Sitting of 26 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Spain and Gibraltar
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding frontier co-operation between Spain and Gibraltar.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)During my visit to Gibraltar on 7 and 8 June I was pleased to learn at first hand of the excellent co-operation which exists between the Spanish and Gibraltar authorities at the border between Spain and Gibraltar.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that helpful reply. Can he assure me that the arrangements are working mutually beneficially for the Spanish and Gibraltarian people? Does he agree that we continue to have a special responsibility for the people of Gibraltar, for their economy and welfare and to ensure their satisfaction with the arrangements?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to reconfirm to my hon. Friend that we undoubtedly have a responsibility for the future of Gibraltar. During my time there I frequently repeated the commitment contained in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. The arrangements for the border are working well. Since 5 February there have been over 1 million visitors each way, including many vehicles. That is about four times higher, without vehicles, than the number of visitors before the border was opened. The arrangements are providing a good foundation for growing economic co-operation and future prosperity in the region, including on the Spanish side of the border.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although we appreciate the good and improving relations that will result from the visit by His Majesty the King of Spain to Britain, we still recognise our obligations to our own people in Gibraltar?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can only repeat what I have just said. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the importance of improving the excellent relations between ourselves and Spain and about our continuing commitment to the people of Gibraltar.

    Dooge Committee
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Dooge committee report will next be considered by the European Economic Community Council of Ministers.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The future development of the Community will be discussed at the Milan European Council on 28 and 29 June.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister assure the House that the Prime Minister will this weekend stand firm on the three important reservations, to which the Minister himself subscribed, to the Dooge committee report? Will the Prime Minister maintain the Minister's position and report back to the House next week?
    Mr. Rifkind: The reservations which I entered in the report by the Dooge committee represented, and continue to represent, the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend agree that, following the enlargement of the Community, the section of the Dooge committee report which deals with easier decision-making by the Council takes on a particular significance if progress is to be made? Will my hon. Friend confirm that his suggestion that if there is any difference of opinion within the Council it must be defined at an early date will go a long way towards reconciling differences between the preservation of national interest and making progress within the Community?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. We believe that the enlargement of the Community to 12 will make the existing procedures more unlikely to be capable of reaching early agreement on matters of importance. Therefore, we believe that there should be more majority voting, as long as the right of a member state to invoke the national interest provisions remains in a form which, while not being capable of abuse, protects national interest.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that the formula is vague? Will he confirm my impression of Dooge that the Government would oppose an intergovernmental conference following Milan? Does he accept that many of us would regret such opposition, and can he explain it?
    Mr. Rifkind: The best inter-governmental conference is that of Heads of State. We hope that at Milan the Heads of State—I should say Heads of Government—will be assembled and will be able to agree a package of proposals which, apart from anything else, will make any other conference worthless. We see no need for the procedural device of an inter-governmental conference. We hope that the agreements reached at Milan will be sufficient for the progress that we all wish to see in the Community.
    Mr. George Robertson: It appears from the well organised press coverage that the Milan summit will be dominated by the bright ideas coming from the Foreign Office, especially in the guise of the Foreign Secretary. Why have these allegedly bright ideas not been available to right hon. and hon. Members, certainly up until yesterday? The Foreign Secretary would not answer this question last night. When will we be told what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will propose at next week's summit at Milan?
    Mr. Rifkind: First, I must thank the hon. Gentleman for his compliment to the Government and for his correct assessment of the Government's important and constructive role. He asked when he and his hon. Friends would be made aware of the Government's views on the Milan discussions. The Government's proposals were outlined at some length in the debate on the European Community which I opened last week and to which he replied.
    Later—
    Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the exchange at Question Time when I asked the Minister of State about documents which were tabled last week by the British Government at the Foreign Minister's Council at Stresa, and which are to form part of the agenda for the Heads of Government summit in Milan this Friday. The Minister of State told the House that he mentioned the ideas that will be proposed in a debate in the House last Thursday. However, there are two documents related to this issue, one of which is called "The Draft European Council Conclusions: Decision-Taking" and the other "The Draft Agreement on Political Co-operation", which has two annexes. Those documents form a vital basis for what is being proposed at the Heads of Government summit later this week. They have been extensively used in press briefings in the Sunday and Monday newspapers throughout the country, yet they have not been made available in any form to hon. Members. They have not been deposited in the Vote Office and, until a few minutes ago, they were not in the Library.
    Surely hon. Members cannot possibly assess what the British Government's position is to be at this vital summit of Heads of Government unless we, the representatives of the British people, know what the Government will propose in our name. Surely it is to treat the House with grave disrespect, if not contempt, to deny us the final proposals of this country at this vital summit meeting. Can you do something to protect hon. Members from the cavalier way in which the Foreign Office has treated us?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order arises from that because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is in order for Ministers to refer to documents. However, if they quote from documents, the documents must be laid on the Table. The hon. Gentleman has done what is necessary by making the position clear.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had about the reunification of Cyprus.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): We keep in close and frequent touch with the United Nations Secretary-General and the parties concerned with a view to assisting progress towards a settlement in Cyprus.
    Mr. PowellWill the Minister make a declaration that he will do something about the re-unification of Cyprus? An assembly has been established in the occupied section, but is it not time that something was done to alleviate the 11 years of suffering of those who have been exiled from their area of Cyprus? Is it not time that the Government took a different line and implemented different action to
    902
    put more pressure on the United Nations to ensure that the troops are withdrawn from the occupied section so that people can return to their homes, land and country?
    Mr. Renton: I must emphasise that we have never recognised the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. We do not recognise any of the so-called constitutional developments that have taken place in recent weeks. I hope that the way is now clear for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to resume his initiative, which we have supported strongly in recent months. It will be necessary for all sides to show some degree of flexibility for the initiative to succeed.
    Mr. David Atkinson: If talks on re-unification do not succeed, do not the people of northern Cyprus have an ultimate right to self-determination, which we should recognise?
    Mr. Renton: Our aim is to achieve a unified, federal and prosperous Cyprus. That is also the aim of the Secretary-General. I think that both sides should show some degree of flexibility to enable the Secretary-General to get under way with his initiative.
    Mr. Haynes: When discussions have taken place, have the 1,600 missing persons featured in them? Is the Minister aware that 1,600 Greek Cypriots are missing from their families and loved ones, and what do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mr. Renton: There have been frequent discussions in recent months between my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, both with President Kyprianou and the Turkish Foreign Minister. Most recently, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Turkish Foreign Minister during the North Atlantic Council meeting in Lisbon on 6 June. The main purpose of the discussions was to press on both sides the need to move towards a solution in Cyprus that would bring about a united island. If the hon. Gentleman would like to raise particular issues about the missing Greek Cypriots, perhaps he will write to me about them. If he does so, I shall see that they are pursued.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a continuation of the present uneasy stalemate in Cyprus is in no one's interest? Therefore, will he go on using every possible endeavour to get both sides to accept the United Nations initiative to get negotiations going again so that we may have some progress in this matter?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, and the Secretary-General earlier this year created an important opening. It is up to all sides to see that that opening is made use of.

    Mr. Nelson Mandela
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received on the continuing imprisonment of Nelson Mandela in South Africa; and what has been the response of those representations.
    Mr. Rifkind: We receive many representations, from individuals and organisations, in accord with our view that Nelson Mandela should be released immediately and unconditionally. We shall continue to press for this.
    Mr. Fisher: Do those representations include the petition presented to the Prime Minister two weeks ago by

    903
    45 lord mayors and lord provosts, including the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, Councillor John Birkin? They will no doubt be delighted to hear that the Government will continue their support for Mr. Mandela's release, but would be more cheered if the Government would take some action. Will the Foreign Secretary raise this issue at Milan and consider a joint initiative with European, EC and Commonwealth Heads of State to put some pressure on the South African Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that the representations received include representations from local authorities, including those from the specific individual about whom the hon. Gentleman is so concerned. As to action by Her Majesty's Government, I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised this issue with Mr. P. W. Botha when he was in the United Kingdom last year.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Have not the South African Government made it clear that they are prepared to release Nelson Mandela on condition that he renounces terrorism and violence? Is there to be a distinction so that some are to be allowed legitimately to pursue terrorism and violence as long as it is against South Africa? I remind my hon. Friend that South Africa is one of the 13 of the founder members of the League of Nations whose Governments have not been changed by force since the first world war.
    Mr. Rifkind: Bearing in mind that Nelson Mandela has been in prison but was never convicted of any personal act of violence, and that it is somewhat unusual, to say the least, to impose conditions on the release of persons in prison, either in South Africa or any other country, neither I nor Her Majesty's Government believe that it is appropriate to require statements from Mr. Mandela before he is released.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not unfortunate that there are Conservative Back Benchers who are far more concerned to see Hess released from prison than Nelson Mandela, who all his life fought against the principles on which Hess was convicted at Nuremberg? Is the Minister aware that we require from this Government and the United Nations, not simply words but determined action and pressure on the South African authorities, to ensure that Nelson Mandela, after 20 years of imprisonment, is allowed, without any conditions, to be released and to become a free man again?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that Her Majesty's Government shared the view expressed in the hon. Gentleman's latter question. As to his first question, that is a most unworthy comparison, which is both irrelevant to the questions under consideration and also, I am afraid to say, rather typical of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Thornton: Did my hon. Friend have the opportunity to read the leader in The Times on Monday? Does he agree with its assertions that terrorism can never be given a political legitimacy no matter where it occurs, and that terrorism against civilian targets must never be justified? Is it not the refusal of Mr. Nelson Mandela to repudiate such acts of violence that means his continued imprisonment?
    Mr. Rifkind: While I entirely agree that it would be inappropriate for the Government to have formal contact with an organisation that is committed to acts of violence of the kind described, given the very lengthy period that
    904
    Mr. Mandela has already spent in prison I do not believe that further conditions need to be imposed before he is released. All those who are seeking a peaceful solution to the problems of South Africa ought to believe that Mr. Mandela's release might help in that direction, and might also help to persuade the ANC as an organisation to renounce the road of violence as a means of achieving political change.
    Mr. Anderson: Why do the Government not meet leaders of the ANC, who are denied any political role in their own country? While the IRA can fight elections if it wants, the ANC cannot, because it is excluded from national franchise. Is it not impertinent and unrealistic of President Botha to impose the pre-condition of disavowal of violence, when the South African authorities constantly carry out acts of violence against the black majority? Will the Government now press South Africa to allow Mrs. Winnie Mandela to leave her own country next month to attend the women's conference in Nairobi?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course we hope that Mrs. Mandela will be free to leave South Africa if she wishes, and we hope that the South African Government will act in a responsible and constructive way to any such request. As to the hon. Gentleman's general points, there is nothing I can add to the comments that I have already made.

    Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Soviet Union for the release of Anatoly Shcharansky.
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the case of Anatoly Shcharansky with Mr. Gorbachev last December. Most recently Mr. Shcharansky's case was among those raised by our delegation to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe experts meeting on human rights in Ottawa.
    Mr. Carlile: I congratulate the Government on raising Mr. Shcharansky's case at a very high level, but does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is any thaw in the Soviet attitude towards dissidents and individual liberty? If not, what further steps beyond representation do the British Government propose to take to ensure that such a thaw occurs?
    Mr. Rifkind: I regret to say that it is very difficult to discern any significant evidence of any change in attitudes by the Soviet authorities towards dissidents or questions involving human rights since Mr. Gorbachev's accession to power. Naturally, we hope that that situation will change, and we shall lose no opportunity to impress upon the Soviet Union that if, like us, it wishes to see an improvement in East-West relations, an improvement in human rights would make an enormous contribution towards the realisation of that objective as well as being in accordance with the Soviet Union's obligations under the Helsinki final act.
    Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for his own strong commitment to this cause and for the heavy pressure that he has placed on the Soviet Government in an attempt to do something about it, but is he aware that, rather than getting better, things are getting worse? We must take every possible opportunity to press the cause not only of

    905
    Shcharansky and other dissidents and refuseniks but of Soviet Jewry and other Soviet citizens who want the right to emigrate from that country.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal comments. We sought to use the recent Ottawa meeting to pursue the exact objectives to which my hon. Friend has referred. Next month is the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki final act, and therefore it is an appropriate time to remind the Soviet authorities of the explicit commitments which they undertook to honour at that time, but which, sadly, they have failed to do.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the annual award of the all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviety Jewry went to Anatoly Shcharansky in a previous year and is this year to be awarded to Professor Alexander Lerner? Will my hon. Friend please emphasise to the Soviet authorities the importance to all hon. Members of respect for the rights of people accorded by the universal declaration of human rights and the Soviet Union's own constitution, so that people may leave that country in accordance with international law in a way that they are not permitted to do at present?
    Mr. Rifkind: It was very appropriate that that award was made to Mr. Shcharansky, who, after all, was a member of the original Helsinki monitoring group in the Soviet Union. The fact that that monitoring group was persecuted by the Soviet authorities shows, I regret to say, how cynical is their attitude towards the obligations into which they have entered.
    Mr. Holt: While it is understandable that hon. Members should raise in the House the question of Anatoly Shcharansky and Nelson Mandela, both of whom have been found guilty of crimes in their own countries by their own Governments, what are Her Majesty's Government doing about Graham Coveyduck, a British citizen incarcerated without trial in Nigeria?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this question.
    Mr. Holt: A good try, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: Not bad.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that there would be more hope for the release of people such as Anatoly Shcharansky if the Soviet authorities allowed Russian brides out of the country to join their husbands who are working in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that aspect should also be pressed on the Soviet authorities?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to emphasise that that, too, was an undertaking which was entered into at the time of the Helsinki final act and which has not been properly honoured. Her Majesty's Government do all that is required of them in terms of their obligations to their citzens to try to ensure that anyone detained without trial is released at the earliest opportunity.

    Namibia
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the South African Government following their decision unilaterally to establish a transitional Government in Namibia.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We told the South African Government, both privately before their announcement and in a public statement following it, that we regarded the establishment of an interim Administration in Namibia as null and void. We have taken every opportunity to remind South Africa of its international obligation to implement Security Council resolution 435.
    Mr. Madden: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerned about the fact that the British Government's present posture on Namibia is causing Britain to become isolated in the Commonwealth and among much of the international community? Will he make it clear at forthcoming meetings of the United Nations Security Council that Britain will not automatically oppose the imposition of sanctions on South Africa? Will he also make it clear that Conservative Members who saw fit to attend the inauguration of the puppet Government recently were not there with the support or, indeed, silent blessing of the British Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is that I fancy that some of my colleagues who attended that occasion are not in the habit of seeking the blessing of Her Majesty's Government, silent or otherwise, and seem able to speak and act for themselves. I have already answered the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about Her Majesty's Government's position. I must also make it clear that we do not believe that an advance in the direction on which the whole House is agreed—namely, the implementation of resolution 435 — would be most effectively secured by the imposition of economic sanctions. However, it is, of course, important to maintain pressure in the most effective way that we possibly can.
    Mr. Amery: What progress is being made towards securing the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, which is a necessary precondition for the fulfilment of the United Nations plan for Namibia?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As Opposition Members are pointing out, the withdrawal of Cuban forces does not form any part of resolution 435, as my right hon. Friend knows. Nor do we recognise it as a precondition for a settlement. The South Africans have made it clear that they will not agree to the implementation of resolution 435 unless a way of implementing the withdrawal of Cuban forces is found. It is to that end that the United States-led negotiations have been and continue to be directed—not helped by the recent incident, which we all deplored, at Cabinda.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken the opportunity to express to the South Africans the disgust of the House about their behaviour of late and particularly about their invasion of Botswana and the terrorism that followed, which represented an affront to all decent standards of behaviour?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As was made plain at the time, we stongly condemned the blatant violation of Botswana's sovereignty that was involved in that affair. We deplored and deeply regretted the loss of life involved, and I summoned the South African ambassador immediately to see me and made clear the serious view that we took of that attack.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why are the British Government not prepared to support an interim Government of national unity, representative of all the major political parties in Namibia, which are united in their determination to remove all vestiges of apartheid? Why are the Government not prepared to support them, as this in no way undermines the determination of that interim Government ultimately to hold elections under international supervision?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer is basically because the so-called interim Administration has no standing under the plan endorsed by United Nations resolution 435. The plan was accepted by the South African Government. We have made our view entirely clear to South Africa. Previous internal arrangements in Namibia have not proved of lasting significance.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When the Foreign Secretary this afternoon meets the President of SWAPO, Mr. Sam Nujoma, will he tell him two things? First, will he tell him that the Government do not have unlimited patience with South Africa and will not allow it to flout the wishes of the vast majority of countries in preventing resolution 435 from being passed? Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to explain to Mr. Sam Nujoma what the purpose is of having a transitional Government in Namibia if it is not to thwart resolution 435?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I am prepared to try to explain many things, it is not for me to explain the answer to the last question that the hon. Gentleman raised. This is a matter for those who are responsible for that action. I shall certainly make plain to Mr. Nujoma the importance that we attach to securing progress on resolution 435, and will leave him in no doubt about that.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether there could be an alternative to United Nations resolution 435 by bringing together all political parties in Namibia, and SWAPO, to agree on a constitution and a formula for holding elections? Given that the transitional Government obtain the essential reforms that are necessary to that country and the credibility that goes with them, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether support at that stage will be relevant to Namibia's obtaining independence through those means?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: One starts from the universal importance attached even by the South African Government to resolution 435. Of course, one does not exclude the possibility of some means of help of the type that my hon. Friend has described. If SWAPO were involved in such talks and if those talks led to conclusions that would assist in the implementation of resolution 435, one would not exclude that possibility.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I refer to the meeting which the Foreign Secretary will have with Sam Nujoma, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred. My impression from conversations this morning with Mr. Nujotna is that, while he recognises the positive nature of the statements which the Government have made—they were repeated today by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—about Namibia and the status of a transitional Government, he has the impression that neither the British Government nor the contact group have
    908
    any practical proposals which are likely to have any effect on South Africa. How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to that question?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: One has to recognise — [Interruption.] I am sure that the House would like me to welcome the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) at this late stage in the afternoon. In answer to the question from which we have been diverted, the role that we can play is to identify the objective, which is resolution 435, and to recognise that the United States-led negotiations, for all the patience that they require, represent probably the most effective route towards making headway in that direction. We give our support to that and to any other measure which is likely to be effective and which does not cut across that process.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not becoming just a little comical to see the number of times that the South African ambassador is called in for a ticking-off or a mauling from the Foreign Secretary, whatever the gravity of South Africa's actions? Even the Americans, for example, withdrew their ambassador over the Gabarone incident. Let me not say that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) can add respectability to anything, but does not the Foreign Office believe that the visit on 17 June of those Conservative Back Benchers to the inauguration of the new interim Government was unhelpful and is to be condemned?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Certainly not.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) expressing his view in his own characteristic fashion. So far as we are concerned, we have made our view quite clear that the establishment of that interim Administration is null and void, and we have nothing to add to that. Of course, it is necessary for us to make our position clear to the South African ambassador as we have done not just in relation to the Gabarone incident but also to the Cabinda incident. The hon. Gentleman points to the fact that the Americans have withdrawn their ambassador for consultations. It is our view that it is not helpful, if we are trying to get our views across to the South African Government, for us to take that step. Each country takes its own view.

    Helsinki Final Act
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to republish the Helsinki Final Act in all signatory states on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Helsinki Final Act and Madrid concluding document are already widely available in the United Kingdom and in other Western countries. Republication of the Final Act in all signatory states to mark the 10th anniversary of the Council on Security and Co-operation in Europe process would require unanimous agreement among the 35 signatories, which at present does not exist.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of the human rights conference in Ottawa this month to agree indicates the most urgent necessity to revitalise the Helsinki process? Does not the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Act present a new

    909
    opportunity for the citizens of each signatory state to be aware of the Act's provisions? Can he therefore confirm that it is Western states which are preventing the publication in all the signatory states of the Act, on the ground of cost?
    Mr. Luce: First, I know the long-standing interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. Let me make it quite plain that it is the Eastern bloc which has refused to consider the republication of the Final Act, not the West, and it requires unanimous agreement to achieve that. Of course, documents on the Final Act are fully available in the West. I wish they were more fully available in the East. Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the Helsinki Final Act is very strong. We would like to see a renewed sense of commitment on the part of all the members. Indeed, I should add that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be representing the British Government at the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is it not misleading to suggest that the Helsinki Final Act is freely available in the West when the British Government, for example, in response to the signed agreement to publish it widely, thought that 5,800 copies were sufficient to cover the 55 million people in this country, that is, one copy per 10,000 citizens? There are only 300 copies left in stock, while the Helsinki Final Act was published in full in many millions of copies in the Eastern bloc countries.
    Mr. Luce: The regrettable thing is that the copies of the Final Act are not adequately available in the Eastern bloc. I assure the hon. Gentleman that adequate supplies of the Helsinki Final Act are available in this country through various sources.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not republication of the Helsinki Final Act that is required, but implementation? Is it not time for the West, and for the United Kingdom Government in particular, to get much tougher? Should we not publish a list of all the named prisoners of conscience suffering in Soviet gaols or in the gaols of the satellite countries so that there oppressors know that we have not forgotten them?
    Mr. Luce: I think that my right hon. Friend, who has taken a constant and prolonged interest in the question of human rights and in the Final Act, has put his finger on it. The matter that I am sure concerns everybody in the House and outside it is the implementation of that Final Act. There has not been satisfactory progress, and there have been six weeks of discussion in Ottawa in which we as a Government have been able to focus attention upon the very issues that my right hon. Friend has raised. But there must be a renewed sense of vigour in which the British Government can play a leading part.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more likely that the Soviet Union would implement the Final Act if the Western Allies were not so exhuberant in giving the impression that the Soviet Union is the source of all the evil in the world?
    Mr. Luce: It would be wrong to say that the Soviet Union is the source of all the evil in the world, but we have been discussing very fully this afternoon the deep concern felt by all parties about the lack of real respect for the rights of the individual in the Soviet Union. A large
    910
    number of cases have been drawn to our attention and it is only right that the Government should be vigorous about pursuing these issues under the procedures of the Final Act.

    Spain and Gibraltar
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government on access to Gibraltar by land, air and sea, respectively, in 1967 have been removed following his recent discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister, and which remain.
    Mr. Renton: The then Spanish Government imposed a series of restrictions on land, sea and air movements between Spain and Gibraltar over a period of several years, culminating in the complete closure of the border in 1969. Subsequently, some of these restrictions were eased until, on 5 February 1985, all abnormal obstacles to land, sea and civil air traffic were lifted. The flight path for military aircraft, however, remains subject to limitations, about which we are in discussion with the Spanish authorities.
    Mr. Stanbrook: In view of the rosy picture painted earlier this afternoon by the Foreign Secretary of the state of British-Spanish relations, what possible legitimate reason can Spain have for continuing to impose restrictions on British aircraft wishing to use the Gibraltar airfield? Is not Spanish policy inconsistent with her obligations under the terms of the NATO treaty? As Spain is a candidate member of the European Community, will my hon. Friend arrange for her to be told that her policy is unacceptable and unfriendly?
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have a strong interest in developing further the civil use of the Gibraltar airfield on a mutually beneficial basis. On his point about NATO, Spain is not a full member of NATO in the sense of participating in the military arrangements of the Alliance. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made our position about the movement of aircraft very well known to the Spanish authorities.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most serious actions taken in 1967 by the Spanish was the cancellationof the extradition treaty? Can he say what progress is being made to reimplement the treaty?
    Mr. Renton: Considerable progress is being made over the extradition treaty between Spain and the United Kingdom. We hope that it can shortly be finalised.

    Cuba
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or other Foreign Office Ministers have any plans to seek to visit Cuba.
    Mr. Renton: There are no plans at present for a ministerial visit to Cuba.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been no ministerial visit of any kind, Foreign Office or otherwise, to Cuba since 1975, and does he agree that such a visit now would do a power of good? On his attitude to such a visit, will he assure the House that he will not be swayed one way or another by anything that is said in Washington?
    Mr. Renton: Following his visit to Cuba in January of this year, I understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. It is not a question of being swayed one way or another by Washington. Commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Cuba are developing well, but we have been unable to make plans for a visit within the heavy schedule of ministerial visits. However, this will be kept under review.
    Mr. Foulkes: Surely this is an important area to visit. Is not Britain being left behind by events in Central America? Cuba is building up strong links with all the Latin American countries, including the new democracies. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the Cuban proposal that Western Governments should take over from the banks responsibility for external debt, amounting to £360 billion in the case of Latin America? Since British banks have a large involvement, what is the British Government's response and what action are the British Government taking?
    Mr. Renton: This question has nothing to do with taking over the debt responsibilities of Latin American countries. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he does not believe that there has been an improvement in our relations with Cuba. Last year our exports to Cuba greatly increased and Cuba is now Britain's fifth largest export market in Latin America. However, as I said, we are not at the moment considering a ministerial visit.

    Turkish Peace Association
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Turkish Government regarding the prosecution of members of the Turkish Peace Association.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have been in close touch with the Turkish authorities about a range of human rights issues, including the Turkish Peace Association trials. They can be in no doubt about our opinions. I spoke personally to the Turkish Foreign Minister on these issues when I met him in Lisbon on 6 June.
    Mr. Wallace: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer and for the continuing attention which he is obviously giving to this important matter. Quite apart from representations on the specific issue of the Turkish Peace Association prisoners, what pressure does the Secretary of State believe can be brought to bear on Turkey, which, after all, is a NATO ally, to try to change its ways regarding the serious limitations on personal freedom, which many people in this country would consider inconsistent with the type of free society which NATO is supposed to be defending?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the measures that can be taken include, beyond exhortations of the kind that the hon. Member has just indulged in, encouragement and acknowledgement of progress when it has been made. It is important to note that not only have there been the national elections in 1983 and the local government elections in March 1984, but there has been a steady reduction in the number of areas subject to martial law. When I visited Turkey in February of this year about half the provinces were still subject to martial law. Since then, 17 provinces have been freed from that. It is important,
    912
    therefore, not only to bring matters to the attention of the Turkish Government, but to acknowledge progress when it is made.
    Mr. Forth: Is there any limit to the extent to which her Majesty's Government might seek to interfere and intervene in the internal affairs and judicial systems of other countries? What would my right hon. and learned Friend's reaction be were the Head of Government of the Soviet Union, South Africa or Turkey to approach him with representations on what we should do about our judicial system?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is not as perceptive as he customarily is. He must acknowledge that questions of this kind are a matter of natural discussion between, for example, fellow members of the North Atlantic Alliance or of the Council of Europe. Indeed, progress by Turkey towards securing fuller recognition of its position in the Council of Europe is one of the matters that Turkey understands and discusses with us. In that context, we welcome the changes that I have described. We welcome, for example, the transformation from a scene in which there were 20 political killings a day—which was the situation that the Turkish Government had to grapple with—to one in which the number of people in military gaols dropped from 43,000 in 1981 to 8,000 in February 1985. It is in that context that we welcome and encourage progress towards democracy by a fellow member of the North Atlantic Alliance.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the Foreign Secretary not think that there will have to be a considerable improvement in the human rights situation in Turkey, particularly in relation to the treatment of trade unionists and opposition political parties, before a Turkish application to become the 13th member of the Common Market could be favourably considered?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the general validity of observations of that kind has been acknowledged by the Turkish Government throughout the years that we have been talking about. It would be helpful in this context if some hon. Members who are always ready to criticise the Turkish Government were equally ready to give encouragement and approval when steps are taken in the right direction.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Foreign Secretary cannot level an accusation at me for not giving encouragement to the small, tentative steps that have been made back towards Turkish democracy. But surely it is unacceptable that 8,000 people should still be held in military prisons by a fellow member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and that some of the curtailments of martial law should be accompanied by the suggestion of new, repressive laws. Surely that that must be met with more forthright economic sanctions from the EEC, rather than mere pious words of hope that democracy will return to Turkey.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: All these matters have to be looked at in perspective, against the situation with which the Turkish Government was originally called upon to deal. It must be recognised, for example, that some of the changes that the hon. Gentleman has been talking about have been the subject of vigorous debate and analysis in the Turkish Parliament and press in a way that would have been quite unimaginable some years back. So, progress is

    913
    being made. It is right for us to keep a watchful and interested eye on this and leave the Turkish Government, as I made clear in my original answer, in no doubt about our concern.

    Central America
    Sir Russell Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the possible consequences for East-West relations of instability in Central America.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We regularly discuss the situation in Central America with the United States Administration. We share with the United States the objective of an early return to peace and stability in the region on the basis of the Contadora principles.
    Sir Russell Johnston: When the Secretary of State met the President of Mexico, did he express concern about the pressure that the United States is exerting on Nicaragua? Did he, perhaps, suggest that it would have quite the opposite effect and would drive Ortega into the arms of Moscow, rather as happened with Castro? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that analysis, and, if so, what views is he expressing to the United States Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Obviously, because of Mexico's important part in the Contadora process, the position in Central America was one of the subjects discussed with the Mexican President and, indeed, during my talks with the Mexican Foreign Minister when he was here. We were both willing, ready and enthusiastic to endorse the Contadora process, anxious to assert the principles underlying that — that the utmost restraint must be exercised on all sides in Central America—and to draw attention to those aspects of Nicaraguan policy that are causing anxiety in the region.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, from the point of view of Western Europe, the roles of the United States, with its massive power, and the minor power of Nicaragua—even in Central American terms—are unequal? Has not the role of the United States been almost totally unhelpful in the Contadora process? Indeed, it is almost certainly designed to sabotage that process.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: United States general policy is that it wants to see political reform and stability in Central America through peaceful means. We support that objective. We also urge on Nicaragua the need for it to avoid those actions that are causing anxiety in neighbouring states, which threaten the stability of neighbouring states, and the need for it to engage in a more genuine dialogue with all parties in the country to try to achieve more progress towards true democracy.
    Mr. Forman: My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken warmly of Western European support for the Contadora process. What steps might now be available to Western European countries to make progress in that direction?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is, of course, a continuing aid relationship. We held a conference in San José in September last year. Arrangements are now being discussed for a future meeting of that kind, but not necessarily in the region, together with arrangements for a possible association agreement.
    Mr. Healey: May I begin by reciprocating the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courtesy to me and congratulate him on surviving President Reagan's displeasure at his comprehensive critique of the star wars programme?
    Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman point out to the United States Administration that by organising and financing the most inhuman type of terrorism against the citizens of a friendly state he is undermining the attempt, which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would support, to organise some international action against terrorism in general?
    Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman point out to Mr. Shultz, who has threatened to invade Nicaragua if terrorism fails to overthrow its Government, that such an invasion would create the deepest breach between the United States and its European allies since the war and, moreover, would unite the whole of Latin America in a wave of anti-Yankee imperialism?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: If we are to continue these friendly personal exchanges, I must say that it is strange for the right hon. Gentleman to congratulate me on surviving a speech that I made about two months ago. I congratulate him on having woken up and returned to our proceedings.
    Of course, there is a need for restraint on all sides in the light of the present position in Central America. President Reagan recently gave a written assurance to an American Congressman that he is not seeking the military overthrow of the Sandinista Government. The American Government want political reform and stability in Central America through peaceful means. It is important that restraint should be exercised on both sides, and that Nicaragua should undertake an internal political dialogue.

    European Community Policies
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.
    Mr. Rifkind: We have made several positive proposals, including ideas for the completion of the internal market by 1992, improvements in decision-making, the development of political co-operation between the Ten, and other matters, which we look forward to discussing at the European Council in Milan.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend explain how Community economic policies can be developed while Britain remains outside the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has not been a member of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS for several years, and I do not believe that that has significantly held back the development of Community policies. Indeed, it is significant that the use of the ecu is more freely available in the United Kingdom than it is in many states which are members of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Minister ensure that, in Milan, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister raise the serious problems that are developing in southern Sudan? Food is being held up at the ports, and there are no means of

    915
    getting it through by road. Is there not a great need for a European initiative to try to achieve an air lift? An EC initiative in this area would be much welcomed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I cannot say whether that item will be on the agenda at Milan, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Community has a deep and abiding interest in Sudan and hopes to make a constructive contribution to that problem.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: At Milan, will the Prime Minister be discussing Lord Cockfield's plan for 304 changes to achieve harmonisation? May we have a clear assurance that no British Government, until they have put the case to the people, will concede any such harmonisation involving the imposition of VAT on food, and that they will not restrict their right to decide internal taxes?
    Mr. Rifkind: Although we agree with the broad thrust of Lord Cockfield's proposals, we have made it clear, as have several other Governments, that the case for tax harmonisation has not been proven. We do not believe that the achievement of an internal market requires the harmonisation or approximation of taxes, and we have pointed to the example of the United States, many of whose 50 states have different direct and indirect taxes, which in no way impedes the operation of a free internal market there. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no intention of introducing VAT on food.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's current attitude toward the Government of Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: We share the concern of many Central American states at Nicaragua's build-up of arms and
    916
    increasingly close contacts with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Our future relations will depend on Nicaragua establishing genuine democracy, scaling down her armaments, and putting an end to support for subversion in the region.
    Mr. Dubs: Why does the Minister persist in putting all the blame on Nicarague? Would not our relations with Nicaragua and peace in Central America be significantly improved if the Government said categorically that they did not support the American policy of giving money to the Contras, and that they do not support President Reagan's avowed aim of getting rid of the Sandinista Government by peaceful or other means? Is that not the right policy for us?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the $27 million recently voted by Congress was specifically an appropriation for non-military aid to cover food, medicine, clothing and other humanitarian purposes. It is not a case of putting the blame entirely on Nicaragua. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the emphasis of our policy and, indeed, of the policy of the Contadora group is to persuade all countries in Central America to scale down their military spending and to withdraw their forces from other countries. That is the only way to achieve peace in the region.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Is it not a fact that Nicaragua could make the best possible contribution towards a generally more acceptable atmosphere for its country if it followed the example of other dictatorships, such as Uruguay and El Salvador, and held genuinely free elections, not the sort of bogus elections, which were so bogus that Her Majesty's Government refused even to send observers to them?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. One of our aims is to persuade Nicaragua to move towards a genuine pluralist democracy.

Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker:I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985.

2. Ports (Finance) Act 1985.

3. Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985.

4. Hill Farming Act 1985.

5. Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act 1985.

6. Nottinghamshire County Council Act 1985.

7. King's College London Act 1985.

8. Leicestershire Act 1985.

9. Associated British Ports Act 1985.

10. Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) Act 1985.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SPORTING EVENTS (CONTROL OF ALCOHOL ETC.)
  Mr. Secretary Brittan, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Giles Shaw and Mr. Neil Macfarlane, presented a Bill to make provision for punishing those who cause or permit intoxicating liquor to be carried on public service vehicles and railway passenger vehicles carrying passengers to or from designated sporting events or who possess intoxicating liquor on such vehicles and those who possess intoxicating liquor or certain articles capable of causing injury at designated sports grounds during the period of designated sporting events, for punishing drunkenness on such vehicles and, during the period of designated sporting events, at such grounds and, where licensed premises or premises in respect of which a club is registered (for the purposes of the Licensing Act 1964) are within designated sports grounds, to make provision for regulating the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor and for the closure of bars: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 173].
  TENANTS' PROTECTION (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Bruce Millan, supported by Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie and Mr. Norman Buchan, presented a Bill to give further protection to tenants in Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 176].
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (SERVICE OF NOTICES)
  Dr. David Clark, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Peter Hardy and Dr. Mark Hughes, presented a Bill to apply section 283 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and section 269 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to notices and other documents required or authorised to be served or given under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 174].

Environmental Pollution Information
3.34 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide a public right of access to information concerning the discharge or disposal of substances into the environment and the presence of certain dangerous substances on premises, held by certain government departments and other authorities and by persons responsible for such substances; and to require certain government departments and authorities to notify those affected of hazards to their health or safety, or danger to their property likely to be caused by such substances; and to establish the office and powers of the Environmental Information Commissioner.
I apologise for the length and complexity of the long title, but I hope to show that there is need for such legislation and that my proposal would meet that need.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the public have access to full information about pollution of the environment and attendant risks to public health. Too often that information is treated as confidential when it need not be. Unnecessary obstacles may be placed in the way of people who want to know about environmental hazards and the corrective action that may or may not be taken to deal with them. In some cases that is because the law prevents a pollution inspector from disclosing information. In other cases, information is withheld on the grounds that it may alarm people or that people would not understand the technicalities. Inevitably, in those circumstances there is suspicion that secrecy exists to protect those who create environmental hazards or to conceal official inaction. That secrecy and the public mistrust that it can create is a problem which has long worried the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.
In 1972, the Royal Commission reported that the need for commercial secrecy seldom required information about pollution to be withheld. It therefore called for a more open approach to such matters. It has repeated that call on a number of subsequent occasions.
Although some progress has been made, when the Royal Commission published a major review last year of the availability of information on environmental pollution it concluded that unnecessary secrecy continued to frustrate legitimate inquiries and it recommended that the public should be entitled to
"the fullest possible amount of information on all forms of environmental pollution, with the onus placed on the polluter to substantiate claims for exceptional treatment."
The Royal Commission went on to make the overriding recommendation that
"a guiding principle behind all legislative and adminstrative controls relating to environmental pollution should be a presumption in favour of unrestricted access for the public to information which the pollution control authorities obtain or receive by virtue of their statutory powers, with provision for secrecy only in those circumstances where a genuine case for it can be substantiated."
I am glad to say that that is a recommendation which the Government accepted in principle in paragraph 21 of their response to the 10th report of the Royal Commission, and my Bill would implement that recommendation.
The Bill provides the public with a right of access to information about pollution while exempting from disclosure some categories of information where a genuine case for confidentiality can be made out. It gives people the right to see and copy any official documents about

919
pollution unless the document contains exempt information. It applies to information held by central and local government and by any other public authority with responsibility for pollution matters.
The Bill would enable anyone to see information, such as monitoring data, hazard assessments, research findings, cost-benefit analysis of various pollution control strategies and a wide range of other relevant material. It would also require a pollution control authority to provide information to anyone whose health or property was put seriously at risk by pollution or by the storage of dangerous chemicals. That is a duty which factory inspectors already have in relation to people at work. It seems right that the general public should benefit similarly.
Furthermore, the Bill requires that those who create pollution should disclose relevant information on request. That is necessary because it would be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect the pollution control authorities to possess complete information on all pollution problems which might arise.
Some categories of information would be exempt from disclosure. The exemptions are designed to protect four main interests. The first is the interest of national security. The disclosure of information which would jeopardise our defence or foreign relations would therefore be exempt. The second interest is that of legitimate commercial secrecy. For example, the Bill would not require the disclosure of information which might prejudice the protection of vital commercial interests, such as sensitive product testing data, or give an unfair advantage to competing firms. However, that exemption could be waived in those rare cases where the public interest in disclosure was deemed to be paramount.
The third interest is that of individual privacy. For example, information on the health of someone adversely affected by pollution would not be made publicly available. The fourth category is the interest of pollution control. Polluters would not be able to use the legislation to gain advance notice of what should otherwise be an unannounced inspection by the relevant pollution control authority.
Equally, pollution control authorities might sometimes depend upon information given to them voluntarily and in confidence but which they have no legal power to demand. It would, therefore, be unwise to require them to disclose such information if as a result that information was no longer forthcoming. However, where the authority has the legal power to require the information or where there is a positive incentive for a firm to supply it—for example, if this is done in return for the granting of a licence or to influence draft legislation—the public disclosure is unlikely to cause the supplier to withhold it and the information would, therefore, not be exempt.
In cases of dispute the Bill provides for the establishment of an environmental information commissioner with legal powers to ensure that the legislation is enforced and with the power to require or prevent disclosure in a particular case. However, there would also be a right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
In connection with wider considerations, I stress that the Bill provides a legal right of access to information which can be enforced by the commissioner if the authorities fail to comply. It does not leave disclosure simply to the discretion or good will of the pollution control authorities. Experience has shown that the latter approach is not adequate.
920
For example, the English water authorities have decided to make use of their newly acquired discretion to exclude the public from their meetings. The local authorities have power under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to obtain information about air pollution in their area. Any information so obtained must be published. However, in practice most local authorites obtain such information informally without using their powers and thereby circumvent the obligation to publish the data.
I stress that the Bill will provide what the Royal Commission has called for—unrestricted access to information held by pollution control authorities. That is not the same as specifying one or two items of information which will be available, perhaps on a register, while leaving the rest of the information as difficult to obtain as before.
We want to get away from the approach suggested by the Health and Safety Commission in its recent discussion document. It suggested that access should be given only to very limited information held by Health and Safety Executive inspectors, that disclosure should normally be at the discretion of the employers, that information should be available only to those with a demonstrable "need to know", and that instead of full access to complete data the public should make do with
"some relatively simple account of the type of hazard which might occur."
I hope that the House will agree that the HSC approach is unsatisfactory and that progress along the lines of my Bill would be infinitely preferable for the cause of environmental protection.
The Government make clear in paragraph 22 of their response to the 10th report of the Royal Commission that they also hope to find a uniform way of implementing the commission's recommendations on confidentiality. The search for such a uniform regime is now the responsibility of an interdepartmental working party which will have to report to Ministers by the end of the year.
I stress that the Government have taken a positive line throughout and remain firmly committed to the principle of greater openness in environmental matters. I am also glad to say that I have received messages of support for the Bill from the National Consumer Protection Council and the National Association of Local Councils.
A uniform regime on confidentiality would be achieved by my Bill since it applies equally to all bodies with official responsibility for controlling pollution. At present there are too many anomalies. Some pollution control authorities are required to disclose certain information about discharges, others are prohibited by law from doing so. Employees have explicit statutory rights to information about work place hazards, but the general public is often denied that information even when equally at risk.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has been speaking for just over 10 minutes.
Mr. Forman: I am coming to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
My Bill would also be of benefit to the pollution control authorities themselves since they are sometimes exposed to needless criticism because of the restrictions on disclosure prevent them from explaining properly the steps which they have taken to control a pollution problem
However, my Bill's most vital contribution would be to enable people to find out for themselves the risks which

921
they face from pollution, to discover whether everything necessary has been done to control it, and to press for greater public protection where it is necessary. I therefore hope that the House will approve my initiative and will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Forman, Sir Hugh Rossi, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Kenneth Warren, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Dr. Ian Twinn.

Environmental Pollution Information
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION INFORMATION
  Mr. Nigel Forman accordingly presented a Bill to provide a public right of access to information concerning the discharge or disposal of substances into the environment and the presence of certain dangerous substances on premises, held by certain government departments and other authorities and by persons responsible for such substances; and to require certain government departments and authorities to notify those affected of hazards to their health or safety, or danger to their property likely to be caused by such substances; and to establish the office and powers of the Environmental Information Commissioner: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
Orders of the Day
  Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords]
    Clause 15

      CONTROL OF PESTICIDES ETC.
      3.46 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 15, line 14, after 'effect', insert '(a)'
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 56.
      Mrs. Fenner: The Committee had a full and detailed debate about the public disclosure of information relating to pesticides during which I explained at some length the Government's intentions. In the drafting of subsections (2) (j) and (5) of clause 15 the Government believed that they had struck the right balance between the public interest in access to information and the protection of the commercial interests of those who supply the information. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) raised this very issue when introducing a few minutes ago his Bill on environmental pollution information. I have no doubt that the balance is weighted in favour of public access, but the feeling in Committee was that more could be done in the Bill to favour the public interest as the Royal Commission recommended.
      The Government have reflected carefully and in response have tabled the amendment to the first subsection of clause 15 on the general purposes of this part of the Bill. If accepted, the amendment would have the effect that the following provisions of part III
      "would have effect with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public".
      This would apply to safety data about chemicals and to other information and to information about the controls exercised over pesticides in the Bill. I believe that this addition to clause 15 further strengthens the presumption in favour of public access. We cannot adopt the Royal Commission's use of the term "unrestricted access" in a legal statute because that would nullify the effect of subsection (5), which protects the legitimate interest of manufacturers. Again, that is an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred in introducing his Bill.
      We are moving public information into the highest category of purpose of the Bill, which, because of the widespread public concern about pesticides, is the appropriate place. Moreover, we are maintaining the balance between the public interest and the respect for commercial interests in the body of clause 15. That seems to us to be a significant improvement.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister explain the difference between summaries and

      923
      the general principle of far wider access to all the information that is made available? What is the Government's position on that consideration?
      Mrs. Fenner: We believe that the public's access to information should have a high priority and should be an integral part of these provisions. By moving the relevant provisions to the first part of part III we have highlighted the emphasis that we attach to the principle. The Government believed that they had struck a perfect balance between subsection (2)(j) and subsection (5), but it was made clear in Committee that those considering the Bill felt that something more could be done to emphasise the importance that is attached to public access to information. It is in that spirit that we have moved the emphasis on public access to the beginning of part III to make it the top priority.
      Sir John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation, which was suitably brief. I am also grateful to the Government for accepting the principle of the three amendments moved in Committee, Nos 98, 99 and 100, which we think were of great significance to the Bill. The Government could easily have reversed the three amendments, and those of us who voted in favour of them in Committee are grateful that they have been retained, more or less as they are. We congratulate the Government on their wisdom.
      Clause 15(1) is an important part of the Bill. As the Bill is now, subsection (a) speaks of the need
      "to protect the health of human beings".
      That can be understood, but my hon. Friend's amendment will mean that there will be two subsections lettered (a). That will serve only to make a complex Bill more complex.
      Apart from that, I welcome what my hon. Friend has tried to do. We are grateful to her for preserving the spirit and the quality of amendments tabled in Committee. However, I ask my hon. Friend to give some clarity to the drafting of these amendments.
      Mr. Richard Body: I always want to be helpful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that she will think that by tabling amendment No. 56 I am being so. She gave an impressive television performance recently in which, in answer to a journalist, Penny Junor, in a programme on Thames Television, she said that when regulations come out, it is her wish that all the details will be available. I hope that we can move in that direction. I am not suggesting by my amendment that we should have all the details, but we can go a little further in trying to reconcile the interests of the public and those of the manufacturers.
      I had a discussion with the director of the British Agrochemicals Association only yesterday. He assured me that he supported my amendment, which goes rather further than that on which my hon. Friend is anxious that the House should agree.
      It must be in the interests of the public to be able to see the data submitted by the manufacturer about the safety of the pesticides and their effect on the environment. When I speak of the public, I put in a word for our working farmers, who deal every day with pesticides. There is growing anxiety among them about the pesticides and to what extent they should use certain of them. That anxiety is increased when they read about how other countries
      924
      forbid the use of the very pesticides that they are using. Therefore, it is right that a small organisation with which I am associated, the Smallfarmers Association, should have access to the data in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then be able to engage its own scientists to investigate that data to see to what extent the testing has been carried out satisfactorily.
      Equally, it is in the interests of the manufacturers that rivals, particularly countries such as Korea and Thailand, which are getting into the pesticide business, should not be guilty of piracy. Therefore, my amendment is couched in such a way as to ensure that there can be no piracy, nor any danger to any manufacturer. I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that. That would enable those concerned, either on behalf of farmers or environmental lobbies—even doctors, because many of them are concerned about this—to have access to the data so that they can assess it.
      My hon. Friend may say that it is intended to produce monographs on these different pesticides that will give a summary of the data, but that will not be enough. I am sure that she will realise that. They will not recite the methodology or the kinds of tests that have been carried out, nor will they give details of the sorts of animals that have been used.
      My hon. Friend knows that the tests on these pesticides are almost entirely carried out on rats and mice. If the pesticide is mutagenic, we must know whether the tests have been carried out for at least two years on three generations of rats and mice. One will not know whether a pesticide is mutagenic unless such data are given.
      I understand that what is made available by the Ministry will not include that information. If a pesticide is carcinogenic, the tests must be carried out for a certain time. We must also question whether, if it is carcinogenic in respect of rats or mice, it will be the same on humans. I do not want to repeat the thalidomide story, but that was tested on rats and was perfectly satisfactory, yet we know only too well what the effect was on humans.
      There is a question mark over the use of only rats or mice when testing such pesticides. The public should therefore be told what animals are being used so that they can judge the extent to which the tests are valid.
      I stress that, because in the United States, as my hon. Friend knows only too well, people are beginning to realise that by themselves tests on rats and mice are not sufficient and that other tests should be carried out. The Minister and I know that a number of pesticides have been called into question in the United States and will now be prohibited, yet their use will still be allowed in this country. Is there a difference in testing between the United States and the United Kingdom? How will we know if all we are to get are monographs? Will they contain the kind of information that will be sufficient to enable people to pass their own independent judgment?
      My hon. Friend will be familiar with the name of Professor A. E. M. McLean, who until recently was a member of the scientific sub-committee of the Government's own Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I hope that his views will not be dismissed as those of a crank but will be acknowledged as the views of someone who has had an inside knowledge of the subject. Professor McLean was joint author of a book entitled "Safety Testing of New Drugs. Laboratory Predictions and Clinical Performance", which was published only last year. He said:

      925
      "the ordinary criterion of scientific reliability (that the results are reproducible in other laboratories) does not operate".
      He added:
      "When the methodology of conventional test procedures is discussed it becomes evident that quite small differences in procedure can have large effects on the outcome, and so on the inferences which may be drawn from them".
      4 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, therefore, that the summaries will be useless to the public, to farmers and to the members of environmental groups and others who want to probe these issues unless they have some understanding of the methodology and what led up to the data being provided. Unless that information is forthcoming, we shall not satisfactorily solve the problem.
      Let us suppose that the boot were on the other foot and a manufacturer, having produced a new type of pesticide, had to have it tested by an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Let us suppose that the Ministry then published only a summary of the data, such as that which my hon. Friend has in mind. What, then, would be the feelings of the manufacturer? Say that the new pesticide was condemned by the Ministry and the manufacturer was not permitted to obtain the full data comparable to what I have in mind should be disclosed to the general public. The manufacturer would be in an impossible position.
      The United States has its Freedom of Information Act. We have the chance now to go to Washington and find out the full details of how the same pesticides have been tested in that country. Indeed, officers of Friends of the Earth tell me that they have been to America and seen the very data that they will not be allowed to see in Britain.
      I fear that the Government's not allowing the same information to be available here—remembering that we are concerned with circumstances in which some pesticides forbidden in the United States will be permitted here—will cause ugly statements to be made, and such a state of affairs will not be helpful to anyone.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful consideration to my amendment No. 56 and will agree that, if it is right that people in the US should have this information, it is right for the people of Britain to have it. It is wrong that we should have to cross the Atlantic and go to Washington to get the sort of information that should be available to us here. If it is not made available, the worst suspicions will be aroused, and I fear that we in Parliament will not do well as a result.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I apologise in advance for the fact that I shall have to leave at 4.15 to attend a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, where I wish to deal with an important item on the agenda. I shall then return to the Chamber, but I may miss the Minister's speech in reply to this amendment.
      Like the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), I fear that the Bill, in the way in which it will be amended, will not clarify the position and may, instead, disguise the intention of the Government. The result will be that the public will be denied information about pesticides. The Government amendment contains the words
      "with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public".
      926
      What it does not say, but should say—because that is the intention—is that it will be restricted information. All the information available to the Department will not be made available to the public. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
      "I assure the Committee that we shall seek to ensure that the public will have every opportunity to judge for themselves whether the Government have reached a reasonable decision about a chemical … information will not be kept under wraps unnecessarily."
      Who will decide on what is unnecessarily being kept under wraps? Will it not be the Department? It is unreasonable that those who wish access to information will be denied the right to determine whether something should be made available. A bureaucrat will take the decision.
      It was clear from the debate in Committee that there are divisions of opinion about what should constitute information being "kept under wraps unnecessarily." The Government are totally misreading the representations of Campaign for Freedom of Information, the environmental groups and all others interested in these issues. They are demanding that full information be made available.
      In Committee, the Minister said:
      "it is our intention to ensure that the information released will enable an informed judgment to be made by the public".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 30 April 1985; c. 334.]
      What does the Minister regard as an "informed judgment"? What she regards as an informed judgment may not be what environmental groups and researchers believe it to be. All the time we are leaving subjective judgments to be made by officials who make recommendations to Ministers. The Minister is misreading the sense of environmental outrage that is felt by the public on this issue.
      We dealt at length in Committee with the position in America. I pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency there found that IBT—Industrial Biotest Laboratories — had fabricated data. Some of those studies were submitted in the United Kingdom and were accepted by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and decisions were taken based on the ACP's recommendations. The same officials will decide to what extent information should be restricted.
      The Minister should take on board the American experience and ensure that United Kingdom researchers are given full access to information. After all, often no alternative information about hazards is available.
      That information should be available, for example, to those concerned with the effects of pesticides on their employees and to persons affected by spraying. Otherwise, it will be difficult for them to obtain information relevant to the problems with which they must deal and with which doctors are concerned. Indeed, medical practitioners may wish to research into the effects of certain products. They should not be denied information which is available to the Department but which will be under lock and key.
      The full disclosure of safety data under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rhodenticide Act in America works well. FIFRA has shown that it is possible to combine full disclosure with the protection of commercial interests. The amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston would not alter a company's indefinite right to the exclusive use of such data.
      To deny information on the ground that the public is not competent to make correct use of it is unacceptable. The

      927
      British Agrochemical Association accepts the principle of "the right to know." Disclosure would increase public confidence, prevent amateur research being carried out by other organisations and, to some extent, prevent the need for duplication of research. Public anxiety increases when people are denied the facts.
      Even at this late stage, the Parliamentary Secretary, should heed the substantial representations that are being made by people inside and outside the House. In particular, she should heed the remarks of her hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who has great knowledge of these matters. He is in contact, through an organisation representing small farmers with which he is associated, with many people in Britain who are involved with the use of pesticides. I am sure that he brings to the House through that association the value of their experience.
      All Committee Members received persistent demands from a number of organisations to set up a more open regime with respect to freedom of information. The Parliamentary Secretary must respond to those demands and be fair.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government should accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I pay tribute to the Government for responding to pressure and to the other place for having moved forward. They have accepted that there should be a move towards giving people the right to know about pesticides.
      The Parliamentary Secretary's words a fortnight ago on television are important because they highlight not only the possible advantages of the Government's amendments but the gap that will exist if we go only as far as the amendments take us. The hon. Lady said:
      "The Bill empowers Ministers to make information available to the general public regarding the safety of pesticides."
      She went on to say:
      "The details will all be available."
      Those two statements are not consistent. Government amendment No. 22 states:
      "with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public".
      The criteria are set out, but the Government retain the right to determine exactly what will or will not be included in that information. If the Parliamentary Secretary is to give the House the assurance that she gave the nation via television—
      "The details will all be available"—
      she must logically accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. It provides that information will become available automatically and naturally and not simply in a conditional sense because of what the Government's regulations impose.
      Mr. Body: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that my amendment does not go as far as the statement on television by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary? I am only going 90 per cent. of the distance.
      Mr. Hughes: Yes. We are constrained by the fact that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston goes as far as we shall be able to go today. He has imposed a condition too. He has restricted disclosure relating to commercial interests, for reasons that I understand although I may not entirely share them. If the Parliamentary Secretary accepted that premise, we would be making progress. She said that she was satisfied
      928
      "that the preponderance is on making information available to the general public."
      We must not have battles year after year when Governments always resist and have to be dragged through the hedgerows until they are forced to give a concession. Countries that learned democracy from us have long before us established the right to know. The High Court has decided that councillors have the right to know. That means that not only officials but the people who are concerned with the issues have the right to know. They include farmers, business men, researchers and legislators. I ask the Government to say that those people need to know now.
      I give one bizarre and important example which shows how ridiculous the position is. I am told that research is being conducted in London university on lemons sold in shops in London. After they are harvested, a fungicide called hydroxydiphenyl 2 is sprayed on them. That fungicide is governed by World Health Organisation limits, because it is dangerous when used above a certain limit. WHO says that the acceptable limit for that fungicide is 10 parts per million. The fungicide on lemons sold in London shops regularly measures 200 parts per million.
      4.15 pm
      This is what happens to the lemons. They are harvested and then scrubbed to remove the pesticide. They then look a little withered and as though they will not appeal to the consumer, so they are dipped into a wax fungicide mixture to make them yellow, shiny and appealing. When one washes those lemons there is no problem because the fungicide does not react in any way. The water runs off them because the skin is protected. However, if one regularly dips a lemon into one's gin and tonic, alcohol causes a chemical reaction.
      One might need to drink a few gins and tonics in a day for this to have any effect. I may have vices, but that is not one of them, although there may be some hon. Members present who are worried about this information. The chemical reaction dissolves the wax and releases the fungicide into that drink at nearly 20 times the recognised international level.
      This research was conducted by an eminent and respected group of people at London university who thought that they should ascertain whether the Ministry knew about this. They telephoned the Ministry and asked about its findings. The answer was, "I am sorry. We cannot tell you. It is governed by the Official Secrets Act." Here were researchers offering the Government information, which may save Conservatives more than any others by protecting them when over-indulging in gin and tonic—yet the Government could not say whether they were researching the same issue.
      That is an amusing example, but it is an example of a fundamental point. If science is to be of benefit to our society, it must be of benefit to everyone in our society and not selectively of benefit to those who take unto themselves the rights that go with being in the Civil Service.
      I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House an assurance in exactly the same terms as the assurance that she gave on television and consider what the Government would do to go even further than the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston.
      Amendment No. 26 provides that, on payment of "reasonable fees", information will be made available. I

      929
      accept that there must be a reasonable fee, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows that we are again considering the question of definition. What is "reasonable"? It is clear that, since the last stage of this Bill was considered, the Treasury has been at work on it. We are considering several small amendments that quietly emanated from the Treasury and add little money-recouping measures. This is one of them. I do not object to the Treasury suggesting that a reasonable fee is required. Of course we must pay for photocopying and the like, but we cannot have fees that reflect the cost of the work going on and partly pay for the research and the officials. They are there anyway. The officials' time is given in the public service, for which they are paid. Members of the public, who may not be on big salaries paid by the British Agrochemicals Association or any other firm, need to be assured that we are talking about matters of pence, not pounds, and that the fees are reasonable at all stages. If the Government are committed to access and to freedom of information, they must not put up barriers, whether of cost or of bureaucracy.
      I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again and ask her—reflecting in the glory that she is partly enjoying by having pulled her Government from resistance to a welcome of freedom of information—to go the whole way and do the job properly.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who spoke in a most amusing fashion, have identified one lacuna. I want to touch briefly on another omission, although I welcome the measure as it is at least a move towards freedom of information. It touches on the question of public confidence and the processes by which we come to decisions on pesticides which are covered in the Bill and which have been established for some time.
      I refer in particular to the constitution of the advisory committee. In a written question to the Minister in column 58 of Hansard on 18 June this year, I asked her in what way declarations of interest on the advisory committee are stated. This is relevant because the amendment states that information about pesticides is required to be made available to the public. I point out to the Minister that it is also important to have information about the decision-making process made available to the public. This is a matter of concern to me and, I believe, to other hon. Members, and I hope that the Minister will see fit to touch on it. With regard to the declaration of interests by members of the advisory committee, the members at present are required only to sign a piece of paper which says:
      "I have no commercial interest which might make it undesirable for me to receive confidential trade information."
      In relation to freedom of information, it seems curious to me that members are not required to make—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Will the hon. Gentleman tell me to which amendment his remarks relate? I find it difficult to see such a link.
      Mr. Ashdown: It is amendment No. 22,
      "with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public".
      930
      My case is that this should include information about the way in which the decisions on pesticides are made. It is on that matter that I wish the Minister to comment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is difficult to see the relationship between the two that the hon. Gentleman draws.
      Mr. Ashdown: I ask the Minister to consider accepting as more appropriate amendment No. 56 tabled by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, which is broader and may well allow for members of the advisory committee on pesticides to nominate their interests in a more specifc fashion. We are dealing with decisions taken in secret about products which could cost £1 million to bring to market. It is important that members of the public should have full confidence in how the decisions are taken. Therefore, a broader declaration of interest would be more appropriate if the Minister is indeed interested in following through full freedom of information effectively in the Bill.
      Mr. Brynmor John: It is necessary to comment only shortly upon the debate, in view of the long discussion on the subject in Committee.
      We started from the premise that as full information on pesticides as possible should be available on the basis that public concern relates to the concealment of information. This gives rise to fears which, although they may be groundless to the experts, are nevertheless real because members of the public are unable to comprehend fully.
      I welcome amendments Nos. 21 and 22 as a move from what is provided in clause 15(5), dwelling exclusively upon confidentiality and commercial considerations, towards a presumption that full information shall be available.
      I understand the fears expressed by hon. Members about the face of the Bill, but we must be clear that the mechanism provided by the Bill on this matter, as on so much else, is little evident on the face of the Bill. Little on the face of the Bill is adequately covered by amendment No. 22. Regulations will follow under clause 15(2)(j) which will provide for the type of information required. I believe that here we must be vigilant to ensure that summaries are not perfunctory and the information provided is not sketchy. We must ensure that the sort of information mentioned by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston is incorporated in those regulations. It will be for us at the stage of consideration of the Government regulations to make sure that that is so.
      I am glad that the Government earlier in Committee stated that hon. Members would be involved in the consultation process on the draft regulations and would be able to make the necessary representations. I believe that, if we are not satisfied with the draft regulations, we will make those representations.
      What is included on the face of the Bill is a major step forward. For the first time in consideration of the Bill the Government are saying that the provisions shall have the effect of providing information. In my view, that general statement of intent must be followed up by adequate information being provided for in the regulations. Parliament will scrutinise the regulations closely and, if they are inadequate, will be accordingly critical. I believe that the fullest information possible should be available and the exemptions allowing secrecy should be kept to a

      931
      minimum. The public will be more reassured by information being available than they will by its being hidden.
      Secondly, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It is one thing to have information available, but it is another if it is available, as some farming booklets are, at a price of approximately £15. Price can be a determinant of how widely knowledge is disseminated. If there is an entry of the type mentioned by one of my hon. Friends in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency in America dealing with particular chemicals, that should be done at as nominal a sum as possible. I underline that, although I am sure that the Government have it in mind. In this way, those who are interested in obtaining the information will have it freely and without undue expense.
      I welcome the Government's amendments on this matter as meeting a point that was widely canvassed in Committee as a source of anxiety.
      Mrs. Fenner: I welcome the acceptance of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) of amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and the motives of the Government in tabling them. The amendments make clear the purpose of the Bill. Concern has been expressed that the purpose should be made clearer, and that the amendments seek to do. I understand that hon. Members will scrutinise the regulations carefully to be sure that they live up to that objective.
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). I had intended to refer to amendment No. 26 to try to prevent a misunderstanding of the kind which has arisen in the mind of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I am glad that the hon. Member for Pontypridd understands what we are trying to do.
      The amendment to clause 15(2)(j) is a technical one to enable Ministers to recover the costs of copying and postage, if necessary, from those who request information about pesticides. The Government's intention is to provide in part III a measure similar to that already contained in the last three lines of paragraph 13 of part II. Parliamentary counsel have drafted the amendment with some care to ensure that the provision covers only the incidental costs of providing copies of the document. I assure the Committee that this will not have the effect of inhibiting the public's access to information. Equally, we must not run the risk of becoming an unlimited source of free material at public expense.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, who has tried to table an amendment that meets the needs of all concerned with disclosure of information. Amendment No. 56 is admirably drafted, but it has one serious disadvantage from the Government's point of view. The amendment does not provide for the release of raw data, but our advice is that Ministers will be constrained to provide access to raw data to anybody who requests it. I explained in Committee that it would involve great administrative effort and that the advantage would in practice be small. The amendment would prevent the provision of summaries of data.
      4.30 pm
      I have already explained that summaries have been prepared for the meeting of the advisory committee. They include methodology, details of tests, the different kinds of animals and periods of time. Carcinogenicity,
      932
      mutagenicity and teratogenicity are described in the summaries, and the questions surrounding pesticides are also listed. Therefore, I assure him that the summaries include all the details that he said are not included. They are lengthy, amounting to about 20 pages.
      The Freedom of Information Campaign agrees with the Government that the summaries would satisfy the overwhelming majority of inquiries. The raw data on each approved product stand about 3 ft high. It would be a waste of time and effort to make that information available to everybody. Access to raw data may be of use to those engaged in research, and we are prepared to consider granting access to it if a scientific case can be established. We shall discuss the matter when we consult all the relevant interests about the proposals.
      The Bill would not prevent either this Government or any other Government from providing access to raw data. I have explained the problem of providing an extreme degree of public access to raw data. My hon. Friend's amendment constrains Ministers to provide access to raw data to anybody who requests it. I hope that I have reassured him about the contents of the summaries and that he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made a serious point about lemons in London. The pesticide residue working group survey found that lemons in London have exceeded the codex limit of 10 parts per million. Between 1981 and 1984 the level occasionally found was 18 ppm. However, hon. Members who consume large quantities of gin and tonic are much more likely to contract cirrhosis of the liver and to be put at risk than they are if they consume lemons.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It appears that research shows that there may be other sale points at which the danger level is much higher. Can the Minister assure the House that it will be provided with that information, whether in the form of raw data or a summary, before the Bill is enacted so that protection may be provided?
      Mrs. Fenner: We monitor residue levels not only in individual items but in the complete diet. The levels found over many years have been well below the level that is internationally regarded as safe, and the levels are declining. The Bill provides for action to be taken on residue levels.
      I appreciate hon. Members' difficulty about understanding how far the Government have moved on this issue. I become a little agitated when I am told that I am being dragged screaming into the 20th century. We have sought to enact a good Bill. The Government are not being dragged into the 20th century. The legisation permits disclosure in full about safety data, but in practice that must be subject to consultation and practical considerations—how long it will take, how much it will cost and how much information is required. We must attempt to reach consensus within the ordinary practical constraints of commercial secrecy. We shall make available all the information that is necessary to reassure the public about the safety of the pesticide in question.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 15, line 19, at end insert—
      'and (b) with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public;'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
      Mrs. Fenner:I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 15, line 19, at end insert—

      933
      'and references in this Part of this Act to the general purposes of this Part of this Act are references to the purposes mentioned in this subsection.'.
      Mr. Deupty Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 30 and 44.
      Mrs. Fenner: These are purely drafting amendments. Their effect will be to remove subsection (8) from clause 17 and to insert it at the end of clause 15, to remove superfluous words from subsection (7) in clause 15, and to provide drafting improvements that are consequential upon the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. David Clark:I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 15, line 41, at end insert—
      '(ff) provide for the payment of compensation to beekeepers who incur financial loss as a result of the use of pesticides;'.
      This amendment tries to create a statutory compensation scheme for beekeepers who incur financial loss by using pesticides. In Committee and on Report we have spent many hours talking about birds. It is perhaps appropriate that we are now talking about bees. They are very much affected by the misuse — I emphasise the word "misuse"—of pesticides.
      Bees are a valuable national asset. They provide us with a considerable amount of honey and serve a useful agricultural purpose. It is therefore in the interest of nobody that bees should be killed by pesticides. Nevertheless, there are about 36,000 colonies of bees in this country and according to the Beekeepers Association there are between 100 and 200 incidents each year of bees being affected by pesticides. About 1 per cent. of beehives are affected each year by pesticide poisoning. We ought to try to reduce it and, if it occurs, we ought to be able to offer compensation to the beekeepers. Aerial spraying in particular is responsible for poisoning bees and causing most of the damage.
      Another cause for concern is the increase in the cultivation of oilseed rape. If oilseed rape is incorrectly sprayed, many more bees die. We are aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issues guidance to both beekeepers and farmers each year and urges the farmers to keep to a code of conduct.
      Mr. John Carlisle: If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, he was talking about the spraying of oilseed rape and the fact that many bees die. Surely he would acknowledge, though, that the vast acreage of oilseed rape that is now grown is of direct benefit to beekeepers. Indeed, much honey now comes from oilseed rape, although it is not as tasty as honey from lime trees and other sources.
      Dr. Clark: I did make the point that I was talking about the misuse of pesticides. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow that particular analogy, looking at the benefits to beekeepers of oilseed rape, I would refer him to a very useful article in Farmers Weekly of 12 April by a beekeeper who produces a great amount of honey from oilseed rape. However, without going into the technical aspects, as the hon. Member knows, one should not spray oilseed rape when it is in flower because that is the time when the bees are killed. I am very much aware of the point raised.
      934
      It is worrying that bees are killed, but what is perhaps also worrying is the great difficulty that beekeepers have in claiming compensation. I will quote a particular case to the House because it exemplifies the problem very clearly. It concerns a Mr. Houldey of Hartpury in Gloucestershire. I know that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who is here today and has been of assistance to Mr. Houldey, will not mind my quoting the case because I think he accepts that it raises a very serious point.
      Mr. Houldey has had a number of spraying incidents. In 1984 alone, in four separate incidents, he lost 47 hives of bees. He estimates his total financial loss to be about £9,000. The interesting point is that, in spite of the fact that Mr. Houldey received compensation in one case, in one of the other cases the contractor was successfully prosecuted but compensation was still refused by the NFU Mutual Insurance Company, which said to Mr. Houldey, "Sue us." Of course, no small farmer or beekeeper is going to take on a massive insurance company; he just has not got the financial assets to risk. I think it is a matter of shame that the NFU Mutual Insurance Company, which by and large has a very good reputation, is refusing to pay compensation in this case.
      I raised that example to show the difficulties that beekeepers face. The difficulties come from two main points: first, the failure of farmers, but mainly of contractors, to give notice and to abide by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service recommendations and code of conduct; and, secondly, the question of getting compensation even when the claimant is able to bring a successful case for compensation.
      We believe that there is need to compensate beekeepers. We emphasise that we wish that the code of practice and the Ministry of Agriculture recommendations were more strictly adhered to by contractors and farmers. However, we accept that accidents will happen and that there will be misuse of pesticides. We believe that in such cases there should be compensation paid to the beekeepers, and that is what we call for in this amendment.
      Mrs. Fenner: The Government cannot accept this amendment, which singles out one sector of the community for right to compensation in law. Such a provision might prejudice the position of others, if they found themselves in dispute with users of pesticides.
      The proper course of action for such grievances is to seek redress in the courts, and I know from a recent case that aggrieved beekeepers have been successful in such actions. The case to which I refer was brought to court before we introduced this legislation to enable Ministers to control use of statute. In finding against the farmer, the judge relied on the considerable advice already made available to users of pesticides both from my Department and from the pesticide manufacturer about the effects of pesticides on bees. I shall explain the action taken by my Department in this area.
      4.45 pm
      When pesticides intended for use in agriculture are submitted for clearance under the PSPS, information on their toxicity to bees is invariably taken into account. By their very nature most insecticides are toxic to bees to a greater or lesser extent; but an unacceptable level of risk would in itself be sufficient grounds for denying a particular clearance. Such decisions have been taken in the past. The withdrawal of clearance in 1978 for the aerial

      935
      application of triazophos to oilseed rape was such a case. Cleared products may carry labels with warning phrases, such as "Dangerous/harmful to bees. Do not apply at flowering stage. Keep down flowering weeds."
      To back up the warnings on product labels, my Department provides a great deal of advice to farmers and growers about the use of these pesticides. We give warnings on the general incidence of pest attack and the circumstances in which spraying should be, or is unlikely to be, cost-effective. When we advise that spraying is worth while we recommend farmers to use wherever practicable pesticides that are least toxic to bees, to spray early in the morning or late in the evening, when bee activity is minimal, and generally to take care and to think of others when spraying. We issue a considerable amount of publicity' literature. All this is supplemented by advice to individual farmers.
      Furthermore, our scientists are ready to investigate any incidents involving the suspected poisoning of bees by pesticides whenever the beekeeper concerned is able to provide a sample of the bees for chemical analysis. The Ministry also arranges meetings at both the national and the local level between representatives of the National Farmers Union, the beekeepers associations and spraying contractors. Our objective is to get the people involved to discuss common problems and to agree on the measures necessary to prevent bee losses from crop spraying. I believe that advice, consultation and communication are the best way to ensure that growers and beekeepers are aware of each other's problems and needs and aware of how to co-exist.
      Our legislation will add another dimension. During our consultations on its implementation we shall need to consider very carefully how to protect bees by legal control—for example, by making application at the flowering stage of certain crops an offence. But this is the kind of detailed control on which we must consult all interests affected, so I speak without commitment.
      I hope that with this explanation the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
      Dr. David Clark: I must admit that I find the last comment from the Minister very helpful and I take the point that she is talking only about the possibility. If the Ministry of Agriculture is about to consider that possibility in the future, that is somewhat reassuring. There has been movement in law and in the case to which the Minister referred—which I think was a case in Sussex where a number of beekeepers combined and were paid damages of about £7,000 for loss of honey crops—the High Court judge did clarify the ruling as to what exactly a bee was, whether a bee was trespassing, and so on. I think that as a result we have moved forward.
      I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 26, in page 16, line 21, at end insert
      'and to payment of such reasonable fees for furnishing copies as the Ministers may with the consent of the Treasury determine,'.
      Mrs. Fenner: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 17, line 16, leave out
      'when consulted in accordance with subsection (9) below, and'
      and insert
      ', either when requested to do so or otherwise,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 29.
      Mrs. Fenner: These amendments are minor drafting improvements suggested by the parliamentary draftsman to the new subsection 15(7), which was adopted in Committee. My hon. Friend said in Committee that they might be necessary and I hope that the House will accept them.
      Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for tabling this minor amendment and also for her letter to me on this matter. There is certainly no weakening of the Committee's intention in the amendment. The key to the amendments made in Committee was that the advisory committee should offer advice upon matters that concerned it without being asked, and that has been preserved intact. The House regards that as an important point, and it probably deals with some of the points that we discussed earlier about the provision of information and so on. If the advisory committee feels that additional information should be made available, it can proffer advice to the Minister without being asked. Therefore, I am grateful to my hon.
      Friend for what she has been able to do.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 17, line 18, leave out
      'on which it considers it should offer its advice'.
      No. 30, in page 17, line 20, leave out
      'mentioned in subsection (1) above'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
      Mr. John:I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 17, line 26, at end insert—
      '(aa) as to the extent and implications of resistance to pesticides among pests in Britain;'.
      This amendment brings us back to a point that was raised in Committee, but which, for one reason or another, was not responded to in full.
      For a long time there has been considerable anxiety that the very objects for which pesticides are designed are developing immunity to them. Therefore, the pesticides which in minute quantities could kill and control the pests, can no longer do so.
      The Royal Commission on environmental pollution mentioned that factor, but said that it found it difficult to get an exact picture of both the seriousness and the scope of the problem. Many scientists throughout the world are concerned that constant use of pesticides is developing strains of pests immune to their toxicity. There is anxiety that what I call the first world war mentality—that is, if there is resistance we put forth even more to overcome that resistance, which develops more resistance—should be avoided at all costs.
      The Ministry acknowledged the problem but put it on the governmental back burner by saying that, although there was a problem, it would not occur until the end of the century. But, of course, even the end of the century is only 15 years away and we are talking about a development of other sources of pest control that are effective during that short time.
      I think that we all agree that pesticides should be used at the minimum level consistent with being effective. Because there is resistance to a certain pesticide, we do not want to engender the philosophy that the farmer should add a little extra in the hope that it will kill the blighters.

      937
      The Minister said that there were 25 strains resistant to 28 pesticides. We have also been told that both fungicides and herbicides are finding resistant strains. The Farmers Weekly on 15 March noted:
      "Earlier drilling of winter cereal and widespread use of fungicides may lead to a sudden rise in MBC-resistant eyespot."
      People are worried because in the ADAS eastern region the resistant strains had risen by 90 per cent. in the year 1984–85. There are similar quantum leaps in resistance in other crops.
      The Big Farm Weekly of 11 April said:
      "The first signs of herbicide resistance in blackgrass have been recorded by scientists at the Weed Research Organisation, Oxford."
      When I was looking at the fairly daunting forecasts for the size of this year's harvest—that is, if we ever get any warm weather—the problem of blackgrass was central to the question of cereals. Blackgrass is now becoming resistant to herbicides, so a major problem is arising.
      The amendment seeks to ensure that the Ministry consults the advisory committee about pesticides so that it can express its view on this increasing problem. There is no doubt that a resistance will occur, that it will take different forms, that it will apply to a wider spectrum of crops and that it will cause many problems.
      In Committee, a similar amendment was moved as one of a large group. I am sure that that is why the Minister replied to it with less than her usual thoroughness. I counted about six lines in Hansard—and I was being generous—when I read her reply. But such is the importance of the subject that it warrants a reply. The Government should refer the problem to the ACP at the earliest possible opportunity to determine how it may be overcome and what may be done to avoid resistant strains growing. I hope that the Government can reassure me on that.
      I tabled the amendment not to make a party political point or even a point of sharp difference, but to try to make the legislation—as the hon. Lady wishes—as good as we can possibly make it.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: This amendment is a watered-down version of an amendment tabled in Committee, but it is effective. The amendment tabled in Committee asked for a report to Parliament on resistant pests, but it was negatived.
      The most serious problem of pesticides is that they can lose their effectiveness due to the appearance of tolerant strains of pest. The pesticides create selection pressure on pest populations that invariably have a genetic pool of widely differing susceptibility to the poison. Certain strong individuals survive the pesticide to breed the next generation. The tolerant pest strain is so serious because there is a real danger that the appearance of such strains will obstruct the production of effective pesticides. The outcome is that we are led to increase the amount of pesticides used to counter the resistance, and that is at the heart of much of our concern and underlines the need to table the amendment.
      If we are to respect the policy of minimising the use of pesticides to a degree compatible with efficient farming, a thorough consideration of the implications of resistance is of the utmost importance. The Minister said in Committee that resistance did not necessarily lead to a breakdown of control because there were alternatives. It
      938
      would be a necessary function of consultations with the advisory committee to determine — based on an appreciation of the extent of the resistance — the implications for the implementation of alternative measures. It is only within the past 10 years that any progress has been made in collecting the data necessary to formulate strategies to control the spread of resistance. Many opportunities have been missed and research has been largely limited to listing occurrences and investigating inheritance patterns and biochemical mechanisms. That is unsatisfactory. We need to understand all the processes, including the evolutionary ones, that lead to a failure in pest control. If we wait until there is a control failure it will be far too late. The alternative attitude is to assume that resistance will eventually arise everywhere and to treat it with larger and larger doses. Our amendment seeks to avoid such an approach, which would be environmentally and economically unsound. It would certainly be most unpopular and damaging to everything that we hold sacred in the countryside.
      5 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment and endorse the arguments for it. If the amendment is accepted and included in the three specific matters on which the advisory committee should be consulted, the importance of the increasing resistance that exists because of the genetic process of pesticides will be highlighted.
      I know that the Minister made a response in Committee. I know she is aware of the problem and I accept that the advisory committee will consider the issue, but the question is whether it will regard the matter as sufficiently important to devote some of its members' time to it.
      The most graphic example that I have seen recently—the Minister will have seen it also—is the super-rat, which is resistant to all rat poison and rat removal operations known to local authorities which deal with rodent control. Small rats are difficult and frightening enough to deal with, and we wish to remove them from our communities, but now we have super-rats, which cause great alarm where that species is found.
      I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and incorporate the amendment as a specific task for the committee.
      Mrs. Fenner: My Department already undertakes a considerable amount of work on resistance to pesticides in agriculture, horticulture and food storage and among houseflies and rodents. I apologise if my response in Committee was brief. I am trying not to be too wordy now, but I feel compelled to inform hon. Members about the work that is carried out.
      The Ministry has a small team at Harpenden monitoring crop pest and disease resistance on a regular basis, and at present its work is directed to monitoring eight aphid species of economic importance. As the answers to many questions show, resistance has been confirmed in three of these species. Our regional laboratory at Wye is responsible for monitoring resistance in pests of protected crops for which the problem is most acute, but which have benefited from considerable work on integrated pest control.
      Resistance to pesticides for storage pests and houseflies is monitored by the Slough laboratory in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for

      939
      Scotland and Ministry advisers. The pests covered include seven species of storage pests, houseflies in poultry houses and in intensive animal-rearing units, beetles in poultry houses and mites in cheese stores. Resistance to malathion has been demonstrated in one grain beetle and resistance to the fumigant phosphine occurs in stored grain beetles. Flies in animal houses developed resistance to a pyrethroid insecticide which was withdrawn, and the laboratory was instrumental in developing alternative controls. Mites in cheese stores are now resistant to available pesticides, and the Slough laboratory is investigating fumigation techniques to achieve control of pesticide-resistant cheese mites.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to resistance in rodents. Work on the extent and implications of anti-coagulant resistance in rodents has mostly been undertaken by the Ministry's agricultural science service, although some studies have been carried out in universities. Monitoring of the extent and incidence of resistance has also been carried out by the Ministry. Staff at the agricultural science service central laboratories are researching two methods of controlling anti-coagulant resistant rodents, alongside work to screen candidates for new rodenticides submitted by the pesticide manufacturers.
      I hope that I have given hon. Members some idea of some of the programmes relating to resistance to pesticides. I should say to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the advisory committee already considers the problems of resistance to individual pesticides, and with the widening of its terms of reference as a result of this legislation, it will be given powers to examine the extent and implications of resistance to pesticides. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. We are very conscious of the problem and are already devoting considerable resources to investigating and overcoming it.
      Mr. John: I knew that, given a little encouragement, the Minister would give vent to the self-expression which was denied to us in her six-line answer in Committee. I am reassured by her comments on the work that is continuing, and especially by her confirmation that the widening of the terms of reference of the ACP will mean that its task of solving the problems will be far easier. Given her assurance that it is unnecessary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '(10A) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Ministers shall jointly review the extent of and necessity for aerial spraying of pesticides and shall report to Parliament with proposals for reducing the use of this method of application.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 34, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '(10A) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Ministers shall jointly review the scope for improving techniques of pesticide application and for promoting integrated pest management and shall set out in a report to Parliament a strategy for reducing the use of pesticides to a minimum consistent with efficient food production.'.
      Mr. John: The only connecting factor in the two amendments is the fact that they choose the same mechanism—a review by Ministers within 12 months of
      940
      the passing of the Bill — to deal with two separate matters. The first is aerial spraying. Lest there be any misunderstanding, especially on the part of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who challenged me on this point, I should say that some aerial spraying is necessary, for example, in difficult terrain. The spraying of upland bracken is extremely important, and spraying is important in controlling pests in forests. However, modern technology has already made it less necessary to use aerial spraying in the lowlands than it was some years ago. The development of low-pressure-tyre vehicles means that spraying can now be done by ground-based vehicles in conditions which would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and probably less. Therefore, to some extent, the need for aerial spraying in the lowlands has diminished.
      We are asking for a report to be produced with a view to reducing aerial spraying to the minimum necessary. I should set out briefly to the House my reasons for asking for this limitation. One point that was voiced in Committee—it has been voiced by environmental groups and at public meetings—is the tremendous concern about aerial spraying, and about the involvement, accidental or otherwise, of people, animals and flora. There is unresolved public anxiety, which is not reassured by the often well-meaning statements that nothing can happen and that there is no real problem or danger. Many of those incidents are highly frightening and cause a great deal of emotion. We will not be reassured unless MAFF examines the working of the Act and aerial spraying, and reports to the House so that the matter can be publicly aired.
      A second reason why the minimisation of aerial spraying should be undertaken — in Committee we considered a few fairly ropey forms of spraying—is that of all forms of spraying, it is probably the most inaccurate. I expect that many members of the Committee will have received a recent memo in which the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reiterates its concern for areas that become affected, although those areas were not due to be sprayed. Two of the examples that it gives are SSSIs and ponds. Spray drift is a particular problem for aerial spraying. It is a problem in itself, and relates to the next reason why I believe that a report is necessary, which is that on occasions aerial contractors spray in unsuitable weather conditions. That climatic problem means that wider areas of land are affected than originally intended. The effect of that on the inhabitants of neighbouring properties is tremendous.
      The third reason is that often such spraying is unannounced. The Minister will no doubt reassure me that a formula is laid down under which spraying visits are reported to the nearest police headquarters, and so on but I ask her to accept the evidence, produced on an anecdotal but significant basis by hon. Members, which shows that in practice many people find aircraft spraying crops adjacent to their properties without having had the faintest idea that spraying was to take place that day or that low-flying aircraft would spray at or comparatively near to houses.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has my hon. Friend seen the report of Friends of the Earth, which has been circulated to hon. Members—copies have been sent to Ministers and to the Prime Minister—which sets out in detail the facts of a number of incidents that have taken place this

      941
      year when people have not complied with the rules? Do they not show that there is a need to tighten up in this area where there is abuse by many aerial sprayers?
      Mr. John: I have seen that report. I was going to refer to it both in that connection and in response to the riposte that the Government may feel obliged to make, which is that the number of incidents reported are small. I contend that there are many more incidents that those that are reported.
      I shall return to the point relating to an unannounced visit, with an aircraft flying fairly low and unreasonably close to dwelling houses or other buildings. That has an affect on people. In a letter written to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) I noticed that it said that in Germany, for example, the intention of a contractor to spray aerially must be conveyed to both the police and the local authority. I hope that in the Bill we shall secure, among other things, much more effective communication about where aerial spraying will take place. Those are the reasons why the report is necessary within 12 months to reassure the public. It should be targeted towards the reduction of aerial spraying.
      As I have said and as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) pointed out, the number of incidents reported is comparatively low. I believe that it bears only scant relationship to the number of incidents that occur. The Friends of The Earth report suggests that where the public are gathered together at a meeting there is immediate testimony to such incidents by many. That is of much greater significance than the number of reports suggest. That may be due partly to the complexity of the rules of reporting, and partly to a lack of knowledge about how to go about reporting and why it should be done.
      5.15 pm
      We must also take account of the feeling that the controls are not properly enforced. On 26 April in a Ministry press release I noticed a warning about pesticide spraying and the minimisation of risks. The warning is fairly prominently displayed and says:
      "The CAA will prosecute and in serious cases revoke an operator's Aerial Application Certificate if its requirements are not observed."
      Would that that were so. It does not seem to be the case, in view of the low number of prosecutions this decade—the average must be about three a year. Although that number started from a low base and has increased to six or seven a year, such a reminder is not likely to strike terror into the hearts of the aerial operators who may undertake the work.
      There is a widespread belief among reputable people in the agriculture industry that the CAA does not carry out its duties in this case with the same degree of interest as it devotes to other duties. I ask the Minister to accept that that is the feeling of people in agriculture. That needs to be borne in mind when we consider the preparation of a report and the consideration of aerial spraying generally.
      My fourth point is that any admission of departmental responsibility between the Department of Transport and MAFF is blurred. That was referred to on 16 April in Committee when the Minister, reminded of the fact that the Royal Commission on environmental pollution had already drawn attention to the matter, said that a review
      942
      would be undertaken and a statement made about departmental responsiblity and the relationship between the Department of Transport and MAFF on this subject. Will she tell us when that review and statement can be expected because they are important?
      I understand from the farming press that the review of clearances for aerial spraying has already been begun by the advisory committee on pesticides. Will she confirm that, and tell us when the committee is likely to complete its review? As aerial spraying is an important subject and a potentially damaging form of pesticide spraying we should like a separate report on it to consider the aspects of safety and dislocation for those living in the countryside, and to deal with the question of how to reduce that form of spraying to minimum.
      Amendment No. 34 deals with the improvement of application technique. It is important and calls for a system of integrated test management. We alluded to it in part when we talked about resistance to pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides of present strains of produce, which will apply in future. We are committed—the Minister was good enough to confirm this—to the use in agriculture of the minimum amount of pesticides, consistent with the effective use of that pesticide to control pests on crops.
      We need the most efficient and accurate techniques possible, and well maintained equipment. Those two things do not necessarily automatically follow. Sometimes we have good designs which a few farmers, wanting to reduce their costs, use long after the repair and maintenance of such equipment has been neglected. We sometimes have inefficient systems, which are not as modern as they can be. The result is that there is unnecessary spraying of pesticides.
      There are two general methods of spraying which would yield a lower pesticide use—ultra-low volume or controlled droplet application. We examined these two methods in detail earlier, but I refer the Minister to an article in Farmers Weekly of 20 June about low volume spraying. The article claims that low volume spraying minimises the check to the crops that spraying inevitably gives them. It is calculated that the use of ultra-low volume spraying or controlled droplet application is equivalent to a 25 per cent. reduction in the use of the active ingredient in pesticides.
      In a report from a conference which appeared in Big Farm Weekly an ADAS representative who is an entomologist said that one third of all insecticide sprays applied to cereals were a waste of money. That must give the farmer and outselves a great deal of food for thought. The representative described revenge spraying. That occurs when the cosmetic damage to the crops leads farmers to want to get rid of the pests merely for the sake of the crops' appearance rather than to improve the quality of the crop.
      The Opposition call for an integrated pest control system. Apart from the techniques that we adopt in the spraying of pesticides, there are a number of other steps which would and should be taken, such as crop rotation, the timing of planting, soil management, the use of pest and disease resistant crop varieties and, most importantly, biological controls, which are a growing source of pest control.
      Biological control, as a preventive measure, has been discussed in Committee and its most interesting use at present is in the glasshouse cultivation of salad crops. Dr.

      943
      Payne, and others, have been responsible for developments in that sector. In Farmers Weekly of 14 June there is an article about Doctor Lynch of the Glasshouse Crops Research Institute. He has pioneered techniques which include straw breakdown. The active microbes released through that process will form a pest control. That new development shows the importance of soil surveys in identifying where a turning-in of straw would provide maximum benefit and could be done safely and to the benefit of the soil. I commend to the Minister early-day motion 575 that I have tabled on that subject. It would be to the country's and the farmers' advantage to study it. It will be at least four years before those developments are commercially applicable and viable.
      Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman knows that the turning back of straw can create bacteria and soil-borne diseases which are detrimental to the crop. In some cases, a form of chemical application may be necessary to cure those very bugs—if I may use that term—which are engendered by keeping the straw rather than destroying it by burning.
      Mr. John: Yes, I understand that, but that is the value of Dr. Lynch's research. It is important. The soil survey would be able to advise whether it would be beneficial to turn straw back or whether it would present the risks of which the hon. Gentleman speaks, in which case one would not expect it to be done.
      There is likely to be a spin-off from the work of Dr. Payne and Dr. Lynch within the fairly near future not just for glasshouse crops but for outdoor crops. Farmers Weekly of 7 June talks about microbial techniques and the fact that Microbial Resources Ltd. has pioneered five pesticides based upon the biological method of control. We are talking about the many possibilities that there will be in the future for growing crops.
      More importantly, there has been general unease about the use of pesticides on stored crops. That is a facet of the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The use of pesticides on stored crops can be a problem unless they are severely controlled. The use of insect hormones, which is being pioneered instead of pesticides, would provide a safer way of preserving the quality of stored crops.
      In the research programme there are exciting possibilities for the biological rather than chemical control of pests. We are asking for an overall strategy, which combines healthy crops with the lowest possible input of chemical pesticides.
      Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 call for the Government to study the results of the control of pesticides after the first year of the Act's operation and to return to Parliament with a report so that we can continue the debate which the Bill has stimulated and which has revealed a degree of unease about the use of chemical pesticides that the House ignores at its peril.
      Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), in his usual charming way, has put forward two reasonably attractive amendments. He will, perhaps, forgive me if I concentrate on amendment No. 33. However, when he spoke about amendment No. 34 he expressed the hope of many within the industry that improved methods will be used and he is correct to point out that more research will need more funds. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note, and that every encouragement will be given to any such projects so that
      944
      we might one day be able to move to biological rather than chemical answers to some of our problems for the majority of the time. I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman said about amendment No. 34.
      One is tempted to go over some of the ground that was extensively debated in Committee in relation to the proposals contained in amendment No. 33. I shall, however, try to confine my comments to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am not entirely attracted to that amendment because an instruction to the industry to reduce aerial spraying is creeping in. He correctly pointed out that with modern techniques and methods the need for aerial spraying is not as important as it was, but the "necessity" — I use his word — exists. It has been relevant over the past few days and weeks.
      It does not need someone who knows much about agriculture to understand that ground conditions are now such that in many parts of the country the ground application of pesticides would be impossible. Judging by the conditions in the part of the world where I live, and on my farm, that will probably be impossible until we harvest the crop some time in August.
      The House must not underestimate the tremendous boost and bonus that aerial spraying has brought to crops. Our food production system is efficient and good and we are able to enjoy remarkable cereal crops partly because aerial spraying is available and has been used sensibly by the industry in the last few years.
      5.30 pm
      I do not want the message to go from the House to the industry that we are intent on reducing aerial spraying so that one day a Government, of whatever colour, might consider legislating to ban it. That would be a sad day. I was pleased with the Opposition's stance in Committee when they said that they would never go down that road. I hope that if they ever become the Government—God forbid—they will remain of that opinion.
      I shall deal with some of the arguments by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. He talked about public anxiety. He is right to say that a low-flying aircraft can be frightening, particularly if notice has not been given. However, Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends agree that scare stories are often put about. Many allegations are unfounded, but just because the number of prosecutions is small does not mean that instances have not occurred.
      I was disturbed when the hon. Member for Pontypridd implied that he did not believe the figures. All allegations are investigated thoroughly. The public easily become anxious and there is talk of scaremongering. The reports from the public are no more than allegations. They are always investigated and are often unfounded. However, I acknowledge the anxiety about aerial spraying. It is a dangerous occupation, not only for the pilot but for people on the ground.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) seems to be trying to minimise the dangers and value of reported incidents. Is he saying that the report by the Friends of the Earth is irrelevant? Is he saying that most of the allegations are empty and do not reflect what happens? Does he understand that only with difficulty can a private citizen successfully secure a prosecution? Will he address himself to that problem?
      Mr. Carlisle: Of course I have seen the report. I do not minimise the dangers or the allegations. The hon. Member

      945
      for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will have seen the figures put out by the British Agrochemicals Association and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which show that a large number of allegations are found to be unjustified after investigation. That is not to say that members of the public are not expressing an anxiety that anyone would express after seeing a low-flying aircraft near or over his house. Anyone would be anxious about what would happen if he came in the path of the spray. I am saying that not every allegation is found to be justified after investigation.
      Accuracy is important. The industry is concerned about it, if only because of the cost of the chemicals. It would be foolish for any farmer or grower to spray a crop in a strong wind—this cannot be done under the code of conduct — because he would probably spray his neighbour's crop instead of his own. The code of conduct lays down strict rules so that no spraying can take place when the wind is above a certain speed. Some drift could occur, but the 200 ft recommendation solves the problem of spray drift, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd over-emphasised.
      The hon. Member argued for more effective communication. Most hon. Members would support him in that, as would most people in the industry. The debates on the Floor of the House today and in Committee will have informed the trade that the public needs to be told what is happening. The trade has already responded. It fully realises that the public must be told where spraying is to take place and that it has a duty to people who live in the area. The point has been well taken.
      In general, we must be careful not to discourage the aerial spraying industry, which is engaged in an expensive and necessary operation. It is necessary, not only for the large areas of cereal crops in the East Anglia region which I represent but, as the hon. Member said, in the Highlands and overseas. If we lost the technique of aerial spraying and the ability to spray, food production would suffer. The message must go from the House that aerial spraying should continue under the strictest control and with cognisance of the public's anxiety. I do not think that it is the duty of any Government to give instructions to the industry. It will sort itself out in its own way. The market should take its own course. If aerial spraying proves to be an impossible operation for farmers because of its expense or practicalities it will go away. I believe that aerial spraying will be with us for a long time and that it will be of great benefit to agriculture and the community.
      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I have great sympathy with the two amendments. A reduction in serial spraying is necessary. First, it is necessary to assist conservation. A reduction in aerial spraying will improve our efforts to conserve wild life. Secondly, a reduction in aerial spraying would be welcomed by the public, which regards it as a nuisance. Many people have suffered from it. Thirdly, a reduction in aerial spraying will not be detrimental to farming. We have the techniques to ensure that we can, regardless of the weather, put pesticides on to the crops at the right time.
      We must accept that aerial spraying inevitably leads to drift. However skilled the operator, it is almost impossible to avoid some drift in any conditions. It is almost impossible to avoid the spray drifting over hedgerows and
      946
      into neighbouring areas. There is a clear need for greater controls because the damage that aerial spraying does under any conditions cannot be denied.
      There are fewer arguments for aerial spraying than there used to be. We discussed in Committee new developments such as low-pressure tyres which can travel over heavy clay lands, even when they are wet. The tramline system enables a vehicle to go even into an oilseed rape crop. As a farmer growing oilseed rape a few years ago, I had to use aerial spraying at certain times of the year. Those days are gone because we have developed other techniques and machines which can spray crops from the ground. We do not now have the technical need for aerial spraying. Now that we have advanced, aerial spraying should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I doubt whether the Civil Aviation Authority has the right methods to control area spraying. Perhaps in a year's time, under the review, we should look for a system of licences to be issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for those exceptional cases where aerial spraying will take place because other techniques do not exist.
      I welcome amendment No. 34. Without any doubt the great increase in the use of chemicals in the countryside has led to increasing damage to the wildlife and to the conservation of our natural heritage. We must put far greater emphasis on the use of techniques and sprays that will minimise this damage.
      My hon. Friend the Minister gave a helpful answer during Question Time the other day that explained how the Government are attempting to explore techniques for the better application of sprays. I welcome that but I think we must go further. It is essential that the sprays we use are far more specific. They should attack the problem and should not affect other insects and weeds that are harmless. We need equipment that is more accurate and ensures that the sprays affect only the area that needs spraying and do not drift and vaporise.
      I welcome the fact that the amendment advocates integrated pest management. A good example of such management is the research being undertaken by the Game Conservancy. Under this research 6 m is left round the hedgerows which is unsprayed either by pesticides or herbicides. This has had a beneficial effect on the numbers of insects which survive as well as butterflies and hence on birdlife. Indeed it has had a beneficial effect on the whole of wildlife. The evidence shows that yields have not been affected if the system is managed well. This is a good example of integrated pest management without any loss of agricultural production. I ask the Minister to support the scheme and to consider other ways in which we can seek a balance between agriculture and conservation. To achieve this it would be necessary to publish from time to time our findings and our strategy. It is one thing to have vague aspirations but quite another to set down what we have accomplished, what our intentions are and how we are to achieve the goal of a balance between agriculture and conservation.
      I hope that the Minister will look with sympathy on these two amendments. I cannot see how they will harm agricultural production and within them are the seeds of benefit.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is the more controversial part of the Bill, and we spent some time in Committee discussing these matters. It is the part of the Bill on which the public's expectations of Parliament are highest.
      We are grateful to Friends of the Earth for its work to identify cases that have been reported to the authorities and those cases that were not. Even as late as today a Mrs. Simmonds contacted Friends of the Earth from Henfield in Sussex because of her concern over aerial spraying which took place this morning in her area. Also today a Mrs. Judy Holder from Totnes, Devon, contacted Friends of the Earth because a helicopter was spraying right over her farmhouse. Friends of the Earth has given me a copy of a letter from Mrs. Slade of Romney Marsh in Kent. She wrote:
      "Only last Thursday I was working in the fields when a spray plane suddenly appeared and proceeded to spray the adjacent fields. Luckily the wind was blowing away from me and when I went home it was spraying the fields around our house. The plane was turning right overhead. I was not informed that spraying would take place. I don't know what they were using, there was no smell whatsoever."
      The point is that the public do not know what is happening and they are frightened. They are looking to Parliament to deal with this matter. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was speaking to the House as though there was no problem.
      Mr. Carlisle: I did not say that.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a great problem. I have a copy of the early-day motion which I tabled last year along with two of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. I believe that about 50 to 60 Conservative Members, along with almost the whole of the Labour Party and a few alliance Members, signed the motion. Two hundred and thirty four Members signed the motion calling for
      "an effective ban on the aerial spraying of certain arable crops and additionally of specified products and progress towards the introduction of a more effective means of pesticide application: further urges the Government to adopt such a programme as a matter of urgency."
      Two hundred and thirty four Members expressed concern about aerial spraying. The Minister should recognise the concern of those who signed the early-day motion and ensure that adequate safeguards are provided in the regulations that are to be published in due course.
      Friends of the Earth has produced other information. It appears that in April a farmer sprayed the corner of a Mr. Martin Potter's garden with what the farmer described as a "deadly poison bug killer". That is the statement that was made by a constituent of an hon. Member. I accept that he might have exaggerated what took place, but that is what he said. The fact is that that individual did not know what was happening, and that is what the argument is all about. People do not know what they are being sprayed with because they are given inadequate information.
      A Mrs. Betty Clarke of Birchington near Thanet contacted Friends of the Earth in April. She explained that she and a neighbour had suffered seven days of wheezing, swollen glands and bleary eyes as a result of crop spray. I accept that the cause may not have been crop spray, but it may have been. Many people—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) wishes to intervene, I shall be glad to let him do so. Many people find it difficult to establish what has happened. They see
      948
      an aeroplane and watch it spraying within the vicinity. Afterwards, they are taken ill and they assume that there is a connection between aerial spraying and their illness. If there is a connection, it is often too late to establish it.
      The parliamentary private secretary' to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), knows that I have a letter from one of his constituents in which a complaint is made about a spraying incident in his constituency. It is only parliamentary protocol and good manners that prevent me from reading the letter to the House. The hon. Gentleman's constituent states in her letter that she made representations to her Member of Parliament and describes the action that was taken as a result of the representations.
      The public are extremely concerned and they look to Parliament to take action. I have a series of letters—I shall not recite them all — which refer to spraying incidents, and it is clear that Parliament is expected to respond to the public's anxiety. Environmental groups such as the Soil Association and Friends of the Earth want a ban to be imposed on aerial spraying of farmland. They say that continued aerial spraying should be permissible only by a special permit for bracken control and forestry purposes.
      Although aerial spraying involves only about 2 per cent. of British pesticide application, it has led to an extremely large number of pollution incidents. Much of the problem is due to spray drift. Some incidents are due to the failure of pilots to observe adequate precautions.
      In Britain, aerial spraying is controlled by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Department of Transport, so it is distanced from the Ministry and the Department of the Environment. This division of responsibilities may go some way to explaining the problems over the control of aerial spraying in the past.
      During the process of listening to the groups that came to us to refer not only to aerial spraying but to other aspects of pesticide legislation, I was told repeatedly that division of responsibility between the Departments was creating confusion, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) commented at length on this in Committee. Division of responsibility has created difficulties in pesticide control.
      The National Society for Clean Air is concerned that the notification procedure that should be followed under CAA control has been widely ignored, and I have referred to cases illustrating that point, Mr. Chairman.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman means Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Having spent so much time on the Standing Committee of the Finance Bill, I have become used to referring to the person in the Chair as Mr. Chairman. I apologise.
      The notification procedure has been widely ignored and, as a result, local residents, schools, beekeepers, hospitals and market gardeners have been unable to take precautionary measures against spray drift.
      Pesticides sprayed from the air include a number that are sufficiently toxic to be covered by the 1972 poisons rules or the Health and Safety Executive's poisonous substances regulations requiring special clothing for operators, such as rubber gauntlets and respirators, as the pesticides have such a high acute toxicity. As the pre-notification system has failed in so many instances, it is

      949
      possible for incidents to occur in which people are sprayed directly by a poisonous substance. They are not wearing rubber gauntlets, respirators or special clothing. They simply do not know what will happen and they have to put up with the results of this abuse.
      There is considerable feeling both inside and outside Parliament that the Government do not go far enough in controlling the use of aircraft for the release of pesticides. The public needs to be assured that Ministers have the power to regulate or stop the more distressing features of aerial spraying. The Royal Commission on environmental pollution has called for stricter controls on aerial spraying and the British Crop Protection Council has recommended that it be used in only a few cases.
      The amount of spraying could be more effectively controlled if the number of sprays that could be used from the air were reduced. Insecticides applied from the air could be drastically reduced in number because of the increasing success of integrated pest management schemes which utilise only minimal ground application of insecticides in the control of many insect pests.
      Research could also be undertaken into the conservation of spray released into the air. There is a need for more rational consideration of the insect target in relation to droplet size and formulation, a point to which the hon. Member for Luton, North referred and on which we agree. Target behaviour is largely unknown and needs to be studied because of the large payoff in spray effectiveness. There is also an urgent need for a scientific analysis of the behaviour of smaller spray droplets to take advantage of their large potential for reducing pollution and costs and providing an understanding and control of drift.
      As it stands, the Bill does not give the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food new powers over aerial spray. The ambiguity about whether pesticide regulations cover aircraft, the confusion over this Bill, the large number of spraying incidents connected with this type of spray and the widespread concern that the CAA does not exercise sufficient disciplinary control together provide a strong case for clarifying the extent of, and necessity for, aerial spraying.
      Mr. John Carlisle rose—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it is nearly 6 o'clock and I believe we intend to give the Bill a Third Reading by 7 o'clock.
      Sir John Farr: I welcome these amendments, which are both interesting and well worth consideration. Amendment No. 34 is a good amendment. We are all anxious to see farming problems controlled without the excessive use of pesticide. I shall speak to amendment No. 33, which concerns aerial spraying. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) served a useful purpose in promoting this matter for debate. There are grounds for concern, and it is no use saying that there are not. Some people have behaved badly and affected many people in rural areas, villages, hamlets and isolated houses by their lack of respect for whatever code of practice may exist.
      We discussed a similar amendment in Committee and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the CAA, which controls the performance of aerial spraying, had established much tighter controls and that the regulations would be made available to the House. I hope
      950
      that my hon. Friend will follow this up. I recognise the need for aerial spraying most of the time, and particularly in weather like this. Nevertheless, the practice badly lacks some good public relations. All neighbours must be informed before aerial spraying takes place. Spraying should be not less than 100 yd from the outside boundary of the area that is being sprayed. Spray should not go within 200 yd of villages and hamlets, as they do in my constituency. However careful one is, and however still the day, there is always a risk of some spray drift affecting a neighbour's property.
      I welcome these amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can give some idea of the acreage that is sprayed every year. I reinforce my belief that while we need aerial spraying, there must be a strict code of conduct. People who have not complied with the code of practice are bringing all the aerial spraying industry into disrespect. Therefore, I support the amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I also support the amendments. It is unnecessary to elaborate the concern rightly expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and others. The Bill gives us an opportunity to put down a marker saying that, rather than allow uncontrolled expansion of this practice, we shall change direction. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that. However, we need also to make sure that progress in that direction is continued.
      I read the Committee debates on the subject. My view has always been that certain areas such as those quoted by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) need aerial spraying. The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) had an exchange about marginal hill land in Wales. I know that in areas of Snowdonia and the Brecons one cannot gain access to the hillside to spray by other methods. However, for reasons that have been clearly advanced we should be moving towards the principle that aerial spraying is the exception rather than the rule.
      Amendment No. 33 is a simple and straightforward amendment to ensure that there is a process of monitoring movement in that direction. It is a well tried and tested device used by the House to make sure that Ministries are responsible to us and report back on the progress that is made. Only if one sets a direction can one, over time, cause production and agricultural machinery and techniques to be adapted to move in that direction. That is why the amendment is important. We do not want the Bill to set a signal that is not followed on by consistent review to ensure that spraying is reduced rather than increased and that the methods and efficiency and accuracy of spraying is improved.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Did the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues in the alliance sign the early-day motion in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) calling for an effective ban on aerial spraying?
      Mr. Hughes: My recollection is that several alliance Members did sign it, because we are seeking to reduce the amount of aerial spraying. Some of them signed it, but not all. I think that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was saying that there is great pressure, as exemplified by the signatures on that motion, from within

      951
      the House and from people who have written to most hon. Members here and in the other place for a move in this direction.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to say it, but it was with great difficulty that I secured the support of some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends and that some members of the alliance did not support the motion.
      6 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I cannot enter into a discussion of the reluctance or lack of it to sign the motion. All I know is that during discussions at an early stage between at least one of my colleagues, myself and the hon. Member for Workington, there was an agreement to support that move from the beginning. I know that there was full co-operation from one of my hon. Friends, who is not here today, but who liaises with me on a regular basis. Therefore, in that respect there was enthusiasm and co-operation as opposed to reluctance.
      People from different backgrounds and with different jobs will have different views. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who served on the Committee, is a farmer and has seen the need for and practised aerial spraying on difficult farming terrain. I have not said that spraying should not take place, and my support for the amendment is on the basis that it signals a move to reduce and curtail, except when necessary, aerial spraying for all the reasons that have been advanced.
      Mr. John Carlisle: It is important that the House should know whether the alliance supports, as is said in the early-day motion:
      "an effective ban on … aerial spraying".
      The impression given by the alliance spokesman in Committee was that, for the reason the hon. Gentleman has put forward, spraying should be available to the hilllands and lowlands of Wales. The hon. Gentleman's answer to that point could be of particular relevance to a certain by-election that is taking place in a few days.
      Mr. Hughes: The answer has no more relevance to the by-election in Brecon and Radnor than to any other part of the country where aerial spraying is carried out. Since 1967 the Liberal party has sought effective controls on spraying, and it has regularly passed motions to that effect at its assemblies. The motion to which there were signatories from the alliance called for effective control of spraying. It did not say there should be no control; rather that such control should be better. There will be exceptions, and those were canvassed in Committee.
      The early-day motion seeks effective control of aerial spraying. That is a view that my hon. Friends unanimously support. It does not mean that aerial spraying should be discontinued if it is impossible to spray by other means. The geography of Britain would make that a ludicrous position, and we have not adopted it.
      The other amendment states that there should be a review so that we can ensure that there is integrated pest management. We have seen failures as a result of contradictory methods of pest management in the past. I do not blame the Department for that, or those who have used those different methods. The amendment requires that we look at the application of pesticides.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has similar concerns about other amendments. This is a continuing process. We are continuing to improve the mechanism and are learning by experience.
      952
      The only way of ensuring that a Department does what the amendment requests is to make sure that a review is presented to Parliament in the same way as Royal Commissions present their reports through Ministers to Parliament. In that way we can ensure progress along the line that the Bill intends. That will ensure that intention becomes reality.
      I hope that the Minister will reassure us that what is sought by both amendments, supported by Members on both sides of the House, will be responded to positively by the Government. I hope that the Government will report back to the House so that we have the information on which to evaluate the effectiveness of this legislation.
      Mrs. Fenner: As the Bill has proceeded through Parliament, a great deal of time has been spent discussing aerial spraying — in the other place, during Second Reading, in Committee and again this evening. On the whole, our discussions have been expressive of the concern that we all feel—that this area of pesticide use should be properly regulated. As a result, I feel that we have made progress in our considerations of this issue and I am grateful to all who have contributed.
      Let me sum up the Government's position. We are very aware of the irritation and, indeed, distress that can be caused by spray drift from aerial applications. We are sensitive to the concerns and fears of those who live in rural areas and who feel themselves to be at risk from what can be, when it occurs, a gross nuisance. However, there is another side to the coin, and we should not forget it.
      The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made it clear that he is not talking about a ban on aerial spraying, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has put the case for aerial spraying. Many aerial spraying contractors in this country are very aware of their responsibilities to the community and take great care to spray safely. What we have to do, as legislators, is to find a balance—to achieve a situation in which the aerial application of pesticides may continue to be used as an important tool of agriculture and forestry, but without endangering people or the environment.
      In earlier debates I have described the ways in which the CAA's control last autumn has been tightened up in respect of distances from houses and roads and the threat of prosecution if operators do not distribute proper notification that aerial sparying is to take place. In response to points put to me in Committee, I have already asked the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to review the list of chemicals cleared for application from the air, and as a result of the concerns expressed in Committee, we have initiated a review of departmental responsibilities in controlling aerial spraying. We expect that in the autumn, because the results of that review will influence our proposals for implementing regulations later this year.
      I have also explained that we see the controls provided by this legislation complementing those exerted by the CAA. In particular, it will become a criminal offence to spray from the air any chemical that does not appear on the permitted list. I recognise that some may argue that still further controls may be necessary. I respect their point of view, and to them I say that this Bill provides ample powers for Ministers, by regulations, to place any additional controls on aerial spraying that may, from time to time, be considered necessary. Precisely what controls may be necessary will be discussed in detail in our consultations on the regulations, and we will welcome the

      953
      views and advice of all those with an interest in the aerial application of pesticides. As we shall be returning to Parliament with our draft regulations within the time envisaged by this amendment, I cannot see the need for a specific requirement to report on this in 12 months' time. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment, which is unnecessary, given that we shall come before the House within the time specified.
      Mr. John: The hon. Lady misunderstands the anxiety on both sides of the House. Regulations will be legalistic. They will reveal the Government's thinking, but not the state of knowledge that has led to that thinking. We would be happier if she could give an undertaking that she will make available the latest results of the CAA investigations into aerial spraying incidents. With respect, it is not sufficient to say that the regulations will take the place of the information and discussion that we want.
      Mrs. Fenner: I tried to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the draft regulations, which will come before the House within the time during which he would like a report, will give an indication, being the result of consultations, of the review of departmental responsibilities and of any views expressed to us about the aerial application of pesticides. I was asked for information about the tightening up process of the CAA. I will see that a copy of it is placed in the Library.
      Amendment No. 34 does not take enough account of the work that the Government already support and finance on techniques of pesticide application and integrated pest management. Furthermore, it implies that the Government's other actions—such as this legislation—have nothing to do with our declared policy of reducing pesticide use to the minimum, consistent with efficient food production.
      With the Agriculture and Food Research Council, ADAs has been in the forefront of the development of integrated pest control in the United Kingdom. Programmes based on parasites, predators, selective pesticides and fungal pathogens have been developed to control the major pests of cucumbers and tomatoes, and these techniques are being used on 70 per cent. of cucumbers and 40 per cent. of tomatoes.
      We have also developed a supervised control programme for apples, involving close monitoring of the crop and selective, rather than calendar, spraying. Other integrated control programmes are available for the control of potato cyst menatode, the major pest of potatoes. The PSPS has already cleared a number of biological pesticides and an insect virus. Our work at the Boxworth experimental farm to investigate the effects on the flora and fauna of pesticides used on cereals includes an area of cereals under an integrated control system for evaluation. Currently, we have 31 separate commissions with AFRC for integrated control research.
      In collaboration with the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, my Department is investigating the design of field sprayers and the control of spray rates, an issue which particularly concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). Work is going on to identify the physical factors which affect the formation, transport and deposition of spray droplets and to quantify how these factors affect spray deposit and spray drift.
      954
      Information from the analytical and laboratory studies of the design and development of field spraying equipment is made available to engineers for the design of equipment. My Department publishes an annual report on our research and development work which is available from the Stationery Office.
      As I said at the beginning of my reply, the legislation in part III of the Bill is a major part of our strategy to ensure pesticide usage consistent with efficient food production.
      Mr. Cambell-Savours: In the light of all the complaints that hon. Members have received——
      Mr. John Carlisle: All the complaints?
      Mr. Cambell-Savours: I have not read the whole list, but it is clear that innumerable complaints are received daily by Friends of the Earth. In view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking that when the regulations are introduced, she will, in effect, be setting up a regime on aerial spraying of pesticides which will effectively end what is happening now? That would give some assurance to hundreds of thousands of people who live in rural areas of Britain and who are looking to the Minister for reassurances to relieve them of their concerns about the future.
      6.15 pm
      Mrs. Fenner: I reiterate that we are concerned about some aerial spraying and that we believe that it should be regulated. I said that the regulations would come before the House in 12 months' time. For that reason, I said, the amendment was not necessary.
      We shall continue to give a high priority to the work that the Government are supporting into alternative and improved methods of pest control. I do not, therefore, see the need for a special report to Parliament on this aspect of pesticide policy, as the whole purpose of the Bill is to support our strategy to ensure pesticide usage consistent with efficient food production. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. John: I was disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. While the House is anxious not to go over ground that was trodden in Committee, there are certain aspects that we must consider. For example, there is the question of regulations as against a report, for which the amendment calls.
      I would describe regulations as legislative icebergs; they are what emerge into the public's gaze, not the totality of what occurs in their production. About five sixths of the consideration that goes into the framing of legislation never becomes known outside the conferences with advisers about which the Minister will know well.
      On subjects of this nature, however, I should have thought that there was every virtue not only in making the regulations known — with their necessarily exact and spare use of English to make them legally enforceable—but for making known to the House, by means of an explanatory memorandum or by some other means, exactly what information impelled the Government to take the course of tabling regulations.
      If the Minister would be prepared to do that, we would be reassured about the Government's intentions. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept amendment No. 34 on an integrated strategy for pest

      955
      control. I have heard much about what is going on in specific projects, but nothing about an overall strategy, whereas we are asking for such a strategy.
      Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can, by way of regulations in respect of the aerial spraying issue, reassure the public, their anxiety will not go away. The Government may avoid parliamentary bother—in that they will not have to produce an explanatory memorandum and explain why a hundred and one cases are not apposite or borne out by the facts—but in so doing they will be building up anxiety that many people feel about aerial spraying, either through incidents of which they are aware or of which neighbours have told them.
      That anxiety will not disappear if the Government avoid dealing with it now. Thus, when the regulations are being published, I urge the Minister to publish at the same time an explanatory memorandum setting out an analysis of the incidents that have occurred and her conclusions on them.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mrs. Fenner: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 17, line 38, leave out from 'of' to 'or' in line 41 and insert
      'controlling pesticides in the United Kingdom'.
      During our examination in Committee of clause 15(11) the Opposition expressed concern that its present wording may not enable us to collect the information that we need to determine whether an approval should be reviewed, revoked or suspended. I agreed to consider this and, as a result, have decided that this amendment would be appropriate. Although short, it leaves no doubt that the power to require information may be exercised at all stages of pesticide supply and use controlled by part III, so that Ministers can exercise those controls properly. It therefore ensures that the Minister can have both information to approve and information to revoke or suspend pesticides, as the Opposition requested.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the amendment. We are looking at words that effectively limit the provision to controlling pesticides in the United Kingdom. Page 18 of the Bill refers to complying with international obligations. Do we consider at this stage our obligation with respect to the export of pesticides, which may not be governed simply by our international obligations? I know that these are matters of convention. We are making certain provisions with respect to information from manufacturers and users of pesticides in the United Kingdom. Are we referring also to information that will be available when we export pesticides?
      This is one of the underlying issues of the debate. We are ensuring that we do not include within pesticides for export properties that are undesirable, unacceptable or dangerous and which we would not allow to be used here. Will it be possible to deal with that issue in this clause, or will it be dealt with elsewhere?
      Mrs. Fenner: We have adequate powers under the 1939 Act to deal with all pesticides for export.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 37, in page 18, line 42, leave out 'or preparation' and insert preparation or organism'.
      No. 38, in page 19, line 1, leave out from 'for' to 'and' in line 5 and insert 'destroying any pest;'.
      No. 39, page 19, line 11, leave out 'or preparation' and insert preparation or organism'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

    Clause 16

      FEES
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 19, line 24, leave out from 'pesticide' to 'tests' in line 29 and insert
      'under this Part of this Act, on making his application, to pay a reasonable fee in respect of the administrative expenses of processing his application.
      (2) A Minister may also require an applicant for an approval to pay a further reasonablee fee towards the expenses of carrying out any examinations and.'.
      No. 41, in page 19, line 32, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where either of the Ministers has given an approval, he may require the payment of reasonable fees from time to time—

      (a) in respect of the collection of information under section 15(11) above and the processing of information supplied under that subsection;

      (b) in respect of monitoring the effect of the use of pesticides in the United Kingdom,

      by such persons as he considers appropriate.
      (2B) Fees under this section shall be determined on principles settled by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with organisations appearing to the Ministers to represent persons who are likely to apply for approvals.'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

    Clause 17

      ENFORCEMENT POWERS
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 19, line 37, after 'Ministers', insert 'or a local authority',
      Mr. Speaker:With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 60, in clause 22, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
      '"local authority" means—

      (a) in England and Wales, the council of a district or a London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple; and

      (b) in Scotland, and islands or district council;'.

      Mr. Hughes: This amendment has been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and myself. It relates to the enforcement by local authorities of the powers that are provided for in clause 17. As drafted, the Bill provides:
      "Either of the Ministers may authorise any person … to enforce this Part of this Act".
      The other place has debated how much power this provision gives the Government to delegate to for example, local authorities so that they can undertake the enforcement role. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the practical reasons for specifying that officers of local authorities should be given this job. I hope that she will take in good part the good reasons why my colleagues and I believe that they should be given this job.
      There is a strong case for environmental health officers—each local authority has several of these—taking on the role of enforcement in relation to pesticides. I should like to put out of the way the suggestion that this could be done by trading standards officers. That red herring came up at an earlier stage of the debate, and I want to dispose of it. Trading standards officers are the people who go around Sainsburys to ascertain whether the weight of the cheese is specified correctly. I am concerned about those

      957
      officers who are more ready to put on their wellington boots and tread out into the mire to deal with matters away from their offices and urban areas.
      Environmental health officers are specifically well equipped to do this job. Indeed, they are necessary if the Parliamentary Secretary is serious about wanting to enforce this legislation. There are between 4,000 and 6,000 environmental health officers in Britain. The Minister said in Committee that this compares with only about 160 inspectors in the Government's agricultural safety inspectorate. The original memorandum to the Bill said that, because of increased work on pesticides, another 18 staff at the Health and Safety Inspectorate and 16 at the Ministry would be required. The Minister said that about 14 of the 18 extra HSE staff would be additional agricultural inspectors. I do not believe that 14 or 18 extra staff will make much difference. Compare a possible 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people having the power to do this job with the 160 staff presently in post, to which would be added a mere 14 or 18 extra staff. I would opt for giving these powers specifically to the army of environmental health officers, numbering thousands rather than tens.
      I do not know the number of people in the pesticides branch of MAFF, but I believe that officials at Whitehall place—the Parliamentary Secretary's headquarters—are not likely to be dealing with enforcement on the ground. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that they will be dealing with the monitoring of information and the efficacy of the regulations. A pathetic number of people employed by the Ministry will be doing the enforcing. The Government have already accepted that they are setting a great task. They have conceded that the number of inspectors is relevant. The fact that they are increasing the staff by 14 clearly shows that they have conceded that it is important to have more inspectors. It follows that 4,000 will be more effective than 14.
      If there are doubts—I share those doubts, although I would be delighted to be proved wrong—about the political will of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to enforce this legislation effectively, I would prefer the power of enforcement to be dispersed to others. One would not then be entirely reliant on the political will of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, with all the pressures placed on her from other Departments. We have had debates about giving the Ministry an environmental over-duty. This idea was strongly resisted in debates on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government said that they were not willing to take it on because all Departments had a responsibility to look after wildlife, the countryside and the environment and that it would be wrong to allow one Department to be the lead Department. It would be much better to allow all local authorities to have the same responsibility. I trust that there would be greater effectiveness of enforcement in that case than if only one Department were involved.
      To have the Minister decide the priorities of enforcement is clearly not as good—this is no criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary—as having a wide range of local authorities deciding enforcement priorities, given their personnel and resources. Different local authorities in different parts of Britain will have different priorities in terms of the enforcement of pesticide legislation. It depends on the farming, the nature of the terrain and all
      958
      sorts of things. Therefore, it could be seen, by comparing one with the other, which were the most successful authorities, and the Ministry would have benefit of that experience.
      6.30 pm
      There is also the argument, which my hon. Friend and I always advance, that we believe in strengthening local authorities as against Government Departments. It is an important principle of democratic control that one gives the power to enforce legislation to the people nearest to the ground. That argument for decentralisation applies in this case even though one is depending upon the information coming from research, whether it is the Ministry's research or independent research carried out in the universities.
      Many local authorities are keen to have these powers of enforcement. They know their areas. Many officers live and are brought up in the areas. The best information comes directly from the area. People are more likely to go to the local environmental health officer, the local town hall or the county hall than they are to write to Whitehall, so that the Whitehall machinery would seldom be called upon to deal with these issues.
      As a complementary point, environmental health officers in local authorities are likely to be, as they should be, more responsive to local pressure and concerns because they are in the front line. It would seem illogical for people who go to them on what is clearly an environmental health matter to be told, "I am sorry, we are not the front line agency for dealing with this."
      Whatever the case, it is true that the Ministry is more suited to deal with major problems and national incidents, given all its resources. The Ministry should not have to deal on every level in every farm, field, district and county with the various issues that crop up every day.
      It may also be the case that the Ministry officials, as they are bound by duty to do, start from being pro-farmer rather than pro-environment. They rightly have a duty, because it is their task to ensure that there is an effective agriculture industry, to take into account the concerns of those involved in the industry. It is better that these issues should be looked at with the eye of those who are interested in the environment—the farmer, farm worker, employee, farm resident, rural resident and countryside user. The Ministry has to consider agricultural production and agriculture from its position, but environmental matters should be dealt with by people who have a responsibility for the environment.
      I think that the Minister would agree that environmental health departments and officers are keen to do the job. All the information that I have been given suggests that they are ready and willing. For the Government to hold close to their chest, in a quiet closed department of 14 or 18 officers, the task of doing this job when there is a great army saying, "Please give us this work, we want to help you," seems an ungenerous attitude. I know that the Minister can be generous, and I look to her to give away the workload with which her officials would otherwise be lumbered if she does not accept my arguments.
      I anticipate the Minister saying that to accept the amendment would be inconsistent with the format of the rest of the Bill, which is concerned with establishing structure. The Minister promised us regulations in 12 months, by which I hope she meant within 12 months. The regulations will give us the teeth to fit the mouth of the

      959
      Bill. I accept that local authorities get little mention in the Bill. That is to be regretted because it reflects a rather centralist view of what can be an effective Bill at all levels. The most effective Bill will be one that allows local authorities to play their part. The debate in the other place included the statement with which I began, that clause 17 gives the Government sufficient powers to authorise local authority officers to carry out this job.
      I have put the arguments and by way of summary of the arguments, I ask the Minister to give a commitment that the Government will authorise, as from the date of the enactment of the legislation or within a short period thereafter, local authority environmental health officers to carry out this job. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was on the right lines, but was found to be defective because the resources were not available to make it effective. If we are endeavouring to protect the environment, we should avail ourselves of resources where they are available.
      The Bill is welcome, but let us hear the Minister make the commitment to give those who wish to do the job the power to enforce the legislation.
      Mrs. Fenner: I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for moving the amendment, which I cannot accept.
      The purpose of the Bill is not to give local authorities powers in the control of pesticides. As he rightly pointed out, it is the tool to ensure that Ministers have all the powers they need to effect such control. Before we could give local authorities such power, we would need to consult them and all other interests involved about that proposal. Indeed, we had a consultation meeting with the Association of Local Authorities last week. It is fair to say that on that occasion no clear new area of activity for local authorities was identified that would justify the amendment.
      It may reassure the House to know that Ministers can authorise local authority officers or local authorities as legal persons to undertake an enforcement role. We believe that they will have a part to play in the enforcement of the legislation in future, particularly in relation to pesticide residues. However, that is still some time in the future, and we will be consulting at the appropriate time.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the number of people in the field. As he rightly pointed out, in the Health and Safety Executive there is an agricultural inspectorate of 160. Of the new additional staff quoted in the Bill, two of the London staff will be in the field on wildlife. In the Health and Safety Executive, of the 18 there will be 12 additional inspectors. That is the number requested by the executive to carry out the additional work involved, although there already exists an agricultural inspectorate of 160. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The figures that the Minister has given confirm my fears. She did not give the specific commitment for which I asked, that the Government would authorise local authorities. I must therefore request that we should hear the Government refuse to accept the amendments rather than that I should withdraw them.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 20, line 4, after 'being', insert 'or has been'.
      No. 43, in page 20, line 10, after 'being', insert 'or has been'.
      960
      No. 44, in page 21, line 5, leave out subsection (8).—[Mrs. Fenner.]

    Clause 22

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 45, in page 24, line 23, at end insert—
      "'escape" is to be construed in accordance with section 1(2) above;'.
      No. 46, in page 25, line 23, at end insert '"pest",'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

    Clause 23

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 26, line 39, after '(k)', insert '(Codes of practice),'.
      No. 48, in page 26, line 42, after 'each', insert 'or either'.
      No. 49, in page 27, line 6, at end insert—'and
      (f) Section (Codes of practice) (4)(a) is omitted.'.
      No. 50, in page 27, line 12, after 'them', insert
      ', other than the reference in section [Enforcement of Conventions] (1) above,'.
      No. 51, in page 27, line 28, at end insert 'and Schedule 5 to this Act'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

    Schedule 5

      THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
      Mr. Ashdown: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 36, line 5, at end insert—
      '(1A.) The Ministers shall, in their appointment of persons as members of the committee, have regard to the general purposes of Part III of this Act, mentioned in section 15(1) above, and review annually the range of expertise required for those purposes.'.
      The purpose of this amendment is to ask the Government to pay regard to the aims of the Bill, as outlined in clause 15(1). We have used the words "have regard" so that the Government may think carefully about the composition of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The Bill sets out the Government's aims which lie at the heart of the Bill, but it lacks any specific indication of the Government's intentions. They will probably be included in the regulations. The Government have resisted giving a date for the publication of the regulations which will put into effect the laudable aims of clause 15(1).
      However, we are concerned about a lacuna in the Bill. We want the ACP to be able to put into effect the general aims of clause 15(1). Many believe that the first aim of the Government was to protect not the public but the industry. The mechanism of the pesticides safety precautions scheme has broken down because of the import of cheap pesticides, so we want the Government to fulfil its aims. In the absence of regulations we need to be reassured that the general purpose of clause 15(1) will be fulfilled.
      The composition of the ACP is vital. Will it carry out the Government's intentions? To use the words of clause 15(1), will it provide
      "The continuous development of means—(a) to protect the health of human beings,…(b) to safeguard the environment; and (c) to secure safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests."?
      The composition of the committee does not reassure us. Many organisations, including the Royal Society for the

      961
      Protection of Birds, believe that the committee's expertise is insufficient to protect wildlife, but I wish to concentrate upon human health, one of the aims of clause 15(1).
      Five of the 10 full members of the committee are doctors. However, three of them are pathologists whose expertise relates not to the living but to the dead. The other two doctors are academics. None of the ACP members is currently concerned with the care of living patients. The medical expertise that is available on the advisory panels is related more to the dissection of dead rats on laboratory tables than to dealing with people. It is a pejorative term, but in the medical profession they fall into the category that is roughly known — I use the word "roughly" in both senses of the word—as rat doctors.
      6.45 pm
      This may have been appropriate in the past. The PSPS was concerned primarily with the clearance of pesticides before use, on the basis of animal test data, rather than with monitoring their effect upon human beings after use. However, the monitoring of the effect of pesticides on human beings is one of the main aims of the Bill. Continuous monitoring after use is part of its purpose. If the Minister is serious about protecting human beings on a continuous basis and about safeguarding the environment, should not more emphasis be placed upon monitoring pesticides by the ACP? Will its composition change to take account of what she seeks to achieve? If monitoring is to take place, where will the expertise be found? It will not be found in the ACP. There should be doctors on the committee who have practical experience of dealing with patients, not with dead rats on the laboratory table. If the Government are serious about providing protection, a true clinical toxicologist, with practical experience of caring for people who have been poisoned, should be appointed to the committee. There is no substitute for such expertise. If the Minister can assure us that the constitution of the ACP will be suitably amended, we may reconsider this amendment, even though we should like it to be incorporated in the Bill.
      Paraquat is a well-known substance for which there is no antidote. Since its introduction, there have been 331 deaths. Those people died in a uniformly horrible way. Some of them, though not necessarily all, died by their own hand. This substance ought to be reconsidered because of its effects upon human beings rather than upon weeds.
      The Black committee investigated the possible increase in the number of deaths in Cumbria from cancer because of Yorkshire Television's allegations about a disproportionately large number of children in the Sellafield area with leukaemia. The numbers were low but the ratio was high. The allegations were taken seriously and led to the appointment of a committee whose report has now been published. The results were largely inconclusive, but the committee said that further research was needed. In reaching those important conclusions the Black committee had the help of two epidemiologists. Is it not precisely this kind of work, relating not to radiation but to pesticides and similar chemicals, upon which the ACP should provide advice? Yet there is no epidemiologist on the committee. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) referred earlier to thalidomide, which had been tested on rats before it was brought into general use. Later it was
      962
      proved to be dangerous to human beings. That danger would have been established if an epidemiologist had served on the committee.
      Today I received a press release from Friends of the Earth which calls for a ban on the sale or use of all pesticides containing the chemical loxynil. There is evidence to support the theory that it causes a certain number of birth defects. That is unproven, but should not the ACP advise on just such a claim? How could it provide advice if none of its members has the appropriate medical qualifications to form a reasonable judgment? This is not a fanciful point. The suspicion that the high incidence of cancer in farm workers is caused by pesticides is being investigated by the Medical Research Council. Should not the ACP be able to investigate that allegation, too? If the Government wish the health of human beings to be protected on a continuous basis, the ACP must be provided with the necessary means.
      The Bill will have little effect if it becomes an instrument for the continuous clearance of pesticides before use by the study of dead rats instead of monitoring pesticides in use by examining their effect upon living human beings. We ask that the ACP be restructured to take account of the changed needs that result from this Bill and we welcome that change. If the Minister were to accept this extremely limited amendment, it would make sure that in future the ACP reflected, at least in some measure, the Government's concern. This amendment does no more than give effect to that wish, which we hope the Government share. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it and commend it to the House.
      Mrs. Fenner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation. I hope that he will forgive me if I respond rather predictably by saying that we cannot accept the amendment because it is unnecessary, since clause 15(7), which enables Ministers to establish an advisory committee, makes it absolutely clear that the area of activity of the committee and indeed the reason for its existence are the general purpose of part III of the Bill. That being so, I can assure the House that this Government at least—I venture to say, any Government—would not consider making any appointment to the ACP without having regard to the general purposes of this legislation.
      The hon. Member made some astonishing comments about the members of the ACP. Professor Kilpatrick, the chairman, is concerned with living patients, as is Professor Berry, the chairman of the scientific sub-committee, whose expertise also includes carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. I remind him that pathologists are not solely concerned with the dead but are also greatly concerned with diagnosis of ailments in the living.
      As for the future, I have already said that we shall be reviewing the structure and composition of the ACP and the sub-committee and panels that assist it in the light of the changes which the legislation will bring. We have already had some preliminary discussions with the committee on the implications of extending the pesticides screening system to cover efficacy and humaneness as well as safety, and we are looking at ways of benefiting from user and supplier experience by giving those groups access to formal advisory panels.
      I should, however, make it clear that it is our firm intention to invite the present chairman and members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides to serve on the statutory committee, and I very much hope that they will

      963
      agree to do so. This Government and preceding Governments are greatly indebted to the advisory committee and its scientific sub-committee for their meticulous assessment of the risks attached to the use of pesticides and for the sound and unbiased advice that they have given us over many years. That the general public do not always realise just how well they have been protected is a fault of communication on our side, and I am glad to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the considerable service which the advisory committee provides.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer. The phrase that I used—and I have it noted down — was: "None of the ACP members is concerned currently with the care of living patients." There is no provision for a clinical toxicologist or an epidemiologist on the committee.
      Mrs. Fenner: I am getting some more advice, and I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Professor Knowelden, who is an ACP member, is an epidemiologist.
      Mr. Ashdown: I am looking in her answer to me of 12 February 1985 for the name of the learned professor to whom the Minister now refers. Perhaps this is something which has changed since I asked the question, but that was my understanding. In any event, there is not on the ACP at the moment a clinical toxicologist, even if an epidemiologist has now been put on it.
      The Minister has not given the assurances that we have sought in order to ensure that the balance of the committee is corrected. I make no criticism of those who serve on the committee or of the way in which they have served it in the past. I think that the Minister is absolutely right to identify them as people who have shown diligence and care. The point that we make is that the committee needs to be changed so as to reflect the changed nature of its job as a result of this legislation.
      I am disappointed that the Minister felt unable to give a stronger assurance along those lines, and I must ask the House to consider this matter a bit more seriously.
      Amendment negatived.

    Title
    Amendments made: No. 53, in line 4, leave out 'a release' and insert 'an escape'.
    No. 54, in line 7, after 'sea', insert
    'to make provision for the control of the deposit of substances and articles under the sea-bed;'.
    No. 55, in line 8, leave out 'and preparations' and insert, 'preparations and organisms'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
    Order for Third Reading read [Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    6.57 pm
    Mrs. Fenner: Now that we are coming to the end of our debates on this Bill I should like, before I go into the specific points raised, to express my appreciation and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the way in which hon. Members have responded to these proposals.
    There have been many questions and amendments, some probing the Government's intentions, others seeking to modify or extend one provision or another. But the most striking feature throughout our debates has been the desire
    964
    shown on all sides of the House to make this a better Bill and to ensure that it deals adequately with the problems which might arise.
    I am glad to say that there has been considerable interest in the the subject matter of the three parts of the Bill and equally widespread support for the principles they contain, which shows that the Government were right to bring forward this legislation now. The result is, indeed, a much clearer Bill than the one we started with three months ago.
    Part I has been generally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but there have been a number of areas of concern which I think we have gone a long way to resolve during its passage. However, we must remember to keep these concerns in perspective. The powers provided by part I would be used only in exceptional circumstances to ensure the safety of food following an escape or release of harmful substances. To give some idea of the exceptional circumstances, we can envisage only one or two occasions in the past 30 years when they might have been activated.
    In part II there are now two major additions to the area controlled by the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 — marine incineration and deposits under the seabed. The Bill substantially broadens the range of factors which Ministers must take into account when licensing deposits and places a specific duty on them to consider the availability of other methods of disposal. It provides for recovery of the cost of monitoring and enforcement work and for consultation with those who will be paying the new fees. It also reenacts a provision on procedures for the enforcement of the international dumping conventions, whose original omission led, entirely innocently, to some misunderstanding, which has now been removed.
    There is one very important general point which arose at our previous sitting on which I must set the record straight. This is the assertion that the United Kingdom is the greatest contributor to pollution of the North sea. The facts are quite otherwise, and I would recommend the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to take a closer look at the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's 10th report, which he quoted the other day. This report examined the whole range of pollution issues and included a substantial section on the North sea. It naturally reviewed United Kingdom policy and practice on dumping at sea and I must emphasise that it did not recommend any change in our controls.
    What the report did was to review the scientific evidence. It showed that the main sources of contaminants were the atmosphere and rivers, of which the Elbe, the Rhine and the Meuse were the major contributors. It showed that disposal of sewage sludge and dumping of other wastes accounted for only a tiny percentage — about 3 per cent. — of the heavy metals. The report noted that the effects of contaminants were most pronounced in estuaries and coastal waters. It quoted the Thames as the most notable example of recent improvement and the Wadden sea as an area of particular concern.
    The Royal Commission concluded that there was no substantial threat to the North sea, although more research was needed, and recommended that the United Kingdom should respond positively to international initiatives. That is exactly what we have done. It is quite clear from the Royal Commission report that the United Kingdom is not

    965
    the major polluter of the North sea; indeed this country has a good record which, on the state of rivers in particular, contrasts favourably with that of some of our neighbours.
    Part III of the Bill has occupied a good deal of our time. We are fortunate in having had the pesticides safety precautions scheme as a stepping stone to part III. That non-statutory scheme has evolved over the years into an effective screening system for the safety of pesticides coming on to the United Kingdom market. But I have no doubt that it was right to seek to replace it with a statute. It was not simply that the restrictive agreement necessary to prevent unlicensed imports was attracting the attention of Brussels — much more fundamentally, with the current priority that is given to health and environmental questions in public debate, the absence of statutory powers left the scheme without the necessary muscle to impose the controls required.
    In our debates we have been able to explain in some detail the good work already done under the PSPS, the working party on pesticide residues, BASIS, the wildlife incident investigation scheme, and so forth, and we have given assurances that that will continue and develop. We have also been able to explain our ideas on how the Bill should be implemented. Finally, but certainly not least, we have been able to hear the views of the House.
    But it has also been equally important for us to hear the views of hon. Members on the future detailed controls to be laid down in regulations. We have taken very careful note of all these views and will take account of them in our consultation paper on the implementation of part III. We shall send a copy of the paper to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debates and to any others who request it, as well as to all interested organisations, and we shall allow ample time for comment before we prepare the regulations.
    Finally, I should like to emphasise the extent of my Department's commitment to conservation of the countryside and other environmental matters, as witnessed by our concrete achievements. Through ADAS, for example, we advise farmers on how they can build conservation into their farming practices. Under our capital grant schemes, we give particular emphasis to environmentally sympathetic farming operations by paying premium rates. In co-operation with the Countryside Commission, we are operating an experimental scheme designed to help safeguard the unique landscape of the grazing marshes in the broads. And, following the successful efforts of my right hon. Friend to persuade his colleagues in Brussels to include a suitable provision in the agricultural structures regulation, we are now preparing a special scheme to promote environmentally sympathetic farming practices in designated sensitive areas. I commend the improvements to environmental protection in this Bill, to take a worthy place in that list of achievements.
    7.2 pm
    Dr. David Clark: I join the Minister in welcoming the Bill in principle. It is much improved on the Bill that entered the other place many months ago. It spent a long time in Committee, but I do not think that anyone who served on that Committee would deny that it was anything but workmanlike. We graciously acknowledge that the Government were prepared to accept a
    966
    number of points argued by the Opposition. In a sense, the Bill marks the end of an era. Parliament has recognised the feeling in the country that something should be done about pesticides, and we commend the Government's approach.
    The whole basis of the Bill, especially part III, will be the regulations. We appreciate the Minister's offer that Members of Parliament and others will be consulted about the regulations. As they cannot be amended, it is vital that there is maximum consultation with interested parties. It is by the regulations that the Government's intent will be judged.
    A number of markers about the regulations should be put down immediately. The first arises out of the Minister's television appearance on 11 June. I hope that when the Bill is implemented the EEC will confirm that the regulations about residues will be adhered to. We understand that to be the Government's position and hope that that will be enacted in the Bill.
    We are especially concerned about 2,4,5-T. I do not want to labour the point, but I hope that the Minister will take the Egan incident into account. That case was reported in the Daily Mirror on 13 June and, tragically, involved the termination of a pregnancy. In the mind of the gynaecologist, that was linked with 2,4,5-T.
    Thirdly, the regulations must take into account the pesticides and chemicals that are regarded as not suitable for use, but are nevertheless sold. I am especially thinking of DDT. We must acknowledge the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Friends of the Earth has done a great deal of work in that respect. It has brought out examples which, perhaps, have surprised bureaucracy and surprised us, but we are all the better for knowing about them. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that, under the regulations, it will be illegal to sell pesticides that have been withdrawn.
    I wish to mention also Dieldrin and heron deaths in the river Avon area. We are receiving a great deal of information that pesticides that have been withdrawn are still being sold. We expect the Government to take steps to prevent that. Therefore, we await the regulations with a great deal of interest.
    We do not wish to disagree to any great extent with the Minister about part II, but my reading of the Royal Commission report is considerably different from hers. Part II replaces the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. It tightens the licensing system. We hope and look for Government action on that aspect.
    It may be right that, overall, atmospheric and river pollution adds greatly to the pollution within the oceans, but it is in localities and where the concentrations are greatest that the greatest damage is caused. I sent a document to the Minister's hon. Friend earlier this week which has been compiled by the fishermen of Cullercoats and South Shields. It shows that the dumping that takes place between five and 12 miles off the river Tyne has reduced the catches of fishermen in my constituency by 90 per cent. in 15 years. It is their view that that is due to the fact that chemicals are dumped from Teesport off the river Tyne, and we cannot accept that. I give that merely as an example of the Government action that we expect under Part II to deal with concentrations of dumping.
    We hope that we have converted the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on environmental matters. It is a pity that we could not convert them several weeks ago when we were discussing the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill. We very

    967
    much welcome the Government's efforts on Halvergate marshes. I wonder whether they will give us the same commitment with Swaveney fens, which are about to be drained with the help of almost £500,000 of Government grant. Many of us do not regard it as satisfactory only to protect small isolated parts of the countryside. We are not happy with having only isolated SSSIs. We want to keep the living rural environment, not just a sterile cereal area. I would welcome a Government statement on that—if not today, in the near future.
    However, I do not wish to end my speech on that note because we have debated a constructive and worthwhile Bill. The key factor is the regulations, and we shall be watching the Government's actions on them with great interest. In principle, we welcome the Bill.
    7.10 pm
    Sir John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on piloting the Bill through Committee and the two and a half days on Report.
    It is a unique Bill in many respects. It replaces the pesticides safety protection scheme, and I hope that the new scheme will work half as well as the old one did. An exceptional feature of the Bill are the many statutory instruments that will be brought before the House for debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will await those instruments anxiously. We may even have a chance to debate a draft statutory instrument before the final statutory instrument is laid before the House. The Bill is unique because so much of it has yet to be decided.
    I hope that there will be a statutory instrument relating to part I, to set up a compensation fund for any destruction of crops or produce that may be ordered, whether or not there has been pollution. The flaw in the Bill is that it is desperately unfair that small producers, small merchants and small growers should suffer from an order to destroy their crops even when no pollution has occurred. I hope that the Government will introduce a statutory instrument to correct that anomaly. Apart from that flaw, I warmly welcome the Bill.
    7.12 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I too, welcome the Bill. It is the lot of Opposition spokesmen to welcome legislation when the country is better run with that legislation than without it, but it is also their lot to say that the Government should have done more. I shall attempt to strike that balance.
    The Liberal party has called for legislation on this subject since 1967. It has taken 18 years to get a response. That is slow, but it is never too late to protect our environment and food from hazards. I hope that the Bill is not a token gesture or an outline, which will not be followed by regulations. We shall watch carefully what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does during the next 12 months. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said that regulations will be laid before the House. I hope that that will be sooner rather than later and that they will supply the teeth that the Bill needs.
    It worries me that insufficient powers and resources have been allocated to make the Bill effective. If the Government are to honour their commitment, they will have to produce more manpower and resources to ensure that the pollution dangers are overcome. We do not want a repeat of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which did not have sufficient enforcement resources. We watched as, remorselessly, year after year, more of our
    968
    countryside and wildlife was destroyed. However, we were not powerless to act. The Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is welcome and respected, and will enable us to do something about the problems. Let us not make the same mistakes again.
    It is clear that research is proceeding apace. As the results of research into the effects on health of spraying pesticides become available and researchers have produced more evidence, Parliament may have to respond again, either specifically and quickly or more generally. With increased knowledge of those processes, the Government must be prepared to introduce legislation. I hope that we shall review and debate the matter on a regular basis.
    Some of us are unhappy with the presumption in favour of freedom of information that the Government selected for the Bill. I and many others believe that they have not gone far enough. We should go as far as other countries have, and I hope that the Government will soon realise that they have nothing to fear by allowing people to know what is happening. Only Governments who are afraid, in countries which are not normally democracies, close their doors, batten down the hatches and prevent the widest public participation. I hope that there will be no veto by commerce, bureaucrats or Ministers on the information that everyone has a right to know relating to pesticides and environmental pollution.
    I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place, especially to my noble Friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who worked hard on the Bill. I also pay tribute to all those in many parties who have improved the Bill during its passage through the House. The Minister accepts that it has been improved.
    However, looking ahead, I hope that we can improve the legislation in another respect. Although we are establishing a framework for protecting food, improving the control of pollution and preventing unlicensed dumping and regulating the supply and use of pesticides in Britain, we have still not taken up our responsibilities for the Third world. Western Europe exports more than 60 per cent. of the pesticides that it produces to the Third world. If we export them without protection, we export pollution and damage to countries that do not have the knowledge that we have, and that look to us to protect them from the mistakes that we have made. I hope that we shall do more in the future to ensure that the highest standards of control of exports are applied and that we never export products that we are unwilling to use ourselves.
    With those reservations, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the introduction of regulations soon.
    7.17 pm
    Mr. John Carlisle: I shall make the shortest speech ever on a Third reading. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for not being here for her opening remarks. I fully support the Bill. The Committee stage was an interesting experience for most of us. The trade has learned from experience, and from the words of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who had altercations with me on various aspects of the Bill. The trade has listened with great interest to what he said and to the anxieties that were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    The United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association is especially delighted by my hon. Friend's appreciation of the BASIS scheme. The trade understands that BASIS is a necessary policing part of the Bill and of the entire industry. We have made some worthwhile contributions on a fairly delicate subject, and agriculture will be the better for the remarks that were made here and in Committee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Northern Ireland Act 1974
  7.19 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
  I ask the House this evening to renew the provisions by which a number of Governments have administered Northern Ireland for more than a decade. These powers are unusually wide compared with those of other Ministers. I do not mean to rehearse how and why direct rule was imposed because that might be to blow on embers which are perhaps best left to cool. But I need to answer the reasonable question why today for the eleventh time a Secretary of State comes to this Dispatch Box to ask the House that direct rule be continued. It is certainly not because the Government wish to retain the full powers which my colleagues and I now exercise. The record shows otherwise. All my predecessors have tried to find ways of divesting themselves of many of those powers to elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Neither they nor I desire to continue to take those decisions, many of which are detailed, which are better taken within the Province about, for example, education, housing and industrial development.
  The reason why these almost continuous efforts to devolve power have not so far succeeded are familiar to the House. They are essentially the same reasons for which on other occasions we have asked the House to make special provisions for special efforts to establish the security and maintain the economy of the Province. We are wholly and rightly committed to maintaining the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom so long as a majority of the people there so wish. I see no prospect of the majority changing their views on that matter, but the majority community live city by city, town by town, county by county alongside a minority community, and the future of the two communities is inextricably linked. There is no new line to be drawn, and no ingenious new arrangement which could be devised to separate their futures.
  In many aspects of life that causes few problems. Recently, I visited a thriving factory in an area which has been deeply troubled. There members of the two communities work side by side in complete harmony, so far as I can see. Any Member of the House who visits Northern Ireland for more than an hour or two with a reasonably open mind will know that that is a commonplace experience. In many aspects of human activity there is no difficulty whatever. No one who saw the people of Belfast welcome Barry McGuigan can doubt that fact. But that harmony does not extend into political life or into the search among politicians for institutions which would enable the two communities to form some kind of partnership in the formation or administration of policy.
  In the Northern Ireland Act 1982 Parliament laid down that any system for the devolution of powers must command "widespread acceptance". That was defined in the preceding White Paper as meaning acceptability to both sides of the community. That must be right, and not merely as an expression of political philosophy or idealism. Simple majority rule, as in the past, would leave

  971
  the minority in perpetual opposition and would not in practice lead to a stable society. A system which did not command such widespread acceptance would simply not survive. Let us make a practical test. If I were to come to the House and propose a new constitutional system for Northern Ireland, and if I then had to add, "By the way, I have to tell the House that this new system will be boycotted or otherwise rejected by the constitutional representatives of one or the other community," I would be laughed out of court, and rightly so. The common sense of hon. Members would lead them to ask, "What on earth is the point of that?" The search for acceptance must continue, and I shall say more about that in a minute. Meanwhile, direct rule must continue.
  The Parliament of the United Kingdom cannot shirk its duty to provide good government for Northern Ireland. Direct rule is a firm and fair framework, and in many ways we should be proud of it. However, it is right that hon. Members should have a regular opportunity to reflect their views on the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, which is far from satisfactory, and to suggest how it might be improved. Therefore, I should give the House a brief but wide-ranging account of our stewardship. The House does not have many opportunities to debate Northern Ireland in general terms, and this is an occasion which we should seize.
  I make no apology for saying again that for the Government security policy must come first. Certainly there is a link, as I have often been told, between security and politics, but no accommodation is possible with the killers. We must drain the support on which the killers depend, but the terrorist paramilitary organisations must be defeated by a robust security policy. I shall say more about that policy when we debate the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 later this evening, but the essence is simple. We want people in Northern Ireland to be able to go about their everyday pursuits free from the fear of violence.
  The security forces have made substantial progress in recent years in bringing that about. Their skill, patience and bravery call for our gratitude and, more important to them, for our help and co-operation. All of us, especially those of us in public life, have a duty to help in that way. Neither the Government nor the House can be satisfied while terrorists are able to carry out brutal murders such as those of recent years and, indeed, of recent weeks. We must continue to speak out and bring to justice those who have committed these crimes, and to do all that we can to deny them money, weapons, recruits and explosives. That means doing many things, including intensifying co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. No one who knows the facts about security in the Province and who is serious about improving the present position can deny the need for intensified co-operation. The security forces will continue to work impartially within the law to prevent violence. Meanwhile, it is important that a bomb in Newry or in a village in Fermanagh should be regarded by the House as being as important as a bomb in the Rubens hotel because the suffering which can result from it is as great.
  Violence flaws Ireland's image abroad. It deters investors whose talents and resources are needed to complement the inventiveness and skilled application of our people in Northern Ireland. Unemployment, as I come across it week by week, is just under 21 per cent. across the Province and much higher in some areas, and it is a tragic problem. We must understand the personal
  972
  frustration and waste of talent which it causes. But output, investment and the number of people in employment are rising. A record number of new jobs is being created in small businesses as the business climate improves. Shorts, our largest manufacturing employer, has won important orders recently from the Royal Air Force, the United States air force and China. The shipyard Harland and Wolff has a full immediate order book, although much work is needed to improve its finances. There is a battery of special employment training measures for adults and young people. Since 1982 Northern Ireland has had a two-year youth training programme—well ahead of Great Britain.
  Regarding the economy, it is necessary, but not enough, to spend money to mitigate our difficulties. It is not in Northern Ireland's interests to become increasingly dependent on public funds any more than it is in the nation's interests as a whole. That dependence today is somewhat too high. We must therefore work to encourage wealth-creating enterprise and industry. I should like to see an expanding private sector in Northern Ireland because I do not believe that Northern Ireland is exempt from the lessons and experiences of other democratic countries. I am sure that an expanding private sector is the best foundation for prosperity.
  If Northern Ireland is to improve its security and prosper, it must develop links with our closest neighbours and further afield.
  The Republic of Ireland is a member, with us, of the European Community. It is a country with which Northern Ireland shares the same island, and with which it shares many common interests and a common security threat. A significant part of the community in Northern Ireland wishes to see fuller recognition of its Irish identity and to see it reflected in the conduct of relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic. This, as the two Heads of Government agreed at Chequers, must be respected, as must the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to retain its British identity and to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
  We have maintained a dialogue with the Irish Government. Its basis was clearly spelt out in a communiqué issued after the Chequers summit last November. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed that the identities of the majority and the minority communities in Northern Ireland should be recognised, respected and reflected in the structures and processes of Northern Ireland in ways acceptable to both communities. They reaffirmed that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom would not be changed without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. That was a reaffirmation by both Governments, not just by ours.
  There has been speculation recently — I make no complaint about that—about the talks which are going on between the British and Irish Governments. Hon. Members would not expect me to reveal details of discussions which, by their nature, must for the time being remain confidential. The talks are a serious attempt by the two Governments to develop relations within the framework set out in the summit communiqué. The Irish Government have a legitimate interest in what goes on in Northern Ireland, especially in those matters which affect the minority community. We do not know the outcome of the present discussions, or whether they will succeed. If an acceptable basis can be found within the terms of last

  973
  November's communiqué and within the terms of what was then said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for deepening our relationship with the Irish Republic, it will benefit both communities in Northern Ireland and relations between the two Governments, but it will not be a substitute for developing a sense of partnership within Northern Ireland or for seeking arrangements, in consultation with our political parties, for the better administration of the province.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I accept that the Government of the Republic have an interest in Northern Ireland, but will my right hon. Friend define what he means by "legitimate"?
  Mr. Hurd: It is natural that Ministers in the south should, as they do from time to time, feel and express views about what happens in the north. My predecessors and I have differed from other hon. Members and some elected representatives in the Province on that point. However, I have already stated the conclusions that the Government have reached on it.
  I have said that, whatever happens to the discussions between London and Dublin about the external track, it will not be a substitute for the search for political and constitutional progress inside Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Secretary of State leaves the external track, will he tell us what progress has been made with the United States Administration in recent months, in particular within the context of the treaty arrangements, and to what extent they can contribute to a reduction in threats to security?
  Mr. Hurd: They have, and I have no complaints to make about the degree of co-operation that we have from the present United States Administration; the supplementary treaty to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the latest valuable example of that. It is not just a matter for the Administration. It is a matter for those people in the United States who feel an obligation to do something to help in Northern Ireland. They have too often in the past been tempted to discharge what they see as that obligation by making contributions which go into IRA funds.
  I hope that we have made some progress—during my visit there a few months ago I tried to urge this forward—towards showing that that is a thoroughly dangerous and wicked way of proceeding, and that there are plenty of legitimate ways in which Americans with ties in Ireland can help the progress of the economies and societies of both parts of the island.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State spell out in detail how he feels the southern Government should make representations on behalf of Northern Ireland citizens who find themselves in a minority in the north of Ireland, on the political, constitutional issue? Does he believe that the Ministers of the Dublin Republican Government should have access to him to represent those people and make representations on their behalf? Have they not political representatives elected to this House and elsewhere to make those representations on their behalf? Why should Ministers of a foreign Government have that opportunity over and above that available to other citizens of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hurd: Those Ministers have that opportunity now. They will continue to have it unless I were to take a line which I believe most people would regard as strange—that neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister should meet representatives of the Irish Republic. Such meetings occur and we read about one another's remarks in the newspapers. Those opportunities exist and are taken. The question is whether the present system is satisfactory and whether it can be improved. That is what the discussions are about.
  I shall now deal with political developments in Northern Ireland. Since taking up office in September last year, I have taken on the task which my predecessor had of trying to determine which form of government would command the widest level of acceptance and respect in Northern Ireland.
  I began to explore with the leaders of the main constitutional political parties the more tolerant tone and recognition of the interests of others which was clearly evident in policy documents published earlier last year. I encouraged them to consider among themselves how they might build on these expressions of intent in a practical way. Recognising the difficulties of negotiating in public, I favoured private, informal discussions without commitment. I am grateful for the way in which the party leaders responded to that and for the frankness which they showed. There were some indications, although tentative, I must confess, first from one then another, that they might be prepared to inch forward. Early this year, the prospect of the May district council elections froze even that slight willingness to move.
  Before the campaigning started in earnest, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary, to talk to each of the parties away from the glare of publicity to establish more precisely the extent of any common ground and their differences. The results of his conversations redefined and clarified the positions. I am now better placed to decide how to take matters forward.
  In considering how best we can make progress, I have to take account of the results of the district council elections on 15 May and to assess their impact and long-term effect on Northern Ireland's political life. As in previous elections, about 60 per cent. of the electorate voted for parties supporting the Union. They used the free elections system which are traditional in the Province to reaffirm support for the Union without ambiguity.
  Within the minority the media have tended to gloss over the steadiness of support for constitutional nationalism shown by the 17·8 per cent. of the electorate which voted for the SDLP. The immediate reaction of commentators emphasised the fact that 11·8 per cent. gave their vote to Sinn Fein—a party which openly supports the use of violence for political ends. Its total vote was lower than in the 1983 general election and in the 1984 European elections. That was partly because our new anti-personation legislation was becoming effective, although many people will not agree with me about that.
  It is a sad but not new fact that between 80,000 and 100,000 people in Northern Ireland over the years, when given the chance, have voted and will continue to vote for a republicanism which espouses violence.
  I have been urged by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) and others to proscribe Sinn Fein before the elections. I have thought hard about it. I decided not to because such a step would have impaired the freedom of elections in Northern Ireland and the whole basis on

  975
  which Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is not as a result of some colonial system but through the free choice of the majority of the people who live there, repeatedly asserted in wholly free elections.
  If I had proscribed before the elections, Sinn Fein and others would certainly have tried to claim that violence was the only course open to them and that they represented the bulk of nationalist voters. We now know that they do not. The 11·8 per cent. does not form a winning hand, unless opponents play into it.
  I repudiate Sinn Fein's undisguised support for the use of violence. As I have said, we shall use every means within the law to distinguish between those in Northern Ireland who believe in and practise constitutional methods to achieve their objectives and those who connive in violence, from whichever part of the community they come. I add that we shall keep under review the effectiveness of the law in these respects.
  Before the elections we knew that a large number of Sinn Fein councillors would create problems for the Government and for other elected councillors. The Government have to sort out such difficulties within the law. Likewise, we expect district councils to act lawfully.
  I understand that feelings inside and outside councils run particularly high in the wake of attacks which murder and injure. If I did not understand that, it would have been pointed out to me many times since May. Elected representatives have every right, and have a duty, to express the revulsion which all decent people feel. They also have a responsibility to defuse tension and to prevent retaliation. The language and behaviour which have marred some council meetings serve only to damage the democratic process and give welcome publicity to Sinn Fein.
  I am surprised at the way in which some opponents of Sinn Fein feel compelled to build up that organisation by their choice of tactics. We should not lose sight of those many councils which have made equitable, sensible arrangements to conduct their business. I read in The Guardian this morning that the presence of Sinn Fein had reduced local government in the Province to a shambles. That is wholly inaccurate. Such a conclusion can be reached only by people who look at the councils in which there has been trouble and ignore the councils in which there has been none. The right way to deal with a repugnant minority within a minority is to outmanoeuvre, outvote and outwit them.
  Faced with the facts that I have outlined, we must continue to search for better political arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. I have explained the basis on which we wish to do that. Ultimately Parliament must determine the arrangements. We could continue to work through direct rule. I am considering closely a number of measures—as the House has been told—which could be used to remove old irritants to the minority community. I am anxious to ensure the effectiveness of arrangements which underpin equality of opportunity, particularly in employment.
  I know that the present Order in Council procedures of legislation are criticised, particularly on the Unionist Benches. There is, for example, a case for making adjustments to the transferred category by removing matters such as banking, building societies and financial services, where efficiency points to the desirability of United Kingdom-wide legislation and administration by United Kingdom Departments and where the scope for
  976
  separate legislation or policy initiative by any future devolved administration would be more apparent than real. I am certainly open to argument on adjustments in that direction.
  We should recognise that nearly three quarters of recent Orders in Council cover legislation which, for some reason, is different in substance as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. On many matters Northern Ireland Members are among the first to stress the need for such differences. One has only to think of the wide range of social legislation to understand that.
  Whatever their differences, Northern Ireland politicians—and Northern Ireland Ministers—cannot escape their responsibility to those who vote for them and to this Parliament to see common ground. I am much clearer about the difficulties than I was some months ago. There are always problems of timing. The atmosphere might be right for one party, but another will produce an insurmountable obstacle to dialogue. People may say that it is better to wait until after the district elections, until after the marching season, until after the outcome of the Anglo-Irish talks—and so on and so on.
  The Government have been and will continue to 5e patient because we recognise the difficulties. However, never-ending excuses to avoid reasoning wear thin after a time, particularly when one considers how Northern Ireland could benefit from an agreement, however modest, between the constitutional representatives of the two parts of the community. I do not think that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that it is not in the interests of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, that we should be patient for ever. People cannot claim to want political progress if they refuse to co-operate with, or even to talk to, each other.
  The Northern Ireland Assembly still has a part to play. The Assembly's scrutiny of proposed legislation and policy changes has helped my ministerial colleagues, myself and the officials who advise us to tune our policies and proposals more accurately to particular local sensitivities.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will accept that that is our experience. I wish that I could say that some of the Assembly's plenary debates have been as constructive as the work by some of its committees. Some of the speeches in the plenary Assembly, if read outside the Province, would confirm the worst fears of Northern Ireland's friends.
  This was not the role which Parliament intended. The Assembly was established primarily as a framework in which acceptable arrangements for the return of greater responsibility to locally elected representatives could be developed by those representatives. So far, the Assembly has not met Parliament's intentions, despite the useful work which it has done. We shall have to decide—not now, but early next year—in the light of what happens whether fresh Assembly elections should be held in the autumn of 1986.
  Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that the experience of the Assembly confirms the view of the SDLP—the only party which has had the integrity to take that view publicly—that the Assembly could not provide a framework for agreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that view is based on hard experience, not only of what has happened in Northern Ireland but of what the political parties have said in

  977
  statements, that in no circumstances do they wish to share responsibility with SDLP representatives? That experience has been confirmed and reconfirmed by the attitudes that have been adopted in local councils since the elections. There is no way in which the Assembly will provide a framework for agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the position?
  Mr. Hurd: All the constitutional party leaders and many of their supporters have told me from time to time of their hard experience, which convinces them that it is no good entering into dicussion with their colleagues—
  Mr. Hume: With Assemblymen.
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming to Assemblymen. They say that hard experience has taught them that the other parties are not to be trusted and will not make any real concessions. I have heard this over and over again but I do not believe that that provides an adequate reason for not trying again.
  The disappointment which many of us feel at the way that the Assembly has not so far met the main purpose for which it was created should not blind us to the fact that one of the difficulties has been the decision taken by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to have any part in it. It would have been very much easier for the Report Committee of the Assembly in making the progress that I and many others would like to see it make if the hon. Gentleman had at least authorised discussions with it, if not joining it. My conclusion is not the same as that which the hon. Gentleman has drawn.
  The search for agreement, for mutual accommodations, in Northern Ireland must continue whatever the outcome of the Anglo-Irish talks. I am taking stock with the political leaders at present. The scheme of legislative and executive devolution that is in the Northern Ireland Act 1982 is practical and coherent. I am prepared to consider other forms of devolution if their advocates can show that they meet the criterion of widespread acceptance throughout the community. I could imagine, for example, a scheme in which executive power only was devolved in some areas of policy. If new arrangements are to be stable and to benefit the people of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain, the constitutional political parties which represent both parts of the community must be prepared to work these arrangements together. During the coming months we shall have to encourage the parties to address these matters actively and seriously.
  Meanwhile, direct rule must continue. It is often denigrated and receives scant praise. Too little attention is paid to what has been achieved over a decade by successive Governments and the people of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute especially to the public servants. Many tributes are rightly paid to the security forces, but the Northern Ireland civil servants and other civilian public servants of the Province deserve a tribute during the debate. They and the people as a whole have kept cool heads amidst all the tragedy of the terrorism and the hardship in recent years of a severe worldwide economic recession.
  This shows in the combined effort that has been made in the form of resources from the United Kingdom as a whole, the understanding of the House and the performance of the people of Northern Ireland. This shows
  978
  as we go about the cities and the counties. This shows in the roads, schools, leisure centres, health centres, hospitals and the very high standard of new housing. We shall continue to invest in Northern Ireland for the present and in future. We want the people of Northern Ireland to live in greater safety and prosperity. We are prepared to continue the present substantial effort by the whole country to make this possible. We are not satisfied with the results of that effort so far. We shall continue to do all that we can to eradicate terrorism. We shall continue the search for partnership between the communities.
  Meanwhile, the government of the Province must be carried on efficiently, firmly and fairly. I therefore invite the House to agree to extend the life of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: We are discussing the extension of arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland which, as the Secretary of State recognises, no one would have sought as a first option. Like so many aspects of the history of Ireland, they exist, not because anyone wanted them, or planned them but simply as a consequence of what has gone before, each chapter unfolding with the predestined inevitability of a Shakespearian tragedy.
  The arrangements entail that the people of Northern Ireland can influence only marginally the electoral fortunes of the party which controls the machinery of government, which formulates the policies, and takes the decisions on which their fortunes depend. That is not a healthy situation. Representative government and the politics of electoral choice do not operate for the people of Northern Ireland.
  This morning in Committee the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) observed that the gas industry is the latest example of the casualties which flow from direct rule. It is not the case that the British Government want to run the affairs of Northern Ireland. Those who insist that the Government are clinging to Northern Ireland as a miser clings to his gold are simply wrong. It is not an example of a colonial power reluctant to let go. Indeed, the reverse is true; the British Government do not want to rule Northern Ireland, because it entails finding parliamentary time for matters which they would prefer to be discussed elsewhere. There is no electoral advantage for the Government. Frankly, they do not care about it. Northern Ireland is simply an additional problem, a complicating factor in their work.
  Decisions which, if they concerned any other part of the United Kingdom, would take the form of primary legislation — Second Reading, Committee and Report, with amendments and concessions, all the circumstances and safeguards of parliamentary democracy — are replaced for the people of Northern Ireland by non-amendable orders debated for such time as is available, often an hour and a half at some period in the week which has not been pre-empted for more important business. That may be inevitable until we find an alternative which secures a measure of agreement, but we might have hoped that, understanding the situation, the Government would have shown some sensitivity, some sympathy for the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.
  We are discussing two orders of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland, involving matters on which feelings run high and which evoke strong emotions. If they

  979
  related to any other part of the United Kingdom, each would have been accorded at least a full day's debate. The Government believe that in the case of Northern Ireland they can crowd both into the same day. I confess at once that when we, the Opposition, were told of this arrangement, we accepted it. Perhaps that was because we are conditioned to accept that Northern Ireland is not accorded the same priorities as other regions. Having achieved that, the Government decided to push matters further. They decided that not only should the two orders share a day, but that they should not even have a day, and they should be discussed after other business.
  The Government gave an undertaking that at least the other business would not proceed beyond 6 o'clock. They said that if it seemed likely to proceed beyond that hour they would report progress. I understand that unforeseen difficulties arise, but the point of a promise is that it is kept even when it is inconvenient.
  The Government's business managers do not normally disregard their promises. What I resent is the attitude that promises on Northern Ireland business do not really matter. No issue of comparable importance relating to other regions would have received such insulting treatment. We have a Government whose business managers simply do not care a tinker's cuss for Northern Ireland or its people.
  We must draw one of two conclusions. Either the Government are not capable of controlling their business managers and the Whips Office tail wags the policy dog, or the importance that the business managers attach to Northern Ireland reflects the importance attached to it by the Government. I absolve the Secretary of State from that allegation and I do not call on him to comment on his colleagues. I believe that their attitude to Northern Ireland business is a cross that he, too, has to bear.
  But two comments have to be made. The business of the House is about the rights of minorities, and part of their sanction is that no party is in a majority for ever. I say to the present Government, as I ventured to say to political leaders on both sides in Northern Ireland, that one good reason for respecting the rights of those with whom we disagree is that those who in one context and at one time are in a majority, in a different situation and a different year are appealing for the rights of minorities. History has a habit of turning every situation on its head. There is no instance in the history books of a dominating group which stayed dominant for ever, and we know that for the Government time is running out.
  Secondly, if daily life in Northern Ireland is to improve and there is to be any redress of its real problems—unemployment, financial hardship and bad living conditions, the problems that we were discussing in Committee this morning—something has to be changed. We all hope for a solution to the constitutional questions which beset Northern Ireland. The solution may come about through a process rather than a single event, but that will be next year or the year after, or some other time in the future. It is now that people are despairing-like the people I visited last week, in the Divis flats, whose afflictions the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was kind enough to discuss with me today, or the people I hope to visit shortly in some districts of east Belfast.
  If the people of Northern Ireland are to feel confident in constitutional, democratic politics, and if they are to have any expectation from the ballot box, one of two things must happen. Either the Government's managers
  980
  must take the affairs of Northern Ireland more seriously, even though their electoral fortunes are not dependent on Northern Ireland electors, or if there is no future in that, we must find a way to return a greater share of executive power to elected bodies in Northern Ireland. I take the point by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that that has to be on the basis that there is some sharing of power.
  We had hoped to hear from the Secretary of State what progress had been made. I appreciate that these things are always difficult, but whatever differences there may be about ultimate objectives, interim solutions or simply the way forward, no one wants to retain the status quo. That is unloved because it is unlovable. It is axiomatic that we all want to find a way forward—however we may differ as to the solution that we favour, no one would choose the status quo as the ideal form of government. No one is enamoured of the economic opportunities lost or the waste of resources following the troubles. So far as I know, there is no one who has not tired of the posturing and the sloganising, and, above all, everyone is sick of the violence and the fear.
  We discovered last year that people on both sides of the sectarian political divide, as the Secretary of State said, were prepared to explore ways of walking together in peace. There are groups who are working assiduously and positively to build bridges, although we do not pay tribute often enough to people such as the Corrymeela community, Women Together, the Ulster People's college, or Lagan college. I hope that one day, history will accord them greater recognition than their own generation has done. But they reflect what many people are saying, although sometimes understandably they hesitate to say it aloud in their own community: "Let us try to live together in harmony, even with those from whom we differ. Let the two traditions not only tolerate each other but enrich each other, and let us offer the next generation of children a better inheritance as a result."
  We had hoped to hear from the Government about the progress of their conversations with the Government of the Republic. Shortly after the summit last year, when the Government were trying to mend the gaping tear in their fences made by the brick that the Prime Minister had let fall at her press conference, we heard of a possible further summit in February and then heard that it might be in April and then probably in September. We heard that the talks were ranging over some practical issues such as a possible Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier and a possible office for officials from the Republic in Belfast to make representations on behalf of those who wanted to seek their aid, although I understand that that is not necessarily welcome to people such as the hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  There was talk of a jurisdiction to try terrorist offences on the basis of a common judiciary, and leaks have it that the separation of powers had extended so far that the judiciary was hardly on speaking terms with the Executive. There was talk of a closer liaison between the police, repairing the bridges at the highest level and with a kind of common recruitment policy on a less exalted level, so that, in a phrase I heard the Foreign Minister of the Republic use some months ago, a young Nationalist could join the police without being any the less a Nationalist.
  I understand that we cannot ask the Secretary of State to offer details on such questions while discussions on them are proceeding. I wish not to embarrass the

  981
  Government but rather to encourage them to pursue those talks in detail, in private rather than public, provided that we are given a progress report when the time is opportune.
  So I am grateful for what the Secretary of State has said, but how long is the time scale likely to be? As he said, this cannot be allowed to drag on for ever. I am grateful, too, for what he said about discussions within Northern Ireland between the Government and the political leaders of the various groups, and I agree that a few months ago there was an atmosphere of tolerance that would not have been possible two or three years earlier. But I should be grateful for a little more information as to whether those talks are still proceeding, because that was not clear from what the Secretary of State said, although I understand what he said about their progress being interrupted by the local elections. Can we expect a report in due course?
  But there is no prospect of agreement unless people are ready to talk together. There can be no resolution of differences unless political leaders will discuss matters with those whom they differ. And if there is one thing which men of violence are anxious to achieve, it is to ensure that that does not happen.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat what I have said many times before. It may be felt that it does not require repeating, but for the avoidance of misunderstanding, I repeat that we have no sympathy for violence as a means to achieve political ends. Not only do we not believe that the ends justify the means, but we do not believe that worthwhile ends can be achieved by violent means. Murder, and fear and intimidation, cannot give rise to a peaceful and just society. We do not believe that peace and justice can grow in soil that has been soaked with blood.
  We would tell that message to men of violence on both sides of the sectarian divide and we, like the Secretary of State, repudiate Sinn Fein's undisguised support for the use of violence. So if there was a plan to spread injury and death indiscriminately in holiday resorts, and if that plan was frustrated by the vigilance of the police, we all share in the rejoicing. But if it leads to the consequence that people refuse to continue talking together, and if it brings political discussion to a standstill, then the men of violence will have achieved their objective after all.
  Violence in Northern Ireland feeds on three factors. They have all to be tackled simultaneously, because when they are resolved, the men of violence on both sides will be isolated. Until they are resolved, there will always be a reservoir of potential recruits for the paramilitaries, particularly among the young. First, there are the economic and social conditions in which people are living. Unless they believe that the ballot box can offer some redress for their grievances, we must not be surprised if those who speak of alternatives to the ballot box find someone to listen. Secondly, there is the danger that the methods we use to combat violence may be seen as unfair and oppressive, and they may actually contribute to the problem. I will say no more about that as it will be discussed in the next debate.
  In this debate I simply want to make an appeal for a willingness to meet and talk. If that sounds naive, we have no babes or sucklings to say it, and I am convinced that someone has to say it. The Labour party does not believe that meeting people entails agreeing with them, or indicating approval or endorsing their claim to
  982
  respectability. It means simply what it says, meeting them and listening. If in Northern Ireland I met only those with whom I was already in complete agreement, I would spend a very solitary existence.
  I hesitate to endanger our new alliance with the Ulster Unionist parties which was launched so successfully this morning, but I hope that they will receive my comment in the spirit in which it is intended. I believe that we can differ without rancour, and by ventilating our differences we may go some way towards resolving them.
  A fortnight ago a working group from the National Executive Committee of the Labour party and of the parliamentary Labour party visited Northern Ireland. We wanted to talk to people from as many different view points as possible. There had to be some criterion of whom we invited to meet us, so we invited every party which had a representative elected to a public body. We did not expect to agree with them all.
  In fact, that was impossible because we knew they would be saying inconsistent things, but we believed that if we listened to what they had to say that might help us to understand their point of view and perhaps might even allow us to act as a catalyst in pointing out where the common ground lay. Sinn Fein was within that criterion because it had elected councillors. Sinn Fein agreed to meet us. We did not make it a condition that it modified its views before we met, and Sinn Fein did not impose a condition that we express any sympathy with its position. It was our judgment that we should make no distinction between the parties that fell within our criterion.
  The Unionist parties did not agree with our judgment. That is strange because they are so anxious to see nationalists pursuing their objectives by taking part in constitutional democratic politics, fighting elections, representing their constituents and taking their place in committees that when they do, they will not talk to them.
  If the nationalist parties are not serious about representing their constituents, and if they do not want to promote the work of the councils, why not call their bluff? Why not offer them the opportunity and see whether they take it?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If terrorists in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency who had murdered people stood for election and were successful, would he talk to them? Would his party enter into talks with such people?
  Mr. Archer: If anyone in my constituency was known to have committed murder, I would press the authorities to bring him to justice. The law should take its course. That would be the proper way to deal with such people. If there were people who said they believed in murder, I would disagree with them very strongly and would understand those who felt indignant about it, but I would not say that I was not prepared to talk to them, because something may emerge from such talks. Certainly, if they represented the people who had elected them, I would not expect that support to terminate if they were in a position to say that they were not given the chance to carry out their mandate.
  But I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a matter of judgment, and we could have been wrong. We shall have to agree to disagree about it, and in democratic politics there are a number of questions like that. But delegates from the Ulster Unionist party said that they

  983
  were going further than that. Not only would they not talk to Sinn Fein, they said that they would not talk to anyone who talked to it.
  Because they disagreed with our judgment, they would not talk to us either. So they went off in a sulk and would not meet us. I do not know how far they are prepared to extend this. Perhaps they will not talk to anyone who has talked to anyone who has talked to Sinn Fein, and it will end with no one speaking to anyone else. They would not talk to our working group. That was our misfortune, because the purpose of the whole exercise was to hear what everyone had to say. We may have to reach our conclusions as best we can without hearing the views of the Ulster Unionist party and the people they represent.
  Happily, they do not seem to speak for the whole of the party, which does not uniformly adopt quite so rigid an attitude. Last week, after Mr. Golden, the comptroller of the New York city pension fund—a fair and open-minded man whom I had the pleasure of meeting—had met representatives of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) did not think it right to refuse to meet him. I applaud the hon. Gentleman. I think he showed greater vision and wisdom than some of his colleagues.
  If the Government want to see a resolution of the political differences, they too can set the kind of example on which the Secretary of State touched this evening. I appreciate the difficulties which confront the Government, but they seem to recognise that when members of a political party seek election to public office and are returned as councillors at the polls, it is absurd to say that central Government will not discuss council business with them or listen to them when they wish to speak about environmental health, clean food and the prevention of epidemics. The Government recognise that if we condemn people—and rightly so—for putting their trust in the gun rather then the ballot box, it is inconsistent, when such people use the ballot box, to refuse them access to the machinery of constitutional politics.
  But Ministers will not front that operation themselves, although they recognise all that. They leave it to their officials to talk to them. It is neither courageous nor honest to leave officials to do what for any reason they are not prepared to do themselves.
  I do not believe that Lord Whitelaw or the Secretary of State, when a junior Minister, were signifying their agreement with Sinn Fein or with anything it said when they met representatives in July 1972, nor were they endorsing Sinn Fein's view on violence. Possibly they were wiser in their generation than some of their successors.
  If there is ever to be an end to divisions in Northern Ireland, if people are ever to live in peace with their neighbours, and if there is to be any end of the tribalism, the violence, the waste and the tragedy of it all, there must be some arrangement about how people can live together in one island and manage their business and administer their affairs. There is no hope of that unless they can seek agreement through conversations and constitutional processes with those with whom they do not already agree.
  This morning we all urged on the Government the virtues of an open mind. Hon. Members on the Unionist Benches added their voices to ours, and that was greatly appreciated. They did it extremely effectively.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: We will do it here.
  Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We were grateful, because the Government's record on consultation leaves much to be desired. But in fairness I must accept that if an open mind is a virtue in the Government, it is no less a virtue in the rest of us. So I urge right hon. and hon. Members on other Benches to reflect on a truth of which I must constantly remind myself—that it is not a sign of weakness for any of us to consider it possible that we may be wrong.
  I do not propose to expound the Opposition's views on the ultimate solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I shall even abstain from enlarging on our interim solutions. I have spoken of them in detail on other occasions, and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will wish to speak about them tonight. I simply want to appeal to all those who for various reasons are tempted to practise the politics of abstention to recognise that, if there is to be a stable settelement, they should be part of it, and that one does not achieve a settlement by refusing to talk and listen.
  We shall not seek to deny the Government their order tonight. For the moment there is no alternative to direct rule, but that is something we should all be seeking to change. I have avoided saying anything which should divide us substantially or dramatically from the Government, because to do so would not be helpful at this stage, but the Government cannot simply wait on events. It is their responsibility to take the lead in seeking a better way of administering the affairs of Northern Ireland.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made a plea for talks and appealed to us all to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland by engaging in talks. He seemed to equate that with what we in the House of Commons regard as consultation and co-operation between different parties and groupings of parties. I must tell him that there is really no true parallel.
  There is no problem in this House in getting Members and groupings to come together. We who represent parties and constituencies in Northern Ireland wish to come together when we consider it to be in the best interests of our people to do so. However, it is a very different matter to expect us to get together around a table and arrive at some improbable constitutional structure. To do that would be utterly unthinkable in this House, even within the normal context of parliamentary democracy as it is generally understood, not only in Britain but in most of the civilised world—including the bits that were formerly civilised—to which we have bequeathed our system of parliamentary democracy.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the Secretary of State should accept that it is rather unfair to expect party leaders to get together and find an alternative to direct rule. We complain about direct rule. Indeed, the Secretary of Sate came near to chiding us for so complaining. But he is generous enough to take account of the fact that we did not bring about direct rule. That was brought about by a former Conservative Government. Admittedly, the Secretary of State was not a member of that Government, but he was not without influence in that Administration, and I say that in the kindest possible way.
  When the right hon. Gentleman is reflecting on that period, he might let us into a secret. Perhaps he would tell

  985
  us what alternatives were considered. Surely no Government in their right mind would abolish a system of devolved government, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, without having a clear idea of what would be put in its place. I do not believe that at that time they addressed their minds to that. However, shortly afterwards they presented what they knew in their heart of hearts was unworkable. I refer to the 1973 Act and all that flowed from it.
  The House of Commons is in danger of making itself look ludicrous, or of permitting the Government to make it look ridiculous, by referring to the words "interim period extension" in the order. That form of words implies that we are dealing with a temporary measure. "Interim" is the sort of word one uses if one's house is being demolished and reconstructed. The occupant may have to live in a caravan as an interim arrangement. The caravan dweller will tolerate such conditions for a month or two. Indeed, he may be able to survive an entire winter under such conditions, as many people are obliged to do.
  Thereafter, he would become extremely impatient, and I fear that his patience would snap totally if, towards the end of the first year, the clerk of works in charge of the building tapped on the aluminium door of the caravan and said, "Sorry, old chap, but we shall have to defer everything for another 12 months." That, incidentally, is the type of well-worn phrase that has been used annually, in June, by successive Secretaries of State of Governments of various complexions in this House in the context of tonight's order.
  One Oxford dictionary defines "interim" as "meanwhile" and gives, as a secondary interpretation,
  "during the time that comes between."
  We are entitled to ask, between what? Is it between one Stormont Government and another? As a description, I suppose that was reasonably accurate from 1972 to 1973 and from 1974 to 1975. However, the phrase was wearing more than a little thin by 1982, which was a watershed year for Northern Ireland. In 1982–10 years after the abolition of Stormont—the Government Made the word "interim" inapplicable, for they introduced the 1982 Act, even though the House of Commons regarded it as unworkable.
  It was an item of legislation which so bewildered the majority of right hon. and hon. Members that they reacted in two different ways. The Opposition could neither speak nor vote, and Government Members excused their support for the measure on the ground—I repeat a comment made to me at the time by many hon. Members—that it would not work anyway. Despite the pleas of those of us who were directed to make it work, the unworkable Act is still with us, and I am afraid that I see no inclination, particularly following the Secretary of State's speech tonight, on the part of the Government to amend it.
  The Secretary of State rightly said that so far we have not applied the test which he thought should be applied to any proposal that might come forward within the meaning of the word "proposal" under the 1982 Act. He suggested as a test that for any structure to be acceptable it would need—I refer to the proposal for the formation of a Government—widespread acceptance. In other words, whether it had widespread acceptance would be the test.
  I am afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to apply that test here, he would never have a Government,
  986
  for there could never be a Government with widespread acceptance in this House. If I am told that Northern Ireland is different and that the same sort of problems do not exist in this part of the kingdom, then I must ask, without becoming involved in monetarist arguments, whether the 3 million-plus unemployed in this island do not warrant an experiment in power-sharing, with a coming together of the leaders of the two main parties. In saying that, I do not entirely exclude the Members on the alliance Bench. Surely the 3 million-plus unemployed are entitled to expect the party leaders in this House to get together to try to work out a solution to the serious problem that affects them all.
  Reference is often made to the way in which this island is developing into two nations. What is being done to bridge that gap? Is there not a case for a coalition, or at least an exploration to see how far it is possible to get with the formation of a coalition, to prevent that gulf between the north and south in this island becoming unbridgable?
  Meanwhile, the Report Committee of the Assembly has entered on the second year of its deliberations, frustrated and shackled with a near-impossible task. Nevertheless, the Government insist on the use of the word "interim"—or perhaps they are using it to mean
  "during the time that comes between."
  It is true that Ministers and those who advise them have not been helped by misguided thinking inside and outside the House, because for 15 years there has been a mistaken belief that all political movement has to be designed to placate the terrorists. It is a mistaken belief that terrorism sprang from social, economic or other alleged defects in the democratic system but, in fact, it was the other way round. That is not my opinion; it is proved in an extract from the IRA's manual dated 1968—two years before the IRA was supposed to come into existence as a reaction to majority oppression in Northern Ireland. Who are we to disbelieve the manual, because at least the IRA meant what it said. It stated:
  "Our strategy if it is to succeed must be the perfect blending of Politics and violence … at the most opportune time and under the most favourable circumstances … We will not succeed in winning support for our policy and ideas by mere propaganda publicity. We must at every possible occasion involve ourselves in any agitation or issue that is part of Republican policy, and it should be made known to the public at large that Republicans are involved and helping in the particular cause at issue."
  Some time later, when I was elected to the House, I drew attention in my maiden speech on 15 February 1971 to the real nature and intention of terrorists. My natural modesty prevents me from quoting from the Official Report, but it so happens that afterwards I was furnished with a copy of the Press Association report, giving an indication of what that association made of my remarks. I shall quote a few sentences which sound not so strange in 1985. The report states:
  "The first demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare in Western Europe was being seen in Ulster, the Commons were told tonight. 'Our Army is meeting the onslaught with great courage' said Mr. James Molyneaux. But it had been given 'an impossible task and would be engaged on it for many years to come.' The troops endured a 'deluge of abuse' after every incident. The first page of the Anarchist's textbook apparently said charges of brutality should be made after every incident. It would be futile to get the three governments round a table because the IRA and their anarchist friends were utterly opposed to all governments. Nor could direct rule from Westminster make a scrap of difference to 'the gunmen'. Mr. Molyneaux said the questions of reforms were not relevant to the problem. IRA leaders had said they did not want reforms."

  987
  Such views were not fashionable in 1971, and they have remained largely unfashionable during the intervening 14 years. That is why successive Governments have wrongly believed that any modification of the interim period arrangements had to be considered with one eye on the terrorists in the hope that the terrorists might give tacit approval or in the hope that the changes and concessions might at least take the heat out of the terrorist campaign and somehow, in a magical way, isolate them from the community from which they sprang.
  Today, in 1985, the terrorist mask has been ripped away. What concessions and administrative changes could influence the evil brotherhood of international terrorists? What softening influence would political considerations exert on minds that planned the hijacking of the American airliner, the bomb at Frankfurt airport, the mass murder on the Indian jumbo jet, the explosion in the baggage section at Tokyo airport or, more recently, the planned slaughter of holidaymakers in England's seaside towns?
  We need not, after the events of the past two weeks, waste any more time on analysing the so-called causes and motivations of this murderous worldwide league. Other debates will be more appropriate for a consideration of how the civilised world can snuff out the terrorist menace, but in this debate we need only resolve that this democratically elected body—the House of Commons—should not be distracted or diverted by terrorist action or threats which conveniently coincide with occasions when decisions are in the offing. In this case, the IRA clearly intends invervening to turn the screw to force the British Government to deliver what is desired by the IRA and those who share its objective of dismantling the United Kingdom.
  How the so-called IRA army council must have cheered when it yesterday heard the leader of the Liberal party unwittingly transmit the signal that it most wanted to hear when he asked the Home Secretary to agree
  "that this would be a good time for the Government to underline yet again their intention to continue the constructive dialogue with the Government of Ireland".—[Official Report, 25 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 776.]
  The idea was that we should attempt to break the impasse. I believe that those words originated in Paul Johnson's article in The Guardian the day before when he said that blatant efforts were being made to breathe some form of life into the negotiations between London and Dublin. He referred to breaking the "impasse". It is not the impasse in negotiations about many of those worthy items of co-operation to which the Secretary of State and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred. It is not the impasse in negotiations about co-operation on fishing rights, animal health, tourism and all the matters that one would normally expect to be dealt with between two neighbouring friendly nations. It is very different—it is an impasse in the negotiations about starting the process of ending Northern Ireland's existence as part of the United Kingdom. It is that process which the IRA seeks to hasten. That is why the IRA considers this to be a good time for it to underline, in its rather indelicate way, the need for the British negotiators to be given another kick.
  The Secretary of State conceded earlier that in his view the Government of the Irish Republic had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the minority community in Northern Ireland. One would assume that that claim was based in turn on that Government's claim that the minority in Northern Ireland—for all I know, all the citizens in
  988
  Northern Ireland—are Irish subjects. If so, why do not Dublin Ministers make representations to the Secretary of State or his Cabinet colleagues about the plight of Irish citizens who reside in England, living under the same Government and having to endure the decisions made by the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member? Why is there such a difference in the treatment of—to be blunt about it—Irish Roman Catholics who reside in Belfast and Irish Roman Catholics who reside in Birmingham? I have addressed that question indirectly to members of the Dublin Government and there has been no answer. But as the Secretary of State attaches such great importance to the right to interfere, the right to advise and the right for the Government to concern themselves, perhaps he would attempt to seek clarification and say whether perhaps there ought to be a Minister for Irish affairs sitting in the British Cabinet because that would seem to be logical.
  Coming back to the central point that all of them in Birmingham and Belfast are governed by one and the same Government, it is important to emphasise that in Northern Ireland they are being governed not by a coalition of Unionist parties but by a Government elected by the people of the United Kingdom and a Government who in the final analysis are accountable and responsible for all their actions, be it in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, to the House of Commons. The Dublin Government, before they continue to reassert that claim, must substantiate that claim and they must tell us and the Secretary of State why they seek to interfere, intervene and interest themselves in only one part of the United Kingdom.
  I want to make a point about the discussions going on between London and Dublin which have caused a great deal of suspicion, I think quite unnecessarily, because there should be no problem in Her Majesty's Government taking the House of Commons into their confidence and telling them what it is all about. Because of all this suspicion, because of all the kite-flying and because of all the projections, all the rumour-mongering and all the deliberate leaks, they can hardly blame Loyalists for being a bit suspicious and, if it comes to that, they can hardly blame the IRA for imagining that, if it gets in on the act, it will expedite affairs along the road that it would wish to choose.
  Hundreds of men, women and children with their buckets and spades will die because of the IRA's intention to break the impasse to which I referred earlier. Now that the eyes of all have at least been opened, let us here in this House of Commons, where we have consultation and co-operation and where we can talk to each other, devote our energies to making democracy work. After 13 years in the political trenches, do not expect that all can be put right in a single day. But today at least we can give an indication of our intention to start dismantling the colonial apparatus of direct rule.
  Let no one be deterred by the mistaken notion that our efforts will be resented or resisted by anyone in Northern Ireland who believes in democracy. Who in Northern Ireland would be prepared to defend insensitive legislation by Order in Council and ministerial decree? Who in Northern Ireland can condone a regime which contemplates the passage of legislation for Great Britain only with absolutely identical legislation for Northern Ireland following on anything up to two years later?
  The Secretary of State referred to the high percentage of Orders in Council which come before the House dealing

  989
  especially with Northern Ireland because of Northern Ireland's special legislative background, but I think that he knows that it would not be too difficult to adapt Great Britain's legislation as it comes forward to suit the needs of Northern Ireland and to fit in with Northern Ireland's existing legislative background. Perhaps he would be good enough to enter into consultations with those who have given a great deal of thought to this process. That process is designed to make direct rule more sensitive, more acceptable, and more efficient, and to operate in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, given that the present Government and the present House of Commons, in positive ways and sometimes in negative ways, have put on the statute book the Northern Ireland Act 1982 which prevents the restoration of devolved government as long as it remains unamended. We are saying that no time should be lost in making direct rule more acceptable and more efficient in all its workings.
  I hope that the Government and the House will now conclude that 13 years of interim temporary arrangements have been at least 10 years too long and that within the next 12 months we will have introduced arrangements more in line with British democracy as it is understood and admired the world over.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. John Hume: It has already been said that for the 13th year we are discussing direct rule in Northern Ireland, and we do so with a depleted attendance in the Chamber. We in Northern Ireland have been told repeatedly how British we are. We have been told by no less a person than the Prime Minister that we are as British as Finchley. I would venture to suggest that if what is happening on the streets of Northern Ireland were happening in Finchley, if 2,500 people had lost their lives in political violence, 20,000 had been maimed and there were unemployment of 20 per cent. concentrated in the areas from which the violence was emanating, there might be one or two more Members of Parliament present to discuss the matter this evening. It is difficult for me to take seriously the political parties in this island when they tell me that they think we are as British as they are and when there is this sort of attendance in the Chamber to debate what is the most serious human problem facing the peoples of these islands.
  It is difficult for me also, therefore, to take seriously the views expressed by the Government this evening when it is quite clear that the party that supports them does not have any great concern, interest or, indeed, care—I think that is a fair charge to make—bout what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are 12 Members representing Britain and present in the Chamber. Five of them have to be present. I think that is a sufficient commentary on their attitude towards and concern for the problems that we face.
  The Secretary of State's remarks tended to repeat what we have heard so often. The more things change the more they remain the same. The Secretary of State indicated that successive Governments have tried repeatedly to put forward proposals for a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, again with the implication that they are the harassed arbiters between the warring factions that inhabit the north of Ireland. There was no sign of what I
  990
  feel would be necessary after 13 years of failure to provide peace and stability. There was no sign of a radical reassessment of attitudes or of approaches.
  The forces that make political progress almost impossible in Northern Ireland today have not changed. They have not changed throughout the 13 years; they have not changed throughout this century; they are identical. The democratic process was interrupted in Ireland, as I have often said in the House, in 1912 when the House, which opposed the rule of law—a rule of law based on the sovereignty of this Parliament—surrendered to threats of Ulster Unionists against the decision to grant home rule to the island of Ireland. Unionists learned from that and they have never forgotten, and they have been repeating in the past week to the Secretary of State that, if one threatens a British Government with the dire consequences of their action, the British Government will back off. Others too learned that if one succeeds by democratic methods the name of the game is changed and physical force is the only answer to our problems.
  Those two forces—those who threaten force and those who use force—had their positions reinforced by the experience of 1974 which still dominates much of the thinking in Northern Ireland today. Those two forces are still the forces that prevent the development of the political and democratic process in Northern Ireland. They feed off one another. In a recent election we witnessed them feeding off one another. We had the spectacle of Members opposite holding an election press conference with sledgehammers over their shoulders saying, "We will smash Sinn Fein." One does not need two political thoughts to rub together in one's head to realise that that kind of approach breeds support for the people that one alleges will be smashed. Extremism breeds extremism. The killing by the Provisional IRA, which is part of Sinn Fein, feeds the fears and the centre tends to fall apart.
  After the elections we found that the same extremists were breeding the same extremism. The recent local government elections results were not unusual. They demonstrated that nothing ever changes in Northern Ireland elections. The election results in my city were identical with the election results in 1933. In 1981 the local government election results showed that 21 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted for candidates who were described as "others" and that 17·5 per cent. voted for SDLP candidates. In 1985, 11·8 per cent. of the people voted for Sinn Fein and 9·2 per cent voted for others. The total is exactly 21 per cent. A total of 17·8 per cent. of the people voted for my party. The Sinn Fein vote was slightly less than in recent elections. There is nothing new about the results; have reached the ceiling and we know what it is. It is good to know exactly where one stands.
  The reaction was a propaganda victory. It appeared that Sinn Fein had won the election. Those people say that they speak and act in the name of the people of Ireland, but 11 per cent. of the vote does not give one the right to speak and act in the name of the people of Ireland. And 3 per cent. of the vote this week in the Republic does not give them the right to speak and act in the name of the people of Ireland, particularly when they kill fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland. Every democrat should stand up and say that, instead of behaving at local council meetings in a way that gives credibility to and provides propaganda for those one claims one wants to smash.
  What do councillors say at local council meetings? They say that they will not recognise the presence of Sinn

  991
  Fein councillors. There is nothing new about that. Everybody thinks that they say that just because it is Sinn Fein, but they have been saying that to the representatives of the SDLP for years. The Unionists in Northern Ireland have conceded not one iota to SDLP representatives. The deputy leader of my party has been a member of Armagh council for 12 years. During that period he has not even been nominated for membership of a committee; nor has any SDLP councillor held senior office in any council in which the Unionists have a major say. That has to be contrasted with the performance of my party when it had a majority on the council. Not a single committee place on Belfast city council has been given to any representative of the non-Unionist community. Craigavon decided that it would give complete council powers to a council committee. The membership of that committee excludes everybody who is not a Unionist. Talk about democracy!
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of these instances followed in the wake of council meetings in other districts where a genuine effort was made to bring the SDLP into the work of the council by giving senior posts to them? Will he acknowledge that when the SDLP was told that it would be given the vice-chairmanship of my council it declined to nominate anybody? Does he also acknowledge that we said that one of two posts on a council committee would be filled by the SDLP? The SDLP nominated somebody but when Sinn Fein nominated somebody else the SDLP withdrew, in an effort to force a Sinn Fein nomination upon us. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that because of decisions like that by the SDLP, as happened when it decided not to fight Fermanagh and South Tyrone, other councils behave in what appears to be an irresponsible manner?
  Mr. Hume: I intend to deal with the position of the SDLP on all these councils. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's chronology, but I shall deal with that later. Cookstown council acts in the same way as Craigavon council, except that it does it more legally; it delegates its powers to different committees but makes sure that nobody serves on the committees who disagrees with the Unionists. Lisburn council made a mistake. It allowed one member of the SDLP to serve on a committee. Later its leader apologised to the electorate for having allowed an SDLP member to serve on the committee.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will ensure that the imbalance on area education boards is corrected. Not a single representative of the minority communities has been nominated to serve on the area education boards of Armagh, Dungannon, Cookstown and Craigavon councils.
  The SDLP approach was set out before, during and after the election. We fought all corners. In particular, we fought the men of violence. It did not go unnoticed by anybody observing the political scene in Northern Ireland that the party most targeted by the political wing of the IRA was the party that I lead. Mine is the party that it wants to destroy. We fought the political wing of the IRA in every part of Northern Ireland. We fought their violence and their violent actions. We also fought the bigotry that lies at the heart of most of our divisions. We said that because we fight elections under the system of proportional representation we would do as we had done
  992
  before: once the election was over we would try to ensure that, in every area where we had a major say, proportionality, in terms of membership of committees, would be the order of the day. We carried out that policy. In Northern Ireland, the SDLP has five chairmanships and Sinn Fein two. That is almost identical with their proportional vote. Furthermore, in those areas where we have a major say we have offered positions to representatives of other parties.
  Before somebody tells me that the fact that one supports somebody from a party that one opposes and does not like for the chairmanship of a council or a committee where there is not an overall majority means that one supports what that party stands for, let me say that in that case no local government would work. We put into office in Newry as chairman Mr. Graham. The Secretary of State no doubt recognises the name because yesterday he refused to talk to Mr. Graham.
  Rev. Paisley: He had lunch with him.
  Mr. Hume: Hold on a minute; I am talking about what we do as a political party. We supported for office a member of the party of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) in an area where we had an overwhelming majority, in pursuit of our policy of partnership, to try to break down the barriers between us—a man whom the Secretary of State will not talk to because he makes his views clear about the sort of violence he would use to achieve his political objectives.
  I do not like what Sinn Fein stands for, any more than I like what the parties that differ from me in the House stand for. I particularly dislike the fact that it decides that the way to unite my country is to kill fellow citizens with whom it disagrees. I do not think that it requires great political intelligence to recognise that that only causes far deeper bitterness and division.
  The nub of the question—this is where the Government come in—is that if we agree that a political poarty has a legal right to stand for election, and that election takes place, we must treat everybody elected in exactly the same way, whether we like them or not.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is completely contrary to what happens in this House. This House passed legislation, because Bobby Sands was elected, that ensured that never again would it permit that. So the House took a decision on that issue and the Labour party voted for it.
  Mr. Hume:If people want to engage in undemocratic practices in the House or anywhere else, it is no good asking me to defend them. The Government have said and the House has said that it is perfectly legal for members of this political party to stand and—whether one likes it or not, and most people do not—if they are elected they are entitled to be treated exactly the same as everybody else, because if they are not treated the same as everybody else they are given propaganda victories right, left and centre. That is giving one's own definition of democracy, by excluding people who are elected by the people. That is far more dangerous because the erosion of democracy is what gives justification to men of violence.
  The Government have said that they will not talk to these people. How many times in a year is it likely that a deputation from a council that includes members of Sinn Fein would want to talk to a Minster? It would certainly not be very many. What has happened because of all this

  993
  hullabaloo is that Sinn Fein has been let off the hook of its own contradictions. It is pretending to be working for the welfare of people, jobs and better living conditions, while its military wing is blowing up factories. Everything that intelligent politicians who want to oppose it are trying to do is thwarted by people trying to make political martyrs out of Sinn Fein by refusing to talk to its members. The Government will not talk to Sinn Fein, but their agents will talk to an IRA man or a UVF man who has been guilty of serious offences and they will bribe him to uphold the legal system. It is a policy designed to give propaganda victories to the people whom they claim to want to smash.
  The marching season is upon us again—a time when in Northern Ireland the temperature always seems to rise. If people in Northern Ireland want to keep marching back towards 1690, I do not have any great quarrel with them. They are entitled to march when and where they like provided that their marching is not triumphalist and is not designed to give offence and to go through areas where it gives positive offence. There are some areas in Northern Ireland where the marching is a simple coat-trailing exercise, which is likely to lead to violence. I have raised these matters with the Secretary of State and the Minister and some indications have recently been given that a more common-sense approach to the routes of these marches might be adopted in order to prevent community conflict and to avoid giving the opportunity for men of violence to take advantage of tense situation.
  We hear Opposition Members saying that they will resist with every means at their disposal any decision to re-route, for example, a march at Portadown where the other routes on offer are more direct to their ultimate destination than the coat-trailing one, which goes through a small Catholic area.
  I have gone on at length about recent events, but what is the lesson that we draw from all this? This is very clear to anybody who thinks about it. The political parties in Northern Ireland cannot and will not agree in the context of Northern Ireland. That is the lesson. Nothing has changed electorally during the past 60 years. They cannot possibly agree in that context because the problem is not about relations within Northern Ireland.
  The Secretary of State referred to the fact that my party does not sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have given reasons for that time and time again. Recent events have underlined the integrity of my party's position. This House, through the Government, indicated that it wanted, yet again, to pursue devolution based on cross-community agreement — understood by most people to mean the sharing of power and responsibility between the two communities. My party has never had any objection to that as a form of government. We believe that working together is the only way to break down barriers between people who are deeply divided. The experience of working together for the common good is the only long-term, slow process that will break down the barriers. We have said that repeatedly.
  However, as we know from our experience and the experience of local councils and the Assembly, the two parties in this House which are supposed to share power with us have repeatedly said publicly, honestly, forthrightly and without equivocation that there are no circumstances in which they will share responsibility with
  994
  My minute intelligence draws a conclusion from that—that I should be wasting my time and a great deal of public money in the Northern Ireland Assembly trying to prove that those parties do not mean what they say. If they want to tell me now—and I will happily give way—that they will share power with the SDLP, I would welcome that; but they will not. Therefore, the conclusion can be only that the Northern Ireland Assembly will not reach agreement. It is costing a great deal of taxpayers' money to keep the Assembly in being. My party could do a smash-and-grab raid tomorrow. It could pop into the Assembly, sign on, collect £750,000 in salaries and allowances and then give it to charity. We do not do that.
  We have said from the beginning that there have been a series of attempts to solve the Irish problem, but they have all been British initiatives. We have had majority rule. If I had been the leader of a party that ruled a piece of earth for 60 years, and ended up in the mess in which Northern Ireland is today, I would not be standing in this House giving anybody advice on how to rule it in future. There have been power-sharing attempts, and the House has heard my comments on that. There has also been direct rule. They have all been British initiatives, and none of them has provided peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
  When we said that the Northern Ireland Assembly would not work, we asked why. Our answer—I invite anyone to challenge it—is that the relationship of conflict is not a relationship between people in an artificial entity called Northern Ireland; it is a relationship of conflict between the people of Ireland and between the people of both islands. It is only in the framework of the problem that we can provide a solution. It involves interlocking relationships.
  Britain and Ireland have failed to sort out their relationships. They pushed them into a corner called Northern Ireland and left them to fester. We are now facing the consequences of that. Until we go back into the wider framework and get fresh air into the situation we will not break down the barriers and build the structures that will allow us to grow together at our own speed.
  The New Ireland Forum was an attempt by one of the parties to reassess its attitude [Laughter.] I say to the laughing hon. Member for Antrim, North that the position in Northern Ireland today obtains because our attitudes have brought us here—his, mine, the IRA's, the British Government's, the Irish Government's and everyone else's. If we do not have the good sense to ask ourselves what in our attitudes has brought us here, and be prepared to reassess those attitudes, we are going nowhere other than to total conflict.
  The hon. Gentleman may sneer at the efforts of the New Ireland Forum, but at least it was an effort by the representatives of 80 per cent. of the people of Ireland. It was the first Irish initiative since partition and it laid on the table our analysis of the problem. We invited people round the table to discuss that analysis with us, but we are still waiting for them to accept. We welcome the fact that the Government took up the offer of the Irish Government to discuss that document. The discussions are continuing. I wish them success, and I believe that that wish would be shared by the vast majority of the people of both Islands. I hear many pessimistic noises these days, but I wish to end with one thought: a series of British initiatives has failed to solve the Irish problem. It is about time that we listened to an Irish initiative.
  9.10 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I comment first on the New Irish Forum, which was so eulogised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Unionists and Protestants had every right to examine the report. It told us of the magnanimity of southern Irish Governments to the Protestant population there, and said how well Protestants were treated in the south of Ireland. But where are they? At partition, 10 per cent. of the population was Protestant, but that figure has fallen to less than 3 per cent. In contrast, the Roman Catholic population in the north of Ireland is increasing all the time. There is a great difference between the two forms of rule that were suggested in the New Ireland Forum report.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) accused the Government of going back on the Prime Minister's "Out, out out" statement. He said that the damage caused by the brick that she had thrown was now being repaired by the Government. That is not what the Secretary of State told me and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) only a few days ago. He said that the Government stand by the Prime Minister's "Out, out out" speech. The story told to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is different from the one told to the Unionist representatives who meet the Secretary of State. I hope that when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) replies, he will comment on the matter, because such mistakes do not help confidence in Northen Ireland.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said this evening. I made it clear for the umpteenth time that our discussions with the Irish Government are held within the framework of the Chequers communiqué and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said afterwards.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has clarified the matter. I do not know what is said behind the Chair, or what little whispers the hon. Member for Foyle has heard, but I know what is said to me. I am expected to believe that and to convey it to my people, but when I come to the House I hear a different story. No wonder there is little confidence in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to tempt me to my feet. I said that the Prime Minister had dropped a brick. I do not resile from that statement, because it is important to consider not only what is said but the timing and the manner in which it is said. It is difficult to imagine anything having been said less graciously than that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall leave it to the two Front Benches to sort that out. I know what the people of Northern Ireland think, and how the statements from the two Front Benches will be interpreted by them.
  From listening to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) one would think that the SDLP is characterised by a sweet reasonableness. It is strange that in his city his party excluded every Democratic Unionist member from every committee when it first took office in the Londonderry city council. [Interruption.] I am talking not about the present position, but about the position when Democratic Unionists were first elected to that city council. They were excluded by the SDLP from every office in their first term.
  The hon. Gentleman tells us that we should all be talking. The Secretary of State glided or, perhaps, skated
  996
  over why the talks between the Unionists and the SDLP did not come about. It was a careful bit of scheming. He talked about the elections to come, but it has nothing to do with that. Let me put the record straight. For nine months the Democratic Unionists asked the SDLP to talk. The Official Unionists and the Alliance party asked the SDLP to talk. What happened? We were put off and told that the matter would have to be decided at an executive meeting. We were told this, that and the other. Then, strangely, on a radio interview the hon. Gentleman said that he would like to speak to the IRA army council. He knew perfectly well that if he spoke to it, the people whom I and the Official Unionists represent would not expect us to speak to him.
  I told the hon. Gentleman face to face on Ulster television that if he spoke to the IRA army council, he would close the door to the Unionists. Yet the hon. Gentleman was happy about that. He was glad to close the door, slot the bolt, put on the chains and padlock them because he did not want to talk to the Unionists. Now the hon. Gentleman says that we should all be talking and that we should re-assess the position. He read a homily to me that I should reassess my position.
  The hon. Gentleman was invited to send representatives to the Report Committee. Did he go? If he is invited to Dublin, he can go immediately. If he gets an invitation from the IRA army council, he can make himself conspicuously low key. He can disappear, get some man to drive up in a car, take him here, change cars and so on, and he can tell the Government that if they question him, they will get no information from him about where die army council men are. Yet he could not come to the Report Committee. Nor could Bishop Daley. He makes wonderful statements about us all re-assessing our position. He was invited to the Report Committee but not even he could come to put his point of view. Therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to hold forth in the House and to condemn Unionist representatives for not talking is a fraud and a deceit. We have said that we will talk, and we have asked for talks, but the door has been closed.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that the Government's attitude is ambivalent on this issue. If Ministers refuse to talk to Sinn Fein, their officials should not be asked to do the dirty work. I want to make that clear in the House. But what has happened? The Government will not talk to Sinn Fein, but we are asked—the Loyalist people of Northern Ireland—to talk to Sinn Fein. I find it strange to hear the hon. Member for Foyle talk about targeting. I do not know of any SDLP councillors who have been shot dead by the IRA. I do not know where the list is. It is the Unionist people who are targeted by the IRA. They are shot dead, but what do we find? We find that the Government refuse to accept the recommendation of the Baker report or to ban Sinn Fein, which is the IRA.
  The idea that the members of Sinn Fein are different from members of the IRA is an atrocious lie. They are one and the same. What is more, the godfathers are now identified. The IRA leaders are now councillors. We know who they are, and what they stand for. They have come out into the open. They have the cheek to say to us, "Recognise us. We are democrats. We want to do the decent thing." Those people have records of crime. They have been engaged in activities against the kith and kin of Unionist Members. We are forced to sit with such people They are out to plan more murders.

  997
  I was in the House when the Birmingham bombing took place. I know what the strong Left-wing Labour Members said. It was all right while the IRA was killing Protestants in Ulster. That did not matter. When they came home and started to kill their kith and kin here, those hon. Members denounced them strongly. They realised what they were.
  The House has asked us to sit down with those people and treat them as councillors, enter into negotiations with them and to sit with them on committees. My party will not do that. What is more, an Act passed by this House gives us the opportunity to set up a committee. If it wants to exclude someone from that committee the council has the right, under the legislation, so to do. Does the hon. Member for Foyle think that we are fools and that we shall not take advantage of the legislation when those murderers are pushed down our throat by a Government who will not talk to them? If he thinks that the Unionist people will have them pushed down our throats he has another think coming. We shall not co-operate with them and we are doing what we can within the law passed by this House to exclude them, and we shall continue to do so.
  Mr Hume: The hon. Gentleman is the best friend that they have.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have never listened to such utter nonsense. If one reads the newspapers one will see that the attack now is upon the Democratic Unionist party and upon me. Sinn Fein's best friends are the people who voted it into office—the SDLP men in Enniskillen and Omagh. The hon. Gentleman's party has entered into an agreement with Sinn Fein to put it into office. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) will be able to explain to the House what has happened in Magherafelt.
  Rev. William McCrea: Is it not strange that the only councils where the SDLP and Sinn Fein did not enter into an agreement about high office was in the two councils in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)? That was in case Sinn Fein demanded his seat in the next election. Any other part of the country could go to Sinn Fein.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend knows all about it. He is targeted. He has to sit on a council with the men who are planning his destruction and who have told him publicly in the council, "We will get you." The Opposition Front Bench say that we must tolerate that and talk to those people. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was not part of the Labour party deputation which met Sinn Fein and which was asked whether it rebuked Sinn Fein and denounced its violence. Its answer was that it did not have time to talk about that.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I presume that the hon. Gentleman saw the story on the front page of the Belfast Telegraph which said that I had not met Sinn Fein but that if I had I should have told it to put aside the Armalite and concentrate on the ballot box, and that violence did no service to any of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was the person interviewed after the meeting with Sinn Fein. If the person who was interviewed wants to withdraw, I should be happy.
  998
  Northern Ireland is in a very serious state. Some people say that they are always hearing that. If anyone is so blinkered as to think that Northern Ireland is not in a serious state he knows nothing about what is happening. The House had better realise the seriousness of the situation.
  I shall dwell in a moment on the seriousness of the state of morale in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is an important issue and the House had better consider it. Why is the situation so serious? The Secretary of State does not like the plenary sessions in the Assembly. He seemed to give the impression that he would like to gag the Assembly. I wonder why, because some matters of great import are revealed in that Assembly.
  The House is saying to us tonight "You should all talk. The Protestants should all be happy. Everything is well". Some might say that the Democratic Unionists are bigoted. I find it strange that the Secretary of State could have a meal yesterday with a person to whom he said he would not talk. I find that amusing. I shall return to that and defend Mr. George Graham. The statement in The Irish News had to be withdrawn and The Irish News had to apologise. Perhaps we shall now have the proper statement.
  Mr. Raymond Ferguson is not known to be on the extreme Right wing of the Official Unionist party. He spelt out in the Assembly why there was such a problem among the Protestants of Fermanagh. He said that people thought that Fermanagh had an overwhelming Republican community, but that it had not because the community there is split almost 50:50. At the election the Republican groups gained their majority by only 4 per cent.
  What has happened? In the last 15 years, 74 murders have been committed in County Fermanagh. That is what Mr. Raymond Ferguson told the Assembly. He said:
  "Seven of those murders were carried out by Loyalist organisations"—
  one was carried out by a member of the British Army—
  "and of five out of seven of those seven murders, the culprits have been punished by the courts and are now in gaol. Of the other 67 some people have been apprehended … offences such as conspiracy or involvement at some insignificant level. But I am not aware of one case in which any of the perpetrators of those 67 murders have been brought before the courts, sentenced, and put in gaol for their crimes."
  That was said by a person representing the area. What can he say? I ask hon. Members what, if they represented that area, they would say when a person in their constituency was murdered. Everyone says "Keep calm. Don't do anything. Don't say anything." A constituent who is a member of my party has some strong words to say about Sinn Fein and the IRA but the Secretary of State has said that he can not meet him. Next week he will have to meet him as a member of the Home Affairs and Security Committee of the Assembly. I find that interesting.
  I do not shed any tears when an IRA man is given his just desserts. I shed tears for the people he murdered, for the orphans and the widows. I shed no tears for IRA murderers. Evidently that is a crime. It seems that we are not supposed to say that. I advise hon. Members to read in the Library the report of what the Rev. Ivan Foster said in the Assembly and then to decide whether the Secretary of State should take such a stand.
  I represent Fermanagh in another forum. What do I say to the people of Fermanagh when I visit them? Do I tell them that everything is all right and that the security forces are taking care of everything? What do they say to me?

  999
  They draw my attention to the murders of Protestants and tell me that no one has been arrested for committing them. They ask, "Are we to sit peacefully by and allow ourselves to be murdered?" That is one issue that is causing serious concern among the people of the border areas and the House needs to think about it and to meditate upon it. If the murderers are not being captured and are not being brought to court, there is no hope for the people living in the border areas. Indeed, a deep hopelessness has set in.
  Three outrageous atrocities have taken place in Mr. Graham's constituency of Newry. What are we to say to the people of Newry? Are we to tell them, "Everything is all right. Everything is wonderful. It is better than it ever was before."? It would be extremely difficult to enter the homes which I have visited to spell out that message. The Secretary of State and his Ministers do not go to the homes of the families who have suffered as a result of the atrocities. They do not face these people. They might send a letter to them, but that is all. They do not hear the message that we receive from them. The hard-pressed Protestants of Northern Ireland are facing atrocities day in and day out.
  I was present when the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) spoke in a debate on Northern Ireland about having an inquiry into what happened at Killeen. It is time that an inquiry was put in train by the Secretary of State. I have had conversations with police officers and they feel that the Killeen incident could have been prevented. They have told me that such events were happening regularly and that there should have been a proper Army cover and presence. We are talking about police officers who went to their deaths. That is the factor that is troubling and worrying the people of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Foyle said that people should be allowed to walk when and where they like. Having said that, he expressed certain considerations. He should remember that it is councillors and Assembly Members of his party who are saying that people will not walk when and where they like. There are Roman Catholic traditional parades in North Antrim and they include areas that are predominantly Protestant. The parades have taken place for years and no one says anything to those who participate in them. The paraders have always walked through these predominantly Protestant areas and they will continue to do so. That will happen because it has always been the recognised and accepted practice. They walk through Portglenone and other areas in North Antrim that are predominantly Protestant. That is true of the Hibernian parades on 15 August and nothing is said about them. The hon. Member for Foyle spoke about the parade in the Tunnel area. Does he know the Tunnel area? Does he know how many houses are in that area? There are 70 houses in the road that faces the Tunnel area and 26 of them are boarded up. Does he know that? Is he aware that that is an area that Orangemen have processed along for over 100 years?
  Mr. Hume: Why?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Because they have walked along that road. That is why. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they must be stopped after 100 years of processing along that road? Is that his message to the House? Why are they to be stopped? However loud and powerful is the hon. Gentleman's voice, it is not his voice to which members
  1000
  of the Government Front Bench will listen. Instead they will listen to the voice of Peter Barry, who has been highly exalted by the Government and has the right to speak on behalf of the minority and to make representations on its behalf. I wonder what part of the minority Peter Barry has the right to speak for. He is not speaking for the people of Sinn Fein because they will have nothing to do with him. They would like to bring down his Government as quickly as they would like to bring down this Government. He is putting on the pressure with this procedure.
  The hon. Member for Foyle tells us that the New Irish Forum would give us all peace in Ireland, but the influence in Dublin wants to stop an Orange parade that has been going on for years. I have a straight question to put to the Government: are they going to stop traditional Loyalist parades? If they are, they must stop traditional national and Republican parades. Will they do that? No, they do not want to hear about it. Some of them do not even know that there is such a thing. They think that we are so bigoted in Ulster that we would not allow such a parade to happen.
  What has happened in the areas where there is so much confrontation and talk? Houses have been built and Republicans and Roman Catholics have been housed there. Immediately they get into those areas they say that they will change what happens there. Therefore, Unionist public representatives know that if these people are housed in these areas they will want to change the procedures there. The hon. Member for Foyle must know that that puts public representatives into an impossible position. They must take a stand on this issue.
  There is no need for any talk about re-routing this parade. There is no need to cancel the parade at the Tunnel. There was no need to cancel the parade in Castlewellan. It was cancelled because a Roman Catholic mass was to be held on Saturday night because the Pope had said that the mass could be held then so that they could have a free Sunday. The hon. Member for Foyle should know more about this than I do. As a result, more people were going to mass on Saturday.
  What would have happened if the parade had gone on Friday instead? The people were just told not to go at all. Now they have said that they want to go because it is a traditional parade ground and they have always gone this way. Will the Government listen to Peter Barry or say that they will let the traditional parade go through because they must acknowledge that there are traditional parades in other areas and they must do what is fair for all traditional parades? That is the important issue, and the hon. Member for Foyle must realise how the Loyalists feel about this.
  Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any parade in any part of Northern Ireland that is a coat-trailing exercise and gives offence to the people in the area through which it goes should be re-routed?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that people going to their church service is a coat-trailing exercise. I do not understand his mentality. He mentioned the Tunnel, which is a parade that goes to a local church every year. The hon. Gentleman is saying that it cannot go the way that it has gone for a 100 years, and must be banned.
  I have told the Secretary of State that he cannot do this to traditional parades. I am talking not about protest parades or instantaneous parades to deal with some matter

  1001
  but about a parade that has gone on for 100 years. The parade in Castlewellan is a traditional one, and we should leave well alone.
  We are told that the police will have difficulties, which is true. However, they have more difficulties when parades are banned. Far more police were brought into Castlewellan when the parade was banned—three times the usual number—than when it was carried out. I must speak up for the police of Northern Ireland. The police cannot live in the areas in which the voters of the hon. Member for Foyle are predominant. They can live only in Protestant and Unionist areas. In fact, at Rasharkin, in my own constituency, they have been driven out by the IRA.
  Every policeman has been driven out of that area and must live among Protestants, yet how can those men live at peace among Protestant people when by a foolish Government act, dictated by Peter Barry, they get involved in confrontation with people who want to walk in traditional parades? This House had better take note of that message, because members of every section of the Northern Ireland community depend upon the police—in fact, they send for them—to protect them.
  The police are being placed in an impossible position. That is unfair, and the Government should have second thoughts about this. It is not as easy as they may think. Traditional parades must be allowed to use the same routes as they have always done. Those who say that they will stop a traditional parade by force must be dealt with. If the Protestants said that they intended to stop the Hibernian march, the police would be sent to deal with them. Let us be fair and even-handed. That is all I ask, and the police deserve it.
  I shall not go into detail about the state of some of the police stations on the border. They are a disgrace. A police representative told me, "We take young men and women from the best homes of Ulster who have volunteered to do the most difficult job that an Ulsterman can do, and we put them into pigsties." It is time that the Government did something about the state of border stations. They should get rid of the portakabins, and should give the policemen something to go home to after a hard day defending the people of Northern Ireland.
  We have not had much joy from the Secretary of State. He told us that there will be no accommodation with killers, yet some of them are sitting in the council chambers of the Province. When we do something about it, he says that he believes that eventually "we will all act normally." One would be abnormal if one sat in a council chamber with a known murderer who says, "I want to kill you."
  The hon. Member for Foyle said that Sinn Fein had a council chairman in Omagh. The Opposition Front Bench tell us that we should talk to that person, yet he said that if any Omagh council employee was shot by the IRA for wearing a police or UDR uniform such an employee was a legitimate target for IRA assassination. Am I being told that I or my party members must sit with that person, work with him in council committees and look up to him as chairman of that council? This House had better get the message — we shall never do it. If we cannot do it lawfully, as I believe we can, it will be up to the Government to take their own action, because the councils will become unworkable.
  1002
  I smiled when the Secretary of State told us about councils working normally. Those councils are predominantly controlled by constitutionalists. That is why they are working normally. They are working normally in Ballymena, Ballymoney, Ards, Castlereagh and elsewhere. I support what was done by the Cookstown council. The matter cannot be discussed now as it is in the courts, but we shall see what the court decision is. Let all the councils be taken to court and let the law be tested. Let us see how strong the law is. If we fail, it will be up to the Government either to change the law or to put in commissioners if the councils become unworkable.
  They have been dilly-dallying about that in Londonderry. It is surprising how people can be hoist by their own petard. When the Unionists walked out of Londonderry, Ministers told us that everything was working normally and that we did not need any commissioners. Then, when there was a rumpus, with other councillors causing trouble, the cry was, "We must have commissioners."
  I am wondering whether the Minister will appoint Sinn Fein members to health boards. After all, he has under the Act a way out, and I hope that when the Minister replies we shall be told whether the Government intend to appoint them to health boards. That question should be answered tonight.
  We have heard talk of speculation, but on one aspect there is no speculation. It is clear that the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland has been discussed between Dublin and Northern Ireland. A minority representative in this House knows all about it—because he goes there to be briefed — while the majority of people, including those I represent, know nothing about it. We are left out, yet they expect us, at the end of the day, to accept what they are doing.
  I assure the Government that it will not be accepted. Nor need they tell me that they believe in the sovereignty of this House. Sovereignty involves not only legislating but applying laws. When there is a proposal to dilute the courts of Northern Ireland and to put on the bench there a judge appointed by Dublin, that is the beginning of the end of proper sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We shall have to wait and see what the proposals are, and the sooner we see them, the better.
  If the talks continue in the way that they have been proceeding, if the speculation continues and the killings go on, and if the Government ban traditional parades, we shall be heading for a very serious crisis indeed. The sooner that this House wakes up to that, the better for all concerned.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. William Ross: When the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was talking about policemen being driven out of a village in his constituency, I was surprised that he did not attract the attention of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to the fact that not one policeman now lives in the west bank area of Londonderry city. I believe that the last policeman to live there, Inspector Duddy, was murdered. When the troubles first exploded, there were nearly 100 members of the RUC living on that side of the river. That says a lot about the area which the hon. Member for Foyle represents.
  With every passing year, we seem to go through tonight's operation more mechanically, even to the extent

  1003
  of hearing much the same words from the Front Benches. As the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) pointed out, we seem to have the impression each year that a massive change will take place in the system of governing Northern Ireland before we reach the same point om a similar date the following year.
  We know perfectly well, of course, that we shall return next year because the Northern Ireland Unionist population will not accept the power-sharing that is being assiduously demanded tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle and the Secretary of State, and as has been demanded over the years.
  The Secretary of State appears before us tonight as "Honest Hurd" because he, more than any Secretary of State in recent years, has stood up and demanded bluntly that the Unionist population should accept a power-sharing set-up in Ulster. Apparently that is the right hon. Gentleman's conception of what constitutes political and constitutional progress. Indeed, he was "Sunningdale Man" in person. We were surprised to note how clearly he revealed himself, because that attitude was carefully concealed by his predecessors and others for many years and was cloaked around with many fair words. Not that that mattered much, for most of us are used to tearing away the veil of nonsense that so often surrounds reality in this House. We are not surprised that unbending demands are being made again.
  The hon. Member for Foyle told us that he wanted political and democratic development. It is a queer concept of democratic development to give a veto to a minority. That is what we are really asked for. No one has yet managed to explain exactly how that development follows any democratic principle. I have puzzled over this matter for many years, and I look forward to the possibility of it being explained to me this evening.
  We are always told that if we accepted power-sharing and gave the SDLP a place in government, the IRA would melt away. I think the Secretary of State said that the support would drain away. That is utter nonsense. If a place is given to the SDLP, the IRA will simply say, "We imposed sufficient pressure to extract that measure from the Unionists." That measure will not be extracted from the Unionists by those means. The Unionist population will not have anything extracted from them by murderers or political pressure, because we are not going down that road. The sooner the Secretary of State and the House recognise that, the sooner political progress will become possible.
  The Government continue trying to buy off people with titbits. That only whets the appetite and makes the position much worse. The sooner the Government realise the truth—perhaps they already do—and act upon it, the better.
  I have always feared giving concessions in the face of violence, because concessions tend to increase the violence and the pressure to strengthen the position of the nationalist population in Ulster. It is not yet generally recognised that the SDLP has managed to get itself into a position where it is driven by the IRA. The hon. Member for Antrim, North drew our attention to what has happened in some councils in Northern Ireland. That certainly should be brought to the attention of hon. Members. The SDLP has simply given a place to Sinn Fein, which has been described not only by itself but by others as the political wing of the IRA—the group that articulates the IRA's political objectives. Sinn Fein has managed to get
  1004
  itself into a position where the SDLP gives support for council posts. The SDLP is so frightened of offending those who support Sinn Fein that it supports the representatives of the gunmen before it supports representatives of democratic, constitutional parties and even before it supports its own SDLP members who, we are told, are members of a constitutional party.
  This is an unusual, damaging and dangerous position for any political party. I see no particular need for me to weep if the hon. Member for Foyle and his party wish to clasp the rattlesnake of the IRA to their breasts. If that means the end of them, I would not regret it. I clearly recall their beginnings and their willingness to lead violent mobs in the streets of Londonderry and elsewhere. I hold no brief for them.
  The hon. Member for Foyle said that all elected representatives should be treated the same.
  Mr. John David Taylor: I should like to raise one point before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the role of the SDLP and its relationship with Sinn Fein, which he has rightly analysed as being the political supporter of the campaign of murder and violence in Northern Ireland. Is my hon. Friend aware that in county Fermanagh the SDLP, whose leader is, of course, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), rather than accept the nomination for chairmanship of that council or the proposal of the British community represented by the Ulster Unionist party, declined that nomination and preferred to commend, propose and then support a Sinn Fein chairman of that council?
  Mr. Ross: Yes, of course, and I hoped to return to that point later.
  In fact, the Unionists proposed the four members of the SDLP one after the other, and each and every one of them declined to allow his name to go forward and then supported the Sinn Fein — the representative of the murderers—for the post.
  The hon. Member for Foyle lamented that members of his party did not get much of a showing, and I will come back to that. One of the reasons perhaps is that most members of the Unionist population in Northern Ireland would find it difficult now to get even a razor blade between the attitude displayed by many of the SDLP council and that of the Sinn Fein councillors who sit beside them.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that recently in a council committee in the city of Londonderry, an SDLP councillor proposed and an SDLP councillor seconded a motion that the tenancy for the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its premises in the Waterside should be brought to an end, and when Sinn Fein came out of the council meeting, it said, "This is our policy, the SDLP is going our way and this is the way it is going to go"?
  Mr. Ross: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I take great interest in Irish debates, and I have come back specially to listen to this one.
  Mr. Ross: I apologise again, Mr. Speaker, I am so engrossed in the interruptions that I tend to forget that we are honoured by your presence and that the House is under your control again. I am sorry, Sir, I do go on putting my foot in it.

  1005
  We have had explained to us by the hon. Member for Antrim, North the consequences of power-sharing between the SDLP and Sinn Fein, but that should cause us no surprise whatever, because the SDLP has consistently refused to give clear support to members of the security forces in the difficult task that they have.
  The hon. Member for Foyle said that all elected representatives should be treated exactly the same. If elected members demand that they be treated the same, they must also be prepared to operate within the same civilised framework that all other constitutional parties accept. We do not support those who murder those with whom they disagree.
  The plain truth of the matter is that the IRA and Sinn Fein are not two separate organisations. They are exactly the same organisation. If one of my hon. Friends should catch your eye in this or a later debate, Mr. Speaker, I think that he will give a clear instance which will illustrate the truth of what I have just said. Sinn Fein is the political arm of murder. Therefore, it cannot be seen or treated as a normal political party, because it is not a normal political party at all.
  Sinn Fein referred to the cutting edge. Its cutting edge is murder, arson and violence, perpetuated by the IRA not only in Armagh but elsewhere. We are dealing with the renewal of the direct rule legislation for Northern Ireland, a system that has been operating for many years. It has not worked very well. Nobody is willing to say that the Government have made a very good job of it. Let me examine a few of the things that have happened during the last year. I deal first with the legislation governing the attempts to stop personation, carried out primarily by the Sinn Fein electorate at the local government elections and the wonderful claims that have been made since then about its success.
  When the Bill was debated one might have thought that about half of the Sinn Fein vote was personation. I remember pointing out that it would be impossible for any party to organise personation on such a large scale as to personate more than 10,000 or 12,000 people at the maximum in Northern Ireland. I still believe that my assessment was correct. It was also pointed out during the debates that, historically, the Sein Fein vote had varied from 70,000 to 155,000 since the end of the last war. Its vote has now settled at around 100,000. If Sinn Fein had fought in all areas during the local government elections, I have no doubt that its vote would have been 15,000 to 20,000 higher than it was. There has been no drop in the Sinn Fein vote and the Government's claim has been proved to be false. My estimate that the Sinn Fein vote amounted to about 100,000 has been proved to be correct.
  The matter was made worse by, among other things, insistence upon a medical card. The House will recall the long debate on medical cards. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) pointed out that his medical card was about 30 years old and had been signed by a doctor who is now dead. He had also moved house about four times. During the debate he asked whether his medical card was still in order or whether he ought to get a new one. He was told that either would do.
  I have read all the letters that have been sent to me on this subject. I have also read everything that has been said in the House. Both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State, who piloted the
  1006
  Bill through the House, must have a dictionary that is different from mine. The meaning of many words seems to have changed. I should like to have a copy of that dictionary before the introduction of the next Bill so that we on this Bench will be able to understand what the Government's words mean. We should not like to get it wrong again. We should like to know exactly what the words mean.
  During his speech the Secretary of State referred to the meetings between the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and pointed out that they had said that the identities of both communities in Northern Ireland had to be recognised. He also said that it would be necessary to remove some of the problems that irritate the minority. I did not hear him talking about removing irritants to the Protestant majority. Perhaps if he had said that, he could also have been called even-handed in the debate this evening.
  The debate has already attracted some comment on the banning of various Orange parades in Northern Ireland. Of course, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) will be perfectly well aware that the net was originally cast very much wider than Castle Wellan and the Tunnel. A number of other places were looked at, but wiser counsels have prevailed in the vast majority of cases, because 99 per cent. of the parades, by both factions, that take place every year in Northern Ireland pass without incident and in most of the cases where there are incidents they are created by a very small number of people.
  It is equally true, as has already been said, that it is far more difficult to stop a traditonal parade than it is to keep it moving through the area. I have had some experience of controversial processions and parades over the years and I think that I know rather more about such things as far as Northern Ireland is concerned than any hon. Member on the Government Front Bench. My advice is similar to that of the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that a traditional parade should not be stopped. It should be brought together in as orderly and disciplined a fashion as possible and taken as quickly as possible through the area in question. Occasionally there are jams, but they do not happen very often, and it is very much easier to recognise people's right to continue to do what they have been doing for many years than to cause confrontation, which is desire by no one but which will almost certainly result in certain areas.
  I can recall very clearly some difficulties in my own constituency last year. There was a problem, but it was largely overcome by the police keeping things moving in difficult circumstances. I do not believe that even that parade, which does not enjoy a high reputation, could easily be stopped. It is better in the long run to get these things over and done with and everyone away home as soon as possible.
  I read with interest the comments of the Home Secretary yesterday, when he told the House that he was going to get the police to brief hon. Members on the difficulties in their constituencies as a result of IRA activities. I have been a member of the House since 1974 and I do not recall the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State ever asking me and my hon. Friends to come along and be given a detailed brief on the terrorist situation in our constituencies. Of course, I have my own means of finding these things out when I want to, but we have to do our own digging. Perhaps we could be told what is so peculiar about the present situation caused by the IRA

  1007
  bombing campaign in England that makes it necessary that all hon. Members who might possible have an involvement should be given a detailed briefing when it has not been found necessary to do this, in far more difficult circumstances, in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John David Taylor: I certainly agree with the comparison that the hon. Member draws. It is especially relevant to the opening speech by the Secretary of State, when he emphasised that a terrorist bomb in a village in Northern Ireland is as important as a bomb in the Rubens hotel in London or a hotel in Brighton or elsewhere.
  Of course, that is not so, as is emphasised by the point being brought out by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, (Mr. Ross), because the minute we have a bomb, defused as it was, in the Rubens hotel in London the Secretary of State brings in hon. Members for consultations. That has never happened with regard to Northern Ireland after 15 years of bombing. That shows that there is a difference of approach by the Government to terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland compared with their approach to bombs here in Great Britain. None the less, one can understand that, perhaps, the principle that has applied in Northern Ireland would be the better one to apply here in Great Britain because, after all, there are hon. Members, including Front Bench Opposition Members, who enter into private discussions with the political representatives of the terrorists.
  Mr. Ross: I wonder where the Government obtain their advice. They are certainly not taking advice from hon. Members on these Benches. The advice that they took on electoral law has proved to be wrong. It did not achieve the results that the Government wanted. They are leaving themselves open to pressure from the SDLP, the IRA and Dublin. Instead of listening to advice from those quarters, they should listen to advice from these Benches—they might then find that they have better legislation.
  If we are to improve the governance of Northern Ireland, what advice can we give the Government? They should stop trying to buy off the IRA by giving it concessions. They should stop trying to buy off Dublin. They should stop trying to buy off the SDLP. At the end of the day, they all want the same political and constitutional things. What is given, regardless of reason, will be claimed by each and every one of them for his own purposes.
  The only way to undermine any claims is to ensure that there is no victory to claim. The Government and the Opposition talked at the beginning of the debate — as they have done for many years—as though the people and the politicians in Northern Ireland did not know what each other wanted. The truth is that we do know. On the fundamental points we are poles apart.
  The Government are trying to drive us together and have a power-sharing set-up in Northern Ireland, which simply could not work, and that is leading us into difficulty. If only the Government would realise that we do not have to sit holding hands all the time trying to find out what each other thinks because we already know, we might then get somewhere rather than waste our time in endless jaw-jaw and no action.
  The time is long overdue for Governments of both parties to begin returning power to the people of Northern Ireland. We formerly enjoyed three levels of government—local councils, county councils and Stormont. None
  1008
  of them remain, but a large part could be recreated, without any difficulty and to the great advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland., in a relatively short time.
  If we are to get anywhere, if we are to start down the road that will lead back to control by the people over their own affairs, we should start now — indeed, we should have started long ago. The Secretary of State said that there must be power-sharing. He is trying to get the Assembly to go on talking until there is a power-sharing structure. He will be disappointed because it will not happen. He has said that the Assembly will continue at least until the end of the year, and will probably let it run out its life in October 1986 and not have another election.
  The Secretary of State has managed to keep the Assembly going for two and a half years but, in that time, it has not done the job that it was set up to do — to produce a power-sharing executive. It will clearly not do so, and as long as it remains, he can use it as an excuse for doing nothing. On the evidence that has been presented to us by the events of the past two and a half years, and the words of the Secretary of State tonight, it appears that the sooner he winds it up, the better. Then he can start to make proper decisions. There is no point in continuing the Assembly if he knows that it will not produce the goods that he wants it to produce. Indeed, it will produce the one thing that he says he will not accept.
  The Secretary of State talked about excuses. Although he is not present now, I must say that his excuses for reducing democracy and tougher security have worn right through. The sooner he forgets about making excuses and starts doing something about the problems, the better it will be for all of us.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Richard Needham: The job of parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — I can say this because the present PPS is not in his seat—is rather like playing the part of the fool in Shakespeare's "King Lear". One must do one's best to keep the Secretary of State happy while the complexities, problems and vagaries of Ireland slowly drive him mad. However, a PPS has one unrivalled advantage over Ministers in Northern Ireland, in that he has the opportunity to get to know the parties and their supporters without being surrounded by security.
  As well as making many friends during my time in Northern Ireland, I was left with two certainties. The first was that the Unionist people will not give up their link with the United Kingdom without a fight. I cannot believe that coercion from Britain, the pressure of world opinion, and least of all the terror perpetrated by the IRA will alter that fact. In any event, it is impossible to coerce more than 1 million people against their will and, as the Secretary of State said, it is not an option for the foreseeable future.
  The second certainty was that the vast majority of the Republican people of the North will not give up their dream of a united Ireland in the foreseeable future, and that no amount of civil rights legislation or arguments about the right of the majority to decide who rules will change their minds. It is surprising that members of the Unionist party, including the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who came to the problem as fresh as I did, do not appear to see the self-evident truth of this determination among the Catholic community.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) made an astonishing speech. He spent most

  1009
  of his time attacking the Government's business managers and the rest of the time explaining that he would not talk about Labour party policy because he had discussed it somewhere else on another occasion. Indeed, he was so effective that neither the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) nor the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) stayed to hear him. However, it is evident that, whatever the Labour party might be, it is not integrationist. I repeat that the Irish nationalism that exists in the community will not wither or die. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, it has been there for the past 60 years and it is likely to remain there for the next 60 years unless we can find a way of providing some form of expression of the Irish identity for that community. I also accept that there will be Catholics who will vote for the right hon. Member for South Down. I know some of them. I also accept that there will be Protestants who will vote for the SDLP. But there will not be many in either case, and they will not matter.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Yes, they will. There are several thousand.
  Mr. Needham: Although I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, the fact remains that the vast majority of the Catholic community will stay true to its dream of a united Ireland, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may do in looking after his constituents. I met one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents only the other day at the Cambridge Union. He was singing the praises of the right hon. Gentleman, but also said that his English student friends did not dare to go into the shops at Warren Point because he could not advise them of their safety. "[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish.
  Mr. John David Taylor: There is a great danger—it often happens in the press and the media in England—of confusing the term "Catholic" with the term "Republican". Thirty eight per cent. of the voters in Northern Ireland adhere to the Catholic religion, but only 30 per cent. are Irish Republicans. I object to the way in which the hon. Gentleman implies that all Catholics are Republicans. The Alliance party has Catholic leadership, a Catholic Chief Whip and many Catholic members. The Ulster Unionists also have Catholic supporters—they are not all Irish Republicans. That must be emphasised time and again.
  Mr. Needham: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that 30 per cent. — the vast majority of the nationalist community—are members of the Catholic Church and the Alliance party make up slightly less than 10 per cent. of the total vote. Obviously I accept that some Catholics vote for the Unionist party. However, I repeat that the numbers are incidental. If the hon. Member for Foyle were present, he would tell the House that considerable numbers of people who are not of his faith or background also support him. Whatever the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) may say, that will not alter the basic truth that the nationalist community in the North will remain, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
  My point is that Northern Ireland is one of those situations, not entirely unique but nearly unique, in which
  1010
  it is perfectly possible for both sides to argue their legitimacy and to say that God and justice are at their backs. But, as Dean Swift remarked 300 years ago,
  "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another."
  That has been evident in tonight's debate.
  The real question is, is there any way forward, or must Secretary of State after Secretary of State be driven to madness in his quest for a solution? I still believe that there are grounds for at least believing that the position in the Province need not go on endlessly, as it has.
  The Forum report was not one of the least biased documents that I have read, in terms of its analysis or description of the problem. However, for the first time a fundamental tenet was accepted on behalf of the constitutional parties of the South which is necessary if there is ever to be a solution: the people of the South and their representatives accepted that without the support of the majority of the people of the North there would be no solution of any sort.
  It has surprised me for a long time that the Irish, who are renowned for their charm, wit and powers of seduction, have never made any serious attempt to use those attributes on their northern cousins. Why they believe that the heavy-handed English would be more adept in persuading Unionists to reach agreement with the South is beyond me.
  If it is accepted that the constitutional parties of the South are prepared to look towards an agreement through compromise rather than through threat or fear, in the long-term—not in the short-term—there may be some hope. Hon. Members on the Unionist side have accepted through fair employment and civil rights legislation and through that admirable booklet "The Way Forward" that there is, and must be movement towards an agreement.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked why there was no coalition in Britain in view of the unemployment here. That is not the parallel. The parallel is to compare the problems of society in Northern Ireland with what happened here during the last war. If one multiplied the number of deaths, murders and the amount of mayhem that exist in Northern Ireland, the position is very different from the one that exists here. All party political leaders would have to consider carefully whether they should join together to find a solution to an unconstitutional party, such as Sinn Fein-IRA, if it threatened to destroy us. I thought that the right hon. Member made a case for the type of discussions that the Secretary of State said were so important.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that recently there was some turmoil in England, Scotland and Wales arising from the miners' strike? There was violence and mayhem, but there was no clear coming together of the Opposition with the Government to try to resolve civil strife. Is it not utterly ludicrous to suggest that when people are killing us we should join hands with them, especially when Sinn Fein now has the open backing of the SDLP, as we thought it had?
  Mr. John David Taylor: It should have had Scargill.
  Mr. Needham:To draw a parallel between Mr. Scargill and the miners's strike and the number of murders in Northern Ireland is as ridiculous as it is to suggest that the parties should not come together.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman must not go too far.
  Mr. Needham: I was not trying to go too far. I was saying that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley cannot compare unemployment here with the problems of Northern Ireland. That is not a fair comparison.
  It is clear that, however well direct rule may have worked—I can understand that in some ways it has—it must be the second-best option for the British Government. I should have hoped that all those who represent the people of Northern Ireland in the House would have had their minds concentrated by the threat of the Provisional IRA and would have tried to find methods of working more closely together than they have in the past.
  I do not believe that that will happen overnight. This evening's debate has clearly shown the difficulties in achieving that. I would sound a note of caution to the hon. Member for Foyle were he here, and to the Irish Government. There is a great deal of talk in southern Ireland at the moment about the possibility of what I might call a great leap forward—a fast move towards a final solution. The problem with exaggerating leaps forward is that they often end up in the dark.
  The hon. Member for Foyle must explain what will happen to the initiative in which he puts so much faith if reasonable men after a reasonable time for good and understandable reasons do not agree that major steps can be taken at the moment which are saleable to both communities. To build up hopes only for them to be shattered plays to the wishes of Sinn Fein as much as have the activities of some councils in the last few weeks. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle about that.
  The chances of working toward better co-operation between the two sides is more likely to be successful with a step-by-step approach than by pinning too many hopes on some great solution from the two Governments.
  I hope that agreement can be reached by the two Governments, but an arrangement will stick only if it takes into account the two certainties which I mentioned earlier. Those two self-evident truths are that the Unionists will never break their links, and that Irish nationalism in the North will not disappear.
  There is no cross-community support for an agreed solution, but that does not mean that the British Government can fall back on the assumption that direct rule will solve the problem. The Government must continue to do everything that they can to bring about devolution. It is difficult to see how the politicians of the North can exercise power if they are not given responsibility. They do not now have responsibility. It is not possible for British politicians, who are remote from the problems, to appreciate, as Northern Ireland politicians can appreciate, what it is necessary to do.
  The British Government must push equal opportunity into every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. The rules on flags and emblems which cover Northern Ireland, and the regulations on street names and all the other paraphernalia, would be laughed at if they applied to Wales. I appreciate the problems for the Province, but changes must be made. I was unconvinced by what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about the need for marches to go down particular roads. Just because something has happened for 100 years does not mean that it must continue for another 100 years. In Britain the routes of marches are
  1012
  decided by the chief constable, taking into account the effects on residents. That should not be impossible in Northern Ireland, particularly amongst people who are proud of their British links.
  I firmly believe also that it is important to build on the ties between the Irish and British Parliaments. The hon. Member for Foyle said that the problems were not about relations within Northern Ireland. What are they about if not about relations within Northern Ireland? A million or more Irish people have lived in Britain and have not needed great assistance from Government about what they do. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Northern Ireland. Equally, many English people have made their homes and lived happily in Eire. The problems of the North will not be solved by some great leap, but they can be solved in time if both communities work together. I was much heartened earlier this year to hear a group of Members from all the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland singing "We shall overcome". I am sure that that can happen, but my message to the House, to the Irish Government and to the hon. Member for Foyle is that we should not expect it to happen all at once.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The occupants of the Front Benches hope to catch my eye at 11 o'clock. The time is shown by the clock over the Door and not on the digital clocks, which seem to have gone wrong.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery:I emerge from these debates feeling more depressed than ever. If we are left with the two major groupings in Northern Ireland, it seems that there is no hope. We shall continue discussing the issue endlessly unless the British people intrude at some stage. Speaking from this side of the water, I feel that I am intruding on a recital of private grief. Listening to those who represent the two major groupings in the House is rather like being transported to Ulster. I should love the British people to listen to these debates. There is a sense of hopelessness and the two sides which have struggled this evening seem to feel that the struggle will continue for ever. They do not produce any plans that are designed to solve the problem.
  I have considerable respect for the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He delivers his speeches with immense moderation, but his grave underestimate of the forces ranged against Unionists emanated from almost his opening sentence. He suggested that events in Northern Ireland reflect a desire on the part of those engaging in shooting and bombing to be wicked. That implies that they have no cause to do so. Those who are using the bomb and the gun are deeply convinced politicos, and to fail to understand that is to fail to understand their motivation. They will continue to fight because the Ulster Unionists want to return to the old Stormont regime.
  Hon. Members talk about the past and the marching season. They talk about marching through an area—I do not know whether this is true—in the knowledge that it will be an act of sheer provocation for those against whom they are ranged. The marches continue year in and year out. One can visualise the rolled umbrella and the sash which father wore, which was worn by Willy and so on. They parade up and down with the pipes in the obscenity of the marches, but no solution of any kind is forthcoming from them.

  1013
  When I used to speak to my constituency party it never wished to discuss the Irish problem, but for the past two years the local party has asked for a report on Northern Ireland. The subject has been asked for. The Northern Irish Members talk to us as if we are foreigners and the Ulster tail wags the Westminster dog. It is time that the British people began to intervene or it is clear that no hope is emanating from the Northern Ireland Unionist parties.
  The political struggle that takes place seems alien to many, and there are those in this place who want to re-enact it all over again. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley told us that the Unionists had never done anything wrong. He knows that they drew a line around an area of Northern Ireland and proceeded to suppress the minority from whom they had taken land. Yet they contend that they did nothing wrong and that all the trouble came from nothing. Hon. Members laugh, but I ask those who do so to offer a solution to the problem. The barreness and the sterility of their argument means that debates such as this will go on eternally. There is never any admission of error.
  If a referendum were held, we would have to come out of Northern Ireland straight away. At least 70 per cent. of the British people would say that it was time that we came out. The British people were ready to intervene, but time has gone on, and a sense of helplessness pervades us.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery:The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the, Chamber, so I shall not give way to him.
  No solutions are supplied, and bigotry is triumphant. The attitude to the minority cannot be accepted easily. More and more people are beginning to see this.
  Recently, I went to Northern Ireland with an official delegation of my party. We went because we have to talk. A childish attitude is shown by those who say that they will never speak to Sinn Fein. I am not new like the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). I have been here a long time, and I have heard it all. Endlessly it was said that Sinn Fein would never go to the people because nobody would vote for it. Somebody has voted for Sinn Fein now, but nobody will speak to Sinn Fein members, and they are not to be allowed in the councils, although large numbers of people have voted for them—what childish nonsense that is. In one breath, it is said that nobody will vote for Sinn Fein, and therefore it is encouraged to enter the elections, but with the other, when people have voted for it, it is said that it will not play any role in the councils and its members should go away and not darken their doorsteps again. That is childish, and the British people will not accept such childishness.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the armed wing of the party to which he is referring has murdered a colleague of mine in the House, an Assembly Member colleague of mine, and three elected councillors in my constituency, and that members of that armed wing are in prison for conspiring to murder me and another member of my family? What advantage would there be for me in speaking to these people?
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, overlooks the fact that on every occasion on which I have spoken on this subject, I have always admitted that I live
  1014
  here where it is reasonably safe, while the hon. Gentlman and his colleagues live in terrible danger. My heart goes out to them, and I respect them, and anybody else in that position. I know that the killings go in, but terrorists come over here and we know about them. However, we want to end the whole business instead of allowing it to go on for ever more, as it will if it is left to the hon. Members who have been arguing in the debate tonight.
  I do not often quote Churchill, but I am doing so now. He said:
  "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war."
  Was the great idol speaking rubbish? What he said will have to happen at some time.
  Labour Members have gone across the water and spoken to people there. Unionists Members will not speak to anybody, but at some stage all parties will have to talk to one another because the British people will demand it. There must be a plan that will result in hands reaching across the borders, and the two sides coming nearer together. There is not the slightest sign of that happening, and therefore, our people will try to intervene to see that it does.
  Mr. John David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman has already intervened four times:
  Mr. John David Taylor: On that point—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has sat down.
  10.45 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: Many people who have witnessed this debate for several years now feel that this exercise is annual repetition and mere ritual. Yet, on behalf of those who sent me to this House, it is important to remind the Government that many people do not accept that direct rule is an acceptable form of Government for Northern Ireland.
  Indeed, this House would do better if it listened to reality rather than to speeches such as that from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has visited one Loyalist home that has suffered loss, followed one Loyalist coffin or stood at one Loyalist grave, as I have done. Since I last spoke in this House, I have stood beside the coffin of a man from my district council area. He was simply a part-time member of the RUC—a sound, solid, honest, hard-working farmer who in the evenings sought to help his country in Her Majesty's forces.
  As Willis Agnew was sitting in his car last weekend dropping off his intended wife at her home, the IRA shot him in the chest. Not satisfied with that his head was then battered in, and although he was dead, the trigger was pulled again. That gunman is the type of person with whom the hon. Member for Hillsborough wants us to enter a courtship.
  On behalf of my constituents and the Loyalists of Ulster, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, "Whatever you demand, the Loyalists of Ulster will never soil the memory of those who have stood between us and the enemy by parleying with that enemy." The British Government faced Hitler and defeated those who stood against freedom. Until the day I die, I shall make no apology for fighting Sinn Fein and the murderers of my people on

  1015
  every corner. I shall never betray the trust of those people, whether or not it is demanded by the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
  The hon. Gentleman can parley with Sinn Fein if he wishes—[Interruption.]] The hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated that his sympathy for those hon. Members who face the IRA is nothing more than crocodile tears. He would do far better if he kept his thoughts to himself instead of soiling this House with such hypocritical statements.
  As a representative of this House, which believes in democracy, it is my right to defend those who believe in the right to live, and I defend that right whether my constituents are Roman Catholic or Protestant. I remind the House that many Roman Catholics joined the Protestants of Ulster and went over the top to defend the right of a free people. They faced Hitler and all those who challenged freedom.
  Hon. Members should not speak as though every Roman Catholic is a Republican. Many Catholics in Northern Ireland are committed Ulster British sons and daughters, are proud of their British heritage and have stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain in time of war. The history as described by the hon. Member for Hillsborough was the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard. Instead of coming out with Republican propaganda, he should see the reality and tell the true story of the situation in our Province.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) is not now in his place. He spoke of two discoveries that he had made on visiting Northern Ireland. The first was that the Loyalists would not give up their British identity. I am delighted that he learned that, even though he thought the knowledge might result in him losing his head, so to speak.
  The hon. Gentleman said, secondly, that the Republicans in Northern Ireland had a dream. I wish to make it clear that nobody is suggesting that a person in Northern Ireland cannot have a dream. But nobody who dreams of a united Ireland has the right to turn the country into a nightmare and make everybody else go through the mightmare of one coffin after another. Such a Republican dream for the future is not shared by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  I have found it strange that it should seem a sin to claim to be British when making speeches in this House. It seems a crime that I should say that I am a British Ulsterman. Crime or not, I am one. I was born into a strong Unionist family, a staunch British home, and I make no apology to anyone, here or across the water, for my Unionism or British standards and principles.
  We are told by the hon. Member for Hillsborough that the people who commit murder are political folk. They are not. They are psychopathic killers. They are whole-hearted murderers with murder in their hearts. They wish to destroy not only Protestants, because the sacrifice made recently in Newry — including one person from my constituency who happened to be in the station when the bombs went off — included several honourable and decent Roman Catholics who had joined the RUC to do their bit to defend the people of Northern Ireland. Let us not have statements that have no foundation.
  I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), whose every word seemed to be swallowed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who appeared to glance at the
  1016
  hon. Gentleman several times during his speech, as though hoping for an indication of approval. Let us be clear that the SDLP's hand is far from white in the troubles of Northern Ireland.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Foyle was still in his place, because he misled the House. He said that wherever the SDLP was in control in local government, positions were given to members of all die other parties. The SDLP joined Sinn Fein in taking control of Magherafelt, and not one position—not even one of the simplest positions—was given to a Unionist.
  The Unionists offered the SDLP the position of chairman and vice-chairman of the council, but the offer was not accepted. The SDLP had made an agreement with the friends of murderers and would-be murderers and was only too happy to give the vice-chairmanship to a Sinn Feiner who has clearly shown his colours since then. The chairman of Omagh council said that council workmen were legitimate targets. The vice-chairman of Magherafelt district council is on record as having said in the Chamber that he would back to the hilt the IRA when it declared certain people to be legitimate targets for murder.
  The SDLP put the Sinn Fein member into power and joined with Sinn Fein for all other appointments. The only two councils in the Province where the SDLP did not join Sinn Fein were in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle. He knows as well as anyone that he wants to keep his seat safe and ensure the dominance of the SDLP in Foyle. It does not matter what happens in the rest of the Province — let Sinn Fein take the lead. The SDLP's hands are soiled.
  A motion was tabled condemning the vice-chairman of the council for stating that council workers who donned the Queen's uniform were legitimate targets for murder, but the SDLP abstained. It would not condemn its Sinn Fein partners. One can easily prove from the council's records that SDLP members abstained from a vote condemning the murderous intent of the Sinn Feiners on that council.
  SDLP members join the murderers when it suits them, but when it does not, they stand aside. They were offered the position of chairman and vice-chairman on the Fermanagh council, but they would not take those positions because they had entered into an agreement with their Sinn Fein partners.
  The people whom I represent are sick and tired of Ministers trying to paint the SDLP members as constitutionalists. Left, right and centre we are told that the SDLP is a constitutional party. The SDLP's hand is far from clean in these troubles. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, it was the SDLP that led the parades and the civil unrest at the beginning of the troubles.
  The people of Northern Ireland will not sell their birthright to anyone. We are British and British we shall remain. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he would threaten us with a referendum if the rest of the people of the United Kingdom said that they did not want this measure. That does not stop me from being British. By the grace of God, I shall be British until the day I die.
  My constituents want to live in peace and in a place that provides prosperity for their children and to everyone, irrespective of who he is. They do not want to live with the murdering thugs who destroyed their kith and kin. I have carried to the grave two coffins bearing members of my own family circle—a 16-year-old lad, who was not a member of any organisation, and a 21-year-old lassie,

  1017
  who was blown to bits by the IRA. As I said in my maiden speech, I assure the House that I shall never soil their memory or that of any other innocent victim of the troubles by putting my hand to any deal that will be detrimental to
  1018
  our position in the United Kingdom. Direct rule must end. The Northern Ireland people must be given devolved government. The British Government owe it to the long-suffering, patient people of the Province to stop dillydallying and to give properly devolved government to the Northern Ireland people.
  11 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I listen always with great interest to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), as I listen to all hon. Members.
  We are drawing to a close a stimulating and long debate on a subject which does not take up a great deal of time in the House, yet repeats a familiar pattern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said.
  In a speech which he made in an identical debate on the matter last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) accepted the need for this continuing legislation, and described direct rule as everyone's second favourite option. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has indicated his favourite option, which is full devolution. Earlier this evening, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) described it as not everyone's first option. He also used the words "a Shakespearean tragedy". Of course, there are many tragic aspects to life in Northern Ireland, and it is with that that all politicians in the House and elsewhere seek to cope in a very genuine fashion.
  We on this side of the House have noted—and I think that the Secretary of State also referred to this—the work of the Assembly in Northern Ireland and the degree of accountability to that Assembly. The Secretary of State said earlier that the Northern Ireland Assembly still has a role to play in the affairs of Northern Ireland. He also said that its deliberations had helped him and his ministerial colleagues. I have read most of the reports on the Northern Ireland Assembly that have come to the House, and the various Committees have shown some diligence in their treatment of a number of complex issues, including those dealing with wildlife and historic churches—not perhaps esoteric subjects, but ones which have been duly analysed and pronounced upon.
  I was saddened, therefore, to note the rather pusillanimous approach that the Assembly took to a proposed draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 which came before the Northern Ireland Committee of the House today. That Committee, I am glad to say, took a more robust stance, if I may borrow a phrase of the Secretary of State which he uses in another connection, on the town gas industry of Northern Ireland: the failure of the Government properly to consult; the failure of the Government to involve employers and employees alike in what is after all a participatory democracy; the failure to exercise vision into the future of a gas industry when there is natural gas round these islands and natural gas available from the Republic; and the failure to rise above the nonsense of a monetarist policy and, for a paltry £12 million a year, to retain the gas industry. It is the withdrawal of that £12 million subsidy which will lead to the loss of 1,000 jobs.
  These matters were brought up at the Economic Development Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but in effect, notwithstanding an interesting cross-examination by members of the Committee of the Minister of State, they came to the conclusion,
  "The Committee, having considered the arguments and discussed them with the Minister, is forced to accept that the Government's decision on the matter of closure is irrevocable."
  Nothing is irrevocable in this life except perhaps death and taxes, and certainly not the closure of the town gas industry in Northern Ireland.
  1020
  I sincerely hope that the Minister of State, who is not present tonight, for I know that he is in Northern Ireland, will wish to consider carefully the decision of the Northern Ireland Committee not to put the motion on the proposed closure to the House.
  Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister might resign.
  Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Minister might resign. I am not going to offer that invitation to the Minister of State. I wish simply that he would reconsider the proposal and keep alive the gas industry and the 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland.
  Last year's debate immediately followed the debate on the All Ireland Forum report, to which the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) have referred. During the past few months we have not heard a great deal about the All Ireland Forum report. In one sense, this was the result of the press conference that followed the Chequers summit when the Prime Minister made swift and sweeping remarks about the various proposals. But a certain amount of obfuscation surrounds the recommendations of the All Ireland Forum report, because talks have since been held with the Dublin Government. We are not privy to those talks. We are lot sure whether they are talks about talks, or substantive talks, or talks about security, or talks about joint authority—or simply talks.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said earlier, we were promised a further summit meeting in February 1985 but it was postponed. We had expected a summit conference in June between the Irish Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, but it has not taken place. I do not now believe that there will be a summit until November when the party conference season is over. There are to be talks between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach at the European summit meeting in Milan, but that is not the same as substantive talks with the Republic of Ireland.
  In last year's debate, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), categorised the positive aspects of the report. He described them as a serious examination of nationalist aspiration; emphasis on the importance of consent; unequivocal condemnation of violence; an attempt to understand the Unionist identity; and openness to discuss other views. It was also clear from the former Secretary of State's speech that there had to be firmness in the recognition of the Unionist cause; firmness in the acceptance of minority sensibilities; and firmness in the view that the road to terrorism or the rejection of law and order were no way forward.
  It is in the light of these comments—one year on, so to speak—that we wonder out loud about further cross-border co-operation in the battle against terrorism. We wonder out loud about the creation of a security commission with the aim of enhancing co-operation between the two Governments in their mutual fight against terrorism. We wonder out loud about a British-Irish Parliamentary Council to be established by way of agreement or treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. We wonder out loud why there should not be an increase in the secretariat to be provided for the Anglo-Irish Council.
  It is conceivable that all these measures are on the table in the discussions between the Governments of the United

  1021
  Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It may be that we shall not have long to wait to find out, but it is right that this House should tell the Government — and the official Opposition certainly tell the Government — not to slumber on these issues, not to sleep away an opportunity to reach accommodations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, a Government who are reaching out in order to make substantive settlements to longstanding problems.
  I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North. He asked what would be the policy of the official Opposition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has enunciated on several occasions what our policy would be. If it would interest the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North and the House, I shall briefly repeat it. We believe that it must be in the national interest to have on our western flank an Ireland that is united in peace and prosperity but, like the Republic of Ireland, we also accept that without the support of the majority of the north there can be no unity. The question is, how does one achieve this support? What is the strategy that clothes the policy? How does one resolve what the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North has described as two self-evident truths; that Unionism never breaks its links with this country and that nationalism in the north will not disappear?
  We believe, however, that a positive approach, closeness to the Dublin Government — which was acknowledged earlier this evening by the Secretary of State—with time, patience, care and understanding will help to bring the communities together and achieve that peace and prosperity that we all wish to have in that part of our country and of the British Isles.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, who came in for a great deal of undue, unthought-out criticism from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, has played a long part in the debates in the House. He has consistently and realistically spoken not only to the country through this House but to party conference and has taken a very sensible approach to the problem of Northern Ireland. He referred briefly tonight to the awakening of conscience within the Labour party and to barrenness and sterility in dealing with the issues that confront us all. He gets from me and from the Opposition the homage that he deserves for facing fully and without fear the issues that are before us.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the hon. Member is speaking for the official Opposition, will he make clear to the House the views of his party on two specific matters? First, does he share the view of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that we should get out of Northern Ireland? Is that the view of the Labour party? Secondly, does he believe that the Government. Should negotiate with the political representatives of the IRA?
  Mr. Bell: I thought that I had answered fully the first part of the first question, and I answered the second part earlier when I said that we believe that it is in the national interest to have on our western flank a nation that is at peace with itself, prosperous and a friend of our country, and that we should seek to achieve that unity through consultation with all the people in Ireland.
  1022
  In relation to the second question, on negotiating with representatives of the IRA, I made the statement earlier that I had been on the front page of the Belfast Telegraph saying that we would talk with Sinn Fein, and talks mean talks. Talks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, mean full and frank discussion. Had I been at those talks, my full and frank discussion would have involved telling them to set aside the Armalite and concentrate on the ballot box and the ballot paper.
  I reiterate to the House, as we shall continue to do, notwithstanding barbs and asides, our total abhorrence of terrorism and all its works. To be sure, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said earlier, we have seen the brotherhood of international terrorism recently in various events throughout the world. But terrorism is anathema to the very concepts of democracy in which we believe. Terrorism leaves widows and orphans, but does not find political solutions. It is very right and proper that in the debate that is to follow we shall draw proper attention to that. It must be stated very clearly that no members of the Opposition have accepted or accept violence.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned earlier 74 murders in County Fermanagh in 15 years. That situation is to be deplored whoever was the cause or the source of the murder.
  The Opposition supports fully the continuation of direct rule. We accept that direct rule is the only option that we have before us tonight. It is essential for the governance of Northern Ireland. But direct rule cannot, nor should it be, used as a constitutional measure through which to discuss all matters which concern the citizens of the north and equally concern the citizens of the south.
  I should like to end with a few lines of poetry:
  "And not by eastern windows only,
  When daylight comes, comes in the light,
  In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
  But westward, look, the land is bright."
  We hope to see the day when the lands to the west of us are indeed bright—bright in prosperity, with peace in the hearts of the people who live there; we hope that that peace will bring about prosperity and the partnership between the communities to which the Secretary of State referred earlier.
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott):The debate has been wide ranging in subject and, at times, in decibel levels, but neither of those matters should be thought to be a ground for complaint. Any part of the United Kingdom that has suffered as grievously as Northern Ireland in recent years, whose system of government we are discussing today, is bound to arouse strong passions, and it is right that they should be expressed in this forum.
  I have listened carefully to virtually the whole of the debate. After nearly four years as what I might call a creature of direct rule, I am as aware as most of the strengths and weaknesses of the system of direct rule, I believe that, with all the limitations that that system imposes on Ministers, Governments of both parties have sought to ensure that direct rule is as fair, even-handed and efficient as possible in the way that it has sought to bring about improvements in the technical machinery of government over those years.
  Since 1982, as has been mentioned during the debate on more than one occasion, those Ministers who have been

  1023
  part of the system of direct rule have had the benefit of an Assembly in Northern Ireland of locally elected representatives of the people of the Province. They have been able to consult that Assembly on legislation and receive directly the views of the locally elected representatives. That may have made direct rule rather less comfortable than it was before, but it has made it more efficient and responsive to the views of the people of the Province.
  Yet I am aware that, however hard Ministers may have tried, however much the Assembly may have contributed to improving the system of direct rule, it is flawed. That people from this side of the water should be moved across to Northern Ireland and asked to take on responsibility for many of the matters affecting the day-to-day lives of the men, women and children of Northern Ireland is far from the ideal position. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, no one has it as his first choice; but many people — perhaps virtually everyone in Northern Ireland — have it as their second choice. Until it is possible to arrive at a position in which the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland can agree on a first choice that is acceptable, I am afraid that we are lumbered with direct rule. What we must seek is to make that system work in the meantime, while looking all the time for a way of devolving responsibility for day-to-day matters to a locally elected Government in Northern Ireland.
  In asking the House to renew direct rule in this order tonight, I am also committing the Government to search for a better way of governing Northern Ireland — something that will restore to the political representatives of the people of the Province responsibility for those day-to-day decisions that affect the lives of people. That is not hedged around necessarily in total by the 1982 Act, about which I shall say a word or two in a moment. There is only one principle that is immutable—that there should be widespread acceptance of whatever alternative is undertaken. That is not something that is being stubbornly insisted upon by the British Government in any sense from pride of authorship; it is the only basis upon which any stable Government of Northern Ireland can be created.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a number of points. The first one that I should like to nail is the suggestion that the Government are uncaring and give too low a priority to social programmes in Northern Ireland. Anyone who has seen the progress in housing in Northern Ireland in recent years, and seen the quality and number of houses being built, will recognise that that is one of the major features in Northern Ireland today.
  In education, the expenditure per pupil has been steadily rising in recent years. We introduced the youth training programme a year ahead of its introduction in Great Britain.
  Employment is increasing in Northern Ireland, although, alas, for demographic reasons, unemployment is also increasing. We must run very fast just to stand still. But there is no lack of effort in seeking to overcome the problems of unemployment that bedevil so many towns and cities in Northern Ireland. There is certainly no lack of will and commitment to social programmes. I wish only that the security position would improve to such an extent that some of the resources which, for the time being, must be devoted to the battle against terrorism could be devoted to those social programmes. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) demonstrated the hypocrisy of the men of
  1024
  violence and their supporters, who condemn social deprivation when, to a large extent, their activities are responsible for that deprivation.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the status of the talks between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the political parties in Northern Ireland. Those talks were pursued first by my right hon. Friend and then by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. They were interrupted by the council elections. Recently my right hon. Friend had a stock-taking round of talks with each of the parties in Northern Ireland, and is now considering how best to take the matter forward in the months ahead. However, as I said earlier, we are determined to keep up the momentum in our search for an internal political solution that commands widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) asked the Government not to stumble in their pursuit of that aim or of an agreement between the sovereign Governments of London and Dublin. Our first priority in Northern Ireland is the eradication—I emphasise that word—of terrorism. In pursuing our talks with the Government of the Republic, a priority is to ensure that the border between the two parts of Ireland is not a help to the men of terror. We shall be pursuing those talks vigorously to bring about that result in the immediate future.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the 1982 Act is unworkable. The reason why it is unworkable is that people in Northern Ireland are not prepared to work it. He accused the Government of being unwilling to amend the Act. That is not true. If it became clear from the talks with the parties in Northern Ireland that amendments to the 1982 Act were necessary to provide Northern Ireland with a system of internal, devolved Government, there would be no bar to that as long as the principle of widespread acceptance across the community was an inherent part of that agreed way forward.
  The right hon. Gentleman tried to use the analogy of the House of Commons and Government here, but the fact is that the nature of politics in Northern Ireland makes a change of the party in power almost impossible. That is the difference between the system of parliamentary democracy that we enjoy in this House and any system that could endure in Northern Ireland. A system of devolved government that can obtain widespread acceptance is the only stable alternative to direct rule, and the Government will continue to pursue that objective.
  The right hon. Gentleman implied, if I understood him correctly, that the search for social and political progress in Northern Ireland was being undertaken to placate the IRA and its political supporters and advocates. That is a perversion of the truth. The people of Northern Ireland deserve those programmes in their own right. We know that the motive of the IRA is to destroy democracy in the North of Ireland and then to do the same in the Republic. We shall not falter in our determination to defeat those aims. We shall not weary of the task of defeating the IRA, and we must co-operate with our neighbours in the South in achieving our aims.
  The right hon. Gentleman picked out the remarks of the leader of the Liberal party after the Home Secretary's statement about the arrests in Great Britain. Again, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman turns truth on its head. In pursuing the talks for either an internal settlement or agreement between the sovereign Governments in London

  1025
  and Dublin, we are not doing the work of the IRA. Every time there has been a chance of progress, either internally or internationally, the IRA has sought to prevent it and to destroy it. We are not doing their work but seeking to destroy and prevent them from doing their work.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that my later points will be dealt with in the next debate. I am sure that the Minister will accept that what I said about social and economic problems was the sort of thing that was said 10 years ago, which was that the IRA were in being simply because of economic and social conditions. With regard to the present, I was saying that Governments should not keep one eye on the IRA so that they relate political progress to the IRA's efforts.
  Mr. Scott: We are certainly determined not to do that. The whole thrust of our policies is to defeat the IRA's aims and to eradicate terrorism from Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Foyle criticised the Government for our policy towards Sinn Fein. I freely accept that this is a matter for political judgment. It would be possible to move from the Government's present position in one of two directions: either towards the prescription of Sinn Fein, which is urged upon us by some people in Northern Ireland, or to give Sinn Fein equality of treatment as elected representatives. For the moment we believe that the policy enunciated by my right hon. Friend—that within the law we seek to draw as firm a distinction as possible between those who advocate constitutional politics and those who advocate violence—is the best way forward. However, I freely accept that it is a matter for political judgment, and that judgment could change from time to time according to the circumstances that prevail.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a number of points. My right hon. Friend will address himself to the question of parades and marches in his opening speech on the next order. If there are any outstanding points, I shall deal with them when I reply to that debate.
  Mr. Porter: Will my hon. Friend clarify what I understood to be a statement of policy? Did he say that it was possible that the Government would be prepared to speak to Sinn Fein regardless of whether it renounced violence?
  Mr. Scott: It is utterly clear that Ministers will have no dealings with Sinn Fein unless and until it renounces violence. The present balance is obviously kept under review; it is a matter which could change as circumstances change. Certainly it is rock firm that so long as Sinn Fein advocates violence Ministers will have no dealings with it.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke about police stations. I know that the position in many of the small police stations by the border is unsatisfactory, but it is unfair of him to castigate the police authority or the Government for not giving a firm commitment to improving those conditions as rapidly as possible. The size of the RUC has trebled during the past 10 years. It would be surprising if that had not created some accommodation problems, but we are determined to provide the resources in coming years to ensure that in all the police stations we have both the right living accommodation and the proper protection for the policemen who must work there.
  1026
  As I said at the beginning, direct rule has brought many advances to Northern Ireland. In many ways, as a result of direct rule, Northern Ireland is more efficient, stable and fair now than when direct rule was introduced. Successive Governments have sought to be even-handed and to serve the whole community, despite some of the strictures uttered by the hon. Member for Foyle. However, there is still more to do if we are to live up to our target to ensure that the people of both traditions see that their tradition is fully respected. Direct rule is a fallback situation. We cannot be complacent, and we shall certainly continue to be committed in our search for a better way.
  We shall seek to persuade the parties in Northern Ireland to put aside the old ways and to seek to co-operate together. There is potentially a new situation in Northern Ireland. There are new opportunities there for internal progress. I urge local parties to take them.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 13.

  Division No. 249]

  [11.29 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Arnold, Tom

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Jackson, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Best, Keith

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Kennedy, Charles

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Key, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Burt, Alistair

  Knowles, Michael

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Lang, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lester, Jim

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Lightbown, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Cope, John

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Couchman, James

  Lord, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Luce, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Maclean, David John

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Major, John

  Forth, Eric

  Malins, Humfrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Galley, Roy

  Mather, Carol

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gregory, Conal

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Moate, Roger

  Ground, Patrick

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steven

  Harvey, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hayward, Robert

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry

  Holt, Richard

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Powley, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  1027

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thorne,(Neil afford S)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waddington, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Walden, George

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Speed, Keith

  Warren, Kenneth

  Spencer, Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wheeler, John

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Wilkinson, John

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

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

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  McCrea, Rev William

  McCusker, Harold

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Mr. William Ross and

  Nicholson, J.

  Mr. Ken Maginnis.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
  11.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
  I make clear the Government's central commitment to firm, effective and measured security policies. I commend to the House the steady and determined professionalism of our security forces. I want to say something about the security situation, because that is the background against which we ask the House to renew the powers. I shall also set out the Government's response to the late Sir George Baker's valuable review of the operation of the Emergency Provisions Act.
  Our debate earlier today recognised the wider political context in which the security situation has to be discussed. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have made clear, we shall go on working for political and economic improvements. But the House should not persuade itself that positive developments in either the economic or the political life of Northern Ireland will deflect the terrorist. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said about that in the previous debate, although I did not recognise the account that he then gave of Government policy on that score.
  Whatever other developments there may be, security will remain our first priority. It is the first requirement in any democracy, and it is by far the most important public service. So, with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding it is my job to continue to work out measures which put the terrorists under intense pressure, and bring their campaign of violence to an end. Security policy is not static, but continually changing. We would be stupid to advertise the changes, and that sometimes makes it difficult to deal with criticisms. I sometimes feel that the terrorists have a clearer idea of the efficiency and success of the security forces than some of those whom the security forces protect, but perhaps that is inevitable.
  I understand fully the strength of feeling about old and recent tragedies in Northern Ireland. I am informed of each and every death whenever it occurs, and I know the effect of such news. One feels the sorrow and anger—and the weight of responsibility too. We must and shall do all within our power to bring terrorism in Northern Ireland to an end. But I want to make another thing clear. No one helps a difficult situation by acting outside the law or by wild talk encouraging such acts. There is no such thing as security outside the law.
  I have to hand the latest figures for violence. Such figures are, and should be, regularly given to the House. They show that so far, violence in 1985 is roughly comparable with violence in 1984, which saw less violence than any year since 1970. I report the figures to the House every month, but I shall not repeat them now in case I should be accused of being complacent about them, for I recognise that such figures can never give a true picture of the human tragedy which they represent. Each entry in the statistics is a new misery, and each entry should harden our resolve to continue to find ways of overcoming terrorism.

  1029
  The RUC has borne the brunt in recent weeks. Total casualty figures have not increased, but the proportion of them borne by the RUC has increased. Since January, 19 police officers have been murdered by terrorists. As I would expect, the RUC has responded with calmness, with high professionalism and cool determination. The Chief Constable and all his officers have earned, deserved, and received, our greatest respect and appreciation. The RUC has relied on, and been given, the support of the regular Army and the UDR. In both cases, that support will remain essential.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will know that an investigation is still going on into the Newry and Killeen incidents. When he has had an opportunity to study those reports will he take into account, in particular, the concern about whether adequate Army protection is available to the relatively much more vulnerable and targeted police?
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, I shall do that. It is my experience that the co-operation between the Army and the RUC is extremely close and confident. Where there is a request for support from the RUC, the Army are quick and willing to give it.
  The essence of our policy is simple. It is that the security forces should operate within the law to bring those guilty of terrorism crimes to justice before the courts. The Government will not allow themselves or the security forces to be drawn on to any other ground. Any other approach would be wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice.
  This policy can provide the community with the service they need only if the security forces can be sure of the support of all those within the community who obey the law. Indeed, this is true of all parts of the criminal justice system, from the policeman on the beat to the highest court in the land. We must continue to look for ways of winning the confidence and securing the support of the whole community. Many opportunities already exist. They extend from local police liaison groups, formal and informal, through encouraging recruitment from all parts of the community to my proposals for a more independent element in the way complaints against the police are examined. They include keeping the operation of the criminal justice system under close review to ensure that it is fair and effective and that it strikes the right balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society to be protected from violence and crime. This effort cannot be one-sided. It is not just a matter for the Government or the police. It is up to the whole law-abiding community and its political leaders to show that they hold to the basic principles that underlie our system of law and order and that they are prepared to support and sustain those who duty is to protect us all.
  Of course there is room for improvement. Criticisms should be voiced and proposals made. Only a stupid Government close their ears to the suggestions of their fellow citizens, but those suggestions need to be judged against whether they sustain or undermine the true interests of security on which our freedom depends.
  I should like to say something about a matter that was raised in the earlier debate, because it is an area where an immediate and practical contribution can be made to help the police during a difficult period. I am referring to the
  1030
  control and routeing of parades and marches, which several hon. Members in different parts of the House have already mentioned.
  I endorse what the Chief Constable said about provocative parades and marches in the foreword to his annual report last year. These can lead to disorder and retaliation, and they require the deployment of considerable police resources that could be put to much better use in countering the terrorist threat. I suggest that limitations to the traditional routes are not a restriction on individual liberties and that a responsibility rests on the organisers of all parades—traditional or non-traditional — from both communities to show a greater understanding of the difficulties that the police face. They should show more flexibility than has sometimes been shown in the past over the choice of routes.
  The Chief Constable has said that he will be ready to impose conditions on a march if necessary, but that should be a last resort. We are not talking about a general or inflexible policy but about local discussions between the police and the organisers and decisions taken one by one by the Chief Constable in the light of local circumstances.
  Mr. John David Taylor: As the right hon. Gentleman quite properly states, the routeing of parades is a matter for the Chief Constable and not the Executive. That being so — and as the right hon. Gentleman in a written reply to me after St. Patrick's day confirmed that the Irish Republic Government had made representations about the routeing of parades in Northern Ireland — will he reject the right of the Dublin Government to influence the routes of parades when the Executive of our own country does not interfere with police decisions?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows the legal position. If there is a suggestion that a parade should be banned — [Interruption.] I am trying to complete the picture, because the picture given by the right hon. Gentleman was incomplete. If there is a proposal that any parade should be banned, that requires my approval. If it is a suggestion that a parade should be re-routed, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, that is a matter within the operational responsibility of the Chief Constable. These are not matters for outside intervention. They need to be decided in the light of a careful assessment of each local situation and the priority which I hope all hon. Members, leaders of constitutional parties and those concerned with the security of the Province, would give to the maintenance of public order.
  There is a case in the future for looking at our public order legislation as it bears on the control of parades and demonstrations, especially in the light of the Home Secretary's recently published paper on this subject. That is a matter which I shall be examining carefully.
  As we know, terrorists are at present active, particularly in border areas. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in those areas know that better than anyone else. Only the most determined and sustained effort in those areas will deal with the threat. In this task, our security forces in Northern Ireland depend crucially, as many incidents have exposed, on the co-operation that they receive from the Irish Republic. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously in discussing security can ignore that fact.
  The efforts that the Garda already make have saved lives. But I would like to see, as I am sure the whole House

  1031
  would like to see, more intense co-operation at all levels to help counter the threat along and across the border. The Irish Government are, of course, well aware of our views. They have made no secret of their abhorrence of terrorism. The defeat of terrorism is as much in their interest as it is in ours.
  I hope that the Garda and the RUC will find more ways of working more closely together and that, in the natural course, meetings will be held at all levels, including at the most senior. We all have much to gain — and the terrorist has most to fear—from better co-operation and a close understanding with the Irish on security matters. That is why Sinn Fein and the IRA are so strongly opposed to our present discussions with the Irish Government. They know what they have to fear from more effective security co-operation. They do not want to be throttled or deprived of the border as an operational asset. Therefore, they hope and work for the breakdown of discussions between the British and Irish Governments.
  Some concern has been expressed recently, in the House and elsewhere, about the resources available to the RUC, now that the RUC has primacy in conducting the security policy. We shall continue to provide the necessary level of support, and such support is the first claim on my budget. Expenditure on the police service has quadrupled in real terms in the last 12 years. To a large extent, this reflects the growth in the size of the RUC in recent years.
  There have been three increases in the authorised establishment of the force in the past four years, raising the ceiling of the regular RUC and the full-time reserve to a total of 11,000. When we have filled the few hundred remaining vacancies in the next few months, the overall strength of the force will have doubled in little more than nine years. The number of civilians working in direct support of the RUC has increased over the same period from 860 to almost 2,000, thus releasing police officers from administrative to operational duties.
  The net result is that the total man hours worked by fulltime officers of the force during 1984–85—which is the most reliable indicator of the police effort—rose to its highest ever annual level of 23·1 million. It is right that such a large commitment of resources should be carefully managed to ensure that it is directed to the sharp end of policing and to our main priority, the defeat of terrorism. I therefore welcome the work of the police authority and the Chief Constable on the efficient management of these resources.
  I do not suppose that anywhere in the world—certainly anywhere in the western world—there has been such a rapid expansion of a police force to deal with a particular threat in so short a time. Of course, it creates problems—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will know from experience — some of which we have heard about, such as accommodation. Those are problems that we must tackle with as much speed and effectiveness as the build-up of the force. The build-up of the force and its spirit and professionalism after such a rapid increase is a notable achievement, not principally by Government but by the RUC and the community from which its members are drawn.
  Mr. John Hume: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me and to many people in my constituency who are puzzled about this why house searches have beeen carried out by masked men in civilian
  1032
  clothes supported by members of the police force? Does the right hon. Gentleman support this practice? What is the reason for it?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not raised this matter with me before. If he will give me details of time and place, I shall of course look into what he says.
  I should like to turn to our discussion of the recommendations made by the late Sir George Baker in his valuable review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Act gives the security forces and the courts additional powers to counter the terrorist threat. Sir George concluded that there was little scope for fundamental changes to the Act but considered that in some areas it could be adjusted and that some powers could be given up. I have already made it clear that we accept the broad thrust of the review, and I should now like to set out briefly our main conclusions, which w11 be incorporated in a Bill to be brought before the House when the parliamentary timetable permits.
  Sir George recommended that the detention provisions of the Act, which remain on the statute book although not in force, should be repealed. As I said in December, I cannot foresee these powers being used in anything other than a short-term crisis of major proportions. Obviously, we hope that we shall not face such a crisis. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that if such a crisis were to arise in a recess when we had dropped this reserve power, it could be difficult to offer the Northern Ireland people the protection that they would need. I have thought about this matter carefully, and I have decided that the prudent course is not to accept this recommendation but to retain the detention provisions on the statute book.
  I have carefully considered the recommendations in the report about the types of offences that would be brought before non-jury, or Diplock, courts. I think that we all want a restoration of jury trial for all offences in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Sir George was right in concluding that restoration of jury trial is not possible in present conditions. I therefore propose that, in accordance with Sir George's recommendations, schedule 4 to the Act should be amended to increase the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General considers that it is right to retain this discretion for himself, although Sir George recommended that it should be delegated to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We shall frame our proposals in the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's decision. The list of cases to which such discretion will be extended is not precisely that proposed by Sir George, but in substance I accept his recommendations and they will be included in the Bill.
  I have decided not to accept the recommendation that a judge should have discretion to dismiss the jury in a jury trial and continue in the schedule mode, that is without a jury. We believe that, in those circumstances, retrial of the case is the better course.
  Sir George made a number of recommendations about police arrest powers, which, broadly, would have had the effect of duplicating the police arrest powers contained in section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) 1984. We propose to meet the spirit of these recommendations by repealing the arrest powers in section 11 of the Act, leaving the RUC to rely on those contained in section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That will be a considerable simplification for all concerned. Persons

  1033
  arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act must be charged or released within 48 hours, rather than the 72 hours allowed under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, although the former period may be extended by a period or periods not exceeding five days. Extensions beyond 48 hours require specific authority from the Executive and thus remain under close ministerial control. The change that I am suggesting will mean that the initial period of arrest without ministerial involvement will, in all cases, be 48 hours, and the maximum period will be seven days. So far as the Army's arrest power is concerned, no final decision has been taken on the need for or form of any modifications to section 14, but I intend that a power of Army arrest should be retained.
  Like Sir George, the Government endorse the present practice of the courts in bail applications. I suggested in December that, as the practice seems satisfactory, there might be no need to amend the law. But, having thought about it again, I think that it would be right to change the law. I therefore propose that section 2(2) of the Act should be recast to move the onus in bail applications towards the prosecution. That would be in line with the present practice of the courts. Section 2(4) should be repealed, as Sir George recommended, and section 2(5) widened to include members of the RUC and RUC reserve.
  The practice of the courts in respect of the admissibility of confessions was endorsed by Sir George Baker.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Does the Minister have it in mind to accept the overall period of 12 months?
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that shortly. I had passed to the admissibility of confessions. The present practice was endorsed by Sir George Baker. I feel inclined to reflect in section 8 of the Act the principles that the judges now apply.
  The last of the major changes recommended by Sir George Baker was that the temporary provisions of the Act should be reviewed annually by Parliament, and should have a maximum life of five years without re-enactment. In this, Sir George follows the pattern that Parliament has already adopted in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. His recommendation is a welcome restatement of the clear responsibility of Parliament and of the Government to consider afresh whether any emergency provisions should continue and, if so, in what form, and I accept his recommendation.
  I should like to touch on another set of recommendations contained in the review. I have studied carefully those recommendations that bear, or could bear, upon the problem of delays in the judicial system, including his recommendation of a time limit of 12 months on the period between committal and trial. I am considering this and other possible ways of reducing the length of time between first remand and trial because I accept that this is a vulnerable aspect of the present judicial system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided, as the House knows, to mount field trials in England and Wales on a system of statutory time limits. I am not sure that all the same considerations and all the same possibilities exist in Northern Ireland, but I am in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I will watch progress with the trials with interest to see whether there is scope for doing something similar in the different circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  1034
  I am also giving thought to the proposal by Sir George Baker that some way should be found to increase the maximum remand period in scheduled cases to 28 or 30 days. The current situation is unsatisfactory, as hon. Members with direct experience will know. At present, all such persons have to be produced before a magistrate once a week, but the magistrate has no power to grant bail and can only remand the accused persons for a further period. Thus the process is largely, in Sir George Baker's words, "meaningless" and
  "a waste of time, money and resources".
  Following the precedent in England and Wales, we are already considering separate legislation that would extend from 14 to 28 days the maximum period for which, if he agrees, an accused person may be remanded in custody. There would be attractions in amending the emergency provisions Act 1978 so as to remove in respect of scheduled cases the requirement for a person to give his consent. Taken together, these changes would give magistrates the discretion to remand persons accused of scheduled offences for up to 28 days. This would save a good deal of unnecessary court time and other resources—resources that could be better used in minimising the length of time between first remand and trial. Defendants who did not make weekly remand appearances would still have regular access to their solicitors and other visitors, and could make bail applications in open court at short notice. I recognise that the arguments are not all one way, and that is why I have laid both sides of the argument before the House, but I believe that the balance of the argument points to an amendment along the lines that I have described. When the time comes, the House will have ample opportunity to look in detail at the proposals because they will require changes in the law.
  I have been unable, in the short space of time available, to do full justice to each of Sir George's recommendations, but I hope what I have said illustrates the broad thrust of our response. The Government will put legislation before the House when they can, certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: The Secretary of State has studiously avoided referring to Sinn Fein, yet the Baker report is shot through, from the first paragraph to the end, with Sir George Baker's astonishment that this organisation is allowed to exist. He states that be believes that IRA murderers could be proved to be the agents of Gerry Adams and his Sinn Fein associates. A few months ago the Secretary of State assured me that he would address himself to the Baker recommendations, yet he has ignored doing so tonight. Will he please say something about those recommendations?
  Mr. Hurd: I looked carefully for the hon. Gentleman and referred in reasonably complimentary terms to him in his absence during my first speech, when I dealt at some length with the Government's attitude towards Sinn Fein. Further examination is required of Sir George Baker's recommendations. I am not enamoured of his particular proposal, but if the hon. Gentleman will read in Hansard what I said earlier about Sinn Fein he will see what the Government are doing about it.
  I believe that the modifications I have mentioned will represent steps towards restoring normality to Northern Ireland. They are small steps, perhaps, but they are worth taking. Because our security policy is not static I shall continue to keep a careful watch upon it, and also upon its

  1035
  legislative basis. Our policy cannot be inflexible and unimaginative. If it is to succeed, it must be capable of responding quickly to changing circumstances.
  As for the motion before the House this evening, I do not believe that it could possibly be argued by any realistic person that the security forces and the courts do not need the powers granted by the emergency provisions Act to enable them to combat terrorism. I should be amazed if, in their hearts, those on the Opposition Front Bench, who now have the same length of experience of these matters as I have, had come to the conclusion that these powers are unnecessary. I shall be interested to hear their views on this subject.
  We have seen a number of appalling terrorist outrages around the world in recent weeks, including in Northern Ireland, and many Governments are urgently reviewing the steps that can be taken to meet the terrorist threat. Northern Ireland continues to face a vicious terrorist campaign that has resulted in an intolerable loss of life. Some improvement has been achieved, but we are emphatically not in a position to relinquish measures that undoubtedly save lives, for without them the men of violence would be able to operate with greater freedom and to even greater deadly effect. Therefore, I confidently invite the House to agree to extend the life of the 1978 Act by a further six months.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Peter Archer: The time available for this debate is relatively brief. That is a consequence of the manner in which the Government have tabled their business, so I assume that that is what they intended. One consequence, which may not greatly trouble the Government, is that my contribution to this debate must be brief. That is made easier because on successive occasions over the past two years I have had the opportunity to expound in some detail the Opposition's views on the emergency provisions Act, and anything I say on the subject tonight will be in the nature of repetition.
  It was kind of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) to regret that in an earlier debate I did not repeat in detail what I had said on previous occasions. I do not propose to do so in this debate either. If he was not in attendance on any of the occasions when I said it, I can direct his attention to the Official Report. This will not be an extended contribution, but since the Opposition propose to divide the House on the motion I owe it to hon. Members to offer a brief statement on our position.
  In an earlier debate today I spent some time repeating what I have said on many occasions and what perhaps hardly required saying—that there is no issue between any of the parties in the House, certainly not between the Government and the official Opposition, on our attitude to violence. We all wholly condemn the unlawful use of violence in the pursuit of any political objective, whether in 1920 or in 1985. The question is how people can most effectively be protected from that violence.
  In an earlier debate I referred in passing to two questions: how can we remove the economic and social grievances which provide a recruiting ground, particularly among the young, for paramilitaries of either persuasion; and how can we resolve the political issues that give rise to such a sick and distorted sense of mission and isolate the men of violence?
  1036
  In this debate I want to pose a third question. How can we ensure that the measures that we take to safeguard law and order are effective and not counterproductive?
  Our anxieties about the emergency provisions Act are on three matters and I shall do no more than refer to them because I have developed them all on previous occasions.
  The first question in our minds is whether the powers are necessary to enable those who have to enforce the law to do their job. The right hon. Gentleman said in somewhat sweeping terms that he would be amazed if anyone could doubt the proposition. I have ventured in the past to doubt the proposition and I have given my reasons in detail. I only say tonight that we recognise, as we have always done, that we charge those who have to enforce the law with a difficult and frequently dangerous duty, and we owe them support in the discharge of that duty. But to offer them powers which are not necessary is not an effective way of giving them that support. It is quite the reverse. To do so is to create unnecessary problems, for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment.
  I noticed yesterday that the Home Secretary was anxious to emphasise that in discovering the recent plot the police availed themselves of certain powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We may be told more about that at a later date. But he never suggested that the powers in the emergency provisions Act assisted them in any way, and it is difficult to see how they could have done.
  The very name of the Act that we are considering today emphasises that these are powers which were taken because the authorities were facing an emergency. They recognised—quite rightly—that it was not be regarded as a normal way of conducting our affairs. I hope we all agree that we ought not to let ourselves be coerced by men of violence into departing more than is essential from our normal way of life, or they will have achieved their objective.
  In the course of the debate on the Baker report on 20 December 1984, the right hon. Gentleman said, and he said it again today, that he had considered section 12 of the Act, which permits detention without trial. That provision has not been used since 1975, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) announced that he would no longer avail himself of it. The Secretary of State had been asked—and he has obviously directed his mind to it again tonight—why, if it was never used, it was allowed to remain on the statute book. His answer, as I understand it, is that a situation might occur, perhaps when Parliament was in recess, when he might feel a need to use it.
  I do not believe that that is a proper approach to emergency powers in a free community, when we have these powers not because they have been shown to be necessary but lest they might become necessary at some hypothetical time in the future. I could go through the powers one by one, as I have done in the past, and show that there are other powers available to the authorities to do what they may wish to do. I cannot do that tonight, for obvious reasons.
  Our second anxiety about the Act is that it is literally counterproductive. The Secretary of State quite rightly emphasised that the law can be upheld only by lawful methods. The most effective way to combat crime of any sort is to ensure that the community believes that the legal system and those who enforce it are not only lawful but manifestly fair and that they protect the legitimate interests of all law-abiding sections of the community. Then,

  1037
  indeed, they will support the police, provide information, offer themselves as witnesses and express their disapproval of those who break the law.
  That is not the case in Northern Ireland at the present time. An opinion poll published in the Belfast Telegraph on 6 February showed that nearly two thirds of the Catholic community believed that the legal system was unfair. Of course, some things are perceived as unfair because they manifestly are unfair. That is true of some practices associated with what have come to be called the supergrass trials. But again, I have elaborated on that in the past and in this limited debate it would not be fair to others who wish to speak if I repeated it.
  I wish to emphasise only two things. It makes no contribution to dealing with paramilitaries to convict the wrong people. Not only illegality but unfairness in any system which depends upon public co-operation is counterproductive. Those who invoke Satan to cast out Satan are to be condemned not only for moral reasons but because it simply does not work.
  Our final reason for opposing the order is that after 15 months the Government have still not implemented even the limited amendments to the law which Sir George Baker recommended as necessary. In the debate on the renewal order on 5 July last year, I sketched the history of the anxieties that had been expressed about the Act, the somewhat belated announcement of the inquiry and the further delayed appointment of Sir George Baker. Sir George worked with commendable energy and expedition to report in March 1984. His recommendations were not so radical as some of us might have hoped, but his report seems to have shared the fate of so many reports. It was welcomed, tributes were paid to Sir George, but there was a certain lack of urgency in implementing his recommendations. Of course, I welcome the fact that today the right hon. Gentleman has offered us his reactions, but I am bound to say that what he said hardly allayed our anxieties. It will require more than that to change our view. This is not the occasion to react in detail to what he said, but today we are considering the Act in its unamended form.
  I have no doubt that I shall be taken to task by those holding a whole spectrum of various views because I have made no mention of matters which they believe to be important. Silence does not imply a lack of concern; I am simply conscious that there are hon. Members in the Chamber who were not able to contribute to the earlier debate, and this debate has only limited time. I have given this explanation only lest our reasons be misrepresented; lest it be suggested that the Opposition are insufficiently concerned with law enforcement. Any lack of concern is not ours. Those who have demonstrated a lack of concern are those who have reacted so tardily to the Baker report and those who have denied us adequate time to debate this motion tonight.
  12 24 am
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: I shall be very brief, but I must comment on what I regard as a deplorable speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He knows as well as anyone else in the House that the Provisional IRA and all other terrorist organisations are evil and ruthless. So far as one can judge, they want only one thing: to overthrow the
  1038
  existing order and replace it with themselves. No doubt if they achieve that, they would keep order with the same methods as they used to get it. As we know, they will do anything to achieve their objectives. They will murder—Airey Neave, for example. They will murder British soldiers, Irish soldiers, and innocent citizens in Northern Ireland. They will resort to the weapon of blackmail by using the hunger strike, which happened when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They will murder indiscriminately innocent people on the mainland.
  Terrorists will use any method to achieve their ends, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintains that they should be dealt with as though they were people who had broken the speed limit in Sussex. I cannot believe that Labour Back-Bench Members will support him. I hope that they will not. I beg them not to support him, because the emergency powers that we are being invited to renew tonight are a weapon which we would much rather not use if we had the opportunity, but which we have used and which the people whom we hire to work on our behalf—the security forces—wish to continue to use. They believe that they are to our advantage.
  Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman has recounted many facts, none of which is in issue in the debate, as I thought I had made clear. Is he disagreeing with the statement of the present Secretary of State that we should deal with those people by due process of law, as we would deal with someone who broke the speed limit, or is he suggesting that there is something to be gained by unlawful methods of dealing with them?
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: Perhaps I could remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this House and the other place make the law. We are being invited to continue a law that we have made. If we pass it, it is lawful.
  The point that I am trying to make is that we are dealing with evil men. The security forces, whether they be the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which we hire to defend innocent citizens, believe that they need the powers in the Act. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they should not have them. If he and Labour Back-Bench Members vote against the order, they will deprive the security forces upon which we rely of a power that they believe they need. I beg Labour Members not to vote against the order.
  12.28 am
  Mr. Roy Mason: I believe that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the emergency provisions played a part in this week's dramatic good news about police operations. I wish to place on record my thanks to and praise of those Scotland Yard and special branch officers who, through diligence, patience and skill, frustrated the IRA's planned carnage at our seaside resorts. There is no doubt that police intelligence and skill, backed by our anti-terrorist legislation, has saved hundreds of lives.
  If we are to combat those evil men, we must maintain the full legal armoury that Parliament has decreed should be available. There is no doubt that if our security forces had not been equipped with those legal powers, once again we would be mourning the deaths of scores of innocent British and American tourists in London. But there are many examples of terrorists slipping through the emergency provisions net. Even the present legislative controls do not stop them.

  1039
  I am also pleased at the appointment of Sir Kenneth Newman, who has been given the supreme task of overseeing the hunt for other terrorists, for bomb workshops, and of eliminating the worrying possibility of one or more bombs having been placed in hotels with delayed timing devices. There is no man better equipped for that job. I know from working with him that he has the intelligence, the experience and the steel to pursue that task with the vigour that it deserves.
  The Provisional IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army visit Britain in their various guises, observed at the Irish exits under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts. They visit friends and relatives, mingle in the groups of football spectators to the west coast matches, attend boxing in London, and occasionally divert en route to leave a message in a covert drop, to awaken a sleeper here and there, to assemble an active service unit, to collect and store bomb-making equipment, to establish safe houses and so on. All the time in our midst some terrorist activity is taking place by the Irish terrorist groups and their friends in Great Britain. Therefore, constant surveillance is absolutely necessary. The maintenance of these emergency provisions is an arm of the law which must be continued.
  Our security and intelligence officers, manning the air and sea ports of Northern Ireland, need the right, and thus the backing of Parliament, to watch faces, track their movements, and recognise the mug shots of wanted men, especially those who managed to remain free after the mass escape from the Maze prison—that college of higher learning in Irish nationalism, military discipline and terrorist activity. Yet, even some of those men have escaped the emergency provisions net. Therefore, when we hear or read of some outcry at a port in Northern Ireland or Great Britain concerning one or more persons being held and protesting their innocence—they may well be innocent—we must recognise that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the emergency provisions in operation will cause some nuisance and inconvenience.
  Some do-gooders will rise in anger at this intrusion into our peaceful, democratic way of life. I do not complain when they say that our civil liberties have been breached again. But what if, in that batch the special branch has collared, there are a couple, whom it has held under suspicion, who were wanting to effect a post drop, to awaken a sleeper, or to activate an active service unit? In the time that they can be held under the emergency provisions legislation in Northern Ireland or the prevention of terrorism legislation in Great Britain, it will be a failed mission. If there is no evidence against them, their return home is being frustrated, but their mission will have failed.
  No doubt that has happened time and time again. There is no telling how many lives have been saved as a result. Some completely innocent people may have been held with them, perhaps even as a shroud when one in a group of travellers is a suspect. That is the price that we have to pay when terrorism and terrorists abound within our shores.
  It is also important to understand that the emergency provisions and the extension of arrest time legislation give the police the time to check the forensic evidence that they have available regarding prints on guns and bomb-making equipment, and to match that evidence in the time available. I ask my parliamentary colleagues not to relax
  1040
  these laws. They are more important now than at any time since their inception. There may be fewer terrorists in total, but there are proportionately more hard-line callous men. The INLA wanted to prove that its way of getting rid of the British was the best. It decided, therefore, to ignore the giving of warnings to the security forces and to deal out damage and death on a massive scale, adopt a higher profile and be not concerned about the propaganda backlash. The hawks in the Provisional IRA are now bent on the same path—one evil group trying to outdo the other. It is like a competition in mass assassinations. Now, it is not just public buildings with HMG stamped upon them or hotels, with evacuation warnings given, that are attacked, but carnage on any scale and affecting anyone. That is the major change.
  A great deal of that carnage coincided with and flows from the Maze break-out—17 hard-bitten killers and mass murderers on the run who have no qualms about blasting bodies to pieces and, what is more, schooled from their Maze prison experience better than their counterparts. No doubt a steely bitterness is in their veins. The Brighton bombing was an example of that, as was last week's planned wholesale carnage.
  In the light of all that, I ask my colleagues not to parley with Provisional Sinn Fein. I believe that that organisation, the councillors in particular, is the political agent of those Provo terrorists.
  I have noticed that some of my colleagues have met Gerry Adams, one of the godfathers of terrorism. I remember that, shortly after that meeting in the 1983 recess, we had the Maze break-out. Adams would have known about the planned break-out at the time of that meeting. He must have been inwardly smirking at the thought of meeting true democrats on the eve of that planned murderous break-out.
  I am aware that further meetings have taken place. Many Provisional Sinn Fein councillors are former Maze men. They are not ordinary criminals as we understand them, having served the sentence and wiped the slate clean. They have been retrained, rested, and refurbished, but they are more political, and let us not be kidded by the political activity with which they attempt to cloak their terrorism.
  It is not just ballot box and bullet now, frightening as that is; it is ballot box and mass slaughter. Since the intervention of PSF in the local political scene, the militant element has clearly been given a free rein. One of the reasons for that is that no more elections are pending for a while. It is not unduly worried about public opinion.
  I am of the opinion that those PSF councillors should also be banned from entering this parliamentary building. It is an extraordinary measure, but it should be taken against those known supporters of terrorism. They should be banned because their memories will be long and their feelings bitter and I believe that they will use any political contact for entry into the United Kingdom's most revered democratic institution.
  The emergency provisions legislation can be used for that purpose. Those men are known. When they leave Northern Ireland for Great Britain our parliamentary security teams should be informed, provided with their mug shots and should bar them from entering the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Their main purpose will not be to make political contact with known friends, or even to take advantage of appearing politically respectable. Instead, they will minutely scrutinise the security screens,

  1041
  the checking-in methods, the layout of rooms, the Ministers' sectors and where Members of Parliament, former Ministers and Ministers tend to congregate. Some of those men will have been trained for just that purpose. I say do not give them a chance. After Mountbatten, Brighton, Harrods, the penetration of these precincts on two occasions and the horrifying latest scare, we must make sure that those Provisional Sinn Fein agents of Provo terrorism are banned from this building. It will be a prime target, especially if they are seeking revenge.
  In the light of what I have said, for the sake of all our peoples, and so that my party is not misunderstood, I urge my colleagues not to vote against the order tonight.
  12.40 am
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to use the opportunity given by this debate to refute a common assumption which has serious consequences for security in Northern Ireland and has been one of the causes of the perversion of Government policy in dealing with it. It featured in the speech with which the Secretary of State opened the debate. I refer to the assumption that for the successful combating of the Provisional IRA the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic is a sine qua non.
  I understand how this might appear to be reasonable and even axiomatic to those who are unacquainted with the circumstances in Northern Ireland. People might well say that it is not attractive, that the explosives used in Northern Ireland predominantly come from the territory of the Republic, that those who perpetrate murders increasingly in the areas adjacent to the frontier have been training, waiting, planning in the territory of the Irish Republic. They might ask whether it is true that the territory of the Irish Republic affords them a ready and nearby refuge after their deeds have been carried out. How then—such a person might inquire — can one dispute that it is essential for combating the provisional IRA to gain the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic? There are two distinct and separate reasons.
  The first is that there is no such thing as co-operation by the Government of the Irish Republic in combating the Provisional IRA. No Government of the Irish Republic could, for political reasons, be seen to be or be perceived to co-operate successfully in the extinction of the Provisional IRA.
  We are told that the IRA is as much the enemy of the Irish Government as it is of Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that the IRA is distasteful to the Government of the Irish Republic. I have no doubt that they fear the IRA for historic as well as for contemporary reasons, but there is no contradiction. There is no contradiction between that mutual hostility between conventional politics in the Irish Republic and the fact that no conventional politician dare to be seen, or would expect to survive being seen, as having co-operated with the British in putting down a Provisional IRA campaign. It is not available. They cannot deliver.
  The other reason is that the Provisional IRA, and its operations, is a weapon—perhaps the most effective weapon—for securing the political purposes pursued by the Government of the Irish Republic. At this stage, lest I be misheard or misunderstood, I want to say that at no time have I spoken in terms of hostility, contempt or
  1042
  disrespect of either the people or the Government of that sovereign, independent state, the Irish Republic. Nor am I saying that the members of the Government of that state are consciously, knowingly or avoidably in league in murderous activity with the members of the Provisional IRA. I am saying that the activities of the Provisional IRA have been and still are the means whereby the Irish Republic and its politicians have made in the past 15 years inroads into the constitutional status of Northern Ireland such as they could not have imagined making in the absence of the IRA campaign.
  The premier of the Irish Republic, against whom I have no complaint and no criticism, cannot be so unobservant as not to have perceived that it was successive acts of terrorism which opened the way to the successive stages by which the Government have been drawn into courses of action which visibly were intended first to prejudice and then to dispense with the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. Most signally, in 1979 it was the call for co-operation from the Irish Republic following the murder of Lord Mountbatten which led to the meeting of 5 October 1979, when the plans for the political operation that has since been carried out were laid down. That led to the first of the series of meetings between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the premier of the Irish Republic, which stage by stage have erected the structure which was designed to be the means of cozening Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom into the embrace of an all-Ireland state.
  At each stage Ministers were told—no doubt by their advisers, civil servants and members of the security forces—"You must get the co-operation of the Irish Republic. That is the only key to combating the terrorism of the Provisional IRA. You must ascertain on what terms you will be able to obtain that co-operation." We have explored that in successive terms. We have been building a tower of Babylon in the past four years out of the terms which were successively exacted or sought by the Government of the Irish Republic in return for affording that which they could not deliver and that which was providing them at that very moment with the means of making what, in the terminology of this affair, is described as political progress.
  Without the Provisional IRA there would have been no possibility of bringing things to such a pass. Even now the Government are discussing with the Government of the Irish Republic steps and provisions every one of which is a direct and visible derogation of the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
  It will perhaps be asked, "In the absence of the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic, how are we to defeat the Provisional IRA?" It will be noticed that at each stage of my remarks I have emphasised the words "the Government of the Irish Republic". I am not referring to the Garda itself, though the Garda is a political police force in a sense of which we have no comprehension in Great Britain of such a force. The relationship of that force with the politicians in the Government of the Irish Republic is one that we would not for a moment tolerate existing in Great Britain between the Government and politicians and the police forces. However, I accept that between policemen there is comradeship and that a certain degree, so far as it is permissible within what at the time happens to be the intentions of the political management in Dublin, of useful information is made available by the RUC to the Garda and by the Garda to the RUC. Nothing

  1043
  will prevent that—it is the very nature of the adjacent forces seeking success in their operations, often against the same people. When we talk about securing the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic, we are talking about something quite different. We are talking about something to which has been attached a fatal price tag—a price tag that has been paid in practice by the lives and property of citizens in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  Consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is not too severe an imposition upon the imagination, what would be your outlook if you were a member of the Provisional IRA, watching the relationships between Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Republic, as our Government go about the attempt to secure the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic. You would say, as the IRA says, "Ah, we understand very well what is happening. They are going the same way as we intend to go. Let them go on along that course because, before they reach that ultimate role, we shall take over from them and we shall be in the saddle."
  It has been a continuing encouragement to the IRA, and a continuing discouragement to their victims, to have been able to read all too clearly in the past five years the price that we have paid for that unattainable article—the co-operation of the Government of the Irish Republic in putting down the Provisional IRA.
  From the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support this motion, it is sometimes wrongly supposed that we like the emergency provisions, that we like provisions of law in our part of the United Kingdom that are different from the corresponding provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not. We desire before others to see the law in our part of the United Kingdom in line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we know that that can come about only if the Government lay aside the illusion that has caused them relations with the Government of the Irish Republic — I am not considering other factors and motives that have entered into that—that are all too manifestly an encouragement and a sign of success for the terrorist, and a discouragement and abasement for those who oppose it.
  The shortest way to end the campaign of terrorism is for it to be seen that the Government have no political intentions, propositions, negotiations or undertakings with other Governments that would be incompatible with the maintenance of the present status of Northern Ireland. Strike down that vision which, if it is not clear to us is clear to the rest of the world, and the Government will have taken the most decisive step towards defeating the IRA and being able to take this Act off our statute book.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 12 minutes past one o'clock. The wind-up speeches are expected shortly after one o'clock, so I appeal for short contributions.
  12.53 am
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I feel sorry for the right hon and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He cannot enjoy the role that he is playing, nor the speech that he made, brief though it was. He is a distinguished and able lawyer, but he does not know
  1044
  Northern Ireland as the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) knows Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member is deeply respected in Northern Ireland, and in the House.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: By whom? Not by the minority.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has refused, because of the influences within his party, to recognise what is recognised by all reasonable people—that to defeat terrorism it is sometimes necessary to forgo some of the elements of individual freedom and liberal conventions.
  The House and the country must honestly recognise that some sacrifice of liberal convention and individual freedom is unavoidable. It was extraordinary to witness the Leader of the Opposition praising the police for their achievement without announcing that the Labour party had seen reason and would support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
  The Labour party has gone further tonight. We are told that it will oppose the renewal of these emergency powers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows in his heart that those powers are necessary, because those who know the province better than he — such as his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central—will have told him so. These powers are regrettably necessary. If they had any sense of decency, those who claim to be an alternative Government, who wish to take office at some future time and to administer the Province of Northern Ireland, would refuse to vote against the renewal of these necessary powers.
  12.56 am
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: In the few minutes at my disposal, I wish to deal specifically with internment which, happily, the Secretary of State has decided not to exclude from the revised Act.
  As a legacy of Bennett, Ulster now has no proper way in which to deal with a suspect. When a suspect terrorist is taken in for interrogation, he simply sits without speaking, co-operating or justifying himself. He merely waits for two days—or if necessary seven days—until he is released. The effect on our police force is demoralising. What is the point of a policeman trying to exact a confession or explanation from a terrorist when he knows that in the final analysis he is likely to be complained about, as a result of which police time will be wasted investigating false allegations?
  It is not that we do not know who the terrorists are in Ulster. The Secretary of State will no doubt confirm that on 29 November last year I asked him if he was
  "aware that one Peter Sherry, who stood as a Sinn Fein candidate in a local government by-election, recently used his manifesto to forecast which people would be murdered, and three of those murders have already been carried out?"—[Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 1075.
  I later explained that Peter Sherry was walking free around the streets of the town in which I live planning further murders. The police knew it, yet when they brought him in for questioning they were unable within the seven days to get a word out of him and he was released.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that what I said last November has been proved to be true? Is Peter Sherry one of the terrorists who, with guns in his

  1045
  possession, was captured in the recent round-up? He brought his terrorism from the streets of my town to this country. That is what the police have to put up with.
  That is why I want the Secretary of State to take a long, hard look at the provision on internment. Safeguards already exist, such as the provision of advisers, and other safeguards may be necessary. I regret that time does not permit me to develop the point, but if it is decided that a person should remain in detention, that person should come before the courts and prove his innocence. Let us put the onus of proof fairly and squarely on the person detained. Let him prove his innocence.
  1.1 am
  Mr. Stuart Bell: This has been a short but cogent debate, with speeches by the Secretary of State and two former Secretaries of State. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) contributed, as did the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who has followed these issues closely.
  We discuss this issue in the context of the emergency provisions legislation and the Diplock courts. The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to yesterday's remarks by the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend stated clearly to the House the satisfaction of Labour Members at the remarkable success of the police against the IRA, and he was right to say that the whole nation has cause to be grateful.
  The debate tonight, however, is not about police work but about the renewal of the Act, the legislative framework of which provides for the Diplock courts. The Act abolishes jury trials for scheduled offences. The Secretary of State tonight expressed his concern about such issues and it is clear that we are not far apart on them. He said that the ultimate aim must be the restoration of jury trials for all types of offences, though he accepts that it is not possible to achieve that in present conditions.
  The right hon. Gentleman accepts many other recommendations in the Baker report, and my hon. Friends and I have consistently pressed him on those matters because among the provisions of the Act that particularly concern us is section 8, which deals with the admissibility of confessions, confessions which would not be admissible in courts in Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman took on board the criticisms that we have been making—and which the Baker report made—about section 11 of the Act, which deals with the holding of a suspect for 72 hours without charge. The right hon. Gentleman said that that would be repealed.
  It is clear, as I say, that there is not a great divide between my hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of terrorism—the need to protect the people from terrorists and to combat terrorism wherever it may occur. However, we have consistently shown our concern about the Diplock courts situation, linked as it is to a supergrass system of evidence. Such a situation is abhorrent to lawyers and jurists in Britain and elsewhere, and it is right that we should constantly draw attention to the threat to civil liberties and civil rights in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members are not prepared to see the erosion of those liberties and rights beyond what is necessary and justified.
  1046
  The Secretary of State mentioned the field trials in England and Wales into the practicability and effectiveness of time limits. He said the same thing to the House six months ago on 21 December. We have not advanced on that issue. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been told by the Home Secretary how the field trials were progressing and that he would share the conclusions with the House. He has not done that.
  The Secretary of State has said that he wishes to bring forward the necessary legislation that will modify the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. We welcome that decision, but again he has given no date. He has simply said that he will do so within the lifetime of the present Parliament. Meanwhile, we are afraid that innocent people will be the victims of such tardiness. We are dealing not with convicted terrorists but with those whose civil rights have been taken from them.
  The Secretary of State mentioned section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act on bail applications and said that it would be recast. He said that section 2(4) of the Act would be repealed. We welcome his decision. We welcome also his thoughts on those parts of the Baker report that he is prepared to accept. We want to examine that report carefully and to ascertain whether he can go further. We want to debate that issue and to have it put into context. We have consistently stated to the House and to the country generally that we oppose terrorism wherever we find it.
  1.6 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have time to deal with only a few contributions. I must say to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that it is not my responsibility or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say who may at present be detained and charged as a result of the recent arrests on this side of the water. That is a responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and, in due course, the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks will become apparent.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) claimed that there was no co-operation between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the British Government and, by implication, between the security forces—[Interruption.] Since he described the Garda Siochana as a political police force in a way not understood on this side of the water, the implication was clear.
  Without the co-operation of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, I do not believe that we would have had the interception of the Marita Ann bringing its cargo of arms to slaughter men and women in Northern Ireland, the discovery in the north of Dublin of a bomb factory which manufactured timers for bombs, the finds in recent months of explosives on the other side of the border, the identification of command wires running across the border and the establishment of the vehicle check points that have been frequently set up to assist the security forces operating in Northern Ireland. Far from getting no co-operation from the Government of the Republic, we have had excellent co-operation in recent months and years.
  I go on to the assertion of the right hon. Member for South Down that the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the IRA have a common aim. I believe that few statements could be further from the truth, for the

  1047
  Government of the Republic see clearly that their democracy is as much at risk from the operation of the terrorists now operating in Northern Ireland as is democracy in Northern Ireland itself. Divisions between the Republic and this Government could only help, not hinder, terrorist activity in Ireland. I have no intention of following the right hon. Member for South Down in his perverse interpretation of recent Anglo-Irish relations, save only to say that his interpretation certainly does not accord with mine.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) should cast his mind back to 1957 to the plea that Aneurin Bevan made to the Labour party conference about not being sent naked into the conference chamber by being deprived of the nuclear deterrent. If ever, alas, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues became responsible for security in Northern Ireland, they would find that within a week they would need these powers in order to conduct the battle against terrorism. They will be not in a conference chamber but in a real conflict in which liberal democracy is under attack from vicious terrorism in which the lives of innocent people are at stake.
  The success that we have had in Great Britain was unequivocally stated by the Home Secretary to be due to the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is relevant not to Great Britain but only to Northern Ireland. Those powers are essential, as I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a founder member of the British Institute of Human Rights. I have become convinced of the necessity of those powers in the job that we seek to do in Northern Ireland.
  A vote against those powers now will be a blow at those in the security forces who need those powers to do their job. As I have said, if ever the right hon. and learned Gentleman became responsible for these matters, he would quickly find out that he, too, needed them.
  In conclusion, I repeat that the primary objective of the Government's policy in Northern Ireland remains the eradication of terrorism. The Government do not accept that there is a halfway house. The emergency provisions Act plays a major part in enabling the security forces and the courts to deal effectively with that terrorism.
  The House will have an opportunity in due course to deal in detail with the changes which may be made in that Act when the Government introduce a Bill incorporating the revisions which have been outlined. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that we need these provisions, and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 52.

  Division No. 250]

  [1.11 am

  AYES

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Cope, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Favell, Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Franks, Cecil

  1048

  Freeman, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Galley, Roy

  Nicholson, J.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Norris, Steven

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Osborn, Sir John

  Gow, Ian

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Gregory, Conal

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Pawsey, James

  Ground, Patrick

  Porter, Barry

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Portillo, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Powley, John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Harris, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hayes, J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hayward, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Holt, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

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

  Scott, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speed, Keith

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Spencer, Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Key, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Knowles, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lilley, Peter

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lord, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Luce, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Tracey, Richard

  McCusker, Harold

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Waddington, David

  Maclean, David John

  Walden, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wallace, James

  Major, John

  Waller, Gary

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ward, John

  Maples, John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mather, Carol

  Watts, John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Moate, Roger

  Wood, Timothy

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Yeo, Tim

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Needham, Richard

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Neubert, Michael

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clay, Robert

  Barnett, Guy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Tony

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boyes, Roland

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  1049

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Deakins, Eric

  Parry, Robert

  Dubs, Alfred

  Patchett, Terry

  Ellis, Raymond

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Prescott, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Redmond, M.

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Foster, Derek

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  George, Bruce

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

  Hume, John

  Soley, Clive

  Lamond, James

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Loyden, Edward

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendments) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]
  Question agreed to.

  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
  1.23 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I raised the case of Hilda Murrell under the Consolidated Fund at 4 am on 20 December, 1984.
  Owing to parliamentary good fortune, which so often smiles on just causes, I am able to raise the topic again at 1.20 am on the day after assistant chief constable Peter Smith gave a press conference on the report.
  Why did the assistant chief constable of Northumbria, Mr. Peter Smith, hold a press conference yesterday, Wednesday, to answer questions about the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell without publishing the full report of his review of how the West Mercia constabulary had conducted its inquiries? Will the Minister place a copy of Mr. Smith's report in the House of Commons Library?
  Whose decision is it not to publish the report? Is it that of the chief constable of West Mercia, of Mr. Smith, or of the Home Office? If Ministers wish to convince an increasingly interested and sceptical public, would it not be in their own interest to publish?
  If the report were published, some light might be thrown on the many questions raised first of all by the Cecil Woolf book "The Death of a Rose Grower", by Graham Smith, and then by the New English Library's "Who Killed Hilda Murrell?", by Judith Cook, as well as by the excellent television programmes by Harlech by "World in Action" and the BBC "Crime Watch".
  Why are the police so convinced that this is an "ordinary burglary gone wrong" when they have not succeeded after 15 months in finding the person or persons responsible and there are so many extraordinary aspects to this case, particularly the abduction of Miss Murrell in her own car?
  A secret report on activities that are shrouded in secrecy cannot dispel fear and mistrust. Some of the questions that I had hoped the inquiry report would answer raise issues of public concern.
  Was there an inquiry into leaks concerning GCHQ Cheltenham and the Belgrano, commissioned by Sir Robert Armstrong, Secretary of the Cabinet at the end of 1983? Was intelligence told to identify the origin of leaks of information about the Belgrano? Was Commander Robert Green on the list of possible suspects? Was the home of his aunt checked for information? Has Mr. Smith approached Sir Robert Armstrong?
  What is the nature of the relationship between the official security services and unofficial private detective agencies? Is it true that Sir Robert Armstrong has close connections with a director of Zeus Security Consultants, as reported in the Daily Star of 13 June 1985? Has any Government Department ever employed, directly or indirectly, either Zeus Security Consultants or the Sapphire Investigation Bureau?
  Was Miss Murrell under surveillance at any time? Specifically, was her telephone tapped? Was she on the files of the special branch, locally or nationally? Has Mr. Smith looked into the records of the Shrewsbury special branch?
  Has the burglary at Commander Hurst's home been investigated for a possible connection with the Belgrano? How do the police account for the fact that no valuables

  1051
  were taken and that only Commander Hurst's flat, not those on the top or ground floors, was burgled? Has the coincidence of the time — a few hours after my speech at 4 am on 20 December, but before any newspaper reports of that speech—been investigated and explained?
  In relation to Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Norris and Mr. Peachman, were any of the aforementioned questioned by police concerning either the Sizewell inquiry or the murder of Miss Murrell, and with what outcome? Did any of them work on commission, directly or indirectly, for a government department? At whose request and on whose authority? If they denied involvement with burglaries connected with the Sizewell inquiry, what further steps were taken to establish whether these denials were true? Who did commission each of the above to work on Sizewell concerns?
  Why was the way in which Miss Murrell's car was left regarded as suspicious by members of the community but apparently not by the police? Why did it take so long to find the body? Why did the police officer who visited Miss Murrell's house on Friday night not notice anything wrong, when her neighbours on the following day noticed scattered contents of her handbag and three days' post at the front door? Did the police officer enter the house or not? Did he seek to make contact with Miss Murrell? If he did not enter the house, why did he go away before discussing the abandoned car with her?
  Has the red Ford Escort, to which much reference has been made, been found? I refer to pages 66 and 67 of the excellent book by Graham Smith. Have the red Ford Escorts, variously reported near her home and near the site where the body was found, been located and their owners interviewed? Do the reports refer to the same car?
  Are the police looking for one or more than one suspect? In view of the differences between the photofit pictures and the accounts of the grey-suited running man and the man in the dark anorak, has the possibility of a team operation been fully investigated, and with what results? Has any possible connection with the red Escort been ruled out?
  The two boys who supposedly stole and later burned the tax disc from Miss Murrell's car claimed that there were papers in the car. Is that true? Were they recovered? Are the boys lying?
  How can the evidence of Mr. Ian Scott be accounted for? He maintained that no body was in the copse on Thursday 22 March. How do the police evaluate this evidence and the possibility that the body was moved? Has any progress been made on reports of a large dark car near the site where the body was found or on reports of lights in the wood on Thursday 22 March? I refer to pages 37 and 80 of Graham Smith's excellent book.
  How was the telephone at Miss Murrell's Shrewsbury home disconnected? Were the wires ripped out, or were they disconnected in a more sophisticated manner? Her neighbour, Mr. Brian George, told me that the telephone wires had been disconnected in a professional way. As to the phone at Llanymynech, if it was damaged by lightning, why is there no record of lightning at the time in question? When did the fault develop, and when was it reported? The Home Secretary's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was extremely unconvincing.
  Are the details of the report by Steve Doughty in The Standard of 2 February 1985 accurate in relation to the
  1052
  telephones? If they are accurate, the scene of the crime, which was videod, must have been fixed. If they are inaccurate, we should be told.
  When was Miss Murrell's car reported missing and its details checked? By whom? What information was given or received at each stage? What was Commander Green told about the reason for the delay in locating the owner of the car? If the police quickly established that the car belonged to Miss Murrell, an elderly local dignitary, why did they not contact her home immediately, and why, when an officer went to her home, did he leave before ensuring that she was safe and well?
  What questions were put to Mr. Gary Murray, a private detective, when he was questioned by officers of the West Mercia special branch in April? Were the officers told of Mr. Murray's belief that Hilda Murrell would have been under surveillance from other private detectives? Why did West Mercia detectives go on a so-called "fishing expedition" for information about peace campaigners when they questioned Miss Murrell's friends about her murder, as reported in Graham Smith's book at pages 34 and 35?
  Are the police looking for a local man as chief suspect? Would a local man drive past the police station or through the town, rather than head for open country? If the chief suspect is a local man, why has he not been located? All this effort, yet one recalls the sight on Harlech television of a local burglar saying that, had it been a local Shrewsbury burglar, they would all have known each other and he would have been reported to the police immediately. Are there any other known cases of a burglar being disturbed and abducting a house owner in his or her own car? Are there any similar cases in the area?
  Is the account in the New Statesman of 25 January true? It states:
  "A man who is an accredited counsellor to people with sexual problems was visited by police before Miss Murrell's body was discovered and asked if he knew of anyone fitting the description of a loner who might break into women's bedrooms and be violent."
  That is at page 33 of Mr. Smith's book.
  In summary, the main areas of concern for many people are as follows. First, who was responsible for the death of Hilda Murrell? Why, 15 months after the murder, has it proved impossible to find those responsible? Secondly, why have the official accounts given of the murder revealed unexplained delays in following important lines of inquiry and conflicting accounts of factual evidence? Thirdly, why have British citizens who have not engaged in illegal activities been subjected to surveillance, burglaries and other forms of harassment by members of the security services or those working for them? Fourthly, is political control of the security services, on which Judith Cook writes powerfully, and those working at their request adequate to protect fully the civil rights of British citizens?
  To allay public concern about the murder of Hilda Murrell, the Government should give a full and public account of steps taken so far in the inquiry, and publicly demonstrate, in a way that leaves no reasonable doubt, that there was no involvement in these tragic events b) or instigated by the security services. Public confidence can be fully restored only when such authoritative evidence is made known and when all possible steps have been taken to find the murderer of Miss Murrell.
  When did the West Mercia special branch begin inquiries into Miss Murrell's murder? Why did the

  1053
  Minister say last December that special branch officers had already investigated the possibility of a link between the murder and the Sizewell B public inquiry when the private detectives who were spying on objectors to that inquiry were not questioned until April? What caused the delay?
  Several church leaders have followed this case with interest and concern. Although they have not yet made a formal approach to the Home Office or any public statement, we know that they are worried by the failure to find the person or persons responsible for Miss Murrell's death, and the failure to date to provide a clear and convincing account of the murder.
  In her remarkable book "Who killed Hilda Murrell?", which has just been published, Judith Cook documents 14 serious discrepancies in the appendix between the official accounts and the independently established accounts.
  Finally, if I seem extremely sceptical about Government answers, I can only refer to Clive Ponting's "The Right to Know". On page 133, for example, he states that Sir Clive Whitmore's view was that we were not telling a direct lie. Sir Clive Whitmore argued that it was all right to imply that, so long as we did not explicitly state it as being correct. If Ministers are pained that I do not accept the Government's word, I can only say to them that between 1962 and 1979 I used automatically to accept the word of a Government, of either party. After my experience in court No. 2 at the old Bailey day after day at the Ponting trial I may be forgiven for asking for detail and proof. Let Peter Smith's report be published in full so that it can be scrutinised.
  1.35 am
  Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for agreeing that I should take part in this debate on a tragic subject. The tragic death of Miss Hilda Murrell on Shrewsbury on 24 March 1984 has been turned by the media not merely into a tragic event but into an establishment scandal. Smoke is easy to blow around, but many people in Shrewsbury are reaching the stage when they would like to see a little more body to the accusations that are constantly being levelled at the conduct of the inquiry carried out by the West Mercia police in my area. They allocated more than 100 officers to this serious investigation and even at this late stage 19 officers continue to work on it full time. If there was an establishment cover-up, the West Mercia police would certainly not still be undertaking such a massive investigation.
  There was considerable pressure because of the hon. Gentleman's questions, which he was right to raise in the House. As a result of the considerable pressure from the media, Mr. Peter Smith, an assistant chief constable from Northumbria, was appointed to conduct an outside review of the conduct of the case. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, he may well go into the details of that report and, therefore, I shall not take up the time of the House in doing so. It is known that Mr. Smith was asked to carry out an independent review into the conduct of the West Mercia police inquiry and to assess the use of technical and scientific equipment, and the theories and speculation.
  There has been no substantiation to the theories and speculation. They make good copy in the newspapers, and
  1054
  might make good reading in a book or two. However, the fact remains that the murderer of Miss Hilda Murrell still goes free. I care not whether the murderer was a by-chance burglar, a secret service agent or whoever. We want to see Miss Murrell's assassin brought to justice. I doubt whether that will be aided by the publication of Mr. Smith's report on the conduct of the inquiry. My hon. Friend may say whether the publication of the report, as requested by the hon. Gentleman, at this stage in the continuing investigation will jeopardise the character and quality of the evidence before it is tested in court. I cannot say because I am not a lawyer. But we know that the full publication of that report would be widely reported in the media and, therefore, could be easily read and assessed by Miss Murrell's murderer.
  A considerable amount of effort has been made to link the murder to the secret service and great things have been said of the telephone. I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman may have spoken to a neighbour about the telephone, but I have spoken to British Telecom engineers and they tell me that a disconnection may appear a professional job or, as some would like to insinuate, a secret service job, but that need not necessarily be the case. The disconnection of a telephone is not a unique act in the committing of a crime. Apparently, if a telephone wire is yanked from its socket, it is done by means of the sheath, within which are contained the connecting wires. It is not unkown for those British Telecom engineers to see that at a burglary. The sheath is pulled. One wire remains connected and the other does not. An amateur, a neighbour or anyone interested in fuelling speculation about the secret service might like to read into that some James Bond technique, but it is not unique and can be easily and accidentally done.
  I can draw no conclusions from that act, which is given a great deal of credence, and it is not proof that anything has been done by the British security agencies. It is without doubt that not all murders are solved, but the solution of many may be hindered. I respect the determination of the hon. Member for Linlithgow to bring before the nation the details of that murder and its inquiry. He has claimed in the House and on the media that he has information which associates the British secret service with the murder. I should not suggest to such a distinguished Member that he put up or shut up. I should never seek to limit free speech, but it is time that the hon. Gentleman put up the information that he has that can bring to justice the murderer of my late constituent Miss Murrell.
  1.43 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House may be forgiven for wondering in what capacity the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was addressing the House. Was he addressing it in his capacity as a Member of the House, in his capacity as an acting detective sergeant (unpaid) or in relation to the publication of some books?
  The hon. Gentleman read out a series of questions which are directly related to an investigation which in his view should long since have been concluded and the matter resolved. Everyone in the House would agree that that should have been the case. This matter has not been concluded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) reminded the House, the investigation is continuing. Despite the fact

  1055
  that the hon. Gentleman has had substantial access to those involved in the investigation and the fact that he has received categoric assurances from me in the House and by letter, he is still raising some of the issues about which there has been a clear exchange of views.
  I must seek to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The first was about why the report by Mr. Smith, the assistant chief constable of Northumbria, is not publicly available. The review of the investigation was undertaken by Mr. Smith at the request of the then chief constable of West Mercia, Mr. Cozens. Mr. Smith has reported to the new chief constable, Mr. Mullett.
  There are two highly cogent reasons for not making public the detail of the report which the chief constable explained in his statement to the press today. First, the report deals with a continuing investigation and thus contains details of confidential operational information. Secondly, the publication of such details would, in the event of a future arrest, detract from, if not destroy, their evidential value. Those are cogent and important reasons.
  The hon. Gentleman asked to whom the report was made. It was made by Mr. Smith to the chief constable of West Mercia and it is for him to determine whether it should be published. Those are his views, and I have no reason to doubt that they are cogent and should be observed in this case.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: When the inquiry is finished, the reasons that the Minister has given for not publishing will no longer exist. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, after the inquiry is finished, he will publish the report?
  Mr. Shaw:The investigation is in the hands of the local police. The decision whether to publish the report in due course will rest with them. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is on the record.
  The second question that the hon. Member for Linlithgow asked was about the security services. He wanted to know whether Mr. Smith had approached Sir Robert Armstrong. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I gave him a categorical assurance on 28 December that Government intelligence services were not involved in any way.
  Mr. Smith had full access to all the information held in the force's incident room and to all persons who may in any way have been able to assist his review. I understand that Mr. Smith has seen all those persons at the highest levels in Government when he wished. I can therefore give the assurance that he has seen Sir Robert Armstrong. Indeed, Sir Robert confirmed to me that all those persons involved at the highest levels of Government have been seen.
  The present position is as was stated on 28 December. There is no involvement whatever in any aspect of the security services in this affair. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the investigation continues and 19 officers continue to follow up the lines of inquiry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham reminded the House.
  If anyone submits information, each and every bit of it will be examined. The West Mercia police are in the extraordinarily difficult position of being accused of covering up all the evidence that they have, and the evidence which is produced, whether it is from the hon. Member for Linlithgow, or from the recent book by Mrs.
  1056
  Judith Cook which refers to Mr. Otter—who has views on this matter similar to those quoted by the hon. Member for Linlithgow in relation to Mr. Morgan Grenville.
  I understand from the chief constable that Mr. Otter's involvement was first drawn to Mr. Smith's attention by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I am grateful to him for his letter of 23 May. The information was passed to West Mercia police on 28 May and it was followed up immediately. Mr. Otter has now been interviewed three times by West Mercia officers, but nothing that he has said has helped to take the investigation forward. That has been so on a number of issues which the hon. Gentleman raised.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the telephone disconnection and the problem of storm damage. He knows from the letter of 14 January when I described fully that the police confirmed that Miss Murrell's telephone at her home in Shrewsbury had been disconnected, that at first it was believed that this was done by removing the connectors at the junction box, but at no time did the police use the term "sophisticated" about the way in which it was done. In the absence of any further evidential confirmation that this was the means of disconnection, and after checks of the junction box, the police believe that the connecting wires were simply snatched out, perhaps because the connecting screws were loose.
  There has been a detailed response to many of the questions which the hon. Member for Linlitgow has put to me. He has put many more questions to me tonight. I shall do my best to write to him about some the detailed points. However, the central issue remains the same. The hon. Gentleman believes that leads about the involvement of the security services or others involved in the private investigation of Sizewell have not been followed up and that allegations should be made. Every allegation and every lead which he has offered, or which anyone else has offered, has been taken seriously and examined from every possible angle by the West Mercia police.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of private detectives. Before the most recent press speculation about Mr. Peachman's activities as a private investigator, West Mercia police had already investigated the alleged link between the activities of private detectives, the Sizewell B project and Miss Murrell's death. The hon. Gentleman will know from the chief constable's report on Mr. Smith's report that one of Mr. Smith's criticisms was about the way in which certain aspects of the alleged connection were followed up. They have established that inquiries in connection with Sizewell B were undertaken for a private client but that these were concluded over a year before Miss Murrell's death and that she was not the subject of the inquiries.
  I understand also from the chief constable that Mr. Peachman was engaged by Zeus Security to undertake inquiries on 21 January 1983 and had completed his engagement by the end of the same month. The conclusions of his inquiries were passed to the client's solicitors and the chief constable has no information about what happened thereafter. Miss Murrell did not correspond with the secretary to the Sizewell inquiry until August 1983 and was therefore not known to the inquiry as an objector at the time of Mr. Peachman's inquiries. It cannot be deduced from the involvement of that private detective agent with the Sizewell objectors that Miss Murrell had any connection with the inquiries that were being made at that time.

  1057
  Much as everyone in the House would like to achieve a resolution of this affair, it has not yet been possible so to do. The hon. Gentleman will know—my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham referred to the fact—that regrettably there are homicides that are never fully solved. I gather that there are about 398 currently without a suspect and with no likelihood of being concluded. Sometimes a case with many and various pieces of evidence attached to it cannot be concluded satisfactorily.
  1058
  West Mercia police, having had a thorough appraisal of what had been done, which was conducted by a independent and senior police officer from a force without any connection with West Mercia, are still proceeding to try to solve the case. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and everyone else that that must be a professional and significant undertaking and one which is sometimes not helped by those who raise false points on complicated issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC (Budget Discipline)
  EC (Budget Discipline)
  Worker Co-operatives
  Worker Co-operatives
THE ARTS
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
WALES
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
ENVIRONMENT
  Merseyside County Council
  Merseyside County Council
  Bird Conservation
  Bird Conservation
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Planning Control
  Planning Control
  Devon County Council (Grant Penalty)
  Devon County Council (Grant Penalty)
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Fishing (Offences)
  Fishing (Offences)
SCOTLAND
  Grampian Health Board
  Grampian Health Board
  Asbestos (Glasgow)
  Asbestos (Glasgow)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Markinch)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Markinch)
  Scottish Women's Aid
  Scottish Women's Aid
  Health Budget
  Health Budget
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Age Concern Scotland
  Age Concern Scotland
  Rates
  Rates
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers Association
  Prison Officers Association
  Domestic Fires
  Domestic Fires
  Drugs Squads
  Drugs Squads
  Burglaries (Merseyside)
  Burglaries (Merseyside)
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  Foreign Nationals
  Foreign Nationals
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Radio Stations (Licence Fees)
  Radio Stations (Licence Fees)
  EC Councils (Industry and Research)
  EC Councils (Industry and Research)
  Frames Travel (Takeover)
  Frames Travel (Takeover)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Silver Plate (Exports)
  Silver Plate (Exports)
  Limited Companies
  Limited Companies
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Training
  Training
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone System (Cost)
  Telephone System (Cost)
  Health and Safety Committee
  Health and Safety Committee
  Visual Display Units
  Visual Display Units
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Herons (River Avon)
  Herons (River Avon)
  Exports
  Exports
  Butter
  Butter
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Union
  European Union
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Council of Foreign Ministers
  Space and Anti-ballistic Missiles (Soviet Research)
  Space and Anti-ballistic Missiles (Soviet Research)
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Italy
  Italy
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Chemical Weapons Talks (Geneva)
  Chemical Weapons Talks (Geneva)
  European Council of Ministers (Majority Voting)
  European Council of Ministers (Majority Voting)
  BBC External Services
  BBC External Services
  Gulf Oil Installations (Angola)
  Gulf Oil Installations (Angola)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Chile
  Chile
  Mr. Ahmed Waled Rajab
  Mr. Ahmed Waled Rajab
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mexico
  Mexico
  European Community Budgetary Procedure
  European Community Budgetary Procedure
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Central America
  Central America
  Argentina (British Citizens)
  Argentina (British Citizens)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Arms Control Talks (Vienna)
  Arms Control Talks (Vienna)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Namibia
  Namibia
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  EC (Foreign Policy)
  Former Public Employees (Rhodesia)
  Former Public Employees (Rhodesia)
  soviet Foreign Minister
  soviet Foreign Minister
  Contadora Process
  Contadora Process
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Diplomatic Immunity
  Anglo-Chinese Relations
  Anglo-Chinese Relations
  NATO-WEU (Co-operation)
  NATO-WEU (Co-operation)
  EC Staffing
  EC Staffing
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  EC (Decision-making)
  EC (Decision-making)
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  International Debt
  International Debt
  EUREKA Project
  EUREKA Project
  Drug Smuggling
  Drug Smuggling
  Namibia (Members' Visit)
  Namibia (Members' Visit)
  Israel (Military Equipment)
  Israel (Military Equipment)
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  European Commission
  European Commission
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Office Furniture Manufacturers (Grants)
  Office Furniture Manufacturers (Grants)
  Housing Executive Stock (Windows)
  Housing Executive Stock (Windows)
  Local Enterprise Development Unit Offices
  Local Enterprise Development Unit Offices
  Road Tax
  Road Tax
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Teachers
  University Teachers
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Shortage Subjects (Pay)
  Shortage Subjects (Pay)
  Special Education
  Special Education
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Rolling Stock)
  British Rail (Rolling Stock)
  Roads (Public Inquiries)
  Roads (Public Inquiries)
  Singapore Airlines (Manchester)
  Singapore Airlines (Manchester)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Pharmacists (Pay)
  Consultants (Distinction Awards)
  Consultants (Distinction Awards)
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Mr. J. Broad
  Mr. J. Broad
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  NHS Statistics (Rugby)
  NHS Statistics (Rugby)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  NHS (Private Contractors)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Doctors (Secretarial Payments)
  Doctors (Secretarial Payments)
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Children (Benefits)
  Children (Benefits)
  Newcastle Office (Members' Correspondence)
  Newcastle Office (Members' Correspondence)
  Hospitals (Infections)
  Hospitals (Infections)
DEFENCE
  Boarding School Allowances
  Boarding School Allowances
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Gordon Barracks
  Gordon Barracks
  Prince of Wales Depot
  Prince of Wales Depot
  NATO (Short Range Nuclear Forces)
  NATO (Short Range Nuclear Forces)
  BOAR (Tactical Nuclear Weapons)
  BOAR (Tactical Nuclear Weapons)
  Polaris
  Polaris

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 Ripon.

Lord Donoughue
Bernard Donoughue, Esquire, having been created Baron Donoughue, of Ashton in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Lever of Manchester and the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Wolfson
Sir Leonard Gordon Wolfson, Knight, having been created Baron Wolfson, of Marylebone in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Zuckerman and the Lord Fraser of Kilmorack.
The Earl of Lytton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Royal Assent
2.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Enduring Powers of Attorney Act,

Ports (Finance) Act,

Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act,

Hill Farming Act,

Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland) Act,

Nottinghamshire County Council Act,

King's College London Act,

Leicestershire Act,

Associated British Ports Act,

Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) Act.

The Nuclear Winter Hypothesis
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have circulated comments on the nuclear winter hypothesis but have not circulated the hypothesis itself.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the Government are aware that a nuclear winter is one hypothetical
732
outcome of a nuclear attack, but research has indicated that the situation is very complex. We are therefore awaiting the outcome of two major research studies before considering appropriate action. The comments which have been circulated, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, refers, were distributed by the Home Office civil defence adviser in response to requests from emergency planning staff for information to balance the wide publicity which had already been given by proponents of the nuclear winter theory.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that informative and accurate Answer. Would she not agree, on reflection, that to circulate a comment on a hypothesis without circulating the hypothesis itself is perhaps not the correct way to proceed? Will she therefore give this matter a little further consideration?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as I have already said, the Home Office civil defence adviser circulated those comments in response to requests received in view of a great deal of publicity which had been given to the nuclear winter theory, and they formed a counter-balance, as it were, to the wider publicity that that theory had already obtained.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Dr. Turco and his group, who forecast a nuclear freeze, are very keen on promoting unilateral disarmament for other political causes? Two famous Soviet scientists have forecast, not that the temperature would go down but that the temperature would go up by 25 degrees. Does my noble friend recall that 85 years ago scientists and mathematicians were forecasting that a heavier than air machine would never under any circumstances fly? Would it not therefore be better to await the results of this deep study which is now being undertaken before jumping to unfair and alarming conclusions?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. There is indeed a very complex range of proposals and hypotheses which are currently being considered, and one of them is the so-called "nuclear greenhouse" theory, suggesting that temperatures might rise rather than drop. I should point out that the two major studies which are being conducted are of the first importance. One is by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, which is part of the International Council of Scientific Unions. The results of that study are expected later this year. The other research is sponsored by the United States Government, and an interim report of that is available in your Lordships' Library. However, I think these findings highlight the need to wait before considering the policy implications of any hypothesis.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, without making a long speech and without making any comments at Question Time, may I ask the noble Baroness what justification in logic there can be for printing comments without printing that upon which the comments are made?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the hypothesis, which had already been widely distributed, contained its own premises. The comments were an attempt to put that hypothesis, the assumptions and the alleged results of a nuclear winter into a proper context.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, could the noble Baroness elucidate a little further? What we are waiting on is the opinion of disinterested meteorologists who are unconcerned with political propaganda on one side or another. In the event of our being in for a nuclear summer rather than a nuclear winter, has the noble Baroness any information as to whether it might be worse than the present one?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I can hardly imagine a summer which would be worse than the present one.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, is the noble Lord who put this very important Question aware that there are two bodies—both of which are international and apolitical—which are considering this matter and are due to report? There will not be anybody able to say that these people are in favour of unilateral, multilateral, more or less disarmament. One is the International Council of Scientific Unions, on which we are represented through the Royal Society, which has commissioned a report through the organisation concerned with problems of the environment. It will be reporting in Washington in late September, and then in Munich internationally in October. There will be a two-volume report which ought to satisfy everybody.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that the Government will take account of all serious research which has a bearing on this matter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of the highly reinforced nature of the already adequate reply of the noble Baroness, I think it would be appropriate to leave this matter, at least for the time being, for a few days if perhaps not a little longer.

Johnson Matthey Bankers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 intend to privatise Johnson Matthey Bankers, and if so, whether they will insist that the investment by the Bank of England of £75 million is not disposed of at less than this sum and that the £25 million loan advanced by the Bank of England, plus interest, is repaid in full.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Bank of England have made it clear that Johnson
734
Matthey Bankers will be returned to the private sector as soon as practicable and for the best possible price.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the Question as to whether it is the intention of the Government to ensure that there is no loss falling on public funds, either directly on the Government or indirectly on the Bank of England? Also, will he answer the Question as to whether it will be insisted upon that no loss is occasioned on the sale back to the private sector of JMB?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, naturally I have no idea what price movements may be viable at the time. The Bank of England's own resources were involved in the rescue. These come from profits derived from the bank's own activities. They are not voted by Parliament and they are not drawn from taxes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Earl's attention been drawn to the views of The Times leader on 21st June, which stated:
"In the end, the Chancellor cannot; however, avoid responsibility for politically sensitive actions of the Bank, nor, in such circumstances, maintain the fiction that the Bank's money is not public money."
Will the noble Earl please answer also as to whether the guarantee given by the Bank of England, amounting to £150 million although underwritten backwards by £75 million, will form part of the public sector borrowing requirement?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I usually agree with The Times, but I do not always. The fact of the matter is that my original Answer stands, and naturally it is in the interests of the Bank of England—indeed, in the interests of the Government—that the best possible price should be obtained, given the circumstances at the time.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, as the Question refers to the Bank of England, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether it is the intention of the Government to renationalise the Bank of England, so that the close co-operation between Mr. Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day may continue. Without it, one of the country's most priceless assets—the integrity and high standing of this country's and the City's financial services—might be prejudiced.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the Question on the Order Paper asked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to privatise Johnson Matthey Bankers, and I answered in the context of that Question. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor has had discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England and he, like I, very much values that association. The Governor has agreed that in future rescue cases, should such be necessary, he will inform my right honourable friend of his concerns and intentions as fully and as far in advance as possible.

Prisoners: Remand Accommodation
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce a system whereby first offenders under the age of 21 and other prisoners under the age of 18 held on remand in prisons do not share cells with older prisoners.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's concern, but prison rules and departmental instructions already provide that unconvicted prisoners under 21 should be kept separate from adult prisoners and from convicted prisoners as far as this can reasonably be done. Those who have not previously served a sentence in custody should, so far as is practicable, be separated from others. Governors have regard to those principles in allocating prisoners to cells, as well as, of course, to the availability of accommodation and the circumstances of individual prisoners.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that in theory that is the policy but in practice, so far as Leeds Prison is concerned, this does not happen? Is she also aware that many young people under the age of 21 are locked up with older prisoners for 23 hours a day? This concern was expressed to me by one of the visiting chaplains and by many of the young people themselves.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as I have already said, it is our intention that people under 21 should not be located in the same cell as older prisoners, whether convicted or unconvicted. If on rare occasions unconvicted under-21-year-olds have temporarily been placed in the same cell as older unconvicted prisoners, this is regrettable and I share the noble Baroness's concern. If she knows of any particular instances, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister would be willing to hear of them.
Turning briefly to the second point with regard to the number of hours in which prisoners may be in their cells, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, in addition to their exercise period and education classes, prisoners are allowed to leave their cells to collect meals, to shower, to see prison staff or to receive visits. There are many variables; but even in the most overcrowded establishments on days with few opportunities it would be unusual—and I agree that it would be unfortunate—if prisoners under 21 remained in their cells for such long periods.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister, having regard to the seriousness of the Question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, give a categorical assurance that instructions will be given that in no circumstances are these conditions to be allowed to obtain: namely, that somebody under the age of 21 who is a prisoner, whether on remand or otherwise, shall be in the same cell as an older
736
prisoner? Does the Minister realise that any policy for the reform of young people is completely invalidated by circumstances such as are recited in this Question?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern for the seriousness of the Question. As regards the under-21 population, governors do their best to ensure that younger prisoners do not share cells with those who are considerably older or who have serious previous criminal convictions. We cannot make hard and fast rules to suit every case, taking into account all the factors such as age, nature of the offence and state of mind, so some discretion must be left to the governor.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, in view of the anxiety about the serious bottleneck of prisoners on remand, can my noble friend tell us whether the Home Office have any plans to relieve that bottleneck?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the main source of the problems which are causing such concern to your Lordships is the delay which takes place in the courts, and the Government have taken active steps in this area. Field trials of the statutory time limits provided in the Prosecution of Offences Act will soon take place. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is providing a substantial increase in resources in terms of both judges and courtrooms for the Crown Courts which have suffered the most rapid recent increase in business. Very briefly, perhaps I may also point out that, as your Lordships will be aware, this Government have embarked upon an extensive prison building and renovation programme which will result in two new establishments being planned as remand centres for those under 21. Five establishments will be local prisons. Much refurbishment work will be aimed at improving conditions in local prisons. Taken together, the current proposals on building projects will provide about 11,700 new places by the early 1990s and should well help to solve these problems.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, can my noble friend state the average length of time that young people have to stay in prison? Can she also say whether they have any form of education while they are there?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give any information on the average length of time because it varies a great deal. But there is certainly a statutory requirement for formal education for juveniles.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that under the conditions described by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the danger of drug-taking must be increased?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I would hope that the actual taking of drugs in prison would not be increased, but obviously such contacts with people with other kinds of problems and records is a serious matter. That is one of the reasons the Government are so deeply concerned about the problem and are trying to remedy it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not the undesirability of young people under the age of 18 who are on remand, many of whom are likely to be acquitted, having to share cells with adult prisoners so intolerable that it ought to be prohibited by the regulations of the prison system?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, unconvicted prisoners under 21 are mainly held in remand centres. If under-21s are held within the prison itself, they will wherever possible be located in a separate wing on a separate landing. But they will always be held in separate cells unless there are exceptional circumstances—for example, perhaps where a father and son are both remanded together in custody.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in the area of which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has been speaking there are sufficient bail hostels? From experience I can say that it is possible to send a young person to a bail hostel rather than to remand in custody, if there are sufficient bail hostels.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, we are aware that it is very important to make provision for bail, and we believe therefore that hostels which take people on bail have an important role in reducing the remand bottleneck. New hostels have recently been opened and we are reviewing the arrangements for assessing demand for places to see how this option can be better utilised.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will your Lordships forgive me if I return to the Dispatch Box? I do so only because of the seriousness of this Question. The noble Baroness has mentioned on more than one occasion "wherever possible" and "if possible". Because of the concern shown on all sides of the House, is she prepared to take up this matter with the Secretary of State with a view to seeing whether there cannot be a prohibition, except in the most urgent circumstances, in regard to the conditions mentioned in the Question asked by the noble Baroness? Will she please speak to her right honourable friend about this and tell him of the great concern shown by this House?
Baroness Cox: My Lords, it is a concern that we all share. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my noble friend the Minister, and I imagine that he will draw it to the attention of his right honourable friend.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, following the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether we should not consider a policy different from the one that we have at the moment, whereby these boys are accommodated in a place and in a way more suitable to their age and more constructive to helping them so that they can adapt to life when they come out. Furthermore, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether her right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware that when I visited Oxford Prison on 31st May, 40 boys aged 17 to 21 were in the prison, of whom 22 were untried? Yesterday there were 38 boys in the prison, of whom 30 were untried. Is my noble friend the Minister aware what excellent staff there are at
738
Oxford Prison? They do not put the boys with men, but this means that there must be three boys to a cell.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a number of questions. Perhaps I may point out that, with regard to the placement of young persons under 21, three-quarters of those on remand are held in remand centres. The reason they are held in remand centres is that they need to be as close as possible to their families and friends, relatives and legal advisers, in order to facilitate visits. Very few juveniles are remanded in custody and those who are almost always go to remand centres.
With regard to the situation in Oxford, it is recognised that there are very real problems with the prison in Oxford, which is a small, overcrowded local prison. It has a limited life and there is an intention for a new local prison to be built at Bicester which should relieve that problem in due course.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether, in the light of the exchanges we have had so far today, the new policy which he announced recently of only one supplementary question being asked at Question Time and only one question being answered by Ministers on the Front Bench has been subsequently changed?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): No, my Lords. I believe it to be my duty to interpret the wishes of the House with some flexibility. It seemed to me that this afternoon there was a genuine concern for this particular subject which the House wished to pursue. I considered that in those circumstances it would be wrong for me to interpret the rules too literally, but I should like to make it clear that it is my duty to interpret the wishes of the House. I hope I was doing so.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Privatised Bodies: Conservation Requirements
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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 plans they have to extend the requirements of Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 to industries and authorities which are to be privatised, and whether they will seek to ensure that such bodies have specific duties to consider the needs of conservation in the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government naturally recognise the vital importance of conserving the countryside and we will give active consideration to this in our privatisation plans.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I must say that I am a little sorry that he cannot be more forthcoming. Does he not consider that an extension of Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which allows for the

739
responsibility for conservation to pass on to a subsequent owner, might be used in this case? Will he consider whether this section of the Act should be used, or failing that will he agree to give every support to the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development, which could tackle the problem in its own way?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in privatisation each industry or firm is considered on its merits. For example, we recently went through the long exercise in this House of passing a Bill for the privatisation of British Telecom. In that Bill safeguards were made, having regard to the particular circumstances of that industry. I do not believe that the scattergun approach which the noble Baroness is suggesting would be appropriate to what are very differing circumstances.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is quite futile for the Government to impose more hard work upon themselves? All they have to do to stop any damage to the countryside or to industry, and therefore to our economy, is to have a hard look at the absurdity of their privatisation plans and abandon them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that Governments have been spectacularly good in recent years at running industries.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the particular concern that has been expressed about the possible plans to privatise the water industry? Will he agree that in that area particular safeguards will be needed to safeguard the countryside and wildlife?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are in force already particular duties on water authorities, which we debated at some length during the course of the Water Bill through this House in 1983. In view of what I have already said about particular circumstances pertaining in different industries and firms, it would be premature to comment further at this stage on the detailed issues arising from what is a possible, but as yet by no means probable, privatisation of the water authorities.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister on this matter, but to refer to overall legislation as a scattergun approach is not terribly appropriate. We have general legislaton for the control of pollution. It seems entirely reasonable that we should have general legislation for taking care of conservation in newly privatised industries. Will the Minister not at least say that the Government will have a concern for this and will do their best to ensure that the concerns of conservation are pursued in any privatisation?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, and that is why I answered the original Question which the noble Baroness put down on the Order Paper in the way that I did. I said:
"we will give active consideration to this"—
meaning conservation—
"in our privatisation plans".

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a short statement about tomorrow's business. As the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill was completed yesterday, the House is likely to rise early tomorrow and therefore dinner will not now be available. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Education Support Grants (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were to be taken on Friday, should be brought forward to tomorrow. The business Motion to make this possible will be tabled today.

The Defence Estimates 1985
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985 (Cmnd. 9430).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Defence is unique. There is no other single component of the Government's expenditure programme that is subject to annual reports to Parliament and to the taxpayer like our annual Statement on the Defence Estimates. This is as it should be. It reflects the importance that successive Governments have attached to the maintenance of the country's security—the first and greatest responsibility of all Governments.
But defence does not come cheap. In the financial year 1985–86, we are planning to spend over £18 billion on defence. This is a huge sum of money. And it is of course true that spending money on defence means forgoing expenditure on something else—expenditure to which, in an ideal world, we should all like to give priority. But, as I recall reminding the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, on one occasion, we must take the world as we find it, not as we should ideally like it to be. Wishful thinking is no substitute for a credible security policy, based on a sober and realistic analysis of the threat that we face.
The Statement reminds us of the realitites of today. After the last war, we in the West turned with relief to the tasks of reconstructing our societies and rebuilding our prosperity. By contrast, our wartime ally, the Soviet Union, kept 6 million men in arms and tightened its grip on the countries of Eastern Europe that it had occupied. It then turned the searchlight of its hostility on the West as a whole, and in the intervening 40 years has lost no opportuntiy to extend its political and military power-base. East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan are merely the most conspicuous examples.
There are those who say that all this simply reflects Soviet insecurity, which in itself stems from centuries of Russian experience of invasion, and that the Soviet Union offers no real threat to Britain. But we must judge them by their deeds and not their words. It is a pretty extreme form of insecurity that necessitates the build-up of a massive superiority in both conventional

741
and nuclear weapons; that requires the construction of a mighty navy equipped for offensive operations around the world; and that justifies the development and maintenance of a huge chemical warfare capability—all to the accompaniment of a ceaseless cacophony of propaganda against the West.
The response of the free world is now part of history. In 1949 we joined together in the North Atlantic Alliance. Indeed, it is through NATO, and only through NATO, that we can succeed in preserving peace with freedom because it is only by the collective commitment of all members of the Alliance that, between us, we can maintain the military strength necessary for successful deterrence. But as the foreign ministers of the Alliance reaffirmed at the conclusion of the Council meeting in Lisbon on 7th June:
"We do not seek military superiority for ourselves. None of our weapons will ever be used except in response to attack".
And at the earlier May meeting of the Defence Planning Committee, faced with the continuing buildup and modernisation of Soviet nuclear and conventional arms, defence ministers stated:
"We are resolved to maintain the credibility of NATO's strategy of flexible response and forward defence".
The Statement on the Defence Estimates describes NATO forces, and the United Kingdom's contribution to them, in detail. But I should like to take the opportunity of reminding your Lordships of the scale and extent of Britain's contribution. We commit the vast majority of our forces and about 95 per cent. of our defence budget directly or indirectly to NATO. We are the only European nation to contribute to all three elements of NATO forces; strategic nuclear, theatre nuclear and conventional. We provide forces for all three major NATO commands—the Atlantic, Europe and the Channel. And we concentrate our military contribution in four areas: nuclear forces, defence of the United Kingdom, the European mainland, and the Eastern Atlantic and Channel.
In addition, we have important responsibilities outside the NATO area. Some of them are ours alone, such as our responsibility for the external defence of our dependent territories. Some we share with other Western countries, such as the security of supply of vital raw materials and the protection of trade routes. Some we share with the international community as a whole, such as participation in peacekeeping forces or in humanitarian missions such as the Ethiopian airlift.
I cannot let the occasion pass without saying a few words about the superb operation carried out over the weekend by the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force in close collaboration with the coast guard, the United States Air Force, and the Irish authorities following the dreadful tragedy which befell the Air India Boeing 747. The first RAF aircraft was airborne within 20 minutes of the emergency call being received, and was on station in less than an hour. The operation was co-ordinated by RAF personnel at the search and rescue centre at Plymouth. I am sure your Lordships would wish to join me in paying thanks to all the emergency services concerned in this tragic affair.
The Government are committed to maintaining a substantial contribution in all four areas of NATO
742
commitment, as well as our activities outside the NATO area. I think that it is worth emphasising this point because there are those—not least the defence committee in another place—who do not think that we can do it. Our critics draw attention to the ending, after 1985–86, of the Government's commitment to annual real increases in defence spending in line with the 3 per cent. NATO target. They refer to the programme that we have embarked on to replace Polaris with Trident in the 1990s. They point to the ever-increasing cost of defence equipment. They stack all these factors together, and conclude that we cannot hope to sustain all our commitments from our future resources, that we are therefore heading for a defence review, and that we are being less than honest for not admitting the fact, and discussing it in detail, in the Statement on the Defence Estimates.
But by stacking the deck like that, our critics make the mistake of underestimating the cards in the Government's hand. I leave on one side the fact that had we conducted a defence review in the pages of the White Paper our critics would have taken us to task for not announcing such a major undertaking to Parliament. The first point that our critics ignore is the major and continuing impact that is being made by the increased resources that are now available to defence. The increased level of spending in the current year marks the culmination of an unprecedented period of real growth in defence spending; a record unparalleled in peacetime. As a result, the United Kingdom's defence budget is the second in NATO in absolute terms and on a per capita basis, and contains the highest proportion spent on equipment of any NATO nation.
As for Trident, your Lordships have discussed the relevant issues in detail on more than one occasion. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments now. If any noble Lord is unsure of the Government's policy or of the reasons why we have embarked on the Trident programme, may I commend to his attention the excellent and cogent essay on page 6 of the Statement. There are just two points that I would emphasise. The first is that Trident is expected to absorb on average only about 3 per cent. of the defence budget over the period of its procurement, and about 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. The Ministry of Defence is well used to managing large projects within the year-to-year constraints of the normal budgetary process. Tornado, for example, not only cost more than Trident in real terms; it also absorbed a higher proportion of the equipment budget during its period of procurement. But Tornado was easily assimilated in the defence programme, as will be Trident. The second point is that, although the capital costs of the Trident programme are comparatively large, the running costs will be small. By contrast, the costs of running and manning conventional weapons are normally a high proportion of their total costs. It is therefore a mistake to assume that without Trident we should be able to sustain much larger conventional forces than with it.
The Defence Committee in another place has drawn attention to the historic tendency for the costs of defence equipment to increase every year above the rate of inflation generally. Many voices have been raised predicting a shortfall between resources and commitments if this were to continue. But the

743
Government do not accept that this tendency—a product, we believe, of slack practices in defence contracting in the past—is inevitable and that we can do nothing about it. Indeed, we are committed to increasing efficiency and improving value for money, recognising always, as the recent NATO ministerial meeting also did, that what really matters is the output we get for our money. Chapter 5 of the Statement sets out the ways in which we are going about this process: more competition, tighter contracts, savings on overheads, and better management. It also sets out some of our recent successes, of which the competition for the new RAF basic trainer aircraft is but one example. Elsewhere in the Statement we describe the measures we are taking to improve value for money by increasing collaboration, both within NATO as a whole and specifically within Europe, and by making a concerted and systematic effort to exploit the new technologies to the full.
This Government are not in the business of retrenchments and withdrawals. We are in the business of improvements and enhancements. We are certainly not retreating from our adherence to the principle of deterrence, which has kept this country and our allies in peace and freedom for 40 years. Nor do we believe that NATO's strategy of forward defence and flexible response has outlived its usefulness. We shall maintain and strengthen our contribution to NATO's military posture, and we shall continue to pursue the goal of value for money in the equipment programme. In case I have not got the message across, let me emphasise it again, in plain language: we are not conducting a defence review, by stealth or otherwise, and we have no intention of embarking on one.
So far, I have touched only on our defence policies and military capabilities. By themselves, these are not the whole picture. Part and parcel of our security policy is our commitment to arms control. A symbol of this commitment is the setting up within the department of the Defence Arms Control Unit, which provides a focus of advice to the Secretary of State and his Ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on arms control issues. Substantial all-round reductions in armament levels are, of course, the aspiration and the ideal of us all. That does not mean that arms control is an occupation for the starry-eyed. As I have said to your Lordships on a number of occasions, arms control measures must be realistic, balanced and verifiable. Negotiations are not easy. Significant successes have been achieved in the past in the control of arms, if not in their reduction. The task ahead is to maintain and build on those agreements, at Geneva and elsewhere.
The United States have demonstrated the importance they attach to arms control by their decision to continue their political commitment not to undercut the provisions of the unratified SALT II treaty. The Government strongly support and applaud that decision. We hope that the Soviet Union will be prepared to show that they, too, take arms control seriously by an equally scrupulous attitude to their obligations and by entering into serious negotiations at Geneva.
This leads me to President Reagan's strategic defence initiative. This is another subject that has
744
benefited from extensive discussion in your Lordships' House, and I have no intention of rehearsing all the arguments again—although I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will wish to comment in depth on these matters. There are those who say that the very existence of the SDI programme is a violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. But, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to read an extract from a speech that was made in a very different place:
"The ABM treaty does not place any limitations on carrying out research and experimental work directed towards solving the problems of defence of the country against nuclear missile attack".
That was said, not in the American Senate but in the Supreme Soviet in 1972 by Marshal Grechko, then Soviet Minister of Defence. The Soviet Union has been acting on his words for the last 13 years. In these circumstances it would have been folly for the United States not to undertake its own programme of research into ballistic missile defence. The Government support the SDI, in line with the four points agreed between the Prime Minister and the President at Camp David, and we are at present in detailed discussion with the United States Administration about British participation in research in areas relevant to strategic defence. Our objective is to ensure that the traffic in technology and expertise is two-way, and that there will be clear benefits for our own defence programmes and industrial base.
"Peace in our time" is perhaps an unwise slogan for a British politician to use. If it is based on wishful thinking, it is not just unwise but downright dangerous. The White Paper reminds us that 50 years ago, when the first ever Central Statement on Defence was published, we hoped for the best but were unprepared for the worst. It also reminds us of the futility of one-sided disarmament. We have learnt the lessons of the 1930s. We must not be complacent; but we can take comfort from the success of the policies that hitherto have been followed by all Governments and generally supported by all parties since 1945. So long as we sustain these policies, "peace in our time" will not again become an exercise in wishful thinking.
The Statement describes the massive increase that the Government have provided in the resources devoted to defence. It describes the measures we are taking to ensure that these resources are used as efficiently and as effectively as possible. It reaffirms our commitment to realistic measures of arms control and disarmament; and it sets our defence policies and capabilities firmly in the context of our commitment to NATO and our determination to maintain the strength and credibility of the alliance. Security does not come cheap; nor is it won easily; and, given the strategic realities of today, it cannot be won alone. But, so long as the NATO alliance remains united and steadfast, we surely have nothing to fear. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985 (Cmnd. 9430.—Lord Trefgarne.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for introducing this debate on the defence estimates in his customarily clear and competent way and also for his

745
wide survey of our commitments. Perhaps I may also join him in the tribute which he paid to the forces of this country and elsewhere in the rescue operations which were carried out a few days ago.
I wish I could be as complimentary about the Defence White Paper as I am able to be about the Minister himself. It has, it is true, some improvements and more information, including more on Trident, although there is nothing new; and there is more about the Merchant Navy, as promised. But on policy it has severe shortcomings, and I shall come to those shortly. First, I want to emphasise one thing on which I hope most of us can agree—that the NATO Alliance remains at the heart of our defence policy, as the noble Lord indicated. Central to that is our relationship with the United States. We have our differences from time to time, of course, but that should not prevent us from remaining the closest of partners, as we have under successive British Governments since the war. It is right that in this 40th anniversary year of the ending of the Second World War we should remind ourselves of that.
That anniversary also reminds us that policies pursued over those years, not least of deterrence, have preserved the peace in Europe. I have always been among those who believe in the need for an effective Western deterrent pending all-round agreement on disarmament. But that does not mean that we should not constantly seek ways to see that we make the best contribution that we can to NATO; and that brings me to some of the shortcomings in the White Paper.
As the Minister indicated, defence expenditure is now £18,060 million. We have a duty to subject that to the most searching scrutiny. I think that it must have been particularly hurtful to the Secretary of State for Defence to find that among his severest critics was the Daily Telegraph. In a leading article headed. "Heseltine's Fudge", it said:
"If the statement on the Defence Estimates were the accounts of a public company they would at best have sent the share price sliding and at worst been qualified by the auditors. The picture which Mr. … Heseltine … is trying to present … has only a passing resemblance to reality. The White Paper claims that the defence budget for the current year 'will provide for annual real growth in the region of 3 per cent.'. In order to reach this number there has been some pretty ruthless fudging".
It went on to explain that once inflation was taken into account there would be not just zero growth but a reduction in expenditure in real terms.
We know that the Government have already announced that from next year they will abandon the agreed NATO target begun in 1979 of a real increase in defence spending of 3 per cent. a year. The Daily Telegraph points out that,
"the respected defence economist David Greenwood [says] adherence to the 'programme in being' will result in a defence funding gap of £4 billion by 1987–88".
It could not have been any more encouraging to the Secretary of State to see the comment of the Economist on the White Paper that,
"this bland document has avoided all important decisions and contains no new signposts to future defence policies".
But it must have been especially disturbing for him to see the criticisms which have already been alluded to, although not I regret to say in detail, by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of the Select Committee on Defence of another place chaired by Sir Humphrey Atkins. In its third report published this month it says:
746
"In terms of broad policy, there is little new in the 1985 … White Paper. We said in our Report [last year] that there was: 'little new in the 1984 Defence White Paper. This was acknowledged by the Secretary of State, who said … he hoped next year to move towards a review of policy priorities'. The 1985 White Paper does not realise that hope. We regret this and expect that next year such a review will be included".
Far from being surprised, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested just now, if such a review had appeared in this year's defence White Paper, it was indeed expected by no less a body than the Select Committee in another place.
Later in its report the Select Committee says that its,
"concern that there might be difficulties in managing the defence budget in the 1990s has as a result of our inquiry turned into the strongest suspicion that there will indeed be considerable difficulties leading to cancellations, slowing-down of acquisitions and the running on of equipment beyond its economic life-span. The evidence … from the Ministry has not allayed our fears".
It says of future expenditure that its view,
"which was confirmed by the thrust of the evidence [of the Chief of Defence Staff], is that with the present policy there is bound to be a substantial real cut. It was acknowledged in evidence in the clearest terms that the conventional equipment budget is particularly at risk".
The report ends with these words:
"We have drawn attention … to substantial pressure developing on the defence budget over the coming years, and have no doubt that this will require some hard decisions. We are told that there is no immediate need for a defence review; but we fear that the cumulative effect of managing the defence budget in the manner endorsed in the White Paper may result in a defence review by stealth".
Just one crisp answer in evidence by the Chief of the Defence Staff says it all. Asked whether we were facing a substantial diminution in defence expenditure in real terms after 1985–86, he said:
"Yes, that is exactly it".
There is growing strain on the defence budget just when two things begin to happen—first the need to renew conventional projects builds up, and then peak expenditure on Trident starts.
That brings me to Trident itself. As the White Paper states, the cost has now reached £9.285 billion, which almost everyone but the Secretary of State seems to see as a wildly conservative estimate. David Greenwood, the director of the Centre for Defence Studies at Aberdeen University, puts it at some £13 billion. Even the Secretary of State still sticks to an exchange rate of 1.38 dollars to the pound, when it is 1.28, so we can add on £250 million straight away, and it is now, £9.7 billion.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, has the noble Lord a forecast of the exchange rate over the next 18 years?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, who has considerable knowledge of these matters as a former Minister in the Ministry of Defence, that is a point which has been put repeatedly from the Front Bench opposite. It is no excuse to stick to an out-of-date exchange rate when we know the up-to-date exchange rate.
At least the White Paper acknowledges the high costs of Trident. It says:
"Trident will undoubtedly cost a lot of money".
I shall refrain from saying, "It can say that again!", if only because I would rather say, "It should have said

747
that before!". It goes on in another belated admission:
"money that will not therefore be available for other defence purposes".
I shall come back to that.
Before leaving costs, it is worth noting that since Trident was announced the proportion to be spent in this country has kept going down and the proportion to be spent in the United States has gone up. When it was first announced it was noted that 70 per cent. would be spent in the United Kingdom and 30 per cent. in the United States. Then the Comptroller and Auditor-General reported last year that of the total costs some 60 per cent. was expected to be incurred in the United Kingdom and some 40 per cent. in the United States. This year's White Paper says:
"we expect 55 per cent. to be spent in this country".
So it is not 70/30 in our favour, nor even 60/40, but only 55 per cent. to be spent here and 45 per cent. in the United States.
That is not all. The Government say that Trident will cost on average 3 per cent. of the defence budget and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. But in the years of highest costs—and we are just approaching those—it will be taking 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of total capital spending on defence. It is a pity that when the Government acknowledge that point they do not actually give those figures. On equipment in those peak years the Chief of the Defence Staff says that it will absorb not 6 per cent. but 11 per cent. of the total equipment budget. As David Greenwood said:
"the sums spent on Trident will soak up 12–15 per cent. of the money for research, development and production".
In The Times in February of this year he said that,
"it will take 15–20 per cent. of the funds available for major equipment purchases".
The former Navy Minister, Keith Speed, said that it would take 30 per cent. of the Royal Navy's equipment budget. No wonder there is such widespread concern about the wider effects of this project.
There are other weighty arguments against Trident. It has been pointed out that while the Government claim that our deterrent when equipped with Trident will remain the minimum size compatible with cost-effectiveness and credibility, there will in fact be a huge leap in destructive power from Polaris to Trident; and that what is the minimum now with Polaris will clearly be many times more than that minimum when the force is expanded with Trident.
Let us just look at the facts. At present we have four Polaris submarines, each with 16 missiles with two warheads, totalling 128 warheads. By the mid-1990s they will be replaced by four Trident submarines, each capable of carrying 16 missiles with up to 15 warheads in each, so that is up to 960 warheads, all with separate targets and greater accuracy and range than Polaris.
Of course, the Government say:
"current plans for the Trident force will not involve using the full capability of the system."
That is an odd statement in itself because, having said that we will keep things to a minimum, why build in something way above it? As the Guardian said,
"What surely is now beyond belief is that we need to leap from the ageing Polaris stand-by into one of the most extravagant systems so far developed with a potential striking power 14 times as great."
748
There is an ever-growing body of expert and informed opinion against Trident and it is no wonder that Ministers do not spend more time in debates on this particular matter. In the vanguard, from the earliest days, has been the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who speaks with all the authority of a former Chief of Defence Staff. The analysis he made back in 1982, when he called for Trident's rejection, has gained strength with time. Another example of foresight was the early criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he noted the Government's claim:
"provision of the new Trident force should not prevent or emasculate continued improvement in other areas of our contribution to NATO".
He then said,
"This is almost certainly what it will do".
He can now dispense with the reservation "almost certainly" for, on the Government's own admissions now, that is what is happening and he is being proved right.
We have had the call from the Government's former Navy Minister, Keith Speed, for Trident's cancellation. Another leading authority, outside Parliament this time—again not a supporter of my party; in fact he supports the party opposite—has been proved right. That is Professor Michael Howard, who said that the strategic rationale for Trident remained to him utterly obscure, that it was a waste of money and that its purchase could only be at the expense of the conventional forces we could contribute to the Alliance. That was in 1983. How right he was!
What has also been notable has been the growing concern and opposition among such a wide spectrum of responsible journals and newspapers. The concern focuses increasingly on one major point: the effect on our conventional capability, and at a time when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is urging NATO European countries to raise the nuclear threshold in Europe by increasing their conventional forces.
That leads on to proposals for improving our conventional contribution to NATO. I will not go into those in detail now because that has been done before, and I have too quite recently. However, I hope that the Government will not again trot out their familiar and totally unconvincing claim, as indeed the Minister suggested this afternoon, that savings on Trident would not buy anything worthwhile in conventional arms. Ask any of the service chiefs and they will come rushing with briefcases full of shopping lists. Just to quote one simple example, even £3 billion would buy some 27 frigates, let alone what £9·5 billion would buy.
Anyway, there is an admirable set of proposals put forward in a book just published, Strengthening Conventional Deterrence in Europe. It is the second and updated report of the European Security Study, a distinguished group of people, including Lawrence Freedman—who, by the way, is not an opponent of Trident—and Professor Michael Howard. Also, among those who took part in the original study, and on the steering group, is the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. One of its basic purposes is to strengthen NATO's conventional capability so as to enhance its overall deterrent and lessen its reliance on the early use

749
of nuclear weapons should deterrence fail. It notes that a widespread consensus has emerged in the Alliance in favour of that aim.
It is a masterly, thorough and practical report with precise and specific proposals, all costed. I am not able to embrace all its proposals. For one thing, I notice it endorses the follow-on-forces-attack concept on which I have previously expressed reservations. (I hope it is the only piece of defence jargon that I shall thrust on your Lordships this afternoon). In any case, the proposals need closer study than is possible in the six days I have had them. However, there is much that appeals in it. What strikes one at once is that the costs are realistic and manageable. Spread over a 10-year period, the total comes to 22·5 billion dollars.
The report points out that the actual costs may exceed those costs if only because of inflation, but many of the proposed systems are already in production or substantially mature, so should not vary greatly from the estimates. Also, even if the real costs of the less mature systems were to double, the total for the revised programme should still be less than 30·1 billion dollars. We bear in mind that Trident will cost us, alone, £9·5 billion over a 20-year period, also subject to inflation and exchange rates, while the conventional proposals would be shared by the whole of Western Europe.
A feature of this year's White Paper we welcome is the extra information on the Merchant Navy as promised by the Secretary of State. But what is not so welcome is what has happened to the size of our merchant fleet. I realise that most of the details about the Merchant Navy come in Chapter 4 of the White Paper, which comes into the second half of our debate next week. But the role of the fleet and the strategic implications come into the early chapters, so I should like to deal with them here.
We all recall the splendid part that the Merchant Navy played in the Falklands campaign. It fulfilled its historic role of augmenting the Royal Navy in times of war and emergency, something it has done from the time of Elizabeth I and beyond. Not long ago we still had the largest merchant fleet in the world. Last year, we were down to seventh place. Your Lordships heard this month from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that in March 1985 we had 758 ships with a total dead weight tonnage of 21 million tonnes in our fleet of 500 gross tonnes and over. The figures for March 1980 were 1,297 ships and 42 million deadweight tonnes. In five years the tonnage halved, the number of ships down from 1,297 to 758.
That is a tragedy. It is also a danger. No wonder the Select Committee on Defence of another place in its report, The Use of Merchant Shipping for Defence Purposes, which was published on 10th June this year, began with the words:
"The availability of merchant shipping to meet possible defence needs has become a matter of concern".
By the end of the report it was saying,
"Effective deterrence requires that no would-be aggressor is tempted by vulnerability. Present trends seem to be setting in this dangerous direction".
Its final words were that the comparison between the Allied position and that of the Warsaw Pact was
750
"extremely disturbing". Beside that, the Government's defence White Paper on this aspect sounds complacent. However, it does say that if the decline in our merchant fleet continues for several more years at the present rate, it could become increasingly difficult for us to discharge at least some of our NATO obligations.
Now, I know that the Department of Transport, with the Ministry of Defence, commissioned consultants to do a major study of the availability of merchant ships. I gather that is now being studied. We hope that that will help, but it will not be enough—nowhere near enough. We need to know the causes of the decline. It is all very well for the Government to say that the causes are well known, but let them be set out and examined. After all, the merchant fleet is one of the bases of our economy. Ninety-eight per cent. by weight of our trade still travels by sea. Our capacity to take goods out and bring goods back by sea will long remain an essential need.
The Defence Select Committee said that when the consultants' report has been considered, the Government should publish a White Paper or give further evidence to it on the availability of ships for defence. But that is not enough. We need to know what, if anything, can be done about the decline; whether anything can be done to discourage British ships from flagging-out; whether flagging-in can be encouraged. The president of the General Council of British Shipping, Mr. Menzies-Wilson, said they only stay in business at all because they are among the most efficient ship operators in the world. However, he said:
"no amount of efficiency can overcome the handicap of being the only Western fleet to have suffered withdrawal of all Government support.
"So the Government should not be surprised if shipowners move their fleets to other flags or else put their money into non-shipping".
Those are harsh words from traditionally strong supporters of the party opposite. But this is not a party matter, or need not be if something is done. What is needed as a first step is a White Paper on the entire subject, defence and civil needs. We have a Defence White Paper. Let us have a Merchant Navy one.
Before turning to one final matter, let me just mention a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred. This is a two-day debate on defence and not on disarmament. But it would be remiss of us not to mention it. The fact that the Geneva talks are on at all gives some ground for hope if as yet not too much optimism. But we must continue to exert all possible efforts to securing agreement. We must not be deflected from that. It was certainly a welcome sign that President Reagan decided to continue to observe SALT II.
My final point concerns something not in the Defence Estimates. Your Lordships will recall that a year ago the air was rent with the sound of trumpets heralding the Secretary of State's great reorganisation of the upper echelons of the Ministry of Defence—the great battle over his proposals to change the relationship between the service chiefs of staff and himself and the Chief of the Defence Staff. That was in full swing. Yet not a word appears in the White Paper. Yes, there is something on reorganisation and some welcome savings in money, but nothing about the chiefs of staff and all that.

751
Not that I expected a blow by blow account of the battle within the Ministry from the Minister. But last year the Secretary of State kept us all on the edge of our seats as he went round upsetting almost everyone. He kept us all entertained and lightened our lives for a bit, or would have done if it had not been such a serious matter. So it is deeply disappointing to have nothing on it. We have heard nothing on this from the Secretary of State, neither in his White Paper nor in his speech on it in another place two weeks ago. I wonder if it could be that he did not win the battle. After all, when the Secretary of State gets his way, he usually finds a way to let us know. We can seldom accuse him of being shy, or reluctant to publicise a victory.
And what have we heard from the chiefs of staff? Nothing! That is a comfort. That is reassuring. Their silence could mean—I will not embarrass them by suggesting that it does mean—that they have had some success. But if they have not, I suspect that a way would have been found to let us know. After all, it is hard to suppress those mercifully strong-minded characters. Last November, I ventured to suggest that, thanks to some words from the Chief of the Defence Staff, the indications were that a way had been found to ensure that all would go on much as before. Now we see that the one person to say something recently is the Chief of the Defence Staff himself. In an interview last month, Field Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall said:
"I think there was some worry"—
I like the delightfully modest words that he chooses—
"that in the years ahead the individual chiefs would find themselves more distant from policy making, that they might not be quite so effective in their professional advice as they had been in the past. I think we have written in adequate safeguards"—
I shall refrain from commenting on those words. I will content myself with repeating them—
"I think we have written in adequate safeguards and I think that now the new organisation has been thoroughly accepted".
One can only ask, "Why did not the Secretary of State tell us that?" How apt it was that those well chosen words of the Chief of the Defence Staffs appeared in that most aptly named journal of Defense Diplomacy, last month.
I take it, therefore, that those adequate safeguards mean that all our service chiefs are safeguarding our security in all ways as before and that they are carrying on much as before. That will be a great blessing to us all, just as all our forces, regular and reserve, with their high and continuing record of achievement and courage, are a great blessing to us all. We join in a warm tribute to them all.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we endorse what has been said about the role of the armed forces in connection with the recent airliner disaster in the eastern Atlantic.
I shall spare the House a sixth speech about SDI in a period of 18 months. I must, however, take up the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on his statement that there are some who maintain that the present research phase of the strategic defence initiative is against the ABM treaty. He may have met some people who maintain that, but I have not. If I may respectfully put the suggestion in the mind of the House, that may have been a bit of an Aunt Sally to cover up the fact that he
752
was not answering the real objections of those who think that SDI is a bad plan.
On the defence review, we must all have been struck by the vehemence with which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary denied any possibility of there being any prospect of a defence review in public, in private, or in secret. Okay, we, here, would not have any objection if there were one. Indeed, I believe we would think it a rather good plan, particularly in connection with Trident. I hope, however, that the Government will not talk themselves into a position in which they will feel ashamed about having another defence review within x years of the last one. It is a changing world. Any self-defensive feelings about that, I submit, would be a danger to the country.
It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston, not only because it was clearly expressed but because in the opinion of the Alliance parties, it was correct in every detail. It is something that we absolutely endorse. I take personal pleasure in pronouncing the unanimity of the Opposition parties on the subjects at issue today. This depends, of course, upon the crucial fact that what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has been saying is not in all respects concordant with the official policy of his party.
A noble Lord: My Lords, not in any respect!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in some respects, yes. I believe that the Labour Party, as a whole, is against Trident. But what the noble Lord said about NATO is certainly not in accordance with official Labour policy. Over the years, a welcome tradition has developed in this House that the Front Bench of the Labour Opposition does not bother itself with its own party policy so much as it does with truth.
There is one thing especially to be welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has already wisely done so—in the Defence White Paper. That is the dawning awareness of what is happening to Britain's maritime presence as a whole, civil and military. We all realise that the Prime Minister learnt at her father's knee that if you look after the pence the pounds will look after themselves. Many of us are beginning to wish that she had also learnt, perhaps at her mother's knee, that a stitch in time saves nine. The pence saved in the past are now putting too many future pounds at risk. We may be saving a few of them today but in the long run we have been losing, losing and losing in the matter of the sea.
Shipping and shipbuilding are told to be competitive. But in what way? Of course it means that they have to be economically competitive. They are told to compete with the merchant marines of countries all of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, correctly pointed out, receive Government subsidies in one form or another, and to do so without Government subsidies. Apart from being the linchpins of innumerable other nationally lucrative service industries, the merchant marine, the fishing fleet and so on, are also linch-pins of national security, which justifies their discussion today. I hope very much that the new arrangements in the Ministry of Defence mean that all senior officials and senior officers and, most importantly, all Ministers, will now read their

753
Gorshkov and will take his book The Sea Power of the State, 1979, with them when they talk to the Treasury and when they discuss shipping and shipbuilding, if they ever do, with other departments. They could even leave a copy at Number 10 Downing Street, open at page 109, with the passage marked in which Admiral Gorshkov says:
"The plan of Hitler's Germany to gain dominance in western Europe, chiefly by the forces of the land troops and aviation, appeared to be close to a successful conclusion. But there remained defiant England, and it was impossible to make her surrender in the absence of adequate naval forces".
Admiral Gorshkov continues by saying that the Soviet Union is now facing "a coalition of naval powers" and has to develop what are for it quite new naval capabilities. He then says, that, as well as the need to destroy the enemy, there is:
"a qualitatively new task … the curbing of his military economic potential by directly acting on his vitally important centres from the sea".
That is what we face.
The House of Commons Select Committee found, as indeed the Government themselves found in the Falklands War, that ships have to be available to be "taken up from trade" if they are to play their role in a crisis in support of the Navy, and to do so without delay. For that you need two things: first, ships and, secondly, their availability.
Let us consider the ships. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, began to touch on this subject, but I should like to take it a little further. Looking at the register of ships, Britain has fallen from 1,600 to 690 in 10 years. Norway, a neighbouring country, has suffered rather the same fate. Norway is down from 45 million tonnes GWT to 27 million tonnes in 10 years. Greece—which has had a freak history—is up 37 million tonnes to 59 million tonnes in five years. There are many other countries moving under the Greek flag because—and let us face it—of low standards. France is very similar to us; France is down from 18 million to 14 million in 10 years. The United States—and here we have a success story—is up from 17 million to 25 million in 10 years. Let us consider the effect of all that on NATO as a whole. The NATO fleets collectively are down from 206 million to 184 million tonnes in 10 years—not, perhaps, a very catastrophic fall, but we must remember the role of Greece in that regard. The principal merchant shipping powers—Norway, Britain and, to a lesser extent, France are rocketing down.
What do we find on the other side? We find that the Soviet Union is up from 16 million tonnes in 1975 to 23 million tonnes now, and that excludes the astronomical and well-known growth of its fishing fleet and all the other disguised military capabilities which it has at sea.
The second matter for the Ministry of Defence must be the question of availability, which is now to be investigated. I am sure that the Department of Transport has studied the problems, even possibly taking the good advice which I gave it a year or two ago to consult the trade unions. God knows why, but between them the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport have not been able to find their own answers and have had finally to go to consultants to find out the state of affairs as regards the
754
availability of ships, largely, I gather, because they do not like what the General Council of British Shipping and others have been telling them; namely, the figures which I have just given the House. They have put the matter out to consultants—a good commerical course which covers as many sins as the setting up of Royal Commissions in the past under Governments of another colour.
I should like to quote to the House the circumstances in which this consultancy report was commissioned. I am referring to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee of the House of Commons in December last year. The Chairman of the Committee said to Mr. Stanley, the Minister of State for Defence:
"you said in your evidence that this study was based on various assumptions as to the size of the British merchant marine. Now we are told that you are hiring consultants to forecast the availability in each category of the defence role. What has happened to your studies?"
Mr. Stanley then gave an answer to that question. The Chairman went on:
"I see. Mr. Stanley, are you telling the Committee that it took you seven months to decide that you had not got enough expertise in your own department to produce the answers.?"
Mr. Stanley replied:
"No, Mr. Chairman … The intervening months have been taken up in negotiations between consultants and the Department of Transport".
Presumably they got a good fee for that, but I do not know whether that can be published. A little later in the same session Mr. Stanley was asked:
"I am interested in knowing … your concept of 'availability'".
Mr. Stanley answered that question and was asked further:
"have you told the consultants what your requirements are, in terms of immediacy of availability"?
Mr. Stanley answered:
"We would assume that if a ship is UK registered, then we would have very ready access to it".
At that point he was interrupted by the question:
"Wherever it was?"
Mr. Stanley answered:
"No, please. We would have very ready access to it, in legislative terms".
A little later he continued:
"I do not believe the terms of reference"—
that is, the terms of reference of the consultants—
"have been couched in a form of words … which asks them to take a view as to how many [ships] are going to be available within a certain timescale".
I submit that that is prima facie evidence in advance that the study will be quite useless for any practical purpose. I do not know what "legislative availability" means. Even so, the two departments have said that they are to carry out a further study when they get the SEA, the consultancy study, in. We should be grateful if all this apparent muddle could be sorted out and also if we could be told; is that not the type of thing that departments are paid to know in the first place?
The registers themselves could be the subject of a good deal of shuffling. It may be that when the availability figures are made known they will be found to contain ships on the so-called UK dependent registers as well—that is, Hong Kong, the Cayman

755
Islands, and, for instance, Vanuatu—which will make the situation look less bleak. The Hong Kong Register itself has increased fivefold in the last 10 years, and that is because it includes a lot of Chinese-owned ships. Presumably not even the most optimistic report could maintain that they would be readily available to us in time of international crisis. We also know that our own register includes a great many Norwegian ships which they would be as free to withdraw in a Norwegian time of crisis as we should be to withdraw our ships in a UK time of crisis. I think that it would be better not to massage the figures, if the Government had that in mind to do. The situation is very serious indeed, and Ministers know it.
If our shipping and shipbuilding industries vanish, not only will it have an immediate effect too obvious to be spelt out on our preparedness for a major political crisis and the possibility of war, but other industries and national capabilities will vanish with them. I am referring to engineers, designers, draughts-men, the entire maritime education industry, which is a big earner, and all the sea-related service industries of the City. Will the Government wake up to what is happening in time? Can the Government wake up to what is happening in time? Our hopes are high, our faith needs restoring.
There is another peacetime security role which the Government have consistently ignored. I am referring to the provision of a British presence at sea in places where a British absence creates a dangerous vacuum. I am referring to British fishing vessels, fishery protection vessels, and research vessels of all kinds. They are the bottom rungs of the ladder of deterrence at sea. Deterrence at sea is different from deterrence on land, as we learned at the time of the absurd Cod Wars against Iceland, when they came out against us with wooden gunboats and we had nothing smaller than frigates, with which we scarcely wished to ram them. So they were free to ram us. Small ships were lacking. We also learned a great deal about it from the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" from the South Atlantic. The Argentine junta's reading of that withdrawal, and the actions which they took in consequence of it, should be written out in Gothic script and left on the mantelpiece of every Defence Secretary and every Foreign Secretary from now on.
Twenty years ago we had fishing fleets in the Barents Sea. Now, perhaps in part thanks to the convicted Norwegian spy, Treholt, things have been made difficult for us, and there are no British trawlers, no British fishery protection vessels, and virtually no other British maritime presence in the Barents Sea. We all remember what happened to HMS "Glasgow" when she made a rare outing beyond the usual frontier of NATO maritime activity.
In another place the Minister of State, Mr. Stanley, has sung the usual litany about the overriding importance of the central front, and of course it is of very great importance. But do we not also remember that the Russians are chess players, besides being a very strong military power, and that the central front is so obvious a place to attack that NATO has devoted most of its resources over 30 years to defending it? If one was a chess player, would one not seek an element of surprise? If one were to seek an element of surprise,
756
would one not turn inevitably towards the northern and marine flanks of this country?
A few years ago I asked for some figures. They were about the number of Soviet vessels in our ports. I got the answer that it was about 1,200 in a given year. What is it now? Has it gone up? How many Soviet sailors are allowed ashore without visas on a given night? How many Soviet sailors are wandering around this country without visas? Is there any other class of Soviet citizen allowed to wander around this country without a visa? On any given night how many British sailors are wandering around the Soviet Union without visas? How many nights last year did British ships spend in Soviet ports? I am referring to merchant ships all the time. Are Aeroflot air crew allowed to wander around this country without visas? I raise these questions in, I hope, a spirit of constructive curiosity.
We are at the beginning of a new age, I hope, in defence policy, and there is time for a new age in the co-ordination of maritime policy. It is now six years since the last Conservative Government abolished the co-ordinating role in maritime policy of the Lord Privy Seal. That is left to low level ministerial co-ordination by the Department of Transport. It is co-ordination of funding which counts. There is no way to co-ordinate policy except by controlling the flow of money through the entire system; and I commend that view of things to the Government in the efforts that I hope they will shortly be making to restore even that little central co-ordination of maritime policy in the national interest which existed under the last Labour Government.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on Chapter 2 of the Defence White Paper which is called The Western Approach—nothing to do with the western approaches—relating it at the end to the insert on pages 6 to 8 in Chapter 1 about Trident, to which the noble Lord has already referred. Defence faces the same challenge today as do industry, commerce, Government agencies, and every activity of modern society in developed countries: the high standard of living that people have come to expect, and the electronic revolution.
The former results both in the high cost of employing manpower and womanpower, whether in uniform or not, and also in falling populations of an age normally considered suitable for military service. I suppose that our predecessors in this century and the last could, no doubt, have made much the same complaint. They should have also drawn attention to the potential effect on defence of the technical revolution which was going on in their time; on the equipment the armed forces needed; and how they should be organised, which ought to be, but seldom in fact is, determined by the former.
These two factors combine to exert a tight grip on the resources the nation is prepared to devote to defence. It is clear from Chapter 5—which we are not supposed to be discussing today—that the Government acknowledge this as a significant problem, and it is made more so both by their announced intention of abandoning next year their commitment to NATO to increase defence

757
expenditure by 3 per cent. per annum in real terms, and by their recent sleight-of-hand over service pay.
Although they have appeared generous in accepting the Armed Forces Review Body's recommendation of an average increase of 7 per cent., I understand that they have not relaxed the Treasury's tight-fisted grip on limiting cash to their original forecast of 3½ per cent. inflation. It is my understanding that the pay increase therefore means a reduction in other elements of the defence budget. If I am wrong, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will correct me.
In these circumstances therefore it is as clear as daylight that the Government must clarify priorities and see that they obtain the best value for the admittedly large sums of money spent on defence. Economy in the employment of full-time manpower has obviously got to be exercised, and the implications of the electronic revolution, both to ourselves and to our allies, and to our potential opponents, must now be faced.
Let me first deal with the first. I suggest that NATO as a whole should organise its forces and resources on the general principle that what is static and what can be provided from civilian resources, both human and material, should be found, so far as is practicable, from reserves: that is, men and women and material resources which do not form part of the standing forces and their equipment. This of course is more easily applied to those countries which are themselves potential battlegrounds, and I know that most of those countries say that they are doing all they can in this field already; but I am not convinced that they are. More imagination, less conservatism, and greater political and military will and enthusiasm for that concept is needed.
Let me turn now to the electronic revolution, or what is sometimes called new or emerging technology. Over the last 100 years our armed forces have been slow to adapt themselves to the technical revolutions which have occurred: first of all, the steam age, when we were inclined to hang on to sail for too long, and to fail to appreciate the significance of railways to continental warfare; then the electrical and internal combustion engine age; slow to appreciate the influence of the submarine and the torpedo at sea, to develop radio communications, and to replace the horse by the motor vehicle; reluctant to recognise the significant effect of aircraft.
The electronic revolution is perhaps more radical and swifter in its development than any of those. It revolutionises the acquisition of information in a vast variety of forms; it affects every aspect of weapon systems, their means of delivery, their control in flight, and their effectiveness on impact, as it does all means of trying to counter them; and of course it has an immense effect on all forms of communication and on methods of interference with it or detection of it.
If NATO's forces are to be able to face those of the Soviet Union with confidence and therefore present a credible deterrent to their embarking on a military adventure, they cannot afford to fall behind in this technical race. However different the views held in this House about nuclear weapons there is, I think, little disagreement that we must maintain and, if possible, improve the capability of our conventional forces.
758
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has already referred to the Anglo-American-German European Security Study, in which I took part, three years ago, the report of which was published two years ago under the title, Strengthening Conventional Deterrence. The noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues received copies at the time. I make no apologies to the House for reading what the Economist said in its review two years ago:
"Defence thinkers are second only to economists in squabbling among themselves. It is therefore startling when two dozen of them can agree on anything: it is doubly startling when the group includes such powerful intellects as Professor Michael Howard, General Sir Hugh Beach, Professor Lawrence Freedman, Mr. William Perry and General Andrew Goodpaster; and downright astonishing when the agreement has to do with nuclear weapons. Yet it has happened".
That report had a rather lukewarm reception in the Ministry of Defence. Paragraphs 212 to 215 of the White Paper reflect that. Some of the projects referred to in those paragraphs are in line with the report's recommendations, and I welcome the effort devoted to them. But the trouble is that the great majority of defence spending goes into weapons systems, and the men to man them, which are little more than modernised versions of what we were using 40 years ago—and that applies to all three services. There is little left over, either in terms of money or manpower to devote to new systems and radical changes. It is the same old story that has inhibited progress for the last century. Only wars have shaken us out of that attitude.
In the light of the reactions of the report that I have referred to in this country, in the United States, in Germany and NATO generally, not only to that report, but to similar suggestions emanating from other sources, including SHAPE and the Pentagon, the steering group deputed four of its members—two Americans (the two, in fact, referred to by the Economist) one German General and one British Air Chief Marshal, Sir Alasdair Steedman, assisted by an American research corporation—to review its recommendations, especially the costing, on which some doubt had been thrown. The result of that review, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, mentioned, has been published and copies have been forwarded to the noble Lord and to practically the whole of the hierarchy of the Ministry of Defence.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boston, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Table VIII-4 on page 111 which is headed: "The Total Estimated Costs for Recommended NATO Conventional Improvements". These include both acquisition costs and running costs for 10 years. The cumulative total, as he says, taking the average cost estimate at 1984 prices, is 22·5 billion dollars. If you add up all the maximum estimated costs, it comes to 30·1 billion dollars. That sum would be spread over the nations contributing forces to NATO's Central Front: that is, the United States, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Canada and ourselves. I am afraid that I have not been able to work out what proportion of the total would be considered appropriate either for us to man or for us to contribute, in financial terms. At the maximum, I would suggest 20 per cent. and it might well be less. Taking the worst case, that is, the 30 billion dollar total and one-fifth of that falling to us, at the current exchange rate of about 1·27 dollars to the

759
pound, our contribution over 10 years would be £4·72 billion. That is about half of what the Government themselves estimate that Trident will cost.
But it should not all be considered as additional expenditure. Not only are some of the projects ones on which we are already engaged, notably stand-off missiles, airfield attack weapons and the multiple-launch rocket systems, but the introduction of the systems recommended should place a large question mark, in my opinion—and this is my opinion and not the report's opinion—over the requirement for fixed-wing aircraft in some of the roles for which they are now used. The manned aircraft, taking off from and returning to a fixed airfield, is increasingly expensive to produce and operate, increasingly vulnerable to a host of counter-measures, and in many ways less effective than unmanned systems for reconnaissance, strike and air defence. Perhaps the noble Lord would suggest to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he might think again about whether he really needs to develop the new European combat aircraft which is causing him and his NATO colleagues such a headache.
Nobody doubts that it is going to be a constant struggle to maintain the effectiveness of our forces within the limits of finance which this or any other administration is likely to provide. The Government have already applied two severe squeezes. The Trident programme is one, and their decision to abandon their commitment to a 3 per cent. annual increase in real terms, is the other. Either of the sums they represent would more than pay for a British contribution to the recommendations of the report to which I have referred.
My Lords, why do the Government obstinately persist in wasting money on a so-called British independent deterrent? The standard rationale is set out on pages 6 to 8 of the paper: it is what is called the second-point-of-decision argument. The paper states that that is:
"an essential element of the deterrent strategy of NATO".
In other words, that, if it did not exist, the whole panoply of the United States nuclear systems in the United States, at sea and all those based in Europe, including the aircraft and cruise missiles in this country, does not provide a credible nuclear deterrent. That is the argument. And that the Soviet Union would disregard the risk they represent and launch into a military adventure across the Iron Curtain were it not for the knowledge that the British, unlike the Americans, would be prepared to sacrifice their cities in the hope of stopping the Russian tanks.
That absurd argument is not the justification for an independent deterrent which most Ministers and others usually employ when they are being pressed about the subject. They tend to call it a weapon of last resort and to conjure up scenarios either of the Americans having abandoned Europe or of NATO having failed to hold a Soviet attack which has reached the shore of the Channel without, apparently, our ballistic missile submarines having fired off their weapons in spite of the second-point-of-decision theory and the statement on page 8 that they are,
"assigned to NATO and targetted in support of the policy and strategic concepts that have been collectively agreed".
760
Our ballistic missiles submarines are not an essential element of NATO's strategy. Whether they are regarded as an addition to the force assigned to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe or as an independent force, they are superfluous and a waste of money. The essential element is the stationing of United States conventional land and air forces on the Continent; and, in order to persuade the American people that it is right, proper and in their own interests that they should continue to make that vital contribution to European defence, it is essential that we and our fellow-European members of NATO should convince them that we are using our money and manpower effectively to maintain, and if possible to improve, the capability of our conventional forces to fight alongside them. That, my Lords, is the first priority of our defence policy, not illusions of nuclear grandeur.
4.27 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I have first to apologise to my noble Leader that tonight I have to attend an annual dinner, the date of which was fixed a long time ago. I do not intend to follow those who are really expert in weapon systems; but if we are to have the best chance of preventing a war with Russia, our strategy must embrace assets beyond weapons and armed forces. That is acknowledged in a very few words in paragraph 217 of Part I of the Defence White Paper. An important part of policy must be to increase the number of allies and benevolent neutrals seen to be on our side before an aggressor has made up his mind to take the plunge.
Winning friends outside the NATO Alliance, individuals as well as governments, including the Communist bloc, is an aspect of non-military defence that is bound to become more and more important as the world gets smaller and smaller and every continent almost is within range of the other. I remember 30-odd years ago a discussion in Churchill's last Government in cabinet when we were to decide whether or not to abandon one of our overseas military bases. The case was put by the Minister of Defence, the late Lord Alexander of Tunis. Sir Winston listened to the argument in silence. Then he said—and his words impressed me so much that I well remember them: "A base is a place from which to sally forth to fight the enemy. What good is it if the natives round about don't like us and won't help us if it comes to a war?" That is the sound judgment of a great man of common sense.
How important is it in 1985 that as many people as possible all over the world should like the Americans and their allies? How much in fact do they like us? It would make a very great difference to their attitude if we were explaining to them more often, more skilfully and less one-sidedly the objectives for which we are prepared to fight rather than surrender to the communists. I hope to show your Lordships that these explanations have to go beyond telling other people what good fellows we are. If it is strategically important to have their friendship, what we say to them must take account of their views as well as our own. It is not enough for the propaganda to repeat over and over again that the United States is much richer than they are and that we in the United Kingdom are remarkably tolerant. Non-military defence requires a continuing discussion on fundamental issues.

761
Very well, then. What are our instruments for this kind of dialogue? We British have our missions abroad. Some of them are very good. We have the British Council and the BBC overseas broadcasts; and of course the way our citizens behave when they are abroad is also important. The United States has much larger missions and it has the "Voice of America". Just recently a new, round-the-clock programme is being broadcast from Miami to Cuba in Spanish. It is going to be highly interesting from the point of view of the strategy of the Caribbean to see how that programme develops and what results from it. Perhaps it is true—it is very often said—that in this kind of international conversation the Americans have more money and less skill than we have, while we have more skill and less money than they have. If that is true, and I think probably it is, that is a very good reason for putting our heads together and working in this field for a common end.
Be that as it may, all these instruments of communication are potentially very powerful. Are we satisfied that the resources devoted to them are adequate to achieve the results that our defence policy should require? Is the balance right within this enormous expenditure on defence? I do not think it is and I hope I can convince your Lordships that you should agree with me.
Our worldwide information services could be improved in several ways. We start with the enormous advantage of the English language. The men in the control tower at Beirut Airport spoke to the captain of the TWA aircraft in English. There was no chance of their understanding each other in any other language. But how can we speak to all the other terrorists and all those who instigated the act of terrorism, when probably not more than one in a thousand knows a word of our language?
Therefore I think that part of our defence policy must be to spread the use of English. Our language is the entrance ticket to the appreciation of what our global strategy is all about. English, as the only possible world language, places upon all the English-speaking peoples a duty not only to keep the language as pure as we can—and we are not doing much about that—but to exploit the strategic importance of being able to talk to neutrals and would-be opponents far more widely than we are doing at present. We have at our disposal the only effective medium of world communication. What is the message that should be communicated?
Of course it is a huge benefit to have, as the BBC has, the foremost reputation for telling the truth. Governments spread awful lies, distorting or suppressing the facts, with the result that half the world now turns to the BBC in the hope of learning a bit of the truth. These services should be steadily expanded as part of our defence, both in English and in other languages—and that in co-operation with the Americans. It does not make sense to be the ally of the United States in military preparations and then not concert with them in winning benevolent neutrals. I could give your Lordships some nasty examples of where we have been saying quite different things to the same overseas country.
762
There is something more to communicate than news and an accurate account of current events. "Communicate" is not the right word: what I should have said is that there is something more we ought to discuss with anyone anywhere in the world who will listen. We have to persuade these people to prefer us as partners, rather than the communists, in shaping the future. That means listening to them as well as talking to them. They have their own religions; they have their own cultures; they have their own ambitions; and their political and spiritual resources may be as important to our future as our military strength is now to them.
So I would conclude these few words by saying very definitely that there is a gap in our defence strategy. We are missing an opportunity to make it less likely that a war will occur and more certain that, if it did, we would win. I come back to Sir Winston Churchill's summing-up at that Cabinet discussion: how much use are weapons and fortifications if the natives do not like us?
4.37 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if I fail to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in his submissions about defence strategy, it is not because I reject any word he uttered in that connection: it is because although I have no standing engagement for dinner or anything else tonight, physical deterioration makes trouble for me as the day wears on and I may have to leave before the end. I apologise. However, as I have been interested in defence matters for many years—even as far back as the Boer War, the First World War and the Second World War—and in all the turbulent affairs in which we have been compelled to indulge, I thought that I might make a contribution.
The first thing I do is to direct attention to the fact—and it is a fact—that we are not asked to approve the White Paper: we are only asked to take note of it. That raises a question in my mind. Are there doubts in the minds of those associated with the Minister of Defence as to whether all that appears in this White Paper is accurate, desirable, and should have been publicised? I ask the question. On the other hand, I accept the interpretation, because if we are not asked to approve the White Paper then at least we can indulge in some investigation of its contents and engage in what might be regarded as a defence study. In this statement on strategy we proceed on certain assumptions, to which I direct your Lordships' attention. For many years, the Soviet Union constituted a threat to the democratic sentiments and liberties of the West—the United Kingdom, the United States of America and many of our allies. That threat continues, and, in consequence, because they have built up a formidable military organisation such as has never existed before, we have been compelled to follow suit and have created a military organisation which is far greater and, I believe, more effective than anything that we have ever produced before. The question must then arise: for what purpose?
As I have just mentioned, there is an assumption contained in the White Paper which will be realised at some time or other—perhaps not before the next century, though it could take place within the next few weeks—who can tell? There is a great deal of uncertainty about the intentions of the Soviet Union.

763
At any rate we must be cautious, we must be prudent, and we must keep a note of their activities. In particular, we must take note of their victories. Especially, I direct your Lordships' attention to the remarkable victory that they gained at the end of the last war when they succeeded in dividing Germany. They have continued to weaken it in the hope of destroying their hereditary enemies, who are now Federal Germany. Moreover, they turned Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries into satellites and then proceeded to invade Afghanistan, where they have been operating for four or five years but have still failed to achieve success.
We must ask ourselves the question: what are the intentions of the Soviet Union? Are they, as many suppose—there may be some objection to this view—at some time to launch an attack on the West with everything they have in their possession, in order to make it impossible for us to continue or to destroy us? On the other hand, do they have intentions to proceed as they have done in Germany, Hungary and now Afghanistan, and to create in many parts of the world additions to the communist society? Is that their main objective? Is that what they are after? And are we certain that we are the target?
When all is said and done, what are they likely to gain? It would be of no advantage to them at all to destroy the united nations in the West, the strength of the United Kingdom and the trading and financial activities and strength of the United States of America. They are not intent on a scorched earth policy. That is not their aim. They are seeking, as they have sought since 1917, to create a communist world, and that will not be achieved by destroying Europe and the West or other parts of the world. We should direct our attention to watching their efforts. We must regard them as a threat to this country in the long run and we must therefore have a defensive strategy of the most formidable character. That we have, but it has shortcomings.
If I had been asked to express an opinion about the publication of this White Paper, I should have said without hesitation, "Don't publish", because it not only contains some strengths but also admits many weaknesses. It refers to our maritime weakness, to which attention has already been directed and which has been mentioned many times in your Lordships' House by myself and by other colleagues. It also refers to the fact that Trident is not the last word. It is very expensive and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said, it may be of no value in any event, whether it is used for NATO or in other connections.
But if you start with Trident, then the scientists, the technocrats and the military experts will decide that we must go further, as the United States are now doing. They are talking about space satellites, and heaven knows where they want to go. The scientists never stop, though of course we must give them all the credit they deserve, because they are seeking discoveries which are important to society in all parts of the world. I would say let us be very careful about our assumptions; let us build up our defence, but let us be careful to look round the world and take note of what is happening elsewhere.
764
If I may interrupt my remarks at this stage, I will ask a further question. If the Soviet Union are attacking Afghanistan, is it for Afghanistan alone or do they have their eye on Pakistan, and on India, where there is a great deal of turbulence, mischief-making and difference of opinion? Do they want to control some parts of India, as we controlled India in the past, for a wrong purpose? After all, we can hardly raise any objection. We had our period in India and the Russians will say that they also want their period in India. Afghanistan would be a way out or a way in, however you look at it. That is the situation.
I come now to the question which we ought to be discussing, which is this study of defence strategy. I note that my noble colleague Lord Boston admitted that there were shortcomings, and that is apparently the official view of the Labour Party. Of course there are shortcomings. There are bound to be shortcomings. When you embark on defence measures, there are gains but there are also weaknesses and very often losses, and that is happening at the present time. All the money that is spent now will lead to a need for more money in the long run, as indeed the noble Lord ventured to suggest. It never stops, and because of our economic and financial position, I doubt very much whether we can afford it. Therefore we must exercise great care.
I come now to the question: do we need any defence at all? I say this without hesitation: I have 100 per cent. support for the Government's defence policy, apart from some criticisms in which one may indulge. We must have a formidable measure of defence; the greatest strength we can create. It may be necessary some day and it may prove to be the deterrent that many of us have thought it wise to produce. Whether that deterrent will be effective enough in the long run is difficult to say, as indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, seemed to indicate, as have other colleagues. Nevertheless, we must have it. So, as regards the Government's policy of defence, whether there are shortcomings, whether there is too much expenditure and whether we can afford it, the fact remains that with the Soviet threat throughout the world we must continue with our defence measures. Whether we have the right strategy is another matter and to that I come in a sentence or two.
You cannot indulge in strategy until the battle begins. The late Field Marshal Montgomery found that in the deserts of Africa. When he was asked to take charge, what did he ask for? Did he ask for documents about strategy? Not at all. He said, "Give me masses of manpower, give me the most modern weapons and masses of them, and I will deal with the situation." Without the masses of men and modern weapons for which he asked, and with which we provided him, he never would have succeeded as he did in that part of the battleground.
All the military experts—I do not care where they are, whether in your Lordships' House, in the defence departments or in the Cabinet—and all those in the past, all the Field Marshal Hardings of the past (some of them still alive, I am glad to say, and thriving) have rendered great service to our country. But when it comes to strategy, it is only when you are facing the enemy that you can determine the right kind of strategy that is required in order to gain victory or, at

765
least, to avoid defeat. That has been found in the past, and it may have to he found in the future.
I have a right to speak about the subject because about seven or eight years ago, as a result of a visit to NATO with a few colleagues, which was in an almost infantile condition at that time, not very effective and not very strong, I ventured to suggest that in your Lordships' House we ought to have a study of defence. We created the Defence Study Committee, which has been thriving for seven years or so, chaired by our noble friend Lord Chalfont. I venture to suggest that that committee has done excellent work. All we can do—we are doing it today, and we should do it when we are dealing with the next sector of the defence documents—is to engage in a study, but we cannot determine what the strategy will be. We can decide whether we can afford the money or whether we should stop somewhere and create a new situation, such as in the shipbuilding industry of the country.
By the way, when we talk about producing more vessels to create a more effective maritime situation—I advocate that myself; I have done so in the past and will continue to do so—we have to ask ourselves the question: how will they be used? In the last war we used them in the convoy system, which was useless because they did not have the speed to elude the submarines. If that is the intention, they will not be of very much value in the future. But we must have masses of vessels in order to convey our stores and our manpower from one part of the battleground to the other. We need those vessels, apart from the need to employ vast numbers of men who will be only too glad to gain the opportunity of working in their industry again. But we must be very careful about it.
So I conclude on this note. A study, yes: a strategy within the limits of our capacity, our knowledge, the information in our possession and the advice that we receive from those more expert that we can expect to be, yes, of course. Some sections in the country, the peace movements and all the rest of them, have expressed criticism. I do not doubt their integrity and honesty for a moment. I can understand their sentiments. But in the situation as it presents itself to us, with the Russian threat which, as I have said, has continued for a long time and may continue for many years to come, we must ignore these peace movements. Despite the sentiment involved and the objectives in the minds of those behind the people who prefer peace rather than see the country engaged in another conflict, we have to proceed with our defence measures.
That should be the policy, not only of the Government but of the Labour Party; and, indeed, it is the policy of the Labour Party. When we have been accused of faltering on the subject of defence, it has been because some of our members have been regarded as militant. They have been anything but militant. They want peace. I cannot understand anybody being militant who wants peace. He should he only too glad to attack the enemy where there is a chance, provided he is satisfied that he is attacking the right enemy.
So, accepting the facts as they are, we accept this document as a note and we shall accept the next document as a note. There will be further reviews for many years to come. Better the reviews, better the talk
766
and better the negotiations, though I do not expect much from the negotiations. But proceed with them, in the hope that we shall be able to prevent another great conflict.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the Government on the excellent presentation of their Statement on the Defence Estimates. It seems to be well laid out, lucidly argued and illustrated and admirably open and fair in its presentation of the military facts, or what is known of the facts. The White Paper, notably in Annex A, displays the relentless build-up of Soviet Russia's conventional and theatre nuclear forces in Europe and the astonishing growth of her submarine and surface fleet; and indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was so right to point out, of her merchant shipping fleet as well. It shows the bewildering succession of new types of intercontinental missiles which she has introduced, and which have succeeded in making vulnerable the United States land-based nuclear retaliatory capacity.
This momentum will be hard for anyone to stop and, on the face of it, the West has to take very good care to repair or prevent any weakness or potential weakness, military or political, which exists or which could develop in the alliance, lest one day the West's inferiority in military strength or political resolution, or its perception as such by the Soviet Union, might provide an irresistible provocation for Soviet aggression.
It is unfortunate, but unquestionable, that the strategic defence initiative could provide a divisive issue for the alliance. I was in Washington last week on a Western European Union parliamentary delegation and I returned convinced that Europe generally does not appreciate the degree of attachment that the Americans have for the concept of SDI. In the first place, the American public is, naturally enough, attracted to the idea of receiving protection from nuclear attack; indeed, the majority of Americans had probably not fully grasped the fact that they are now unprotected. Secondly, the defence stategist would like to see protection given—and, hence credibility restored—to the now vulnerable land-based nuclear retaliatory capacity. Thirdly, I think that the whole challenge is appealing to the United States and will be embraced in rather the same way as the space programme was embraced when launched by President Kennedy; and, incidentally, like that programme, launched in response to an initial Soviet lead.
It is true that a full space-based or partially space-based defensive system, which is what would be required to protect populations, is some way away. No one can say now with certainty that it will prove practicable. However, land-based defensive systems capable of protecting military targets are a much more feasible proposition and much closer in time.
In the face of this American commitment and its probable developments, how should Europe react? In the first place, Europeans must remember that on this issue, unlike on the issues of the cruise missile or the neutron bomb, which needed to be stationed on European soil, European co-operation is not required. The Americans will proceed or will be able to proceed

767
whatever the Europeans say. But if Europe dissociates herself, at whatever stage, from SDI, the Americans will likely say, "Very well, you go your way. We'll go ours". They will not then develop a defensive shield to cover Europe, if it proves possible to create such a shield. They will also in those circumstances be more likely to withdraw their troops from Europe, rather than less likely, for they will hardly choose to leave troops to defend a Europe which is perceived as having refused to allow some of the means for those troops themselves to be defended.
On the positive side, European Governments should also start to consider what uses there might be for them in elements of SDI. Apart from the more distant prospect of population protection, which presumably would be as attractive for European populations as for the American population, the land-based defence of missiles, airfields, submarine bases, command and communications posts, including those on which our own submarine-launched missiles will be dependent, would enhance the deterrent value of our military retaliatory capacity, whether nuclear or conventional.
In some circles it is even thought that it may prove easier to develop a system against short-range missiles than against long-range missiles. The argument in favour of Trident would not be affected. For the reasons stated in the White Paper, it would still be desirable for the United Kingdom to have its own deterrent—its credibility possibly enhanced by a measure of SDI—and to have in Trident the best deterrent available.
The point is that I think the United States and the Soviet Union are going to move towards strategic defence, a strategic situation in which defence plays a part, perhaps a predominant part, either by negotiation or independently in parallel. If that is so, Europe should take care to make the best of it, and above all not give the impression that we consider that our security requires the United States to remain vulnerable. This is something that we need to keep very firmly in mind whatever superficially attractive proposals the Soviet Union may announce to the world at large while engaged in talks with the United States in Geneva.
Another issue of importance for the alliance is the need for Europe to make a greater effort in conventional defence. The great American defence effort of the past five years has exposed Europe for some time to come to the risk of an American reaction, based on the feeling that Europe is not contributing enough to its own defence. I am pleased therefore that the decisions have been taken to allocate increased finance for infrastructure—in particular for the hardening of aircraft shelters—and for increasing ammunition stocks.
Another means by which the Europeans could do more to improve their conventional contribution is through a greater degree of co-operation in arms procurement and manufacture. This is a field in which great duplication of effort takes place and in which, accordingly, both financial savings and greater efficiency, as a result of standardisation and interoperability, could be achieved. It may also in the long run provide the only way of preserving an independent European defence industry. But the
768
difficulties in the way of breaking down the standard pattern of six or seven independent national governments contracting out to their own defence industries are of course formidable. It must be particularly difficult to increase international co-operation while at the same time trying to preserve the principle of competition among contractors. I know the importance that the Government give to this area.
Accordingly, I should like to ask them—I have given notice of my intention to ask this question—what progress from this point of view has been made in three fields: first, in the development of the European fighter, where there have been difficult negotiations; secondly, with regard to a battle tank for the future, where I understand the French, the Germans and the British are all conducting their independent lines of research; and, thirdly, on the almost unbelievable situation where there is no agreed NATO system of aircraft identification, with the result that in the event of hostilities it is likely that NATO itself would shoot down most of its own aircraft.
The last issue I should like to take up is one which I have introduced before into debate in your Lordships' House—the question of a ban on chemical weapons. Here I think the Government labour under an illusion. The White Paper states that progress has been made towards reaching an agreed ban on the production and use of chemical weapons. I do not believe this to be the case. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has any incentive to alter the present situation in which it holds, to all practical purposes, a monopoly on the manufacture and deployment of chemical weapons. Why should it agree to a ban for itself when it enjoys all the advantages of a ban applying only to its opponents?
The concessions offered by the Soviet Union recently after 15 years of negotiations have, I believe, been made simply to prevent the West abandoning hope of an eventual agreement. The White Paper states that the Soviet Union has accepted the principle of on-site inspection of the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles. The Soviet Union in fact has accepted the principle of on-site inspection of the destruction of its own declared stockpiles of chemical weapons. It has refused to accept the right of any other country to challenge what it declares to be its own stockpiles. It also refuses the right of inspection of manufacturing facilities.
But even if the Soviet Union was to make further concessions I do not think that a verifiable ban is attainable, since I do not think that verification is possible. It would require an almost inconceivable degree of constant access to possible manufacturing facilities throughout the world. Therefore the only way to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the event of war is by deterrence. At the moment the situation is very dangerous. On the one hand, as the White Paper says, the Soviet Union,
"has retained, and continues to develop a massive chemical warfare capability".
On the other hand, NATO possesses no credible deterrent of its own.
In the event of a conventional attack, therefore, NATO has to assume that chemicals would be used against its forces. It is particularly likely that they

769
would be used against points of congestion, airfields, bridges, supply ports and so on. The need to take protective measures against this possibility will severely degrade NATO troops' fighting capacity. The Warsaw Pact forces, on the other hand, need currently suffer from no such comparable disadvantage. There is perhaps no other single factor which would be more likely to force an early use of nuclear weapons to defend against a conventional attack as this imbalance in chemical warfare capacity.
The importance of this issue at the current time is enhanced by the fact that Congress seems to be in the process of voting funds for the production of binary chemical weapons in the United States—the first time the United States will have manufactured chemical weapons in 16 years. Yet those weapons will be useless unless Europe is prepared to receive them. Once America has overcome its own emotional inhibitions and manufactured them, it would do little good to the state of the alliance if, in the face of Europe's obvious self-interest in possessing that deterrent, Europe nevertheless was politically too inhibited to accept chemical weapons on its soil.
The House of Representatives has attached two conditions to its favourable vote: first, that NATO formally endorses the need for modernisation of its chemical stocks, and secondly, that the stocks can be stored on the territory of European members of the alliance. Whether these conditions remain, after both Houses of Congress have met in conference, we shall have to wait to see. But already the Soviet Union, naturally enough, has reacted in a hostile manner. In the Bundestag there were immediate moves to try to push the Federal Government into declaring that in no circumstances would that country permit any further storing of American chemicals on its soil.
Her Majesty's Government should act quickly to try to ensure that Europe plays at least this very minimal role in co-operating with the United States in the interest of Europe's own security. Given the inhibitions felt in other European countries—for example, Denmark, Norway, Germany and Italy have all renounced the right to use chemical weapons even in retaliation, and Norway and Denmark already prohibit storage of chemical weapons on their soil—it really falls on the Government of this country to rally what European support can be rallied on this question.
In conclusion, let me say this. In our time, no task is more important for all of us who wish for the survival of demoracy in Western Europe than the maintenance of the cohesion of the relationship between Western Europe and the United States. In the years ahead this task will require vigilance, courage, sensitivity and endurance. For its own security, Europe is asking the United States to make big efforts and run great risks. In return, we should give them what they above all want of us. And what they want of us, I believe, is support in what they conceive as the task they have taken on of defending the free world against the encroachments of the Soviet military empire.
The support need not always be material; very often it is only political or moral support that is required. But the United States want an acceptance by us of some share of the responsibility they have
770
assumed—whether it is in challenging the Soviet Union over treaty violations (where they feel we tend to wash our hands, even while at the same time we call for new treaties on arms control, and so forth), or whether it concerns activities to protect Western interests outside the NATO area (which they feel are our interests as much as theirs), or whether it is a question of research into new technologies necessitated by a developing Soviet lead in those technologies, as was the case with SDI.
Europe needs to shed itself of a tendency towards irresponsibility, whereby we leave all action to the United States and ourselves claim only the right to judge and to criticise. If we can avoid that course, then perhaps, with good fortune, we can help to secure that peace in Europe which we have now enjoyed, although not without anxiety in recent years, for four decades, for our children and our children's children.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, our considered view—and here I speak for the Liberal Party—will be expressed later in this debate by our defence spokesman, my noble friend Lord Mayhew. Beyond saying, then, that I agree with every word of the splendid speech which we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, I will chiefly confine myself to a few remarks on star wars—a subject on which I have recently been corresponding at considerable length with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I rather hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who I believe is to wind up this debate, will not be surprised by what I have to say; I do not know whether or not he has read that correspondence; but it appears not. Anyhow, the correspondence exists and if the noble Viscount has not read it, then perhaps he will do so at some stage in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, will equally not be surprised to hear that on the subject of star wars I disagree totally with what he had to say, though on other matters as regards defence, I thought that the noble Lord was very sensible. In any case, as I see it, star wars is a great matter on which, above all matters, the European members of the North Atlantic alliance ought to speak with one voice. This, if only because of the fact that if by any chance the Americans are successful by the turn of the century or earlier in making themselves immune, or nearly immune, from nuclear bombardment by the Soviet Union, it is almost impossible to imagine (and here I think that the bulk of scientists are on my side) that the Americans could at the same time devise means for extending such immunity to their European colleagues, who would hence remain exposed to nuclear attack from the East by methods not susceptible to interception by lasers or direct energy weapons based on huge platforms in space.
It is also true I think that most informed scientists regard the whole project of star wars as a vast and destabilising waste of money, being incapable of realisation even by the year 2000. But, along with the Russians, we cannot ignore American assurances that star wars may be established well before then. If it is so established, then so much the worse for Europe. That is something upon which the European members of

771
the alliance should, I suggest, now speak out loud and clear.
There is another and equally important, and certainly more immediate, reason why the Europeans should unite in frankly condemning this scheme—at least as it is currently formulated and not simply used as a bargaining counter, which is, after all, a possibility. If star wars goes ahead as now proposed—and that depends largely on whether Congress votes the money for it—there is no doubt that the Russians will, over the years, necessarily feel obliged to take some sort of counter measures, which would presumably imply the end of the negotiations for arms limitations now going on in Geneva. There is scarcely any doubt about that. For if the Russians have any regard for their own security, they must do their best to avoid being placed at the mercy of their great adversary, if only in a quarter of a century's time. Accordingly, we shall be faced with the likelihood of an uncontrolled and insensate arms race, the end of which cannot be foreseen and which cannot be other than highly dangerous for all of us.
The proponents of star wars will of course ask at this point, "What if the Russians have their own SDI projects and are even now themselves preparing to set up great platforms in space or otherwise to achieve a position of nuclear superiority? What of that?" For some time there have been mysterious references emanating, I believe, exclusively from United States sources, to experiments with lasers and directed energy. Much emphasis is in any case placed on Russian efforts to establish an effective ABM system around Moscow. I therefore ask the Government —and this is my main question—what actual concrete evidence is there that the Soviet Government are at work now on any space-based system? The development of an ABM system round Moscow is neither here nor there, because it is essentially a land-based system and one which is specifically authorised by the famous treaty of 1973. In any case, simple experiments with lasers and directed energy can hardly be seen in themselves as proof of work on a star wars system, since such experiments can be perfectly consonant with the preparation of weapons of an entirely different sort.
As I see it, the only hard evidence there is that the Soviet Government are possibly at work on a space-based system lies in the erection what is called a "phased array radar" station at Krasnoyarsk, in Siberia. The Russians say that it is simply designed to track satellites but the Americans may be right in suggesting that it violates the treaty of 1973. Here, the only solution seems to lie in Soviet agreement to its inspection by Western experts. I believe I am right in saying that this possibility has not been dismissed by the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Dobrynin. Perhaps such a concession might be traded against a considerable reduction in United States expenditure on research on the SDI. Why not? In return, obviously, the Soviets should also be ready to accept a notable reduction in the number of their land-based strategic nuclear missiles. That is the sort of arrangement which ought to be negotiated in Geneva.
To sum up an argument which can only with difficulty be compressed into a speech of a few minutes
772
my suggestion is that the European allies should, if possible, express a joint view on the kind of agreement which they should like to see achieved on star wars at Geneva. In no circumstances should they be tempted by what in any case might be severely circumscribed offers to participate in a research programme now contemplated by the United States Administration. Of course we must preserve the alliance, on the continued existence of which, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, our whole future depends. But that need not—and should not—prevent us, along with a large section of informed American opinion, from telling our great ally that pressing ahead with star wars, irrespective of what the Russians may say or do, might very well be the one action calculated to undermine the alliance on which we all depend. It will be interesting to hear whether the Government spokesman can at least make out a brief case for any rejection of this general thesis.
I end with one other question on a totally different subject but which I believe is relevant to our defence in general. Have the Government by any chance read a pamphlet which has just appeared called The Defence of the United Kingdom base in War? This has been issued by a group called "Defence Begins at Home" headed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. The case for the institution of a voluntary and part-time body to act alongside territorial detachments for the protection of a vast number of key points likely to be attacked in the event of war by specialist saboteurs trained in the Soviet Union strikes me as impressive. As I see it, such a force of at least 100,000, at only about 100 per year per person plus capital expenditure over five years of only 17 million, is not only financially tolerable but is likely also to be popular in all our towns and villages.
I urge the Government not to dismiss this proposal out of hand. A non-nuclear war is entirely possible and there is much evidence that the Soviet Government are already training men to act as professional saboteurs behind the lines in such an emergency. Again, I ask the Government to pay real attention to what I think is a highly intelligent proposal by the group.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I should like to focus my contribution to the debate today on an observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his opening speech about the desirability of a two-way exchange given that we co-operate with the United States in the SDI programme. Yesterday, the main editorial in The Times began by telling us that the purpose of the present trip to Western Europe by Vice-President Bush is to explain about the nature of SDI. It went on to say:
"He must allay fears about a possible future brain-drain".
In a debate on 14th June in another place, the Secretary of State for Education and Science referred to the fact that,
"it may in future become more difficult to borrow technology developed overseas because the increasing awareness of scientists and industry the world over of the commercial potential of research seems likely to inhibit the free circulation".

773
He went on to say:
"I view with some concern reports that increasing numbers of our brightest scientists are leaving this country, perhaps for good, to take up research appointments overseas … The impression is that the loss of our brightest scientists is not being balanced either by the return of British scientists or by immigration into Britain of overseas scientists".
He concluded that section of his speech with the statement:
"In other words, there is a net brain drain".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/6/85; col. 1135.]
I was interested in that fact because many years ago I was concerned in a report which was prepared for the Government by Dr. F. E. Jones, a Fellow of the Royal Society and then a research scientist at Mullards. He conducted an inquiry into the nature of the brain drain and he concluded that a significant number of scientists and engineers who had been trained in our universities and colleges of advanced technology were seeking employment overseas because prospects were better there. I have not had time to refer back to the actual report—I am speaking from memory—but I managed to obtain today some figures from the American sources for the period. They are extremely interesting and very important for the future.
What it adds up to is that in the seven years 1957–64—which is when we were having our first major discussions on anti-ballistic missiles and also when the Apollo programme was being launched—40,000 professional scientists and engineers entered the United States and took up permanent employment. During that period this country contributed a total of 6,000–15 per cent. Admittedly, these figures relate to a period of nearly 20 years ago, but I think it represents a marker because the report we had previously on the brain drain was unable to obtain exact figures. I know that the advisory board for the research councils, to which the Secretary of State for Education and Science referred in the debate in the other place two weeks ago, is having difficulty now in providing hard information to back up the statement which he made then.
I was interested in the fact that the Secretary of State was talking about the brightest scientists and it suddenly occurred to me to ask: who are the brightest scientists? I confess I found it extremely difficult to find a good definition, and for want of a better source I decided to refer to the Royal Society, assuming of course (and it is not an infallible test), that those who become fellows belong to the community of the brightest.
I had noted for some time that among candidates elected to the Royal Society there was an increasing number of British passport holders who were working abroad. I got in touch with the librarian, who did some research for me yesterday and who is continuing the research. He limited his inquiry to the past 10 years—a period in which the society has elected 40 new fellows a year, which is more than twice the number elected at the time when I became a fellow. While the statistics are still obviously inadequate, it turned out that in the first five years of this recent period 14 of the 200 fellows elected were working in the United States —about 7·5 per cent. But in the last five years the proportion has doubled.
774
I make these two observations—the American information about where the people have come from and the figure which I managed to get hold of—merely to give an indication of the numbers of British passport holders who have been trained in this country, many of them well beyond first degree course ("post-docs" as they are now called), at very great expense, who are now in the United States. I hope that this will be followed up.
This brings me to the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, drew attention. I should like to know what substance there is to the fear that there might be another brain drain. Recruiting sergeants from the United States are already around. I think we all know that, and I have met one. They have been approaching individuals and firms in this country to encourage people to participate in the SDI research programme. Obviously the fear is that there might be another brain drain. That was the point made in the editorial in The Times yesterday.
In addition to the general job opportunities that lead men who have been educated here to seek employment in the United States, there was the particular attraction in the 1960s of the Apollo—the man-on-the-moon—programme. That programme differs from SDI research because the scientific work which NASA encouraged then was open work. It was unclassified. We all shared in the benefits. I knew several of the British nationals—and I know them still—who were working on that programme.
On the other hand—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will take this on board—the work which will be done under the SDI programme is almost bound to be classified—not all, but certainly the major part of it. The question then is: what about that two-way exchange? Whatever form in which we co-operate, we may not necessarily have free use of either the intellectual or the industrial property rights which derive from any work in which we might co-operate.
Furthermore, I believe that if our lawyers were to look closely at the full ABM treaty they would discover that there are constraints on the passage of information between the two parties which concluded that treaty and any third party. That is another point to which I think attention should be paid. Attention is certainly being paid to it in the United States, and it is a matter on which the USSR has differed publicly in its legal interpretation of what can and cannot be done under the treaty.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, spoke about the shortage of resources that affects some of our own defence problems or our defence problems within the context of NATO. I think that your Lordships should know that there are serious shortages now in the recruitment to some of our critical establishments. The number of first degree science and engineering graduates that we are turning out is something like 35,000 a year. They will be needed here, with the help of judicially directed investment, if British industry is to adapt to the new technological age, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred, and so contribute to the improvement of the national economy. I therefore hope that the statistics to which the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking forward at the

775
end of August, I think, will be there and that a real effort will be made by combing not just our own sources of information but also American sources about the number of people who are going over there.
Anyhow, much of the SDI programme and what is being pursued in the USSR was going on long before President Reagan coined the umbrella term, strategic defence initiative. Many of the items in the programme, all of which have been laid out in a report to Congress, are old items. I can well imagine that related work is also going on in our own Government establishments. When I say that President Reagan coined a term which covered old work, he was not the first Amercan President to express the wish that nuclear weapons should be eradicated from the world. I believe that if one looks at the record one will find that every President bar President Truman has given that promise or expressed that wish.
The real point is that we know that the United States recruiting sergeants, if I may call them that, are interested in specific fields of inquiry which are being pursued in some of our universities, in West Germany and in France. There are questions there which need to be asked.
If participation therefore means the encouragement of such work as we might do without restriction on the use of intellectual and industrial property rights, well and good. But if the amount of good is to be counterbalanced by a brain drain of some of our brightest and best potential intellectual property, it will not be to our benefit, any more than I believe that strategically the whole concept of SDI, in so far as it might prove destabilising to our present state of mutual deterrence, in which I have full confidence, will be in the interests of our national security.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, say that he had complete confidence in our present system of mutual deterrence. That was one of the topics on which I hoped to say a few words—that of nuclear weapons.
A number of speeches have mentioned the part played in our defences by formidable conventional weapons and by chemical warfare, but it still remains true that in the end the defence of the liberty of this country and of our allies in NATO depends on the mutual balance and deterrence of the nuclear weapons on both sides. If one imagines the country neither possessing nuclear weapons nor allied with any nuclear power, it would not be in a position to defend itself against any country that had nuclear weapons. It would be completely at its mercy and be unable to defend its liberty.
In those circumstances surely what we have to search for in disarmament arguments is an agreement which retains the present balance, one hopes at much lower levels, much lower totals on both sides, and above all one which is verifiable. If we can search for that, we must at the same time try to avoid the kind of argument that would commit us as to the circumstances in which we might or might not use nuclear weapons. It seems to me that what NATO ought to be able to say to any potential aggressor is that
776
we have no intention of using weapons of any kind against anybody if we are not attacked; if we are attacked, we reserve the right to use whatever weapons we have in whatever way seems most likely to be effective at the time. However, if we start committing ourselves to not using nuclear weapons first, or using them only in certain circumstances, we present to a potential aggressor an obvious advantage. It is important that a potential aggressor should always be in a state of ignorance as to that might or might not be used against him. I hope we shall always bear that in mind.
We must also avoid the illogical kind of argument which crops up in many forms and which says, in effect, that nuclear war is a dreadful thing therefore this country ought not to have any nuclear weapons. This of course is a gigantic non sequitur. There is no reason to suppose that if this country had no nuclear weapons, then nuclear war would be any less likely than it is at the present time. Indeed, by the upset of balance between NATO and the other powers, it might make nuclear war more likely. Thus, there is really no point in propagandists constantly reminding us how fearful nuclear war is. I should have thought that by this time we all knew that.
The question is: what kind of policy will make it less likely? Here, we should do well to follow the excellent advice of the late Lord Mountbatten, in a part of his famous speech, which is not usually quoted, where he said that the first and most important thing to do is to retain, to preserve, the balance that we have at the present time. If we can go on doing that, then, like the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I have confidence in our present system of deterrence.
However, notice how all this depends on the Atlantic Alliance being real and solid. This is the second main topic about which I wish to say something. However much argument one engages in about Trident or an independent British deterrent, it is still quite clear that for our defence we cannot rely completely on our own efforts alone. The effective nuclear defence of this country depends on the North Atlantic Alliance being effective and real. Today a real and effective alliance does not only mean a promise on paper to come to the aid of one's ally if he is attacked: it means making recognised plans for how one will do that. Modern war is too complicated for mere promises that one will come and help to be of much use, if it is not at all clear how this will work out in fact.
Recently, as part of the Atlantic Alliance, we agreed to have in this country, and so did certain other European countries, cruise missiles as an offset to the SS.20s which the Soviet Union was planning throughout Eastern Europe and targeting on this country and other countries in Western Europe. It has been suggested that we ought now to adopt a policy of sending them back to the United States or getting rid of them and making this country a country in which there were no American or other nuclear weapons.
I invite your Lordships just for a moment to consider what is involved in that. In the first place, are we saying that we ourselves want to get rid of the cruise missiles that we have here but that we should be very glad if the other European countries that have them would retain them because that would help our

777
security? I can only say that I should not care to be the British Foreign Secretary who had to argue that singularly inglorious policy in front of the NATO Council. More serious than the embarrassment of the Foreign Secretary at that time would be the damage done to the credibility of this country if we put forward a proposition of that kind.
If, on the other hand, we mean that not only do we want cruise missiles removed from here but removed from Western Europe generally, then we are left with the SS.20s targeted against us, with no nearer method of retaliation than weapons sited in the United States that would have to be flung across the Atlantic as a possible deterrent. That is to say we would be relying on American help but insisting that it should be done in circumstances of the maximum difficulty and risk to the Americans. I cannot think there would be much credibility left in our repeated assertions that we were loyal members of the Alliance.
Thus, let us be frank about this. In effect, a policy of that kind will mean in time—and not a very long time either—leaving the Alliance with all the grim consequences that would follow from that. Of course there are people who will argue that we ought to leave the Atlantic Alliance. I shall not pursue that now. It is a topic that one could discuss at great length but I am assuming that a great majority of your Lordships on all sides of the House do not want to see that done.
The third topic to which I want to refer, where I fear I shall not command such agreement, relates to the cost of all this. I shall not make a pronouncement about Trident. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to those of us who were on the Front Benches and those who were not. Of course, the great advantage of not being on a Front Bench is that one is not required to express an opinion on all the controversial topics that crop up. I therefore do not propose to express an opinion on Trident. But whether this country spends its money in that way or not, it is quite clear that anything like an adequate defence of a kind about which this White Paper is talking will be extremely expensive and will become more expensive as time goes on.
While that is so, the Prime Minister is going around making speeches about the absolute necessity of reducing taxes. I want to know how one adds this up. If one reduces taxes and spends more on defence, one has to meet the gap by cutting the social services. Of course, the Government have already shown us the way in that particularly mean decision on child benefit, where inflation goes up 7 per cent. and child benefit is raised by 2·5 per cent. Is that how we propose to pay for our defence? Apparently that is the Government's view.
I do not believe that that will do. If the Conservative Party are serious about defence, they have to have the courage to say, and say to many of their own influential and wealthy supporters, that defence and freedom have to be paid for and have to be paid for by everybody in this country, particularly by those who are most well off. This will mean a reversal of what has been the Government's approach to taxation ever since they came into power, since one of their first acts when they were elected was to reduce taxation on very wealthy people. They cannot go on doing that if they
778
are serious about defence. They will have to decide that the freedom of this country is worth defending. That is not only on this country's account because bound up with it is the freedom of mankind.This is something in which we are all involved and of which everybody ought to pay their share. It is time that the Government made that clear.
5.48 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, the 1985 defence White Paper has the same principal object as its predecessors: the prevention of world war three by our possession of inter alia nuclear weapons. That indeed must be the proper object of our military thinking. I was delighted to hear just now that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was broadly in agreement with that.
There are other options but I think all of them are dangerous. At one extreme we rightly dismiss as a complete "nutter" that Danish politician who suggested disbanding his country's armed forces and substituting a simple loop of tape, bearing on it the recorded message, "I surrender" in Russian. We dismiss it not only because of its defeatism but also because we remember the unhappy lot of countries, such as Italy, which did surrender, some of them twice, in the second world war. Surrender is not only defeatist, it is no soft option. Nor indeed is neutrality a soft option. Armed neutrality is very expensive. Were we to adopt that line, with the rest of NATO fighting the Warsaw Pact, or indeed just the Americans fighting the Russians, we could for a while say, "I'm all right, Jack", but not for very long because we are not self-sufficient.
Those extreme options of surrender or neutrality are not very common. What is common is the conventional weapons only argument. That is an argument that I have heard noble Lords opposite leaning towards this afternoon. It is the argument that war fought only with high explosives would somehow be bearable and perhaps even respectable. In order to contemplate that course of action we would have to build up NATO forces to exceed those of the Warsaw Pact. That would be very expensive, far more expensive than the nuclear deterrent. Yet I should like to suppose that NATO decided so to do, and to examine the consequences. I hope to demonstrate that a massive conventional build-up would be far more dangerous than the development of our Trident submarines.
How would Russia feel about a superior army facing her across the Elbe? Would she not feel frightened, particularly when her own satellites went through periods of unrest and revolt, as they so often do? And a frightened country is a dangerous country. Might not Russia be tempted to take the valuable prize of West Germany before NATO had achieved conventional superiority? West Germany is a valuable prize indeed. It contains 24 per cent. of NATO's steel-making capacity. The heartland of NATO is hard up against the Iron Curtain. But the heartland of the Warsaw Pact is 1,000 kilometres back and east of it. I ask therefore, might not the Russians be tempted? For them, it would almost be a colonial war, far removed from Moscow. For us, it would strike immediately at the heartland. NATO's heartland is in the front line. We

779
cannot afford to yield one kilometre of German territory.
Let us not underestimate the awfulness of conventional weapons. In the event of nuclear attack on this country, some people throw up their hands in horror and say that all 50 million of us would be killed. Those who say that would do well to remember that exactly the same number of people were killed in World War Two—50 million. And they were killed by conventional weapons and their side-effects. In a conventional third world war, that number would be greatly exceeded, for Russia's conventional capability is the greatest that the world has ever seen. Not only has weaponry increased; so also has our vulnerability. The United Kingdom depends more on petrol and electricity than it did 40 years ago. So, bomb the power stations, bomb the oil refineries and it is fairly easy to see what would happen here. There would be starvation. Immediately, milk production would be hit as our powerless milking machines went out of action and we then discovered that we did not have enough people left on the land who could milk the cows.
The whole modern pattern of food production could easily be destroyed. Food, nowadays, is transported, stored, processed and distributed to supermarkets, transported again by the customer and then stored in his refrigerator or deep freeze before being eaten. Take away the transport and the power and you have taken away the food. Power stations and oil refineries are therefore obvious targets for any enemy, as indeed is the petro-chemical plant that makes our pesticides and fertilisers. Thus, in the longer term, we should be unable even to grow enough food and, as I have said, we should starve. Not only should we starve, but, also, without electricity, we should freeze. We should be like the people of Leningrad in the last war. We should suffer a perpetual winter. What politician would be rash enough to get up and say to us, "don't worry: it's not a nuclear winter; it's just a conventional one!"?
There is, I believe, as dangerous fallacy about a conventional alternative to nuclear weapons. I believe that conventional weapons are more dangerous than nuclear as they make world war three more likely. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has just said so. He has said that a non-nuclear war is entirely possible. But that war, my Lords, would still be the worst the world has ever known. If I am practical for a moment, noble Lords will know that the scrapping of Trident would only generate sufficient funds to create two more armoured divisions. That would scarcely tilt the conventional balance in our favour. But the essence of my argument today is to be impractical and theoretical. If we did achieve a conventional balance, that would be dangerous specifically because conventional weapons cannot reach the Russian heartland as can the inter-continental ballistic missiles. Therefore, it is conceivable that Russia might regard a conventional threat as a mere frontier threat, far from home. She might think the game worth the candle.
Members of the CND like to describe themselves—in all sincerity, I am sure—as the peace movement. But Professor Hermann Bondi, in his excellent article in Catalyst, gives CND a new set of
780
initials. They are BECW. That stands for the Band of Enthusiasts for Conventional War. I am no enthusiast for any sort of war at all. Each one has become progressively more awful since David slew Goliath. All that I am saying today is that we must avoid world war three. If we keep our nuclear deterrent, it is obvious to one and all that world war three will be the end of us all. Therefore, no one will allow it to happen, just as no one has allowed it to happen over the past 40 years. But if we throw it away, it is not obvious to one and all that world war three will be the end of us all. Therefore, it might happen. Only when it does happen will we discover that the difference between nuclear and conventional war is the difference between sudden death and lingering death.
As to the nature of our deterrent, I am not sufficiently expert to argue the merits of the D5 over the C4 system. I feel that the system must be submarine-launched and that it must be ballistic, for a cruise system would not be subject to the ABM treaty and it would need more submarines since cruise missiles have only one warhead. It would therefore be more expensive and less effective. I do not feel that Trident or the NATO Tomahawk GLCMs, or cruise, at Greenham are particularly dangerous for us. I feel that they are at least less dangerous than the short range weapons like Lance or Honest John. Those weapons are near the forward edge of the battle area and a comparatively junior gunner would have to decide in the heat of battle whether to use them or lose them. Any reassurance that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council can give that such short range weapons are to be replaced by longer range weapons would be more than welcome. Strangely, it is safer to have more missiles in the United Kingdom and fewer in West Germany. By that, I mean safer for us here in England.
I must therefore say, beware of the subtle danger of respectable conventional war. For there is no such thing. While we must not forget those two brave men who won Victoria Crosses in the Falklands, we must also remember the 60 Welsh Guardsmen at Bluff Cove who never had a chance to show that they were brave. Modern conventional war has little to do with heroics. I could not better conclude than by repeating what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 23rd May last year;
"We are founder members of NATO, the shield of the West. A NATO with a nuclear deterrent, fearful weapons though they are. But so are conventional weapons. Let no one forget that".
5.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in so far as the message of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, was that we must do everything in our power to avoid war altogether, any sort of war, I could find myself in agreement with him. But he will forgive me if I do not follow him on other parts of what he had to say. The Statement on the Defence Estimates begins with a chapter called "The Strategic Context". In such a statement as this, one would be foolish not to expect it to be partisan. It is obviously a statement of the Government's point of view. But this year's opening summary of post-war history goes beyond what is reasonable. It is so oblivious of anything other than a narrow Western point of view as to be almost

781
laughable. The brief of the noble Lord the Minister was, I fear, perhaps prepared by the same hand. I found that he seemed to follow rather closely the mistatement of history, I believe, that leads to the conclusions that are behind Government policy at this time.
The picture is as black and white as its Soviet counterpart with the difference, of course, that in the Soviet version they are the white knights and the West are the wicked nuclear dragon. In this version the West are "the goodies", in the white hats, offering Marshall aid which is scurvily rejected by the graceless Soviets. It is conveniently forgotten that the acceptance of the dollar in those years was widely considered to be acquiescence in a yoke of economic imperialism. That thought was not entirely misplaced, as recent history suggests.
The fact is also ignored that the division of Europe was, to a large extent, a matter of agreement. It recognised strategic and geopolitical reality. However, here a picture is drawn of the Soviet Union surging over Europe, but not in the course and as a consquence of helping us all to defeat fascism. Instead. Russia is seen as imposing communism on unwilling states deserted by the West, which is presented in the Government's opening statement as being stupid to the point of being naive.
The reality is that all sides were war-weary and that in those years we still saw the Soviet Union as our ally—or, rather, some of us did. In the United States, the Soviet Union was often seen as a threat to the very existence of capitalism, and I think that it still is seen as such. However, as politics there and in Europe moved to the Right, the Prime Minister of the time, Clement Attlee, was soon having to point out that the alternative to co-existence was co-death. Not until the second page of the introduction, in paragraph 107, is it admitted that the central reality of the post war years was that American hostility to communism was hacked by the nuclear weapon in the sole possession of the United States. That pre-war hostility resurfaced on VE-Day, and from then on the peacemongers in the United States fought a losing battle.
I was sorry to hear Lord Kennet's suggestion that the Labour Front Bench in this House does not support the policy of the party which it represents. It is true that the post-war history of Parliament—and this applies not only to the Labour Party—was that parliamentary parties reluctantly followed the views of the people whom they represented outside Parliament. However, over recent years Parliament as a whole has moved closer towards the view of the Labour Party, which is that the nuclear weapon is something which we ought to be rid of as soon as possible. I hope that it will be seen this evening that our Front Bench are not willing to drag their feet on this matter. I am not speaking myself from the Front Bench. I have never dragged my feet on this matter. I know that my noble friend on my left, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has always taken a different view from the one which I take about this matter. My noble friend's consistency about the matter is only exceeded by my own. We have over many years taken a different view on this subject, and that, I think, is permissible and reasonable. What is more difficult to justify is a strong difference of view
782
between the Front Bench of a party and the view held in the party elsewhere.
I should like to say a few words about the present position. The American stock of nuclear weapons has increased year by year in number, in variety, in accuracy and in methods of delivery. The Soviet story has been one of continually trying to catch up until the position was reached several years ago when either or both of them could destroy the world and possibly even all life on it. In at least one range of weapons the Soviets established superiority. All over, of course, the Americans spend much more on arms than the Soviet Union, which because of its relative economic weakness, cannot hope to match the West.
However, the present position of the American Government seems to me to be verging on the insincere. They appear to see arms control talks as a front behind which the weapons can continue to grow as they have done over the years. Our own Government are left with the task—which they are attempting to do, as far as some of your Lordships are concerned, with success—of presenting the American march to extinction in credible terms. Indeed, in this document they do their best, arguing, for example, that although Trident will be a weapon with first-strike capability, it will not be used as such—at least, not by this country acting alone. Just suppose that the Soviet Union presented us with that argument in reverse. A horse-laugh would be the only reception that such a statement would receive, as, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has already made abundantly clear—much clearer than I could make it.
The Government are always telling us—and they do so again in this document—that a nuclear exchange will not occur so long as they keep piling up the warheads. However, at the same time the Americans are developing first-strike techniques which include not only LUA (launch under attack) scenarios but even LOW (launch on warning)—plans which our Government appear to go along with when they talk in the statement about Trident:
"posing a credible threat to key aspects of Soviet state power".
Lord Carrington, quoted here, should understand, and the Government should understand, that, faced with that, the Soviet leadership cannot, as he says, indulge in wishful thinking by saying "Oh, but they wouldn't". That is Lord Carrington talking about what he cannot do. Equally, neither can the Soviets do that. The American Under-Secretary for Defence has even blurted out publicly what they have long been saying privately: that is, he has referred to Trident as having a "pre-emptive capability".
Would it be surprising if Soviet thoughts were moving in the same direction? If so, so far from making us safe, Trident could be our death warrant. In the light of that, the section on arms control in the statement is an amazing flight from reality. It fancifully contradicts the doom-laden verbiage in the Trident essay.
Weapons with the technical attributes of Trident D5 have the requirements of first-strike—that is to say, they have even the requirements of pre-emption; namely, accuracy, destructive power and speed. Trident D5 can carry out pin-point attacks that could destroy Soviet underground silos and command posts.

783
They will present a temptation to be used in times of crisis before the Soviets give way under the strain and perhaps think that they have to use the SS18, which will be developed by then, to precipitate the nuclear exchange which may be the end of us all.
The policy of placing the anticipated adversary under increasing and ultimately irresistible pressure is incompatible with effective talks of arms control. It is sheer lunacy. As the American Paul Bracken puts it in his Yale University press paper:
"Political leaders on both sides may not want war but they may be unable to stop each other, or themselves, from pushing the button".
This Statement on the Defence Estimates is no more reassuring when it purports to show the balance of forces between East and West. Annex A is no more than a propaganda presentation designed to justify a still further increase in the massive nuclear armoury of the West. For example, in Figure 12 on page 54 the Government (who are always telling us, when it suits their case, that it is warheads and not delivery systems which count) present a diagram showing a Soviet preponderance of delivery systems, because in warheads the USA alone has 11,000 to the Soviet's 9,000. A diagram showing that would not fit the argument: therefore, we show the other argument. It is sufficient to show, of course, that both sides are grossly over-armed, and more over-armed than the dinosaurs, which are supposed to have died out as a result of being so heavily over-armed. Maybe that is the fate in store for us, too.
The American Congressional Study is much more informative, and deals with the crucial question of survivability. In The Nation earlier this year Howard Moorland argues that Soviet vulnerability is such that our own weapon-perfecting could lead to nuclear disaster. This is the argument which I have been trying to present to your Lordships.
I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, at Question Time today—and indeed, it was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman—that we are shortly going to hear something authoritative about the question of the nuclear winter. It is about time. I was about to say that there was nothing in the statement about it, but I had that withdrawn from under me at Question Time today, and I am glad that it was. I look forward to hearing what is said.
My Lords, the course of action advocated in this statement leads straight to disaster. If it is persisted in it must surely put in danger the continued existence of our civilisation, and perhaps even of humanity itself. On this course our generation might even be the last, and we should then have failed to carry out the first duty of mankind—to hand on the planet in a survivable form. It would be shocking to give our successors the precious gift of life only to snatch it away from them before they had tasted it. We should then have committed the ultimate crime of bringing the human experiment to a miserable, premature, self-inflicted and entirely unnecessary end.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, it would be impossible to imagine two points of view on matters of national security and defence which are further apart
784
than those of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and myself. He has been consistent all the time—and I respect that—and so have I. Therefore I do not think that he will collapse with shock when I say that I am firmly in support of the Government's policy of retaining a British nuclear capacity.
I use the word "retaining" advisedly. One scarcely will have gathered from some of the speeches in this debate that we have had a nuclear arm, the Polaris submarine, ever since the early 1960s—over all the years, as a matter of interest, during which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was pursuing his valuable and distinguished military career. The British Polaris submarine has been accepted by successive Governments, both socialist and Conservative, since the beginning, and also by the NATO Alliance. I am bound to say that I have never heard in alliance circles that they would be happy to see Britain withdraw that support.
My first reason for retaining a British nuclear arm is that until we can see much more clearly than we can today the future pattern of power relationships in the world, I do not believe that we should be justified in depriving ourselves of a defence option. I must remind your Lordships that the non-proliferation treaty has soon to be renegotiated. No one knows what the shape of armaments in the world will be after that. I want to see that shape before I take a decision as fundamental as that proposed of ridding ourselves of a nuclear arm.
More particularly if Britain is to have a nuclear capacity and a nuclear arm, let it be one that is credible, one for which the availability of spare parts is ensured for many years in the future. That would not be so if we were to try to spin out the life of Polaris. It would be so if, as we intend to do, we adopt Trident.
I have nothing but the friendliest feelings towards the French, but I would not be very happy if France was the only nuclear power left in Western Europe. I think too that it is possible that if we retain our nuclear deterrent Britain and France may in future years be able to co-operate more closely in that field, to the advantage of the defence of the European continent. I want to keep that option open. Then when the negotiations for a new balance of power at a lower level—as we all hope—come to the crunch (and they have already started in Geneva) I want Britain to be at the negotiating table. We would not be there if we had no nuclear weapon at all. With Trident we shall be there, and we shall have something of substance to contribute both to discussion and, we would hope, to solution.
Finally, there is a consideration which has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. The preferred popular picture of future defence seems to concentrate on the balance of conventional arms. We have to face the fact that the trouble in the past has been that all confrontations have been with conventional arms (many of them are going on now all over the world), and they have not ended war, for the reason that one contestant or the other has always calculated that it could win that war. I doubt if there is any security in a balance of conventional forces.
It so happens that we must not push too far the argument that where the nuclear weapons are there has not been war for a long time. That argument could

785
be overdone. But the fact of nuclear stalemate, and the knowledge shared by the Soviet Union and the rest of us that no one can win a nuclear war, at least gives us a breathing space during which we can negotiate and hope to be able to lower the level of all arms. What, in short, I am saying is that I do not think that there is any case now for depriving ourselves of a nuclear capacity, and as far as Trident is concerned I am prepared to pay the insurance premium.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have spoken with great authority and experience, not least the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who as always has given us words of wisdom. They include a former Chief of the Defence Staff, my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver. Having myself spent part of my war as an ordinary seaman and part as a sub-lieutenant RNVR, I feel somewhat diffident at intervening in this debate. I said to myself, "Who am I to bandy words with a field marshal or indeed with an admiral of the fleet?" But I was concerned with defence questions on and off a good deal during my time in the Diplomatic Service and I think that ordinary people are very much concerned with these questions—they, after all, pay the bill—and that we should not leave it entirely to the experts or to those who look at the problem primarily through political spectacles.
Fundamental to everything, I believe, is the balance which in some form or other has kept the peace in Europe since 1945. It is that which allows us to go home to bed tonight and to expect to be here again in the morning. I agree very much with what was said tonight about the balance by my former chief, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. It is not only the overall balance which is supremely important; it is in my view important to have a balance in the main groups of weapons. It was that that got out of track with intermediate-range missiles and we found then in NATO that it is always painful and difficult to catch up. It was an agonising process to do so.
I hope that we have now learnt that lesson. But the problem is that the balance now has tilted quite a long way against us. This is brought out with admirable clarity in Annexe A of the White Paper, which shows that the West is heavily outnumbered, two to one or three to one in submarines, tanks, artillery, and tactical aircraft; and by no less than five to one in intermediate missiles. There is also the question of quality, on which the White Paper tells us that we can no longer count on having a substantial lead over the Soviet Union. Ten years ago, when I was in Hungary and watched amphibious tanks swimming up the Danube, I was impressed by the quality of the Soviet equipment that I saw and I think that they have made substantial strides since that time.
The Statement also reminded us that the Russians, unlike the West, have a massive chemical warfare capability and that the Soviet Union alone has an ABM system in place. Therefore from the point of view of the alliance, unless, as seems most unlikely, the Soviet Union decide to halt or reverse their enormous military build-up, the need clearly is to increase our effort and to try to rectify the balance or at least to prevent it from being tilted dangerously against us. I
786
do not know, I am not qualified to judge, how far it can be tilted against us without serious risk. Those who have spent a lifetime studying these problems can tell that much better than I can.
In this context, I am myself inclined to believe that the SDI research is a sensible step to take. I made the point many times in public when I was in Canada about the need for the alliance to do more, and I am very glad that the new Government in Canada are now taking Western collective defence and NATO much more seriously. But I think that it is equally important that the burden—and it is a heavy burden—should be fairly distributed. At present, it is not. I cannot think that it is sensible that we should spend 5.3 per cent. of our GDP on defence while France and Germany spend 3.4 per cent. and 3.3 per cent. respectively and Italy, Denmark and Canada all under 3 per cent.—and some of them little more than 2 per cent.
I wonder whether we cannot tackle much more vigorously the problem of getting the burden more fairly shared between the NATO allies. So far, it seems that very little that is effective has been done in this field. The White Paper says that we spend more on defence in absolute terms per capita than any other ally except the United States. The Minister, in opening this debate, stressed that we are the only European nation to contribute to all three elements of NATO's forces. Well, that is a very good thing from one point of view but the question is whether we can afford it.
Total British defence expenditure, I see from the White Paper, has increased from £9 billion in 1979–80 to an estimated £18 billion in 1985–86—a doubling in six years. I wonder myself whether we can really continue much longer to carry this huge and disproportionate burden. We have been doing so, I know, in one way or another since 1945, with, for example, the Eden pledge to keep troops in Europe, but I wonder whether some of it is not inspired by our nostalgia for lost great-power status. Certainly I am absolutely convinced that we must do our share, but not, I think, year after year a great deal more than our share, while we struggle economically and others in Europe overtake us in national wealth.
I am not qualified to speak about Trident. I am myself disposed to accept the case for an independent deterrent, although I am given pause by the powerful speech made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver; but I must say that I am not happy about the degree of dependence on the United States that we propose to assume in respect of that system. I wonder too whether we have negotiated the best possible offset arrangements. If we must spend £9 billion on an independent deterrent, I would much rather see a far higher proportion of that money spent in the United Kingdom. Incidentally, I note that in the essay on Trident in the White paper, it says that,
"there is no realistic prospect that the Soviet Union will be able to destroy our submarines at a time of its own choosing in the foreseeable future".
In the light of the current anxieties about longstanding espionage in the United States Navy, I hope very much that this is still true.
To come back to the main question, if I am right and if we have eventually to reduce our expenditure, I believe that our priorities should be those that were shown to be essential between 1940 and 1943; the

787
defence of the sea lanes to and around these islands and the defence of these islands themselves. If that is right, then I think that we must think first of the navy and, indeed, of the merchant navy, and of the air force. The navy has, I think, already been cut perilously near the bone and I share the concern expressed by some noble Lords about the decline of the merchant fleet. But if the time comes when we are compelled to make some cuts, then I think myself that we should look first at our 55,000 troops in Europe.
I believe that the White Paper tells a proud story and that our defence record is very good. All I am arguing is that the time may come when we can no longer afford to do everything and will have to think seriously about what is most essential and do that at the expense of some other things.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, a great deal has been said in this debate by several speakers which I know would be warmly supported by my noble friends on the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches. No speech would have commanded more warm-hearted support from us, apart from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, than that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House about the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Carver. I think the House heard with the greatest possible interest his account of the report, published and reviewed, of defence experts of the highest standing, many of them, if not all, known to many of us in this House. It was a report that was unanimous, extremely well researched and well argued and which came down in favour of a series of specific recommendations for strengthening the conventional power of the NATO countries. Therefore I would ask the noble Viscount, as Leader of the House, to see that these specific recommendations are not just brushed aside by the Government. As we know, copies of the report have been sent to Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Defence. They have already had time to study them and make up their minds what attitude to take. Therefore I would ask the noble Viscount quite specifically if in the defence debate next week, we could have the Government's considered replies to the particular points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in his speech. I believe that would be the wish of noble Lords on both sides of the House. I may add that it might be as well, if the Government are going to reject these suggestions, that they should make out their arguments now, because they will certainly hear about them again and again, including at the next general election.
A major part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was taken up in attempting to defend the Government against the attacks of the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence. That was a devastating attack on the concept that the Government have planned for what they call "level funding" in real terms for the defence services in future years. With the utmost care, with elaborate calculations and taking the most expert evidence, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that if the Government pursue what they call "level funding" it
788
will result in a shortfall of 6.1 per cent. of the defence budget; that is to say, £970 million a year. That is the conclusion of a Select Committee with, of course, a majority of Government Members of Parliament on it.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his informative speech he did not begin to answer that criticism of the Select Committee. He made three points in the Government's defence. He said that there had been a large increase in Government expenditure on defence in the past. Of course, that is true, and tribute is paid to it by the Select Committee. But it is irrelevant to the criticism made by the Select Committee about the future level of real expenditure on defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, went on to say that Trident takes only 3 per cent.; but that again was not part of the case put forward by the Select Committee. Indeed, the Select Committee conceded that there was unlikely to be any escalation in the costs of Trident. It simply did not enter their arguments.
Finally, in regard to the Committee's warning that defence expenditure on equipment would rise more quickly than the rise in the retail price index and that it would rise by an average of 2 per cent. per annum, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, no, the Government were going to make economies—that is perhaps rather vague—so that it would not. But the points made by the Committee which the noble Lord did not answer at all were: first, the Government's estimates of the future pay of the armed services. In the White Paper there is an estimate of 3 per cent., but only last week it was announced as 7.3 per cent. And when the Prime Minister was asked in the other place how the money was to be found, she said that it must be found from other parts of the defence budget.
The Select Committee also said that the Government's estimates of real expenditure on defence allowed for an increase in prices in the retail price index of 5 per cent. Yet only a few weeks ago we were told that it is now 7 per cent. per annum. In adding up these discrepancies, the Select Committee comes to the conclusion, as I said, that there will be a shortfall of £970 million a year in the Government's defence budget. How is that deficit to be met? The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has set an example to the Government. He said that if we have to cut, let us have some priorities. But the Government refuse even to face the problem. They say there is not going to be a deficit; they are not going to cut any commitments; they are not going to cut BAOR, the frigate fleet or Trident—they are not going to cut anything.
What is going to happen? Again the Select Committee makes the point quite clearly: they are going to make both ends meet by postponing delivery dates of equipment. It is not difficult to do—I speak as an old service Minister who has had budget problems himself. It is quite easy to fake or to fudge it. All you do is to postpone for a year the delivery date of some expensive item of equipment or some ammunition. That means that there is an insidious hidden weakening of our defence services. It is a kind of defence review under cover and that is precisely what the Government are on course to do. I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord said in his speech could reassure us on that.

789
I turn now to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. As usual, he spoke with the utmost eloquence and set out far better than I could the defence policy of the Alliance parties. This has happened often before and it will happen often again, because of course he never mentioned for one moment the most distinctive and the most important part of the Labour Party's defence policy—the part that was moved in an amendment during the defence debate last week in another place, which, "called upon the Government to remove all nuclear bases from the United Kingdom". That is to say that Britain's cooperation in the NATO nuclear deterrent must be ended; Polaris, which is assigned to NATO, must be scrapped; the American submarines must leave Holy Loch; the F111s must be withdrawn and the cruise missiles must be sent hack. That is the official Labour Party policy and it is much the most distinctive part of Labour's defence strategy. Indeed, it has far wider implications than anything else. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, what he said about the merchant fleet and so on was all very interesting and important but it had only a tiny fraction of the importance and the implications of what he did not mention.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as usual, helped us. He helped us to understand the Opposition's defence policy. He said in rather a wry manner that he was not speaking from the Front Bench. I thought I detected a slightly wistful note in his voice—and of course, if he is surprised, he has every right to be surprised because of course he ought to be speaking from the Front Bench and, with the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord. Lord Boston, he should be speaking from the Back-Benches.
Perhaps the most amusing remark made today during this debate was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. He made a brilliantly concise and persuasive speech about deterrence, which I think we on these Benches would feel much sympathy for. But then he astonished us by the remark that one of the advantages of speaking from the Back-Benches was that one did not have to follow Labour Party defence policy. But that is a privilege that is enjoyed on the Opposition Front Bench as well; it has been enjoyed for years. Of course it makes it very interesting, but it does make it a little misleading.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the political knock-about, will he explain Liberal and Alliance defence policy? Will he tell us abut the events in the last Liberal conference when the conference rejected the advice of the leadership and so on?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may say to begin with that we agree that while the Russians have a nuclear deterrent the West must have a nuclear deterrent too, and our parties both agree that Britain should be prepared to contribute to the Western nuclear deterrent. We shall hear very soon the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, answering this question. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will come to the Despatch Box and will answer this question: given that it is right for the West to have a nuclear deterrent, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has said, why is it wrong for
790
Britain to help with it? That is the simple question. Given that the Labour Party believes that the West must have a nuclear deterrent, why is the Labour Party saying that it is wrong for Britain to have anything at all to do with it and that Britain should make no contribution to it? That is a simple question. I can answer that question easily on behalf of the Alliance parties. We think we need a deterrent in the West and we think that Britain should play its fair part in contributing towards it and should allow the American submarines in Holy Loch, and the F111s and the cruise missile, and therefore we say that we want an explanation from the Labour Party.
I was diverted by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn and I must hurry on, but only to say that of course this is the same flaw in Labour's defence policy as was exposed at the last general election and which was denounced by the Labour leader after the election results came out. I should like to read out what Mr. Hattersley said about this disastrous flaw in Labour's defence policy:
"The notion that we might give up our nuclear protection if others"—
he means the Russians—
"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 hut we refused to accept our NATO obligations".
That was how Mr. Hattersley accounted fog the Labour disaster on defence at the last election. Well, it is not for the Alliance parties or the Conservative party to complain if the Labour party puts itself on the same electoral hook again ready for the next general election, but I think it is a matter which the Labour Front Bench should try to answer in this debate.
I must now hurry forward. There is another point that the noble Lord made which is of great importance and which requires careful thought. He said that the British Government supports the SDI, subject to the four conditions agreed between Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan. On these Benches we feel that this is a disastrous policy line to take. It is not about research. The noble Lord erected an Aunt Sally when he said that there are those who think that research would be a breach of the ABM treaty. No, it would not. Indeed, I would say it is very hard to oppose the concept of the West going ahead with the research into space-based anti-ballistic missile defence, because it cannot be verified. That is agreed: we cannot verify space-based research. In addition, no doubt, the Russians are going ahead with it. If they have not gone very far with it yet, they probably will in the future. It is therefore surely wrong to expect the Americans to try to negotiate a ban on research into space-based ABMs.
But of course that is not the point. The point is that testing, development and deployment can be verified and would be a breach of the ABM treaty. The question is, why are the Americans not trying to reach agreement with the Russians not to test, develop or deploy them—that is to say, not to alter or amend or abrogate the ABM treaty? That is what they should be doing. That is what the Government should be urging them to do, and what they are manifestly refusing to do. Rather than negotiate with the Russians on this, they are putting at risk the arms control talks in Geneva. In regard to the language they used about

791
SDI, they do not say, "This is something that we can negotiate", but, "This is a moral imperative and a political imperative". The way they talk about it makes it perfectly clear that they have no intention whatever of reaching agreement with the Russians on that point. Yet the impact of what the noble Lord was saying is this: "We have our four conditions and one of the four conditions is that there must be negotiations before deployment, before development and testing".
What is that assurance worth? It is worth nothing. It is quite plain that the Americans will go through the motions of negotiating and, when the talks have failed, they will go ahead with SDI. The so-called "fourth point" to which the noble Lord referred is frankly worthless. If the research is successful, how can one imagine President Reagan going to Congress, or to the hi-tech and aerospace interests that will have built up and saying, "Thank you very much. The research has been successful, and a lot of money has been spent on it, I agree, but now I've changed my mind. I don't think after all that there are advantages in going ahead with SDI. I think after all that the best hope is Mutually Assured Destruction." Of course it is inconceivable; it is not on the carpet. He will go ahead.
What will happen then? There will be an interim period of 10 or 20 years while, with enormous technological skill and at vast cost, the Americans build up a capacity for destroying a proportion of incoming ballistic missiles. It is only a proportion and no one suggests it is any more than that. No one suggests that they can protect the United States. And while they are doing that, what are the Russians doing? That is easy to predict. First, they will build up their offensive ballistic missiles in order to maintain their strike capacity against the United States. They will invent new decoys; they will invent new countermeasures, they will retarget the missiles so that they do not go for the silos, which are protected by the ABMs of the Americans, but they will go for the cities. That is the first thing they will do.
Secondly, they will redouble their fleets of submarines carrying cruise missiles, because against the cruise missile a whole new technology is needed. To defend against cruise missiles with the comparatively short range of submarines, they need technology that has not yet been developed or begun to be invented.
The third thing that the Russians will do is that they will no doubt develop their own anti-ballistic missile system. If they find, which is doubtful, that the American system is cost-effective, they will certainly do that themselves, and they will develop anti-satellite weapons to shoot down the American weapons and control satellites in space. At the end of all this, when the American ABM system is in position and when they are able to shoot down these missiles in the boost phase to start with—they have five minutes exactly in order to shoot down a missile in the boost phase, and that is what they will have laid on; they have to find a rocket, detect it, fire, hit and destroy it in five minutes—how much safer will the world be? It will not be any safer at all. This great escalation on two sides will have left the world in greater peril than before.
The duty of the Government is plain. With their colleagues and allies in Europe they must try to
792
persuade the Americans now to start reaching agreement with the Russians for a mutual ban on the development and deployment of space-based ABMs, and meanwhile the Government and its allies in Europe should distance themselves from this disastrous project.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. We heard a clear introduction to the White Paper from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and several knowledgeable speeches from noble Lords with great experience in the field of defence. We are of course to return to the subject next week, although I am not sure that this is the best way to arrange our affairs. I doubt whether a total of two days on defence in separate weeks is the most effective procedure; but we shall have to make a judgment on it again.
However, we are called upon to make infinitely more important judgments than that, because a debate about defence—its cost, its scope, its nature and our overall commitments—covers matters of the utmost complexity, upon which even the greatest experts disagree, as this debate has already shown. My noble friend Lord Boston has covered most of the ground in his able and comprehensive speech, and I shall refer to a few of the points which have been stressed in the debate thus far. We are all agreed on the essential need for an adequate defence within the context of NATO—an alliance which, as several noble Lords have said, has served us well for a period of 40 years and in the establishment of which the then leaders of the party, like Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, played a central role.
The Labour Party's policy on this—and here I deal with the point raised at considerable length by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—is clear, and I shall read it out so that he may comprehend it:
"We firmly support continuing British membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the continuing alliance of the Western European democratic countries with North America within NATO."
I shall also seek to deal with Trident, which lies at the heart of the nuclear problem, a little later—
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, as he mentioned me? Does not the policy as stated in the amendment in the other place last week also say:
"calls upon the Government to remove all nuclear bases from the United Kingdom"?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I realise what was in the amendment moved in the other place. It was a matter for those who drafted that amendment. At this time I am dealing with the White Paper. I am not responsible for the amendment in the other place, but several of my noble friends and honourable and right honourable friends will share my view. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to listen to my speech, as I listened to his.
I was saying before I was interrupted that I would deal later on with the question of Trident. I do regret however, that the noble Lord used this debate on the White Paper to try to win a few votes in the by-election in Brecon and Radnor. But let me say one thing which

793
may comfort the noble Lord: if he continues to support this Front Bench, as he supported my noble friend Lord Boston's speech, we may in due course invite him back into the Labour Party.
NATO has seen its ups and downs and has suffered strains and stresses, including the withdrawal of France from the Military Committee in 1966. But NATO has survived and this country has played a leading role under successive governments in NATO committees and in the area of command. New developments, like the strategic defence initiative which many noble Lords have mentioned, are making it more difficult for us to see the future as clearly as we should like. Obviously, we should like to perceive a clear, long-term strategy where everything falls into place. Many noble Lords have dealt with this; but their speeches have illustrated the difficulties which exist.
One of these difficulties is the White Paper itself because it brings into focus once again the annual argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. It is a very old argument. It has been going on for decades. It is best illustrated by Winston Churchill himself. When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1920s, as the House recalls, he clamped down severely on naval expenditure. When he was First Lord he took a very different point of view! It is the battle between short-term political and financial constraints and long-term policies.
We are therefore fortunate to have the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to wind up our debate this evening, for as we know, he has been heavily engaged as chairman of a committee looking into the Government's expenditure. Last Sunday's Cabinet meeting will also be very much in his mind, as it is in ours. We understand that he cannot tell us the details of what took place there, but perhaps he can give us a hint of how things are going.
Furthermore, although we are formally looking at the Defence White Paper, as several noble Lords have pointed out we have two documents of which to take account; that is, the White Paper on the one hand, and the report of the Select Committee on Defence in another place on the other. The Secretary of State for Defence, in his speech in another place on 12th June, said that there was no big change in the White Paper. In one sense, I think this may be true, but in another sense it is not because forward financial projections in the White Paper are of profound significance.
It is stated that next year, 1985–86, the defence budget will be £18 billion, as we have just been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and that constitutes the highest expenditure among the big European members of the Alliance. That has been the case indeed for the past 40 years. It seems to me to be ironic that, because of our comparative economic weakness in the EC, we are in annual budgetary difficulties there, but when we have our NATO hat on we are assumed to have a bottomless purse and are expected to make the biggest contribution of any country in NATO. France, on the other hand, enjoys the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps we should have a Minister for French Affairs, but he would need to be a pretty smart chap to deal with that portfolio.
In the Commons debate on 12th June, the Secretary of State said something which reflected the current
794
expenditure argument. He said at cols. 913–4 of the Official Report:
"We now plan our programmes to live within the cash available to meet them. Just because a Department 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."
This is where realism walks onto the stage, for it is clear, both from the White Paper and from what Mr. Heseltine himself said, that from 1986 the defence budget is planned to reduce progressively. I shall be grateful if the noble Viscount will deal with that and confirm it when he replies.
There is no question in my view, having read the White Paper and the report, of reaching a plateau, as has been suggested, and then levelling off with stability as the objective. This is where the report of the all-party Select Committee is important. The conclusion of that report is that planned defence commitments cannot be achieved on the basis of projected levels of spending from 1986 onwards. This is where strategy comes in, for if that is true then our strategy must be planned to allow for the inevitable changes which follow. Where is the belt to be tightened? And we do not forget that we have not only home defence and NATO to finance; we also have the extra-NATO responsibilities of the Falklands, of Hong Kong, of Belize, of Gibraltar, and so on, and we know that the Falklands cost is especially significant in the context of the defence budget. The detailed consequences of the reduction in expenditure or, as it is called nowadays, the zero option, from next year onwards will no doubt be dealt with in next week's debate because the Army, the Navy and the Air Force will be affected.
But there is one crucial issue to which my noble friend referred and which I should also like to stress; namely, the decline in the merchant fleet. We have had a number of exchanges in the House about this recently. The White Paper suggests that if the reduction continues, it could endanger our ability to fulfil our NATO obligations. It further states that with the exception of deep sea trawlers:
"there are sufficient ships in each category to meet our defence needs."
In other words, the merchant fleet as it is is adequate. There are many noble Lords who are far more knowledgeable than I am about this matter of the merchant fleet and the dependence of the Navy upon the availability of merchant ships. But it is clear to the lay observer that the decline has been alarming, as my noble friend has said, from 1,600 ships in late 1975 to 686 last February. All this is of course reflected in the matching decline in trained officers and men. There were 160,000 men in the merchant fleet in 1939 at the outset of war; there are 40,000 today.
I have lived in a seafaring community all my life and I know that there is profound concern about these trends. Anglesey, which I had the privilege to represent for nearly 30 years, sent more men pro rata to the Royal Navy and the merchant fleet in the first world war and the last war than any other part of the United Kingdom. Given that Britain has been a great maritime nation, these experienced seamen see a change which is of the utmost significance, not only in terms of employment and commerce but in relation to the merchant fleet as an auxiliary to the Royal Navy. These trends are serious and their implcations for the

795
nation gave. The three paragraphs which the White Paper devote to this subject are neither adequate nor clear. It is worth making the point that the Soviet Union has overtaken Britain and the United States as a merchant shipping power. I believe that Soviet merchant seamen are all naval reserves. That is also something to think about.
We were told last year—I think in November—that an inquiry was being conducted into the merchant service. Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us when he replies when this inquiry will be completed. I also hope he can confirm that the report of the inquiry will be published so that we can debate the matter with all the facts and all the arguments before us.
My noble friend Lord Boston and other noble Lords have dealt with Trident in some detail. In the light of what has been said, perhaps I should say a word on the argument about total dependence on Trident, and its effect on other areas of defence. The question is whether this country with its present economic limitations can afford to put all our eggs in this basket. A man with a wife and six children and a mortgage and a modest income cannot afford a Rolls-Royce. The Secretary of State himself has admitted that the Trident missile programme will cost a lot of money, and as he said,
"money that will not therefore be available for other defence purposes".
That is the real worry and it must be one of the focal issues in this debate. For if, as Mr. Heseltine has said, other defence purposes are going to suffer because of the cost of Trident, and if also there is to be a decline in defence expenditure from next year onwards, what other aspects of defence are therefore going to be scaled down? We shall be most grateful if the noble Viscount will address himself to that central question when he replies. This was also the nub of the Select Committee report which spoke of substantial pressures on the defence budget and the need for hard decision making.
The cost of Trident at about £11 billion over 20 years is hard to justify. If the Government argue that there is no alternative then there are experts who take a different view. The Economist, for example, has said that if Trident is proceeded with the Government will be,
"condemning the conventional forces to damaging cuts in both numbers and effectiveness".
I acknowledge that the choices are not easy but to commit ourselves to an irreversible course in terms of resources and strategy is something which must cause the most acute concern. This has been reflected in several of the speeches that we have heard today. The key question is whether Britain can achieve adequate conventional weapons of the kind described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in a remarkable speech, if we proceed with Trident as it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others have also referred to the strategic defence initiative and to the four Camp David points, but I shall not go into those in detail. But in my experience in a short space this seems to have developed from being a figment of the imagination into a factor of the very first importance. At this stage the discussion centres around reseach. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn,
796
made an interesting speech on this very point. The Foreign Secretary in his recent lecture also made some constructive comments about SDI. It is horrifying to contemplate an arms race in space following upon the present arms race on earth. SDI is very much in the future, beyond the life of the great majority, I think, of us in this Chamber, but its very inception has already created new tensions and strains in relationships, notably between the United States and Western Europe. The Government as I understand it have agreed to participation in this research. I think that we ought to be told a little bit more about it. What does the research involve? Are we to make financial contributions? If so, on what scale? We assume that we are keeping in close touch with our European allies on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested. I also agree with him about the possible initiative by ourselves and our European allies on this matter. But all the implications have not been fully explained. For example, would we expect to be involved in the whole programme of research; or would we be operating on the fringe in a kind of presentational exercise? It is a question of high politics with long-term implications beyond our present perception.
My noble friend Lord Zuckerman, who always makes constructive and interesting speeches, referred to the brain drain, which is especially relevant to this huge project of SDI research involving, as it does, enormous costs, scientific resources and human talents. I thought that the figures that he had extracted from the Secretary of the Royal Society were extremely interesting; and there are further figures, as he said, still to come. I hope that the noble Viscount and his colleagues will look very carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has said.
I believe that our primary role—the role to which Britain is now suited—should be in NATO, working in the closest co-operation with our European allies and making a continuing and more effective contribution to the conventional defence of Western Europe. I believe that that should be our policy. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, gave us some very good advice on this to which the Government should listen. Some distinguished scientists think star wars is a practical possibility. Other equally clever American physicists believe otherwise. The costs are estimated to be astronomical—to use the appropriate word—anything up to £1,000 billion or more spent on research alone, has been quoted as a possible figure. The Prime Minister herself about 12 months ago said some sensible things about this when she called for "mutual restraint and negotiation". I agree with her entirely on that. I hope that she did not change her mind after she visited President Reagan. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell us what is her present attitude.
Finally, let me make it plain that I have no illusions about Soviet attitudes to arms and defence. As the late Mr. Andropov said, "We are not naïve". And it is as well to remember that. The USSR do not discuss their military strategy in public. There is no annual debate on the Russian White Paper in the Praesidium with arguments about costs; about whether they can afford their vast arms expenditure. I did however read in the Observer that Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, who has

797
come back into prominence in the Soviet military field, has said some interesting things publically. According to the Observer:
"Ogarkov argues, as he has for several years, that the number of strategic nuclear weapons is so great that 'You don't have to be a military specialist to see that their further accumulation … becomes simply pointless'".
That was a very sensible statement made by the greatest Russian military expert today. I only hope it reflects a change in the views of the Soviet leadership.
We are reliably informed also that Mr. Gorbachev is concerned about the Soviet economy and about expenditure in the Soviet generally. I hope this will create a desire to make real progress in Geneva to achieve the balance, at much lower levels, to which my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham referred. For it is there in Geneva that sanity is needed if we are to bring some hope to a bewildered world.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should be grateful if he would clear up one point which puzzles me. In the noble Lord's exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, at the beginning of his speech, he seemed to be distancing himself from the official amendment proposed in another place by his party. Was he then speaking as a Peer in his own right, or was he speaking as Leader of the Labour Opposition, which would make his statement official? It would be helpful to know exactly what the situation is.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is, as always, running true to form in his intervention. Had he been in the Chamber during the whole debate he might have understood the position. I explained it fully and clearly in my speech, and I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to read it in Hansard tomorrow morning.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, this year, in response to representations, we have instituted a two-day defence debate. As Leader of your Lordships' House I will be only too ready, after the debate next week, to consider through the usual channels future arrangements based on our experience of this year. That is one of the reasons why I thought it right to wind up what was to be this broad debate today. I wanted, through personal participation in the debate, to gain experience myself on the best way for this House to proceed.
I have to say that, so far, I have some anxieties. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for example, said to me that he hoped that a full answer would be given to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in next week's debate. It may very well be that other noble Lords will speak about Trident next week and that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply to them at the end of that debate. But that was not the intention of the two debates and I have to make that perfectly clear.
This debate was to be the broad, strategic debate. Next week's debate is meant to concern itself with manpower and various armed forces matters. We shall not have succeeded in having two separate debates if we go down the road which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—and, I suspect, other noble Lords—may
798
follow next week. If we do go down that road, then I shall be interested to see whether this effort to divide the two days will succeed.
Frankly, I rather doubt that it will. I also have some reservations, as has the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about there being a week between the two debates. There were specific reasons of programme management why that had to happen this year but, again, I doubt whether it is terribly wise to do that in the long term.
Secondly, I wanted to speak because, with the immense defence knowledge vested in your Lordships' House, I consider it my duty to listen to, and seek to respond to, views which are of great importance to our nation. Before I do so I should like to say a few words as a background about the Government's general approach. We have been taken to task by some commentators—notably the Defence Committee in another place, to which I shall return later—for wilfully adhering to present policies, and for failing to analyse long-term, political and strategic prospects in the White Paper.
If consistency is a crime then the Government must plead guilty to it. Equally, I would answer those who criticise the Government for consistency by saying that the NATO strategy which has been supported fairly widely in this House this afternoon has been to pursue a consistent line. That consistent line, working with our allies, has helped us for 40 years—and this is surely a reasonable claim—to maintain the peace. If consistency has done that, then there seems to be some value in consistency.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already explained that we are committed to maintaining our contribution to NATO's military posture; that we are implacable in our pursuit of better value for money in our defence budget (and I shall return to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and other noble Lords had to say about that point); and that there can he no question of our embarking on a defence review on resource grounds. I want to reinforce what my noble friend said about those matters.
The essential starting point must be the adequacy or otherwise of NATO's strategy of forward defence and flexible response. The White Paper sets out in detail the reasons why the Government believe that the strategy has worked and why we believe it remains appropriate in today's circumstances. I was grateful for the support given to this view by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and by many other noble Lords. As this is the first time that we have had a defence debate since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, took up his new post, I should like to say how much I personally, and, I am sure, the whole of your Lordships' House, welcome the fact that he is now the Secretary General of NATO and how much we believe he will contribute to that organisation.
I turn to some of the speeches made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, paid a very well-deserved tribute, as I see it, to all our forces. He mentioned, as did my noble friend, the particular problem of the rescue off the coast of Ireland earlier this week and I was most grateful to him for associating himself and his noble friends with praise for that effort. The noble Lord made a very clear and

799
concise review of the whole position of the White Paper, and he voiced many different criticisms. I shall come to them when I deal with other speeches. It is perhaps a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that I may deal with his points that way, because in opening the debate he covered so much ground.
I should like to answer the noble Lord in one particular respect, when he questioned what had happened to the defence reorganisation. He sought to make some amusement at the expense of my right honourable friend the Secretary for Defence. It behoves me, as one of my right honourable friend's Cabinet colleagues, to come resolutely to his defence, and I intend to do so. After all, the principles of the organisation were explained at great length in Command Paper 9315 and in the defence open government document OGD 84/03. There would have been little point in publishing those documents all over again in the Statement.
It is also fair to say that to offer detailed comment now would be too soon. If my right honourable friend had claimed in the Statement great success already after such a short time, the noble Lord would have been on his feet very quickly to ask how on earth could the Secretary of State declare a triumph so soon—suggesting that the Secretary of State was trying to claim success that did not yet exist. So I am being very cautious on behalf of my right honourable friend. I will say that the indications are that the new arrangements are settling down very well, but I give an undertaking that they will be appraised and reviewed at the end of the year. If the noble Lord and I are still a going concern at that time, then no doubt we shall both be able to consider those matters once more.
Lord Boston of Faversham: I am most grateful, my Lords.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Boston, Lord Kennet and Lord Cledwyn, all referred to the question of the merchant fleet. Like all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, the Government are most concerned about the position of our merchant fleet. The result of that concern is a study which has just been received by the Department of Transport and will be most carefully considered by both departments.
It is too early for me to say at this stage exactly what will happen to the study and whether or not it will be published. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I will take very careful note of his remarks and make representations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is probably the Minister most closely concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked some specific questions to which, as I believe they are important, I have been able to obtain suitable answers. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to have known them otherwise. He asked if there were any up-to-date figures on the average number of Soviet ships in our ports. I understand that there were 1,492 ship visits during 1984. In May 1985 there was an average of 18 visits. Equally, I am informed that the numbers fluctuate substantially.
800
The noble Lord also asked how many Soviet seamen wander freely around the country without visas. Operational crews of aircraft arriving in the United Kingdom and leaving within seven days do not require visas, so it is clearly impossible to give an exact figure. Operational crews of ships arriving in the United Kingdom are permitted to stay in the United Kingdom without a visa for as long as the ship is in port. That may be more or less than seven days, but so long as the ship is in port that is what the crew are allowed to do. Soviet seamen arriving in the United Kingdom to join their ships are permitted in without a visa provided they have a valid contract and an up-to-date seaman's book. I understand that there are at least 35,000 such visits each year. Those are the figures for which the noble Lord asked, and I hope they are of help to him.
I now come to one of the central parts of the debate—the speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. My problem is that I have so much respect in so many ways for the noble and gallant Lord that if I am trying to disagree with him I almost have to shut my ears while he is making his speech in case he converts me during it. I managed on this occasion to listen very carefully, and I will, with some trepidation, seek to answer some of the points that he made, because I think they are central to the debate.
I am encouraged to do so because I have received very powerful support from my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who strongly, and very plainly and clearly, believes with his great knowledge that Britain should retain its nuclear capacity. We have had Polaris since the 1960s but—I think there is general agreement on this, and, if not complete agreement, agreement in many circles—Polaris would not be a credible deterrent in the 1990s and beyond, whereas, as my noble friend Lord Home says, Trident would be. My noble friend also feels that he would not like to see France as the only nuclear power in Europe, and, I am bound to say, nor would I. For all those reasons I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. I have never found myself likely to disagree with him on almost any matter that I can imagine, and certainly not on this one.
However, that means that I have to give some answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, even if I take that very plain view on the importance of the insurance of our own nuclear deterrent. I think I would say this to him. I accept that the report was drawn up, as the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Mayhew, said, by some very important and knowledgeable people, but I wonder whether it fairly reflects what might be the cost of trying to do what they want, which is to improve our conventional forces on a technological basis and in line with the Soviet Union. Would I not be right in thinking that the more we did that the more certainly the Soviet Union would seek to preserve what I understand is about a two-to-one superiority? If that was the case, would we not soon find that the cost of going down the route proposed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and seeking to maintain conventional forces of the necessary size would be every bit as much as the cost of the Trident programme? At least, it would not be as different as the noble Lord and those who prepared the report sought to put out. I think that aspect ought to be considered.

801
It is also fair to say that while, of course, very knowledgeable people are associated with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, they are not absolutely agreed with by all those in similar positions in many different capacities. As I understand it, and from what I have heard them say in the past, some of the noble and gallant Lord's other colleagues who have been chiefs of the defence staff do not happen to agree with him. I do not make too much of that because, after all, it is very rare in any profession that everyone agrees on everything. If I was asked whether I agree with my Cabinet colleagues on everything that arises in Cabinet I would not be able to say that I do. It would not surprise me if the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was not able to say that all the other chiefs of defence staff agree with him. I do not think they do. Therefore, one has to say that the report, while very important, does not necessarily carry all the experts with it, and it would be very surprising if it did.
Those are the answers that I seek to give. I do not believe that the cost of maintaining the conventional forces that would be required to take the place of Trident would be ("nearly as cheap" is the wrong expression) less expensive than Trident, as some, including the noble and gallant Lord, sought to argue.
I turn from that subject to my noble friend Lord Eccles, who, on a totally different front, spoke about winning friends in the world outside NATO and the importance of what he described as the defence discussion outside pure defence matters: the need for communication; the value of the English language; and the importance of the BBC's reputation for telling the truth. That reputation, I always think, rather amusingly, is very much more accepted abroad than it is in this country; but that, perhaps, is our own capacity to have a problem about balance. Indeed, those who feel they are discriminated against should consider that balance is frequently in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, as one sees and hears more of what they do both at home and abroad, it perhaps explains our own feelings on that subject. But certainly my noble friend is perfectly right about the BBC's reputation abroad. With all these attributes, my noble friend says—and I thought the House seemed to agree with him—we ought to be doing more towards winning the support and, therefore, the encouragement of benevolent neutrals. That, after all, is vitally important for our defence forces in various parts of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is a great encouragement for me. Whenever I begin to think that possibly I am getting rather old, I get a new lease of life. If one can remember well the Boer War, as well as the First World War, you put those who can claim only that they fought in the Second World War a good deal in the shade; and that is where he puts a great many people in this House. Nevertheless, his robust belief in the need to stand against the Soviet Union and against the Soviet threat, which he believes strongly continues, is very important and gives considerable pleasure to many people who believe that the need of our defence policy is, indeed, to stand up for our own position in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, spoke about the strategic defence initiative from the standpoint of having been recently in the United States. I thought
802
the noble Lord made a most interesting and valuable speech. He declared that if Europe were to dissociate itself from the American initiative—and I think there are those who are possibly rather too quick to think that we should consider that move—then he believes we would be in danger (and it is a thought we should all carefully consider) of the Americans saying, "If they are going to dissociate themselves from us, we might dissociate ourselves from them". It has always been one of my great fears that the Americans would feel like that at some stage, because if they ever withdraw from NATO or withdraw their troops from Europe that would be a catastrophe for this country. It is worth remembering that.
The noble Lord also asked about European collaboration on various weapons and projects. I do not think that such collaboration between nations all seeking jobs for their people in many different defence industries has ever been a particularly easy matter, and I do not think that it is any easier today. It is not the less important for that. I hope very much that we shall get further results from what we are seeking through that collaboration at the present time.
The noble Lord also raised the question of chemical weapons. We have no intention of changing our present policies. There are very grave risks of the proliferation of chemical weapons. Indeed there is a threat posed to NATO by the massive Soviet chemical warfare capability. But we are convinced, as are our allies, that in what is a highly emotional field the right answer is to do everything that we can to gain a comprehensive and verifiable ban upon those weapons, and that is the policy which we and our allies are pursuing at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question as to whether the Soviet Union is working on ballistic missile defence.
Lord Gladwyn: I asked what the evidence was, my Lords.
Viscount Whitelaw: The evidence seemed to come, my Lords, from the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Mayhew, who was quite clear that this was taking place. In view of the exchanges that have continued among various noble Lords about different aspects of defence policy, I was hoping that possibly both noble Lords might get together. I heard the noble Lord. Lord Mayhew, declaring quite plainly that he believed that that was certainly happening, and so I was delighted to quote him in aid.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the worst possible thing would be for any suggestion to arise that I differ in any respect from my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. My point was, I think, that we have to distinguish between ground-based research, in which the Russians are world leaders, and space-based research; and I said that if they had not started that they would start it soon. That is all.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that that in certain ways reinforces what I said. It is understood that the Russians have started. They have the world's only deployed ballistic missile defence system around Moscow and they have an extensive and long

803
established research programme into ballistic missile defence. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, says that they certainly would start it. He is possibly behind events. They have already done so. Possibly that will now satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. First of all, his noble friend believes that the Russians are likely to start it; then indeed I have been able to confirm from the information given to me that they actually have.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I do not want to disagree with my noble friend at all. But it seems to me unlikely that the Soviet Union has embarked on enormous preparations in the same way as the Americans have for a space-based ABM system. Is there any direct evidence that it has? It seems to me unlikely that it will, given the immense size of the project and the immensity of the expense involved. It seems to me highly unlikely. Unless there is proof that it has done so, the assumption must be that it will not do so.
Viscount Whitelaw: It is too much for me, my Lords! I was asked a question; I gave the answer that I was given. I hope that I have fulfilled my position. To go further would get me into water in which I do not think I am capable of swimming.
I therefore turn to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, who, as he would with his special knowledge, made a point of great seriousness and of great importance—the danger of a brain drain in scientists. It is important that the research conducted into the strategic defence initiative should be two-way. We should be able to negotiate that, and we must be careful to make sure that we do not lose scientists as a result, particularly if, as the noble Lord said, we are already experiencing shortages in recruiting scientists. I shall certainly pass all those points to those of my right honourable friends who are most closely concerned.
For me, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has two attributes. When he agrees with me, or, to put it more properly, I agree with him, I am simply delighted, because he puts it all so plainly and clearly and so much better than I can that I rest happy and satisfied thereafter. When he disagrees with me, alas, it is very much on the other side. Again he puts the points with which I disagree so trenchantly that I find it difficult to rebut them. I was delighted by what he said about the power of mutual deterrence of nuclear weapons and their importance. Perhaps your Lordships should notice that that view came from two noble Lords, both of whom have been Foreign Secretary of this country at a very important time. That of itself must have considerable importance.
On the other side and against me, the noble Lord questioned the whole position of the Government's economic policy on taxes and benefits. I shall run for cover immediately and suggest that your Lordships may feel that, although I am coming to the costs of the defence programme, if I entered into a discussion of the Government's economic policy I should be going rather far from the discussion we are having tonight and perhaps delaying the next part of our business. I have noted carefully what the noble Lord said.
My noble friend Lord Mersey spoke of the importance of remembering that a conventional war is
804
in itself a very nasty business and should not be written off as if we could abandon nuclear weapons and settle down to an afternoon garden party with conventional weapons. Anyone who has had experience of fighting with conventional weapons knows that it is far from being attractive. Though I cannot do the Boer War or the first world war, at least I have some experience of the second world war.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will not think that I am rude, but against his name I have written down in my note, "Usual speech". I hope that he will accept that that is a perfectly fair description of what he said. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said that the noble Lord is always consistent. Indeed he is. He and I hold totally different views. I hope that we shall both live long enough not to be able to prove that either of us is right. One thing is quite certain. If we both live to about the same time, at that moment I shall be right, provided that there has been no war, and he will not be able to prove his assertion! Therefore on the whole I shall have done better than he has at that stage. I am still hopeful that that will be the case.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Viscount, too, has made his usual speech. It is as full of charm as ever and as wrong as ever.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I can only say that I have to reciprocate, do I not? We shall be able to remain in that position for years to come, let us hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, properly raised the point that we should bear our fair share of the costs in NATO but that we should not be burdened with more than our fair share. That comes to the question of costs, which the noble Lords. Lord Mayhew and Lord Cledwyn, also dealt with. One or other of them said that at one time when it came to European matters we were regarded as not being in a very strong position but when it came to NATO everybody immediately suggested that we had a bottomless purse. I think that there is a danger of that, and a very fair point was made.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about plans for the future of the defence budget. As it was foreshadowed in the 1981 White Paper, the Government's commitment to 3 per cent. real growth in the defence budget will not, as noble Lords have said, be continued beyond the current year, although the benefits of the steep increase—and I emphasise that—achieved since 1978–79 will continue to be felt by the services in the years to come. The task now is to make better use of the significant extra funds which the Government have made available through a vigorous pursuit of the efficiency programme which is outlined in Chapter Five of the Statement on the Defence Estimates.
I should say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was somewhat unfair to my noble friend's opening speech. In fact, for just a moment I wondered whether he had written his speech before he heard what my noble friend said. That was because my noble friend went to considerable lengths, first of all to set out the Government's case against some of the criticisms of the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence. Indeed he also sought to make

805
the point very strongly about the need to get value for money out of our defence programme, and spoke of the very great determination of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make sure that that was what has happened.
I think I have spoken for long enough. I hope I have answered many of the points which were made in the debate. I feel that today we have had a constructive and very important debate. I am very grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until Wednesday next, 3rd July.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until Wednesday next, 3rd July.—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

Financial Services: Small Shareholders' Interests
7.41 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the new proposals for the control and management of financial and investment services in the City of London, set out in their White Paper (Cmnd. 9432), will promote the interests of individual small shareholders.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before doing so, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have indicated that they may take part in this debate. They know a great deal more about the subject than I do. I should also like to thank various people in the City who have been kind enough to answer some of my very elementary questions, in particular Mr. Nicholas Baring. However, I want to make it clear that they are in no way responsible for the opinions which I express.
The City of London is possibly the only British institution which has actually improved its international standing over the last 50 years. It earns us a great deal of money and its financial services are of great and increasing importance to the economy. Of course it has its critics. It has been argued that it has done better in making money for itself than in financing industry. Some people say that Germany and Japan seem to get on well without its equivalent.
However one views it, the City and the changes within the City must be of prime importance to us all. These changes deserve your Lordships' consideration from many angles. Tonight I am asking about their effect on the individual investor and to some extent on the small business. I speak as a long-time advocate of spreading wealth. I do not believe that we shall achieve the most satisfactory and prosperous country possible until there is far more direct, personal ownership of wealth. One way of achieving this is clearly through a wider ownership of shares.
Will the Big Bang, as it is called, achieve this wider ownership? I know the City is determined to look after the small investor. It has been said that by increasing
806
competition and removing certain restrictions, especially on some forms of trust, the small, individual shareholder will benefit. But I think we must accept, as is made clear in certain documents from the City itself, that the changes in the City are not being brought about primarily by a desire to help the small investor. They are coming about to meet the demands of financial institutions frightened of losing out in a world where finance is becoming more and more large scale, international, and dependent upon information technology.
Two very important considerations have been the abolition of the minimum commission and the lack of capital among jobbers. As your Lordships know, when the Big Bang is finally over, many of the traditional divisions in the City will have vanished. Brokers, jobbers, investment advisers and investment managers of all kinds will become part of conglomerates in which banks—and not necessarily British banks—will play a leading role. Conflicts of interest, opportunities for insider dealing and fraud could greatly increase.
By the very title of their White Paper Cmnd. 9432, the Government accept that all this is of great concern to them. They hope to rely on self-regulation as far as possible but they are ultimately responsible and it is under their aegis that a tribunal and two boards to supervise the new framework in the City are being established.
I am afraid that I have a great many supplementary questions to ask in addition to my main Question. I have no less than four questions in relation to these boards. I refer to the Securities and Investment Board and the Marketing of Investment Board.
First, I am not entirely clear what sanctions other than a reprimand or withdrawal of a licence to trade will be available to these boards. I should have thought that some intermediate sanctions may well be needed. I should have thought, for instance, that it may well be that they will need to levy fines, but the fines will probably have to be of a large amount. I am not quite clear from the White Paper whether it is contemplated that they will have power to do this.
Secondly, I am not quite clear whether there will be any appeal from these boards to the ordinary courts of law. I suppose one cannot prevent people from going to law, but I do not know whether it is contemplated that they will. Thirdly, I take it that the boards will have no say over financial journalists, who are extremely influential in persuading people to invest money.
Fourthly, and most important of all, can we be assured that the sole responsibility of the board is to protect investors, that it owes a duty to the investor and to no one else? From the point of view of the small investor, one of the dangers in the new set-up is clearly fraud, insider dealing and improper influence. However, I think there is also another danger and that is the danger of bad service and bad results from the investment which he makes.
The most telling deterrent, to my mind, to individual investment in equities, and indeed in the Stock Exchange generally, is that since the war it has not paid off very well. Of course it depends what base date one takes and it depends what income one may receive. However, I believe that the Financial Times index

807
would have to be about 50 per cent. higher than it is now to make good the inflation if one starts from 1960 to 1970. If anyone doubts that he can look at the Financial Times for 19th January this year, which points out how the index has fallen behind inflation.
It may well be that property and objects have proved a better investment. The pension fund which bought a mediaeval candlestick base, and which I see today has bought a fragment of a mediaeval manuscript, may very well know what it is doing. On top of inflation you have the incentives to other forms of investment and you have the tax, and in particular the disincentive of the capital gains tax.
It seems to me that in this situation the best friend of the small, independent investor is a stockbroker in an independent reputable firm, whom he trusts and who will take a personal interest in his affairs. In my experience stockbrokers are willing to take an interest in quite small portfolios and to give of their very best to very humble clients. I do not suggest that the stockbroker will make such an investor a millionaire but I think he will be his best protection against fraud. He will give free and independent advice and allow the client to do better than he would on his own.
Am I right in thinking that such stockbrokers may be seriously reduced in number after the Big Bang has taken place? Three questions arise in regard to the Big Bang. First, is it healthy for either the small investor or for the small British business that the City should be dominated by large conglomerates, some of which will be foreign owned? I find it hard to believe that such conglomerates will take as much trouble with small clients as do brokers today. I am apprehensive about what will happen to provincial brokers. I know it is said that there may be an extension of branch offices from London, but I am not at all clear that that is going to happen.
I ask the Government whether they expect the Big Bang and its aftermath to bring capital to this country or to drain it off. I am not convinced that a conglomerate owned, say, in Japan or Saudi Arabia and dealing in millions of pounds will necessarily increase the capital available to British industry, at least to small British industry. I hope I am wrong. Of course it may be that the Government are going to rely upon other sources such as investment in industry.
My second major question relates to conflicts of interest. It is accepted, for instance, in the admirable report by the City itself, "Comments on the Financial Services White Paper", produced by a committee presided over by Mr. Baring, that such conflicts will arise. Indeed, they arise to some extent already. But the argument in that committee report is that although they will arise, they need not lead to any malpractice. Nevertheless, I believe that the single capacity broker had his advantages. I would not personally employ, for instance, an insurance broker who was wholly owned by an insurance company. But the Government tell us in paragraph 7.4 of the White Paper that they themselves are not convinced that total reliance can be placed on Chinese Walls. Nor am I convinced that Chinese Walls will necessarily be totally effective.
I do not think that I am impressed either by the Government's further suggestions, one of which is
808
disclosure. Disclosure is very necessary; but by declaring an interest you do not necessarily purge yourself of all sin. As for monitoring, that, again, is very necessary. But do the Government really believe that these boards, even with all modern equipment, can monitor the countless transactions that take place every day in the City of London? According to paragraph 6.1 of the White Paper:
"The key safeguard … will be the application of a 'fit and proper' test to all investment businesses".
But can this mean anything more than that a licence will not be given to an investment business if it has already been in trouble? Should not investors be warned that because some firm passes this test it is not necessarily a wise counsellor? Presumably, it will not undergo the sort of period of examination that precedes, say, entry into the Catholic priesthood. It is merely a guarantee, I understand, that it has not so far been caught out. I must mention, in passing, that I seem to remember a Stock Exchange joke about how no one who was a fit and proper person could possibly be a stockbroker. As it is their own joke, I feel able to repeat it.
The real protection will surely be the internal procedures and monitoring enforced by senior partners or directors in each firm. That, again, is going to become difficult as firms become very large. In the light of what has been going on at Lloyd's, there must surely be some doubt over self-regulation. Those doubts must have increased since the Secretary of State for Industry spoke in the Commons on the 24th April. Therefore, I ask again and emphasise the question that I have already put. Is it quite clear that these boards and the tribunal will really be responsible to the investors? It seems to me that part of the trouble at Lloyd's is that there is a dual responsibility and some conflict of responsibility between the names, the brokers, and the other departments of Lloyd's.
I come now to the third question, commissions. The Chancellor told us in his Macmillan lecture that to judge from American experience small investors will gain, and commissions will fall. He also spoke of cheaper, no-frills deals. The noble Lord, Lord Terrington, has drawn my attention to two articles in the Financial Times which categorically contradict this. They say that some banks have already increased their commissions and that there is no reason from American experience to believe that they will fall. I therefore ask the Government whether they still believe that they will fall so far as the small investor is concerned. Personally, I have some doubt whether he is going to gain very much from modern technology. He is not the kind of man who dodges in and out of the market.
I come now to the last and fundamental question. The Government have told us that they want to encourage direct investment by small investors in equities. Are they sure that they are going the right way to get it? I hope very much that they are. There was the Telecom issue but there are still great tax advantages in corporate investment. Years ago, I seem to remember that the stockbrokers Rowe Swann published a circular called, I think, "The Euthanasia of the Small Investor". And, sure enough, before the Telecom issue, small investors had been reduced to 4 per cent. of the adult population. Perhaps we have to look more

809
and more to pension funds, trusts and suchlike. But if the Government are attracted by that road, I hope that they will look at John Plender's "That's the way the money goes" which deals with the performance of investment funds. As for trusts, the trust movement seems to have done a great deal of good. But unit trusts are now proliferating at a rate that makes one think that some of them must be set up chiefly for the benefit of those who have floated them. Investment trusts frequently stand so far below their asset value that it might be in the interests of the shareholders to break them up. I, for my part, still believe that direct investment by individuals is valuable. I still believe that the small investor needs a stockbroker who will take an interest in his affairs and if possible from an independent standpoint.
I accept that the Big Bang is upon us. I accept that it will do great good. I accept that the City wants to protect and encourage individual investors. I hope very much that it will improve even further its international standing. I hope that the Government, for their part, will examine again their proposals in the White Paper to make sure that the framework outlined there and being put into operation is effective particularly in the light of Lloyd's. I hope that they will keep an eye on commissions. I hope that they will put direct investment on a par with corporate investment and that they will encourage such single capacity brokers as may stay in the business.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for raising what I entirely agree with him is a matter of great importance. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with what he had to say about the achievements of the City of London over the years and the vital importance of the role that the City has played and should play in the future as an attractor of resources for this country. I am sure therefore that all your Lordships must be grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter and the Government's White Paper tonight.
I should perhaps declare an interest of sorts in the sense that I scribble in the City pages of a national Sunday newspaper although I hasten to assure your Lordships that I would never dare to have the cheek to try to advise readers into which particular equities they should put their savings. Nevertheless, I suppose, in theory, the place in which I write at any rate could come within the ambit of the White Paper. I am in a good deal of agreement with the measured scepticism expressed by the noble Lord about the prospects for the small investor after the Big Bang. I was told some months ago that my right honourable friend the Chancellor was planning to comment to the City, at some function he was addressing, that the trouble with Chinese Walls was that they were full of chinks, but that the Foreign Office advised that this phrase should be deleted in order not to damage international relations. I am bound to say that the Chancellor assures me that this is not true. Nevertheless, I believe that that degree of scepticism is eminently understandable. I am afraid that it seems to me to be highly probable, to put it mildly, that the legendary Aunt
810
Ednas of Plymouth are likely to have to pay more, not less, for the services of their stockbroker after the Big Bang than they have paid up to now. In all honesty one must recognise that the possibility of them being taken for a ride is also likely to increase.
I question whether any great material purpose is served by lamenting that this change should come upon us. To my mind it is rather like lamenting the passing of the chaperon and the arrival of the permissive age. There is no doubt that life was a great deal more ordered, discreet and, perhaps, sweeter-smelling in the days of the chaperon. However, the chaperon has gone and will not return. The fact is that unless the City had moved to negotiated commissions and, as I see it, inevitably to the ending of single capacity, the business would simply have passed it by. Indeed, it was already doing so. We are watching the internationalisation of the market. It is no good lamenting it: it is a fact of life.
We must also bear in mind that surely the essential purpose of the financial market is not to provide a casino in which the Aunt Ednas can try a flutter on their fancy or even invest their bottom drawer. The essential purpose of the market is to enable quoted businesses, both domestic and international, and also sovereign Governments, not least our own, to raise capital and to borrow on the most competitive terms to which their records and performance entitle them. It is essentially from that angle that one must look at what the Big Bang might portend.
It is slightly in that respect that I believe that there are some grounds, at any rate, for concern in two areas. First, there is the question, which the noble Lord touched upon, of the medium-size business—the quoted company with a successful track record, making good profits and with good performance, but not the type of company which has a cat's chance in hell of being quoted on the big board in New York or in Tokyo. No one would dispute that the ICIs of this world will enjoy the benefits of much more competitive commission rates and a much more highly competitive environment for their capital-raising operations and for the trading of their shares. The real question is what will happen to the medium-size equity which cannot hope to achieve that kind of multi-national status. In this connection I must say that I have been told by all my eminent stockbroking friends that there is no need to worry and that there will be plenty of market-makers in these companies. I hope that is the case, because it would be greatly to the disadvantage of the British commercial and industrial environment if such firms were to encounter considerable difficulty in capital raising.
My second anxiety is perhaps rather more fundamental. It concerns the Government's ability to borrow. We now have the spectacle of 29 recognised primary dealers dealing in the gilt-edged market in place of two. I am bound to say that in my view there will be a certain amount of blood on the floor. When the carnage clears, what will be left? Is it not possible that what will be left will be some of the giant players from the other side of the Atlantic and precious little else? What would happen if those giant players from the other side of the Atlantic were to wake up one day and read an opinion poll which suggested that there was at least a chance of the Labour Party coming to

811
power committed to the immediate reintroduction of exchange controls and perhaps measures for the repatriation of capital? Are we absolutely satisfied that, under those circumstances, the distinguished, new American punters in the gilt-edged market would not pick up their coats and run for the exit? If they did so, are we certain that the Government broker would still find willing takers for his paper around the market-place? If we are not certain, then we could face a gilt-edged strike to end all strikes. Those, to my mind, are the two biggest concerns which arise from the prospect of the Big Bang and what lies thereafter.
As for the position of the small shareholder, I must say that I share wholeheartedly the noble Lord's enthusiasm for an individual shareholding democracy. However, I doubt whether we can do a great deal to achieve that or to safeguard progress in that direction by a more vigorous and effective policing of the new type of marketplace. We must look at great new privatisation issues, like British Telecom or British Gas for that matter, or the TSBs (in which I am involved), and even possibly face some of the consequences of monopoly which in certain cases might flow therefrom, rather than believe that we can somehow in the new environment guarantee that there will be equal treatment and a fair place for the individual shareholders.
I note what the White Paper says about the importance of information. You can sometimes have too much information. I do not know whether my noble friend has ever studied a prospectus submitted to the SEC in the United States. When I was investigating the affairs of that great entrepreneur, Mr. De Lorean, I came upon a draft prospectus which he had produced for the SEC. I said to my chums, "One thing is certain: nobody but nobody would dream of investing in that"; because it was not covered in health warnings, it was covered in death warnings. Then, a little while later, I saw a prospectus which was being submitted to the SEC for an absolutely blue-chip American company. The death warnings were just as strong as they had been in the case of De Lorean. The Americans have achieved a situation in which the lawyers insist that every potential shareholder is inundated with information, and so the consequence is that they all ignore it. One can actually have too much of a good thing in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, commented on the question of the sanctions which these self-regulatory bodies would be able to apply. I comment in passing that it is perhaps not only a question of sanctions; it is also a question of what happens when it is apparent that the law has been breached. It is a question of what follow-up occurs. It is not a very good example to learn that, in the case of some of the little problems that have arisen in the Lloyd's market, the DPP has apparently been unable to come up with a single prosecution as regards matters which have been before it for anything up to seven years. It is all very well to have fine new laws, but if, apparently, the DPP is unable to advance prosecutions in cases where it is reasonably apparent that there are prima facie reasons for believing that the law has been severely breached and fraud committed, the statute book serves only a limited purpose.
812
In conclusion, I hope that we shall bear in mind that we must tread a tightrope (as I think, on balance, this White Paper does) between, on the one hand, the danger of strangling the market through excessive regulation, in the belief that we can somehow achieve the perfect elimination of the obligation upon the buyer, the investor, to show some common sense occasionally, and, on the other hand, allowing a market to be created which, frankly, frightens the horses. That, to my mind, is the side we have to watch.
I think there have been occasions in the past, perhaps, where the Lloyd's market has almost begun to scare away the international investor. It would be disastrous if we allowed that to occur in the City of London. On the other hand, we must not overwhelm the market—the brave new market—in a cocoon of legislation. Perhaps we should also reflect that legislation is not always the perfect answer to human unwisdom. I am bound to conclude by wondering whether we are really wise to believe that by passing another banking Act we shall avoid having another Johnson Matthey.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grimond has given us the opportunity of discussing an important White Paper issued at a time of momentous change in the nature of the financial services of this country. I am glad that time has been provided for consideration of this document. I am glad too that the Government, in introducing their proposals, have made it clear that they recognise that this is a subject for careful study, and that they have also recognised that the old provisions of caveat emptor are not enough in these new circumstances, and that, as they write on page 7 of the White Paper:
"For investors to have the confidence to venture into the market, measures are needed to reduce the likelihood of fraud and to encourage high standards in the conduct of investment business."
This White Paper attempts to do something that has never been attempted before; namely, to provide regulation for the whole of the investment industry, which is now a widespread and sophisticated industry and which is also going to become much more comprehensive as time goes on. Hitherto I suppose that the greatest degree of self-regulation has been within the Stock Exchange, but there are many other ways in which people can invest, and it is to cover all these ways that I take it that this White Paper has been drafted.
What we therefore have to consider before coming to the specific point about the small investor raised by my noble friend is whether the proposals made fit in with the requirements indicated in the beginning of the White Paper. The major proposal of course is the creation of the two boards which will be self-regulatory within a statutory framework, as is stated in the White Paper.
This is a new device. It is a combination of a self-regulatory body in the sense that those who are in membership of it are practitioners, or drawn from the ranks of the practitioners, but it will have the force of law in its operations. Therefore it is something which is a halfway house and which will need to be considered carefully in its operations.

813
The question that immediately arises, and has been stated in the White Paper itself, is whether two bodies are required. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he responds what has been the temperature of the water on this point. Those to whom I have spoken in the City and in industry have been almost unanimously of the view that there should be only one body.
Many of the newer financial organisations which will have to turn to these boards for authorisation of their operations will in fact have to turn to both of them. It therefore seems that before long there could well be some confusion or duplication in their operations. It might be worth while sorting this out before they are brought into operation rather than after a trial period.
The question of conflict of interest is bound to arise more strongly now that the Stock Exchange have changed their rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and also my noble friend Lord Grimond said, this is not a new subject. Under existing financial practices there already is this problem of financial institutions which both handle corporate finance—mergers, take-overs, and so on—and have a separate department dealing with investment. Obviously the knowledge of any impending takeover will put the investment department in possession of important information.
But here we can see self-regulation as a matter of self interest. Any firm that was known to have done that—and it would obviously become evident very quickly that it had—would no longer command the support of its clients. Although I must say that it has not been a deep-seated inquiry, I have asked a number of representatives of City institutions whether they are aware of any cases where this has arisen: I have not been told of any, and for obvious reasons, as I have indicated.
I do not believe that the conflict of interest, even though the range of possible conflict has now been widened, is necessarily one that will not be overcome in practice, although I think it absolutely right that the White Paper draws attention to this and that the Government consider that this situation will have to be carefully watched. On a smaller point I should like to refer to what is said about life assurance on page 29 of the White Paper, where it is stated:
"The Government welcome the view expressed … that businesses authorised by the Marketing of Investments Board should be required to take total responsibility for sales by tied agents as well as their employees".
This only applies to life policies, but it seems to me that it ought really to apply across the whole range of insurance activities. All forms of insurance, in a sense, are a form of investment, and therefore I wonder what the Government's response would be to that.
As to the small investor, who was the raison d'être of the Question put down by my noble friend, it is quite possible that with a freer market and no limits on commissions the smaller investor, simply because he is dealing in smaller quantities, will tend to pay higher commissions, and that the larger investor, because he is dealing in larger quantities—and investment is a commodity like any other—will tend to pay smaller commissions.
814
On the other hand, for the small investor who simply wants to buy or sell a share and has made up his mind what he wants and does not need any advice, it would seem desirable that the over-the-counter operation should be encouraged and further facilitated. For a simple service such as buying or selling a share there should be, in my opinion, a very small fee. If the investor requires advice, then obviously a fee should be charged for that consultation.
As to the ways in which the small investor can be protected against fraud and being misled, I should like to ask, how is he in fact going to be made aware of these new City institutions? Those of us who have some connection with the City are of course aware of what is going on, but are these new bodies going to be available for the small investor to turn to? Or who should he turn to if he feels that his situation has been prejudiced by suspected malpractice (apart, of course, from going to law, which is always available)? Is something to be done to make the small investor more aware of what is being provided in his interest other than the publication of this White Paper, which I believe is more for the expert than for the general reader?
8.20 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for having given us the opportunity of discussing this Motion tonight, which is essentially concerned, as the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper makes quite clear, with the promotion of the interests of the individual shareholders and, by implication—and I think that the noble Lord. Lord Bruce-Gardyne, will agree—that means, in common sense terms, shareholders in equities. Therefore, the narrow terms of the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper make it quite unnecessary—indeed, I would not wish to do so—to enlarge on the economic significance of the big City institutions, the way they benefit the country, the way that they operate, the degree of essentiality that they have to the economy as a whole. The comprehensive nature of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, with which I very largely agree, enables me to avoid if only in the interests of time dealing with the matters with which he dealt so very clearly.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, if he will forgive me saying so, seemed to be full of gloom and doom this afternoon. He did not see very much hope for the individual equity shareholder at any rate. He seemed to be very apprehensive about the consequences of the Big Bang, and he uttered strong warnings (with which I am bound to say I heartily agree) about the control of the capital market as such passing largely into what he termed the very large conglomerates. With all these things, I am bound to say that I agree with him. I share his apprehensions. But of course a broader debate on this whole aspect of the matter as to what is going to happen to the structure and effect of the whole City of London institutions and their significance in the world, I think, ought to await the publication of the Government's Bill and the completion of the various arrangements upon which the Stock Exchange and the various other

815
institutions are still apparently locked in deep discussion, if not deep disagreement.
With your permission, my Lords, I will come back to the interests of the individual shareholders. Who are they? The number of individual shareholders in equities in this country are somewhere—as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, put it—in the region of 4 per cent. of the adult population. That is not very big. It may well be that, owing to the privatisation measures that have taken place in recent years and upon which I have already commented and upon which I shall not enlarge, the number of shareholders in the country may have increased but slightly; bearing in mind the fact that those that have gone in for stagging purposes and have gone out with a quick profit are unlikely to re-enter the market, and also a good number of those who took up shares in these newly-privatised organisations were probably already individual shareholders in their own right.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but; in what he has just been saying, is he really allowing for the effect of British Telecom privatisation? The best estimates were that there were about 1.8 million individual shareholders who took up shares in British Telecom. Even if one accepts that there was an element of overlap with those who were already shareholders, and that some may have gone in for stagging purposes, the increase in the immediate shareholding population must have been very large in any case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, yes, I accept the point which the noble Lord has made. We shall have to wait until the figures are available to show the degree of stagging that has taken place. But the noble Lord will be well aware that in previous privatisation issues, the stagging rate has been roughly 70 per cent. of the original applications. I do not know what is the stagging rate in the case of British Telecom, but I should imagine, in view of the very lush profits that became immediately available, there would be quite large numbers of investors who would be only too happy to get a profit. But even so, even on the assumption that they are all new shareholders, it is quite clear that the individual investor in this country, the individual shareholder, is a minority of the population—not that they are not important, as I shall endeavour to show.
But the fact of the matter is that some 96 per cent. of the disposable wealth of the country is owned by 50 per cent. of the country; some 4 per cent. by the remaining 50 per cent.; and it is fairly clear that even on the basis of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the adult population being shareholders, they are going to belong to those in the main—not always—who have incomes above some £15,000 a year. I rely for these figures, I am happy to say, on the journals of my own bank, the National Westminster Bank, which they are pleased to send me every month or so; and I have the figures in front of me.
Certainly they do not justify the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in the course of the debate on 5th June, when talking of privatisation, that it gives everyone—everyone!—an opportunity to own a real share in the nation's assets. That, to describe it in the
816
most polite terms—and I shall repeat it when next I have the opportunity of confronting the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—is a lot of poppycock. The fact of the matter is that the shareholding population is a very small one and it cannot be assumed that we are even bordering upon that heaven of all heavens which is so frequently enlarged upon, with the euphoria of the Government Benches, as what they describe as a property-owning democracy. The bulk of the people of the country have no disposable property in the sense that gives them any sense of identity with the capital structure in the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that citizens of our country who are fortunate enough to be able to have the resources (after mortgage payments, not taking into account the amounts that they have on deposit with their building societies or elsewhere) are able to make investment in equities. And it is quite right and quite proper that these should be protected. We have to judge the Government's proposals within this rather narrow context as to how likely they are able to give the investors, albeit a restricted number of citizens of our country, that degree of protection to which they feel entitled.
Perhaps I ought to say too that, by and large, in the same way as the bulk of the citizens of the United Kingdom are decent, law-abiding people, so those that conduct our City institutions, the banks, the insurance companies, the investment trusts and so on, are honourable men. It is only a minority against which protection has to be afforded. I am bound to say that if a small investor wants to choose a stockbroker—if he is in that happy position and is not what we would call, rather loosely, the "professional amateur" with larger resources who can employ the services of his own accountant, his own lawyers, his own bankers, as the case may be—then the best thing to do is to get somebody who has been recommended to him. If one operates on the recommendation of an individual who has already had experience of a stockbroker, by and large that is likely to be the most effective way of choosing a stockbroker.
There are two aspects regarding the individual shareholder which need to be taken into account. First, he needs to have reliable information on which to base his judgment. Advice from friends in that connection is not always advice that one can take much account of. I personally make it a rule never to give a person a tip about a horse or an investment: that is the finest way of losing friends.
But information there has to be. I observed with some pleasure that the Government intend to take action in regard to tip sheets. Tip sheets tend to be very persuasive. They come through the post to a selected number of individuals, and occasionally I get one myself. I am bound to say that very often their accuracy can be called into question. I am quite sure that a large number of people may well place undue reliance on them. So I welcome the intention of the Government, when it comes to legislation—at least, that is what is put forward in the White Paper—that the publishers of tip sheets will have to be authorised. In that connection, I should like to ask the noble Lord what will be the criteria by which such approvals will be authorised and under what conditions.
I am a little worried about the exclusion of newspapers and periodicals from this form of control

817
which the Government propose to take. There have been many cases in the past where very persuasive articles have appeared in newspapers, advocating the purchase of this or that share which has not proved all that reliable. There have been cases, which I think may be within the recollection of those of your Lordships who have studied this subject in the press during the last 10 years or so, where subsequently a rather strong connection has been found between the author, the tipster in the newspaper, and the company concerned or some of the leading investors involved. Therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should take another look at this.
In regard to the professional advice that is given, I welcome also the Government's intention to do something about the licensing of those who are entitled to enter into what they call the investment business. They include people such as lawyers, professional accountants and so on. I gather that certain rules are going to be made, for example, in the case of a firm of practising accountants. If a large part of their business consists of investment advice, there are going to be certain special procedures, special undertakings and certain special steps that will have to be taken.
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who referred to published prospectuses in the United States. I am bound to say that complete compliance with the Stock Exchange regulations has produced a form of prospectus which contains, for reasons of space, some very small type, which makes very tedious reading, and a person is supposed to read that before making up his mind on an investment. One has a suspicion that this small type is less for the information of the prospective investor, who in the end will rely on his own hunch, than to be in strict compliance with the Stock Exchange regulations.
However, that must not be taken as being any criticism of the Stock Exchange regulations. If all companies, whether the placing were private or public—and I am talking now particularly of private places—were to adhere in their presentation to the requirements of the Stock Exchange, there would be far less fraud and far less violence done to the interests of individual investors. Information, therefore, has to be accurate and there must be some way in which the Government can protect the ordinary citizens, or those 3 million or so who feel inclined to invest or who can afford to do so, by keeping the particulars accurate.
One way of investing, as I have said before, is to choose a stockbroker on a personal recommendation, because that normally means that they have had a good experience. I shall not deal with the whole question of Chinese Walls, which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, save only to say that I agree with him. The Government have themselves, quite rightly, cast some doubt in their report upon the ultimate effectiveness here. However, I am not sure whether their own way of going about it will be very much better, because they have enunciated certain principles which they regard as being absolutely cardinal to any regulation which is ultimately agreed by the Stock Exchange and by the City generally. The principles which have been
818
outlined are very admirable but, with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I am bothered about the enforcement. I hope that in the wider interests of the City—and of course that goes far beyond the question of the small individual investor to which, quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has given such emphasis—the regulations which are published will be effective.
May I also underline again the point that if there is to be a law governing this and governing the framework, then it is no good, as in the case of the insurance Act of 1982, publishing the law but not making it an offence to break it. That is one of the things that may have lain behind a good deal of what has happened at Lloyd's recently.
I am hopeful that as a result of all the discussions taking place much good will come out of this. However, I should like to disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, of one of his beliefs, if he will forgive me. In the only party political observation that he was kind enough to make, he envisaged a kind of flight from the pound if there was a change of Government. There will undoubtedly be a change of Government, but I can assure your Lordships that the world at large will have far greater confidence in a Government who take steps to ensure that all the factors of production, human and mechanical, are used than in a Government who have promoted a situation where there are 4 million unemployed and where a vast amount of equipment is left idle and rotting.
8.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I really am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for providing us with the first opportunity we have had of discussing in your Lordships' House this White Paper. Perhaps I could also say that I am personally grateful to him because when we discussed this matter shortly after the publication of the White Paper, it was his intention to put down a Question at that time. I asked him if he would be kind enough to delay it because I felt that we would have a better response generally throughout the country if it were delayed. So I am doubly indebted to him for this opportunity. It does of course also give me the opportunity at the same time to pay tribute to the work of Professor Gower, upon whose report so much of the White Paper is based.
The modernisation of the law on investor protection, and more effective enforcement, has become more important in the face of the many new and major changes that are taking place in the City. I believe that these changes will help to ensure that Britain remains one of the main financial centres of the world, and that British firms can compete effectively internationally.
All the noble Lords who have made their contributions this evening have paid tribute, I think quite properly, to the City in general terms; to the way they conduct their business and the value to our nation of the work that is done. Nevertheless, the changes that are occurring will create new problems and certainly new conflicts of interest, so that there will have to be new rules and methods of regulation to ensure that these changes are dealt with properly and that

819
investors' interests, whether they be large or small, are properly protected.
The proposals in the White Paper for a new framework for investor protection have been generally welcomed. I have pages and pages of notations from interested parties who have responded to our invitation to consult. In the main, I can tell your Lordships that they are favourable comments. Certainly all those comments—and indeed all the comments that have been made tonight by noble Lords—will be taken into account in drafting the legislation, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry hopes to be able to introduce in the next Session. Then no doubt we shall return to some of the more detailed points that have been made tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asks in his Question whether the Government are satisfied that the proposals in the White Paper will promote the interests of individual small shareholders. I take this opportunity to assure him that it is their interests that were very much in mind when the proposals were prepared.
The promotion of wider share ownership, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was somewhat sceptical, is a cause which the Government warmly support, as I know does the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said in February of this year when he was responding to a debate on wider share ownership:
"The Government hope that the extension of private property ownership will enhance and emphasise the responsibility of the individual for both his own welfare and the welfare of his fellow citizens. It is part of the process of shifting power and responsibility from the State to the individual and, as such, is fundamental to the Government's basic philosophical approach to the job of government".
In particular, my noble friend went on to say,
"a wider spread of share ownership develops a community of interest in economic matters".—[Official Report, 20/2/85; col. 660.]
I do not dissent from what my noble friend said on that day and I shall repeat it in answer to the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made with regard to a democracy which has a share in the wealth of the country. It is this Government's policies that have enabled this to move somewhat faster in recent years than in previous years.
But of course individuals will not invest unless they are quite confident that they will get a fair deal. This is particularly important for a small investor with limited financial resources who may himself not be an expert. I may say also that the National Westminster Bank look after a small portion of my small amounts of money. I think that I might probably argue with their base figure of £15,000 because I do know people who have subscribed—notably to the National Freight Corporation, to British Telecom and to others—who have considerably less earning power than that. So I do not think it is a point on which to take great issue. Nevertheless it is people with such limited incomes who need the greater help.
Certainly one of the Government's principal objectives is to devise a regulatory system which ensures that the financial services sector in the United
820
Kingdom is a fair place in which to do business, and where the small investor can confidently expect that his business will be handled with competence, honesty and regard for his individual circumstances.
However, I would underline that, as the White Paper emphasises, no regulatory system can, or indeed I think should, relieve the investor from exercising his own judgment and care in deciding how to invest his money. The Government's proposals are not intended as a substitute for the exercise of proper judgment and responsibility by the investor. The proposals are, however, to ensure that that judgment is reasonably and properly informed. If he makes a foolish decision on the basis of adequate disclosure, venturing all his savings in a high-risk proposition which fails for straightforward commercial reasons, he should certainly not look to any agency or Government department to make good the losses.
The central provision of the legislation will be a new and comprehensive definition of what constitutes investment and investment business. It will be an offence to carry on such business without authorisation, so that the investor who is dealing with an authorised business will know that that business is regarded as being "fit and proper" to undertake investment activities and will be subject to rules designed to ensure the proper conduct of those activities. There will be rules requiring disclosure of the information that an investor will need to make a decision, and the definition of investment business will include the giving of investment advice. In the proposed legislation, advisers will be under a duty of skill and care. They will also be under a duty to take account of the circumstances of each client and to dislose their own interests.
The principles governing the conduct of business rules will ensure that the boards make rules requiring investment business to segregate funds belonging to their clients and to have adequate compensation arrangements in the event of loss arising from fraud, negligence or failure to comply with the requirements for the protection of clients' assets.
Some of the comments that we have received on the White Paper suggest that our proposals on these points go too far and will be unduly costly. All I can say at this stage is that of course we will have to consider those comments; but it remains our objective that there will be full segregation and full compensation for private investors in the circumstances which I have just described. It will be for the Boards to work out the details of the segregation and compensation arrangements; but the Government will be required to be satisfied that those arrangements provide the kind of protection that I have just described. The new bodies—the Securities and Investment Board and the Marketing of Investments Board—have a key role to play in the new arrangements. It is for them to draw up rules for the authorisation of investment businesses and the conduct of business. The business rules will have to cater satisfactorily for the principles described in the White Paper which cover the subject of safeguards against conflicts of interests, compensation, and, as I say, protection of clients' assets. The boards will have to convince the Secretary of State that their proposed rules provide adequate investor protection before they receive delegated powers from the

821
Secretary of State. The boards will then—and I think that this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about—have a duty to monitor and enforce those rules and, if necessary, to update them.
One of the main advantages of the system of self-regulation within a statutory framework is that the regulation will be undertaken by bodies on which both practitioners and users of financial services are represented, and which can identify and respond quickly to any changes. I should perhaps say, because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is particularly concerned with consumer matters—I am sure he will know, but it is worth while underlining it—that the chairman of the Consumers' Association is a member of both boards, so there is a consumer representation. This has been raised in a number of comments which we have received.
I want to turn now to some of the main questions that have arisen and I should like to begin with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on sanctions. The boards will be able to reprimand, to impose conditions on doing business, to prevent the taking on of new business and to take other measures to protect investors in the event of a company being unfit or not proper. They will also have the power to withdraw authorisation to practice. That is, in itself, a fairly heavy sanction. That duty is commensurate with their overriding duty to protect investors, but, at the same time, they, have to ensure, alongside that responsibility, that an efficient United Kingdom financial services industry is sustained.
The noble Lord asked me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the matter of conflicts of interest. We recognise that there may well be more conflicts of interest and it will be the boards' duty to devise rules which prevent abuse in such conflicts, and the Government will have to be quite satisfied that those rules are adequate. Until the Secretary of State is satisfied, his powers will not be delegated to the boards.
We believe that there will be a continuing role for brokers providing personal service for individual small investors. Provided that that service is efficiently run, I am quite sure that there will be people willing and able to meet the demand of the smaller investor. Those companies will enjoy, and be able to pass on, the benefits of the advance of IT and modern technology and communications systems. It will probably be competition which will, at the end of the day, determine the level of commission chargeable to small investors.
I cannot predict whether commissions will rise or fall, but I would certainly expect a service enabling investors to choose between paying for a package of advice and dealing services, or as now paying rather less for a deal-only service. The Stock Exchange itself has set up an advisory committee to consider how to assist its members to be more accessible to the small investor and how to handle small commissions.
The noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Bruce of Donington, as well as my noble friend Lord BruceGardyne, spoke about tip sheets. Certainly, tip sheets will be required to be authorised, and I would expect the SIB to draw up a code of practice for share tipsters
822
which will need to make provision for adequate disclosure of interest in any share recommendation. The bona fide newspaper or magazine will not—certainly on current thinking—be required to be authorised, but we would expect that on a voluntary basis they will insist on their financial journalists observing the same code.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised in this context a number of points with regard to financial correspondents and the advice that they give. I should like to look further into that matter, rather than respond tonight. I feel sure that when we come to deal with the Bill he will want some detailed answers, if we have not already provided them, but I should like to do it then.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about life assurance. The White Paper states:
"Non-life insurance policies are not commonly regarded as investments and would not be treated as such in the proposed legislation."
I take note of what he says, and of course, we will consider that. I should also want to consider further the general position that is now obtaining, since the life assurance industry is developing licensing and, to some extent, those proposals were drawn up to deal with marketing issues to which the White Paper is addressed. It is largely a matter for the industry and the organising committees to decide how best to restructure those proposed licensing arrangements in the light of the White Paper.
My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, both asked how complaints were to be dealt with. It is proposed that the boards will be responsible for investigating complaints about authorised business. The Department of Trade and Industry will be responsible for enforcing the criminal law; but, essentially, it is for the boards to work out sensible procedures for handling complaints. We shall have to see exactly what their proposals are in that direction—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I ask on that point whether the smaller shareholders spread around the country will be advised in some way of this complaints service when it is set up?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, an assurance that those dealing on behalf of the small investor will be under an obligation to point out his rights. Exactly how it will be done I do not know, but I think that the noble Lord may rest assured on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, touched upon the accounting profession. I know that it is so very near and dear to his heart, and I should like to say this to him. The importance of the auditors' watchdog role in the new system to be set up under the proposed Financial Services Bill cannot be over-emphasised. Legislation to strengthen their position might very well be included in the Bill if we thought it was necessary, and we are, of course, talking with them as to the necessity of that.
My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne expressed some little scepticism in his opening remarks, and I shall not join him and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of

823
Donington, with regard to the flight of the pound in the event of certain totally hypothetical circumstances occurring. I myself cannot foresee them. But what I would say to my noble friend is, yes, there are moneymakers for raising capital, and I would point to the huge success of, for example, the unlisted market. I should not particulary want to quarrel with the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned with regard to the proportion of people being share owners. What I would say is that a very large number of initial shareholders in BT are still shareholders today. We shall see what the proportions are in two years' time. But let us not forget that more than 90 per cent. of the original shareholders in the National Freight Corporation still have shares. I believe that as people understand more about share owning, its risks as well as its advantages, more people will buy shares. More people will therefore need the services that are outlined in the White Paper.
The proposals are of particular benefit to the small investor. The institutional investor, the professional investor and the rich normally have either their own knowledge or their own expertise, but certainly they have the ability to buy the best advice. It is the small investor, the person thinking of investing in securities perhaps for the first time, who may need more guidance. The proposed legislation as outlined in the White Paper which we have been discussing this evening will help in this respect. It will give them the confidence that they will not suffer unfairly from their relative inexperience. They will be able to obtain the information and advice they need, and that will encourage them to invest more widely.
Finally, and perhaps at the risk of repetition, I emphasise that we in the Government recognise that it is the first-time and smaller investors who are most vulnerable in this field. It is their interests that the proposals in the White Paper are designed to protect.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him what the response of the people consulted by the Government has been as to whether there should be one or two boards? That was the question I put to the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government have a fairly open mind still as to whether there should be one or two. One has to remember—this is not to prejudge any issue—that the chairman of SIB is on the MIBOC, and vice versa. There is a lot of cross-fertilisation. The chief executive and the secretariat serve both boards. In effect, one might say there is one. If, as we go along in these next few months, both boards decide that the functions could better be arranged and undertaken under a single named board, the Government would be quite sympathetic to any suggestion put to them.

Streatham Park Cemetery Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

Representation of the People Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain of the amendments agreed to and the remaining amendments disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement; the Reason ordered to be printed.
Housing Bill [H.L.]
Housing Associations Bill [H.L.]
Landlord and Tenant Bill [H.L.]
Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  HUNTINGDON MAGISTRATES' COURT: ACCOMMODATION
  HUNTINGDON MAGISTRATES' COURT: ACCOMMODATION
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: EXPENDITURE LIMITS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: EXPENDITURE LIMITS
  MISS HILDA MURRELL
  MISS HILDA MURRELL
  IMPORTED GOODS: COPYING OF BRITISH PRODUCTS
  IMPORTED GOODS: COPYING OF BRITISH PRODUCTS
  COMPANIES' POLITICAL DONATIONS: SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL
  COMPANIES' POLITICAL DONATIONS: SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL
  HAINAULT FOREST: FUTURE MANAGEMENT
  HAINAULT FOREST: FUTURE MANAGEMENT
  TRAINING BARRACKS: FUTURE USE
  TRAINING BARRACKS: FUTURE USE