and demand a change of policy.
    The main problem is that the local authorities in my constituency—the Christchurch borough council and a portion of the Wimborne council—feel more and more that they have lost control over their environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is here tonight, had an Adjournment debate as long ago as 1 July 1981, when he raised, thoroughly and competently, the question of the erosion of the environment and, in his particular case, the gobbling up of agricultural land by development.
    We believe—I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset South (Viscount Cranborne), who regrets that he cannot be here this evening—that local planning decisions should be respected and overturned only in the most exceptional circumstances. We believe that the exploitation of the planning laws, plus the Department's policy, is rendering our structure plan absolutely meaningless.
    Christchurch and Wimborne are small local authorities and are vulnerable to the constant pressure on them. As the chief executive of the Christchurch council said in a letter to me:
    "Therefore, every time the local authority is called upon to make a judgment is is not free to do so in the light of just the local situation but always has to have regard to what the Department of the Environment might decide should the matter go to an appeal."
    He goes on to say:
    "In summary it is my opinion that the appeal situation in planning is objectionable in terms of democratic accountability and is insidious on its effect on elected Members when considering applications."
    986
    I do not wish to weary the House with endless quotations, but should like to note a few more. This afternoon, Mr. Malcolm Edwards—in addition to being chairman of the Christchurch housing committee, he is chairman of the Christchurch and East Dorset Conservative Association—said:
    "We have the ridiculous situation where councils decide planning applications not on the basis of what is right or wrong, but what is likely to win on appeal. The great problem of the planning situation is that it just is not recognised that there is a level beyond which an area becomes saturated and its infrastructure cannot cope with anything more."
    He went on to ask:
    "What is the planning process all about if it is not to preserve the amenities of the environment?"
    Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North and I had a meeting with members and officers of the Wimborne council. Their pleas are plaintive. They feel that they have virtually lost control of their ability to make strategic planning decisions.
    The chief executive of the Wimborne district council said:
    "The Authority has felt inhibited from imposing any serious policies of restraint, especially in its local plans, despite public opposition to continued growth, to a large extent because of the tone of the guidance being given by the Secretary of State in circulars, and in public speeches, with their emphasis on meeting demand for housing land, especially as Wimbourne is an area of continuing high demand. This has meant that in all the local plans it has prepared so far, the Council has deliberately proposed growth at the upper end of the range allowed under the South East Dorset Structure Plan.
    The Structure Plan is now being reviewed, partly because the intention steadily to reduce the rate of building and the amount of land available for development has not been achieved. However, the tone of government advice again makes it difficult to envisage this review successfully leading to the adoption of any strategy for the restraint of growth, even this should prove well justified."
    The 1984–85 Dorset council monitoring report shows that more people are moving to Dorset than to any other county. The county council's reaction is "We need to review the south-east Dorset structure plan." People in my constituency do not agree. We need much stricter adherence to the present plan or the structure plan will be regarded not just as dead but as having been a cynical exercise public misrepresentation. My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well what was done to seek public opinion on these county structure plans.
    Much of south-east Dorset lives under the shadow of the ambitions of Bournemouth, and Bournemouth's interests differ greatly from those of my constituents and my colleagues. If I illustrate the position in two respects, I think I shall clearly point out to my hon. Friend the Minister just how Bournemouth's insidious influence is affecting my constituency. One is at and the other is adjacent to, Hum airport. Christchurch council is the planning authority for Hum airport. Hum lies wholly within the Christchurch council area, yet the airport management committee that runs the airport is dominated by people not from Christchurch but from Bournemouth although Christchurch is represented. The airport management committee has shown an arrogant disregard for not only the Christchurch council's policies but the council's legal role as the planning authority. When the British Aerospace factory closed recently, the Christchurch council policy was simply to keep aerospace-related employment at Hum airport, on the site and in the

    987
    buildings formerly occupied by British Aerospace. The site is zoned already for industrial use and it is the ideal place in which to carry out these activities.
    The airport management committee, without any reference to Christchurch council as the planning authority, has leased two of the large hangers for grain storage. Warehousing means a change of use in planning terms, but no reference was made to the legal planning authority. This has had a serious effect, because companies that we are trying to attract to the buildings at Hum airport—such as Lovaux, which recently took out a lease on some space for aerospace-related purposes— find now that grain is stored there. This is a fire risk and a serious dust threat to high-technology aerospace developments. Lovaux finds this aspect extremely unattractive. It was told nothing about it at the time it signed its lease.
    The planning aspect alone is serious enough, but there is a worse implication. Some Bournemouth councillors are desperately trying to aid and abet the creation of an enormous development in my constituency at Hum by the Carroll group of companies. If Christchurch is successful in attracting aerospace-related employment into Hum airport, into the buildings that already exist, that will make the Carroll proposition a great deal less attractive.
    We have the serious situation, therefore, of councillors not representing Christchurch deliberately trying to thwart the wishes of the elected local authority in its effort to develop jobs and industry in the buildings that already exist.
    As for the Carroll development, Mr. Gerald J. Carroll —of the Carroll Group of Companies, Carroll House, 2·6 Catherine Place, London, SW1E 6HF—is a great Dorset philanthropist. Mr. Carroll is a lover of the Dorset countryside, with a humanitarian concern for the employment prospects of my constituents. I say that slightly with tongue in cheek, to put it mildly. In total, 576 acres of my constituency have been subject to persistent and ruthless attempts by the Carroll Group of Companies to obtain planning permission to transform this area of my constituency.
    Earlier this evening, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who used to represent the area, and I have his strong support for saying that we look to the Government to do all they can to uphold the planning authority, Christchurch council, in its objections to what is proposed.
    As I mentioned, Mr. Carroll is backed by certain interests in Bournemouth, and they have an incentive to ensure the failure of the present policy of Christchurch at Hum. Mr. Carroll is quoted in the Evening Echo as recently as 8 June in relation to his 576-acre scheme as saying:
    "It would probably go to appeal."
    He went on to say that he believed that in their efforts to assist investment and employment in the region, the Government would approve it.
    Mr. Carroll wants housing and shops; the factories in his plan are just makeweight. We have plenty of empty factories in my constituency. In any event, the building of factories does not of itself create jobs. Thus, the great myth is being dangled before my constituents that somehow this development will create an enormous amount of employment. Mr. Carroll's concern for the
    988
    employment situation in my constituency is purely synthetic and is a quid pro quo for permission to build shops and houses.
    Christchurch is implacably opposed to it, as is the Wimborne council and the New Forest district council. It would distort the pattern of life throughout the area
    I said earlier that Mr. Carroll was a lover of the Dorset countryside. I have discovered that the Dorset Naturalist Trust has been offered £10,000 to establish a nature reserve as part of Mr. Carroll's plans. If I were a nice man, I might think what a decent chap Mr. Carroll was. If I were rather suspicious, I might think that that was one way of seeing that a potential objector was bought off. The use of money to influence attitudes on controversial planning decisions is wholly unacceptable. I do not, of course, hold the Dorset Naturalist Trust in any way responsible. I cannot say the same for Mr. Carroll.
    In my constituency there is a number of small communities. They are in danger of being swamped. Indeed, some already have been. There is a completely inadequate infrastructure in relation to the police, doctors and so on. The list is endless of facilities which have not been provided in a vain attempt to try to keep up with the endless demands of developers.
    The vital point to make in national terms is that this is a north versus south issue. So long as the Government go on allowing, indeed encouraging, developers to develop in the prosperous parts of southern England, so long will those developers not be encouraged to turn their attention towards developments in the northern, and less prosperous, parts of the country.
    The Minister should accept, therefore, that this is not just a Dorset problem. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in all parts of southern England are becoming more and more concerned over this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) will, I hope, deal with the question of oil. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 has played absolute havoc with housing in my constituency. Again to quote Mr. Malcolm Edwards:
    "We haven't got room for our own people and we are obliged to accommodate people who come from elsewhere with no previous contact with the borough."
    We have road problems. A number of my constituents in Hampreston lane in Longham now face the appalling prospect of a huge road being built literally on their front doorsteps, and because it is not a trunk road they will probably be unable to claim adequate compensation.
    In a speech on 14 March to the County Planning Officers Society, the Secretary of State for the Environment spoke of his presumption "in favour of development." That is uacceptable to Dorset unless — and it is a strong "unless" — the district council concerned is completely in favour of it. Once this land is built upon, the development cannot be undone. In my part of Dorset we are threatened with the policies of the Department of the Environment, the ambitions of Bournemouth and, frankly, the greed of certain big developers. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to take note of the strength of feeling on this issue.
    10.16 pm
    Mr. John Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this

    989
    Adjournment debate upon the environment of south-east Dorset. Those who are familiar with the county of Dorset will be aware of what a delightful place it is. I can well understand the concern about the environment that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has so ably expressed on behalf of his constituents.
    In the time available to me, I wish to refer briefly to the environmental aspects of oil exploration, both onshore and offshore, particularly in the area of Poole harbour. Hon. Members will be aware that it is planned to expand the production of the Wytch farm oilfield, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), from 4,000 barrels a day to 44,000 barrels a day. Dorset county council has recently granted planning approval for four exploration wells on Furzey island, which is in the middle of Poole harbour. We are pleased to know that separate approvals will be needed before production wells can be sunk in the harbour.
    I pay tribute to the way in which British Petroleum has worked with the Dorset county council and all other interested parties to ensure that every precaution is taken to protect the environment. This is essential not only for the boat owners and holiday makers, whom we welcome throughout the year, but for the many fishermen who depend upon the harbour for their livelihood.
    We must not, however, overlook the positive side of oil recovery: the new jobs that will be created in Poole and the surrounding areas and the new orders for local firms. Recently, we have heard that BP, having no use for the large house on Furzey island, is prepared to make it available for the use of the local community. A number of local people will investigate ways in which it can be made available for such use without cost to the local community.
    Dorset county council had asked the Department of Energy to allocate the two offshore licence blocks in Poole bay to BP because it felt that it was sensible that those two blocks should be dealt with as an extension of the Wytch farm development. I am pleased to say that the Minister has agreed to the county council's request. A certain sense of relief is felt when one deals with people one knows about such matters, particularly when they have shown that they understand the local environmental problems.
    The recovery of oil is in the national interest, but that does not mean that there are no legitimate local interests, too. We in Dorset are not complacent about the discovery of oil. We know that the price for the successful recovery of oil without damage to the environment is the exercise of constant vigilance. We shall certainly exercise that vigilance. We are sure that both the Government and the oil companies will similarly recognise their responsibilities.
    10.18 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on raising this matter, which is critical to Dorset and to the south of England. We fully recognise the need to encourage development of the economy and the creation of new jobs and to allow new small industries to tuck into villages and towns to replace the jobs that agriculture can no longer provide. There are limits to the positive efforts that can be made to encourage development in areas that are economically declining, but Ministers can do some
    990
    things to assist the economically declining areas and to deal with the environmental crisis which my hon. Friend described.
    First, local planning decisions, especially those limiting development, should be overturned only in the most exceptional circumstances. The overturning of such decisions creates a decline in morale among councillors and in planning departments, which leads many of them to believe that planning power has been taken out of their hands. Secondly, we should achieve a greater adherence to structure plans by keeping development within the limits laid down in those plans. The rate of growth already provided for in the south-east Dorset structure plan is far below the present rate of population and development in the area. My hon. Friend referred to the Dorset county monitoring report, which produces some frightening figures.
    Thirdly, we must protect the environment. The pressures on agricultural land and its disappearance, which I described in my Adjournment debate on 1 July 1981, have become worse in the intervening years. The pressures on farmers, nature and wildlife have also increased. That does not happen without the decision of man. It is the result of planning decisions taken by Governments and local authorities.
    Fourthly, a declared policy of favouring development in the north of the country—in counties which are keen to increase housing and industrial development—would have considerable appeal and would be highly relevant to the divisions in the country today. It could be an attractive policy that would help to generate jobs in areas which need them, perhaps even more than Dorset needs them.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the matter seriously, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for having raised it.
    10.21 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Many people will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for introducing this important debate, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). The subject is clearly of great importance to their constituents, and that is why they have expressed their views forcefully on several occasions in the House, and also to my Department. Obviously, I shall not be able to cover every subject that has been raised, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friends receive replies to the important issues that they raised, including road improvement schemes, inadequate roads and the oil and gas industry. However, I wish to deal with the broader strategy in which we are involved.
    The whole of south-east Dorset has considerable appeal as an area in which to live and work and to spend one's leisure. That general attraction is a reflection not only of the area's inherent qualities but of confidence in the future. My hon. Friend's anxiety — it is a concern of the Government, too—is that planning should respond to the challenges that growth poses in the most suitable way.
    The local responsibility for planning lies with the county council and the district councils. Those authorities are aware of local conditions and can best take account of local opinion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State becomes involved whenever the structure plan is altered, when appeals are made following the refusal of planning

    991
    permission or the imposition of conditions, or when he decides that, in the case of any development, he rather than the local planning authority should make the decision.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned the fact that local authorities are worried that their decisions are too frequently overturned on appeal. I am aware of some, but not all of the cases he has in mind. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an appeal decision once it has been made. But if my hon. Friends would let me know of such cases that have caused concern to local authorities, I shall examine the circumstances, although I must emphasise that there can be no reappraisal of the decision. However, we should examine in detail some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned the major development that is proposed at Hum airport. I understand that an application for planning permission is with Christchurch borough council, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on the case. To do so could prejudice my right hon. Friend should the matter come before him for decision. Nor can I comment on any reports of negotiations that may be taking place between the prospective developer and any interested parties.
    The Government's policy on development control is simple and clear. Planning permission should be granted unless there are sound planning reasons for refusal. I urge my hon. Friend to read the full text of my right hon. Friend's speech rather than what was reported in one of the major newspapers. However, the presumption must always be to allow development to take place unless it can be shown to be harmful, not the other way round.
    Development represents economic activity — as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North said—jobs and social benefits such as more and better housing. No unnecessary obstacles should be placed in its way, and the social and economic consequences of a refusal of planning permission must be borne in mind by those in the local planning authority who consider and decide planning applications and plan for their areas.
    This policy does not mean haphazard growth, endless urban sprawl or unnecessary losses of countryside and agricultural land. This Government are firmly committed to the policies which conserve and protect green belt land and the countryside and which ensure that the bulk of development takes place within existing settlements, particularly inner city areas and on derelict land. Our planning circulars, which planning authorities must take into account in operating the planning system, have all laid particular stress on this commitment.
    In many cases a difficult balance has to be struck between the benefits of development, including to the community at large, and the need to ensure that it takes place in the right places. In some areas there must be a presumption against most development, if the planning system is to serve its prime purpose of securing efficient use of land while ensuring that development may take place. It has to reconcile competing pressures, but it must cater for economic and social progress. No one can afford to prohibit change. That is a recipe for stagnation and decline, and a negative approach will not serve anyone's interests in the long run.
    For our part, we have taken concerted steps to encourage new development to look to the inner cities and to the areas of the country where the competing pressures are less, and the social need greater. The urban
    992
    programme, derelict land grant and land registers, enterprise zones, the urban development corperations in Liverpool and London, and our proposals for simplified planning zones are all positive measures, helping to secure the economic resuscitation and greater prosperity of the areas in great need of new growth and development. We have increased the allocation for derelict land grant in England from £235 million in 1979–80 to £76·4 million in 1985-86, and the allocation for the urban programme increased from £93 million to just under £340 million over the same period. Of the 17 enterprise zones that we have established in England, 15 are in the north and midlands.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend accept the proposition that he would encourage development in the north by discouraging development in the south?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That requires a fairly detailed response which the constraints on time would not allow, but I am more than happy to discuss that more fully with my hon. Friend. He, like me, would support the principles of market forces and the market place, and would agree that encouragement and discouragement are essentially for the planning authorities. However, the Government must create the right conditions, and that is why we have spent a great deal of taxpayers' money to try to ensure that there is an effective balance between north and south. It takes time to put that right.
    Our planning circulars on land for housing, on industrial development, and on development plans have urged authorities to ensure that sufficient land is available in the right places to enable development to take place without any unnecessary encroachment on the countryside. But the vitality of the economy, both local and national, depends on new development. We must all, therefore, ensure that planning decisions help, not hinder, growth and enable development to take place in a way that brings the best possible balance of advantage to the private and public interests at stake in each case.
    My hon. Friend has spoken about the growth of south-east Dorset, and the facts are not in dispute. Between 1971 and 1981 the usually resident population increased by 7·7 per cent., and Wimborne and Poole districts grew at a particularly fast rate. There is no evidence that this growth is slowing down; indeed it is possible that migration into south-east Dorset has increased.
    This growth of population clearly creates a demand for houses, but it would not be right to assume that all of the demand stems from newcomers. There is a universal and long-established trend for new households to need separate accommodation. Although the average household size in south-east Dorset is already low, there is nevertheless a continuing demand from this source.
    Housing completions in south-east Dorset have been greater than expected within the structure plan. The plan proposed that about 35,000 dwellings would be provided between 1976 and 1996, of which between 20,400 and 26,500 were to be on large sites and 10,500 were expected to be built on small sites, The latest monitoring information shows that at the end of March 1984 some 25,100 dwellings had been completed. This high number of completions has not been because of any disregard of the plan. Development of the large sites identified by the structure plan has proceeded more or less as expected

    993
    In contrast, many more houses have been built on small sites within the urban areas than the plan assumed. In principle, this kind of development is to be welcomed because it helps to reduce the loss of open countryside.
    This growth reflects the needs of industry and banking and insurance services to move into the area. Bournemouth and Poole have successfully attracted new offices. Of recent moves, it is heartening to hear of the relocation to Poole of National Mutual Life of Australasia and the intention of Chase Manhattan bank to bring the major part of its headquarters to a new campus site at
    994
    Bournemouth. The port of Poole has greatly increased its trade and the completion of the second roll-on/roll-off ferry terminal should be a further boost to its growth. These are encouraging developments and show that the economy of the area has vitality. They are important for job creation, which I am sure my hon. Friends will agree is necessary—
    The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, mr. speaker adjourned the House without Ques/tion put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Chinese Prime Minister (Meeting)
  Chinese Prime Minister (Meeting)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Judges and Magistrates (Remarks)
  Judges and Magistrates (Remarks)
  Housing Executive (Payments to Contractors)
  Housing Executive (Payments to Contractors)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia and Sudan (Food Aid)
  Ethiopia and Sudan (Food Aid)
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
TRANSPORT
  Commercial Vehicles (Overloading)
  Commercial Vehicles (Overloading)
  M11 (Link Road Proposals)
  M11 (Link Road Proposals)
  Motor Cycle Noise
  Motor Cycle Noise
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service (Lawyers)
  Civil Service (Lawyers)
  Asset Sales (Fees and Commissions)
  Asset Sales (Fees and Commissions)
  Demergers
  Demergers
  Capital and Income (Distribution)
  Capital and Income (Distribution)
  Bank of England Printing Works, Loughton
  Bank of England Printing Works, Loughton
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Closed Circuit Television Cameras
  Closed Circuit Television Cameras
  Police Vehicles (Accident Statistics)
  Police Vehicles (Accident Statistics)
  Private Acts of Parliament and Byelaws (Reviews)
  Private Acts of Parliament and Byelaws (Reviews)
  Hard Drugs
  Hard Drugs
  Data Protection Act
  Data Protection Act
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Tamils
  Tamils
  Diminished Responsibility
  Diminished Responsibility
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
SCOTLAND
  Public Inquiry (Edinburgh)
  Public Inquiry (Edinburgh)
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Agricultural Engineering Industry
  Agricultural Engineering Industry
  Veterinary and Agricultural Advisory Services
  Veterinary and Agricultural Advisory Services
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Students (Aberdeen)
  Students (Aberdeen)
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentre, Middlesbrough
  Skillcentre, Middlesbrough
  Job Release Allowance
  Job Release Allowance
WALES
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Nissan
  Nissan
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Metallic Marker Pens
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  United States (High Technology)
  United States (High Technology)
  Tobacco Industry (Alternative Employment)
  Tobacco Industry (Alternative Employment)
  Brewing and Tobacco Industries
  Brewing and Tobacco Industries
  IBM (Correspondence)
  IBM (Correspondence)
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
  Eastern Imports
  Eastern Imports
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Fairey Engineering Ltd.
  Fairey Engineering Ltd.
ENVIRONMENT
  Oldham (Infrastructure)
  Oldham (Infrastructure)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Central Berkshire Structure Plan
  Central Berkshire Structure Plan
  Norman Shaw Building (Lift)
  Norman Shaw Building (Lift)
  By-elections (London)
  By-elections (London)
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Anti-fouling Paints
  Anti-fouling Paints
  City of Manchester (Boundary)
  City of Manchester (Boundary)
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Shorthold Tenancies
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Trees (Destruction)
  Trees (Destruction)
  Refuse Collection
  Refuse Collection
  North of England County Council Association (Report)
  North of England County Council Association (Report)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  "Coal and the Environment"
  "Coal and the Environment"
  Islington
  Islington
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Mobile Homes (Rents)
  Mobile Homes (Rents)
  Local Authorities (Housing Policy)
  Local Authorities (Housing Policy)
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Home Improvement and Repair
  Home Improvement and Repair
  Football Ground Safety
  Football Ground Safety
  Planning Regulations (Small Businesses)
  Planning Regulations (Small Businesses)
  Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951
  Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951
  St. Barnabas Community Centre, Bristol
  St. Barnabas Community Centre, Bristol
  Disabled People (Accommodation)
  Disabled People (Accommodation)
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Local Government (Consultation)
  Rudolph Steiner Schools
  Rudolph Steiner Schools
  ILEA (Pamphlet)
  ILEA (Pamphlet)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
DEFENCE
  NATO
  NATO
  RAF Chivenor
  RAF Chivenor
  Trident
  Trident
  West Coast of the Uists (Survey)
  West Coast of the Uists (Survey)
  Chile
  Chile
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Department of Agriculture (Scientists and Advisers)
  Department of Agriculture (Scientists and Advisers)
  Kinsale Gas (Report)
  Kinsale Gas (Report)
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Gary Smith
  Mr. Gary Smith
  River Roe (Restocking)
  River Roe (Restocking)
  Caugh Hill Water Treatment Plant
  Caugh Hill Water Treatment Plant
  Richmond Centre, Londonderry
  Richmond Centre, Londonderry
  Foyle and Craigavon Bridges (Traffic Flows)
  Foyle and Craigavon Bridges (Traffic Flows)
  Terrorism (Explosive Materials)
  Terrorism (Explosive Materials)
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Maze Prison (Orderlies)
  Maze Prison (Orderlies)
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Castledawson Bypass
  Castledawson Bypass
  Maghaberry Prison
  Maghaberry Prison
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dalkon Shield
  Dalkon Shield
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Nurses (Back Pain)
  Chiropodists (South Bedfordshire)
  Chiropodists (South Bedfordshire)
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Operational Research Service
  Operational Research Service
  Mental Health Act 1983 (Code of Practice)
  Mental Health Act 1983 (Code of Practice)
  Spectacles (Prices)
  Spectacles (Prices)
  Family Practitioner Services
  Family Practitioner Services
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances
  Mobility and Attendance Allowances
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Disabled People (Home Adaptations)
  Disabled People (Home Adaptations)
  Headway
  Headway
  Surrogate Motherhood Agencies
  Surrogate Motherhood Agencies
  Social Security Review
  Social Security Review
  EC (Welfare Support)
  EC (Welfare Support)
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Lipotriad
  Lipotriad
  Complaints Procedures
  Complaints Procedures
  Health Authorities (Ancillary Services)
  Health Authorities (Ancillary Services)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Israel (Trade Boycott)
  Israel (Trade Boycott)
  United Nations (Cambodia Representation)
  United Nations (Cambodia Representation)
  Mr. Ahmed Walid Rajab
  Mr. Ahmed Walid Rajab
  William and Mary (Tercentenary)
  William and Mary (Tercentenary)

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

Lord Morton of Shuna
Hugh Drennan Baird Morton, Esquire, QC, having been created Baron Morton of Shuna, of Stockbridge in the District of the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
Baroness Hooper
Gloria Dorothy Hooper, having been created Baroness Hooper, of Liverpool and of St. James's in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Bethell and the Lord Lucas of Chilworth.

Local Authority Chairmen: Appointment Criteria
2.43 p.m.
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 criteria and procedure will be used in appointing the chairmen of the successor authorities to the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): The chairmen of the successor authorities to the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will be chosen and appointed by the members of those authorities. The procedure is prescribed, in the case of the new authorities created by the Local Government Bill, under Clauses 20 and 34 respectively. In the case of existing authorities, existing statutory provisions will continue to apply.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he comment on statements in the press that the chairman of the successor authority to the GLC has been approached, if not officially appointed? That person is "Tag" Taylor, who retired some time ago from local government politics upon his acceptance of a well-paid post with a quango as chairman of the Southern Water Authority. May I also ask the Minister how many approaches or soundings have been made in respect of the chairmanship of the successor authorities to the six metropolitan county councils?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question referred to successor authorities. The body to which the noble Lord has referred is, I believe, the London residuary body, which, in the terminology of the Bill, is not a successor authority, although it is a successor
1226
body. I naturally answered the Question which the noble Lord had on the Order Paper.
It is true, however, that Sir "Tag" Taylor has been approached. The noble Lord has read the newspapers aright, and we think that his is a very good appointment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do not all these persons have one feature in common—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I press the Minister further on this point?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do not all these persons have one thing in common: that none of them would have been elected by the people of London?
Lord Elton: My Lords, most of the people referred to in the Question have nothing to do with London but with the metropolitan counties.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would expect both him and the Government to disregard the mud that is being thrown even before the Bill is on the statute book?
Lord Elton: My Lords, most of the mud misses, and the rest of it finds targets other than the Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, thinks that asking legitimate questions in your Lordships' House is throwing mud. I am acting on behalf of what I believe to be the public interest. Whoever are the people appointed, they will be responsible for a great mass of services to the public. I will now put another question to the Minister. Will the person who has been appointed be permitted to retain the first post to which he was appointed, that of chairman of a water authority, in addition to holding the new appointment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the only question I heard the noble Lord ask was whether the person in question will hold two jobs. The answer is no.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in this matter of genuine public interest, in view of the first appointment to a residuary body (which is the precursor to the successor authorities) being of the manner which has been described, will the Minister bear it in mind that the broad political allegiances of the populations oversighted by the residuary bodies will be very mixed and that unless the appointments made broadly reflect that political allegiance across the board there will be strong support for the view that the Local Government Bill has less to do with democratic accountability than providing jobs for the boys and the girls?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly points out, every aspect of political allegiance is reflected in the areas in question. The noble Lord asks that an appointee should combine every political allegiance in his own person. We do not make these appointments on the basis of political allegiance—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I believe the Minister, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Lord who asked this Question should join with such amusement in that cheer, having just said that his Question was not intended to throw mud but was meant to be in the public interest. I repeat that appointments are not made on that basis, and nor was this appointment. Sir "Tag" Taylor was appointed because he was involved in London local government for nearly 30 years. He chaired both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He ceased active involvement in local government in 1982.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I accept completely what the Minister has said: that it is impossible for one individual to reflect all political views. Will the Minister bear in mind that I simply want to know that, at the end of the day, when all the appointments which the Minister has in mind have been made, the political complexion of the authorities will be reflected by the totality of the appointments?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not detect a question there, except that the noble Lord asked whether I am aware of the point he makes. Yes, I am.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister also consider the fact that there are many women who have been very active in local government and that they, too, should be considered along with the old boy network as being suitable chairpersons?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness or her friends have any names in view, then I shall be interested to know them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that everyone would expect these appointments to be based not on sex or on party allegiance but on ability? We hope the Government will keep to that criterion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we want to appoint the best person for the job, and we have started on that course rather well.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, does it not occur to the Minister that people in the real world outside this House will find vast amusement in the Conservative and Labour Parties accusing one another of giving jobs to the boys?

Civil Service Administration Trainees
2.50 p.m.
Lord Rochester: 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 consider that the quantity and quality of adminis-
1228
tration trainees recruited to the Civil Service in 1984 is satisfactory.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): Yes, my Lords. The numbers recruited in 1984 represented a substantial improvement over the two previous years. Although slightly fewer of the successful candidates were awarded the higher board marks, no one is recommended for appointment who is not fully up to standard in terms of ability and potential.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in its report for 1984 the Civil Service Commission said that its recruitment experience suggested that a higher proportion of the most able undergraduates were unwilling to enter the Civil Service? Does he accept that the reason most often given by candidates for rejecting appointments was uncompetitive pay?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords; not at all. The Civil Service offers many compensations, though pay may not be one of them. But what I rejoice in—and I hope all of your Lordships' House will, too—is that the brightest and most able of our generation are now looking wider than the Civil Service for their future careers.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is it not possible that rather more suitable recruits might be attracted if Ministers were sometimes to express greater appreciation of the help and assistance that they receive from the Civil Service?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should remind the House that I was a civil servant for five-and-a-half years before I came to your Lordships' House, and I am fully aware of the abilities of the Civil Service. But we should look at the facts. In 1984 the final selection board—I refer to administration trainees, which are the subject of the Question—had one Grade 1 (the first for many years) and although there were fewer Grade 2s (five, compared with 12 in 1983) there were 10 more Grade 3s. Looking overall at the balance of recruitment to the Civil Service I do not believe that we can see any sort of decline.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the figures for 1984 reflect a wider area of recruitment, or is the Civil Service Commission, unlike its competitors in the private sector, still concerned only with universities south of the Wash?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, the Civil Service has been looking to spread the net wider to encourage recruitment within the service. The difficulties which the Civil Service may have in seeking recruitment are not confined to the service. Some of our major banks have found that their recruitment attractions have become more difficult of late. It is because horizons have been broadened and our young people now find that there are many other activities.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the Minister, either now or later, say what percentage of the recruits in 1984, whom he refers to as the brightest

1229
and best, have either science or engineering training of some sort?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, 15 per cent.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many administration trainees were recruited from the polytechnics, which now rival universities in both size and the quality of their output?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that I shall have to write to the noble Lord with that information.

Hospital Beds: Statistics
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals: 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 how many hospital beds in the National Health Service have been closed since May 1979, and how many new beds have been provided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, up to the end of March this year 17,220 beds have been approved for permanent closure and 12,035 new beds have been provided in major schemes, plus others in many small schemes, on which we do not have information centrally on the numbers of beds involved.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not fully understand whether the noble Baroness answered the second part of my Question relating to the number of beds that have been closed. Will she confirm that the figures given by the Minister of State, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, show that, on balance, there has been a reduction of 2,486 over the past six years? Does this significant reduction in the number of beds partly explain the very substantial increase in the waiting lists which were reported by the noble Baroness on Monday?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I repeat that 17,220 beds have been approved for permanent closure and 12,035 new beds have been provided in major schemes, which does not take account of the smaller ones. The fact that beds have closed is not the point; it is the number of patients who are treated. For example, in the acute sector, as I said earlier this week, 650,000 more cases were treated in 1983 than in 1978, though 10,000 fewer beds were available.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is often alleged that beds are not available in some hospitals due to financial stringency? What truth, if any, is there in that allegation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no truth in that. Health Service expenditure has increased by about 16 per cent. over and above general inflation since 1979. No closure is approved by Ministers purely
1230
on financial grounds; nor unless we are satisfied that it will produce an improved service for patients. We will approve closures which allow resources to be put to better use elsewhere, but these must be part of a sensible rationalisation of facilities.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that every bit as important as the number of beds available in any hospital, or in the National Health Service as a whole, is the number of beds actually occupied? Is she aware that in the past beds were too rigidly demarcated as surgical beds, medical beds or whatever, as if they were of different shapes? That sometimes led to wastefully low occupation rates and to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that there were no beds when, in fact, there were. Has that problem been overcome? Can the noble Baroness tell us what is the bed occupancy rate in the National Health Service as a whole, as a percentage of the total? Is she aware of any regions, or individual hospitals, where bed occupancy rates are low?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very grateful for most of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The only figure I am able to give him is that in England in 1983 the average daily number of National Health Service beds available was 343,000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the building of new hospitals now in London—at St. Mary's, Paddington, and the new national heart hospital—will improve the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, where the types of beds available were not necessarily the types needed, and that where new hospitals are built that situation will be taken into account?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Up to March of this year 38 major hospital schemes had been completed and nine more are expected to be completed this year. In addition, many smaller schemes have been completed for which we do not collect, centrally, information on the number of beds involved. I have to add that I cannot personally be responsible for whether the beds are in use or are empty.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave the impression that everything was okay and in order in the National Health Service. Why, then, is it that periodically in many areas—and this has been going on for some time—emergency and out-patient departments are closed, putting pressure on other hospitals that are struggling to remain open?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to regional variations, I would point out that there are many factors that lead to variations in the number of available beds in different Health Service regions. Largely, these are historical, but they also include the use made of day care, community care, efficiency in bed use, differences in population profile or differences in patterns of referral.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not a fact that more beds were closed during the period of Labour rule, when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was a permanent Minister, than during the Conservative Government's period of office?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, between May 1979 and March of this year 222 hospitals have been approved for closure under this Government. This compares with 270 under the previous Labour Government.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, of the 17,000 beds which I think the noble Baroness said were earmarked for closure, can she say how many are for mental patients? Is not the proportion of mental hospital beds going down rather more rapidly than the number of patients needing them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we believe that mentally disordered people should be able to lead as normal a life as possible. That can in most cases be best achieved if they can live at home or in homes which are part of the general community. Even when continuous health care is needed it can often be provided in a small local NHS unit rather than in a large hospital.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the decision to close St. David's Hospital in Brecon, which is a geriatric unit, has been reversed, and can she say whether that reprieve has anything to do with an impending by-election in the Brecon and Radnor constituency?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to write to me on that matter, I should be delighted to give him an answer.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I know how to make a bed and how to sleep on one but not how to close one. Am I missing something?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the availability or occupation of beds cannot be separated from the availability of doctors, nurses, ancillary staff and administrators in hospitals? Does she further accept that those people are not available to man and staff the beds that we need as a direct result of Government policy?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I certainly do not accept that. We have more doctors and nurses now than there were under a Labour Government.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as we have now established that finance is not the cause of the 5,000-bed reduction, may I ask whether it was the reduction in the number of nurses? Is the noble Baroness aware that 1984 was the first year since the creation of the NHS in which there were fewer nurses employed in the service than in previous years? For the first time there was an actual reduction in the number of nurses. Is not that part of the explanation?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. The closures are necessary because of the need to replace outdated
1232
buildings and in response to changes in population and new policies for health care, with particular emphasis on care in the community.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what about the reduction in the number of nurses?
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in view of the recent report by the National Council for Women on women in the health service, can the noble Baroness please say what proposals Her Majesty's Government have in order to increase the number of beds for the treatment of women by women in the Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a little outside the Question, but I know that if it is their wish wherever possible women are treated by women.

Traffic Congestion in Central London
3.2 p.m.
Lord Boothby: 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 have now carried out the inquiry into the problem of traffic congestion in central London caused by coaches and heavy lorries which they undertook to make; and if so what conclusions they have reached and what action, if any, they propose to take.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, discussions are continuing with the authorities concerned about many aspects of traffic congestion in central London, in which coaches and lorries play a part.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that unless something pretty drastic is done, other than by reducing the size of the police force which is now proposed, very soon the only way to get about London will be to walk? Does he also realise that that is the only thing that I can no longer do, and I am not alone?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord. I would say, however, that this is primarily a matter for the GLC and the borough councils. We for our part met the GLC and the local authorities in May when the subject was discussed. We are meeting Westminster City Council next week to talk specifically about coaches, and we are also taking part in discussions with London Regional Transport, the police and other interested parties.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, arising out of that important Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, may I ask whether there is not a rule or an understanding which enables Members of another place and of your Lordships' House to obtain access to Parliament without difficulty? Are the police advised about that and requested to render assistance if there should be any difficulty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am under the impression that there is some such arrangement. I am

1233
not personally very knowledgeable of it. I do not think that it is a question for the Department of Transport in any case.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that in 1978 Lord Amulree asked exactly the same Question as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and that is seven years ago? Is it not high time that something was done with great rapidity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would say that the traffic authority for London is the GLC, and perhaps at the moment we are doing something.
Lord Boothby: But you are abolishing it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Transport Bill now before the House will exacerbate the position in central London and in other cities? Can he tell the House what steps he will be taking to ensure that the GLC retains the powers that he has mentioned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first of all, I do not accept that the Transport Bill will worsen the situation in London, which is what the Question refers to. Secondly, the powers that the GLC at present has, strengthened by the London Regional Transport Act last year, as regards sightseeing coaches will be retained by the successor authority.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, raised the question of getting access to this place. My problem is getting away from it. If one tries to drive into Parliament Square from here, streams of pedestrians prevent you every time the traffic is clear from Bridge Street, and the moment that they have crossed, the traffic appears again.
Lord Boothby: And coaches, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if the noble Lord is giving advice to whoever is dealing with the GLC, could they take a look at the problem there?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I would, however, say that tourism is an important part of the economy of London these days. We must balance these things. We must do what we can to encourage tourists, at the same time seeing to it that we do not clog up the city completely.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should have been dealt with a long time ago? It is becoming a matter of great urgency. Obviously, we must have the tourist coaches in London and in other places, but they have a tendency to concentrate in one place. The situation needs drastic examination. The GLC must be doubtful of what powers it now has, as I am, and so we need a study by the department to look at the question of coaches and perhaps to establish proper coach parks south of the river or in some other place. As much as we want tourists, they cannot be driven right to the doorstep of where they want to go.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord in many ways. As I say, that is why we are looking at this matter with the GLC and the borough councils, and Westminster City Council in particular. I hope that something constructive will come from those discussions.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as a result of the Victoria Coach Station, 900 coaches pass through the narrow residential streets in that area, many of them going up to the North and crossing London? Are the Government aware that in that district the level of pollution is now above EC limits? Are they proposing to consider an overall plan, or is it just to be left to individual district authorities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware of the situation in the Victoria area, though I would point out that in fact the number of coaches using Victoria Coach Station is more or less the same as it was many years ago. However, I do not disagree that the other traffic has increased. I am aware also of the pollution aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised last time we had a discussion on this matter. I have been in communication with him and I have undertaken that the Warren Spring laboratory will look into that matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us with suspicious minds sometimes wonder whether the Government do not actively encourage tourist coaches to park opposite the Palace of Westminster so as to prevent too many noble Lords getting to the House in time to ask supplementary questions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that his suspicions are entirely unfounded.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, would it help the noble Lord. Lord Boothby, other Members of this House and Members of the other place, and the police in facilitating access to the House or leaving it, if we had labels on our windscreens so that the police could recognise where we were going, and why?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am a little uncertain as to what I say, but I understand that in years gone by many noble Lords and others had labels on their cars. I understand that those were removed for security reasons.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the use of one's parliamentary pass can sometimes get one through a traffic jam, with the aid of the police?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is probably a very helpful suggestion from my noble friend.

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill
Report received.

Coal Industry Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Coal Industry Bill be read a second time.
The purposes of the Coal Industry Bill are financial. This is recognised by the fact that it has been designated to be a Money Bill. I will explain the provisions in a few moments. First of all, I should like to say a little about the present state of the coal industry in this country.
A year ago we were in the midst of a long and damaging strike. That strike has left a substantial legacy of financial loss; it was in so many ways such a great setback. Strenuous efforts are now being made to get the coal industry back on its feet. There is a pressing need now for reconstruction, and in the short term there will be a continuing need for deficit grant for the National Coal Board.
However the coal industry, which all will recognise as having a great history, must now face up to the future, and that means change. It is, for example, instructive to note that total primary energy demand in the United Kingdom in 1984 was lower than it was in 1968, 16 years before. In the last 10 years coal has held its share of the market, but over that period that market has been shrinking. Future energy demand is now expected to grow more slowly than was expected in the past and this all means, as far as coal is concerned, that overcapacity must be reduced. We need a coal industry that can respond flexibly to the needs of the market place.
Secondly, costs must be brought down so that National Coal Board coal can compete in the international market and with other fuels. Average costs of production have for too long exceeded average revenue.
I should now like to explain the provisions of the Bill itself. Clause 1 provides for the payment of deficit grant to the National Coal Board—£1,200 million for 1984–85 and £600 million for 1985–86 and 1986–87. The latter figure may be increased by order if necessary. The provision of £1,200 million for 1984–85 is over and above the funds provided for that year under the 1983 Coal Industry Act.
The limit on what could be paid under that Act was reached in March of this year; hence the immediate requirement for fresh parliamentary authority. Total losses for the National Coal Board for 1984–85 are now expected to be around £2.2 billion—very largely due to the strike. The loss is still being calculated and will not be finally available until the board's annual accounts are published in July. However, I can say that as a result of the strike no fewer than 73 coalfaces were lost-48 working faces, 24 salvage faces and one development face. The write-off of these faces costs many million of pounds. Recovery of faces damaged by the strike is similarly a very expensive process.
Clause 1 of the Bill also provides that if the audited accounts of the National Coal Board show that the full £1,200 million for 1984–85 is not required for that year then the balance may be carried over to 1985–86 and 1986–87. This allows for present uncertainty about the proper allocation of the strike-related costs
1236
which will be resolved when the accounts for 1984–85 are available.
There has been some understandable speculation about the assumptions underlying the figures for 1985–86 and 1986–87. I should therefore emphasise that the figures do not match some particular forward plan: they represent a financial framework within which the Government expect the National Coal Board to live. The Government have also made it clear to the Coal Board that we expect it to break even without deficit grant by 1987–88. The level of subsidy to the coal industry in the past has been unacceptably high. However, we believe that there is now a commitment in the industry to work towards a new era and we have been greatly encouraged by the way that producitivity and overall performance have recovered since the end of the strike.
Everyone recognises that some pits will have to close, but the National Coal Board has made it clear that any decision relating to a colliery closure plan will be dealt with under the colliery review procedure, either as it exists today or under a modified procedure if agreement can be reached between the board and the three unions involved. That assurance applies to all coalfields. I should emphasise that the decision to close a pit is never lightly taken. The problems faced by individuals and communities are recognised. That is why such generous redundancy benefits are offered and why the board puts such efforts into securing jobs for all those who wish to stay in the industry. We are also much encouraged by the progress made by NCB (Enterprise), which has already approved loans totalling nearly £½million and which is actively considering requests for funds in excess of £3 million.
Perhaps I may now turn to Clauses 2 and 3, which concern the power to pay pit closure grants to the National Coal Board and to make payments to redundant miners. To avoid any misunderstanding I should say at the outset that the purpose of these two clauses is to ensure that adequate powers exist to enable the possible continuation of the redundant mineworkers and concessionary coal payments schemes and payment of pit closure grants. It brings these payments into line with what is proposed for the payment of deficit grant and avoids the need for two coal industry Bills within one year.
However, this Bill of itself neither affects the very generous redundancy terms presently available to miners nor extends the period for which those terms are available. Both remain as set out in the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) Order 1984, as amended. This Bill does not increase the existing ceiling on total payments which may be made either in respect of redundant miners and concessionary coal or by pit closure grants.
Some of your Lordships may be wondering what the figures in the Bill mean in terms of numbers of men to be made redundant and number of pits that must close. Although these are very important questions, they are not ones which this Bill seeks to address. Clearly the strike had a very profound effect on the coal industry, and the National Coal Board is still in the midst of a very major exercise, reviewing the damage done and working out the options for the future. It is still too early to say what the final outcome

1237
of that review will be. As I have already indicated, where the National Coal Board area directors have come to the view that a particular pit can no longer be justified, the proper colliery review procedure will be followed, which may or may not result in closure.
The figures for the Bill could not await the final outcome of the board's full deliberations and were therefore set to be large enough to meet almost any conceivable set of circumstances. But the Government accept that it would not have been right to ask Parliament to increase the existing limits until a clearer indication of need had emerged, which is why the Bill seeks only to enable those limits to be raised by order approved by Parliament if and when the need becomes apparent.
The long-term future of the coal industry depends on facing up to the problems and having the will to solve them. The Government are committed to a successful coal industry in this country. We have provided over £4 billion for investment, and in recognition of the difficulties involved in reconstruction are putting forward this Bill this afternoon. But for the long term, good wages, secure jobs and the proper level of investment cannot be guaranteed in a permanently loss-making industry. For the sake of all those involved in the industry, the coal industry must pay its way. The Government believe that the problems of the coal industry can and will be overcome, and accordingly I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill, and for doing it so ably and succinctly. Of course, even apart from the fact that this is a money Bill the Opposition would not dream of seeking to oppose it, since without the financial provisions in the Bill the coal industry would cease to operate. The total amount, estimated at over £2,000 million, is a large sum by any standards, and represents just part of the enormous costs arising from the coal industry dispute, which itself was a tragedy for the industry, for the miners themselves and for the taxpayers as a whole, who are now being called upon to foot the bill for a dispute that need never have happened and should not have been allowed to happen.
I say "need never have happened" for the very good reason that if the NCB and its chairman had applied both sense and sensitivity on the question of pit closures, and had been prepared to use long-established procedures to the full, it is likely that over a reasonable period of time they would have achieved many of their objectives without the trauma of the strike itself, without the long-term damage to relationships both within the coal industry and in the wider social context outside the industry, and without the enormous cost, only part of which is being met through this Bill. In political terms, the Government have done themselves no good. They can consider themselves fortunate that on this occasion, and unusually for the NUM, the union did not handle this dispute with the imagination and finesse applied to
1238
previous disputes. Had it done so, it is likely that the strike would have been of shorter duration and have ended differently, and the Government would have ended up with a bowlful of egg all over their face.
But, as I have said, this Bill only provides the money to meet part of the cost of the dispute. There are even greater costs to come: first, in the electricity supply industry, to cover the cost of additional oil burn at power stations, an amount of some £1·8 billion; secondly, the cost of extra policing, at some £200 million; and, on top of these costs, the cost of importing coal and oil and the consequences of that for our balance of payments. These direct costs amount to some £4 billion. To these have to be added the loss of a year's coal production, the tax and national insurance contributions not paid by miners during the strike and the cost of benefits to strikers' families during the dispute. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer still believes that the confrontation was a worthwhile investment. Is it not the case that the real reason why the Government have decided to sell off British Gas during the lifetime of this Parliament is the need to meet the cost of the coal industry dispute and still have enough money for a pre-election tax bonanza?
However, it is not my intention to dwell on the past. It is the future that now matters in the coal industry, as the noble Lord has mentioned. We are entitled to know exactly what the Government's intentions are in relation to the shape and size of the industry, and where it fits into the Government's overall energy strategy. That is, of course, if they have one. We are, I believe, entitled to ask some questions about the Coal Board's future intentions, early though this is. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will answer them. First, what output is envisaged for the future, and where is that output to be concentrated? There must be some idea of that. For example, are the rumours that the Scottish, Welsh and Kent coalfields are to be phased out true? Were the 1,800 redundancies announced on Monday in Wales only the first stage in phasing out Wales as a coal-producing area? The people of Wales are entitled to know if they have a future and, if so, what that future is. The Coal Board itself appears to be playing a cat and mouse game with the Welsh miners. It is reprehensible that they should be treated in so cavalier a fashion. I sincerely trust that the Minister will be able to give an indication of what the future has in store for Wales and, indeed, for every other coalfield in Britain.
I should also like the noble Lord to say what the future size of the workforce is likely to be. He says that he cannot give such a figure today, but he must have something in mind. Already, through natural wastage, men leaving the industry during the strike and the redundancies so far announced, more than 30,000 jobs have been lost. How many more jobs are to go? Is the final figure of redundancies to be 35,000, 50,000, 60,000—or what is the figure that the Coal Board has in mind? Perhaps the National Union of Mineworkers was right after all when it predicted long before the strike that 70,000 jobs were to go. Would the noble Lord opposite please let us have some idea?
In this connection, I should like also to refer to the leaked plans of the European Economic Community, which, if confirmed, would strike a devastating blow at

1239
our coal industry. I am, of course, aware that the Secretary of State has denied that there is any truth in this leaked report. But I am always suspicious of the EC Commission bearing in mind previous experience of some of its harebrained schemes. I hope that the noble Lord can assure me that, if it were found that this leak did after all have a basis in fact, the Government would resist the EC in any move it might make to further cut back United Kingdom coal production. Indeed, I should like him to go further and say to the EC that Britain can meet the shortfall of 70 million tonnes of coal a year in the EC and that the need for large imports of coal does not really arise provided that the British coal industry is given the proper support and assistance it needs. After all, for a fraction of the cost of supporting agriculture, British coal could be immediately competitive with coal from South Africa, Australia, the United States or anywhere else for that matter.
It is time, too, that the Government gave an indication of the likely future generation pattern of the CEGB. The country, as well as the coal industry, needs to know what is the future role for coal, oil and nuclear. The price of oil eliminated it as a fuel source for any generation of power other than at times of peak load. But do the Government intend that a substantial conversion of oil-fired stations to coal firing should be put in hand?
On the issue of the nuclear component in electricity generation, I have heard various estimates of the planned future percentages of total generation from nuclear power stations ranging from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. by early next century. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us just what the Government have in mind and what are the implications for coal. Will the noble Lord also say what additional measures they now intend to take to persuade more firms to take advantage of the coal conversion programme?—for it is clear that coal remains highly competitive with other fuels and conversions will not only help individual firms to become more profitable but will also assist in the drive for lower unit costs and an improvement in the country's competitive position.
I now turn to the plight of the coal mining communities which as well as having suffered greatly during the dispute are now to feel the hard whiplash of destruction through high unemployment. It was gratifying to see that in your Lordships' House during the strike noble Lords from all parts of the House expressed their fears for the future of mining communities and urged the Government to act to preserve them. We all remember the emotional appeal of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who has so much experience of this problem and who in fact has lived through it.
Since the end of the strike an organisation called the Coalfields Communities Campaign has been set up with a view to increasing substantially national and local initiatives to maintain existing employment and to create new jobs in coalfield communities. That campaign is supported by many distinguished individuals and a large number of important local authorities and I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen to them and take account of their suggestions for preserving our mining communities.
1240
The Government themselves have of course taken one initiative, to which the noble Lord referred in his speech, in setting up the NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., and undoubtedly, if properly supported, directed and financed that organisation could do a great deal to offset the damage caused by mass redundancy and pit closures. However, it is already clear that it is underfinanced. The £10 million allocated to the NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. is but a drop in the ocean and falls far short of what is needed if new opportunities and new jobs are to be generated and brought to our mining communities. In another place, at Committee stage an amendment was moved to make £50 million available to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., but this was not accepted by the Government. I think that was a great pity since it has given the impression that the Government are not really serious about providing alternative jobs.
I would hope that the Secretary of State will have second thoughts about this and make an announcement that he and the Government are indeed ready to provide finance up to at least £50 million in the first instance, for such an announcement that he and the Government are indeed ready to provide such finance would provide a real dynamic to NCB (Enterprise) and encourage potential industries to believe that they have substantial and continuing Government support to establish new enterprises in the coal mining areas.
I want finally to refer to the question of miners dismissed during the strike. Undoubtedly the attitude of the Coal Board is causing great concern and resentment, not only because the board has failed to honour promises made prior to the ending of the strike but also because its approach has not been evenhanded throughout the industry. The noble Lord will know that during the course of the dispute the Coal Board dismissed miners who had been arrested, irrespective of conviction or acquittal, and that of 944 people so dismissed 671 remain not reinstated. I should emphasise that we are not talking about people convicted of serious crime or of acts of vandalism against board property or against persons. We are talking of people who committed minor offences or no offence at all; and indeed many were dismissed on mere hearsay evidence.
The NCB in its statements prior to the ending of the strike intimated that 80 per cent. of all those dismissed would be reinstated and that only those who had committed acts of vandalism against board property or acts of violence against employees would not be considered for reinstatement. However, the board is not living up to its own criteria, since of the 671 people not yet reinstated only a handful fall within the category for dismissal laid down by the board. What is entirely reprehensible to me is the refusal of the board to allow cases of dismissal to be taken through the coal industry conciliation scheme which would provide for cases to be submitted to an independent umpire, or, if it is the board's wish, to the coal industry's national reference tribunal.
However, it is also a serious matter that there is difference in treatment area by area and that whereas in Derbyshire and South Wales nearly all those dismissed have been reinstated, in other areas practically no one has been reinstated. Indeed, in Scotland the area director, Mr. Wheeler, has flatly

1241
stated that none of the 205 miners dismissed will be reinstated. Under those circumstances one is forced to the conclusion that the NCB is being spiteful and vindictive and is adopting a policy of kicking a man when he is down—a concept entirely alien to the accepted British character and certainly one which is not practised by industry generally either in the public or the private sector.
The board, in accepting its new, tough-line tactics, is undoubtedly creating grave injustice and I cannot believe that even this Government can condone the board's actions in respect of reinstatement. For the sake of future good relations, miners need to feel that they will be treated fairly and justly. What is needed now on the part of the Coal Board is a period of understanding and magnanimity, and I appeal to the noble Lord, who is a kind and sensitive man, to impress on his colleagues in Government to intervene with the Coal Board to ensure that this problem of reinstatement is dealt with on the basis of fairness and justice.
I conclude by stating my own belief and that of the Labour Party that the coal industry is and must remain an essential part of our economic life and that coal must remain the basis of our energy strategy. Departure from this central concept will only bring danger and difficulty in the future and it is essential that the Government themselves ensure that the conditions exist whereby the coal industry can be developed and expanded on the basis of understanding and co-operation between all those involved in the industry, whether they be managers, face workers or anyone else.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, it is extremely doubtful whether, when the Bill came in its present form before the House, many Members of your Lordships' House expected the noble Minister to make such an informed, although undoubtedly depressing, statement about the future of the coal mining industry. The facts speak for themselves. One fact is that only two noble Lords put down their names to take part in the debate. If I had known that the Minister was to make such an important statement I would certainly have put my name down to speak, However, because I did not know the Minister's or the Government's intention, as an alternative I have put down a Question about the production of certain products which the coal mining industry could undertake. I note that that Question will come before your Lordships' House on a Friday morning. I shall leave the matter there.
What I cannot understand is why, after a dispute lasting more than 12 months which created more turbulence in the industrial life of this country and in industrial relations than we have known for many years, the Government have taken only a matter of two or three months to come to some decision about the future of the coal mining industry.
One would have thought that the Government would decide, "Well, we had better have a thorough investigation. Why did this dispute occur? Why should it have occurred? We must make certain that it never occurs in that form again". This is particularly so when, as the Minister indicated in his important
1242
speech, there are questions of the closure of pits, redundancy of a vast number of miners and those associated with mine working, and also the provision of deficit grants to the industry to enable it to carry on in a temporary form.
All this is depressing. Far from being optimistic about the future, one comes to the conclusion, based on the Minister's statement, which is a statement from the Government, that the outlook for the mining industry is very grim indeed. We must try to dismiss that depressing concept as rapidly as we can.
Very few noble Lords have put down their names to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has his name down, along with a noble Lord on the other side, really in reply to the debate. That is all. No other speaker is taking part to offer an opinion. There is something wrong.
I listened with great interest to the excellent speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I would agree with almost every word he said, except for one thing. I would not condemn the Government at this stage for not engaging in a thorough investigation to find out what has happened and how it can be prevented in future. The Government should be condemned not because they hesitate to come to a definite decision, but because they failed to intervene more than 12 months ago when the dispute appeared to be imminent.
I remember at the time taking part in the discussions and saying that the Government must intervene. When I was a junior Minister, Secretary for Mines, and a member of the Cabinet as Minister of Fuel and Power, whenever there was a dispute, however minor, I intervened at once in order to prevent its development. I could not understand at the time why the Government should adopt the high and mighty attitude of, "We want to have nothing to do with it. It is a matter for the National Coal Board" etc., and supported by Mr. Ian MacGregor. That was a profound error of judgment on the part of the Government. It is no use now condemning the Government for their failure to promote something of the nature of a thorough investigation. In any event it is no use criticising the Government.
I want to say quite definitely—it has been said before, and it has been implied many times by myself and others associated with the coalmining industry, those actually engaged in it and those who have written and spoken about it—that the production of coal in its raw state will never be profitable. It never was. It failed to be profitable under the ownership of private owners such as Lord Londonderry and Lord Lambton, and a great many other of the old aristocratic landowners and mine owners. When the pits were so unprofitable at that time those mine owners conceived the notion of forming an amalgamation of pit owners in order to provide the possibility—it was no higher than that at the time—of making some kind of profit, or at least covering their expenses. It was no more than that. Production of coal in its raw state will never, in general, pay. It will never be profitable. It cannot be.
Then how could it be profitable? It could be only by producing those products which can pay, such as tar, oil, and a variety of other products which have been

1243
mentioned, and indeed have been dealt with in a limited fashion—and I repeat and emphasise, a limited fashion—by the National Coal Board under the control of various chairmen and directors, some of whom are Members of your Lordships' House.
There has been a limited, modest effort to process coal in order to make it more profitable. Not until we understand that it is not a coal mining industry but an energy producing industry, to be associated with oil, electricity, and nuclear production, is there any prospect of it becoming profitable at all, or even paying its way. That is essential.
This subject calls for a thorough debate in your Lordships' House. I deal with merely the fringe of it. Without something of this kind being done there is not very much hope. You do not solve the problem by giving the men money. They open small businesses, and before very long they find themselves in the realm of bankruptcy. That will never do.
Besides, the closing of pits is nonsense. If there was time, I could this afternoon offer Members of your Lordships' House several examples of incidents in the past 40, 50 or 60 years when pits were closed down in some parts of Scotland—I was more closely associated with those areas than with the south, Yorkshire, and the Midlands—because of excessive flooding. They were completely closed. Only a few years later it was discovered that the flooding had partly settled down and they were able to start up again. These pits are now working, where they had been closed down for several years on end. This is what happens.
There are geological faults which have to be closely studied. There are economic faults. There are the operations of the men themselves. There is the provision of the right kind of equipment. They are now producing masses of equipment—I emphasise this—at tremendous cost, but it is not producing profits.
In order to achieve profits we must produce those products which can be sold not only in the United Kingdom but in all parts of the world—in the African countries, in colonial countries and elsewhere—where they are only too glad to buy them, provided that the prices are reasonable. They never will be reasonable until we use the whole resource in a processed fashion and not in the stupid fashion of just burning it away as we do.
Then there is the question of liquefaction. South Africa has been doing it and to some extent it has been successful. It has been attempted in the Lancashire coalfields, and I understand that it has met with some success. It has to be done on a grand scale. It requires finance, I agree, and there are certain risks entailed, which I understand. However, unless the mining industry is regarded not as a mere factor in the production of a raw product, coal itself, but as the basis of a great variety of products, there is no hope for the men who want to work in the mines and for the nation which relies on energy to carry on its manufacturing, etc. Unless these things happen, there is no hope.
I enjoyed the speech—if I may use the term "enjoyed"—of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. There is really no enjoyment in this at all. The Government
1244
have made mistakes. They made mistakes more than 12 months ago. They should have intervened then. Now what are they doing? I do not blame the Minister. Far from it. He is just telling the story as no doubt it is presented to him. It is not enough. I repeat that there has to be a thorough investigation. Geological questions, economic questions, manpower questions—a whole variety of questions have to be considered before we come to any definite decision. Until that is done, there is not much hope of being optimistic about the future of this great national industry.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who speaks on this matter with such authority, with such clear recollection of his own responsibilities as a Minister and with the youthful vigour which we all have come to expect from him. There is no sign whatever of his seam running dry. We have nugget after nugget and long may we continue to receive it. The noble Lord said, and every speaker has so far said, that this is an important issue indeed. The whole of British industry was originally based on the coal deposits, and anything to do with billions of pounds going into the coal industry must be regarded as of great importance indeed.
My first pleasant duty is to thank the noble Lord the Minister for having explained the Bill in such easily-understandable terms, and to say to him that although I cannot go back as far as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I can certainly go back to the period that I recollect very well when I had some measure of responsibility for these matters for six long years and when the subsidy to the coal industry averaged during those years some £5 million a year. Now we are talking about thousands of millions in one year alone. Naturally, it comes as somewhat of a shock to me to have to deal with figures of this magnitude.
One can say immediately that so far as this money is needed for investment in the coal industry to produce greater efficiency and greater competitiveness, we on these Benches agree that the mining industry should have the money, the Government should have their Bill and we wish the industry well in that respect. It is no different from any other industry. It will flourish and provide employment so long as it can sell what it produces. To sell what it produces it has to produce at a competitive cost, which is what the money is in part needed for, and it has to ensure that it markets what it can competitively produce. In that respect, I underline everything that has so far been said in this debate about the need of the industry to go out even more strongly for markets both in this country and abroad to sell its products.
Although I have no wish to rake over the ashes of the coal dispute, nor am I competent to express any original ideas on that, I have some ideas to put before your Lordships' House, which is entitled to discuss these matters in a constructive way, notwithstanding that this is clearly a money Bill. The first thing I want to say to the Government is, as has already been indicated, that what they are doing at long last in encouraging the Coal Board with regard to NCB

1245
(Enterprise) Limited is too little. The noble Lord the Minister will remember that before it was incorporated I put this view forward on two occasions. On both occasions I received very dusty answers from the Government. They were slow to come to the conclusion that this was a matter that ought to be within their responsibility and ought to be encouraged. It was pushed very hard indeed by my right honourable friend in another place, Dr. Owen; and it was some time before it came into being. It has, thank heavens, come into being but at far too low a level of activity. I ask the Government to bear in mind that they have been slow in coming to accept this idea and somewhat modest in their provision of funds for its activities which should be much enlarged.
Part of the moneys that we are concerned with cover some of the cost of the coal strike, so far as that has been quantified. But the usual problem in life is that it is easy to talk about figures that can be quantified. It is very difficult to talk about figures that cannot be quantified. Although this talks about the loss to the coal industry—and the Minister made it clear that there is nothing like the total loss involved yet, and we shall hear a figure in due course—that loss is the loss to the National Coal Board. That is by no means the total loss to the country. It does not cover the loss to the miners. It does not cover the loss in physical hardship or in cash. Such small amounts of savings as miners had in general terms have totally gone. It does not cover the legacy of bitterness which still prevails. None of these costs is included.
Looking to the future, what can one usefully say about this whole episode? What one can say—one says it with care but one has to have courage in this House to say what one truly believes—is that the conclusion from all this is that strikes simply do not pay. They damage the strikers, as I have tried to illustrate, and we know about that; they damage the industry; they damage the country. It is not surprising that our economic advance is nothing like it should be when we have these enormous, self-inflicted wounds to cope with. I have said before, and I say it again, I look forward to the time when the strike as a method of resolving industrial disputes will be regarded as as relevant as is duelling: it is an exercise in violence and power; it is not an exercise in reason. It does not produce just results. It damages those who participate, and very properly we have given up the idea of saving our honour by challenging for a duel. I hope that the time will come before too long when we will regard this as an utterly irrelevant method of settling disputes. What we need to find is an agreed method—I repeat the word "agreed" in capital letters—between all sides whereby industrial disputes which will inevitably arise can be settled by reason, by talking round the table and not by a resort to violence of this kind.
What then are the Government doing to secure this? When I raised this matter, I was told by the Government Front Bench that these lessons will be drawn, the matter speaks for itself. However, I do not think it does speak for itself. I do not think the lessons will sufficiently be drawn, and I think the Government have a responsibility now because now is the time when people are aware of what has happened. Everything a Government does has to be concerned with correct timing. It is now that the Government
1246
should be launching a nationwide education programme putting clearly before all the people the costs of disruption in work in all forms of workshop and everywhere else where that can be assessed, showing what effect that has on the stability of work in the workshops concerned and on the economy of the country as a whole.
Discontinuity in production processes is damaging almost beyond measure. What we need to do is to have a method whereby production continues and disputes are settled by agreement separately. One of the greatest productive nations in the world and possibly our greatest competitors has shown us the way. I refer to the Japanese. They are able, apparently, to find methods of reaching agreed arrangements with their workforces whereby this outmoded, damaging method of settling disputes can he avoided and a better, more rational method put in its place.
The first suggestion that I have to make is that, in addition to what I have already said about NCB (Enterprise), there should be launched a nationwide education policy bringing before the public the whole of the facts relating to strikes and their effects and the damaging effects on those who strike, on the industries affected and on the economy of the country as a whole. The second suggestion that I have to make, which stems from my own experience in the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth, is that it would be a very good idea if the Government were to set up a wholly independent body of that kind, its members drawn from all sections of the community, obviously including employers, employees, miners, people of all political persuasions and of none. Its function would be to look into the costs that are being incurred in any strikes that take place, in any discontinuity of work which takes place: stoppages, informal strikes, official strikes and the rest.
It ought to be a fairly straightforward matter for these costs to be calculated while they are being incurred, so that the country can be made aware of the cumulative cost of continuing this outmoded method of solving disputes and resolving difficulties. I do not mean a body which has any suggestions to make as to how it should be avoided; that is not the purpose of it. I mean a body like the Royal Commission to which I have referred, a body which has the responsibility for arriving at facts and doing no more than putting before the public the facts agreed between people of every philosophy and every walk of life. If we are able to do that, we may make some progress, we may improve labour relations and we may see in due course an end to the kind of tragedy whose costs we are now discussing.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may be permitted to take his discussion a little further. It is so dismal to listen to the talk from all sides of the House about an industry which apparently has no hope or future and the suggestions that what we are doing is providing money for a decent burial. From where are the imaginative ideas for the future of coal coming? Where should they come from? They should come from the National Coal Board. They did come from the National Coal Board until about 1960, when the National Coal

1247
Board was taken over by politicians and subsequently by accountants. The technocrats had practically no place in the National Coal Board.
By contrast, look at gas. It is run by superb technocrats. Look at the industry today, run by the finest technocrat of the gas industry in the world. His foresight is terrific. He went to natural gas and so put gasworks out of commission. But, realising that there was a limited future for natural gas, he has produced the finest gasifier in the world, ready to go into action when the gas supplies fail. Here is the new market for coal, because he realises that ultimately when you convert coal into hot gas you can suck electricity out of it direct—and this has been proved by the Russians—so that in future we should be building gasworks to produce electricity.
Where do we see in the National Coal Board the ideas that are germinating from places like Hungary where they are producing coal and transmuting it into its geological beginnings, into a fertiliser—a fertiliser with interesting qualities? Ask yourselves, my Lords, how this coal was formed. Some 300 million years ago there were growing forests of a size which has never been repeated since. It took us a very long time to understand the reason for this. We have ultimately discovered that the reason was that the soils contained no bacteria which caused disease, so the plants grew disease-free and produced these enormous quantities of humus which eventually formed the seams of coal upon which this country has been so dependent.
Geochemically, there is a fascinating difference between the coals produced in that geological period and coals produced afterwards. The coals produced in that geological period produced compounds which—I ask your Lordships to forgive the simplicity of expression—were both left-handed and right-handed; and there is no political connotation there. They were compounds which were left-handed and right-handed. Today nature uses only left-handed compounds. The reason she abandoned right-handed compounds was that she needed to produce things like pollen and glandular tissue in the train of evolution.
I shall not go into that now, but what I am getting down to is this: that these singular, left-handed and right-handed compounds possess antibiotic properties. I have proved this personally and we have shown this in Hungary where I worked with the Hungarians.
Here, in this country, one gets no response whatsoever for this kind of work. It is like trying to go into the Vatican and persuading them to become Protestants. It is hopeless. This is a sad state of affairs. The Hungarians have proved—I have been working with them for over 10 years—that we can accelerate the rate of growth of conifers by a factor of three; and these trees are disease-free.
Additionally, we have been able to show that, by processing coal in a very economic way, we can produce new types of wood preservative. There is a market of £40 million in Europe alone for wood preservatives; so there is a new market such as that for which my noble friend Lord Shinwell is appealing. To come back to my main point, this is not an industry which is ready for the undertaker. It is a great industry
1248
but it needs an injection of imagination. What you need to do is to put the technocrat in charge of the industry, and not the bureaucrat.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, not surprisingly, when I was Minister of State for Energy in another place one thing that I always did was to read there the energy debates which took place in your Lordships' House. Indeed, if I may deal briefly with the last speech first, it is little gems of contributions such as we have been given this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, that made that very much worthwhile.
I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Diamond and Lord Shinwell, for the welcome they gave to the legislation we are discussing this afternoon. I shall try to deal with some of the points which they raised. The point which has come most clearly out of our deliberations this afternoon is the very great interest and enthusiasm for the coal industry which exists on all sides of this House. Genuine hope has been expressed over and over again that the sad and appalling troubles which the industry has just come through will not be repeated and that we shall see a spirit within the coal industry which will fully justify the massive injection of taxpayers' money which is being made into that industry and which has been made in that industry over recent years.
We in this country are richly endowed with energy resources: oil, gas, nuclear power and coal. Over a third of the primary energy demand in this country is met by coal. Three-quarters of our electricity is normally produced by coal-fired generation. Energy demand from coal in the industrial market, helped by the Government's coal-firing scheme, is steadily growing. The market for coal is there—if the opportunity can be grasped—if there is confidence in securing supplies of coal at the right price. That is the message which the industry must take on board. Indeed, there were many things in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, with which I found myself in total agreement. I think the attitude which he has adopted towards the activities of the National Coal Board should be commended by all who heard him.
While I welcome the generosity of the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, so far as the Bill was concerned, I could not obviously agree with everything he said about the industry. But he suggested that we should, at this stage, be giving our forecasts on things such as output, production, and the future of jobs within the industry. I am sure that he will realise that after an industrial dispute such as the industry has suffered and which was so damaging to the industry—the details of which I gave in my opening remarks—it would simply be impossible for the board to make an accurate assessment of what that has actually cost the industry not only in terms of money but in terms of production at the present moment. All I can say is that the industry is already tackling the situation in a very realistic fashion. In accordance with the undertaking given at the end of the strike, each of the National Coal Board's areas, after assessing damage done during the strike, has now held a review meeting where the area directors have outlined plans for their areas. Each one has now held such a meeting. This is certainly very rapid action on the part of the

1249
areas, considering all they have to do in a very short period of time.
The noble Lord suggested to me that the coal conversion programme should be encouraged; and indeed the Government still encourage firms to participate in a coal conversion programme. Some of the figures which I have given help to support that point. The question of the enterprise subsidiary was raised by the noble Lord and also by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. Here I would take issue with what they said. I do not think that it is fair to criticise the Government for making £10 million available for this scheme. The criticism of course is that that is not enough. But at the present moment offers of up to £1 million have already been made to various projects which have been submitted. A further £3 million worth of projects is under consideration at the present time. I think perhaps it is better for any scheme of this sort to start from small beginnings. We must not forget that, although the object of the exercise is excellent—it is to see small projects starting up and maturing—we are dealing with taxpayers' money. Therefore we must be very careful how we spend it. We must make quite sure that the projects which are submitted to the enterprise company are worthwhile. They must all be very carefully examined before money is given. But I welcome the fact that noble Lords agree with the policy which the Government are following. I would suggest to them that it is perhaps early days yet to be critical of the total amount of money available.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I appreciate that things have small beginnings and certainly we do not want a waste of public money. But it is the way the scheme is seen by the miners and people outside that is important. If the Government are seen to be looking at the thing as small scale then of course industry will look at it in that way. What I and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were asking for was an absolute commitment by the Government that if this scheme gets off the ground, and if people are interested in going to, and have been attracted to, the coal industries, it will not founder for lack of Government support and Government money. That is what we were asking for. I would hope the noble Lord could give us that assurance.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I also ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to bear in mind that we are not merely considering the appropriate help to individual activites? We are considering maintaining community life in these communities which will rot unless there is something there to replace the lost pits.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I accept the comments of both noble Lords. Obviously, I am not a Department of Energy Minister at the present time. Therefore I cannot give the kind of assurance which the noble Lord requests. But what I can say is that the Government certainly indicate the confidence which they have in the coal industry by the amount of money which they are prepared to invest in it at the present moment.
Of course the philosophy of this Government would obviously make them sympathetic to projects which
1250
were arising from coal mining areas where these projects were likely to be the result of entrepreneurial spirit and initiative on the part of those who previously worked in the industry. I can certainly say to the noble Lord that the Government are fully behind the scheme. So far as concerns the funding, I cannot add to what I have already said.
I should just like to take up one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, whose contributions we have come to enjoy so much, and whose vast experience of the coal industry is obvious every time he makes reference to the subject. He spoke about coal products. I would confirm that new ways of burning and utilising coal are being developed all the time. Fluidised bed boilers, use of coal water slurries, and longer-term technologies are also being developed, such as coal gasification and coal liquefaction. There can be no doubt that provided costs come down there will be plenty of markets for United Kingdom coal both at home and overseas. But of course I would agree with the noble Lord that it is those other uses for coal which will be all important in the future. I am happy to confirm to him that the National Coal Board is very much aware of this aspect and is continuing its research and development of these new coal uses all the time.
I should like briefly to mention the question highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I referred to it just now, and of course it is terribly important. So far as the production of coal is concerned, what the National Coal Board and indeed the whole industry needs to grasp from now on is that it must sell what it produces and, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, rightly said, it must make sure that it markets what it can competitively produce. The whole philosophy of marketing has got to be carefully examined but, however many advisers and experts we have guiding us in such matters, it is the cost of the product at the end of the day, the cost at which you can sell the product and whether it is competitive or not, which will determine the usage.
We have had such an interesting debate this afternoon that I could go on for some time longer discussing the various points which have been raised but, after all, the main purpose of our deliberations is to consider the Bill which is before the House. Therefore in conclusion I would again thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate and I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I wonder whether he would in some way deal with the point I raised about the miners being dismissed and not reinstated. That is an important matter and I think it requires some reply from him.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, miners who were dismissed and not reinstated are free to appeal to industrial tribunals, and indeed some 450 of them have already done so. I would not wish to comment on individual cases, but my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said during the debate on this Bill in another place that if there were any specific cases which were drawn to his attention he would of course

1251
have them investigated. However, I think we have to accept that the National Coal Board is acting totally within its powers in these matters. The National Coal Board is as anxious to see this industry prosper as we are, and indeed as I am sure is the National Union of Mineworkers.
But questions such as the one which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I think are better dealt with outside this House. I hope he will accept the figure which I have given him as being indicative of those miners who have themselves taken appropriate action in regard to appeals.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill
4.24 p.m.
Lord Melchett: 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.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Badgers Act 1973]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps I may take one moment to express satisfaction that the Committee is leaving unamended Clause 1 of the Bill. It took us a long time to get where we are and there has been general satisfaction at the fact that a way was found of overcoming the difficulties that arose when the Bill was in another place. I have no more to say and I shall not delay the Bill. Once again I thank all those concerned for bringing about this compromise, which I hope will be the foundation of the tighter application of the law against breaches of the original Act.
Lord Gibson-Watt: From this side, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken. Compromise on this Bill started from the moment the Government held discussions with all the various interests concerned. That co-operation has continued throughout the Bill and I agree with the noble Lord that it has been very valuable.
Lord Melchett: I am sure that my honourable friend in another place who moved this clause at Report stage there will warmly welcome what has been said about the clause. I would simply express the hope that once the Bill becomes law the police forces up and down the country will work even more closely with the voluntary organisations involved, such as, in particular, the county naturalists' trusts and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to prosecute people who are breaking the law and who are illegally digging up badger setts and torturing and
1252
maiming badgers. It is with that end in view that we want to see this amendment Bill reach the statute book.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 4 of 1981 Act.
.—(1) Section 4 of the principal Act (exceptions to ss. 1 and 3) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) the words "other than a bird included in Schedule 1" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I am very sad that there is a need to move this amendment because, as noble Lords have said, this amendment Bill has gone a long way towards getting agreement. Briefly, the amendment provides for the putting of Schedule 1 birds into the same category as Schedule 2 birds in cases where the Schedule 1 birds are doing serious damage, and only where they are doing serious damage.
During the passage of the principal Act of 1981, it was constantly emphasised that nature conservation is not something which can be controlled by legislation but must be formulated by goodwill, education, co-operation and generally civilised behaviour. Since 1981 there has been more bitterness, more aggravation, more friction and indeed a worsening of the type of relationships which are likely to promote good conservation than there ever was before. However, let me hasten to add that the farming, forestry and wildlife agricultural groups have done a power of work. They have been harmonising bodies. They have educated and have dispelled many misunderstandings and I hope that the Government will encourage and promote them.
I am sorry to say that much of the bitterness and aggravation has been engendered by the Nature Conservancy Council. We will shortly come to the question of SSSIs, but the Secretary of State—certainly in Scotland—is being given the wrong information and advice. In England I know that there have been, to put it mildly, problems. In the New Forest, for example, there was a nonsense over dragonflies; and from time to time, if one can believe the media, there have been problems elsewhere. This morning, I am told, the BBC reported that there has been further trouble in Islay.
Yesterday I received the refusal of a licence to kill an eagle which has done thousands of pounds' worth of damage. This, I may say, is the second year running that this has happened. Last year we were told what we should do and we were also told that everything would be sorted out this year; but that has not been the case. One NCC officer has been reported as saying: "We will ensure that they never get enough evidence to kill an eagle". I submit that when this sort of attitude is adopted there is bound to be not only aggravation and friction but fury among those who are suffering. The men concerned are losing their livelihoods through the actions—or rather through the inaction—of the Nature Conservancy Council. It is not for me to say whether there has been incompetence, inefficiency or wilful obstruction, but the local people believe the latter to be the case.
Last year, after many weeks of problems and the loss of over 90 lambs, the Nature Conservancy Council said that they could find no evidence of major

1253
predation on lambs by eagles. This year it was hoped that, as there had been a failure last year, the Nature Conservancy Council would at least co-operate with the Department of Agriculture and take some advice from the locals, who have been born and brought up in the area and know local conditions. This they have consistently refused to do and, indeed, they have told the locals that if they go near an eyrie, they will ensure that they are prosecuted.
One day a Nature Conservancy Council officer told one of the crofters that their ropes were not long enough to let them into an eyrie, but that they would be back in two days' time. The officers were offered the local mountain rescue squad's ropes, but they refused these, preferring to incur another two days' delay. I understand that there has been little or no liaison between the local NCC officials and the local DOAS officials.
4.30 p.m.
The locals were told last year to produce the evidence of lamb losses by eagles and this they did this year. They handed two dead lambs to a Nature Conservancy Council official, but the crofter who owned those lambs has still had no report on how they died. But nearly two weeks after the lambs were handed in, we heard that they had been taken to the college of agriculture where the vet's post mortem showed that they were big, strong, healthy lambs, with their stomachs full of milk, and that they had been killed by a large bird of prey.
I immediately got on the telephone to the Home and Health Department to apply for a licence again this year. I was told that they required the application to be in writing and that I should enclose the vet's certificate, which of course was not available to me. I wrote to the Home and Health Department applying for a licence, and pointing out that the vet's report was already in the hands of the Department of Agriculture's press officer.
Meanwhile, the lamb slaughter continued. Two more injured lambs, one with horrid lacerations of the stomach, were taken to the local vet, who reported in the same fashion as the Government vet. I gather that one lamb weighed 12 lb. and the other 13 lb.; so they were big, heavy lambs for that time of year. We have always known that the story that eagles took only sick, weakly or dead lambs was a fallacy. After all, those of us who have to cull deer do not eat the old or run stags, which we send for export to the Germans, but keep a nice, healthy, young beast for our own consumption.
Time dragged on and we were informed that the Secretary of State was waiting for the Nature Conservancy Council's report. Further inquiries revealed that, at long last, the Nature Conservancy Council had found four occupied eyries in the area. Two were reported to have some small chicks, one was still sitting and the other had addled eggs. But how did the Nature Conservancy Council know that the eggs were addled? They must have seriously interfered with the nesting birds. Surely this is what the Act is meant to prevent.
Why was there all this messing about with eyries? The adult birds would surely not be carrying lambs to eyries to feed eggs, and we already knew the area where
1254
the lambs had been killed by eagles. In recent weeks there have been a number of "gatherings" in the area. One crofter, who, poor man, has only 50 ewes, is 20 lambs short. On another hirsel there were also shortages and two lambs came in with damage marks which had clearly been inflicted by eagles. I am pleased to say that these are still with their mothers and I think they will survive.
Last week the Forestry Commission sent out three rangers with three visitors who, we understand, are prominent in the bird world. I heard last night that, twice in the same day, the six of them had seen two eagles carrying lambs. I understand that by the time they got to the place where one bird had landed with a lamb there was very little left of the wee beast and that what was left would soon have disappeared with the hoodie crows and the gulls. So your Lordships will appreciate that it is not very easy to get evidence in this wild area, unless you catch them in the act.
I should not like to mislead your Lordships and so I must tell you that I have not had a chance to check this report about these six people. But I believe it to be correct and I think that there will be more heard about it. I gather that this party was under the impression that two eagles were involved. So it appears that the fears which we propounded last year, that the hen would probably teach its chicks to kill lambs, have been justified.
The letter from the Home and Health Department, stating that the licence had been refused because there was insufficient evidence to show that the predation by eagles was more than a small percentage of the predation in the area, has caused great annoyance. What evidence of any other predation has the Secretary of State had of the destruction of lambs in this area? We have seen no evidence from the Secretary of State to this effect and, so far as we know, there has been little other predation.
I understand that if we amend this Bill in this material manner, there will be no time left for it to pass through the other place. One is therefore in some difficulty, but we can hardly allow things to remain as they are, whereby a few people can, it seems, obstruct the working of the Act in a reasonable and fair manner. The crofters have been extremely tolerant, they have tried to co-operate, they have been law-abiding, and I feel that, even in an area where the inhabitants are notorious for their patience, they have been amazingly patient. But they are being deprived of their livelihood, and is it right that they should be deprived of their livelihood through what appears to them to be sheer administrative incompetence?
Perhaps the answer is for the Minister to give undertakings that the whole system of licensing will be very carefully investigated; that the workings of the Nature Conservancy Council will be brought under very severe scrutiny; that individual officers will not be allowed to cause such difficulties in the future; and that individuals suffering severe loss will not be asked to prove, as in a court of law, something which is virtually unprovable and that a reasonable suspicion is all that is required. I feel, also, that it is an appalling waste of time that it is necessary, before any machinery can be put into action, for the application for a licence to be received in writing. Surely a

1255
telephone call is sufficient, in the first instance, to get the machinery working.
If I may be a little flippant for a moment, perhaps I may tell your Lordships about a telephone call which I had last night and which shows the frustration of the crofters. A crofter said: "You would think that we were applying for a licence to shoot a NCC officer instead of one bird, and you know, Lord Burton, which I would prefer to shoot". What is of serious concern to all of us who know anything about the subject is that, if nothing is done to change this position, there will be no eagles left in this area. There is a limit to the toleration of these people and to the losses that they will suffer, and if something is not done, I shall be very surprised if many eagles are allowed to survive in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: I welcome this Bill and I have no desire at all to delay its progress. I am no expert on the eagle, nor can I follow the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on his very knowledgeable and detailed account of the depredations of eagles in the Highlands of Scotland. But I should like to take the opportunity of his amendment to raise a matter which I have raised before: that is, the general control of predators.
In Orkney and Shetland we have a very large quantity of black-backed gulls and hooded crows, and to these have been added in recent years an enormous increase in the bonxie or great skua, which is a particularly damaging bird. From having been a very rare bird in Orkney and Shetland, it is now believed that there are many thousands of breeding pairs on the island of Hoy alone, which is having a desperate effect on other bird life. Further, in previous years—I do not know about this year—as a Member of Parliament I received cries from crofters on Fair Isle to be allowed to shoot the great skua during the lambing season.
I simply take advantage of this amendment to draw to the attention of the Government, the Nature Conservancy Council and the other bodies which are concerned in these matters the fact that some control of predators, particularly predators of this type, is necessary, and that nature conservancy means not only conserving everything, but holding some reasonable balance between agriculture and nature conservation and between one form of bird or animal and another. I hope very much that the Minister and the Nature Conservancy Council will take note of what has been said in this debate.
Lord Middleton: My memory of when more than four years ago we were debating the principal Act is that we debated Section 4 and the schedule that went with it at considerable length. Your Lordships thoroughly approved of Section 4 and thoroughly approved of the composition of the schedule because within it were a number of birds that were all to a greater or lesser degree engaged in the struggle for survival, and the section gave them that extra little help in their struggle.
At present under Section 4(3) of the Act it is a defence to the charge of killing a protected bird other than one listed in Schedule 1 to show that the killing was necessary for preserving public health or safety,
1256
preventing the spread of disease or preventing damage to stock or crops. My noble friend's amendment would remove the Schedule 1 exception so that the defences which I have just mentioned will apply in respect of Schedule 1 birds. I do not want to get involved in any controversy about what may be happening in the mists and corries of the Western Highlands, but whatever may be the local difficulties occasioned by an eagle or a pair of eagles whose target identification may be a little bit astray, this amendment would give a licence to anybody to attack or kill some of these precious birds in Schedule 1 on the excuse that they were damaging something or other. I hope very much that this amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Walston: I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, but I have a great deal of sympathy for him and for his crofters. I cannot help feeling that a word from the appropriate Minister to the appropriate officials in the relevant areas could overcome this difficulty. What we have heard is a story of a lack of personal liaison between the people who are actually involved in this very difficult question of holding the balance between the livelihood of crofters, which is not a very fat livelihood at any time, and the preservation of a particular species of bird which is extremely rare and has been in danger of extinction. It can be overcome only by the proper kind of personal contact and understanding.
I would ask the Government to instruct or urge the appropriate Minister to talk quietly but firmly to the people concerned so that this type of bureaucratic delay and apparent lack of understanding is removed. But I repeat that so far as the amendment itself is concerned, I cannot support it.
The Earl of Onslow: The apparent misunderstanding appears to relate to the point that the Nature Conservancy Council will not give a licence to kill the eagle. I would suggest to your Lordships that the Nature Conservancy Council should not give a licence to kill the eagle. These eagles are very rare birds. There is, I believe, a way round the problem, and that is to increase the ewe stock and take large advantage of the hill compensatory livestock allowance. There will then be lots of lambs, the eagles will be happy and prosper and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will not have to shoot his eagles.
Baroness White: I can see the difficulty of making a management agreement with the golden eagle. On the other hand, in various parts of the administration of grants in compensation in this country farmers are paid for carrying out various acts or for not doing various things. Can we be informed in the reply to the proposed amendment whether any compensation by any means or manoeuvre could be made available? Many of us feel extreme sympathy for the crofters. On the other hand, none of us I hope would wish to kill golden eagles. So possibly there may be some other way round the problem about which the Committee can be informed.
Lord Melchett: I have listened to the arguments put forward both for and against the amendment. Perhaps I may deal with one argument which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised. He suggested that there would

1257
not be time for the Bill to be amended in your Lordships' House and then get back to another place in time for them to consider the amendment. That is not correct. There is time, if we stick to the programme that has been agreed by your Lordships, for the Bill to be considered on the one day available in another place, 5th July, for Lords amendments to Private Members' Bills to be taken. The Government's concern as I understand it is that if your Lordships' Committee decides to amend the Bill, the Government would not be certain that one of their supporters in another place might not filibuster and deny the Bill the opportunity of reaching the statute hook. Certainly, all the parties on this side of the Chamber would be prepared to give such a guarantee and see it carried through. It is apparently not possible for the Government to do that. That is the difficulty we face; it is not one of timing. Although, if the Government were happy, we might be able to amend the Bill. I think there are a number of reasons why the amendment should not be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, gave the most obvious reason that this amendment does not just affect golden eagles. It would affect little bitterns, bee-eaters and white-tailed sea eagles, a whole range of very rare and endangered birds, all of which, if the noble Lord's amendment were carried, could be killed with the justifications that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, mentioned. It would include barn owls and snowy owls, a whole range of the rarest and most precious birds in this country. It would clearly be quite wrong in national terms to do it. It would also be illegal in international terms, because the amendment as I understand it is precluded by this country's adherence to the EEC birds directive, which insists that we give special protection to rare birds which are protected throughout Europe. It would clearly be wrong to accept the amendment on those grounds.
I was very concerned about some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, had to say about the local staff of the Nature Conservancy Council. If his remarks illustrate anything, they illustrate the enormous pressure under which quite junior members of staff of that organisation have to operate in areas such as the ones he mentioned. It is quite unfair pressure. The joke, if it was meant to be a joke, that a crofter would be happier shooting a member of the NCC staff than a golden eagle does not ring in very amusing terms in the ears of young members of the NCC staff who may well have been physically threatened on the ground when trying to carry out the duties which Parliament—this House of Parliament and another place—have laid upon them, duties which we have an international obligation to fulfil.
I would deplore the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that some pressure should be put on the NCC to bend the law. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, the NCC staff at the moment appear to be interpreting Parliament's wishes quite properly. I hope that that suggestion will not go any further. Indeed, if any suggestion is to be put forward, it should be that the NCC staff continue to act impartially throughout the country in accordance with Parliament's wishes.
Lord Walston: I was not for a moment suggesting that any of the NCC staff should bend the law or that the law should be bent in any way. I was suggesting that there should be some pressure to get a better relationship between the officials concerned and the crofters themselves.
Lord Melchett: I certainly agree with that. I hope there is a constructive suggestion which the Government will take away and think about. The fundamental cause of the difficulty seems to be that, on the one side, the crofters and landowners in parts of the country, particularly in the West of Scotland, believe that golden eagles do a great deal of economic damage to their agricultural interests. The scientific evidence that I have seen, in particular a recent research project carried out at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Scotland, tends to show that economic losses due to predators, whether foxes or golden eagles, are very small indeed compared with the huge losses that occur through natural losses of lambs, on the whole, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, caused by over-stocking rather than under-stocking the areas concerned.
I believe that the annual rate of loss caused by overstocking, poor husbandry, lack of food and severe weather amounts to £30 million or £40 million a year. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, can confirm this figure when he speaks later in the debate. By comparison the few lambs taken by golden eagles—clearly some are taken—is an insignificant problem both in economic terms to individual crofters and certainly in economic terms to the nation and to agriculture as a whole.
It may be that more research in the particular area which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was concerned about, and into those other factors, would help. A consequence of it might be that it would help to persuade crofters that the golden eagle is rather less of a problem than they thought. If on the other hand unique factors happen to be operating in that area and the golden eagles are making a major economic impact—whereas they are not doing so in other areas where this point has been carefully examined—then the point made by my noble friend Lady White, that some case could be made for compensation from agricultural departments, is a good one.
I believe that research is much more likely to confirm earlier work showing that losses from predators of this kind are minimal and are insignificant in economic terms compared with the losses caused by the other factors I have mentioned.
I hope, for the reasons which I have mentioned, that your Lordships will not agree to this amendment to the Bill. It would clearly lead to the loss of the Bill as a whole because I imagine that it would be opposed by all parties, given that the Bill would then contain a provision that would breach our international obligations. For that reason if for no other I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Earl Peel: I should like to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just made in connection with the work done recently by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. He referred to the lack

1259
of damage done by foxes to the livestock and game that was being monitored. I should like to point out that in that particular area it is a well-known fact that there is a lesser number of foxes than in other parts of Scotland and in England.
I should also like to point out that the work the institute carried out in respect of carrion crows was quite interesting. It was originally thought that the effects on the predation of grouse nests by carrion crows was relatively small. It was only when the institute started to monitor the grouse nests by sticking canes in the ground that they realised the true effect of carrion crow predation, when the carrion crows saw the posts in the ground and associated them with nests; predation then increased enormously.
Lord Melchett: We should not be sidetracked into arguments about species which are not in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and that covers carrion crows and foxes. I believe it is right to say that the area where that research was done did have a reasonable population of golden eagles. As far as I know, the results as far as that species is concerned have not been challenged. I am not suggesting that there were no losses, but their numbers paled into insignifiance compared with the losses suffered as a result of poor husbandry, bad weather and overstocking.
Earl Peel: With respect, it was the noble Lord who raised the question of predation of foxes.
The Earl of Onslow: I have one minor point to make concerning payment for the damage which golden eagles may or may not do. It seems to me that compensation could be the most marvellous excuse for a rip-off. People would find dead lambs, and with an innocent look on their face say that it has all been caused by golden eagles. They would be trooping into the Ministry of Agriculture hoping for cheques. One must be very careful about giving compensation to farmers for losses which may or may not be genuine. We all know how good the compensation is and that the temptation to apply for or accept compensation is very strong.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have had a fascinating discussion on this amendment, which has reached far and wide. I for one have learnt an awful lot about golden eagles and other birds. I return now to the substance of the amendment, which would have the effect of removing the full protection currently enjoyed by the 80 or so species of our most threatened wild birds listed in Schedule 1 to the Act—protection which most of them have enjoyed for the past 31 years under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, which Section 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 re-enacted without change.
The amendment would allow the killing or taking of those birds by authorised persons without any recourse to one of the licensing authorities provided it could be shown that such action was considered necessary for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety, preventing the spreading of disease or preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for
1260
livestock, crops, vegetables, growing timber, or fisheries.
In 1981, and under the previous Act, Parliament gave this sort of job to the Nature Conservancy Council, who as well as being the Government's agent in these matters are also the Government's scientific advisers on conservation matters. I take extremely seriously the quotation given by my noble friend Lord Burton, which he attributed to a member of the NCC's staff. To be fair to everyone, I should need to know both the name of that staff member and the date of his purported statement before I could take any further action. If that view is widely held among members of the NCC's staff, I do not believe that would be consistent with the aim and objective which Parliament has given to the council.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord leaves the matter of this alleged remark by a member of the Nature Conservancy Council's staff, will he deal with the comment made by his noble friend behind him to the effect that golden eagles will be illegally killed if some change of policy is not adopted by the Government? That is an altogether more serious question and it was a remark that all of us heard, whereas the other comment was simply alleged to have been made.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am quite used to being bullied by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but perhaps he will allow me to make my speech one step at a time. Applications for licences are made to the Department of the Environment in England, to the Scottish Home and Health Department in Scotland and to the Welsh Office in Wales, as appropriate. Consideration is given to the circumstances of the application, balancing the farming conditions against the requirement to conserve the species of birds concerned. The views of the Nature Conservancy Council are taken carefully into account. It is fair to say that to date no licence has been granted to kill an eagle since the Act was passed.
My immediate answer to the noble Baroness, Lady White, is that no provision exists for compensation to be paid in the event of a licence being refused. We have heard arguments on both sides as to why compensation either should or should not be paid. All I can say at the moment is that compensation is not paid in such circumstances.
As my noble friend is aware, the Act already contains provisions in the form of a very comprehensive licensing scheme. I have explained very briefly the administrative ways in which that scheme is operated to cater for circumstances in which a Schedule 1 bird is considered to be at risk for one of the reasons I have just listed. I am satisfied that this scheme provides a flexible means of control which both affords protection to the birds themselves and allows for action to be taken under licence if it can be clearly shown to be necessary.
I would deprecate a free-for-all in those circumstances—and that is a danger (I would not put it higher than that) if this particular amendment were to receive your Lordships' approval. I hope that the Committee will appreciate why the Government see no need or justification for this particular amendment, and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Burton: That reply is not very satisfactory as far as I am concerned. My noble friend on the Front Bench gave no assurance that any efforts would be made to put the system right. Clearly the current system of licensing is not working.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Burton: It is not working—the delay is intolerable and the killing is going on. It is wrong for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to say that the damage done is insignificant. The damage is very substantial for some people. If a farmer has only 50 lambs and he loses 20 of them to one bird, then surely it cannot be said that such a loss is insignificant. We know from the example I gave that 90 lambs were lost last year and we suspect that there will be more losses this year. Whereas it was one bird doing the killing last year, this year it appears that there are two. The probability is that the second is the chick of the bird that was doing the killing last year.
I agree with my noble friend in respect of one point he made, when he said that compensation would be likely to lead to rip-offs. At the other extreme, if one has to prove a loss for compensation, that would be equally impossible. If, as in the case I quoted, the lamb has already been eaten by an eagle, it would be rather difficult to prove that a lamb had been killed. Therefore, you cannot get compensation in that way. The compensation system does not, regrettably, appear to be a feasible alternative.
5 p.m.
There is nothing in the Acts to say that the Nature Conservancy Council should not co-operate, first, with the Department of Agriculture, or presumably the Ministry in England, and, secondly, with the locals. But so far, over two years, it has refused to do so. A great deal of time could have been saved for government officials if the locals had been allowed to act. The locals know that there are at least nine eyries in the area.
Last year, after all the weeks of fiddling around, I understand the Nature Conservancy Council officials found only three, although we have not yet been given any official information. This year it found four occupied eyries, so what my noble friend said about a scarcity of eagles is hardly borne out in that area because, in view of the record last year, there could well be more which have not yet been found. The tragedy is that a great many eagles do no damage to lambs at all. It is a great pity that where there are one or two such eagles it is not possible to take some action.
On the predation by foxes, to mention this only briefly, we have an extremely efficient fox club in the area. All the landowners and sheep owners have agreed to an increase in subscriptions this year to pay for a fox hunter who has done an extremely good job. We could probably give a good record of how many lambs have been killed by foxes. Unfortunately, the one department which has refused to agree to an increase in subscriptions is the Forestry Commission. That is regrettable, but we are still in negotiation and we hope that the commission will change its mind.
1262
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said about other rare birds in the schedule. This presents a difficulty. However, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, having heard what has been said, will see whether his colleagues, particularly in Scotland, can do something to arrange for a change in the present administration of the Act, as it stands, because clearly it is not working, whatever anyone may say. Therefore, on the assumption and in the hope that something will be done, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal against notification.
. After section 28 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Appeal against notification.
28A.—(1) A person having an interest in any area of land in respect of which a notification under suhsection (1) of section 28 has been confirmed by the Council under subsection (4A) (b) of the said section may within 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of the said notification appeal to the Secretary of State against the said notification on the grounds that the land is not of special interest by reason of the grounds stated therein.
(2) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed on appeals under this section." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a good deal more complicated than the last: indeed, I had to get a draftsman to prepare it. fThe general principle, which I hope I have incorporated in the amendment, is that the Nature Conservancy Council should not be the judge, the arbiter and the final decider of what areas of ground are to be designated as SSSIs. If one of the Nature Conservancy Council's officers suggests that a certain piece of ground should become an SSSI, the owner of the ground has no appeal other than to the Nature Conservancy Council. I feel that it is reasonable that an appeal should go to the Secretary of State so that he can have an outside look at the matter.
I expect a great many people will know of areas which have been scheduled and where it has caused (perhaps we should say) surprise because they have felt it was quite unnecessary. I believe that practically all the gravel deposits in and around Inverness have been scheduled as SSSIs. I do not know what would have happened if similar action had been taken in and around London. The council has scheduled 500 acres on my land, from which one is not supposed to extract gravel. I know of another example which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, told me about recently. I am sorry that he is not here today to speak about it. Apparently, he has 500 acres which have been designated and an attached acre or two of almost identical ground, just a few yards away, have also been scheduled. It is not at all convenient to him for this piece of ground to be scheduled, yet he has no appeal at all. It is quite wrong that these powers should be given to the Nature Conservancy Council without an appeal procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: Once again I rise to take advantage of the noble Lord's amendment to raise a matter which particularly affects Orkney. In a previous debate

1263
on nature conservancy I drew the attention of your Lordships to the considerable dissatisfaction that there has been in Orkney over the Nature Conservancy Council. It went so far that the peaceable Orkadians actually hanged a dummy representing the council.
The council has under its control a considerable amount of Orkney. In addition, a large acreage belongs to other bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is extremely important that they should get on well with the local inhabitants. That should not be too difficult because the local inhabitants are just as keen on nature conservancy, in many ways, as any others in Great Britain.
I am not very clear as to what the effect of this amendment would be. Certainly there is always a difficult balance to be drawn between seeing justice done and delay. Of course, there have been occasions on which, owing to delay, valuable sites have been destroyed before an order could be laid. I am not certain as to what would happen while an appeal was being considered by the Secretary of State. Presumably, the status quo would be enforced.
I merely want to say that I believe, for the sake of good relations, that it is important there should be some form of appeal to a body other than the Nature Conservancy Council when the local crofters or landowners are in dispute with the council. If there are not unforeseen snags in the amendment, I am inclined to support it simply on the ground that it will improve relations. Crofters will feel more confident if they have an appeal to a third party. However, that is subject to hearing exactly how such an appeal will operate and how long a delay it might entail before a decision on a site is arrived at.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I briefly add to the debate? The question of having no appeal is, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said, one of the major obstacles to good relations between certain individuals and the Nature Conservancy Council. Anyone who knows anything about the Nature Conservancy Council knows that it is very understaffed. We also know that the staff are difficult people to get hold of.
One of the aspects that upset individuals who are told that an SSSI order is to be laid on their ground is that they get a letter through the post informing them of the fact. I live in the Wye Valley area. I was not told, but heard, that the whole of the River Wye was to be made an SSSI. That is a considerable area. It is a matter which should have had considerable debate, but there was no great public debate. The decision was taken by the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not think that it has done any particular harm, but the Nature Conservancy Council must realise that these matters are of very great interest to outside individuals and that sometimes the council does not give them sufficient consideration.
As regards an appeal, I ask your Lordships to cast your minds back to 1956. Your Lordships may recall the Crichel Down problem which was caused by the carrying on of wartime regulations in Dorsetshire. As a result of that problem, the whole new tribunal system was set up. I would only say to my noble friend when he suggests that the appeal should be made to the
1264
Secretary of State that I think that the wretched Secretary of State already has so many things on his plate that perhaps it might be just as well to consider setting up an appeal system with a tribunal. There are operating at the moment in this country over 60 different tribunals dealing with anything from supplementary benefits to land, criminal injuries compensation or whatever else one likes. Just to add one more tribunal might, I think, go a long way to improve the relations between owners of land, big and small, and the Nature Conservancy. It is only an idea, but I am very glad that my noble friend has raised this matter in the Committee this afternoon.
Earl Peel: Perhaps I may just expand on what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said. I have a great deal of sympathy with some sort of appeal system, but there is a further point to which I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I, too, have the pleasure—and I regard it as a pleasure—of having a number of SSSIs on my land and I have received the usual letter from the local NCC officer. I would suggest that one way to try to ease the public relations problems—and I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said earlier about young NCC officers—would be that it would be courteous if in the list of objectionable operations that we receive those which are quite obviously not going to apply to the landowner or farmer were deleted. That would at least make us think that our case had perhaps been thought out a little more carefully. I think it would help enormously.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that we went into the question of appeal at fairly considerable length in 1981. I think that I support what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt says and the idea behind what my noble friend Lord Burton says, though I could perhaps explain to him why he should not shoot eagles, but that is another question altogether. If an element of appeal were brought in, it would mean that the NCC would have to have more money and more staff, and we know how difficult that would be. But perhaps that would be a good thing. I do not know. Everybody is always asking for money and for staff and the Treasury is always saying, no, they cannot have them. If there is an appeal system, there is no doubt that it would cost more money.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid to say to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, once again that I am not all that happy with the proposed amendment to the Bill. Perhaps I may explain the two reasons why I would hope your Lordships' Committee will not agree to its inclusion in the Bill.
First of all, it might be worth repeating a point that I made at Second Reading, particularly as some noble Lords were not present then. The Bill as introduced in another place by my honourable friend David Clark, MP, was based on widespread consultations with conservation, farming and landowning interests. A number of clauses which, on the one hand, conservation interests and, on the other hand, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association might like to have seen in a Bill amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 were not in the end included in the Bill because there

1265
was no consensus behind them. The conservation bodies dropped about 14 proposed clauses because it was not possible in the short time available to secure the agreement of the NFU and the CLA to the proposals that they wanted David Clark to introduce. I suspect that this amendment would have been one which the NFU on previous grounds would have been prepared to support, but I am afraid the conservation bodies would not. It is for that reason—as I understand it, there is no consensus behind the clause—that I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
5.15 p.m.
The second reason is much more important. I believe that the proposal for appeals when SSSIs are first notified is based on a misunderstanding of what that notification implies. If I may say so, I think that both the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Gibson-Watt, fell into that trap. The notification of a SSSI by the NCC merely carries with it the requirement that the landowner or occupier gives the NCC three months' notice before he undertakes some activity which would damage the public and nature conservation interest in that land. It does not give the NCC power to control what happens on the land over any period longer than three months. It is simply a stop period. That is all that the notification provides.
I would suggest to noble Lords who support the amendment that a major appeal procedure simply over whether there should be a three-month period in which notification is given would be setting up an enormous bureaucratic operation for a minor irritant. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is quite right; it would require significant additional resources. Surely the point where we need an appeal procedure is where the owner or occupier wants to do something to the land to which the NCC objects. Then there should be an appeal procedure. At the moment the NCC can ask for a Section 29 order from the Secretary of State, and it is at that point that the Government get involved and they make a decision about whether that is justified. If that fails, the NCC could in theory ask for a compulsory purchase order. Again, there would be procedures in which the owner or occupier would have the right to object.
If we moved those appeal procedures to an earlier stage, I think that we should have to accept as a consequence no appeal procedures at the later stages. I believe that inevitably we should be giving the NCC an automatic right to a Section 29 order and to purchase compulsorily the land if the owner or occupier was not going to go along with what it wanted. Many conservationists might feel that that was a preferable package, but it would need to be that sort of package. I do not think that we can have appeal procedures at every single stage of the game, particularly when, as I say, the initial notification simply carries with it a three-month period of delay before action can be taken.
If I may make a serious point, it seems to me much more important that the appeal should come in when somebody wants to do something different to the land. It is at that point that decisions should be made and, if necessary, appeal made to the Secretary of State. The time when notification occurs is not that point; it may be very occasionally, but not normally.
1266
I hope that for those reasons the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will reconsider this amendment. If I may say so, I should have thought that from his point of view there are some dangers in going too far down the road of an early appeal system. It would inevitably pre-judge decisions that would otherwise be made later when the landowner or occupier wanted to do something which damaged the nature conservation interests of the land.
Lord Skemersdale: I think that I see this as a teething problem. Parliament in its wisdom decided to have SSSIs renotified in 1981 in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That has had to go along side by side with the notification of those comparatively few new SSSIs which the NCC feels are justified on scientific grounds. There is no question that that has stretched the staff resources and the budget of the NCC. It has been allocated an extra £7 million—an extra 25 per cent.—for 1985–86 to enable it to recruit over 100 extra staff this year principally to devote more resources to the SSSI renotification programme.
The NCC is of course very conscious of the need for a sensitive and sympathetic approach to negotiations with landowners, and in recruiting additional staff it will be looking particularly for those with the appropriate negotiating skills. I should perhaps say that with the extra staff resources available—which is something that I think the Government have announced on several occasions by the means of Written Answers—the NCC expects substantially to complete the programme of SSSI notification by the end of 1986. So we immediately have a timing problem here.
If a tribunal or whatever else was considered reasonable was set up, it would hardly be got going before the need for it would substantially disappear. The argument therefore seems to me to be whether we need a right of appeal at all. This matter of the right of appeal against the notification of a SSSI has been given a good deal of careful thought, scrutiny and consideration both in the past and more recently. During the passage of the then Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1980–81 the SSSI system was discussed at length. It was decided then that an appeal procedure was not appropriate for I think many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just adduced.
Further to that, a substantial volume of evidence on the present system was also presented to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment in the course of their recent investigations. On examination of the proposals for a right of appeal to a notification under Section 28 of the Act, the committee concluded that such a procedure was both unnecessary and impracticable. Their findings pointed out that a decision to notify is essentially a scientific one which should be protected from external pressure.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that sometimes this is done in a rather insensitive way. In the last year, administratively, the NCC has been sending an explanatory paper alongside its paper notifying the individual landowner that he has become the proud owner of an SSSI. Also, it is accompanied by a list of damaging operations. I fully take my noble friend's point that these items might well be more

1267
specific to the particular farm or holding in question. I am perfectly prepared to investigate this matter to see that the damaging operations which could not possibly apply to a particular landowner be deleted from his copy of the list when he gets it.
On this subject of the letter, the position is this. I think this is also in answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt when he said that the only thing people know is when the letter drops through the letter-box. This is not quite true because there are site visits by members of the Nature Conservancy Council's staff and I hope it would come as no surprise to most of the people involved that the area is about to be notified as an SSSI.
Going back to an appeal system per se, I think that it would only be appropriate where there has been some substantial loss of control. At present, owners and occupiers are required to give the Nature Conservancy Council notice of intention to carry out operations which they are advised are likely to damage the scientific interest of particular sites but are subsequently only statutorily constrained for a period of three months—which I trust is about to become four months under this Bill. Hence the present system does not involve any permanent disadvantage over property.
As I have said, this matter has already been given very scrupulous consideration. The conclusion is that the right of appeal is unnecessary in this context. Having said that, I fully agree with those noble Lords who have spoken that sympathy, consideration and care when dealing with landowners, is abolutely essential. I know that the Nature Conservancy Council is considering very urgently and carefully how it can improve its dealings with people on the ground.
Having said all that, I hope my noble friend will agree that there have been no new circumstances to change the view that the right of appeal is unnecessary, and consequently he will recognise why I am unable to support his amendment.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may just make one more point about the NCC's contact with owners and occupiers. In consultation with the NCC about amendments to which we shall come in a minute, it is my understanding that they have had to drop the explanatory letter, the more informal, chatty letter which they have sent to farmers and landowners in the past, because of the loss of two court cases in recent months.
There were two court cases brought by the NCC, against farmers or occupiers of renotified SSSIs who have damaged them in apparent breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The NCC failed to win the prosecutions they took in both cases. As a result, one of the things they have had to do is to make their procedures more legalistic and less informal. Thus in future they will have to restrict themselves simply to the formal notice. I think all of us would agree that that is a shame. However, I hope noble Lords will recognise that it is hardly the NCC's fault. Two farmers to whom it had renotified SSSIs apparently then damaged them illegally. They were acquitted in a court of law on what appeared to be technical problems which we shall discuss later.
1268
The second point I want to make is this. My understanding is that the NCC visit every owner or occupier of new SSSIs. That has been its practice since the Act of 1981 was passed. In relation to SSSIs which already exist and have been renotified, that would not be the case. However, in theory at least—and we spent much time on this matter in 1981—owners and occupiers should know of the existence of existing SSSIs.
Lord Burton: I should like to thank all those members of the Committee who have taken part in this discussion. I think it has brought out some interesting points. I should like particularly to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench. Following his advice and example there is little doubt that certainly at this juncture one ought to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause
("Marine nature reserves
.—(1) Section 36 (marine nature reserves) of the principal Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (6) there shall be inserted the words "except with the agreement of Ministers".").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may take the Committee from terra firma to the sea. The 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act made provision for the creation of marine nature reserves but as yet, as members of the Committee will be aware, none has been created. It is against this background that I move this amendment.
The most positive statement that there has been to date from my honourable friend William Waldegrave, Minister of State, is that if the voluntary approach has not yielded results in the next 12 to 18 months, in other words, four to five years after the passing of the Act, then,
"we shall need to look very carefully at the existing provision and to consider whether further measures are necessary to strengthen it".
This lack of action has resulted in much concern and impatience by those interested in conservation, and not least by those of us who support the principle of the voluntary code which is so important and such a basic part of the 1981 Act.
Perhaps I may quote from the report of the environmental committee of another place:
"The NCC has come up against considerable resistance on the part of the Sea Fisheries Committee who have said they are not prepared to support the concept off a statutory marine nature reserve by making bye-laws to control fishing authorities."
That appears to me to be the main stumbling block.
However, I am bound to say that I am sure that it is not just a simple question of the intransigence of one particular body holding up proceedings. Whereas I in no way wish to cast aspersions, today noble Lords have already expressed their feelings about some of the approaches of the Nature Conservancy Council.
Furthermore, I should be interested to know this. I should be grateful if my honourable friend on the Front Bench is able to answer this question. What percentage of the additional funds, the £7 million that was referred to earlier, provided to the NCC, has been allocated specifically to the further promotion of marine nature reserves?
It is quite clear—to me anyway—that both Ministries should have been involved in the marine nature reserve problems far sooner in order to knock heads together. I feel sure that if this had happened, we would have seen a situation more attractive and more satisfactory than we see today. Yet, I am bound to say that I feel that without some form of legislation we are not likely to see the kind of results that many of us would like to see. My simple amendment would give the Ministers the power to override those bodies that are in a position to pass the by-laws.
I do not wish to go into details of the different reasons given as to why there has been a complete failure to date to create any reserves. However, I think it is interesting and worth noting that the only site which appears to be anywhere near reaching official status is Lundy. The reason for this appears to be due to the direct interference of MAFF.
A further point is this. It seems to me difficult to appreciate why there is such opposition to the formation of these marine nature reserves, since the restrictions which are suggested by the Nature Conservancy Council do not seem to me to have any real bearing on the economic effects on fishermen. But even if some restrictions are necessary—I am sure that there are bound to be some, particularly when it comes to the use of mobile gear—then, surely, we are discussing in overall area an amount of sea, an amount of coastal waters, which is an absolutely minuscule percentage of the total fishing grounds available. I say that, understanding full well the problems that the fishing industry has to face at present. The Marine Conservation Society estimates it at less than 0·1 per cent. of our coastline. That is not the waters; that is just the coastline. We should perhaps compare this to the 10 per cent. of land that the NCC estimates will ultimately be designated as SSSIs.
5.30 p.m.
One should also compare the outcry that would have occurred if the same slow progress had been made on the creation of SSSIs. Surely, if landowners and farmers can co-operate in the way that they have in order to see the progress that has been made on SSSIs, the same could apply without too much difficulty to those involved in the sea. I suspect that the main reason why progress has been so slow and public complaint relatively muted is the simple reason that marine nature reserves can fully be appreciated only by those who are prepared to go under water. There are, I believe, opportunities now for travelling in glass-bottomed boats within the sites, though I suspect that the visibility in our English waters is such that this is not the most attractive or the most sensible way of seeing what these sites can provide. And, of course, when the tide is down, the opportunities for seeing interesting things are greatly exaggerated.
As a diver—it may surprise many of your Lordships to know that I am a qualified diver—I fully appreciate the beauty and the fascination of the world under the sea. In its own way, it is every bit as important and dramatic as that above the surface. Like all reserves, whether on the ground or in the sea, marine reserves will be invaluable not only to those seeking recreation but also as a means of studying marine ecology and the proper management of the sea's natural resources. I
1270
pose a question. I wonder how many of Her Majesty's Ministers involved with this problem have actually gone first hand to look at any of these sites. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that he might like to undertake one or two diving excursions to see for himself what we are attempting to protect. I would be only too delighted to go with him. I would further suggest that in view of the influence of marine nature reserves on the development of environmental education programmes, he might like to invite his noble friend Lord Swinton to join us. I can assure the House that wet suits and full diving equipment can be hired, not necessarily from Moss Bros. But they can be hired.
In moving the amendment, I am simply seeking from the Minister a total commitment to the rapid creation of statutory nature reserves as envisaged under the 1981 Act. We want to see a positive programme that will result in the creation and safeguarding of these sites for the future. At the very least, I expect an assurance from my noble friend that his department and the Ministry of Agriculture will do everything within their power to ensure that these sites are brought under statutory control as quickly as possible.
I have tried to outline the background. There are many other noble Lords who should like to speak to the amendment—at least, I hope so—and I know that there are many who have much more knowledge of the subject than I possess. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: It is conventional wisdom in your Lordships' Chamber not to speak on matters that one does not know a good deal about. However, I support the amendment very warmly. I have a very longstanding acquaintance and connection with the island of Lundy and also with Skomer. My connection with Lundy, I must admit, is due to its magnificent rock climbing on the granite cliffs around the island. In the case of Skomer, it is because of its sea bird life. It chances that during next week my wife and myself will be spending several days on Skomer for that latter reason. I only wish that the Committee stage of the Bill had been timed to enable me to take part in discussions after our return.
Although life on the ocean bed or life within the sea is not my customary habitat, I am, for the reasons I have explained, interested not only in the islands but also in the offshore life around the islands. I have two points to make in support of the noble Earl's amendment. As a very concerned nature conservationist—like, I am sure, all your Lordships—I find it very disturbing, having taken some part in the discussions that brought into being the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to find that four years after the passage of the Act precisely nothing has been done. I do not mean that nothing has been done, but no marine nature reserves have been created, despite the urgency that all noble Lords who took part in discussions on the Bill will recall was then apparent at all stages of the Bill that something should be done. That is not good enough.
The other reason is one already given by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I agree that one reason for the lack of public pressure that would have been very likely to have brought into being more than one marine nature

1271
reserve by this time is that what is out of sight remains out of mind. Very few people are aware of what goes on, apart from what they see on their television screens, beneath the surface of the sea. This is a very pertinent factor. Whether or not that is the case—I suspect it is—I hope, especially, perhaps, because it is true, that the Government will not allow discussions and negotiations, which I know are in progress, on this hold-up to continue indefinitely. The House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, in Recommendation 18, said that as a matter of urgency the DoE and MAFF should take action to break the deadlock in negotiations, if necessary by amending Sections 36 and 37 of the Act so as to give the NCC or the Secretary of State—the amendment suggests the Secretary of State—adequate powers to set up marine nature reserves. I hope that if the voluntary approach does not produce results in the fairly near future, the Government will take the necessary steps to intervene and bring this about. I support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: I, too, support the amendment. I have to confess that I do not dive. Nor do I swim. I am probably the only Member of your Lordships House who does not. However, I have a great concern, as your Lordships may have noticed, for marine life. I believe firmly that it is essential to our wellbeing, in perhaps more ways that we have thought, that we should be putting much more enthusiasm and drive into bringing about marine reserves. It is clear that if we are to make progress, ministerial involvement is necessary. That would be provided by the amendment. The necessity, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has said, has been illustrated by the events on Lundy where MAFF was able to stimulate some action. We should like to see that action repeated elsewhere.
Procedures are unnecessarily complicated. There seems, at best, confusion and, at worst, a lack of enthusiasm about finding the next step in negotiations. There has been a certain amount of criticism of the NCC today. No doubt, shortcomings can be found in most of its operations. However, I firmly believe that at the bottom of this is a lack of funds and a lack of personnel arising from that lack of funds. I hope that the Minister will relay to his right honourable friend the message that we in this House at any rate feel very strongly that the Nature Conservancy Council needs much more real support than it has received in the past.
I do not want to repeat many of the matters that have been raised either today or on Second Reading. However, I should like to remind the Committee of what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said on Second Reading, because it is very relevant. The noble Lord felt that the wishes of Parliament in the matter of marine nature reserves were being disregarded. We could produce endless examples of the lack of enthusiasm and the lack of drive which is apparent in the negotiations. I refer your Lordships to the report by the Environment Committee of the other place. Of the 18 recommendations at the end of that report a fair number are concerned with marine reserves. In particular, it recommends as a matter of urgency that the DoE and MAFF take action to break the deadlock
1272
in negotiations, if necessary by amending Sections 36 and 37 of the Act so as to give the NCC or the Secretary of State adequate powers to enable the NCC to set up marine nature reserves. I think that your Lordships will find that recommendation on page 12.
It is very sad that we have not progressed further with this matter. If we are not to press the amendment, we shall need to hear some very strong words from the Minister today. I remind your Lordships' Committee that this particular amendment comes within the Second Reading arrangements in the other place and we would not be outside our undertaking if we were to press it to a vote. Therefore, we look to the Minister to give us very good reason why we should not press it to a vote. Finally, is the Minister able to tell us of any real progress that has been made on any of the sites under discussion which may help us?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I voted against the inclusion of marine nature reserves during the passage of the 1981 Act. However, I accept that Parliament decided otherwise and I therefore accept the principle that marine nature reserves should be set up. Indeed, I can say on behalf of the Royal Yachting Association, whose interests I pursued during the passage of that Bill, that the association is also happy about the creation of marine nature reserves in principle, provided, of course, that there is the right of passage and the right to moor, particulary if stormbound.
Your Lordships may remember that during the passage of that Bill my noble friend Lord Avon on behalf of the Government took those points on board and between us a large number of amendments were tabled to the relevant clause, which satisfied the Royal Yachting Association.
Wearing another hat—a local one—I understand that there is no objection in principle from the local population of my county to the establishment of a marine nature reserve on the Menai Strait, which I know is an area dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady White.
However, my noble friend Lord Peel asks: why have we not made any marine nature reserves when there is so much goodwill? Here perhaps I shall turn on the badwill and I should certainly disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady White, if I did not do so. The reason is quite simple, even though it may be unkind, and it is that I consider—as obviously a large number of your Lordships consider—that the Nature Conservancy Council really must put its organisation in order. Frankly, I would not trust it to make or to operate a marine nature reserve. Indeed, I shall go further—I would not trust it to run a peanut stall!
Baroness White: I am certainly one of those who has taken a very close interest in this matter and, therefore, I think that I should have an opportunity to intervene in the debate, not least because I have been referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am very much concerned about the lack of progress that has been made so far. Frankly, I am not entirely clear in my own mind as to how far the lack of progress is due to the deficiencies in the main legislation which this amendment seeks to improve or amend, and how far it is due to the complexities of the administrative arrangements which have been laid down by the

1273
Department of the Environment for carrying out the proposals in Sections 36 and 37 of the 1981 Act.
5.45 p.m.
As I understand it, the Nature Conservancy Council has powers conferred upon it by the 1981 Act to make by-laws, but it has been more or less ordered by the Department of the Environment not to operate such powers but to stand back and to leave the making of by-laws to the other authorities which have concurrent powers; namely, the sea fisheries committees and in certain situations the water authorities. Some of the delay has undoubtedly been due to the reluctance of certain sea fisheries committees to exercise their powers of by-law making in co-operation with the Nature Conservancy Council, which has been told not to be particularly active in that direction. I am informed that the sea fisheries committees are under no obligation whatever to give public reasons as to why they are reluctant to make by-laws which the Nature Conservancy Council considers would be necessary or desirable if we are to have the marine nature reserve procedure speeded up.
Therefore, I hope that we may have a more convincing argument than the very brief reference—which has already been mentioned—in the Department of the Environment's response to the committee in another place in which it is said that the Government consider that amendments to Sections 36 and 37 of the 1981 Act are neither necessary nor desirable at present. Is that really sustainable?
The other area of concern is the administration. I do not know how many noble Lords in this Committee who are interested in the matter have studied the Department of the Environment's guidance which is formal but not statutory and which has been issued concerning this part of the 1981 legislation. The instructions to the NCC are that it has to follow an 11-stage procedure before the matter finally, under stage 11, is presented to the Secretary of State. It made me think of the Welsh non-conformist revivalist campaigns of the 19th century in which there were 11 steps necessary for salvation—a matter which will, of course, be entirely appreciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy.
The penultimate stage, stage 10, is simply stated as, "resolution of problems", before you finally reach salvation with the presentation to the Secretary of State of all the details and all the consultations that have taken place and all the objections which have been received in some of the preceding stages. The NCC is under an obligation, for example, to hold full consultations with every body in creation from the Aluminium Corporation of Great Britain to the Women's Institutes. This is all set out in the guidance notes. Not only does it quite properly have to have detailed maps of the areas and evaluation of the existing by-laws made by other authorities—those which it considers will be needed for itself—but it also has to consult the International Maritime Organisation about rights of navigation and the type of ships which might be diverted or not, as the case may be, and so on. It is a very, very cumbrous procedure. I am not saying that it is not necessary, but that it is time-consuming is absolutely without doubt.
1274
I repeat: unless we really look at some of these provisions, we cannot imagine the amount or effort that must be needed before any formal presentation of a case for the designation of a marine nature reserve can be put to the Minister.
That brings one to a point which has already been touched upon by a number of noble Lords. It is perfectly true that since the passing of the 1981 legislation both the Countryside Commission—which is not directly concerned in this matter—and the Nature Conservancy Council have been afforded some additional resources of both money and prospective manpower. But are they anything like appropriate to the extra obligations which have been placed upon the Nature Conservancy Council?
The position in the Principality—and we have three of the proposed sites for marine nature reserves within our territory in Wales—allows a small number of additional staff for the Nature Conservancy Council in Wales. As I understand it, in England no fewer than 30 additional officers have been, or are ultimately to be, appointed. In Wales not more than four will be added to the full strength, and these at various levels of seniority. I appreciate that England is a good deal larger than Wales, but proportionately we have more areas of sensitivity than England, and it appears to me that Wales has been badly done by so far as stalling is concerned.
I have had detailed discussions, about which I have no intention of wearying your Lordships, about the three proposed marine nature reserves in the Welsh area and the time that it takes to deal with these matters. At the moment two officers are engaged on this for a small part of their time. This really has to be gone into in detail to appreciate the difficulties of going through all the 11 stages. I was gratified to know that so far as the Menai Strait is concerned, and so far as Skomer is concerned, the NCC have now managed to reach stage 6 out of the 11 stages necessary to salvation. So far as Bardsey is concerned, they arc still stuck at stage 2, which is not promising.
When one tries to get behind these facts, in nearly all cases one of the major problems concerns specific clashes of interest, which are inevitable in such situations. If one may take the Menai Strait, as I understand it there is a difference of view between the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee, which is the operative one for that area, and the Welsh Water Authority. It is nothing to do directly with the NCC, but these two bodies cannot agree as to whether net fishing should or should not be allowed in the Menai Strait.
There are, as we know, considerable clashes of interest in many areas between those who are angling for sport and those who are net fishing for commercial livelihood. These matters are not easy to dispose of. It is difficult for the Nature Conservancy Council to overcome the differences between other authorities unless they have both more staff and stronger backing from the departments concerned, particularly in this case where the agricultural interests also cover fish.
I do not want to weary the Committee with the other kinds of problems which have local significance but which undoubtedly are one of the major causes of delay. If the Nature Conservancy Council are to be

1275
expected to settle problems which are not within their direct jurisdiction but which are essential for progress towards designation of reserves, then much stronger action is going to be needed from the departments concerned.
One of the reasons they are still stuck on stage 2 at Bardsey is that there seems to be a squalid squabble between the lobster pot fishermen and the divers, who are accused of raiding the lobster pots, taking undersized fish and committing other almost unnameable misdemeanours. I am told that the Nature Conservancy Council at Bangor have a mass of data on Bardsey but that they lack the resources to work it up adequately, or speedily, in order to go further along the 11 stages towards making an ultimate presentation to the Secretary of State.
Surely what is needed is firmer and more energetic and enthusiastic directions from the department concerned. I do not believe that it is fair to put the blame for this delay entirely on the Nature Conservancy Council. I hope that we shall hear something more reassuring from the Minister than the negative response which the Government gave to the Committee in another place in this document which was published a couple of weeks ago.
I make just one other point: that is to remind the Committee that in the main legislation in Section 36 the purposes for which marine nature reserves were to be established were not only to conserve,
"marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest",
but also to provide.
"special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area".
One reason I am so interested in the Menai Strait proposition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred, is that that will provide an almost unique opportunity for study and participation in marine conservation. We have the Sports Council of Wales centre on one side of the strait and other educational establishments on the Anglesey side of the strait. You have a magnificent opportunity there, with captive audiences, to make good progress and do some pioneering work on involving people in the study of marine treasures, marine interests, and taking part themselves.
I am told that the Sports Council of Wales, which I believe originally had no particular interest in marine affairs, are encouraging those who visit the centre—and they reckon that they have a fair number of people on the strait at least 340 days of the year—to take part in the collection of data, for example, on seal movements and matters of that kind, where under proper guidance people can be induced to both add to the data available and to inform themselves of, and interest themselves in, this particularly interesting area of natural history.
Again one hopes that when we ultimately—and I suppose that we shall ultimately—have marine nature reserves designated and operative, the Government will not forget that resources will also be required to put them to the best possible use. This is an area in
1276
which some of us take a keen interest. We are deeply disappointed at the difficulties which have been encountered. I hope we can have an encouraging reply from the Minister on whether the Government are prepared to think again about the statutory provisions and also some constructive assurances about the administrative arrangements.
The Earl of Radnor: I sympathise with noble Lords regarding the sluggishness of marine reserves coming forward and being created, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness has just said about the rather ponderous procedures that have to be gone through. Even so, we must go back to the amendment itself and see what is the alternative suggestion; and this was overriding powers on the part of the Minister. That was how I understood it.
I think that that would be quite wrong. We must realise that marine reserves may have been in people's minds for a long time but they are quite new on the statute book; and as we have just noticed, they do not in fact exist at all so far. At least it seems reasonable that the procedures should be long and that many people should be consulted. It may well be that there are some staffing or organisational problems or something of that sort. But we should be patient with this and not too autocratic and not hurry forward too quickly.
6 p.m.
The people with whom I have been in contact are commercial people and they do not seem to be worried about the creation of these reserves. They seem to be short of information and not prepared to commit themselves. I am tempted to feel sometimes that if only the nature conservancy people on the spot could identify all the many people concerned in any area, whether it be the Menai Strait or Lundy, and could have an agenda covering the areas on which they should try to reach agreement, and then were locked in a room for a long time perhaps something would happen. The burden of my few words is: please, do not let us have the Minister holding overriding powers.
I should like to return to the comparison made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, between the SSSIs on land and nature reserves at sea. It is a false comparison because with the SSSI one is dealing with a corporate body or, more likely, with an individual. It is easier to reach agreement, notwithstanding the troubles we have heard mentioned. In dealing with the sea it is more like common land where there are endless rights to be dealt with and that must be very difficult indeed. I would hope that both Lundy and the Menai Strait would, under existing procedures under the 1981 Act, become nature reserves. I hope they would be successful and form a pattern for the future which might take some of the worry out of the minds of people who feel, perhaps unreasonably, that they will be adversely affected. I am afraid therefore that I cannot support this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: The Irish, those great practitioners of administrative speed, have several marine nature reserves. The French have in action several marine nature reserves. I believe we are one of the few countries in the European Community that

1277
have not yet managed to get them functioning. The Government have admitted delays. Can my noble friend tell me what has caused those delays and why? It is worthwile pointing out some of the things which will not happen in marine nature reserves. In the Isles of Scilly there is no objection by the Nature Conservancy Council to any current fishing practices in the area proposed. Static gear is on the whole not regarded as having any effect. It is the dredges which can destroy the whole ecology of the seabed.
There is also a worry about fish farming. My noble friend Lord Radnor quite correctly raised this point. The conflict, it appears, is as at Loch Sween where already one mussel culture system has failed because it has overloaded the carrying capacity of the loch. If we are sensible we can discover which lochs may be set aside for fish farming, which is an extremely important source of food and employment and should be encouraged. There should be a better legislative framework for it than there is at the moment. We must get these things going and it is not satisfactory that nothing has happened in four years.
We know what has happened to the technology of dredges and diving, or monofilament nets which can continue fishing forever, it seems. We know that these marine nature reserves will become a tiny special super reserve for large chunks of marine life. It is up to my noble friends on the Front Bench and Her Majesty's Government to knock the heads together of the various people to make sure it happens. I suggest that amendments such as this would never have to be used because once it was part of the legislative framework it would concentrate the minds of people very rapidly indeed. I hope that we can have some satisfactory answers from the Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: In reply—
Lord Melchett: I thank the Minister for letting me say a word about the amendment. I am delighted we have reached an amendment which, as sponsor of the Bill, I should be happy to see in the Bill. It was in a slightly lengthier form in the Bill which received a Second Reading in another place.
I shall first take up something which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said about the need to allow people to understand what marine nature reserves would be like and to take time over their formation. That might have been a reasonable view if it had been expressed two years ago, two years after the Act; that might have seemed a reasonable time and if negotiations had been going along reasonably smoothly on the seven or so sites which the NCC had identified as priorities, in part because of their scientific interest and in part because they were felt to be the easiest sites on which to reach agreement. That is important for the noble Lord to remember. At the moment we are talking about the NCC's failure to deliver a single marine nature reserve when they had a target of seven which they reckoned would be the easiest places along the coastline to reach agreement on. They did not tackle the most important scientifically because they had not yet done the necessary research to enable them to determine what areas were the most important scientifically. This is one of the problems resulting from the lack of
1278
resources in the NCC which my noble friend Lady White touched on.
The fact is we are talking about this four years after the Act was passed. Negotiations broke down completely at two sites. The first which the NCC tried to go for was the Scilly Isles, in part because of strong support from the landowner, but negotiations were stopped by the objections of one or two individual fishermen, although as the noble Earl said, the fact was the NCC did not intend to object to any of the current fishing practices. On Lundy negotiations broke down completely because the Sea Fisheries Committee refused to discuss the matter any further and said they were opposed to a marine nature reserve. It was only after the welcome intervention of the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture that negotiations were re-started. That surely demonstrates the need for this amendment.
The fact is that if it is possible for one or two individuals—on whatever side they may be and from whatever point of view they may speak—completely to halt negotiations, then Ministers need to intervene to say, "Let us get this thing going again and get together because this is of national importance. We attach importance to agreement being reached".
That apparently was the process that was gone through on Lundy. This amendment would simply give statutory backing to what Ministers from MAFF and DoE appear to have to do at the moment to keep talks going, and clearly they will have to do that if talks are to reach any successful conclusions even on the easiest sites on which agreement might be reached.
I should like to say a word about the NCC. Again they have been criticised, not least and not for the first time by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. This is unfair criticism. I join with people (and there are many outside Parliament) who have criticised the NCC for not giving sufficient priority to marine nature reserves. But the fact is that Parliament placed an impossible duty on the NCC when we passed the 1981 Act—something on which some noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House pointed out at the time would be an impossible duty—but the resources of the NCC have had consistently year by year to be substantially increased. They welcome an increase in resources from the Government but the grants have had to be very substantially increased year by year. Still the NCC are finding it extraordinarily difficult to cope with the burden of work placed on them by the 1981 Act; that is borne out by comments that noble Lords have made today.
It is unfair to suggest that all this lack of progress is the fault of the NCC. They have not had the resources and when they have tried to tackle sites one by one taking the easiest first, sooner or later they have come up against a blank refusal for further discussion from sea fishing interests. The chairman of the NCC has told me in a letter that the statement made in another place by Mr. Waldegrave, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DoE, was that the Government would look again at the situation, (that is, look again at the need for legislation) in 18 months' time; and, that, assuming that, if the position was still unsatisfactory, they would then legislate. This is certainly acceptable to the NCC. The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord

1279
Skelmersdale, is whether it really is the Government's position that they will look at the position in 12 to 18 months' time and, if it is still unsatisfactory, they will legislate. That appears to be the understanding of the chairman of the NCC. I should also like to ask the Government, if this is an agreement that they have reached with the NCC, whether they can give us any of the criteria that they will use to judge whether the position is then satisfactory. Will a single marine reserve be all that we shall ever get and then the pressure will be considered to have been lifted and Ministers can go back to considering other matters and the process will be allowed to grind to a halt again; or will the Government consider it satisfactory if all the reserves that the NCC has currently identified have been agreed at that stage or are moving rapidly towards agreement?
I hope that the Government will also require some progress on the marine conservation review, the scientific study, which is needed to assess all the areas of coastline in Great Britain to see where else marine nature reserves might be desirable on scientific grounds.
I should like to say a word about something that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said at Second Reading; that is, the importance that the Government attach to the voluntary approach. That is something that has been echoed by noble Lords opposite today. Clearly, it is going to be important when a marine reserve is set up for all the interests concerned to support the reserve and to abide by the by-laws and other provisions made to protect the area. I would not deny that for a moment.
But the fact is that there is a large number of voluntary marine reserves already in this country. The problem there is that they receive no actual protection. Skomer, which has been mentioned, is an example of that. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, told me in a letter recently that an experiment was being carried out at Skomer with a bit of dredging equipment to demonstrate whether it was the case that dredging caused severe damage to the marine environment and therefore should be excluded from the reserve when it is set up. The fishing boat conducting the experiment unfortunately broke down after a day; but I gather that sufficient information on film and other evidence was collected to enable a judgment to be made about this. I do not know whether the noble Lord has yet heard the results of the experiment. If he has, I shall be interested to hear them. The fishing boat which broke down after a day's experimenting with the dredging kit was working again a few days later when it returned to the voluntary marine reserve and dredged the sea bottom for scallops. The fact that there is a voluntary marine reserve there does not afford it any protection. I do not believe that the Government, who at Second Reading in any event, gave some support to the voluntary principle, are supporting that with any cash; or, if they are, it is with very little. I should like the noble Lord to tell me how much money the Government have been prepared to put into supporting the voluntary marine reserve in the last few years; because my understanding is that it is a very small or nil amount.
1280
I think that that demonstrates that while support for marine nature reserves is clearly going to be important, simply leaving this to voluntary discussions and voluntary agreements is not enough. The Government themselves appear to recognise this by intervening very actively in a number of cases; and I welcome that. But I would hope that they would then go on to accept the logical conclusion of their own action; that an amendment of this sort, which does not give a power to the Department of the Environment to override fisheries' interests but allows Ministers collectively to reach an agreement, is necessary and, in fact, reflects what they appear to be starting to do already.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would it not be absolutely marvellous to be able to wave a magic parliamentary wand and to have a marine nature reserve on the stocks tomorow? But it just is not practical. It is not practical in part for the reasons enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady White. In conditions such as this you have to consult a very wide range of people. You have to consult people—namely, the fishermen—who are not very used to having dealings with the Ministry of Agriculture. This means that it takes even longer to have a marine nature reserve than it does to have a site of special scientific interest.
In those circumstances, this amendment would give Ministers the power to override totally the existing functions and rights of relevant authorities: local authorities, sea fisheries committees, statutory water undertakers and so on, and in effect would establish MNRs by ministerial decree where voluntary agreements could not be reached. We have discussed marine nature reserves on several previous occasions and, most recently, on Second Reading. I am sure that noble Lords will by now be well acquainted with the Government's view on this proposal for the creation of a power of ministerial override to speed up the establishment of marine nature reserves. Quite simply, giving Ministers power to override existing functions and rights is not the right approach. The introduction of compulsion at this stage when there are encouraging signs of progress in several areas (which I shall go into in a minute) in our view would be counter productive. It would arouse anxieties, harden attitudes and could alienate the very interests on whose willing cooperation the establishment of well protected marine nature reserves depends.
In this context I was surprised that of all people it should be my noble friend Lord Peel who raised this matter today. He, after all, supports the Government's commitment to the voluntary approach in conservation, except where it has manifestly been shown to have failed. So the question that I have to answer is whether it has failed. Why is there different progress on land as opposed to at sea? I almost agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that out of sight means out of mind in this connection, at least so far as most of the people who live in this country are concerned. The Government do not take this view. We are concerned and that is why, albeit slowly, we are fostering discussions on various potential marine nature reserves. Officials from MAFF and my own department have been making very substantial efforts

1281
to assist with and encourage negotiations with the Association of Sea Fisheries' Committees concerning the general principles underlying the establishment of marine nature reserves, and substantial progress has been achieved. The departments have also been closely involved in discussions on individual marine nature reserves and have, I hope, been able to contribute to the progress which has been possible recently in areas such as Lundy.
The Association of Sea Fisheries' Committees has displayed a very constructive and positive attitude in recent discussions concerning the establishment of MNRs and the individual sea fisheries committes have been equally helpful in negotiations on individual sites. In Lundy, for example, despite some initial difficulties which led to a breakdown of negotiations—and I fully admit that—between the Nature Conservancy Council and the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, I am happy to report that negotiations have recently been reopened and there are very encouraging signs of progress. On Skomer local interests, too, have adopted a very constructive attitude towards the setting up of a reserve there. In this case, too, progress is being made. A collaborative experiment organised by the Nature Conservancy Council and the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee to assess the impact of scallop dredging has been carried out and the results of this experiment are currently being evaluated.
A noble Lord (whose name I regret I cannot remember) asked why we cannot have some research, get to the bottom of the problem and then get on with it. Research takes time and then has to be evaluated. Then, most certainly, we can get on with it. But research in this instance is going hand in hand with the proposal to designate the various marine nature reserves.
I was given a challenge, as I understand it, at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Peel to go diving with him. I must confess that I have never donned an aqualung, although I have donned a wet suit from time to time, and I have snorkelled, especially around the island of Colonsay. I have also been an amateur lobster fisherman in my time. I therefore have an appreciation of what life can be like under water, but obviously not in the same detail as my noble friend. If he wishes to do so, I shall be only too pleased for him to educate me further in this matter.
The other point which arose was the Nature Conservancy Council's appreciation of exactly what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, and indeed what I said at Second Reading. I should have thought it was perfectly clear. What we both said was that if we have not got agreement on at least one marine nature reserve within 12 to 18 months we shall need to look again at the existing statutory provisions to see whether they need strengthening.
I have not seen the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has referred but I have in my hand a letter from the Nature Conservancy Council, signed by the chairman, to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Department of the Environment. It says:
1282
"Might I make a suggestion on how the circle might be squared: I believe I could come out in support of the Government's stance, if I had to do so under questioning, and honestly so, if:
"the Government were to make clear that it wanted to try the voluntary principle for a limited length of time—say, further twelve to eighteen months. This would put pressure on those who are opposing the setting up of marine nature reserves to be more co-operative.
"If the Government, particularly MAFF … were to ensure that all the Departments were to give us maximum support, we might be able to make headway".
In this letter, from which I have just quoted, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Nature Conservancy Council felt that the Government were committed to producing legislation after 12 to 18 months. Indeed, the Nature Conservancy Council have got it absolutely right. They are not in that position.
I fully accept that the establishment of the first, let alone any other, marine nature reserve is taking a very long time. But I think that we have explained today the reasons it is taking a very long time. I must, on behalf of the Government, entirely accept that we cannot wait indefinitely for the establishment of the first marine nature reserve. That is precisely why I indicated on Second Reading, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary indicated in another place, what our position was. I am prepared to put that into a slightly more definite form of words: that if we have not got agreement on at least one marine nature reserve within 12 to 18 months we shall need to reconsider the statutory provisions with a view to strengthening them. But as I said earlier, there is significant progress on at least two marine nature reserves. I ask the Committee to give us just this little bit longer so that we can complete it. I can give a personal assurance that I am genuinely hopeful that we shall not reach the stage when we need to consider legislation on this issue.
Baroness White: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us any further assurances on the administrative strength of the NCC to deal with this proposition? As I have said, I am familiar with the Welsh scene, where there are two officers giving part of their time. The more senior one is in fact a specialist adviser for the whole of the Principality, both terrestrial and marine. When I asked him how soon he could get down to Skomer to see what was going on with the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee he said. "We have the Royal Welsh Show next month; the Royal National Eisteddfod in the first week of August; we have to prepare for the exhibition stands there; I have to be there", and so on. To call him a maid of all work would be insulting. That is the position: that the senior person concerned with marine conservation in Wales has a great many other things to do.
Lord Melchett: I should like to raise a similar question of resources at the NCC, with the possibility of the NCC at least starting the basic research work in the marine conservation review that I mentioned. I was not trying to equate that with the limited experiment involving scallop dredging, but I should have thought that if the Government are going to show everyone that they are determined that real progress should be made in this field, the starting of the marine conservation review must be a major priority. It would be helpful if we had some commitment from the

1283
Government about when that work will be started, which will involve the NCC receiving the funds to do it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Earlier I referred to the extra £7 million which the Government have voted this year to the Nature Conservancy Council. I described it as a 25 per cent. increase in their grant. This is no mean amount of money. I do not know whether the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite heard me refer to it in the last amendment, or the one before, but to be asked when we were going to produce more money from national funds to support the NCC even further caused me a little wry amusement, I may say. Money does not grow on trees. It has to be justified. We had very good reason to justify it, as we all know very well, in that the Nature Conservancy Council was understaffed. The point surely is how this money will be used, with special reference to marine nature reserves. I cannot say, because this is a matter for the NCC themselves. They do not of course hypothesise about individual sums of money within their total grant. What I can say is that with the extra staff resources they are about to have available the NCC expect substantially to complete the programmes of SSSIs notified by the end of 1986. I have already said that. They also intend to increase their staff involvement with marine nature reserves fivefold over the next five years. Therefore not only are the Government taking this matter extremely seriously but the NCC admit themselves that they are taking it extremely seriously.
So far as administrative arrangements go—a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White—the current arrangements have been prepared with the need to ensure adequate consultation with all interests concerned with the establishment of marine nature reserves very much in mind. I am sure that in general terms such comprehensive consultations provide the best means of ensuring secure, well-protected reserves.
The present arrangements were, I understand, based on the principle of consulting any groups who had expressed an interest in marine nature reserves generally. I entirely accept that this may have resulted in a rather formidable list of consultees. I think it is appropriate, since the noble Baroness has raised this matter, to look again at the list of consultees rather on the lines that my noble friend Lord Peel suggested: that the Nature Conservancy Council should look at whether a particular, damaging, operation was appropriate to a particular farm. I am perfectly prepared to undertake to see whether a particular consultee is appropriate in every case. I think it could well be that there is scope for streamlining the procedure, which would also help to speed up the establishment of a marine nature reserve. That is something that I think we all want.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I am sure that all noble Lords who are concerned with this amendment will no doubt decide for themselves what to do about it. There are one or two points I should like to address to them rather than to the Government. First of all, I hope that at this stage they will not press the amendment to a
1284
Division, although my own feeling is that they would be well justified in doing so in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said. I say I hope they will not press this to a Division because of the difficulties which the Government apparently foresee, if the Bill is amended here, when it returns to another place. I think it would be desirable to look at all the amendments which have been tabled at Committee stage to see whether some other technical amendments will have to be made in any event before deciding on whether an amendment on marine nature reserves should be pressed and, hopefully, put into the Bill. We could always do that at Report stage.
I say I think that those who have put their names to this amendment would be well justified in pressing it because I really felt that what the noble Lord had to say on behalf of the Government was extraordinarily inadequate. He was in effect saying, "If in another 12 or 18 months we have not achieved a single marine nature reserve then we will consider the possibility of further legislation". Incidentally, I think that runs counter to the understanding I have in writing from the chairman of the NCC. I find that of no great importance, because the target the Government have set themselves is such a miserably small one. The NCC, four years ago, thought that they could achieve seven marine reserves in a comparatively short space of time. After all, four of the seven sites which they went for were already voluntary reserves, and they felt that agreement could be secured in a matter of months.
The then Secretary of State, Mr. Heseltine, had plans to open the first statutory marine reserve before he ceased to be Secretary of State; and that was some time ago. He obviously felt that getting one marine nature reserve set up would not take very long or be very difficult. For the Government to say now that if, after some six and a half years from the passing of the Act, they have not got a single reserve then they will reconsider the matter is really setting themselves a target which it is quite impossible for them to miss. That is why I do not really think that the undertaking which the Government have given is worth anything at all.
The Earl of Onslow: Really, the reply that my noble friend has given is very unsatisfactory. "Dilatoriness" is the word which springs immediately to mind. We are not asking for very much. The Irish have got several, and they are people who seem to be able to get things organised. The French have got one. My noble friend has not said what has caused the delays. Of course, if people do not want change and if there is no stick at all, people will not be prepared to do anything because it is easier to keep things unaltered. For my noble friend to say that Ministers cannot do anything is almost saying that the Government cannot function at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: That I most certainly did not say. I am accused of saying that Ministers cannot do anything. It is simply not in my nature to say something of that kind.
The Earl of Onslow: I thought that was exactly how my noble friend described the position on the amendment, but if I misunderstood him then

1285
obviously I misunderstood him. However, I do not think I am alone in taking that point of view and I can equally see that we should not press this amendment because it gives an absolutely perfect opportunity for an obscure "fishing" Member of another place to get up and filibuster. The Minister knows as well as we do that we are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, if your Lordships will excuse a rather laboured pun.
Baroness Nicol: I have one more question I should like to put to the Minister. Is he seriously suggesting that discussions have been going on for the last three or four years? Is he saying that negotiations started the moment the original Bill became law? Is that a fact? Have they been discussing this matter, or have we had only recent interest in marine reserves? I think we need to know, because if negotiations started four years ago I would respectfully suggest that we need not wait any longer. If in fact the negotiations have only just begun, perhaps he has a case.
Lord Melchett: I hope my noble friend might consider that if negotiations really have only just begun, which I believe is the case in respect of one or two of these reserves, they have begun because of the possibility of the law being amended—and that surely makes the case for the amendment just as well as if the talks had been going on for four or five years. I do not honestly think that my noble friend can find an escape clause for the Government either way.
Lord Skelmersdale: The normal procedure is that when an Act reaches the statute book it is then necessary to devise procedures, which is what was done. Then, as I understand it, about 18 months later, the "sharp end" (to use a rather inelegant expression) started. Then, as we all know, some negotiations came to a rather sticky impasse. The news I have been able to give to the Committee this afternoon is that this impasse is now being resolved, and I have asked the Committee to give the Government another 12 or 18 months. I think the position is quite clear on this.
Earl Peel: I can assure the noble Lord opposite, and indeed every other noble Lord who is concerned with this matter, that I have no intention of pressing this amendment. However, I think it is a very good thing that we have had this debate particularly in view of the fact that when this Bill went through another place discussions there were largely dominated by the subject of badgers. I think it is right that marine life should have its share of attention, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. I think I am right in saying that, even including my noble friend Lord Stanley, who agreed to the clause in principle, there was total support except for my noble friend Lord Radnor.
I hope I was not being unfair in comparing marine nature reserves and SSSIs. All I was trying to put across was that a great number of SSSIs have been created, whereas we are talking about so few marine nature reserves that really I do think we can make comparisons. In addition, he mentioned that dealing with marine nature reserves was rather similar to dealing with common land. I should like to assure him, although he is not in the Chamber at the
1286
moment, that SSSIs have actually been created on common land: I have two on my own.
Great expertise has been shown by many speakers, and in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who is a great expert in these matters. She mentioned the complications of the 11 clauses which are required before a marine nature reserve can be designated I was delighted to hear my noble friend say that he will perhaps look at the system to see whether it can be speeded up. I must confess that I am extremely interested to know what the noble Baroness was referring to in talking about "unnameable misdemeanours". As she was not prepared to divulge further information, perhaps she would be good enough to tell me afterwards.
Baroness White: That had to do with hen lobsters.
Earl Peel: I am disappointed! I must confess I do not know very much about the habits of hen lobsters. My noble friend Lord Stanley talked about the use of yachts within marine nature reserves. I am sure that would be acceptable unless, perhaps, anchors were dropped in vulnerable places. I do not know whether that would cause problems, but it is perhaps something that ought to be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, quite rightly asked whether the creation of one or two marine nature reserves would result in the Government sitting back on their laurels and saying, "Here is a sop to the conservationists". I think my noble friend answered that satisfactorily, although I shall read with interest in Hansard tomorrow what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also mentioned the need for a marine conservation review, and that, I believe, is absolutely paramount.
Moving on to the reply made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, I can only say that I, too, am bitterly disappointed. We have really heard nothing new. I thought we might at least have gone one or two steps forward, but nothing he has said can give me or, I am sure, other noble Lords any encouragement whatsoever. He said he was surprised that I had put my name to this amendment, and indeed had spoken on it, in view of the fact that I am a member of the same party as he and therefore believe in the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I do believe in the principle, but only if it is going to work. There are cases—I happen to believe that this is one—where it is necessary to give the ministry powers over and above those of other organisations. Incidentally, during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act I did not support the compensation clause—what became known as the "may" clause—for loss of profits within national parks and SSSIs. So I was not totally and utterly one who was committed to the voluntary approach.
I have said enough and I have expressed my disappointment. The only commitment that my noble friend gave was when he said that he was genuinely hopeful that things would proceed. If that is all he has to say in a positive way, I reiterate my disappointment in his reply. But for reasons I have already given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Notice
. After section 38 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following new section:—
"Service of notices
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any notice or other document required or authorised to be served or given under Part II of this Act may be served or given either—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address; or

(c) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service, addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address; or

(d) in the case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office, or sending it in a prepaid registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service, addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office.

(2) Where the notice or document is required or authorised to be served on any person as having an interest in land and the name of that person cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry, or where the notice or document is required or authorised to be served on any person as an occupier of land the notice or document shall be taken to be duly served if—

(a) being addressed to him either by name or by the description of "the owner" or "the occupier" as the case may be, of the land (describing it) it is delivered or sent in the manner specified in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section; or

(b) being so addressed, and marked in such manner as may be prescribed under this Act for securing that it shall be plainly identifiable as a communication of importance, it is sent to the premises in a prepaid registered letter or by the recorded delivery service and is not returned to the authority sending it, or is delivered to some person on those premises, or is affixed conspicuously to some object on that land.

(3) Where the notice or other document is required to be served on or given to all persons having interests in, or being occupiers of any land, and it appears to the authority required or authorised to serve or give the notice or other document that any part of that land is unoccupied, the notice or document shall be taken to be duly served on all persons having interests in, and on any occupiers of, that part of the land (other than a person who has given to that authority an address for the service of the notice or document on him) if it is addressed to "the owners and any occupiers" of that part of the land (describing it) and is affixed conspicuously to some object on the land." ")
The noble Earl said: This amendment is extremely simple and very technical. Two gentlemen were prosecuted for carrying out damaging operations during the notification period. One of them ploughed up some wild saffron in order to grow swedes and the other destroyed a herb-rich meadow. They then got off, because they went into the witness box and said that they had not had the letter, even though it had been delivered by registered post. For people to be able to walk around the Act like that is verging on farce.
I believe, because of the problems that we are having over not wanting to risk what small gains there are in this Bill, that it would not be very wise to press this amendment. But I believe that the honourable Member, Dr. Clark, is trying to produce a Wildlife and
1288
Countryside (Amendment) Bill—it seems as though it must be No. 86, though it is probably only No. 2—which will take just this one clause. It is hoped that it goes through on the nod in the Commons and will go through on the nod in this House, because it is unsatisfactory that people should be able to escape the consequences of their misdemeanours by pretending that they have not had a letter. We all tried that one when we went to school. It did not work then and I do not see why it should work now. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I should like to say just a few words in support of what the noble Earl has said. The wording of this amendment is based on the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Section 283, and therefore should be acceptable. I understand that the single clause Bill, which it is hoped will find its way here, will be in much the same words. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that if the single clause Bill is produced, the Government will speed its passage. I understand that it had its First Reading on Monday. If he will give us that assurance, I am sure that we shall be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Perhaps I may just add that, as a result of the two cases mentioned by the noble Earl, legal opinion suggested that in all future notifications two NCC officers should deliver the notices, so that there is a witness who is able to testify in court if required. That shows the nonsense that we have reached in this case. When we consider that magistrates will accept that a summons has been delivered if it has been sent by recorded delivery, this is nonsense, and I hope that the Minister can give us the assurance we want.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may stress the importance of clearing up what appears to be yet another major loophole in the 1981 Act, because, according to a recent Written Answer in another place, of the 4,085 sites previously notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, the NCC has so far renotified only 1,476 under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, so that it has a very large number of renotifications still to carry out, although, as the noble Lord told us earlier, it is hoped substantially—what that means, no one seems clear—to complete the process by the end of next year. But if the NCC has to deliver each notification personally, with somebody there as a witness, and if, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, some areas of common land have to be renotified as SSSIs, there may be very large numbers of people holding commoners' rights, all of whom will have to be approached personally by two NCC staff. The position will be impossible and the target for finishing renotification will recede not just towards the end of this century, but well into the next.
6.45 p.m.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is the case that the Government were aware of this problem before the Bill left the other place. It seems to me that one feature of the slightly strange attitude that the Government have adopted to what has been all the way through a consensus Bill, with strong support from the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, as well as conserva-

1289
tionists—something which I should have thought was very welcome to everybody, including the Government—is that they have not been prepared to be very forthcoming. My understanding is that the NCC told them about this very serious potential problem before the Bill had its Report stage in another place, when the Government would have had an opportunity of adding a clause to deal with the problem without any great difficulty, but the Government apparently chose not to do that or, indeed, to tell anybody on any side of another place or anywhere else that there was this potential problem coming up. That seems to me to be unfortunate, because the matter might well have been dealt with there, without the need for a Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill to be introduced.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is a fact of political life that it is very late in the year to start putting down a Private Member's Bill. I understand that there are procedures in another place for rushing things through there, but I cannot hold out any strong hope that it will arrive here. But one commitment I can give your Lordships is that the Government in this House will not seek to hold up that Bill in any way whatsoever, should it arrive here.
On the amendment with which we are now dealing, I understand the concern that has been expressed, and I take it very seriously indeed. It stems from the NCC's recent lost prosecution which has prompted my noble friend and the noble Baroness to put down this amendment. I also understand their desire to see that arrangements are made to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council does not remain vulnerable to similar challenges in future.
One of the results of the challenges was the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the accompanying note with the formal notification that one owned part of a SSSI had been withdrawn. I did not refer to that assertion at the time, because I wanted to check my facts. The position is that the NCC letter has been redrafted in more legalistic language, because the informal draft used previously was considered by the courts to be defective, since it failed to advise landowners explicity of their right to object to the NCC regarding SSSI notifications. It has been rewritten and a revised draft is now in use. But that does not help on the specific point to which this amendment is addressed.
As my noble friend pointed out, the difficulty in this case arose from a lack of any provision for deemed service of notices which are sent by post under Section 28 of the principal Act. It seems to me that this problem can be overcome by administrative means, without the need to amend the principal Act. Indeed, I understand that the Nature Conservancy Council has already taken such action. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, immediately put the worst possible complexion on the matter and said that it would be very likely to extend the notification procedure well into the next century and so on. But I can assure him that things are very much better than he led the Committee to believe. The position is that the NCC has just issued instructions to staff, advising them to attempt service by recorded delivery post in the first instance, and to satisfy themselves on receipt of the
1290
acknowledgement card that the owner or occupier has signed a receipt. In cases where there is any doubt as to whether the original communication has been brought to the personal attention of the owner or occupier, NCC staff have been instructed to arrange for it to be served personally.
I am confident that the revised procedure introduced by the NCC, while I accept it may prove somewhat more staff intensive than the previous system, will be sufficient to ensure that the difficulties which this amendment is designed to overcome do not recur. I hope therefore that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not seek to press it. However, I say that without prejudice to the Government's attitude on the No. 2 Bill which we have just heard has recently received its First Reading in another place.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, are the Government entirely confident that the extra administrative burden which the new procedures will involve can be managed? Anybody not returning a reply slip acknowledging receipt of a letter will have to be visited by two people personally, which seems to me in any event to be a great shame because the NCC staff resources will once again be diverted into formal legalistic procedures rather than what all of us on both sides of the Committee—particularly, if I may say so, noble Lords behind the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—appear to want, which is the NCC spending more time talking informally with farmers and landowners and improving relations locally. That clearly will be less easy.
Can the noble Lord assure the Committee that the timetable which the NCC has fixed for the renotification procedures being substantially completed in England, Scotland and Wales at different times during 1986 will still be adhered to? The second question is a shorter one. If the Government are prepared to support in this House the Wildlife and Countryside Act (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, why will they not agree to this amendment being included in this Bill, because the wording is exactly the same?
Lord Skelmersdale: I did not say that the Government would accept it in this House. What I did say was that the Government would not stand in its way. Those are two rather separate things.
I have admitted that the administrative procedure that I have outlined and which the NCC is now following could create more work for staff and therefore be more costly in those terms; but I am persuaded that this is not extra work with which they will be unable to cope, bearing in mind that an alternative would be to re-notify again which would be much more time consuming.
Lord Melchett: Another alternative would be to accept this amendment, and then the staff would not have to do any extra work.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not answer an extremely pertinent point put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. It was: were the Government aware of this particular hiatus before this Bill left the Commons? If that is the

1291
case, he should have encouraged the amendment of the Bill in the Commons and then we would not be up against this difficulty of being terrified to amend it in this Chamber in case somebody gets up and filibusters in another place.
For this Government to say that it is easier to do some unnecessary work than to amend a piece of legislation strikes me as being really quite extraordinary. What the noble Lord the Minister has said is, "Yes, we will put them to unnecessary work, these two figures plodding about the countryside looking for a non-existent unknown common right holder to deliver him a letter because he has not signed a piece of paper accepting that he has had a recorded delivery letter". That is going to be acceptable work as opposed to them getting on and doing proper scientific and useful work which we all want. I could understand it from noble Lords opposite. The whole concept of socialism is producing large numbers of people going around delivering extra bits of paper to people who do not want to receive them. But for my noble friends on the Front Bench to be suggesting that is really below par.
However, having said that, I am forced, I am afraid, to withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I should like the answer to the question about when the Government became aware of the situation.
Lord Skelmersdale: The key question in my noble friend's most recent speech was: were the Government aware of this hiatus in time before the Bill left the Commons? The answer to my noble friend is a flat, "No". They were aware but they were not aware in time. The Government were not in a position, without consulting the NCC, to slap down an amendment any way, and so the answer is that we were not aware in time.
The Earl of Onslow: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Further duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to the environment.
. After section 41 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Further duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to the environmennt.
41A.—(1) In regard to those functions of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which may affect the physical environment, the Minister shall, so far as may be consistent with the proper discharge of such functions, endeavour to secure a reasonable balance between—

(a) the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry; and

(b) the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, the protection of wildlife habitat, and the conservation of flora and fauna and geological, or physiographical features of interest.

(2) Without prejudice to its generality, the duty under the previous subsection shall apply in particular to—

(a) the making of a scheme under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (farm capital grants) and the exercise of the Minister's functions thereunder;

(b) the provision of advice under section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 to persons carrying on agricultural business; and

1292

(c) the implementation of any Community obligation in relation to the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community in so far as may be consistent with any such obligation.

(3) In the application of this section to Scotland, references to the Minister shall, where appropriate, be construed as references to the Secretary of State.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is as I understand it, a revised version of a revised version of Clause 4 as originally introduced by Dr. David Clark in another place. I say "as I understand it" because during the Second Reading debate I was happily in the Galapagos Islands and therefore all my impressions and information are from reading Hansard from both Houses during the past 24 hours.
I do not intend to dwell on the arguments or repeat them at all in favour of this clause because they have been so eloquently covered in both Houses by several Members. But we are moving this revised amendment which has the complete support as I understand it of everybody except the Ministry of Agriculture, because both Houses and the Members of both Houses wanted it and repeatedly said that they hoped it would be reinstated. Dr. David Clark himself, who has done such tremendous work in getting it as far as it has, and getting the full support of NFU, CLA, CPRE and all the voluntary bodies, withdrew on the clear understanding and with some certainty that this amendment would be rediscussed here today.
Having said that, I am not going to repeat the arguments; I should like to ask some questions. I am very glad to know that my noble friend Lord Belstead is to reply, in view of his keen, incisive and sympathetic attitude to all countryside matters, whether agricultural or conservation, and based as he is like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in East Anglia. This also gives me the chance as I was away last time, to pay tribute to the valiant efforts he has been making in Brussels.
On every occasion that David Clark, as a result of his painstaking efforts, has had this amendment introduced it has been rejected by Ministers. Dr. Clark and his colleagues have then gone back to the drawing board with considerable patience, grace and resolution and have come up with a new amendment. Today we have a new amendment which has the full support of everybody so far as I know outside the Government. I should like to ask my noble friend to answer two or three questions.
I noticed in Hansard that the question of there being technical defects was referred to several times. I am not clear whether the technical defects referred to the first version or the second version, or whether there are technical defects in ours. But knowing that I was going to introduce this amendment, I asked for searching inquiries to be made as to whether there were any technical defects in the amendment tabled today. There were repeated telephone calls to MAFF. We asked for a meeting and we were promised letters over a period of several weeks, or at least two or three weeks. There has been absolutely no response at all, and so I feel entitled to ask my noble friend the Minister what is the position about technical defects.
7 p.m.
The second point that impressed me considerably in reading the debates in another place was that

1293
references were made to the various duties being placed on Ministers and ministries. While Members were speaking only about the duties to be placed on the Minister of Agriculture, the debate nevertheless developed into a discussion of the duties being placed on practically everyone in Government. I must say in all fairness that it seemed to me to be a complete rigmarole and I really could not understand what it was all about. To be frank, I regarded as almost a sick joke the absurd suggestion that because MAFF should have a duty placed upon it about conservation, the DoE should have a duty placed upon it about agriculture. I cannot conceive of anything more ridiculous.
Since 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture has invariably been the organ grinder, with immense powers of authority and resources. Other ministries have been the monkeys. To suggest that the DoE should do anything about agriculture is absurd and obviously that is not what we are talking about in suggesting that it would be a huge benefit both to agriculture and to farmers, as well as to conservation, for the Ministry of Agriculture to have a duty and not just a regard for conservation.
A regard means absolutely nothing at all. I could have a regard for the National Health Service, but not do anything about it. What is required in order to give a lead, to give leadership, and to get everybody moving in an exciting new area, which I believe most officials, and certainly members of ADAS, would welcome, is a duty.
Finally, as every mover of an amendment has had to mention today, there is a problem relating to the fact that this is a Private Member's Bill. We are constantly reminded of the danger of rocking the boat. It seems to me a strange situation that when a Government remove from a Bill a clause they do not like but which was introduced and supported by the vast majority of Members in both Houses, to be then accused of rocking the boat because one wants to reinstate it seems rather far-fetched. I accept, however, that there is a danger of filibustering and certainly I would not wish to be the cause of any risk to the Bill. Nevertheless, it strikes me on the first point I have just made and on the second—that the majority of Members and speakers in both Houses, and especially in another place, are in favour—that this amendment seems to be a special case.
We are all conscious of a great change in feeling and attitude in the bureaucracy itself. One of the most encouraging portents is the keen interest and sense of opportunity among officials, not least, if my impressions are correct, among officials in MAFF itself and especially officers of ADAS. I believe that this amendment and clause are grossly misunderstood by MAFF. I do not see the amendment as imposing any restraint or imposition, or directing any offence whatever at the ministry. It is certainly not intended to do so. It should be looked at as offering wider powers, much more scope, and providing huge opportunities to agriculture and farming itself.
Why is it that Ministers are still apparently reluctant when it comes to seizing the torch of leadership in the whole area of the countryside? That is the question I should like to put to my noble friend Lord Belstead. A great opportunity is on offer to MAFF; it is not a question of restraint or opposition.
Looking back, this movement stems not just from 1981 but from the first wildlife exhibition at Alexandra Park in the late 1960s. That was the result of a suggestion made by the Duke of Edinburgh, and it led to the first Countryside 1970 Conference. At that conference, for the first time in history, all the bodies concerned were united at a two-day meeting. Only the Ministry of Agriculture remained aloof and described itself as an observer. But that was par for the course in those days and quite understandable.
It is not fundamentally true that anything basic has changed. There was merely a senseless confrontation originally, developing into mutual suspicion and mistrust over the years. Partly due to ignorance, the parties concerned were convinced that co-operation and compromise in relation to the countryside was against their vested interests. What has now happened in recent, much more encouraging times, is that the penny is beginning to drop all round. Distrust and suspicion are known to be groundless and opportunities and benefits are seen by the more enlightened to lie ahead, in an age of co-operation and common objectives.
I must impress upon the farming community—though I believe that most of the community acknowledges this—that the financial benefits and advantages to be gained for farmers through the ministry having a duty are obvious, particularly when the prospects for agriculture are not as rosy as they have been; and I am a farmer. I must ask my noble friend the Minister to tell the Committee whether the Treasury had anything to do with the Minister's refusal to take on this further duty—a duty which could immeasurably strengthen agriculture in the future and give many new opportunities for support.
MAFF is proud about the Broads scheme, as indeed it should be. Why, therefore, does it shrink from accepting a similar duty elsewhere?
Finally, if there is some technical complication concerning Scotland, I cannot accept that it is a reason for denying farmers in England the benefits that would accrue from the acceptance of our amendment. A way must surely be found, just as it would be found, I venture to suggest, if it were the Government who wanted this amendment to be made.
After 40 years' experience in this industry—and I am sorry if I sound pompous—perhaps I may tell my noble friend that, in my judgment, reform is certain to come. It will arrive come what may, and before long the Minister of Agriculture will have a duty. The momentum has been going for too long for it suddenly to slow down. This reform has the support of the NFU, the CLA, and a whole horde of bodies and societies, supported by the weight of the electorate. There will be no U-turns in opinion now.
The Minister's duty towards conservation will inevitably become a fact before long, however much Ministers continue to resist. That may be a personal opinion, but it is based on what one has learnt in the past. I ask my noble friend whether it is not better to meet the reform now, gain public applause, and be the popular boy of the day, rather than to wait until the Government are forced to give way, as so often happens?
Finally, I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to be flexible and to see the wisdom of this reform, even if he feels unable to do anything today. I ask him to recognise the wisdom and benefits of reform, especially for farmers, in view of the somewhat bleak outlook for agriculture in some sectors. It is an absurd thought, but if a farmer has 50 per cent. of his land as arable—and I am speaking only allegorically—and 50 per cent. as woodland or wild country, he receives financial aid to increase production of cereals which the public do not want to need, but probably nothing to support his wild landscape, which the British public want very badly. There must be opportunities there, if the Minister of Agriculture has a dual responsibility.
This has been the farce of the MAFF position over the years; a farce that could be put right in a flash for the benefit of all parties, and especially farmers, if the Government will only take the simple step of accepting this amendment. It may be that in these special circumstances my noble friend would prefer to give positive assurances about plans for the foreseeable future. We could perhaps regard such assurances as being positive and satisfactory; perhaps something in connection with my noble friend's brilliant and splendid efforts in the Community structure legislation being debated in Brussels. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: Conservation is not now an optional extra with which land use and agricultural policies are decorated, but is built into the structure of policy making, as it should be. Your Lordships' Committee will be surprised to hear that those are not my words. They are the words of the Minister of Agriculture in the departmental response to the operation and effectiveness of Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is Government policy. Therefore, it seems to me very sensible that it should now take legislative form.
The Ministry of Agriculture is a ministry of single-minded purpose which has served the country extremely well for a very long time. It came to its conclusions and did exactly what we, the public wanted it to do after the trauma of a world war, and a famine outside, and together with the European Community it has made Europe self-sufficient in cheap, abundant and very high quality foodstuffs. On that it must be congratulated.
The problems that the agricultural industry now faces are those of success and, therefore, we must change. I suggest to my noble friend that if an amendment such as this is accepted, or perhaps put in another Bill at another time—I have already spoken of the constraints under which we operate—the Ministry of Agriculture, because of its single-minded purpose, then, in effect, becomes a ministry of the countryside. It will start thinking of the countryside in a way that an old-fashioned hereditary landlord would think about his estates; that is, to look to long generations ahead when he plants oak trees. I gave your Lordships the example of Nelson's second-in-command. He always came back to plant oak trees in his farm in Northumberland because he said that the Royal Navy would always need oak. One of his woodlands was cut down in 1940 to provide anti-magnetic minesweepers for the Royal Navy. Therefore, it is good that we
1296
should look at the land in the long term. It is also good to concentrate on multiple land use. That is what we, in the amendment, are trying to encourage the Ministry of Agriculture to do.
It will possibly be said that the Ministry of Agriculture is already encouraging conservation in the countryside, but I suggest to your Lordships' Committee that as it has a duty so to do in national parks it may have no duty to do so in the non-national park areas. There is a Latin tag which goes, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. This means, for those of us who cannot understand it in the first place, "If you express one part, you exclude the others". Therefore, it could be possible that if someone is refused a grant, or is advised to do something different on conservation grounds in a non-national park area, and the grant is withheld, or altered, or whatever it may be, the farmer concerned could take the Ministry of Agriculture to court for acting illegally. That would be a fairly silly thing to do and it would be most unfortunate if it were to happen. However, there are one or two people who have been known to behave in extremely uncivilised fashions.
I make one other point on this issue. The whole of the community of conservationists, the CLA and the NFU, have encouraged the inclusion in the Bill of amendments such as this. I make no apology for repeating that particular part of what my noble friend Lord Buxton said, in a very forceful and admirable speech. It was about the most important part of his speech. I also believe that we must be careful of our countryside. It is manmade and it has to be kept by man. Some of it is the most beautiful in the world.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt: I have no hesitation in suggesting to the Committee that, notwithstanding the importance attached to the previous amendments we have been discussing and the time we have given to them, this is the most important amendment on the Marshalled List. At Second Reading I said that we on the Alliance Benches would be ready to move or support an amendment to reinstate the original Clause 4 in Dr. Clark's Bill, as it was at Second Reading in another place. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for relieving me of the onus of moving the amendment. It goes without saying that I warmly support it.
I like the wording of the amendment and, if I may, I shall extract the relevant words from the early subsection:
"the Minister shall … endeavour to secure a reasonable balance between … efficient agricultural industry; and … conservation".
That differs from the wording in Dr. Clark's Bill, as it was in another place, but I think it is better. It points to the all-important need to upgrade the value of environmental conservation to bring it on a par with the agricultural industry. That, of course, has been the objective of the Countryside Commission and all the conservation bodies, and countless others, for a very long time.
It is in consonance, as your Lordships will have seen, with the wording in Clause 4 of the Bill now before us relating to forestry. In fact, the wording is identical and I put it to the Committee that the reason and need for

1297
identical wording is exactly the same. It will be no good the Minister, in replying, saying that agriculture has a greater importance and significance than forestry from the point of view of producing food. We all know the situation as regards the production of food.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. At Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to explain why such a laudable duty should not be laid on his right honourable friend; the more so because, as has been pointed out many times, it has the support of the farmers and the landowners. As I said at Second Reading—and I am glad the noble Lord is in his place to hear it today—I am second to none in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I entirely accept the sincere concern of the noble Lord and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for environmental interests. It is not to doubt them to say that this alone simply is not good enough. Nor, frankly, is the Government's response to Recommendation 4 of the Select Committee on the Environment in another place. Again, I am selecting the words, but not distorting the sense. In response to the recommendation (I shall not read it out as there is no need to do so) the Government said that conservation objectives are now looked upon—I stress the word "now"—as being a major part of mass overall responsibilities in pursuing a fair and balanced approach.
I would say that that is good news—it is excellent news—but there is no obligation implied in that statement. There is no permanence. There is no statutory requirement about it. I suggest that what is needed is action to prevent changes in that policy without parliamentary decision to change it. Changes there can be in ministerial attitudes. We may not always have these two excellent Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today and that might adversely affect the vital matter of balance. That is an overriding reason for entrenching this amendment, beyond peradventure, in black and white, by putting it on the statute book.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say to the Government that they should think twice before missing what I consider to be a golden opportunity to enhance their dwindling credit. I say that because environmental damage and the need to conserve the environment is a matter of growing public concern. There is no doubt whatever that it will be an important issue at the next election and in the run-up to it.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I rise with some trepidation after all the words of glowing enthusiasm which have been spoken for this amendment to voice, if I may, some short misgivings about it. The art of the draftsman is extremely obscure, I have always found. But having served in the Scottish Office I would suspect that with the enormous range of the functions of the Secretary of State—and no doubt my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—the reference to the application to Scotland is probably defective. If that is so, it can easily be redrafted. Of that there is no question. But I rise briefly to ask your Lordships' Committee—and I do not believe that I shall get the answer, yes—to wonder whether the words of the new
1298
clause are not superfluous to what happens within the Ministry of Agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, read out the words, with which I entirely agree:
"endeavour to secure a reasonable balance".
I think that that is absolutely essential. I remember using those very words in a Second Reading speech, I think, on the Pesticides Bill. In my view the new clause merely states what a Minister in my noble friend's department already does. If he does not do it, having served there myself, I wonder how on earth he can function.
I suspect that the representations from environ-mental and conservationist bodies are far more numerous and more vigorous today than they were when I was in that department 12 years ago. But even then there were many proposals of an agricultural nature which caused the Friends of the Earth and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, to mention only two bodies, to come to see me to put their suggestions, and I certainly remember acting on many of them. I think that I can claim that I thought about the arguments put by each side, and thought about them at fair length.
Of course one Minister's conclusions on the same subject or issue may be different from another's. I think that it is remotely possible that my conclusions, had I to come to any today, might not always be identical to those of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I am quite certain that the conclusions which each of us reached would have been reached after the most careful thought in an endeavour to balance the issues at stake.
Baroness Nicol: We thought it necessary to put this duty on agriculture Ministers in regard to SSSIs and areas of natural beauty—national parks. That would seem to me to indicate that we felt that the general duty which we would expect them to perform was not sufficient in those cases. When we consider that those areas which are subject to special protection are such a very small part of the countryside, however important they may be, I think we realise that if we are to make any impact on maintaining the beauty of our countryside, which we all wish to do, we have to put the duty on Ministers generally to protect the countryside in the same way.
I want to make only two very brief points. At Second Reading I asked a large number of questions, many of which were answered and some of which were not. I want to come back to one which was not answered and to another which was. One question which I asked and which has not been answered is this. The areas covered by this duty, as I said, are small. I asked whether the Minister could quote a single example of an application for a farm capital grant being refused on environmental grounds outside those special areas. I have not had an answer, and I should like to press for one.
The other question which I dealt with at some length—and I shall try now to be brief—was about agricultural grants. I was led to believe that an EC regulation would override the existing protection of the 1981 Act. I have had a very helpful letter from the Minister. He agrees that that is so, but in the last

1299
paragraph he gives an assurance that the Government recognise the problem and are considering how best it could be handled through some other vehicle. Is the Minister going to deal with that problem in the agricul-tural legislation which I understand is pending in the autumn? I think that the answer to that question is very important.
Baroness White: I do not want to detain the Committee more than a moment or two, but I think that one can fairly say that this clause, which has been redrafted since it first appeared in the Bill in another place, has something which it certainly would not have had 10 or 12 years ago, with great respect to the noble Lord opposite, and that is the support of the NFU and the CLA. Things have changed, but they clearly have not changed sufficiently as far as the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned.
Many of us are extremely grateful to the Ministry for the admirable work that has been done by Mr. Jopling in particular and by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in the recent Brussels discussions regarding the EC structures. But, to say the least, it was disappointing that when a request was put to the Minister of Agriculture to discuss the clause now before the Committee, or its predecessor, by the most responsible environmental associations in this country—the CPRE, the Council for National Parks, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the distinguished president and of which I happen to be a member, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation—he was unwilling to discuss the matter with them at all. I thought possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might have mentioned this.
On 23rd May the Minister said that he saw very little value in either of the clauses which had been tabled to impose new statutory duties upon agriculture Ministers. Presumably that was the previous clause and the one now before us. He expressed his inability to meet anybody to discuss them. I think that that was regrettable from the point of view of public relations. I do not say that it in any way demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the concerns by the Minister, but it is a pity that he felt unable to meet responsible people who had been working on that particular line.
May I ask a specific question which was not asked by my noble friend Lady Nicol, who referred to grants? It is about the future role of the advisory service of ADAS. Some of us are much concerned that Section 41 of the 1981 Act, which is the basis for this amendment Bill, refers specifically to—and I am not responsible for the rather clumsy wording:
"The advice for the giving of which free of charge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State are required by section 1(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 to make provision through such organisation as they consider appropriate shall include—
(a) advice to persons carrying on agricultural businesses on the conservation and enhancement of the natual beauty and amenity of the countryside",
and then there are various other matters. It includes that but it does not include wildlife.
The phrase which worries is,
"to make provision through such organisation as they consider appropriate".
1300
Recent announcements have suggested that in future ADAS will be entitled to charge, will be encouraged to charge and may be obliged to charge for certain kinds of advice. May we have an assurance that advice which would be appropriate to the duties under the Wildlife and Countryside Act will not be chargeable, that they will remain free and that they will be carried out by the Ministry's own advisory staff?
I say this not out of any disparagement whatever for the line which the Minister is now taking—and that includes also the Welsh Office. Such advice should in future be largely in the hands of the voluntary organisation, the farm wildlife advisory groups, FWAGs, as they are commonly known, which of course are in themselves admirable. However, they are no substitute whatever for the advice that should be available from the Minister's own official advisory service.
I shall not labour the matter because time is passing and there are other matters to come before the Chamber. However, I think we are entitled to ask whether, in relation to this particular area covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we can have an absolute assurance that ADAS will continue to give advice? May we be assured that it will make it part of its normal duty? May we have an assurance that not only in one particular section of ADAS, as it is apparently increasingly becoming, but in all the day to day functions of ADAS, in giving advice, their consideration of countryside and wildlife matters shall be included and that no charges will be made for advice of this nature; it will remain free?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: I shall be exceedingly brief because I think the case for this amendment has been put most powerfully and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I agree with everything he says and can really add nothing to it. However, I think that, rightly or wrongly, this clause has become to some extent the litmus test of the Government's attitude to conservation. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that conservation is Government policy affecting all departments of state. I was very happy to hear him say that.
If the Government accept this clause, then I think it will be a signal both to all the staff of the MAFF and to ADAS that a balanced policy, as set out in the amendment, between the promotion of agricultural efficiency and the promotion of conservation, is what the Government want. It will also be a signal to the country at large that conservation really is in the forefront of the Government's policy, as I hope it is. If, on the other hand, they reject this amendment, then I think the contrary signal will be given out about the Government's intentions, which would be a very great pity.
Earl Peel: I should like to add my support for the principle of my noble friend's clause. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked the question as to whether there had been any cases in which grants had been refused on conservation grounds, which presumably refers to the 1968 Act.
In connection with the 1981 Act, of course there are powers imposed on MAFF in relation to conserving

1301
the countryside; yet—and I speak as somebody living within a national park—we still have the situation where, for example, MAFF are continuing to pay LFA compensatory allowances on numbers of stock which in many cases are way in excess of what the environment can stand and also way in excess of what are registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965.
No one can argue against the support to maintain a social structure. However, I really think the time has come when I hope my noble friend will consider reviewing the whole of the social structure of support and HLCF within the uplands. The point is that what we have already seen is that the restrictions on MAFF have not been particularly effective. Obviously the new EC structures that have been referred to are a major step forward. So long as they are implemented with the proper financial backing, then I am sure that they will go a long way towards resolving many of the problems to which members of the Committee have referred.
The question I pose is this. How effective would this amendment be? I believe that the root cause of many of the problems that lie within the countryside was the abolition of prior approval. I believe that even the NFU was against that when it occurred in 1980. Without prior approval, such a clause will be relatively ineffective, as MAFF cannot prevent agricultural activities from taking place.
Furthermore, there is a fact that I have recently discovered, largely due to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Belstead. That is that MAFF do not have the power of discretion on giving HGS grants. That is a point which I must confess I found very disturbing. Thus, if farmers wish to proceed, MAFF are obliged to pay them. That is of course assuming that they wish to have a grant. It is on those grounds that I wonder whether the amendment would really have the bite that the noble Lords think that it might. However, in principle, as I have already said, I accept the amendment. My noble friend Lord Buxton made a good point when he said that one day this particular clause or a similar one will somehow find its way into the statute book. It must do so; it is logical.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I shall not keep the Committee more than a minute or two. The importance of this amendment really lies in the fact that it is on the Marshalled List at all. As my noble friend Lady White said a few moments ago, a dozen or 14 years ago one would not have seen an amendment of this kind on the Marshalled List. This is a sign of changing opinion, of greater awareness of our environment and our anxiety about what is happening to it. Probably it is a sign of greater anxiety of what may happen to it, with the increasing pressures of growing population. Indeed, if the country makes a substantial economic recovery, then there will be more pressures on the environment for recreation, holidays and all the other purposes for which land is required for the expansion of society and the amenities that it desires.
Of course, it is very difficult to impose upon Ministers duties in these terms. There is nothing onerous about the terms of the amendment. The disciplines imposed upon the Minister by the amendment are in very general terms. I doubt whether
1302
it would ever be possible to decide for sure whether or not he was fulfilling them because he would say, he was using his best endeavours all the time and he was trying to strike the balance all the time. It is almost like the clinical judgment of a doctor: it really cannot be said that he is not trying or that he is being negligent.
One cannot really boot a Minister of Agriculture for making a genuine mistake. Therefore, this is really a homily rather than a discipline. The Minister can get up and say, "I embrace this concept of the duties of the Minister of Agriculture. You can be sure that this is what we shall do", and there need be no further argument about it. It is something which the Government can voluntarily accept as a splendid gesture, a great reassurance. However, I do not think we can impose it upon the Minister because that becomes a mark of displeasure, a lack of confidence. Then we should really have to have a long debate on a Motion of no confidence because that is really what it would amount to.
The disquiet of the public has been heightened by some of the programmes that we have seen on television, where it seems that there have been the most stupid situations involving clashes between environmental requirements and the almost routine expansion of agricultural production accompanied by capital grants.
I should be greatly reassured if the Government, in accepting the spirit of the amendment, would say that in future the Minister of Agriculture will not be a farmer. That would give me terrific encouragement. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said in his remarkable speech on Second Reading, the agricultural industry has had a tame Minister for years and years. When I was in Government and the then Prime Minister appointed me chairman of the farm price review committee of the Cabinet, I was told by a former Minister of Agriculture that he would have resigned rather than put up with it. This just shows what property rights the industry seems to have upon the machinery of government.
Baroness White: May I remind my noble friend that our noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House was Minister of Agriculture, and he is not a farmer?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: That is splendid. Of course, he was not. I agree. My memory is at fault in that regard. He is a lawyer, a solicitor, I understand. Perhaps he was not there long enough to make a firm enough impact as a non-farmer. I do not want to be taken too seriously. But there is a serious note, and the response of the Minister will be of some importance. As there has been insistence on this matter in both Houses, it would be a great comfort to have, in words of the noble Lord's own choosing if he likes, an assurance that this is the policy of the Government and that all that the amendment contains and implies will be taken fully on board by the Government in their future exercise of responsibility.
Lord Melchett: My noble friend is, I believe, right in saying that the wording of the amendment is not as strong as it should be. Indeed, it is not as strong as the wording that was contained in the Bill of my

1303
honourable friend Dr. David Clark which received a Second Reading in another place. But as I explained, I think, in the course of the introduction of the amendment, an attempt has been made, I hope in a spirit of reasonable compromise, to choose wording to which the Government would have greater difficulty in objecting than they did in regard to the original wording. The wording has been lifted from an amendment that the Government themselves have put into the Bill. Indeed, the Bill is now drafted entirely by the Government. The clause on Forestry Commission duty was drafted by them, and the wording is taken from that. I do not think that the wording in that instance is satisfactory. We shall no doubt discuss that matter on a later amendment.
I do not want to repeat anything that has already been said. I want to try to cover slightly different ground and to demonstrate in practical terms how I think that an amendment of this sort, if possible stronger but at least of this sort, could make a difference on the ground. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I also welcome, like other noble Lords, the recent initiatives that the Ministry of Agriculture has taken towards the conservationists' case and to support the greater integration of agricultural and conservation interests. In particular, the Minister of Agriculture has had success in negotiating a new article in the EC's structures directive.
It is, however, a fair criticism of these initiatives, welcome though they are, that they have tended to concentrate the ministry's attention on particular areas of land. The Broads experimental scheme applies to the Broads. The new structures directive, Article 19, will apply to relatively small, discreet areas of particular conservation interest where agriculture has to be maintained. The prior notification arrangements of capital grants which have been retained apply to national parks and sites of special scientific interest—slightly larger areas, but still 9 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the countryside. All these initiatives, welcome though they are, tend to concentrate on particular, smaller areas. There is a real danger that in the wider countryside the Government's agricultural policies are still in many cases working in conflict with conservation interests. This seems to me both undesirable and unnecessary. That is why conservation organisations and farming and landowning organisations have supported this amendment and the earlier clause that the Government deleted from the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, expressed doubt about the practical value of an amendment of this sort. It seems to me, however, that he gave one of the best examples of the sort of policies that need to be changed and that could be changed with the impetus that this amendment would give. This is in the way that agricultural money is spent in the less favoured areas in this country. I believe strongly that the agricultural support available to farmers in less favoured areas should continue. Indeed, I believe that the balance of expenditure between the lowlands and the uplands should probably be switched considerably in favour of the uplands. I say that as a grain farmer in the east of England. But that support must be spent in ways that do not continue to damage the environment. It is an
1304
unfortunate fact that conservationists believe and have evidence—the noble Earl seemed to accept this himself—that the payments are currently made in ways that do damage the environment.
7.45 p.m.
The RSPB has recent evidence of damage to valuable sites in Wales, in Orkney and in Devon. It is not just a problem in particular areas. It occurs all over the country. In those areas there has been agricultural reclamation of moorland, the replacing of hedges and stone walls by wire fences and so on. A large number of bird species, many of them rare, have been adversely affected by these changes. Those did not occur in national parks. They may well not have occurred in sites of special scientific interest. But they still affect conservation interests in the countryside—important interests—and it does not seem to me that it is of much benefit to farmers to get money that way rather than to get it in a way that did not cause this conflict with conservation.
As the Council for National Parks has said in its comments on this amendment, the hill livestock compensatory allowances continue to be awarded with no account taken of the severity of handicap that the farmer farms under, of the flock size, or of environ-mental factors. That leads to continual over-grazing and perhaps some of the problems with lamb losses that we were discussing at the start of the Committee stage. Certainly it leads to very great concern from conservationists about agricultural support for farmers who need the support most—and where that conflict should not occur.
I believe that an amendment of this sort would help in that kind of case. I should like to give one other example concerning a lowland site in Cambridgeshire, Swavesey Fen, where, as recently as earlier this year the Ministry of Agriculture gave the final set of approvals for a new drainage scheme which will lead to the conversion in due course of most, I have no doubt, of an area of over 1,000 acres of grassland to cereal growing. Your Lordships might not think this a particularly desirable way of spending public money, given the problems of cereal surpluses, over-production, the cost to the Community, and so on. That scheme was finally approved just a few months ago.
I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about this. My honourable friend in another place, Dr. Clark, has taken a particular interest in the case. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me in a letter recently that the Nature Conservancy Council had not formally objected to this scheme. That is, of course, true. The area is not a site of special scientific interest. It is not in a national park. The NCC, given the constraints on its manpower that we have discussed at length today, has inevitably to concentrate its efforts on SSSIs; and the national park authorities only exist and operate in national parks.
I asked for some advice from the Nature Conservancy Council about the comments that it had made on the drainage of Swavesey Fen. The council stated that as long ago as 1978 it had voiced great concern that the loss of this area would contribute to the then rapid decline of wildlife habitat in that part of

1305
Cambridgeshire. It had not formally objected but had expressed considerable concern to the Anglian Water Authority. It went on to tell me that during 1983 and 1984 the Anglian Water Authority approached the NCC and sought advice about how to minimise the adverse consequences to wildlife if the scheme went ahead. The NCC welcomed that approach but pointed out that the fundamental problem was the drainage scheme itself. If the drainage scheme went ahead, the water table would be lowered and as the NCC put it, the mosaic of wet pasture, ditches, trees and old hedges would inevitably be lost. So there was no way that it could suggest some compromise to the scheme that would really meet its concern. Its main concern from the conservation viewpoint continued to be the loss of areas of general nature conservation interest. It said that this had the effect of increasing the isolation of sites of special scientific interest.
Therefore, while this particular scheme did not have sufficient consequences on a top wildlife site to justify a formal objection, the NCC says:
"We do, however, look to other Government departments to exercise their responsibilities in the wider countryside having due regard to general wildlife value which in turn will ensure the maintenance and hopefully the enhancement of landscape and amenity".
The fact of the matter is that as far as I gathered from the correspondence from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the view of the Ministry of Agriculture was that if the NCC had not entered a formal objection, that was the end of the matter: the drainage scheme could go ahead. The ministry itself apparently had no obligation as the noble Lord saw it—and if I am wrong about this, the noble Lord will no doubt correct me—to look behind the Anglian Water Authority's proposal to the attitude that the NCC had adopted to what the conservation consequences of the scheme might be, and so on. I am leaving aside what seems to me the agricultural absurdity of public money being spent on increasing grain production, in 1985.
Therefore, I believe that there are positive advantages in leading to less conflict between farmers and conservationists if a clause like this one were to be reinstated in the Bill. I should like to make one other point. I should put on record the gratitude of my honourable friend and, indeed, of myself, for the support which the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association have given to the amendment. It has not been an easy period for those organisations or, indeed, for conservation bodies, to reach a compromise with what have been opposing interests in the past, but which it is hoped will not be to anything like the same extent in the future. It has taken some foresight and some courage, and that is very welcome. I only wish that that same foresight and courage had been demonstrated by the Government in the first place and that they had been able to accept the amendment.
I should like to reiterate one other point that has been made. There really is a great deal to be gained from this in the Ministry of Agriculture itself and I believe that particularly ADAS would welcome having a statutory duty of this nature placed on the ministry. Maybe the noble Lord could take up that particular point, which I know has already been made, when he comes to reply to the debate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My noble friend Lord Buxton began by asking me, as his first question, whether there were technical defects in this amendment. I hope that I am not returning ill for good—because my noble friend and, indeed, other noble Lords expressed generous remarks to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and myself on personal grounds—when I say that this amendment really is quite defective from a technical point of view, though no doubt the defects could be put right.
First, the amendment would require my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to endeavour to secure a reasonable balance between the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry and conservation interests in regard to his functions which affect the physical environment—and, of course, some of my right honourable friend's functions affecting the physical environment do not impinge on agriculture. The most obvious example of that is fisheries policy.
The second defect, which in my view is more serious, is that the new clause states that in Scotland references to the Minister of Agriculture shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Stodart is quite right in his apprehension that this would cause trouble. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has, of course, even wider responsibilities affecting the physical environment than my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture because in Scotland there are responsibilities for planning and for transport.
Thirdly, for some reason there is no similar provision for Wales in this new clause. The new clause would not, therefore, apply uniformly in the three parts of Great Britain. For those reasons I really do not—
Baroness White: We could easily move a manuscript amendment to that effect.
Lord Belstead: Yes, but I think that your Lordships would need to think about Scotland with a little more care. For those reasons I really do not think that this clause would be capable of consistent implementation throughout the country. That is the answer to my noble friend's first question.
As to the merits, all of your Lordships have made the point that there are statutory duties regarding conservation which are already laid upon agriculture Ministers and, of course, that is absolutely true. However, the duties relate to specific functions and in part to specific geographical areas. As your Lordships will be aware, Section 32 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act deals with the duties concerned with SSSIs, Section 41 deals with national parks, and Section 48 deals with applications for arterial drainage. Those provisions are specific to the Ministry of Agriculture, though of course all Government departments, indeed, all public bodies, have the general responsibility, which my noble friend Lord Buxton mentioned, laid upon them by Section 11 of the 1968 Act whereby they must have regard to the conservation of wildlife and wild plants and the enhancement of the landscape. I suggest that It is a

1307
very different matter to do what this amendment would do; namely, to impose a general duty upon agriculture Ministers alone relating to a whole range of their functions.
The second point of my noble friend Lord Buxton was that he could not understand why there should really be any objection to this particular line. Broadly speaking, the proposed clause is based on the premise that there is a need to make the Ministry of Agriculture more responsive to the requirements of conservation. It is a new clause, which emphasises the need for the ministry to be given general responsibilities capable of general application across the range of its policies, and it presumes that without such a duty the ministry would not be sufficiently responsive. However, the clause would apply only to the agriculture departments and not to any other Government departments which have an impact on the countryside, as a great many of them, of course, do.
If I may say so, I think that there is as great a commitment and responsiveness to the desirability of conserving the countryside in the Ministry of Agriculture as there is in any other Government department. I would not make comparisons with the department of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, or at least the department for which he is speaking—the Department of the Environment—because there is a very special responsibility on that department so far as conservation is concerned and a very special link with the statutory agencies.
However, apart from that, I would assert that the Ministry of Agriculture—and quite rightly so—is as committed as any other department to conserving the countryside. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is pursuing this and advising farmers on conservation and promoting conservation practices among the farming industry. That is an example of one of the specific responsibilites which was laid upon the ministry's advisory service in the 1981 Act when the section was included which said that the ministry's advisory service must go out and give advice in a positive way to the farming community.
Under our capital grants schemes we now pay the highest rates of grant that are to be had for environ-mentally enhancing argicultural operations, such as hedge planting, the building of stone walls and some other things as well. The proposals for new grants under the structures directive from the European Community, which we have put out in a consultation document, have, I think it is fair to say, been welcomed by conservation interests. We are currently considering the helpful suggestions that many of them have put to us about the proposed new grants scheme. It is a new scheme which, incidentally, puts all the environmentally helpful grants into the national scheme for the future—and only those grants, except for one set of grants for horticulture. Therefore, it puts the environmentally enhancing grants in a very special position for the future.
Finally, our commitment to conservation is perhaps most forcefully illustrated by the campaign which was waged successfully in Brussels by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to obtain a provision to enable us to encourage environmentally
1308
sympathetic farming practices in designated sensitive areas. Although I am not agreeing with your Lordships on this amendment, may I say "thank you" to noble Lords who have mentioned this today and, indeed, have done so in generous terms. We shall, of course, be bringing foreward legislation on this matter in the near future.
8 p.m.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Stodart is right when he says that in essence agriculture Ministers are doing their best to carry out the wishes incorporated in this amendment. When my noble friend Lord Buxton said that for his part he was sure that the Ministry of Agriculture and all agricultural departments would increasingly find themselves bringing conservation considerations into agriculturel policy, I am certain that my noble friend, with all his experience of the land and of wildlife, is correct. But this process is not helped by an amendment of this kind.
It is an illogical amendment and not consistent with the collective responsibilities, which have to be shouldered by Government in this country, to extend to one Government department general responsibilities which ought to apply to all Government departments, and do so under Section 11 of the 1968 Countryside Act. However, by building on the foundation of that Act the Ministry of Agriculture has specific responsibilities laid on it by the 1981 Act. I have referred to them already. We are very ready to shoulder those responsibilities, and that is the way forward.
I have been asked some specific questions, and perhaps I may briefly answer them. First, the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked about conservation advice given by ADAS and as to whether it would be free in the future. I cannot anticipate future legislation but I can give the noble Baroness two assurances. First, the noble Baroness will remember that the director-general of ADAS, Professor Bell, in his report on the future of the service said that he believed that charging was a way forward for securing a part of the income of the advisory service, but at the same time he made an important recommendation in the report that additional emphasis was, in the director-general's opinion, necessary for the conservation work of the advisory service.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has accepted in broad terms that recommendation, as he accepted the other recommendations in that report. I assure my noble friend that within our available resources we shall be pursuing that recommendation. Secondly, may I remind the noble Baroness, who probably needs no reminding, that the Minister of Agriculture broadly accepted the recommendation of the environment committee of another place that conservation should be given increasing priority both in the training and in the work of ADAS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked whether there is a single example of grant refusal outside designated areas. Off the top of my head, I can at the moment think of only one. We do not generally give specific examples, and certainly not as to exactly where the farm is where grants are given. I can think of one off the top of my head in a part of west Sedgemoor

1309
before designation occured there. I am sure that there are other examples as well.
Then the noble Baroness asked me an important question. The noble Baroness is on to a good point here, and it is a difficulty. She is right in saying that the 1981 Act omitted to bring within its scope the absolute requirement for a management agreement to be offered when grant is refused either in a site of special scientific interest or in a national park area.
So far as applications for grant under AHDS—the European Community scheme—are concerned, the noble Baroness put this clearly and absolutely right on the Second Reading of the Bill, and has written to me and my noble friend about this. Although there is an anomaly here I do not think we need to get too worried about it. So far as the Ministry of Agriculture is concerned, we have been applying the conservation duty to the AHDS scheme on an administrative basis ever since: that is to say, we require prior notification and look to see whether the giving of a grant would be furthering the cause of conservation. If we are not sure we consult with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment's department. We do all that. We have every intention of going on doing that under the new scheme of grants.
The noble Baroness asked me whether we will put it right in forthcoming legislation. I am sorry, but with the best will in the world I cannot say what is going to come forward in forthcoming legislation. I can only say to the noble Baroness that she is correct on the point she raised and I shall draw it to my right honourable friend's attention, as indeed I have already done.
Finally, there was the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the Swavesey drainage scheme. The noble Lord in essence said that he thought it was not a good example of the Ministry of Agriculture being interested in conservation. Uncharacteristically, the noble Lord was being a little less than fair. This is a scheme for drainage which was approved and where there were no objections on conservation grounds of any kind at the public inquiry.
I was told that much of the land is going to remain in grass at any rate. Thirdly, the scheme was altered with some significance before it was approved in order to take account of conservation considerations. Finally, as the noble Lord may know—and I am glad to be able to say this—I understand that the Anglian Water Authority are at the moment considering representations to see whether any final variations can be agreed. Although I know that the noble Lord feels strongly about this scheme, I think that it is not an example of either the Ministry of Agriculture or the water authority being insensitive to conservation considerations in this case.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, if he is going to do so, may I return to the Swavesey case. I know it is difficult to concentrate on a particular case but it is important to try to get home to the noble Lord, if we can, why a number of us think that a duty of this sort would make a real difference. As the noble Lord says, there were no objections at the public inquiry. The Nature Conservancy Council did not enter formal objections. What the Nature
1310
Conservancy Council did was to give their opinion that the scheme would be damaging, but said that this was in the wider countryside and that they were relying on the Ministry exercising its duty of care and interest in nature conservation. The noble Lord rather confirmed my worry that the Ministry was still relying on other people to object to it, to have an argument with it, or maybe even have a row with it, and then it would take into account the conservation interest.
I know that the noble Lord and I hay e had arguments from time to time about this subject_ but I believe fundamentally that farmers and conservationists could be working together, and that there should not be any need for conservationists to object to an agricultural development programme and have an argument before some accommodation or compromise, or cancellation of the scheme, is decided upon. It ought to be possible to devise systems of supporting agriculture which do not give rise to these conflicts in the first place.
That simply is not happening in the wider countryside at the moment. The noble Lord in his lengthy reply did not deal with the point that both I and the noble Earl behind him, Lord Peel, made about the less-favoured areas and the way that payments are made. After all, that affects a much larger proportion of the countryside than SSSIs, national parks, or the new Article 19 areas are likely to do, and so on. That is indicative that the Ministry is still prepared to look at particular trouble spots but not at wholescale integration of the conservation and agricultural case, which is what conservationists and farming and landowning organisations really want to see happen.
Lord Belstead: There are two points in reply to that. First, I believe I am right in saying that the water authority concerned in this case makes a habit of circulating proposals for forthcoming schemes to interested bodies. I should have thought that attempts in this particular case have most certainly been made to see that conservation interests and agricultural interests see eye to eye. Perhaps the best thing to do is leave it there because informal discussions are still going on.
There are safeguards against overstocking in the HLCA regulations. If there is evidence of overstocking we have power not to pay the HLCA on the excess animals. I know that some of your Lordships will say that that does not happen very often. No; and I know that there are difficulties there. Nonetheless, the power is there and can be used if there is clear evidence.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Baronesses, Lady White and Lady Nicol. It has been a very rewarding and helpful exchange of views. I am even grateful to the two noble Lords who expressed reservations, because that is characteristic of the balanced nature of all our discussions.
I should like to add one or two points that have arisen from the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about what was the most important part of the Bill, and in debates in another place it was referred to as the heart of the Bill. In my view like the noble Lord, I believe that Clause 4 is the heart of the Bill. I myself believe that had Clause 4 been a part of the legislation

1311
and the Minister of Agriculture had this duty, it is possible that the loopholes and all the other matters would not have occurred or become such a problem. Legislation has a sobering effect and concentrates the mind. I believe that if it were known to farmers—I am talking really about the rogue farmers, perhaps, outside the NFU—that the agricultural establishment, including the Minister, was against that sort of thing, I am not sure that we should have had the outrageous excesses in Kent with the oak trees, and in Essex, where a field of 15,000 rare orchids was sprayed at night in the hope of getting planning permission. That sort of thing does not happen unless the agricultural world has grown up to think that it is likely only to get a mild ticking off, and probably a wink and a nod.
There were three other points. I do not intend to comment on speeches because my noble friend the Minister has done that and nothing needs to be added by me. I found the arguments about Scotland and Wales quite unconvincing. I have to repeat what I said before: that if the Government wanted this clause they would not have the slightest difficulty in solving those problems.
Nor do I agree, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, that MAFF or the Minister are not doing their jobs. I never said that. I said, and I tried to make it clear in my speech, that MAFF has a new and important opportunity and that we are moving into an era where it may be very important from the point of view of farmers that this opportunity is seized. This has been understood by several noble Lords who have spoken. This provides an opportunity for giving agricultural support where necessary, not necessarily to increase production when it is not required.
I cannot admit, with great respect, that anything new has come out of the debate, as far as the Government statement is concerned, by the observations of my noble friend Lord Belstead. We have heard it all before, and we would not be here if we had been entirely satisfied before. Nevertheless in view of the assurances, the general disposition, the goodwill and the general intentions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Maps of National Parks]:
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("act in accordance with") and insert ("have regard to").
The noble Earl said: I have been asked briefly to say a couple of words on this. It appears that in order to provide a reasonably consistent basis on which mapping is carried out the clause provides for the drawing up of guidelines by the Countryside Commission. The commission has indicated that these guidelines will be prepared in full consultation with the NPAs and will need to reflect the inevitable and important differences between the ten national parks. The guidelines will therefore need to be flexible, evolutionary and capable of sensitive application. This particular amendment would allow each national park slightly more flexibility in applying the guidelines in the individual circumstances of its park. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall try to be equally as brief as my noble friend has been in moving the amendment. I should point out that, as I understand it, the real worry of the local authority associations concerned is that the clause provides for the commission to consult other interested parties in the drawing up of the guidelines, and the national park authorities will, naturally, have an important contribution to make towards their preparation. I am sure that we can rely upon the commission not to issue guidelines which are generally unacceptable to the authorities or subsequently to revise them in any way that is generally objectionable to them. Moreover, I am able to give this assurance to the Committee; namely, that the Government will consult with the commission on the proposed guidelines to ensure that this is not overlooked.
It has never been our intention that the Countryside Commission's guidelines should supplant the national park authorities' responsibilities for the detailed decisions involved in the map-making process. I therefore believe that, in practice, the obligation placed on national park authorities to prepare and review their maps in accordance with the guidelines will not prove to be onerous or to jeopardise their freedom to draw up maps which delineate all those areas of open country that they believe are particularly important to conserve. I hope that my noble friend will agree with this view.
The Earl of Onslow: With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Amendment of Forestry Act 1967 s.1]:
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert—
("(3B) In formulating or considering any proposal under the Forestry Acts 1967 to 1979 which relate to any land that has been notified under section 28(1) of the principal Act as being of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features the Commission shall—

(a) consult with the Nature Conservancy Council before making or offering any grant;

(b) so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the said Acts of 1967 to 1979, so exercise their functions with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest." ").

The noble Earl said: The object of this amendment is to bring the duties of the Forestry Commission into line with those of the regional water authorities. The Forestry Commission has not historically had the best reputation for sensitive handling of tree planting. It has tended to plant great masses of blocks of conifers. It still allows felling of quite large chunks of broad-leafed woodland which are not replaced by other broad-leafed trees. Some is carried out to agriculture, some to mixed planting and some to coniferous planting. The broad-leafed woodlands of this country are extremely important. It would concentrate the minds of the department and the Forestry Commission wonderfully if an amendment such as this could be placed in the Bill. Obviously it will not be, because of the constraints

1313
we have had before, but I think it is well worthwhile airing this point of view once again. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I wonder whether I can briefly help my noble friend, even it' I cannot support his amendment. I must confess an interest as a Forestry Commissioner for some years. In regard to SSSIs, which are the concern of this amendment, any problem about planting or felling applications in them or in national nature reserves is always a matter of discussion between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. This follows from statutory directions given to the Forestry Commission by the forestry Ministers. Therefore I am able to speak on this matter, which I know about, and I repeat my assurance to my noble friend that what he is asking for already exists. He is pushing at an open door.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord may be right in saying that in theory this provision already exists, but in practice I am afraid matters do not work out quite like that. I was recently in Scotland looking at Abernethy, a grade 1 site of special scientific interest. It includes the RSPB's Loch Garten reserve which in turn includes the famous osprey tree and the nest which has been seen by hundreds of thousands, indeed nearly a million, visitors over the years. In that Caledonian pine forest, that SSSI, I saw an area which has recently been clear felled by Thompson Forestry, with permission given by the Forestry Commission; and not only that—the area subsequently has been drained right up to the edge of the site. This is a grade 1 site of special scientific interest. It is a grade 1 nature conservation review site which makes it, if anything, more important scientifically: and it looks like part of a battlefield from the First World War. And this has been done, not just after discussion with the Forestry Commission hut, as I understand it, with their active support. And that is not the only part of the Abernethy SSSI which has been destroyed in that way with the agreement and support and, in some cases, grant-aid from the Forestry Commission.
If I could give another example, I think that it was the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who earlier spoke about Nelson's second-in-command planting oaks. I am not sure whether it was in Northamptonshire, but in any event there is an oak woodland in Northamptonshire called Salcey Forest, again a site of special scientific interest. In 1970, 1,000 acres of oak woodland were notified as a site of special scientific interest at Salcey Forest. Despite that and despite the fact that oak woodlands, as noble Lords will know, are rare in lowland England and have declined dramatically since the war and are very much at risk, the Forestry Commission undertook extensive clear felling, replanting with conifers or conifer-deciduous mixes, either of which (as the noble Lord will also know) completely destroys the scientific and wildlife interest of the woodlands. As a result of all this, and the Forestry Commission's—and I have to say this—total lack of appreciation of the fact that this was an SSSI, a complete lack of interest in that and total determination not to protect it but to destroy it, when the SSSI was renotified in 1984, following the passage of the 1981 Act which this Bill amends, it was only one-third of its former size.
1314
The noble Lord may be right in saying that, in theory, consultations and duties are placed on the Forestry Commission but I am afraid that in practice there are many woodlands all over Great Britain which have been or are in the process of being destroyed with Forestry Commission agreement. The figures nationally tend to bear that out. The number of broad-leafed woodlands which have been clear felled or clear felled and replanted either with conifers or a conifer-hardwood mix are very high indeed. The numbers which have been selectively felled and under-planted with hardwoods which would be the desirable nature-conservation system in most woodlands are tiny.
The Forestry Commission simply are not recognising the importance of nature conservation in the way that they handle applications for telling licences or the management of woods. I am afraid that that has been repeated in the consultations that they have had over their new policy on broad-leafed woodlands where conservation bodies have been very unhappy about the way the consultations have been carried out and about the resources which the Forestry Commission are proposing to devote to deciduous woodlands. Nobody sees the process of destruction being halted.
Lord Gibson-Watt: With respect, this is a matter for the future and certainly not a matter for debate at this moment in this Committee. The noble Lord is not totally right in what he is saying.
Lord Melchett: If any of the facts that I have given about Abernethy or Salcey Forest are inaccurate, I am happy to be corrected by the noble Lord. I can assure him from my personal knowledge that what I have said about the attitude of the conservation bodies to the broad-leafed review which the Forestry Commission are carrying out is in fact their attitude. If the noble Lord wants to contradict that, I am happy to give way to him.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Indeed, I shall. If any public body has ever been to the lengths of having discussions and seminars with all interested bodies, I should like to find it. I would ask the noble Lord not to be too unfair to the Forestry Commission. They have great problems and they bend over backwards to recognise the problems to which the noble Lord refers. On the question of the earlier cases, I would not argue with him. All that I am arguing with him about is with regard to the so-called broad-leafed policy. That is a matter for the future and I would ask him not to prejudge it.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that I was pre-judging the actual policy. What I was saying was that the conservation bodies are very unhappy about the way in which consultations have been carried out. The noble Lord is right to say that the seminar was held recently; but he may also know that a number of conservation bodies who commented to the Forestry Commission on the proposals were excluded. It is an unfortunate fact that the Forestry Commission chose to exclude those organisations which happened to have made some of the most critical comments on the proposal. The noble Lord is shaking his head. If he

1315
wants to contradict me I shall be happy to give way and allow him to correct me. But that is a fact. The Forestry Commission have now organised a further meeting, I think, in recognition that there was some weight to this criticism.
But, as I went on to say, the conservation organisations—and I believe that this applies to the Government's statutory advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council—remain very unhappy about the content of the proposals and the degree of support, particularly for continuing management which is vital in deciduous woodlands, which the Forestry Commission are proposing. I believe that a much stricter duty than is currently in this Bill is necessary to be placed upon the Forestry Commission. The clause which was in the original Bill received very widespread support. If I may say so to the noble Lord, the Forestry Commission did not find many allies in another place when it came to the discussion on placing a further statutory duty on them. It was the Government that weakened the clause—I think, unfortunately—but I very much hope that by concentrating in particular on sites of special scientific interest, as this amendment does, the Government will find it acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: Irrespective of what the Forestry Commission do and do not do, what we are discussing at this moment is an amendment and whether the words in the amendment would make any difference to the way the Forestry Commission are behaving. I must tell the Committee that the answer to that particular conundrum is that it would not. This amendment would not alter the arrangements which already exist between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council for handling applications for grant-aid and felling permission in SSSIs. Under the terms of the statutory directions issued by the three forestry Ministers, the Forestry Commission is required to consult with other departments and authorities as appropriate on grants of felling applications. In the case of the NCC, there is a long-standing agreement that the Forestry Commission will consult on all such cases arising within SSSIs and national nature reserves.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, this is exactly what the Forestry Commission has done. The noble Lord counters immediately with his reference to the felling at Abernethy Forest SSSI with the permission of the Forestry Commission. All that I can say to that is that the Forestry Commission's agreement was given in 1979 to 1980 under a plan of operations which lasted for five years. This was before the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and before the present arrangements for consultation with the NCC in SSSIs came into force. I would think that it was inconceivable—
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend give way for a moment? On Salcey Forest, I have been advised, as late as 1984 they clear-felled the largest remaining block of mature oak. That is three years after the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Lord Melchett: While the noble Lord is sitting down may I make another point that at Creag Meggiadh in
1316
Scotland, where application was made to afforest a site of special scientific interest, the Forestry Commission agreed to planting going ahead with grant-aid. I know that in the event the Nature Conservancy Council had to buy the site at huge public expense and planting did not go ahead. My understanding is that the Forestry Commission had indicated that planting would be allowed and, for that reason, a considerable increase in the capital sum had to be paid to secure the site for conservation.
Lord Burton: As I know this area, may I intervene at this stage? One department of the Nature Conservancy Council in Inverness had already given clearance for this. They then decided that it was not in their area, that they had made a mistake and that it had to go to Aberdeen. It was not really altogether surprising that the Forestry Commission, quite rightly, gave its permission for planting on that ground.
Lord Melchett: I do not know what one office of the Nature Conservancy Council did or did not do; but the fact is that the Nature Conservancy Council nationally consistently opposed any conifer planting on that site of special scientific interest, as they were bound to do, it seems to me under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It seems to me very undesirable that one publicly-funded body should be giving permission in effect to destroy a site of scientific interest which leaves another public body, the Nature Conservancy Council, having to spend even more public money to prevent that planting taking place. That is in fact what the result was of the Forestry Commission's agreement for some of it to be planted.
Lord Skelmersdale: That was an interesting intervention in my speech. All I can say is that the position of Creag Meggiadh has been decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and matters have been proceeding from that decision. What I was saying before I became embroiled in particular points on particular forests brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords, was that this amendment does not actually add anything to the existing lore and therefore, in technical terms, is totally otiose. That is my view so far as the amendment is concerned. If I may repeat what I was saying about the Abernethy Forest, the agreement was given in the winter of 1979 under a plan of operations which lasted for five years. Therefore the fact that the most recent felling was done in 1984 is within that agreed plan of operations.
The Earl of Onslow: May I interrupt for one moment? This is showing a remarkable insensitivity. That is the duty we want placed on the Forestry Commission. It is to learn to behave with slightly more sensitivity. The evidence so far is that they do not behave with sensitivity. We want them to be taught to behave with sensitivity.
Lord Skelmersdale: What I was going on to say—but my noble friend the Earl of Onslow interrupted and said exactly the same point—in the second of the two speeches that I was making was that the permission would not be given now without full and proper consultation. In other words, the situation

1317
since the 1981 Act operation so far as the Forestry Commission is concerned is entirely different. I do not think that I can add anything more to this evening's discussion on this point.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord to confirm one thing? I know your Lordships want to get on to other business. The noble Lord said the amendment—and I take it he means the whole of the amendment—adds nothing to the existing law. I am not asking any trick question. I am thinking in particular of paragraph (b) of the amendment. Can he confirm what he has just said, that the whole of this amendment simply reflects the current position that the Forestry Commission is under; and adds absolutely nothing to their powers or their duties which they are under?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am informed that Amendment No. 7—which of course is an amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill, which is an entirely different situation—adds nothing to the existing statute and therefore should be resisted from this Box on those grounds.
The Earl of Onslow: In view of that totally unsatisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining, clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Further Education Bill [H.L.]
8.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1: [Supply of goods and services through further education establishments]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1
Page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) For the purposes of this Act educational activities are—

(a) the provision of teaching or industrial or vocational training;

(b) the carrying out of research;

(c) the exploitation of inventions or new techniques relating to further education;

(d) any other activity which may be advantageous to further education; or

(e) any activity incidental or ancillary to any activity mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) above.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I put this Amendment down again simply because the noble Earl at Committee Stage of 14th May (at col. 1099 of Hansard) said:
"I acknowledge that in places the phraseology of this Bill is somewhat opaque to the layman's eye. For this reason, the department will after consultation with the local authority associations and others concerned,—I am glad to say the first meeting will be held later this week, and it will be the first in a series of consultations—be issuing guidance, including examples of commercial activities arising under the Bill and distinguishing them from existing powers."—[Official Report, 14/5/84; col. 1099].
What I want to hear is the result of the consultations of the local authority associations which took place
1318
between Committee and Report stages. Also the Minister took little notice at Committee stage of the substitution of "or" for "and" in subsection 3(a) which the local authorities wanted. I wonder whether he has given that matter any more thought and if he had any information to give about the meeting that took place and the opaque phraseology of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I explained at Committee stage why the Government opposed this amendment; it would remove too many activities from the ambit of the Bill and make it difficult to distinguish normal educational activities carried on under authorities' existing powers and activities empowered by this Bill. Obviously I did not convince the noble Baroness the last time around so I must try to do a little harder today.
We cannot use this Bill as an excuse to redefine LEAs' existing powers. These are set out in existing legislation—notably the 1944 Education Act and the 1964 Industrial Training Act. In neither of these statutes is exploitation of inventions regarded as an educational activity and it cannot suddenly become one merely by its inclusion in what is a definitional clause in this Bill. The Government believe that exploitation of inventions is a desirable activity in further education establishments—indeed this is one of the main reasons for this Bill. But it is a commercial activity not an educational one, and it is accordingly catered for under the general phrase,
"Ideas of a person employed at it, or one of its students".
which appears in Clause 1(1)(c) and Clause 1 (2)(b) rather than under the definition of existing educational activities in Clause 1(3). Incidentally, this wider definition is intended to encompass not only inventions but other types of intellectual property as well, such as copyright rights in computer software, design know-how, and so on.
The Government share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness that this Bill might inadvertently affect some goods and services provided by students at present as an integral part of their education and training. Therefore the Government, in response, has brought forward their own amendment—Amendment No. 6 on the Marshalled List—to remove such activities from the requirement that they be charged for at full cost or open market value. I hope that this is a reply which will satisfy the noble Baroness. As far as the meeting with the LEA is concerned, I understand that it went very well, and the association is left in a happy state of mind.
The noble Baroness has also explained why she feels that changing "and" to "or" wherever it occurs in Clause 1(3) will serve to clarify the provision, by establishing that each of the activities listed separately constitutes an educational activity. But it is implicit in the expression "any activity" in subsection (3)(c) that the activities listed are alternatives and not part of a cumulative whole. In the Government's view changing "and" to "or" at best makes no difference and at worst introduces an element of confusion by its grammatical inaccuracy. I hope that in the light of these reassurances and with the reference I have made to Amendment No. 6 the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the further explanation and I think I shall have to be satisfied with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Powers of local education authorities]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("or for initiating it").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment inserting the word "facilitating" in line 15 of Clause 2(1)(b), with the aim of making sure that the local authorities and their institutions would be as free as possible in pursuing the new activities. The Minister had some objections to this, partly because of the different definitions of "facilitating" in his dictionary. We are now trying a different approach, inserting the words "or for initiating it" at the end of line 17, so that subsection (1)(b) would read:
"to lend money for the purposes of such an agreement to a body corporate in which they have a holding such as is mentioned in subsection (8) below or for initiating it".
I think this would give greater freedom and flexibility to LEAs than would the Government's Amendment No. 8, which I think we are bound to discuss a little with this one.
Pump priming could happen rather more easily with our amendment. The Government's amendment presumes an intended agreement. The authority might wish to act at an earlier stage and, supposing no agreement was finally reached and someone wanted to challenge the authority for having lent the money and there was no current agreement, he might have valid grounds for that challenge.
As I said, the Minister's amendment presumes that an agreement will be made and will come to fruition. Ours would provide for the possibility of it not coming to fruition and would prevent any fear of awkward consequences if no agreement was ever made. I think that my amendment is perhaps a little neater and less cumbersome than that of the Minister, but I shall wait to hear what he says about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think there is really a great deal between the noble Baroness and myself on these two amendments. As she rightly says, they both try to achieve the same purpose, which is of course to permit a local authority to lend pump-priming money to companies in which they own 20 per cent. or more of the shares, the loan being used to initiate an agreement to supply goods and services but being advanced before this agreement is made.
The noble Baroness has explained why she thinks that her amendment is better. I think that ours is better because it seeks to achieve the same object, though in a slightly different manner. In particular, the scope of the Government's amendment is wider in that it covers all loans which are permitted by the Bill, whether they are to companies owned by the local authority itself under Clause 2(1)(b), or to assisted establishments or their companies under Clause 2(2).
As I say, I do not think there is a great deal between us, but perhaps the Government's amendment is
1320
slightly wider. The noble Baroness may reflect upon this, and again I would invite her to withdraw this amendment and to support the Government's amendment, No. 8.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to reflect on it, but of course I presume a decision will have to be made on the Government's amendment very shortly. Even so, I should like to think about this and therefore I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I shall come back again on this at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("such an agreement") and insert ("an agreement under subsection (1)(a) above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment, consequential to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, which I accepted on behalf of the Government at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("full") and insert ("reasonable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 12.
Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 33.
Amendment No. 12: Clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert ("and this Act and the Education Acts 1944 to 1981 may be cited as the Education Acts 1944 to 1985.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act.").
I appreciate that the Government have taken steps to improve the Bill since Committee stage and I am grateful to the noble Earl for the letter that he wrote to me. I am also grateful for his efforts in putting down amendments to the Bill, which will make a difference and will relieve some anxieties. However, I have to say that even with this improvement we are not happy that "full cost" should be left in Clause 2, line 31. We think there will be problems, particularly in view of the noble Earl's reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, (at col. 1104, of Hansard) on 14th May 1985, when the noble Viscount asked:
"whether … the word 'full' is meant to imply that a proper assessment should be made of the proportion of overheads such as rent, rates, salaries of the principals, and so on".
The noble Earl's reply, in the same column, was
"Yes, the idea is that it should be the full market value".
The cost, if that is so, is going to be very difficult indeed to assess. Calculations of costs on this basis would be open to all sorts of difficulties and would appear to contradict the comments which the noble Earl made in col. 1103, where he said:
"This Bill will enable local authority colleges to set up trading enterprises on the back of their existing establishments, drawing upon all the facilities, buildings, equipment and staff expertise which have already been provided at public expense".
Again, a little further on in the same column he says:
"Although a polytechnic may very well be able to carry out a piece of work at relatively low cost since it is using existing buildings and equipment necessary for its teaching purposes, nevertheless it would be quite wrong if it were able to put private sector enterprises out of business by charging only the marginal costs involved".
It seems to me that perhaps there is a slight contradiction between the various statements that he made. For example, that does not seem to go along with the comment made to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, which I have already quoted. I fear that if institutions have to make these elaborate calculations they may well decide that the effort is hardly worth while, and that would defeat the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, my new proposal is to replace the word "full" with the word "reasonable" and to delete the words "or their open market value". That would place a duty on LEAs and colleges to put a proper price, in their estimation, on goods and services and might allay the fears of the private sector, which are perfectly understandable. It seems to me a happy solution, falling somewhere between "marginal" and "full".
There is one other point I should like to make. It concerns public sector institutions being on the same footing as the universities. The Minister, in his letter to me dated 6th June, for which, as I say, I am very grateful, made a point of the different constitutional status of polytechnics and universities. He continued:
"The intention is indeed that a higher education institution should in practice be on the same footing: universities have received very similar guidance about pricing to that which will be issued to polytechnics and local authority colleges when the Bill becomes law. But I think the statutory distinction needs to be maintained in order to preclude the possibility of an authority using this Bill for deliberate subsidisation of commercial enterprises (for whatever reason) at the ratepayers' expense, and with the possible result that private sector enterprises are forced out of business".
Although the letter stresses the need to maintain the distinction between institutions, I want to stress again that the Bill, as it stands, fails totally to put polytechnics and other maintained further education institutions on all fours with universities or, indeed, with other competitors. The LEA-maintained establishments alone would have a requirement in law to apply rigid costings criteria. Even with the guidance to the universities to which the Minister referred in his letter, the universities have no such requirement thrust on them and competition between the two publicly-funded sectors will be totally unfair.
I suppose that I had better repeat the last sentence that I read out from the Minister's letter:
"but I think the statutory distinction needs to be maintained in order to preclude the possibility of an authority using this Bill for deliberate subsidisation of commercial enterprises for whatever reason at the ratepayers' expense with the possible result that private sector enterprises are forced out of business".
I think that that portrays an all too common suspicion held by the Government about the way in which local government behaves, and it is almost offensive. The comment that LEA activities might force the private sector out of business is a little extreme and I doubt whether it can be justified. So for all these reasons—ease of working, fairness, wanting the activities to happen and to succeed—I propose that the word "reasonable" should replace "full".
Amendment No. 12 is consequential. It puts this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as one with the principal Act. The reason for doing this is that the Secretary of State will thus he provided with reserve powers, so that he would be able to invoke Section 68 of the 1944 Act if he thought that local authorities were acting unreasonably. I hope that this will make Amendment No. 4 more acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has had to say about pricing and I am afraid that it will take me a little longer to answer this amendment than the others. Of course, I can only repeat what she said—that the Government have tabled their own Amendment, No. 6 on the Marshalled List, which, if passed, will go some considerable way to meeting her difficulties by removing completely from the constraints of subsection (3) all supplies which are made in the normal course of teaching and industrial and vocational training.
This leaves activities which, though drawing upon a common stock of physical assets and intellectual expertise, cannot be said to arise as an integral and necessary part of the establishment's teaching activities. The noble Baroness quoted a letter that I wrote to her. This is my chance to get a little of my own back and quote a little from the noble Baroness's Second Reading speech, when she said:
"The first duty of local authorities is to provide mone to their establishments for the education of students—not for research and not for consultancy. Losses on the college budget could be borne only at the expense of students, and that would be deplorable. Are there to be any safeguards to prevent that happening?"—[official Report, 25/4/85; col. 1225.]
It is precisely to prevent cross-subsidisation between the educational budget and the accounts for estalishments' commercial activities that this full cost provision has been included. It aims to make it impossible for an establishment's commercial activities to be subsidised at the expense of its academic provision, by requiring that the establishment calculate the price at least at full cost, including an appropriate share of overheads and depreciation or capital service charges.
The noble Baroness's amendment—to require LEAs to charge only the "reasonable" costs for products supplied under the Bill—will, I fear, make matters worse rather than better. I gather that the intention is that any person who considered that an LEA was acting unreasonably in its pricing practice could complain to the Secretary of State, who would, if satisfied that unreasonable conduct had taken place, use his powers under Section 68 of the Education Act 1944 to give such directions as appeared to him to be expedient. Unfortunately, this will not work.
In administrative law generally, and in Section 68 in particular, the expression "unreasonable" as descriptive of a public body's actions bears a very specialised meaning. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, it means,
"conduct which no sensible authority acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided to adopt".
In the Government's view such a provision as Section 68, concerned as it is with actions, cannot be made to apply to matters such as costs and pricing easily, if at all. And, even if it could be, the Government would not wish the Secretary of State to be able to intervene and, in effect, to re-open bargains struck between an authority and an individual. These are commercial matters which are not best resolved by the arbitration of a Government Minister whose functions lie in the sphere of education.
The noble Baroness has also questioned whether the Bill's pricing provision would put polytechnics at a

1323
disadvantage to universities. I acknowledge that there is a legal distinction here, but it is one which the Government believe it is essential to maintain because of the very different constitutional status of polytechnics as compared to universities. Universities are separate corporate bodies, receiving state funding through a cash-limited vote. Any subsidy which they give to industrially-sponsored research can come only from their UGC and other general income. I believe that all universities now recognise that this sort of cross-subsidy does not serve their academic interest. Maintained polytechnics, in contrast, are wholly integrated into their parent local authorities, in the sense that they are legally part of them. They therefore have, in theory at least, access to the virtually unlimited resources which an authority can raise through its rating powers. As was said in what the noble Baroness quoted from my letter—and I stick by this—the intention is indeed that polytechnics and local authority colleges should in practice be on the same footing as the universities.
The most important function of the rule whereby supplies under this Bill must not be made at less than their open market value—and this is very much the principal theme of this part of the Bill—is to serve as a protection to private sector traders who may be operating in a competitive market. The Government are quite determined that no businessman shall be able to say that his livelihood has been damaged because he has been unfairly undercut by his local polytechnic or college, which has access to vastly superior resources acquired at public expense. The Government's own amendment to subsection (4)—Amendment No. 6 on the Marshalled List—acknowledges that for certain types of supply, where the goods are produced or the services supplied by students undergoing training, the quality of the product or the risk inherent in its enjoyment are such that it may not be able to stand the test of open-market pricing. Student hairdressing salons and catering restaurants are both cases in point.
In 90 per cent. or more of cases the product will be of excellent quality, but in a few instances something may go wrong, and the price must reflect this. This is a long-standing practice, and competitors in the private sector recognise that the benefit resulting from the supply of qualified entrants to the profession outweigh any marginal loss of income which they may suffer as a result of this pricing policy. But the same cannot be said of consultancy, advisory or testing services, or commissioned research and development which forms no part of a student's teaching or training. In this case Parliament has a duty to protect the livelihood of the trader in the private sector.
I do not see any difficulty in the definition of open market value contained in subsection (7) which is borrowed from VAT law, where it has been the subject of scrutiny in a far more contentious and litigious field than this. Where there is a large market, comprising many suppliers and many customers, establishment of a market price presents no great difficulties, and an aggrieved competitor will need only to produce price lists of other firms to show whether or not the college is indulging in unfair competition. Where the work is more specialised, the definition adopted allows a great deal of flexibility. Provided that the bargain is struck at
1324
arm's length, the price negotiations will produce an acceptable middle point between the maximum that the customer is prepared to pay and the minimum at which the college, fully conscious of its financial responsibilities, is prepared to sell.
I will not pretend that the question of pricing for supplies under this Bill is an easy one. And I shall certainly examine most carefully the arguments which the noble Baroness has put forward, to see whether there are better ways for the Government to express their intentions than those which currently appear in the Bill. The fundamental difficulty is how to convert the economic concept of opportunity cost—which is the value of resources consumed when these resources are deployed in the best available way—into statutory form. Suffice it to say for tonight that I regret that the solution put forward by the noble Baroness today does not, in the Government's view, solve this problem. I think it is probably unworkable and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him about one phrase which he used? He said that an appropriate share of overheads would be taken into account. Presumably, this means not quite the total amount of overheads. I wonder whether he can clear that up.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think there is much that I can add to what I said. I cannot find it in my speech. I think the point that I made, that somebody who feels he is aggrieved can then produce a price list, should take account of that.
Baroness David: My Lords, it was a long answer and, quite clearly, I shall have to read and study it. The Minister has a rather curious idea about the wealth of local authorities, with all this money which they wield everywhere, when we know that they are all in a good deal of difficulty at the moment. However, I shall possibly come back to this at Third Reading, because it is a very difficult part of the Bill and I am not at all sure that it has been got right, even with the Government's amendment. But I shall certainly consider what the noble Earl has said and possibly come back at Third Reading with yet another suggestion. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
9 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("where the goods are produced, or the goods or services are supplied, in the normal course of any of the educational activities mentioned in section 1(3)(a) above, or where the supply is").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have already had the debate on this amendment this evening. The Government have brought it forward in answer to many of the questions which the noble Baroness has raised tonight. As I said at the Committee stage, it is not the intention of this Bill that services such as hairdressing for OAPs should have to be charged at full cost or open market value. This amendment will exempt from the full cost or open market value rule

1325
goods or services provided by students as a normal, integral part of their education or training. I think we have discussed it long enough, and I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, this is an improvement on the Bill as it was at the Committee stage, and for that we are grateful. I am not quite sure that it goes far enough, but we are content with it as far as it does go.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Money may be lent under this section for the purposes of an agreement either before the agreement is made or during its currency.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to meet the concern expressed by the noble Baroness both during the Committee stage and this evening as to whether under Clause 2 of the Bill authorities would have the power to lend "pump-priming" money to companies. I explained at that time why I felt that her amendment, which simply inserted the word "facilitating" before the words "an agreement", was unnecessary, and indeed might narrow the scope of Clause 2(1)(b). However, I am as anxious as the noble Baroness that there should be no doubt about an authority's power to lend money to a company before an agreement is actually made.
The noble Baroness asked about the position if an agreement breaks down. The power is to lend "for the purposes of an agreement". Provided that an agreement is proposed or intended at the time of the loan, it is within the scope of the power even if, as it turns out, no agreement is ultimately concluded. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I rise to say that it seems to me as a somewhat dispassionate observer on this occasion that perhaps the amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has moved, Amendment No. 8, is to be preferred to Amendment No. 2, earlier moved by the noble Baroness, not simply because it goes a little wider in seeking to meet the points which she raised earlier but because, if I may say so, I find it rather more intelligible than the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I say that with all respect, but I hope it may mean that when, as she said she proposed to do, she comes to reconsider her Amendment No. 2 with a view to determining whether or not she should come back to it at Third Reading, my opinion, for what it is worth, may help to ensure that she does not raise it again.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think the Minister has in fact put one of my worries at rest, about whether, if no agreement ever happened, there could be trouble eventually, and so I am very pleased to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Financial and accounting provisions]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any loan made under this Act should carry interest at a rate not less than such rate as he may determine with the consent of the Treasury,
1326
and that it is expedient in the interests of the local education authority that such a rate should be determined, he may be order make such provision as appears to him to be just and expedient for the purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 9 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 10:
Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Before making any order under this section in respect of any loan the Secretary of State shall afford to the local education authority an opportunity of making representations to him with respect thereto, and in making any such order the Secretary of State shall have regard to all the circumstances of the local education authority and the circumstances for which the loan is to be made.").
Clause 3 of the Bill has caused some dissatisfaction, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood moved some amendments at Committee stage. This amendment tackles a slightly different matter which is still causing anxiety within the local authority associations. They are not enamoured of enabling legislation which leaves final decisions to the Secretary of State. Subsection (1) leaves the rate of interest on any loans used for the purpose of this Bill to be fixed by the Secretary of State. The discussion paper Commercial Activities in Further Education Establishments suggested that the rate might most conveniently be linked to a published rate such as the three-month inter-bank rate, or the Public Works Loan Board rate.
It goes on to say that the basis on which the Secretary of State's powers in this regard might be exercised will be the subject of further consultation. I do not know if that has happened, but if so the consultation has not been very productive because what is in the Bill is not popular. Why should the Secretary of State need to set a minimum interest rate? Presumably there is a fear that authorities may make loans at preferential rates which in turn would give the companies an unfair edge in any competition with the private sector. If there is to be a defined minimum rate, the authorities' own loan pool rate would be appropriate. If it has to be set by reference to an external source we would suggest the Public Works Loan Board 10-year quota rate.
In any event, the authorities should be free to charge such higher rates as they feel appropriate in specific circumstances. If the activities are commercial then the fund should be raised commercially and not from local authorities. It is yet again a matter of the Secretary of State trusting the local authorities as responsible authorities. In the amendment, the words,
"it is expedient in the interests of the local education authority that such a rate should be determined",
are the important words.
This leads me on to Amendment No. 10, which makes an addition to subsection (2) of this clause. This would mean that the Secretary of State, before deciding on a rate for a loan, should give the local authority an opportunity to make representations to him and to make their point of view perfectly clear, and the reasons for their feeling as they do. As the amendment says,
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to all the circumstances of the local education authority and the circumstances for which the loan is to be made".
If central Government can find it useful for them to insist that local authorities consult among

1327
themselves—the provisions for the new ILEA in Clause 21 of the Local Government Bill which we shall be discussing tomorrow is just one example—surely they should be prepared to accept similar consultation on a matter of vital interest to LEAs. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, perhaps I may say immediately that the Government are not at all opposed to the idea of consulting with local authorities before determining loan rates under the Bill. Indeed, we have already had one consultation meeting with the local authority associations, who seemed generally content with the proposals put to them. With their agreement, the proposals have now been put to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting for technical appraisal.
It may be helpful at this point to say a little about what is actually being proposed so that noble Lords and Baronesses can be reassured that the arrangements will be quite modest in scale. It is envisaged that the Secretary of State will simply establish a number of minimum rates of interest—perhaps just two—to be applied to all LEAs according to the circumstances of the loan, depending essentially on the degree of risk or lack of security entailed. I should emphasise that the Secretary of State will simply lay down minimum rates; this might answer one of the difficulties mentioned by the noble Baroness. It will be entirely within the discretion of local authorities to charge higher rates than those if they wish, reflecting the particular circumstances of the company in question. Our objective is to devise a simple and flexible system.
Against that background, I am rather surprised by the first of these amendments, since it seems to provide for each loan to have its minimum rate determined individually. I do not know whether that was the intention of the noble Baroness. If so, it is surely rather cumbersome. I do not believe that either my right honourable friend or his officials want the power to intervene individually in interest rate determinations—except perhaps in the case where a single loan is so unusual as to constitute a whole new category on its own. Indeed, I should be rather surprised if local authorities themselves would want to have to apply to the Secretary of State, having heard what the noble Baroness has said.
I fear that these amendments represent a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am particularly concerned that the first of them appears to have the effect that minimum interest determinations would only be made where, in the Secretary of State's view, it is expedient to do so in the interests of the local authority. In all other circumstances, the authority would not be restricted by the Bill in deciding to charge whatever rates of interest it might choose. This arrangement would not be acceptable to the Government, however it were expressed, since it would negate the underlying purpose of this provision.
The Government believe, for the same reasons as apply to the full-cost pricing rule, that no authority should be permitted artificially to subsidise its companies by providing them with working capital at unfairly low rates of interest.
1328
As I have said, however, the Government have already begun consultations with local authority associations on this subject and are therefore already complying with the condition which the second amendment serves to introduce. In these circumstances, I seriously question whether it is necessary to provide for such consultation on rates of interest on loans determined under Clause 3 in the statute itself. I know—as the noble Baroness expressed very forcibly this evening, and not for the first time—that in some areas local authorities' suspicion of my right honourable friend's powers is deeply rooted.
In those circumstances and at this late hour, to show some goodwill—although there has been plenty, on this Bill, shown to the noble Baroness—I can say that the Government will be happy to bring an amendment forward at Third Reading, perhaps in a slightly simpler form than the amendment proposed tonight. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I take it that the Minister's undertaking relates to Amendment No. 10.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. With the leave of the House, my undertaking is that this is to build some form of consultation procedure into the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am of course very grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. I shall have to read what he said about Amendment No. 9, concerning rates of interest and so on. He probably has provided some reassurance but I shall certainly need to read his remarks before I can be absolutely certain on that point. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 11.
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) A local education authority who exercise powers under this Act shall in respect of their exercise keep such accounts or statements of account as they are required to keep by virtue of section 23 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to improve the unsatisfactory subsection (3) of Clause 3. My noble friend Lady Lockwood moved an amendment at Committee stage to delete this subsection, which gives the power to the Secretary of State to direct LEAs on the way in which they keep their accounts. That proposal did not find much favour at Committee stage. The noble Earl tried to give a reassurance that:
"The Government do not intend to use the powers to which these amendments relate in order to create voluminous and burdensome regulations or accounting arrangements, and that the local authority associations and other interest groups, including notably the CIPFA—the local Government accountants' professional body—and the Audit Commission will be fully consulted before the regulations envisaged are issued. What we are concerned to secure, however, in the light of the consultations, is the establishment of a responsible financial regime for the activities permitted by the Bill within the framework of the existing accounting regime for local authorities".—[Official Report, 14/5/85; col 1109.]
The existing accounting regime is of course what the local authorities want to use, and not have something else imposed upon them. That is all very well but it still

1329
leaves the offending passages in the Bill. Therefore we are suggesting a new way round that, which is to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"A local education authority who exercise powers under this Act shall in respect of their exercise keep such accounts or statements of account as they are required to keep by virtue of section 23 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982".
This attempts again to remove the imposition of centralist control on the accounts maintained by local authorities and their colleges. Local authorities believe that they do keep proper accounts and that the requirements of Section 23 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 are sufficient to govern these new activities.
I am told that at least three authorities have said that if the clause is passed in its present form they will have to amend their standing orders and regulations to meet its effects. Surely the Government do not want them to have to undertake that unnecessary labour. In any event, the Government are normally reluctant to duplicate existing legislation. This clause, as drafted, not only does that but extends their powers in one specific area where they do not at present exist.
The statutory accounting framework that the Minister said was essential for the proper regulation of the new powers granted under this Bill already exists under Section 23 and should be sufficient to allow authorities to determine the basis on which they comply with subsection (5). I hope, once again, that the Government will feel able to trust local authorities to act responsibly. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in what she quoted me as saying at Committee stage, and I agree with that. Consultations are taking place with the local authority associations and with CIPFA, the audit commission, and other interested bodies.
That said, the Bill's accounting provisions form the central plank of the Bill's regulatory framework, affording as they do a responsible financial regime for authorities' commercial activities in further education establishments. There are two objectives in this. First, it is to enable consistent monitoring of authorities' commercial endeavours. This requires the uniform presentation of information compiled on a standard basis between one authority and another. The second objective, which is no less important, is reflected in the
1330
drafting of subsection (4) of this clause, whereby authorities are required to use their best endeavours to secure a surplus.
It is a fundamental principle that the financial transactions arising under the powers granted by this Bill are separable from those of the LEAs' normal educational activities. This is important both to ensure that educational resources are not diverted, however inadvertently, to the commercial activities, and to guarantee that where the establishment is offering goods or services on a competitive footing it does so on a fair basis, without hidden subsidy.
The noble Baroness has made a great point that this is different from their normal accounting principles and that it might require a change in standing orders in three authorities. I do not think that is a terrible hardship. That, after all, is what all companies have to do for the benefit of their shareholders. When the local authorities come into this trading situation they will be more analogous with a company reporting, in this case, to their ratepayers as a company doe, to its shareholders.
Proper accounting ensures strict adherence to this principle. The accounts referred to in Clause 3 of the Bill are thus the cornerstone of the whole financial regime under which it is proposed LEAs will undertake their commercial activities. It would be quite wrong therefore if the keeping of these accounts were to be a matter prescribed not on the face of the Bill but dependent upon the exercise by the Secretary of State of a discretionary power in regulations, as would be the case if reliance were to be placed in Section 23 of the 1982 Act.
Again, I hope I have convinced the noble Baroness and I should like her to think about authorities being treated more like companies with shareholders where they have to submit accounts in broadly similar form. Having heard that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I should like to consult on this with some of the people to whom I have talked in the local authority associations to see whether they are satisfied with what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Bill
9.19 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was to have been introduced by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, but on the advice of his doctor he was persuaded not to undertake this task. In fact, he was going to speak this evening but, unfortunately, due to the lateness of the hour he has had to leave your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will join with me in welcoming him back. We are pleased to note that he is now recovering from his illness.
My noble friend paid me the compliment of asking me to stand in for him, which I agreed to do with some diffidence because I cannot hope to attain the same heights of eloquence and because this is my first experience of shepherding a Bill through your Lordships' House. However, having said that, I recommend the Bill wholeheartedly and I hope that your Lordships will show the same enthusiasm for it as was shown in another place, where it went through virtually on the nod.
The Bill is mercifully short and to the point, its objective being to increase the penalty for large-scale trafficking in Class A drugs from a maximum of 14 years to life imprisonment. It may be asked why this measure is necessary. I shall not detain your Lordships with long descriptions of the moral degradation and in some cases death which result from drug abuse and which ultimately are the responsibility of the major Mafia-like traffickers. The media have recently given those matters ample coverage, and I commend them for that.
However, if I may, I shall make a few remarks to put the situation in perspective without going into a long list of statistics, most of which are difficult to substantiate. It is beyond doubt that the misuse of drugs in this country is spreading at an alarming rate. The Metropolitan Police estimate that 23 per cent. of their targeted criminals are now involved with hard drugs. Ten years ago those people would have stuck to armed robbery, but now they find dealing in heroin and cocaine far more lucrative. The Bill is concerned with that category of criminal.
Heroin knows no geographical, class or age boundaries. With the increasing availability of those drugs the salesmen are ever looking for new markets. We have seen the spread out of London and the large metropolitan areas into the country. Now we are witnessing the spread down the age scale to the 12-and 14 year-olds. It is all to easy to give those youngsters free samples until they are hooked, and then these people have more regular clients on their books who almost inevitably will have to resort to crime to satisfy their needs.
The police and customs authorities are to be congratulated on the increasing quantities of drugs that they are intercepting, but that should not lull us into a state of complacency. All the indications are that the quantities available on the streets are
1332
increasing even faster. That is confirmed by the fact that the price of heroin has hardly increased at all recently.
There is another disturbing aspect, and that is the mounting risk of a flood of cocaine into this country. Our information is that the American market is saturated and the suppliers, mostly Colombians, are turning their attention to Europe and in particular to Britain. It is incontestable that those parasites of society need to be hit and hit hard. I put them in the same category as murderers and rapists, and when they are apprehended their sentences should be just as severe.
I must stress that this Bill is not aimed at the smalltime pushers who trade in drugs to support their own afflictions. That is not to say that I condone their activities, although I sometimes pity them. No; this Bill is intended for the cold-blooded traders in human misery. Regrettably, too few of them are caught but those who are should expect no leniency.
Hopefully this increased maximum sentence will act as a deterrent to at least some. At the present time, major traffickers can expect to be out in a few years to enjoy their illegal gains, far from the misery that they have created. With a life sentence, I would hope that a judge would recommend that those convicted would serve a minimum of, say, 15 to 20 years. I understand that a life sentence is literally with one for life, because if a prisoner is eventually released he is only let out on licence, which can at any time be revoked by the courts.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice set out some guidelines in 1982 for minimum sentences relative to the value of drugs apprehended. It has also been recommended that anyone sentenced to more than five years should not be considered for parole. When this Bill becomes law, which I confidently hope it will shortly, I hope that my noble and learned friend will issue new guidelines. However, I wonder—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. The Lord Chief Justice is of course a noble and learned friend of all of us, but he sits, as is appropriate, on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I apologise. I thank the noble Lord. However, I wonder whether a different criterion could be found because I am not sure that the value of the catch always relates to the size of the fish.
There is no one simple solution to this problem. This Bill is only one cog in the wheel of the campaign to deter criminals who think that drug trafficking is an easy ride to satisfy their greed. I think no one believes that heavier sentences on their own will achieve a significant reduction in this despicable trade. First of all, we have to catch more of the ringleaders, which means greater resources for police and customs authorities. Here, perhaps I may say that I strongly recommend the suggestion that the Inland Revenue should be involved in this hunt. Often the first clue comes when large sums of money are perceived in

1333
circulation, sometimes in areas quite unrelated to the drug scene. In short, it means that a laundering operation is in progress.
Then we have to ensure that these people, once apprehended, are put out of circulation for a long time, which of course is the object of this Bill; and, finally, that their ill-gotten gains are confiscated so that neither they nor their associates will ever he able to enjoy them.
I am sure your Lordships will all join in welcoming Her Majesty's Government's declared intention shortly to introduce legislation to enable the assets of major drug traffickers to be sequestrated. This will be another cog in the wheel towards a viable deterrent. Hopefully we may hear something on this matter from my noble friend the Minister when she replies. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I hope this Bill will meet with support from all sides of your Lordships' House and that very shortly it will appear on the statute book. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rodney.)
9.29 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, on introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House. I have a horror of hard drugs. When the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, introduced a debate, I admitted that unfortunately I am a smoker. Some people say that this is a drug, which it probably is; and I am addicted to it. Hard drugs in Class A, about which we are talking here, terrify me. I am very lucky in that I have a son of 28 and a daughter of 26, and various nephews and nieces, who have all grown up without any of them ever being affected or touched by this awful trade. Today I have a nine-year-old god-daughter called Amber. I have my fingers crossed that she will grow up without ever having to know this frightful trade.
I welcome the Bill, but two aspects of it worry me. First, the maximum sentence is increased from 14 years to life. I was speaking today with the chief crime reporter of the Star. He confirmed my fear that a person given life will probably be out after 10 years. I may have misread the Bill. But while a person given 14 years in the old days before the Bill was in for 14 years, a person given life can be out after 10 years unless life actually means life.
This is a very short Bill. I have read it through. I may be wrong, but I should like to think that somewhere along the line it will be possible for a judge to say to those found guilty of trading in class A drugs that when they are given life, it means just that—life.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, also mentioned sequestration. It is one of those words I cannot pronounce. I wrote it down, hoping that I would get it right. I did almost get it right. It seems to me that a dealer in drugs makes his money and puts it in his wife's name or in bank deposits. I should like to see any money shown to have come from drugs, no matter whose name it is in—even if it is in a secret bank deposit—taken away. All right; the dealer in this trade serves his 10 years. His wife has still got the £2
1334
million house and yacht. He has given away 10 years but then he can go back to enjoy what he has made. Those who deal in these hard drugs should never be allowed to enjoy anything ever again.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said that this is a crime as bad as murder and blackmail. It is far worse. If you kill someone, it might take a minute or a few seconds. If you supply a person with hard drugs, you lead that person down a path of degradation that can last six months or more. Again, as the noble Lord said, this is not happening to 20 year-olds and 30 year-olds; it is happening to 13 year-old, 14 year-old and 15 year-old children. We must stop this traffic. I support the Bill.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I, too, warmly support the Bill. But it does not go very far. All that it does is to increase the possibility of imprisonment from 14 years to life. And, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has mentioned, life often does not mean life. It means 14 years, 10 years, or whatever it may be. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. It is a major step to deter, I hope, the major drug traffickers. That is the point that we must deal with. This is an evil and vicious trade carried on, often from overseas, by people who make large sums of money out of it. It is ruining many of our youngsters and causing infinite distress to their parents. The people we must get at are the great drug traffickers. Often they are not drug addicts themselves, but they are making money out of it; they are making millions of pounds, sums of astronomical proportions.
The representative of the Home Office said that they were considering better ways in which to deprive drug traffickers of the proceeds of their crime. He said that the Government were carrying out research into the matter and hoped that they could deal with it. I should like to suggest that our present law, if enforced by the Attorney-General, could do something at this very moment to deprive those drug traffickers of their enormous gains.
Two years ago there was a case in the Court of Appeal where an analogous question arose. A thief—someone reasonably believed to be a thief, but not charged at all—had stolen cheques and goods. He realised the moneys and put them into a bank account and from there into another bank account. It was the case of the Chief Constable of Kent v. V. and Another, in 1983 Queen's Bench 34. He brought proceedings for an injunction before the man was convicted at all to stop those moneys being dealt with—to freeze them, to sequester them well in advance before the criminal (if he was a criminal) could withdraw them from the bank. I venture to say that in that case, on an application by the police setting out their reasonable grounds, the High Court can grant an injunction to prevent the thief drawing on his own bank account and the bank from honouring his cheques, so that in due course the moneys can be restored to their true owner.
Therefore, the law in regard to those who are trafficking in stolen goods or their proceeds is such that before any conviction at all the chief constable can go to the court and get an injunction stopping the hank account from being operated upon. Why is not that same principle applicable to those who do not steal

1335
goods but who, by illegal and improper means, get the money out of the poor victims and put it into their huge bank accounts? The same principle applies and I see no reason at the moment why, without going into all the research in the Home Office, the Attorney-General, or the Chief Constable, when he realises that in that bank account there are largely the proceeds of drug trafficking, should not get an injunction then and there to stop the man from dealing with it.
If you wait until afterwards, if you wait until he is tried and convicted and a penalty imposed, he will have disposed of them all; he will have withdrawn them out of the bank and put them into a Swiss numbered account and so forth, so that you will never be able to trace them. However, by this machinery you can, in effect, sequester them: you can restrain him from dealing with them long before the man is convicted. Then, when you have them in hand, the penalty under the statute can be of any amount. In that way the courts can deprive the drug traffickers of their illicit, enormous and most wicked gains.
I suggest that that could be done under the present law. However, if I am wrong about that, please, please, let the Government act at once with a new Bill. You do not need to wait for much research: get on with it, so as to stop these drug traffickers from having the proceeds of their wicked crime. That is the additional remedy which I should like to see brought into play as soon as may be.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, all Members from your Lordships' House and another place who belong to the All-Party Parliamentary Drug Misuse Committee share the concern about the horrendous problems which drug addiction brings. If this Bill, which my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has introduced so ably, is to help stop controlled drugs entering our country, I welcome it. Where there is money to be made people will seek to make it. Trafficking in drugs has proved to be very profitable. There seems to be a rising tide of deadly substances flooding into many countries. Behind these powerful organisations lie callous, greedy, and evil people who want to get rich on the weakness and misery of others. This problem has become one of world importance, and all nations need to unite under an international code of practice to try to close these floodgates.
I have just returned from abroad, and I heard Britain criticised for being a country of words rather than actions. There is no time to lose on action on drug traffickers. This Bill increases penalties for,
"production, supply and possession with intent to supply".
If this Bill becomes law, criminals in this field will be at risk of imprisonment for life.
Nearly all responsible families throughout Britain with children growing up are now worried that their young people could become the casualties of this evil trade. As your Lordships will know, the chain of drug profiteers is organised with several different links in it, and catching the Mr. Bigs, who have a great deal to lose, seems to me to need the full co-operation of several countries. There are the financiers, the importers, the international distributors, the warehouse stock-keepers, and those at a low level on
1336
the streets very often selling to try to satisfy their own craving and risking destruction.
This Bill is aimed to get at the profiteers, and I hope that this is just what it will do. But there is concern from some people that more addicts at the street level may be sent to prison. I ask the Government whether prison is the correct place for them. With no treatment and rehabilitation facilities in prisons to cope with drug misuse does prison solve anything? It may well mean more drugs coming into our prisons.
We are dealing with a terrible plague in our society. Having visited some drug treatment centres, I have found the regime much tougher and more concentrated than prison life; very often the prisoners are shut up in their cells with a radio for 23 hours a day.
To help addicts kick the habit they have themselves to face up to the fact that they are addicted. If they go to prison, on discharge they generally go back on the streets and take drugs at the same level as when they went in, and 10 per cent. of addicts die within a week of release from prison. If they do not die, they continue the practice of pushing.
I should like to congratulate the Government on what they have done to help towards treatment and rehabilitation. But, like Oliver Twist, we have to ask for more. I expect that updated guidelines will be going to the judiciary, but what are they to do if there are not enough treatment and rehabilitation centres to which to send the addicts? As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, knows better than I, health authorities, with their ever-increasing demands—the most recent being the increase in nurses' pay—will not be able to provide the services needed to treat addicts unless they are given more money to do so from the Treasury.
The Home Office should look at this seriously. Disaster will result if this problem is not tackled and the buck is passed between Government departments. Perhaps the gains confiscated, as I hope they will be in the future from the traffickers, will go towards providing rehabilitation centres from the patients they have created. There is nothing more important in life than a healthy body and a healthy soul. Drug addiction is ruining many individuals and devasting families. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rodney on the excellent way in which he has brought forward this Bill. I certainly welcome it very sincerely. I feel it should be stated that the Government are well aware of the escalating problem of drug addiction in this country. I was very pleased to see today that 50 extra specialist investigators have been taken on by the Customs and Excise. I hope that they will help to stop some of the drugs coming to this country.
Already the figures are high for drugs coming in the first quarter in 1985: the heroin seized was 32.4 kilograms with a street value of between £5 and £6 million. The cocaine seized was 13.4 kilograms with a street value between £2 million and £3 million. That is only for one quarter, therefore one can assume that for

1337
the rest of the year those figures might be quadrupled. That is a serious amount to be caught. Unfortunately, we have to realise that a great deal comes into this country that is not caught at the source of entry. We are also told that the number of new addicts—new ones—rose by 28 per cent. last year. Those are the people who have been put onto the lists. That is very serious, but it is only the tip of the iceberg as we all know.
I had the privilege of serving on the parole board for four years; with the statutory limit, I came off three years ago when the drug situation was beginning to escalate. We had brought before us those who wished for parole. I was amazed that the sentences they had been given for drug trafficking—these were the people who had brought the drugs into this country on a small scale—varied between five and seven years although 14 years was the maximum. These traffickers were unfortunately sometimes released after serving one-third of their sentences. Those of us who at this late hour can do any arithmetic will realise that those who took that risk by bringing drugs into this country realised that the risk was well taken when they had such very short sentences to serve. For those who had salted away vast sums of money as a result of trafficking in drugs, as other noble Lords have said, the prison sentences were a small price to pay. I sincerely hope that, as other speakers have said, the profits that they made will be sequestrated.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the life prisoners, I can tell him, having been on the parole board, that with all life prisoners their sentence is reviewed and decided upon by the Home Secretary in person. It goes from the local review committee to the parole board, from the parole board to the Home Secretary, and in the case of a life prisoner, whether he is serving life for murder, rape or whatever the offence, it always goes to the Home Secretary for his personal decision. The sentence of life imprisonment is surely vital not only as a punishment for purveying evil substances to, all too frequently, young people but also as a deterrent. In my view, it is also right that those who get rich by harming the lives of others should lose their liberty for the remainder of their lives. I wish success and a rapid passage to this Bill.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, for his able introduction of this small but important Bill. The noble Lord, quite properly, avoided using statistics, but there is one figure I should like to relate to your Lordships: that is, that from 1971 to 1975, according to the figures of the Home Office, of the registered new addicts in each year—and it is well known that the registered addicts represent only a fraction of the actual numbers of drug addicts in the country—between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. were heroin addicts. It is interesting to note that yesterday the Home Secretary in his announcement, which included the number of new addicts registered in 1984, which was 5,370, made known that 90 per cent. of the new addicts were heroin addicts. I think that indicates that the major menace, the number one menace, of heroin is increasing at exponential proportions.
1338
We have heard in recent months, in an entirely different context, that the possession of a deterrent is an important weapon in combating, if you will, the menace of war. It seems to me that the drug trade in all its manifestations has to be regarded as that kind of menace. This Bill proposes a deterrent—albeit not as great a deterrent as may be possible at a later stage, but at least an important deterrent—against the major drug traffickers. As such I hope, indeed, I am sure, that your Lordships will consider it a welcome measure. Those who have experienced directly or indirectly the horrifying effects and the proportions of this tragedy are aware, I think, that the major drug trafficker is the enemy within. He and his kind represent a fifth column pointed at the core of our society. The provisions of this Bill, going only so far as they do (and hopefully to be followed by further deterrents), are wholly welcome, and I support the Second Reading.
Lord McNair: My Lords, may I make two quick points? First, the changes in the law suggested by this Bill have also been part of the official policy of the party to which I have belonged for some years. We therefore congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, and I think I can guarantee that my noble friends will do nothing to impede the passage of this Bill.
A second point is that there is perhaps a very slight danger that by passing this Bill we may feel that we have done more than we have in fact done, because this is not really a domestic British problem: it is a global, international, perhaps supranational problem. The only way to tackle it finally is right back down the line to the areas in which the stuff is produced. I hope we shall not lose sight of that. I am sure that the Government are fully aware of it.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches may I say at once how much we appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, took over this task from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? We join with him in wishing Lord Mancroft a speedy and complete recovery, and we would say to Lord Mancroft that he had a very worthy substitute in the way this Bill was moved on Second Reading.
May I also say from these Benches that I know of no words in the English language to describe the people who are responsible at the top for this evil traffic? I know of no adjective which can describe all our horror of the sort of people that they must be. From my point of view may I say there is no punishment too severe for the people who are at the top? I have emphasised "at the top" because that is what the Bill is directed to. As other people have indicated, the real situation is, if you look at our police courts and at our other criminal courts, that those who appear in the dock are as a rule miserable traffickers who have been paid a sum of money, be it £100 or £200, to take a chance on getting certain substances through. Many are themselves drug addicts. I endorse completely the purpose of the Bill and will not challenge one single word of it, but I echo the words of other noble Lords who have spoken. Do not let us think that by passing this measure what we are really doing is to hit at the people we in fact want to hit at.

1339
One of the things that was said in the course of this debate—and I welcomed it—was the announcement that the Customs service has been strengthened by way of the number of investigators to see that cocaine and heroin do not get into this country. Of course, the main features of the Class A drugs are cocaine and heroin hitting at our young people, as it has been said, in such a disastrous way. I remember there was an educational supplement in The Times last year—I believe it was quoted in another place—in which one of the leading social workers in Merseyside told miserable stories of 10-year-olds who were being sold these packets but who had been given it free first of all for two or three times so as to get those poor little kids addicted. Then they were told, "For more you have to pay money".
As I have said, we are here dealing with people who are not the people who try to get the goods through Customs. They are sitting in their palatial homes or on their yachts, or wherever. They do not take any chances. What really worries me is that there was a report today from the Police Commissioner for the Metropolis—I heard this on the news this evening—telling the Home Secretary that the economical exigencies affecting his force, and the manpower problems, are such that the Metropolitan Police Force cannot properly carry out its duties in regard to the investigation of crime and to bringing before the criminal courts those people who ought to be there. It was a very worrying report.
I remembered, in that context, what was said by the honourable Member for Delyn, who also deserves our thanks for piloting this Bill through another place. He there recorded that the Metropolitan Police estimate that 23 per cent. of targeted criminals in their area are now involved in hard drugs. He said that they have turned from ordinary burglary, which presumably does not yield such a wonderful return, to the trade (however dastardly it may be) that yields a very substantial return.
Quite apart from the international point absolutely properly made by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and others, and the international dimensions of this thing, how are we to get the people we want in our own metropolitan area, quite apart from Merseyside and the rest, before the court? How are we to get the people we want before the court in order that sentences can be imposed unless there is an adequate Metropolitan Police Force and unless there are other adequate police forces in this country to enable this investigation to be carried out and for the personnel to be given this priority work to carry out this very necessary task?
My only other quick point is this. Reference has been made to the Government's projected legislation, which we hope will come before us next Session. I do not want any words of criticism to come into this debate at all but it is right to remember that this was announced as the Government's intention something like 18 to 20 months ago. It deserves priority: that is the moderate language that I am going to use. I shall use the, I hope constructive language of saying that it needs priority now, instead of reflecting upon the past.
There again, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to consider that it is just not a question, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord,
1340
Lord Denning—who I miss from his place at this moment when I am referring to him—of getting injunctions and, it is hoped, of the parties concerned knowing where the bank accounts are of the man who has not even appeared before a criminal court. It is not only a question of sequestration of assets; it is a question of discovering with people of this wily nature what the assets are and of having the power—this is the point I really want to make—to investigate bank accounts.
I mention that because in the United States of America—and I remember reading an article reporting on this in the Sunday press, although I have forgotten which journal it was—great anxiety is expressed by those who are concerned about this matter. In the United States it is also a very great problem. It is said that much of the moneys being earned by people in the United States who are engaged in this horrid trade finds its way into Jersey bank accounts, and this article asked, though I do not know whether any official request has been made, that assistance should be given for the investigation of those bank accounts in conjunction with the authorities in the United States. We shall want very definite practical powers in this Bill, which we expect to hear about from the noble Lord the Minister. However, so far as that is concerned, I say to the noble Lord who has so eloquently and clearly introduced the Bill: "Bless you for bringing it to this House and may it go through as fast as possible".
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking most sincerely my noble friend Lord Rodney for introducing this very important Bill and for putting the case for it so clearly and forcefully. Perhaps I may also say how disappointed we are that my noble friend Lord Mancroft is not able to be here this evening, as I know he had hoped to be.
We all share the disgust at the activities of the evil people who traffic in dangerous drugs, who profit from misery and who have been called, I think appropriately, merchants of death. In its recent interim report in another place on the misuse of hard drugs, the Home Affairs Committee said:
"The Americans believe, and we agree, that the ruthlessness of the big drug dealers must be met by equally ruthless penalties once they are caught, tried and convicted. These penalties must be of such a character that no major drug dealer will risk taking on the United Kingdom market because of the penalties that will be imposed. We recommend that the penalties for systematic dealing in hard drugs should be no less than the penalty for premeditated murder".
The Government entirely agree, and that is why we concluded and announced last October that nothing less than imprisonment for life was fitting as a maximum penalty for traffickers in hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Therefore, when my honourable friend Mr. Keith Raffan announced his intention, following his success in the Private Members' ballot last November, of introducing a Bill to give effect to this the Government welcomed his initiative and offered him assistance, and I am glad to say that this Bill has made rapid progress.
My noble friend Lord Rodney made the valid point that it is important to differentiate between those who handle drugs to satisfy their own needs and those who

1341
handle drugs for financial gain. Both, of course, commit offences, but the Misuse of Drugs Act already enables courts to take a more lenient view of the former than the latter and my noble friend's Bill rightly does not seek to penalise any further those who suffer from drug dependency. The provisions of this Bill are concerned with the big operators and would enable a much more pronounced distinction than can at present be made between the minor offender and the major criminal.
There are a large number of reasons why this Bill must become law. There is a widespread feeling that the crimes involved are so callous and so despicable that those responsible deserve drastic punishment. But there are also practical considerations. First, there is the deterrent effect. Illicit dealing in hard drugs is an enormously profitable business for major criminals and it is potentially more profitable with less perceived risk than, say, armed robbery. With millions of pounds at stake a drug trafficker may at present well be prepared to take a chance on spending 14 years at the most in prison. Although there has been a significant increase in the number of sentences of over seven years imposed on drug traffickers since the Lord Chief Justice issued guidelines in December 1982, and although the Home Secretary has introduced restrictions on parole for traffickers serving more than five years, the illegal drug trade is now flourishing as never before.
The statistics tell their own story. In 1980 HM Customs and the police seized about 40 kg. of heroin, but quantities seized since then have shot up each year, with around 300 kg. of heroin being seized last year. In the first five months of 1985 Customs seized 132 kg. of heroin, 28 kg. of cocaine and 6,000 kg. of cannabis, with a total estimated street value of some £38 million. This included the largest ever seizure of cocaine in one consignment—a consignment of some 14 kg. So the time has come to provide the courts with the power to pass truly credible deterrent sentences. An increase in the maximum to life imprisonment will enable them to impose much longer determinate sentences.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether life actually meant life and what might be the significance of the use of a life sentence. A person sentenced to life imprisonment can only be released on licence by the Home Secretary following a recommendation by the parole board. The actual time served will vary from case to case. It could literally mean life or it could result in imprisonment for a shorter period, but anyone released is liable to recall. Perhaps the key point about this aspect of the legislation is that the present absolute limit of 14 years will be replaced by an indeterminate upper limit which could in appropriate cases be very much longer than the present 14 years. Therefore it is hoped that the possibility of spending perhaps the greater part of his active life behind bars would make any drug dealer reassess the odds he is being offered before deciding whether or not to gamble again with his freedom.
The second practical effect of longer sentences is that major dealers will be kept out of circulation and therefore will be unable to continue their pernicious trade for a very long time. Just how serious are the results of their pernicious trade has been demonstrated
1342
by the fact that only yesterday the figures released for notification of new addicts in 1984 showed a 28 per cent. increase over the previous year. But the changes in the law must be seen as part of a wider Government strategy. This is being closely directed by an interdepartmental group of Ministers and senior officials under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. Mellor. The strategy ranges from measures to reduce the availability of drugs, through prevention and education campaigns, to improved services for the treatment and rehabilitation of those who have become dependent on drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, reminded us of the international context. We are playing a prominent part in promoting international co-operation through the United Nations and the Council of Europe. In May the Prime Minister launched a new initiative among the member states of the Bonn Economic Summit, resulting in the setting up of a group of experts from the seven member states who will be meeting shortly to examine further ways of strengthening international co-operation. We are also providing assistance both directly and through the United Nations to countries in which illicit drugs are produced. In particular, we are giving both practical and financial assistance to Pakistan, the source of much of the illicit heroin seized in this country.
In 1984 the Government pledged £1 million towards a United Nations programme of support for the Pakistan Government's efforts to eradicate opium poppy cultivation. This has been reinforced by the posting of a senior Customs officer to Karachi to improve operational intelligence about drug smuggling to the United Kingdom. This intelligence has proved extremely valuable and has led to some significant seizures of drugs and arrests of traffickers both in this country and elsewhere. Equally valuable work is also being done by a senior British police officer in the Netherlands, through which large quantities of drugs are trafficked.
In the United Kingdom itself, HM Customs has been adapting both operational and investigative methods to meet the threat in the most effective way possible. As my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has reminded us only yesterday, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment of 50 more specialist drugs investigators, which will mean that their numbers will have doubled since 1979. Greater emphasis is now being placed upon mobile and flexible Customs controls and on improved intelligence gathering with, for example, a new cocaine target team having been set up to target cocaine traffickers. Recent seizures of illicit drugs perhaps illustrate effectively the success of these measures and also the dedication and efficiency of members of our Customs service.
Perhaps I may briefly point to the work of our police service, which has a vital role to play in preventing drug trafficking and misuse. Every police force in England and Wales now has a specialised drug squad, and regional crime squads devote about half of their time to investigations into drug trafficking. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has designated the detection of drug offences as one of his six operational priorities for 1985. The Association of Chief Police Officers has established a working group to examine

1343
police structures and organisations in relation to drugs investigations. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking forward to receiving the report of that group within the next few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised a question concerning a report that has just been published, in which reference is made to certain cuts. I believe that the report to which he was referring is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's annual report, which states that the Metropolitan Police are having to make some reductions to remain within their cash limits for the year 1985–86.
It may help if I were to stress that while some constraints on expenditure are necessary, if regrettable, in the present circumstances, the Metropolitan Police budget as such has not been cut. In fact, as I understand it, the budget for 1985–86 is 5 per cent. greater than in 1984–85. I cannot give any further information at the moment on the specific points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate that point and perhaps what I am going to say ought to be the subject of correpondence rather than an oral answer now. But is the noble Baroness able to indicate whether the constraints which the commissioner has mentioned will have some effect upon the announcement she has made concerning the priorities which are being set by the commissioner and other chief police officers in respect of the catching of drug traffickers and the establishment which she also announced, which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and other chief constables have?
If there is any difficulty at all in answering that question, because I have sprung it very largely on the Minister, then I shall understand completely. It is much better that we have a precise answer. If the noble Baroness can correspond with me, and follow the usual procedure of placing a copy of the letter in the Library, then I shall be content.
Baroness Cox: My Lord, I thank the noble Lord for suggesting that in the interests of accuracy—and I would put accuracy as the top priority in this matter—it will be best if I write to him and make a copy available for Members of your Lordships' House.
In concluding my reference to the work of the police, I should like to pay tribute to the dedicated work of the police service not just in bringing drug traffickers and pushers to justice but also in the valuable work that is being done in local communities, alongside statutory and voluntary bodies, in developing local responses to local drug misuse problems.
However, that is clearly of very little purpose, if, despite the valuable work of our Customs and police services in bringing drug traffickers to justice, the courts do not have adequate powers to deal with offenders. Herein lies the significance of this Bill, which will do so much to increase the powers available to the courts. As my noble friend Lord Rodney, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, have all indicated, further legislation is needed. I refer to the legislation to empower the courts to order the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking.
1344
Such legislation will undoubtedly be more complex than the Bill now before us. Nevertheless, the Government are determined to make progress on this matter. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is currently considering exactly what additional powers are needed. I cannot say at this stage when an opportunity for such legislation will occur but I assure your Lordships that the Government attach a high degree of priority to this point.
I also noted the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, concerning the present powers available to the courts. I shall draw that point, together with that made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this context, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also raised the question of money being laundered through the Channel Islands. I understand that this matter has been the subject of discussion with representatives of Jersey and Guernsey and that a Select Committee will be looking into this aspect.
I turn briefly to the demand for drugs as opposed to their supply. The Government are spending £2 million on an education and information campaign. This was launched in February with the issue of three advice leaflets to parents and professionals which have been very well received. Some 3 million leaflets have been issued so far. Also, last month saw the beginning of the second stage of the campaign with advertising on television and in the youth press in a direct approach to young people to discourage the misuse of drugs, particularly heroin.
Steps are also being taken in schools. Last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that under the education support grants arrangements £2 million will be made available in the coming year as well as a similar amount for 1987–88 to enable all local education authorities to appoint co-ordinators, to stimulate preventive and educational measures in their areas, and to provide advice, assistance and training for teachers, youth workers and other staff. Moreover, the DES is funding the production of teaching materials and will shortly be issuing a booklet of advice and information for teachers.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in terms of the alleviation of human suffering the Government are deeply concerned to ensure that adequate treatment and rehabilitation facilities are provided for existing misusers. This concern was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who also reminded us of the youthfulness of so many of those who suffer from the afflictions of drug misuse. In this context I point out that the DHSS is providing £11·5 million over three years for assistance to local treatment and rehabilitation projects; £2 million is being made available in Scotland, and £200,000 in Wales.
The money is being provided to enable new services to be set up more quickly than would otherwise be possible. In the long term, of course, it has to be for health and local authorities to respond to local needs. Therefore, in accordance with a DHSS circular issued last June, health authorities are preparing fully developed plans and long-term strategies to deal with

1345
the problem as part of their general strategic plans. A summary of health authorities' responses to the DHSS circular will be published shortly.
As I said earlier, my noble friend's Bill cannot be the complete answer to this country's drug problems. However, I am confident that it will, in combination with the other measures I have described, seriously challenge the image, and too often the reality, of drug dealing as a highly profitable enterprise. The Bill has had a speedy passage in another place. I should like to commend it to your Lordships and urge that it be given an equally speedy passage through its remaining stages in this House.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I start by expressing my appreciation for the kind words that all noble Lords have said about me. This is particularly appreciated when, as I said in my speech, it is my first experience of introducing a Bill on Second Reading, which can be quite awe-inspiring even with such a simple Bill as this. I expressed the hope that the Bill would be supported from all sides of the House and my hope has been completely fulfilled because very full support has been shown from all sides. I should like to say a few words of appreciation for the full support given to the Bill by my noble friend the Minister and Her Majesty's Government. I think all noble Lords welcome the assurance from my noble friend that there will be further legislation coming forward to perhaps put sharper teeth into a Bill which we all admit is very necessary but is only a small part of the total campaign.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past ten o'clock.

  PRISONS: ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS
  PRISONS: ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS
  PRISON RULES
  PRISON RULES
  PRISON CELLS: COSTS AND CHARGES
  PRISON CELLS: COSTS AND CHARGES
  STONEHENGE AND POLICE ACTION
  STONEHENGE AND POLICE ACTION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANT-RELATED EXPENDITURE
  LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANT-RELATED EXPENDITURE
  WILLIAM AND MARY TERCENTENARY
  WILLIAM AND MARY TERCENTENARY