Sitting of 7 November 1985

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

  Park Lane Hospital, Liverpool (Restricted Patients)
  2.34 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his decision to reveal the details of a patient whose application for release from Park Lane hospital, Liverpool, is due to be heard at a mental health review tribunal on Monday 11 November.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is charged by Parliament, inter alia, with responsibility for the discharge and recall of restricted patients and is accountable to Parliament and the public for the exercise or refusal to exercise those powers. Since 1983, mental health review tribunals have also had the power to discharge restricted patients. On 9 April 1984 and subsequently on 4 July 1985 in answer to questions from the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), I indicated in the case of the restricted patient referred to in the hon. Member's present question that the then Home Secretary and I took the firm view that that patient was not fit to be released into the community. On 30 October 1985 I gave full details of the discharge and recall of another restricted patient in answer to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). The matters contained in those answers are on the public record and the propriety of giving those answers has never before been challenged. Subsequently, I drew attention to them in the course of a discussion with a journalist which touched on a number of matters of current concern.
  Mr. Soley: It is important to point out that this question does not concern itself with the individual who has been named by both the Minister and the press—it concerns the law and the way in which the law has been used or misused by the Minister.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we in this country do not want trial or tribunal by press, and that the Daily Mail was used by him to strike terror into the hearts of people, even though he has other ways of achieving his aims and ambitions? Was not the law changed by this Government in order to make sure that cases such as this were judicial hearings, as the Government were obliged to do by the Strasbourg decision? Are not both the Minister and the Daily Mail in contempt of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983, in particular rule 21(5) which states:
  "Except in so far as the tribunal direct, information about proceedings before the tribunal and the names of any persons concerned in the proceedings shall not be made public"?
  110
  As the tribunal did not so direct, the Minister is in breach of the Act. In view of the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday about the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting the courts, we want to know whether the Minister will resign.
  Mr. Mellor: He will certainly not resign. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has put a novel proposition to the House. The restricted patient who was the subject of his question made an application to a tribunal in November 1983 and that tribunal was finally disposed of on 1 August 1984. During the time that matter was before the tribunal, a question was asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and I answered it on 9 April 1984 stating categorically the Home Secretary's view that the man was not fit to be released. No question about the propriety of that answer was raised either after it had been given or by the officers of this House. The individual concerned made a further application for a tribunal in December 1984, and that tribunal is due to consider the application on 11 November 1985. I answered that question on 4 July 1985 in the terms I have already indicated without any suggestion that this was in breach of any rules.
  It is an extraordinary assertion that it is perfectly proper to give an answer in this House but apparently not proper to respond to a journalist's question about that answer. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of open government, and he seems to be quite remiss in challenging this particularly encouraging example of it.
  Sir Ian Percival: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people believe that, when Home Office Ministers have cause for concern that the release of a prisoner would bring danger to innocent people, they have a duty to voice that concern and the reasons for it as fully and as publicly as the law permits?
  The majority will hope that those who have to make such difficult decisions will pay careful regard to that concern and will always put first the safety of those who would be at risk if there were a release.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that I should not be content with anything less than the full answer that he gave me about a man who was released from Park Lane nearly six months ago and has now been recalled? Is he further aware that my constituents and I are grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern about the dangers to potential victims and for doing something about it?
  Mr. Mellor: I am much heartened by my right hon and learned Friend's remarks and I am grateful to him. I am particularly encouraged because of his knowledge of our law. For the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend gave, the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is strange because he knows that the Secretary of State still has the jurisdiction that he has always had and is accountable to the House for the exercise of that jurisdiction. His jurisdiction is in no sense ousted by the existence of a parallel jurisdiction over parts of the matter by a mental health review tribunal. If the hon Gentleman's assertion were right, a grave error would have been made by the authorities in this House in allowing to be tabled and fully answered such questions about a matter of grave public concern relating to public safety and the release of two serious sex offenders. Between November 1983 and today there would have been

  111
  a period of only three months within which I or my right hon. Friend would have been answerable to the House for the exercise of our powers. That simply cannot be right.
  Mr. David Alton: I accept the natural public concern about the possible release of someone involved in the murder of a child, but why has the Minister decided to fight his battles in public via the press instead of coming to the House with evidence if he sincerely believes that the mental health tribunal procedure is not working adequately?
  Mr. Mellor: I am heartened that the hon. Gentleman thinks it understandable for concern to be expressed about the release of child sex murderers. I am sure that is a step in the right direction for the Liberal party. As to what might or might not have been said, I have already made it clear that what I said to the journalist echoed and repeated matters which had already been laid before the House. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a good point.

  Business of the House
  2.43 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the business for next week?
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): As the House is aware, the debate on the address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 13 November.
  The Business for the remainder of the week will be as follows:
  THURSDAY 14 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of European Community documents in relation to the draft budgets of the European Communities for 1985 and 1986. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
  FRIDAY 15 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on road safety on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, the First Report from the Transport Committee 1984–85 (House of Commons paper 103–1 to 3) and the Government's observations (House of Commons paper 553) will be relevant.
  MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
  The following European Community documents will be relevant to the debate on Thursday 14 November:

  (a) 5874/85

  Letter of amendment No. 3 to the preliminary draft budget for 1985

  (b)6378/85 6379/85

  Draft general budget for 1985

  (c) 6882/85

  European Parliament's amendments and modifications to the draft budget for 1985

  (d) 6907/85 to 6914/85

  Council's decisions on the European Parliament's amendments and proposed modifications

  (e) 7882/85 and COM(85)325

  Key figures for the 1986 budget

  (f) COM(85)175

  Preliminary draft budget for 1986

  (g) COM(85)550

  Letter of amendment to the preliminary draft budget for 1986

  (h) 9336/85

  The draft budget for 1986

  (i) 8479/85

  Charging food aid expenditure under the budget

  Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

  (a) HC 5-xvii (1984–85), paragraph 3

  (b) HC 5-xxi (1984–85), paragraph 7

  (c) HC 5-xxiii (1984–85), paragraph 2

  (d) HC 5-xxvii (1984–85), paragraph 3

  (e) HC 5-xxv (1984–85), paragraph 2

  (f) HC 5-xxx (1984–85), paragraph 16

  (g) HC 5-xxx 1984–85), paragraph 16

  (h) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85), paragraph 7

  (i) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85), paragraph 5

  Mr. Kinnock: Press speculation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House next Tuesday to inform us of the contents of the Government's autumn statement. If that is correct, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a full day's debate on the statement rather earlier than was the case last year, when we had to wait until 6 December?
  Earlier this year I asked a number of times when the House would be able to debate the televising of our

  113
  proceedings. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a firm date for that debate because there is widespread interest in the House?
  There are disturbing reports that the Sunday trading legislation will be introduced in the House of Lords. If that is so, the Opposition will strenuously oppose such a move.
  The Prime Minister yesterday acknowledged that the matter would cause some difficulty—her words—to her hon. Friends. Is the decision to start the legislation in another place an attempt to give the Chief Whip of the Conservative party more time to soften opposition from his own Benches?
  On 25 July, in a reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Leader of the House said that he would ask the Foreign Secretary to comment on the Third Report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. When will there be a debate on that report, which was published on 22 July? Important minority and majority elements are involved.
  I note that there will be a debate on the Local Government Bill on Monday week. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why no mention of that Bill was made in the Gracious Speech? Was it because he feared that it might have consitiuted political advertising?
  Mr. Biffen: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I confess that I cannot immediately think of a compelling reply, but doubtless one will be forthcoming from the relevant Minister when the Bill is debated.
  Taking the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order, I shall consider a debate on the report of the Select committee on Foreign Affairs. Doubtless the matter can be considered through the usual channels.
  As to the shops Bill, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman yesterday demonstrated a rather charming poetic side to his nature, and he has allowed that romanticism to run a little further this afternoon. There is no question of the government having difficulty with the Bill. The recommendations of the Auld report were confirmed by 304 to 184 votes in the last Session. I know that poetry often finds it difficult to accommodate pure arithmetic, but that is how the matter stands
  As to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary wanting time to secure his ends, I can only say that he is possessed of that most enviable of qualities, instant charm, so we foresee no difficulties. However, having said all that, this matter can be discussed through the usual channels if it causes deep anxiety to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I hope to refer to the question of televising the House when I reply to the debate on the Loyal Address. However, I wish to say here and now that I hope that a debate will take place this month.
  I am happy to confirm that the autumn statement will be presented on Tuesday, conforming with last year's practice. I recognise the very real interest of the right hon. Gentleman in having a debate as early as is reasonably practicable, having regard to all the interests in the House, which include the Select Committee. I hope that we can consider the matter amicably through the usual channels.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: On the autumn statement, will my right hon. Friend take fully into account the fact that the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service will no doubt wish to take evidence from officials and the Chancellor and then report as soon as
  114
  possible? Obviously, it greatly benefits the House to have the Select Committee's report before the autumn statement is debated.
  Mr. Biffen: I recognise my right hon. Friend's point at once and acknowledge the most constructive role that he has played in these matters. I know that he will understand that there is a general interest in the House in debating the autumn statement reasonably soon because of its high political interest.
  Mr. David Alton: In view of the Government's statement over the weekend that they were concerned about the failure of the South African Government to allow journalists to report upon the troubles in the black townships, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made on that important matter next week?
  Mr. Biffen: I think that tomorrow's debate is related to foreign affairs, and the hon. Gentleman's point could well be made then.
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for once—and I hope for the last time—I am in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition that it would be wrong if the Government originated the legislation on the shops Bill in the House of Lords? I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware that Conservative Members feel as strongly as Opposition Members about that measure. Can we have some reassurance from him today?
  Mr. Biffen: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, and that is why I said that it was a matter for the usual channels. After all, there is the consideration that a good sound majority in this House could disarm the bishops.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman gave an emollient answer about the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Might it be helpful if, before that debate, the Leader of the House arranged for the Government to put in the Library a copy of Sir John Nott's first draft on the events of 4 May 1982, which was withheld from the Select Committee?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that matter.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: In the light of continuing rumours that increasingly serious consideration is being given in Government circles to the possibility of Britain joining the European monetary system, may we have a debate, if only a three-hour one, on that subject before any final decisions are taken so that those of us who would have grave misgivings about the wisdom of such a course might deploy our arguments?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall not comment on the merit of what my hon. Friend is arguing, but he will have plenty of opportunity to make his propositions to the Chancellor next Wednesday.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make the necessary arrangements for a debate on the financing of political parties? Is he interested to learn that during the recess—I like to keep the right hon. Gentleman up to date—I happened to spot that the alliance received £2,500 from General Accident, a

  115
  company that is trading in South Africa, is paying poverty-stricken wages, is refusing to abide by a reasonable code of conduct and is not answering letters on this subject? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good debate if we could persuade to take part in it the leaders of the Liberal party and the SDP, to both of whom I have written asking them to send this dirty money back to the dark alleyways of South Africa from whence it came?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Skinner: I gather from Mr. Speaker's remark that the Chair would like me to conclude my remarks on this issue, probably because both leaders are missing from the Chamber; I am told that a bit of a quarrel is going on. In such a debate it would be interesting to hear the views of the leader of the SDP, because in response to my letter he said—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House can answer only for himself. He cannot answer for other people.
  Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House is showing great interest in the matter that I am raising, Mr. Speaker, and I am anxious to get the facts right. The leader of the Social Democrats said, in effect, "I am not sure that what you have said is true". But the Leader of the Liberal party in effect answered, "Yes, it's true, but it was only a teeny little bit of money."
  Mr. Biffen: I am absolutely fascinated by that contribution and I should like to be as forthcoming as possible in response to it, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the Government have only a limited amount of time at their disposal. He will be aware that last Session the House, in its wisdom, made time available to those sitting below the Gangway, and I am sure that there will be widespread interest in how that time is utilised by them, whether they choose to use it to vindicate the action that the hon. Gentleman has described or whether they find some other way to explain that extraordinary behaviour.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When the promised debate on televising the Chamber takes place, can it take place in circumstances that will prevent the House from being hoodwinked? In other words, can it be with the full panoply of lights, so that hon. Members can see how intrusive the lights are and how substantially they raise both sorts of temperature in the Chamber—and pander to certain hon. Members who like self-seeking publicity?
  Mr. Biffen: It has been my experience that on this topic the imagination of hon. Members is brilliance enough.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will be aware of the considerable anger that is felt among teachers about the treatment that the Government have meted out to them in the last nine months. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State, either in his speech on the Address on Monday or in a statement next week, to come forward with some positive proposals to settle the teachers' dispute?
  Mr. Biffen: I could not for a moment accept the description of the teachers' dispute as portrayed by the
  116
  hon. Gentleman, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point he makes, particularly as he will be taking part in the debate on Monday.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The word "unique" is over used and abused, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the manner, extent and size of the decision about the Channel tunnel that the Government must take is an especially unusual one? Can he say how the Government propose to handle the matter in the House? Is there to be a debate before the decision is taken? In the light of the timetable that has been announced there is not much parliamentary time left before that major decision is reached.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It echoes a question that was put to me a short while ago. I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement fairly soon about the timing.
  Mr. Ken Eastham: May I refer the Leader of the House to our previous exchange over ex-far eastern prisoners of war and the forgotten army, and pay tribute to him and say how much I appreciate his letter, in which he outlined the extent of the problem, which involves 58,000 people? I have now written to the Prime Minister to ask whether she will kindly receive a deputation, but, failing progress on that, may I ask whether there is any possibility of the Leader of the House providing time on the Floor of the House for a debate on the subject of the treatment of ex-prisoners of war?
  Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that I cannot offer the prospect of Government time devoted specifically to that debate, but I suggest that it would make an admirable subject for an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a debate as to whether this democratically elected Parliament should continue to submit itself to the will and whims of an appointed bench of judges the other side of the Channel, and, if so, when should that be?
  Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer an early prospect, at least, for such a debate in Government time.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Leader of the House arrange for himself, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Privileges, to make a statement next week, if not now, on the departure from the normal arrangements for the way that Select Committees are being organised, because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, has published his minority report and draft amendment to the majority report of the Select Committee on the Environment's inquiry into the disposal of nuclear waste, without the majority report having been finished, let alone circulated? That draft minority report and amendment to a non-existent majority report has been distributed to people outside the House but not to members of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Biffen: All I can say is that what goes on in Select Committees is even worse than what goes on in the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman mentioned privilege. He will appreciate that there is a means whereby a claim that a privilege is breached can be referred. It does not involve me.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has raised an important and grave matter? The recommendations of that Select Committee, which met to deal with those matters, included changes and those changes must be approved by Parliament. When does the Leader of the House intend to secure time for a debate on that report so that we shall be able to examine in detail what happened when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) leaked a report which is doing substantial damage to industry within the county of Cumbria? It can only be perceived, in all reality, as a hysterical over-response and misunderstanding of the essential issues in the nuclear debate.
  Mr. Biffen: I have a vested interested in conciliation. I believe that the matter should be kept in a reasonable perspective and, I suggest, in the first instance, that the matter should be referred to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it because "winter is a'comin in" that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has gone into early hibernation and fallen silent on the subject of aid to farmers devastated by the summer weather?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the request for more grants to the farming community.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Leader of the House take urgent steps to remedy the present unsatisfactory position whereby the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has now only eight full members. I should be grateful if he would take those steps.
  Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says but I should not like to say anything that gave him encouragement.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend please accept that there is widespread concern over any possibility of Sunday trading, and that in the General Synod of the Church of England only one member voted for Sunday trading? Therefore, will he please ensure—and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said—that there will be a debate in this House rather than in the House up the Corridor? Will my right hon. Friend also ensure that there will be a free vote, because it is a matter of conscience, and that cannot be overlooked.
  Mr. Biffen: I note the Soviet-like majorities being secured in the General Synod on a topic which, on many other tests of opinion, seems remarkably popular. However, I note what my hon. Friend said, and I shall be discussing it through the usual channels. The matter of voting is for the Patronage Secretary.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the very serious decisions that have already been taken and are being implemented concerning the steel industry, will the Leader of the House tell us when we can look forward to a debate, especially on the proposed closure of Gartcosh? Will he accept that such a debate would give my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) an opportunity to explain how prosperous the steel industry was when he was a member of the Government, compared with the way things are today?
  Mr. Biffen: It would have to be a very extended debate to secure that ambition. On Tuesday, the debate on the Queen's Speech will cover industrial and employment matters, and that would be a very suitable occasion on which to raise the question.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House prevail upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House, if not this week, next week, to make a statement on Liverpool city council?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall pass on that request. Meanwhile, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on the topic on Monday 18 November.
  Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern in the north-west about the proposals put forward by the metropolitan borough councils in the Greater Manchester area for the future running of the Manchester international airport? Will he pass on the fears of many Conservative Members to his right hon. Friend and ask for an early statement?
  Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly comply with that request.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm to the House that you have received a formal letter from me with a privileges complaint against the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and that my complaint is based on the fact that he has indicated the deliberative position of the Select Committee on the Environment on a particular issue?
  Mr. Speaker: I confirm to the hon. Member that I have received his letter and that I shall be considering it.

BILLS PRESENTED
  AGRICULTURE
  Mr. Michael Jopling, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer and Mrs. Peggy Fenner, presented a Bill to make further provision relating to agriculture and agricultural and other food products, horticulture and the countryside; and for connected matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 2.]
  OKEHAMPTON BYPASS (CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS)
  Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mrs. Angela Rumbold, presented a Bill to confirm, for the purposes of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, two compulsory purchase orders made by the Secretary of State under the Highways Act 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for purposes connected with the construction of the Okehampton Bypass: And the same was ordered to be considered tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 3.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LOANS)
  Mr. Secretary King, supported by Mr. Ian Stewart, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Richard Needham presented (under Standing Order No. 111

  119
  (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a change upon the public revenue)) a Bill to increase the limit imposed by section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 1.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Secretary Baker, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John MacGregor and Mr. William Waldegrave, presented a Bill to require rating authorities to set a rate on or before 1st April; to prohibit political publicity and otherwise restrain local authority publicity; to require the mortgagor's consent and make other provision in connection with the disposal of local authority mortgages; to amend the Local Government Act 1972 as regards the allowances paid to members of certain authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].
  MUSEUM OF LONDON
  Mr. Richard Luce, supported by Mr. Secretary Baker and Mr. John Moore, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the composition and functions of the Board of Governors of the Museum of London and the funding of the Museum: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 5].
  ARMED FORCES
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. John Stanley, presented a Bill to continue the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 and to amend those Acts and the Armed Forces Act 1976 and the Armed Forces Act 1981: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 6].

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
In paragraph (3) the word "twelve" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 52; and in paragraph (6) the word "nine" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 77;
(2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 17th, 24th and 31st January, 7th, 14th and 21st February, 11th, 18th and 25th April, 2nd and 9th May and 4th July;
(3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 29th November, 6th and 13th December, 28th February, 7th, 14th and 21st March, 16th May, and 6th June and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 13th November, Wednesday 20th November, Wednesday 27th November, Wednesday 12th February, Wednesday 19th February, Wednesday 26th February, Wednesday 5th March, Wednesday 30th April and Wednesday 21st May;
(4) On Monday 16th December, Monday 10th February, Monday 12th May and Monday 7th July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 28th November, Thursday 23rd January, Thursday 24th April and Thursday 12th June;
(5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day.—[Mr. Biffen.]
3.3 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The motion—which the Leader of the House has just motionlessly made—relates to the availability of time for legislation initiated by Private Members. There arose, in the course of the last Session, a question in that context to which I believe the House will wish to give consideration and on which it will wish to arrive at a decision, namely, whether it ought to be possible for Private Members of this House, given sufficient support, to obtain the same facility as the Government have in relation to their own legislation, of extra time for the measures to be disposed of.
It is not, I think, a matter which the House would, at this stage and on this motion, wish to debate, but it is customary for the Leader of the House, in winding up the debate that is about to be resumed, to make certain remarks regarding the House and its procedures. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman were able to include a helpful reference to this matter when he comes to reply to the debate next week.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me motice that he would raise this matter. I am happy to confirm that I would like to touch upon the topic in my reply on Wednesday. Whether my remarks are helpful is a matter which depends very much on the ears of the receiver.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SECOND DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 November]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir Reginald Eyre]:—
  Question again proposed.

  Home Affairs
  3.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I must confess to some mixed feelings about the load of legislation which we in the Home Office have put upon ourselves in the coming Session. However, I have no mixed feelings about the subject for debate on the first day of the debate on the Gracious Speech. I welcome the chance to say something about how we see our work in the Home Office.
  I shall comment briefly, if it seems sensible to the House, on the four Bills which appear in the Gracious Speech as the responsibility of the Home Office and then give the House a topical account of how I see one of the main jobs, or perhaps the main job, of my Department, which is its overview of policing in England and Wales.
  Two of the Home Office Bills to which reference is made in the Gracious Speech relate to animal experiments and shops, and both have some points in common. They will both contain proposals for well-founded and well-researched reform. In both instances the present law is creaking badly and is becoming steadily more difficult to apply. In fact, the two statutes are worn out. In both instances there is genuine controversy and high feelings which have been, and certainly will be again, reflected in debates in Parliament.
  If the Government were feeble and exhausted, we would have decided to leave these matters untouched. They would have come under the heading "Too difficult". In that event, the deterioration and the impracticability of the present law would have continued. Instead, we have decided that the time has come to grasp both subjects.
  There have been some exchanges already this afternoon about Sunday trading, but I think that everyone, whatever his or her own view, accepts that the existing law is riddled with anomalies. It is widely disregarded and enforced patchily and without enthusiasm by local authorities. The Government sought advice from an independent committee, which concluded that the present law, the 1950 Act, was past patching. There will be plenty of opportunity to debate the issue fully. As the House knows, the Bill will be straight forward. It will be based on the recommendations of the Auld report, which the House has already debated.
  I recognise that many are concerned sincerely that the measure could affect the Sunday, which provides a break
  122
  in the rhythm of weekday life. I see the Bill much more as being in harmony with our general views on freedom of choice. It seems rather important that we should not end up replacing an old muddle with a new one. The Government's scheme, as the House will see, is relatively simple. I hope that Parliament will find that to be one of its attractions.
  We shall introduce a Bill on animal experiments, which will replace entirely the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. That Act has deserved a long life. The controls within it have turned out to be adaptable to the great changes and advances in science since its enactment, but the time has come to change it. The complexity and scale of experiments has increased enormously and a new system of control is necessary. There is much public interest and concern. We have published two White Papers on the matter, one in 1983 and one in 1985. We have consulted widely, and our proposals have been welcomed widely.
  We want to enact new arrangements that will strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the need to minimise animal suffering and, on the other, the need to maintain the advance of science and medicine. I hope that our proposals will provide a firm structure for future control and the encouragement of alternatives to animal experiments. I hope that the Bill which, although it is complicated and will arouse feelings, will be supported by the House.
  There are also two Home Office Bills that fall within the general rubric of law and order. I am glad that there has already been, from the Leader of the Opposition, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others, a general welcome for the principle of the Bill that provides for the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. There are important points here, which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) illustrated in a speech in Oxford the other day—a speech that I read with care. These important points are embedded in the Bill, but it fits, and necessarily fits, into our general strategy on drugs.
  As the House knows, much has already been done to reduce both the supply and demand for drugs. As a result of the measures that have been taken, the number of heroin seizures tripled between 1982–84 and in 1984 the quantity of heroin seized was 50 per cent. higher than in the preceding year—nearly as much as in the whole of the United States during the same period. The number of people convicted of drug trafficking last year was more than 4,000, which is an increase of 800 on 1983, and the number of adult drug offenders in prison in England and Wales rose by 600 from September 1984 until last June.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons for the increased statistics in respect of the amount of heroin seized is the dramatic increase in the amount of heroin that is coming into the country anyway but is not being seized? Is it not the same percentage volume seized of a much bigger inflow, and is that not true of the statistics about people arrested and imprisoned? Should not the Government make major resources available and do something on the international scene to prevent drugs coming into the country?
  Mr. Hurd: We are doing that. We have to operate on three main points. They are the point of production—countries, mainly in the Third world, where the drugs are

  123
  produced—the point of entry and the point of sale and consumption. We have already appointed a minimum of 150 extra preventive customs staff for next year. A further £2·4 million is being provided to help to eradicate the opium poppy in Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was in that country the other day to help that plan forward. We are doing something similar with cocaine production in central America.
  The confiscation Bill is the next and crucial step. It will create a new offence of handling the proceeds of drug trafficking. It will give new powers to obtain information about their movement or disposal. The courts will be empowered to freeze the assets of those accused of drug trafficking, and required to impose on those convicted a confiscatory fine equal to the full amount of their proceeds from trafficking. For this purpose there will be available a presumption that anybody convicted of drug trafficking had derived all his assets from trafficking save in so far as he showed the contrary. These provisions are necessary and will, I hope, be widely supported as a proper and vigorous response to a menace which has destroyed many young lives and families in all parts of the country.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Has my right hon. Friend seen the action taken by the Malaysian Government in trying to deal with this problem—action that can be described as draconian but which has had a dramatic effect?
  Mr. Hurd: From what I have heard and read of such measures, I am not sure that they would commend themselves entirely to the House. I shall look into the matter further.
  The public order Bill, the fourth Home Office Bill, is the result of long thought and wide consultation. I see that it has absurdly been suggested that the Bill has been thrust forward at the last minute for some obscure political purpose. Whatever criticisms the Bill may attract, undue haste in its preparation is not one of them.
  The review of the public order law was announced by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw in June 1979. We published a Green Paper in June 1980. Also in 1980 the Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report on the law. In 1981 there was Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton riots. We have taken account of the lessons of later disorders, such as those during the miners' dispute. Finally—this is very important—we have had the benefit of the 1983 report of the Law Commission on the common law offences of riot, unlawful assembly and affray which we shall be largely following.
  Our proposals were published in a White Paper last May. As we said then, we are in no doubt about the importance of the principles at issue. The rights of peaceful protest and assembly are among our most fundamental freedoms. When the House sees the Bill, I hope that it will agree that we have sought to provide a balanced, legal framework in which the police have the necessary powers to prevent and deal with disorder while these fundamental freedoms continue to be safeguarded.
  There will be a new traditional requirement—already found in many local Acts—for the organisers of marches to give advance notice to the police, but with an exception for marches organised at short notice in response to an emergency event. The existing powers of the police
  124
  to impose conditions on marches to prevent serious public disorder will be widened to enable them to prevent marches which are likely to cause serious disruption to the life of the community or the coercion of individuals. Similar preventive powers will apply to static demonstrations and assemblies in the open air, but there will be no extension of the existing power to ban marches, nor any power to ban static demonstrations.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman undertake that marches organised by the Salvation Army will be exempted?
  Mr. Hurd: There cannot be exemptions for classes of marches because of the nature of the organisation that organises them. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any inconvenience or difficulty that the Salvation Army has experienced in organising its marches, I am sure that he will let me know.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what kinds of events he has in mind? Do they include a group of workers who are suddenly dismissed by their employer and who are so annoyed that they decide to have a march in the vicinity?
  Mr. Hurd: I have tried to explain that the kind of march which is already included is one which could bring about serious public disorder. We are talking about the power to impose conditions, not about the power to ban marches. We propose to widen those conditions to include marches which could cause serious disruption to the life of the community—for example, by blocking a crowded street or by the coercion of individuals through bullying or harassment.
  In addition, there will be a new offence of disorderly conduct, punishable by a fine, to provide protection against acts of hooliganism which cause alarm, harassment or distress and with which the police cannot deal adequately at present. The House will want to look at the details of this new offence. However, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said in the House when the matter was first aired, we all know that there are vulnerable families, such as the elderly and ethnic minority families, whose lives can be made a misery by persistent harassment. The postbags of many hon. Members, as I know from the letters that they send me, clearly reflect this reality.
  Sir Peter Emery: When dealing with static demonstrations, or happenings, will my right hon. Friend consider looking at the powers of local authorities over very large gatherings of people in the countryside, such as large pop festivals on agricultural land where they have never been held before, which might bring in 50,000 or 80,000 people?
  Mr. Hurd: I know that that has traditionally been a problem at Stonehenge, I know from a letter that I received recently that it is a problem in Staffordshire and I know that it is a problem in my hon. Friend's county. It is a difficult issue, because it involves the law of trespass, which we are not proposing to tackle in the new Bill. However, I am trying to see whether we can do something about the problem, though at the moment I have no great expectation of success.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Home Secretary talks about provocation, but will he find time in his legislation to prevent chief constables from making

  125
  provocative, party-political statements, as the chief constable of Greater Manchester and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis do frequently? I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees that we do not allow senior civil servants or senior military figures to make the sort of political statements that unelected and unaccountable chief constables are prone to make these days.
  Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that chief constables find their voices from time to time. They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves in any controversy that may result.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that disorderly conduct is probably the most controversial of the offences that he proposes to include in the new Bill. Can he give the House a general assurance that we shall not have another offence like those that have caused enormous trouble to the courts and individuals because they are unspecific and ill-defined? Laws that give the police a discretion to choose who is in breach of them and who is not—because the offence is so badly defined—have given us terrible trouble and caused great feelings of injustice. We have just abolished the sus law and we need an assurance that we will not have another of the same sort, which courts will not be able to deal with.
  Mr. Hurd: It is because I knew of that argument that I said that the House would want to look carefully at the way in which the clause was drawn. The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will know that there are examples of causing harassment, alarm and distress to people that fall outside the 1936 Act and are not necessarily liable to cause a breach of the peace. There is a gap and the hon. Gentleman will want to look carefully at the clause to see whether we have filled the gap adequately.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have been listening to the questioning about the public order legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that it started with a Green Paper and has come through a Law Commission report and a White Paper and there were the happenings of last year. The discussion could go on for ever. Will the Home Secretary have a word with the Leader of the House? Two or three proposals in the Bill lend themselves to a Select Committee-type procedure. We could take evidence from chief constables, lawyers and others. Before the Bill came to the Floor of the House we could have covered the five-year period during which people may have changed their mind. Would not that be a better way of proceeding?
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and, as it comes from someone with authority in these matters, no doubt my right hon. Friend will ponder it.
  The Leader of the Opposition dealt yesterday, as some of his colleagues have before, with the figures of recorded crime and it is only right that I should deal with the matter. I shall try to do so—I may not succeed—in a way which the House will find to be fair. When we discuss this subject, we are talking about figures of recorded crime and there is some evidence from the British crime survey that the public may be more inclined now, possibly largely for insurance reasons, to report crimes such as burglary, than they used to be. [Interruption.] I mention that point
  126
  because statisticians think that it is important. I do not make too much of it, or rest my argument on it. 1 mention it for the sake of completeness.
  The essential point, which I hope that the whole House will accept, is that the statistics for recorded crime show a steady rise since the 1950s. There have been ups and downs in particular years, but the annual average increase in that decade was 5 per cent., whereas from 1960 until now it has been between 6 per cent. and 7 per cent.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What about the figures since 1979?
  Mr. Hurd: I am not trying to diminish the facts. I am simply stating the figures. We are dealing with a trend that has gone on for 35 years through successive changes of Government, a trend which is deeply worrying precisely because it is so continuous. The figures that I gave earlier relating to drugs show that a new and quite big element of drug-related crime is beginning to affect totals both for the prison population and for recorded crime statistics.
  The statistics for different countries are not comparable, but the trend that I have described is not confined to this country. It exists throughout Europe and the United States.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: None of us underestimates the difficulty of the job that the Home Secretary has taken on, but his party gave the public impression that it could reverse or at least substantially reduce that trend by measures such as the short sharp shock, its attitude to imprisonment, and so on. That has not happened.
  Mr. Hurd: I intend to deal next with the measures that we have taken since 1979 and what we propose to do about them, because that is the next logical step in the argument. First, however, I should point out that the roots and causes of crime have always been and probably always will he a matter of argument. That point surfaced yesterday and will no doubt come up again today. I think that all the Opposition parties tend to put more emphasis than we Conservatives do on the link that they see between crime and unemployment, bad housing and other forms of social deprivation, whereas we put perhaps more emphasis than they on the decline and sometimes the collapse of family life, the relaxation of discipline and the disappearance of a spirit of community whether in the towns or in the countryside.
  That argument emerged in the debate on the city riots and it will no doubt continue, but I hope that we can all agree, as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, that once crimes have been committed they must be dealt with firmly under the law and that the police and the courts, whose duty it is to do that, should have the full support of every law-abiding citizen and every democratic party. It would be a poor day if that statement became a matter of debate in the House or in council chambers.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of dealing with crime but of dealing with it relatively swiftly? At present it seems to take for ever for a case to come to court, by which time the evidence may be so rusty and fusty that convictions which perhaps should have been secured cannot be secured.
  Mr. Hurd: Many of us are worried about the delays in bringing cases to court. My noble Friend the Lord

  127
  Chancellor has put new resources into accelerating the course of justice, and this month we have started field trials in several parts of the country to see whether we can move somewhat nearer to the Scottish system in which there is an absolute limit to delays in bringing offenders to trial.
  Mr. David Ashby: I have said time and again in the House that if there were more provision for summary trial, cases would be tried more swiftly, but there is virtually no provision for a summary trial covering more than half a day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were provision for such trials to go on for two or three days, much of the problem might be solved?
  Mr. Hurd: It is no secret that we are thinking in terms of introducing a Criminal Justice Bill in the next Session. If my hon. Friend would like to develop that argument between now and then, we will consider it.
  We are not asking the Labour party—it would be silly to ask it—to relax its views on the Government's social and economic policies, but I ask Labour Members to see whether they can join us and the vast majority of our fellow citizens in supporting the police in debate in the House, in towns, schools and all the places where the police are trying their best to uphold the law and to protect our constituents.
  We have put together a strategy of which the three main elements are strengthening police resources, crime prevention and the relationship between the police and the public. Since May 1979, police manpower—police officers and civilian staff—has increased by some 13,000. At the end of September, there were 120,500 police officers in England and Wales, supported by some 39,000 civilian staff. More than 800 police officers were recruited in September—the highest intake in one month for four years. In the past six years, approval has been given to increases of some 3,400 additional police posts in forces in England and Wales.
  I have had discussions with Sir Kenneth Newman, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and I have authorised him to recruit up to his full establishment of 27,145. I have also authorised an increase of nearly 50 in the civilian staff ceiling next year for further civilianisation. I have told him that I am prepared in principle to agree to an increase of 50 officers in the police establishment next year to strengthen his efforts against drug trafficking. He has told me that he expects that 200 officers will be brought back into operational use as a result of the force reorganisation that he has in hand.
  Mr. Tony Blair: What positive steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to recruit more police from the ethnic minorities? Does he agree that current figures are appallingly low?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; the number is far too low. Numbers have improved substantially, but from a very low base. Every police force is aware of our wish that it should open its doors—obviously without lowering standards, as the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said yesterday—and recruit as widely as possible in the black and Asian communities.
  Mr. Blair: But what steps will be taken?
  Mr. Hurd: We have to consider value for money in the police service as elsewhere. The police service understands that, and much is being done in forces throughout the country to improve management and the use of resources. I have set in hand work to assess whether further increases beyond the current Metropolitan police establishment are needed. I must not think only of London, however. I shall also be ready to consider applications from provincial police authorities for increases in police establishments on the basis of demonstrated need. I said recently that I was ready to approve increases of 200-plus nationally to help in the fight against drugs.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: One of the worrying increases in crime concerns the variety to be found in the City of London—I refer to big City fraud, which is sophisticated and extremely difficult to detect. The undermanning of fraud squads in terms of numbers and expertise is an important factor in the increase of such crime. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to strengthen that arm of investigation?
  Mr. Hurd: I agree about the importance of this matter. When the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the City of London police or police forces in other areas recognise the need to strengthen fraud squads, they will no doubt come to me and make their case. I will then consider it.
  Under our law, the police must use no more than the minimum necessary force. The violence during the riot at the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham reached new levels of ferocity and I believe that the police must be properly equipped to deal with such violence. The commissioner is reviewing urgently the tactics and equipment necessary in such circumstances. I shall see that those requirements are met.
  Therefore, the needs of the police change as the situation changes, and we have to respond to that. However, I emphasise, in view of some things that have been said and shown on television, that we do not want to alter, and the police do not want to alter, our strong, steady and well-established tradition of policing. I mentioned the law of minimum force. There will be no change in that. There should be no change in the reluctance to carry firearms except when they are absolutely necessary. There will be no change in the basic tradition of the policeman as a citizen in uniform drawing support and strength from the community that he serves.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I apologise, but I shall not give way, as I must get on with my speech.
  Certain policies flow from that. When things go wrong—every chief constable and any Home Secretary knows that they do sometimes—the mistakes must be properly investigated and the lessons learnt. The significance of the major change introduced from April this year, when the new independent Police Complaints Authority started work, is just beginning to sink in. The authority, led by Sir Cecil Clothier, the former ombudsman, supervises the processes of each investigation. That is what is new. The close involvement of a member of the Police Complaints Authority from the very start of the investigations into recent incidents of public concern, such as the tragic deaths of John Shorthouse and Mrs. Jarrett, and the

  129
  shooting of Mrs. Groce, provides a guarantee that the investigations will be full and rigorous. I understand that the papers on the Shorthouse case are now with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that it will not be long before he can announce his decision.
  It is to the credit of the police service that it recognises that it has everything to gain from the exposure of its procedures to scrutiny in that way. Police officers, the police service and society at large all benefit if there is public confidence in the way in which complaints are investigated.
  It follows also that the police have to command respect and confidence in all parts of our communities and amomg every ethnic group. I welcome the strides that have been taken by the police in improving their training in community and race relations. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that tackling racial attacks is one of the priorities in the goal set for his force this year by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn my attention in the short time that I have held this post to the importance of that subject, and I have found that both Sir Kenneth Newman and chief constables in the Association of Chief Police Officers are responding to it. A racial attack is an attack not only on an individual but on a community. The police are rightly doing more themselves and more to enlist the help of the community to prevent and detect those crimes.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Home Secretary read the report by Sir Kenneth Newman on policing principles in the Metropolis, which was produced earlier this year? Has he noted the section—and Sir Kenneth's reservations—on the membership of freemasonry by British policemen? Is he concerned in the same way as Sir Kenneth is, and, if he is, does he not think that it might be advisable to issue guidance not instructing police officers to leave freemasonry but asking them at least to consider their position?
  Mr. Hurd: I remember that report. Its birth was when I was at the Home Office before. However, I have not acquainted myself with the follow-up action. If the hon. Gentleman would like to hear from me on that subject, I shall gladly write to him.
  Before I conclude, I should like to mention something which is regarded as humdrum, which has not had a great deal of energy and enthusiasm put into it until recently, but which is crucial—crime prevention. The scale of crime and the rate of increase, particularly of domestic burglaries, showed to my predecessor that a fresh approach was called for. He set up inside the Home Office the Crime Prevention Unit, producing new research and evaluating new techniques. We now need a major campaign to help the public help themselves, through better police liaison schemes, earlier warning and reporting of crime, better design and standards of protective equipment as well as of possessions that most of us have, such as motor cars, which are not always designed to resist crime, and sharper focus on sites and areas at risk. If, as we are beginning to do, we can mount such a campaign, it will give the police a better chance of detecting and catching the criminal, and, in many cases, preventing the crime before it happens. In two weeks we shall have a national crime prevention conference which will provide an opportunity to carry this forward.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Do not the police believe that they are handicapped in their efforts to prevent and deter crime because the abuse of the right to challenge the membership of juries means that they are distorted in favour of too many acquittals? Is this a matter of concern? What can be done?
  Mr. Hurd: That is a matter of concern. I carefully read the speech yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Since then I have been in touch with the Law Officers, who have found that they do not have sufficient information for action. They believe that it would be right to gain fuller information, as my hon. Friend has said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be arranging for the new Crown prosecution service, when it is in place, to conduct such a survey so that we have a basis of fact upon which we can consider whether action is needed.
  The more I learn of the work of my Department in these matters and the more I come to grips with my responsibilities, the more I realise the connection between areas of policy which, at first, seem distinct. At first, it seems to be a terrible tangle, but a pattern emerges, as older practitioners than I realised long ago. This will be the first of many debates on law and order in this Session, and I think that that is a safe prediction. Many debates will range more widely than the specific Bills to which I have referred, and I greatly welcome that.
  Today I have been able to touch on only some of the important questions. We shall need the advice of the House, perhaps especially on its less partisan occasions. I think that the heart of the matter from which no one will dissent is that law and order is not just an abstract principle; it is vital to the quality of life of every person. Responsibility goes beyond Parliament, Government or the police. It is shared by all. It is a daunting task, but there is no point in just sitting back and being daunted by it. It is also a national task. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will help us to bring it to success.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Yesterday the Prime Minister addressed the House for 31 minutes with a speech whose peroration concentrated on law and order. During the 31 minutes when the Prime Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box 207 serious criminal offences were being committed in England and Wales and another 28 were being committed in the "far north", as the right hon. Lady appears to have renamed Scotland. All that strident rhetoric and all those lavish promises might just have been acceptable in May 1979 at the time of the Government's first Queen's Speech, but this is the seventh Queen's Speech that the Prime Minister has ghost-written, and, after seven Queen's Speeches, a Government must be judged not on their promises but on their record.
  This Government certainly have a record on law and order—a criminal record. This country, under this Prime Minister, is suffering from an all-time record crime wave, a mounting crime wave which even the best efforts of the police are increasingly powerless to stem. What we got yesterday from the right hon. Lady was a re-run of the final paragraphs of her speech to the Conservative party conference last month—words so hollow and artificial that they must inevitably have been written for her by Mr. Jeffrey Archer who, as the new deputy chairman of the Conservative party, has become second among unequals.

  131
  The Prime Minister offered an inspirational invitation to the electorate—
  "Come with us, then, towards the next decade,"
  she proclaimed.
  "Let us together set our sights on a Britain where law-abiding men and women go their way in tranquility with their children knowing that their neighbourhood is safe."
  The problem is that this promised Britain of the next decade bears no resemblance whatever to the real Britain of the past six and a half years—Thatcher's Britain.
  Thatcher's Britain is a Britain in which law-abiding men and women are able less and less to go on their way with tranquility. In Thatcher's Britain every family has one chance in four of being victims of a serious crime. As for their children, Tory propagandists are no doubt already designing an election poster prominently featuring them, but graphic artists, if they are honest, should depict them as battered and bruised, as in the metropolitan police area last year 20 per cent. of mugging victims were schoolchildren.
  Thatcher's Britain is not a Britain in which, as the Prime Minister puts it,
  "People know that their neighbourhood is safe."
  It is a Britain in which elderly men and especially elderly women are afraid to open their doors at night. It is a Britain in which a recent Home Office survey showed that 12 per cent. of inner city residents said that they never go out at night because of crime.
  Thatcher's Britain is a Britain in which one crime of violence is committed every four and a half minutes; in which one act of criminal damage is committed every 61 seconds; in which one burglary is committed every 35 seconds; in which one case of theft or of handling stolen goods is committed every 17 seconds; in which one serious crime is committed every nine seconds. That is not the Prime Minister's promised land of the next decade; that is Thatcher's Britain now—today—in 1985.
  Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way presently, but not at the moment.
  Thatcher's Britain today is one in which under this Government serious offences have risen by 40 per cent.; theft by 25 per cent.; violence against the person by 31 per cent.; arson by 40 per cent.—
  Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I undertake to give way to the hon. Gentleman presently.
  Offences involving firearms are up 48 per cent.; burglaries are up 59 per cent.; criminal damage is up 63 per cent.
  The Home Secretary said this afternoon that the crime wave is not confined to this country, but Thatcher's Britain is the most crime-riddencountry in Europe. What is more, far too many of the perpetrators of these crimes are getting away scot free. Not only are 1 million more serious crimes a year being committed, but also, because of the intolerable burden on the police, under this Government a decreasing proportion of those crimes is being solved. In Thatcher's Britain the number of crimes committed per police officer has risen from 24 to 29 a year.
  In Thatcher's Britain the proportion of crimes cleared up has fallen from 42 per cent. to 35 per cent.; the number
  132
  of thefts from 40 per cent. to 35 per cent.; the number of burglaries from 32 per cent. to 28 per cent.; the number of cases of criminal damage from 30 per cent. to 23 per cent. In Thatcher's Britain nearly three burglars in every four get clean away with their loot. In Thatcher's Britain nearly four vandals in every five evade detection and punishment.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I give way to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).
  Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Labour party is so concerned about lawlessness, why is it that up and down the country representatives of his party at every turn are seeking to undermine the police in their work, and nowhere more so than in the city of Manchester, which we both have the honour to represent?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is not a Manchester Member of Parliament and should not give himself airs.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: As for the undermining of the police, I shall be coming to that very matter in considerable detail before I have finished.
  The Thatcher's Britain that I have described is the real, harsh, increasingly violent, increasingly lawless Britain over which the Prime Minister presides. However, no one could have guessed it from her complacent speech yesterday or from the Home Secretary's incompetent carbon copy speech this afternoon.
  We are witnessing a monumental attempt at a massive confidence trick. It began at the last general election when after four years of rising crime the Tory manifesto claimed:
  "Already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner city areas."
  However, under this Government notifiable offences have increased by 62 per cent. in the police force areas which contain most of the inner cities.
  The Prime Minister is trying to deceive the country, but one group that she is not deceiving—here I come to what the hon. Member for Davyhulme said—is the police. The Prime Minister makes lavish promises to them as well. At the Conservative party conference she proclaimed:
  "The Government will continue steadfastly to back the police. If they need more men, more equipment, different equipment, they shall have them."
  The Prime Minister said in her speech yesterday:
  "The Government have made it clear that the police will have the resources that they need in the fight against crime." [Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 25.]
  But this year's public expenditure White Paper plans for a reduction in real terms in expenditure on the police. The Home Secretary rubbed those facts in at the police superintendents' conference at Torquay only six weeks ago when he admitted that increases to date in expenditure on the police
  "to a large extent … have been swallowed up by increased demands on the police."
  He confessed:
  "The amount of reported crime has risen sharply, and new legislation has created new duties … This is not the occasion for a lecture on economic policy, but I would simply say that I see no prospect of a general loosening of the purse strings which

  133
  would enable us to transform the difficulties which you mention by fresh spending … there will not be further substantial increases in resources."
  For months now there has been a torrent of complaints by police officers at all levels against the burdens on the police of Government policy and broken Government promises. The chief constable of Staffordshire warns:
  "our manpower availability will be further depleted because of the extensive programme of training for all officers of the Force in preparation for the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act."
  The chief constable of Warwickshire joins in and says:
  "My biggest fear is that we will not be able to complete this very necessary training before we are obliged to commence training of the whole Force on the changes in law and procedure resulting from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act."
  The chief constable of Greater Manchester adds his voice and says:
  "The day of reckoning will surely come. The Government cannot possibly say they have not been warned."
  In his speech this afternoon the Home Secretary said that he was delighted that chief constables found their voices from time to time. I hope that he is listening to what they say as I quote them.
  Mr. Hurd: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to modify his speech after hearing what I said. I specifically dealt with the concept of need. I said that in relation to both London and the provinces the test of a successful application by the police for extra resources was simply need.
  Mr. Kaufman: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon and what he said at Torquay, but that is not what the Prime Minister said at Blackpool last month.
  Mr. Hurd: That is what she said yesterday.
  Mr. Kaufman: There was nothing about need in what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
  Mr. Hurd: Yes there was.
  Mr. Kaufman: Yesterday the Prime Minister said:
  "The Government have made it clear that the police will have the resources that they need".—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86 c. 25.]
  Mr. Hurd: I told the right hon. Gentleman so.
  Mr. Kaufman: Good. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, then? Right. We shall come to the question of need now. I hope that the Home Secretary, who now says that the police will get what they need, is changing his policy this afternoon.
  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman, said:
  "In seeking to operate responsibly within these limits we shall inevitably find ourselves less able to meet all of our commitments towards the general public in the way that we would wish. If we rise, for example, to a centrally counselled drive against drugs, which brings heavy demands on manpower through round-the-clock surveillance, then the existence of finite ceilings to manpower will dictate the removal of officers from other duties. The delicacy and sensitivity of the work requires the deployment of experienced officers, who are also in demand for other key areas of operational work-such as anti-robbery or anti-fraud duties."
  When spelling out his requirements, the commissioner said:
  "There is, I am quite certain, only one way in which these demands and the problems can be tackled and that is to have more manpower."
  He said, "only one way", yet what did the Home Secretary do? The right hon. Gentleman is not giving the
  134
  commissioner what he has asked for, what he needs and what makes it possible to carry out the one way of dealing with crime in London. He has given him onlym a handout to avoid cuts and an aloof lecture about giving value for money.
  Mr. Hurd: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again. He knows that the Metropolitan police force is 300 under strength. It will take a little time to recruit up to strength, but that is taking place. At the same time, we are studying the precise application made by Sir Kenneth on the basis of need.
  Mr. Kaufman: But at the Conservative party conference the Prime Minister said that if the police needed more men or more equipment, they would have them. Sir Kenneth has asked for more men. A report in The Times headed
  "Police and Hurd in rift on recruiting"
  states:
  "Sir Kenneth told Mr. Hurd that he wanted an extra 3,000 officers for the 27,000 strong force because riots, with terrorism, drug offences and other crime, were taking police off the beat."
  Sir Kenneth asked for an additional 3,000 men, but the right hon. Gentleman has not given him what he needs. He has given him only a few million pounds to avoid cuts. That is why the newspapers reported the matter and why the right hon. Gentleman had to make a demeaning statement denying a rift between him and Sir Kenneth.
  Other people also asked for additional manpower. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will provide that. Sir Kenneth Newman's warning was repeated by chief superintendent John Keyt, the secretary of the Chief Superintendents Association, who said at his association's conference:
  "There is a limit as to how far the police service can carry out the duties imposed upon them by new legislation and the changes brought about by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
  The setting up of special departments to cope means that officers are being taken from the streets and they need to be replaced if contact with the public is to be maintained."
  The conference was told that the police required 13,000 new men—not to cope with crime, but simply to cope with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other legislation put forward by the Government.
  I note that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is in his place. The Police Federation has warned that the extra bureaucratic work created by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is "a recipe for chaos."
  Police constable Paul Middup, at that time the chairman of the constables section of the Police Federation, said that with other local government services, the police were forced to bear their share of spending cuts. He continued:
  "Central government cannot duck the issue any longer. It is fast turning into a public scandal which is entirely of their making. They cannot blame the local authorities any longer."
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman into my parlour. If he wants more information to assist his case that the police need more resources, I shall be delighted to provide it.
  However, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when I put forward the figures that he is now quoting last week, he and his colleagues jeered? Why is it that when they were in office 8,000 police officers left the service because they were underpaid and under-regarded? Why is it that at the Labour party conference a number of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues cheered when a Labour delegate described the police as the enemy?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the proportion of police to crimes committed under the Labour Government was much better than the proportion now.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Answer my question.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind whether he wishes to represent the Police Federation in this House or whether his loyalty is more to the Government in their attacks on the police—[Interruption.] Yes, Government attacks on the police.
  "Central Government cannot duck the issue any longer. It is fast turning into a public scandal."
  That was said by the Police Federation spokesman at that organisation's conference earlier this year. Today, the Home Secretary unctuously asked Her Majesty's Opposition to support the police. We support the police. The problem is that the police do not support the Home Secretary. While the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary parrot their support for the police, at its conference this year the Police Federation passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in the Government, and no doubt the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was there to witness that.
  Is there anything in the Queen's Speech that would cause the police to rescind their vote of no confidence in the Government? The proposals to penalise drug pushers and dealers will have our support, and we hope that the new Bill will have an impact on the terrible curse of drug addiction that is rotting away an ever-increasing number of victims. But before the new penalties can be imposed, the villains must be caught, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has pointed out strongly that if he is to do even an adequate job on drugs, the burdens caused by Government policy and financial cuts will compel him to weaken his other anti-crime teams, teams such a that contending with robbery, a crime that is often the consequence of addicts seeking to obtain money for their drugs.
  If those drugs get into the country at all, one reason will be the massive weakening of the Customs service under the present Government, with 1,000 fewer Customs officials than six years ago and with some ports hardly manned. Indeed, some ports have "honour" boxes for people to declare whether they have drugs. From Cardiff to Dover, Felixstowe to Ullapool, Customs officers complain about their inability to deal with routine traffic, let alone make night boardings of ships coming from countries where drugs are grown or sold.
  Yet this weakening of protection against drug smugglers comes at a time when drugs have become a greater bane than this country has ever known. Only in the past two years has drug trafficking had to be made a separate new statistic in the crime returns.
  The number of registered addicts is only a fraction of the true problem, yet the total even of registered addicts has soared year by year, and those addicts are tragically young. The Home Office admits that since 1980 there has especially been an upward trend in addicts aged under 21. Three quarters of new addicts are under 30. About 70 per cent. of new addicts are males, but more and more women are becoming addicts, including women with children and pregnant women. An even greater tragedy is that not one Minister, from the Prime Minister downwards, has ever asked the crucial question: why?
  136
  Instead of helping the police to shoulder this latest urgent priority, added to all the other priorities jostling for their attention, the Government are now planning to make the task of the police even more difficult by adding a new collection of public order burdens to their already crippling workload.
  The nation has, rightly, been horrified by the terrible manifestations of arson, looting, rape and murder, to which our people have been helpless and horrified witnesses in recent weeks, during the urban disturbances. Even though public order offences are no more than a tiny proportion of total crime, there is an understandable demand that stringent action should be taken to prevent riots and, where they break out, to deal with them firmly.
  The Government's public order Bill will contain nothing to prevent riots and nothing that will assist the police who are allotted the dangerous task of coping with riots. On those matters the Bill will contain only two new offences which will entitle the police to make arrests during and after riots. The police are scarcely short, however, of offences under which they can make arrests in such circumstances. That is not their problem.
  What is more, the new proposals restricting the right of peaceful marches and open air meetings will handicap the police. The monitoring of such events will eat even further into the limited time available to the police to cope with real crime.
  The unprecedented new powers in the forthcoming Bill will force the police into making political decisions about the merits of particular marches and demonstrations, and it now turns out that they will even be required to make assessments about the peaceable intentions of the Salvation Army. Those are decisions that the police do not want to have to make, and that is why already they have compelled the Government to exclude single marches from the provisions of the Bill.
  As the police are, unwillingly, being trapped in this political role—which they do not want because they know that it is completely alien to traditional and nonpartisan policing in Britain—so they will be forced into unnecessary and damaging confrontations with the organisers of open air meetings who find that the Englishman's, Welshman's or Scotsman's traditional right to speak freely is being restricted by the Government's fear of free speech. Thus, the doctrinaire obsessions of the Government will distract the police from their true job of fighting crime and will further damage relations between the police and public.
  "The clearance of most routine crime depends on the help supplied to the police by the public, rather than from the efforts of the police."
  Those words were included in the results of a survey published by the Home Office. That finding was not surprising. The police now have so many other bureaucratic burdens that, for example, on Merseyside, they are able to spend only 6 per cent. of their time investigating crime.
  By far the largest number of arrests, especially for burglary and theft, are made as the result of calls from or information supplied by the public. The Government seem determined to undermine the essential relationship between the police and the public—to erode confidence and provoke confrontation—and that will certainly be the effect of the public order Bill. Without information and co-operation from the public, the police have to fall back on methods that are less satisfactory and less successful.

  137
  We need to foster closer relationships between the police and the communities they serve. The police should be given the opportunity to become more responsive to the wishes and fears of the public. For example, on Merseyside there is a strong feeling that preventing sexual assaults on women should be one of the top priorities. The police there do not share that view. Where priorities differ, there should be more effective arrangements for the police to discuss with the public and elected representatives how best to combat crime in localities and neighbourhoods. Nothing in the Queen's Speech will help to nurture such sensible and constructive relationships, just as there is not a word about the crime wave itself or the dark places in society where crime is born and bred.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked the Prime Minister the simple question:
  "why, during the past six years under the Conservative Government, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in reported crime?"—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 20.]
  The Prime Minister shiftily dodged the question, claiming that she would come to it later in her speech. She never did come to it. She never has come to it. She never will come to it because the Prime Minister is not interested in the question, still less the answer. All the Prime Minister is interested in is cheap slogans, and yet that question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is the key question, and the question to which, in their hearts, the people know the answer.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: The answer was contained in a survey on law and order published only last week by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It is a survey which demonstrates that there is a clear link between the high level of recorded crime and social deprivation. It also shows that the highest recorded crime rates are found in areas suffering from the worst overcrowding and high unemployment rates. The Home Secretary pooh-poohed those facts this afternoon, but if he and the Prime Minister—
  Sir Edward Gardner rose—
  Mr. Kaufman:—do not like what the national institute says, let the Prime Minister listen to her deputy, Lord Whitelaw, who said:
  "If we can nip in the bud criminal tendencies in people then we would be going a long way towards easing the pressures on our police … Undoubtedly, economic mismanagement … where that leads to high levels of unemployment, especially amongst young people, also contributes considerably to increasing the number of those tempted into a criminal life."
  Lord Whitelaw went on to prove that he had a sense of humour by adding:
  "The only real remedy for this situation is a vigorous pursuit of Conservative economic and social policies."
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: However, there is not a word in the Queen's Speech about combating unemployment.
  Every authoritative survey demonstrates that bringing policemen back on to the beat not only has a significant effect in reducing crime but increases public confidence, and yet the public order proposals in the Queen's Speech will take police off the beat, not put them on to it.
  Evidence from the Department of the Environment shows that crime can be reduced by employing more
  138
  caretaking staff and security patrols, but cuts in the rate support grant and arbitrary spending limits are forcing local councils to sack such staff and reduce such patrols
  Evidence from the Department of the Environment also shows that crime can be reduced by improving estate lighting, by the installation of anti-vandal glass, by stronger front doors and frames and by closing walkways on deck flat complexes. However, after a half-hearted effort to obtain more money for housing and housing repairs, the Secretary of State for the Environment was forced in Cabinet today to settle for a derisory increase—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us now.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not know.
  Mr. Kaufman: I think we know. We must take it that the Secretary of State for the Environment was forced to settle for what the BBC called this morning a significant compromise. He was forced to settle for a derisory increase in the pitiful sums that the Government allow to be spent on housing. They have reduced the housing programme to a record low and almost wiped out housing improvement grants.
  Sir Edward Gardner rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: The Government's claims on law and order are a cynical sham. Even more cynical is the Prime Minister's crude determination to try to ride to an election victory on the backs of the police—men and women whose dedication to combating crime is simultaneously being exploited and undermined by the policies contained in the Queen's Speech.
  When he was Shadow Home Secretary Lord Whitelaw said:
  "A Government that cannot protect its own citizens from attack in the streets of its towns and cities, that cannot protect property from damage, or homes from intrusion, has failed to live up to the basic duties of Government."
  Under this Prime Minister, more citizens are being attacked than ever before. Under this Prime Minister, more property is being damaged than ever before. Under this Prime Minister, more homes are suffering intrusion than ever before. The basic duties of Government, as listed by Lord Whitelaw, are being subordinated to the strident politics of confrontation. There is a growing divergence between what the police want to do and what the Government want them to do. The police want to keep order for the people. The Government want to keep the people in order.
  The Government cannot conceal the facts, which is why the people of Britain will come to disdain and reject a Government who have failed to keep their promise and failed to keep the Queen's peace.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Churchill: The speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was characterised, as one might expect, by a cocktail of arrogance, impudence and personal attack. He has done himself a disservice by adopting such a personal attitude towards my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He significantly did not answer the question that I put to him about the extent to which Labour politicians up and down the country, day in and day out, have been undermining police forces and doing their best to deprive them of equipment and resources.

  139
  The right hon. Gentleman did not mention Mr. Bernie Grant and his grotesque statement that the policeman who was murdered was no doubt murdered by one of his colleagues. I believe that that man is putting up for candidature of the Labour party. If the right hon. Gentleman's party is so keen on upholding a policy of law and order, how does it tolerate people such as Mr. Bernie Grant within its ranks?
  How does the right hon. Gentleman have the gall to attack the Government for the resources that they have provided to police forces when he is well aware that in the city we both have the honour to represent—the right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I have represented a constituency in greater Manchester for 15 years—we have a police committee which is ruled by the Labour party and which is constantly seeking to attack and harry our excellent chief constable, Mr. Anderton. Only this week, it is seeking to deprive him of the 500 rounds of baton charges or plastic bullets and the weapons required to launch them which he recently acquired.
  I know that it would be my constituents' view that the chief constable of greater Manchester should be able to lay his hands on all the equipment that may be required to protect them, their shops, their houses and, in the last resort, their lives from any spillover of violence in our great city. Labour politicians say that he has no right to take such prudent precautions, and I therefore venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has been addressing his remarks in the wrong direction. It is the Labour party that should be providing, through the police committees that it controls in so many of our inner cities, the proper equipment. It is not that the resources are not there. Mr. Anderton has the resources and has purchased the equipment. Labour politicians are seeking to take it from him.
  I can well see that if there were a future Labour Administration—the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are going on makes that most unlikely—they would nationally deprive the police of the weapons and means required to maintain public order.
  The Government are right in the Gracious Speech to lay such heavy stress on the twin problems of law and order and the tackling of unemployment. There could be no higher priorities on the public agenda. The Government will rightly be judged by their performance in those two subjects.
  The events of recent months in Brixton, Handsworth and Tottenham have brought terror to the local community, injury to the police, and have been a stark revelation to the nation at large of the critical situation in our inner cities, which have been allowed, over the past two or three decades, to become cesspits of deprivation, lawlessness and crime.
  Representing an inner city area, I have been conscious that we have enormous problems which many of our citizens living in other parts of the country do not, and possibly cannot, appreciate. I fear that what we have seen in recent weeks may be only a foretaste of flames and bloodshed which could be much greater unless very positive steps are urgently taken to deal with the problem, which potentially poses a mortal threat to our liberal democracy, for where law ends, there tyranny begins.
  140
  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the troubles of recent weeks in some of our inner city areas were, at least in part, the work of extremist activists. Who taught 14 and 15-year-old school children how to make petrol bombs? Who organised the mass production of some of those petrol bombs which have burnt shops and maimed policemen?
  A new and horrifying dimension was seen in Tottenham, for the first time in modern times, with the use of firearms in such disorders. Not just one but an assortment of firearms were used against the police and the fire brigade. The courage of the police and the fire brigade in continuing in those circumstances commands the admiration of the entire country.
  It comes ill from the Leader of the Opposition, let alone the right hon. Member for Gorton, to lecture the Prime Minister and this Government on not doing enough to uphold the law. We see Left-wing activists up and down the country at work, day in and day out, undermining the work of the police. In London, the instinctive reaction of the Labour leader of Haringey council was to blame the police for the rioting and not those who were responsible for it.
  In many cases, Labour councils in inner city areas have discouraged or even forbidden the very co-operation that the right hon. Member was suggesting should be made more widespread—the involvement of the police in the schools and with youth clubs. Labour councils have forbidden it, yet neither the Leader of the Labour party nor his sidekick from Gorton has the courage to stand up to the petty tyrants in the town halls who seek to dictate to the police while the right hon. Gentlemen seek to accuse the Prime Minister of not doing enough to support the police.
  The Government propose to introduce a new public order Bill. That is necessary and even overdue, but in itself it is not enough. How right was my right hon. Friend, in opening the debate yesterday on the Loyal Address, when she said:
  "The solution must ultimately lie in a strengthening of our traditional sources of discipline and authority—the family, the church, the school, responsible community and civic leadership and support for the police."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 25.]
  It is urgent that parents should be made more responsible for the actions of their children. Is it not time that they were made more financially accountable for the criminal acts of their children who are minors? Could there be any more effective way of requiring parents to supervise their children properly, and to ask where little Johnny is tonight, than the knowledge that they could see their colour television being taken out of the front door to pay compensation to the victims of their children's actions?
  In considering the problems of the inner cities in a broader spectrum, it is difficult to deny that one of the most disturbing facts is the extent to which those coming on to the job market today are all too often without any skills to offer in a modern technological society such as we have today.
  The problem goes far wider than the responsibility of the Home Department. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is seeking urgently to raise the standards of teaching, but there must be a special emphasis on the inner city areas. Hundreds of millions of pounds have already been channeled into the inner city areas, but

  141
  if we fail to build a cohesive society in the years ahead, and fail to improve the standards of education of those living in the most deprived areas, we shall rue it.
  In the course of many visits, nothing has struck me more forcibly than the extent to which the standards of the blacks in American society have been raised over the past five to 10 years. They have been raised economically and educationally to a high degree. Blacks are forming their own businesses and playing prominent parts in local and national politics. They are playing prominent roles in industry and commerce. We must also try to achieve that goal. It should be the task of Government to make available the opportunities necessary to provide such a future for the young people in the most deprived areas.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: I shall make a short speech because I know that many hon. Members wish to participate in it.
  The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) told us that what we have witnessed is a foretaste of what is to come. He called for a substantial increase in the resources devoted to our inner cities and a raising of the standards of those who live in them, many of whom are coloured, being black or brown. He was right to do so. That was one of the passages in his speech with which I agreed.
  I have represented for a few years one of the oldest coloured communities in Britain. It is a long-settled community of people who were called Lascars. They came 70 years ago to settle in Cardiff to help us with our merchant navy in the first world war. There were riots in Cardiff in the early 1920s and since then the community has grown. We have seen the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of those who came to Cardiff 70 years ago. Originally, they were concentrated in Bute town—the nucleus of the community remains there—but they are now spread out much more widely throughout Cardiff.
  Those who live in my constituency, especially in Bute town and similar areas, expect the same standard of quietness and tranquillity and the ability to lead their own lives as any wealthy white community or surburb. My constituents demand the same services from the police and the same behaviour from those who live in their midst as any other community. Relatively new areas have grown up in Cardiff in recent years and some of those who live in them are black, but we must never try to tar the majority of the black or coloured people who live in those areas with the activities of the minority who are to be seen on our television screens as rioters. The majority want to live quietly among us in our multiracial society. We shall misunderstand the problem if we do not accept that proposition. We must understand that the blacks or the coloureds expect the same standards as anyone else. They demand to be free from hooliganism like anyone else.
  There is no doubt about the seriousness of the increase in crime, especially the crimes of violence, robbery and hooliganism which we have witnessed recently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) wanted to know why the Prime Minister did not reply when he was asked why this has happened. She did not reply because she does not know the answer, and I am bound to say that I am not sure whether I do. One of the problems that the House must face is that there are no clear answers to the problem.
  I could make a good case for saying how much better things were when I was Home Secretary than they are now
  142
  with the right hon. Member for Whitney (Mr. Hurd) as Home Secretary. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the traditions of the church, the family and the schools have all weakened and that they must be strengthened. It is true that there has been a general decline in morality in the community—and we should not exempt what happens in the City of London when we make that general accusation. There is a general standard of morality that we must all observe. That is one of the things which we must bear in mind when we introduce legislation and in the way in which we conduct our affairs and talk to one another.
  There is no doubt that the police are over-strained. It is over 20 years since I had close contact with them, but I know from my experience that they want more help than they are getting. Of course the Home Secretary cannot give them all that they want. If the Prime Minister said that they could have everything they wanted, she was making a great mistake. The police will not get everything and the Home Secretary was right if he tried to put the correct gloss on that issue. However, the police need more assistance than they are getting now and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to give them that.
  The handful of authorities that are denying the police access to schools are behaving in a short-sighted and foolish way. These authorities should permit the police to enter schools so that children may see them, understand the job that they are trying to do and understand their problems. The Labour authorities that are denying entry to the police—I do not know whether any Conservative authorities are doing so—should reverse their decision forthwith.
  It is clear that Mr. Grant still has much to learn. Over the past few weeks he has received a roasting from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and from every leader writer, and I am sure that that has taught him a great deal. There is nothing like a good roasting for teaching us when we have gone wrong. If Mr. Grant is a man of intelligence, he will have learnt a great deal from his recent experience.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was correct when he painted the scene, in a speech which held the House. I do not expect to be a member of my right hon. Friend's Administration, but I am pleased to say that he is growing in stature with every speech he makes, and he made a splendid speech yesterday.
  We must recognise that the police need help from us all, including everyone in this place. That brings me to the Home Secretary and the attitude of my party and that of the Government. I welcomed the Home Secretary' s tone this afternoon. He gave way continually to interventions and it could be said that he did so a little too often and allowed the interventions to interfere with the thread of his speech. One of my more cynical colleagues suggested that he did not have much of a speech to make, but I prefer to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
  The right hon. Gentleman adopted a good approach, but what will be the approach of Conservative Back Benchers? It appears from what I have read in the newspapers that they think that they have a trump card. They seem to think that if they can pretend that the Labour party is against law and order and the police, they will win the next general election for the Conservative party. That is what some Conservative Members are saying. They had better make up their minds on how seriously they regard the problem.

  143
  If the hon. Member for Davyhulme is correct to say that what we have seen is only a foretaste of what is to come unless tremendous changes are made, Conservative Back Benchers must ask themselves how responsible they will be in trying to pretend that one of the major parties is opposed to law and order as a means of establishing an electoral advantage. To what extent would they be subscribing to the national interest in taking that course?
  Equally, the Labour party must not allow itself to appear constantly to be criticising the police and not supporting them. The police need the support of us all and they must have it. Our people will suffer as much as Conservative Members' constituents if law and order breaks down. A new approach is needed and the Home Secretary has provided an opportunity today for one to be taken. However, if he asks for our support, he must restrain the Prime Minister and Conservative Back Benchers when they try to pretend that the great mass of the Labour party and those who support and represent it are not as interested in preserving the things that we value as the Government are.
  The initiative lies to a great extent with the Home Secretary, but we, the Opposition, must make a response when the time comes. It is in everyone's interest that the scenes which we have seen on our television screens in recent weeks and months should not be repeated. It is clear that that will be in the country's interests as well. Let us try to take the issue out of party politics as far as possible. The preservation of law and order with proper social conditions must be our objective. We shall all suffer if our efforts to achieve it are not sustained.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not take up directly the wise words of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). I do not wish to concentrate, in what will be a short speech, upon the problems of law and order. I want to look beyond the Gracious Speech to some shifts in attitudes and policies within the Conservative Government which are to be welcomed, small though they might be.
  The two events of the summer recess were clearly the Conservative party conference and the Government reshuffle. I went to the first but I played no part in the second. That might be because I do not measure up to the Prime Minister's criterion for promotion, which is that new Ministers must be "real good marketing men."
  The theme of our party conference was that our policies were right but that our public relations were wrong. Surely that is not the case. Have we not enjoyed in the past all the marketing skills for which we are now looking? Has there really been a failure, in Conservative party terms, of public relations? Surely there has not. The truth has been told as Her Majesty's Government have wanted it, certainly in the past six years. Thatcherism, so called, has altered the face of our politics, which is proof of my assertion.
  It might also be asserted that the Government have enjoyed a more favourable national press than any other Government for many years. The influence of Rupert Murdoch at the smart and low ends of Fleet street is proof of that. Where the Government have not been so fortunate
  144
  is in the attitudes adopted by the BBC and ITV. That may be one of the reasons for the Government's attempt to bully the BBC over the "Real Lives" programme.
  Over the past few years, the Government have not lacked rainmakers and magicians. Members of the Conservative party owe it to our magicians and rainmakers to be fair. We must have a good word to say for Gordon Reece, a man who gave us not just one new Mrs. Thatcher but two. We must have a good word for the Saatchi brothers, who made us an offer we could not refuse. And we should not forget Lord Everett of Wembley. Are these magicians, following our party conference at Blackpool, to become non-persons, saddled with the blame for our failures? How cruel a fate.
  What message should we send to our new rainmakers—Harvey Thomas and Jeffrey Archer, both of whom are kept under close security in Conservative central office? It must be "Shine on, Harvey Moon." Let us do the decent thing by our rainmakers. Since 1975, with a little help from the Prime Minister, they have changed the political agenda, and I can give a brief list of simple truths. This is the old agenda on which we fought two general elections. First, public spending is bad; second, civil servants idle; third, waste is rife; fourth, everyone must suffer; fifth, moaning minnies must get on their bikes; sixth, state benefits are far too high; seventh, there is no alternative to the economic policies; and eighth, we must all pull up our socks. No wonder we are unloved.
  Our new rainmakers have concocted a new agenda. of which I shall also read out the items. First, public spending is good—all those hospitals; second, we have not suffered; third, the Government care; fourth, the Government will cut income tax—Nigel says so; fifth, we shall even cut unemployment—Nigel says so as well; sixth, the Government will give us new laws and, it is hoped, more order; seventh, Mrs. T. loves you after all; eighth, the Government will do away with rates. but not yet; and, ninth, the Government can perform the five-card trick.
  We oversold the first agenda, but let us take great care not to undersell the new agenda. The new agenda is more liveable with than the old. In the past, the Prime Minister and the Government seemed to work on the basis of the old Spanish proverb—the greater the number of enemies, the greater the honour. Let us now start to make friends with the electorate.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I shall return to the subject of Home Office matters, which are the theme of today's debate. There is widespread anxiety in Britain today that the spread of violence, disorder and hooliganism speaks of a growing lawlessness and constitutes a menacing threat to law-abiding citizens and to the harmony of our communities. The sinister spread of drug-related offences has deepened public fear.
  Therefore, it is not surprising that, in the year of Handsworth, Brixton and Tottenham, the Prime Minister should have thought to focus the debate on the Government's response to these threats to the tranquillity of the realm. Crime and public disorder are deeply serious problems, especially for those living in the deprived areas of our cities. The Prime Minister has ensured by her attitude to these problems that the effectiveness of the Government's response to this challenge is, and will continue to be, under the searchlight of public scrutiny.

  145
  I welcome the tone of the Home Secretary's speech, which sharply contrasts with that of the Prime Minister and with the partisan speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the official spokesman for the Labour party. Those two speeches also sharply contrast with the speech of a previous Home Secretary and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) whose words should carry weight and carry it beyond the Chamber.
  What is happening with crime and public disorder is not that we are experiencing new crimes but that the scale and increasing frequency of criminal behaviour is growing. Criminal behaviour, drug offences and mob violence have for some time challenged the assumption that this country is a uniquely happy one, wedded to the motto of live and let live.
  There was a note of surprising complacency about the situation in the last Conservative manifesto in 1983, which made the surprising assertion:
  "already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner city areas".
  How hollow these words sound today. If such public confidence existed then, it has certainly evaporated now.
  That pre-electoral optimism is out of tune not only with public opinion but with the hard fact of criminal statistics. Since 1979, there has been an increase in the number of notifiable offences from 2·3 million to 3·3 million. Offences involving violence against the person were up to 140,000 last year, a slight downturn in the rate but one offset by the 10 to 13 per cent. increase in the rate of notified crimes against property.
  The Queen's Speech proposes measures to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking in drugs and to penalise the handling of such proceeds. These measures are plainly necessary and in principle enjoy the support of the alliance parties. However, the vile crimes perpetrated by drug pushers against some of our more vulnerable young people require measures on many fronts—international action, vigilant policing, additional medical provisions and care for addicts. The war on drugs requires a commitment of resources on a scale not hitherto contemplated by the Government. I acknowledge what has been done but it is not sufficient to tackle the corrosive effect of drugs, particularly in our inner cities.
  Similarly, offences against public order did not begin with the arrival of this Conservative Government, although their incidence has greatly increased. It is more than six years since the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw, announced the review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation. After long gestation and considerably more experience of public disorder in this country, we have the proposals referred to yesterday in the Gracious Speech.
  In the six years that have passed since the Government took office they have repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to tackle the inexorable rise in crime. Their approach was foreshadowed in their 1979 manifesto, in which they spoke of giving what they called "the right priority" to the fight against crime. But year by year the problem grows. Year by year the Government announce a new initiative, which is presented to the sound of trumpets as not merely of value in itself but as evidence of the Government's peculiar commitment to tackling the problem.
  It is damaging when political parties claim particular competence or a unique determination to deal with crime.
  146
  The public expects its politicians to be united in this objective, and statistical evidence of past performance should induce a little more modesty in political leaders. None the less, the present Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have made extravagant claims. They cannot be surprised if at the end of the day they are judged by the results of their attack on crime and not by their rhetoric. Every time that a policy has been advanced to tackle crime it has been with a flourish. Too much weight has been placed upon the importance of all these initiatives. Individually or cumulatively they may have been necessary and even desirable but, alas, it is only too clear how far they fall short of a solution.
  The first step the Government took was to announce an increase in manpower for the police forces. That initiative, though welcome, appears largely to have run its course. Sir Kenneth Newman, despite the Prime Minister's promises, appears not to be furnished with the resources he has sought. The difference between the right hon. Member for Gorton and the Home Secretary can easily be reconciled. The question is, who perceives and judges what is to be the need for the establishments? I welcome the decision to increase the establishment in the Metropolitan area, but there has not been a proper review of it for 60 years.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does the hon. Gentleman applaud or decry the fact that during the last five and a half years the strength of the police force has risen by about 12,000?
  Mr. Maclennan: Naturally I applaud it. I believe that it may be necessary, particularly in the metropolitan area, to go considerably further than the Government plan to go. The second initiative that the Government announced to tackle crime was contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It was designed to increase the penalties for offences, particularly those committed by young offenders. Would that those changed sentencing procedures had wrought a reduction in juvenile crime. Extravagant claims were made which will not be realised.
  The third step was to alter the rules for obtaining evidence to assist the police to secure convictions. It is too early to say what may be the result of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on crime rates, but I hope that it is not thought to be soft on crime to express some doubt as to whether it will amount to as much as it has been cracked up to be.
  The Gracious Speech indicates a fourth approach, the creation of new criminal offences. Much of what is proposed seems to me to be uncontroversial and welcome, particularly where it follows the recommendations of The Law Commission to modernise and codify the law of riot and affray. I believe that it would also be right to amend section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 to make it an offence for any person in a public or private place to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour that is intended or likely to cause another to fear unlawful violence or to provoke the use of unlawful violence by another. This new law would apply to demonstrators, pickets, football hooligans or anyone else who crossed the line between peaceful assembly and infringement of the rights of others.
  The Government's proposals to extend section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 to cover static assemblies are, however, more controversial. A society that is committed to the rule of law must recognise that that law protects the

  147
  rights of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association with others, which rights are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
  The police have traditionally found little difficulty in controlling public meetings by the use of the ordinary criminal law. For the individual, there is always the civil law to protect his or her person or property against unlawful assemblies, though the Government did little to protect the rule of law when they sought to inhibit the use of the civil law against picketing miners during the miners' strike. Although the police did their duty uncomplainingly, I believe that they would have preferred not to have to carry on their shoulders the full weight of protecting the working miners. Once again I fear that the Government may be guilty of overselling their public order proposals.
  It was the legal correspondent of the Financial Times who wrote recently:
  "The Home Secretary, in framing his proposals for reforming the present public order law, assumes too blandly that a tightening of police powers over demonstrations and meetings will reduce, if not eliminate, some of the public disorders which have disrupted public life in recent years, even supposing such powers did not infringe our civil liberties."
  The two alliance parties will support the legislation that is necessary and that is designed to combat public disorder in a constructive manner. They will review closely the provisions of the Bill when it is published. No business of Government is more important than the protection of individuals going about their lawful business from violence, intimidation and harassment.
  The public is deeply concerned that public order should be upheld, but it will find it difficult to admire the image of the Prime Minister that is drawn by some of her acolytes in this morning's press. The contrast between the tone of the Prime Minister yesterday and the reportage of her performance and the cool, almost dispassionate detachment of the Home Secretary will not have been lost on any right hon. or hon. Member. The Home Secretary could afford to be dispassionate. The dirty work had already been done. One egregious commentator stated:
  "The Prime Minister turned chief crime-buster last night."
  What has he been doing for the last six years? Why is he so unappreciative of her earlier efforts at crime-busting?
  The Prime Minister's vainglorious image will not dazzle a rightly sceptical public. The fight against crime will be long and hard and will not end with a spectacular victory. It will require the support of every right hon. and hon. Member.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. William Shelton: The 1981 Brixton riots took place before the 1983 redistribution of seats. They were therefore outside my Streatham constituency. Since the 1983 redistribution, part of Brixton—a rectangle running from Lambeth town hall—falls within my constituency. Immediately after redistribution, I became very much involved with the community police consultative group and, as much as possible, with the community in Brixton.
  What happened at the end of September came almost as a personal shock and tragedy to me. One of my more ill-timed letters was written to the local press only two weeks before those events. In it, I supported and praised the community police consultative group and said that I
  148
  thought that there was little likelihood of the kind of troubles that we experienced in 1981 ever occurring again. The disorder came therefore as a great shock to many people, including myself.
  Like many other people, I have asked why the trouble happened or why we think that it happened, but, as with any major event, there are many different strands. Everyone suggests different causes and no one knows the real ones. One cause was the very unfortunate death of Mrs. Groce. Obviously that was received with much understandable indignation. Another element is the youngsters who are in it for the looting. Perhaps the Opposition would say that a shortage of Government funds has led to inner-city deprivation, a poor environment and much unemployment.
  Also, many ill-intentioned people were hanging about. On the previous weekend, the police advised market traders to pack up and go home early because they foresaw trouble. On the Friday before the weekend of the riots The Star—one of the local free sheets thrust through our doors—carried a front page interview with Councillor Ted Knight, the leader of Lambeth council, in which he said that he foresaw trouble shortly. I do not know whether he had some prophetic sight or whether he knew that it was coming. Nevertheless, there were signs that ill-intentioned people were looking for trouble.
  I make the point constantly that in Lambeth there has been no shortage of cash. I will not weary the House by quoting the amounts of money allocated during the past few years. People either forget or prefer to ignore that the rate support grant provides 50 per cent. of Lambeth's £120 million or so spending. In addition to the rate support grant, Lambeth gets some £70 million, made up from the housing revenue account, the housing improvement programme allocation, the urban programme and the inner-city grant. What the council does with the additional money is quite another matter, to which I shall come later.
  Many people ascribe what happened at the end of September to anti-police feeling. Certainly there was antipolice feeling when Mrs. Groce was, I trust accidentally, shot. As the right hon. Member Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said, the people who rioted are a small minority. One can understand some anti-police feeling. There is an ethnic community in Brixton some of whom use drugs in the same way that we use tea or coffee. The police fulfil their duty and arrest them and they feel aggrieved at being arrested for smoking marijuana, for instance.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is not here, because I must disagree with him. Perhaps some Opposition Members agree with me that among the Left wing of the Labour party or perhaps outside the Labour party there are those with ill intentions towards the police. I heard on the radio the other day that teachers—presumably the Inner London Teachers Association—have endorsed the proposal that no London schools should open their doors to the police because of police "institutional racism". I do not know whether that is true, but many London schools do not allow the police to talk to the youngsters in class. I believe that that is awfully wrong.
  The police are kept out, but that video made by the Greater London council is let in. Some hon. Members have seen the video, which is an absolute travesty of the facts. If the teachers allow youngesters to see the video they should at least allow the police to come in—which

  149
  I should much prefer. Pray heaven that in May the Conservatives will capture the Inner London education authority and do something about that.
  I hope that I shall be forgiven if I continue to refer to the comments of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, but he made a very good speech except for a few references to the Leader of the Opposition with which I did not entirely agree. He said that we must all support the police. Surely that includes the teachers who have the care of our young.
  As my constituency and Brixton fall within Lambeth, I must refer to Lambeth council and its attitude towards the police. I can guess that councillors have this attitude because they want local control of the police. Some Lambeth councillors may believe that the more that they can undermine the police, the sooner they will gain the local control that they so badly want. The vast majority of my constituents would be deeply alarmed if they saw that coming.
  I want to discuss some small straws in the wind—nothing fundamental. For years, Lambeth allowed the police into the social services directorate to discuss cases of people in need of help or care and children who might be battered. A short while ago the police were barred from the social services directorate. Lambeth council, like other Left-wing Labour councils, has set up its own police committee in direct competition with the community police consultative group created as a result of the Scarman recommendations following the 1981 riots. The Lambeth council committee was set up at considerable cost to the ratepayers and is run by a local councillor. The police are not allowed to attend the meetings.
  The committee members decide what they consider the police should do and they write to the police or hold undercover meetings with the police because they believe that it would be compromising to be seen talking openly. Whatever the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) may say, that attitude does not give the community confidence that they are in close liaison with the police.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has just left the Opposition Front Bench. The community police consultative group automatically comprises all elected members from Lambeth—Members of Parliament, GLC members and councillors. The hon. Member for Vauxhall was a member for a short while, but he resigned. I have no idea whether he resigned under pressure from the caucus in his constituency or of his own free will. I have not had an opportunity to ask him.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Member tell the House whether that body had any power? Such a body was established in Merseyside, and having seen it function it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) probably resigned because its recommendations or suggestions were not implemented. The body had no power to ensure that its recommendations were carried out. There is no point in going to meetings if no good comes of them.
  Mr. Shelton: It is true that such a consultative group does not have any power; I take the hon. Member's point. However, the police commander Alex Marnoch—who is, unfortunately, moving on and will no doubt be replaced by another equally good commander—and three or four of his colleagues always attend when the group meets
  150
  every two weeks or once a month. Although the group has no power to make the police commander do any thing, I assure the House that it is very awkward—the hon. Member knows how these things work—for the police representative to say, "No, we will not do it." That committee has much power of persuasion but it has no constitutional power. Had I realised that the hon. Member for Vauxhall would not be present I would have sent him a note saying that I intended to refer to him.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has been present at all for this part of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) should remember, when he refers in a rather derogatory fashion to some of the committees set up by the council, that in many areas—I cannot speak for all areas—there are Conservative members on those committees. There are Conservative members on the committee in Tottenham, for example. Is the hon. Member for Streatham condemning them as well?
  Will the hon. Member for Streatham also consider the much wider issue of the problems in some inner-city areas? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said, the relationship between the police and the public has become very bad. The hon. Member for Streatham should not just list all the baddies on one side and forget the other side as though he is one of the goodies. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that this is a two-way relationship and that good and bad exist on both sides. We must realise that before we can improve the situation.
  Mr. Shelton: I do not know whether a Scarman community police consultative group exists in Tottenham. If such a group does not exist, it is right and proper that one sponsored by the council should exist. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has missed my point. The police consultative groups were set up after 1981 on Lord Scarman's recommendations. The consultative group in Lambeth has done excellent work. It takes time to operate, but it has transformed the community. That is why I wrote that rather ill-judged letter to the local paper commending the group's good work and saying I could not foresee any problems. The riot in September might not have occurred in two years' time if the excellent work done by the consultative group in Lambeth had taken effect.
  I am carping about the fact that a year ago Lambeth council set up a rival group. When I attended a meeting of the Scarman community consultative group last Tuesday we were told—to indrawn gasps of astonishment, horror and amazement—that Lambeth council had just advised us that it could no longer make available the office that it had provided for the last three years. The reason given by the council was that it is overcrowded and needs the office space for extra staff. That sits ill with the council's statements that because of rate capping it will have to fire between 1,500 and 2,000 staff.
  As the Minister of State knows, the consultative group is an excellent one. It is funded through the Home Office and urgently needs £5,000 to £10,000 to install itself in new offices. I shall shortly be writing to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State about this matter.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to comment. He is correct in saying that the Lambeth consultative committee has been threatened with dispossession of its premises. I have met members of the Lambeth consultative committee and have assured them of our continuing support. I hope that, through the commissioner who has the authority for assisting these groups, we shall be able to help them in their present emergency. I remind my hon. Friend that the consultative committees are set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and I hope they will be set up throughout the metropolis in due course.
  Mr. Shelton: I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend, and I shall send copies of the appropriate columns of Hansard to all the members of the Lambeth consultative group.
  I will not delay the House much longer, but I wish to make a small digression on the plight of small traders in Brixton, many of whom are Asian and have suffered as a consequence of these riots. Theirs is a peculiar and specific problem on which I do not feel capable of advising. They cannot get insurance for their properties. Brixton has become a no-go area for insurance. One small shopkeeper, whose insurance lapsed when he was paying £1,000 a year, is now being asked for £9,000 a year. I say, "Surely this is only because of the riot and the danger of being burnt down?" but he would reply, "No." His broker told him, for instance, that no one would be given comprehensive car cover insurance in Brixton. They would receive only third party insurance. Bridging loans are not available for small shopkeepers in Brixton. As an example of the present state of Brixton, a bus conductor in Brixton told me recently that people were still asking whether it was safe to get off at bus stops in Brixton.
  Unless we find answers to these problems—not specifically of insurance, but of reassurance about Brixton—Brixton will decay and become a ghost town with increasing unemployment and prospects of trouble. What is the way forward? I do not pretend to know the answer to the question, but two things need to be done. First, we should support the community police consultative group which transformed the ethos in Brixton over two years ago until the end of September last. The goodies in Brixton became self-confident and stood up against the small minority of bullies and villains.
  The main consultative community group consists of approximately 40 smaller community groups and the commander representing the police is always present. If we want good community and police relations in Brixton or anywhere else where such relations are required, a forum must exist. I cannot accept the Lambeth council police committee as a forum because it excludes the police. I urge everyone in Brixton and on Lambeth council strongly to support the community committee.
  Environment has been given as a reason for some of the problems. There are estates in Brixton which are appallingly administered. Some of the property is in an awful condition. Repairs and transfers take not weeks or months but years. To some extent I blame the ideological rubbish propounded by Lambeth council which refuses to sell council houses until forced in desperation by the law. I am not sure whether this is deliberate, but the council also houses homeless families in blocks inhabited by elderly people, thus breaking up those blocks. It blames
  152
  what happens on the Government and on shortage of funds, but it has had £70 million in addition to the rate support grant this year. Lambeth council does not collect its rents and gives no hope or rights to its tenants. The council does not answer letters. I have difficulty in obtaining answers to my letters, but I do not suppose that that is deliberate. The councillors—not the officers—do not trust the people and prefer to keep them as dependent vote fodder.
  I believe that if the Conservatives do not win the council elections in May, the only solution to the problems in inner cities will be to take the control of housing away from the elected councils and keep it politically neutral. A system of housing corporations should be instituted to run the large, awful estates in Brixton. I can see no other solution. I cannot envisage Labour-controlled Lambeth running them. If and when the Conservatives take control in May they will need eight years rather than four to put things right, and they may well not have eight years. Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy once suggested, we should give council houses away, but at least we must take them away from political control and give them to a housing association.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to reflect on the fact that one of the problems with housing is that people feel that they have no control. To change from one form of authority to another is not the solution. Would he consider handing control to the people by devolving management and control to them rather than by replacing one landlord with another and leaving the people powerless over their own destiny?
  Mr. Shelton: The hon. Member is prescient. He has obviously read my notes. I agree with him, but I do not think that Labour-controlled Lambeth will ever do that. That is why I should like control to be given to the housing association. The housing association should set up management co-operatives for people who cannot afford to buy houses, privatise run-down blocks, which were mentioned in the Gracious Speech, undertake homesteading, a good plan which the GLC used to do and which I have pressed on Lambeth unavailingly, ensure efficient transfers and repairs and promote the sales of houses and flats. In other words, it should do all the things that a good, non-profit making caring landlord should do to work itself out of business as, I understand, the Commission for New Towns is doing, trying to privatise the new towns. I am not entirely pessimistic. There is a way forward for Lambeth, but there is not much time. We must act quickly.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I am surprised how often Conservative Members attack democratically elected local government and suggest that services should be taken away from them, especially if those councils are not controlled by the Conservative party. The answer seems to be to take away control of housing if they do not win the local government elections. That seems a strange way forward. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and others criticise a democratically elected local authority for setting up police monitoring committees, or committees to deal with police liaison. That is the height of hypocrisy. It implies that the policing of areas has nothing to do with the elected representatives of the people. I remind hon. Members that there would be no

  153
  police forces if they had not been pioneered by local government. When Conservative Members glibly attack the idea of politics in policing, they are really saying that they do not want police policy to be accountable to democratically elected institutions, whether it be this Chamber or democratically elected local councils.
  The Labour party argues, quite reasonably, that local councils—democratically elected watch committees as they used to be called—should not have the right or the power to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the police but should have some say in terms of policy direction and the deployment of resources.
  I have strong feelings about this because, in Bootle, there is a new game called spot the policeman. They are falling over them in Toxteth, we are told, where there is intensive policing, to which the community objects. However, in my constituency people come to my advice bureau, and ask me when I meet them in the street, "Why cannot we have the bobby back on the beat? Why cannot we have more policemen, not fewer? Why do they drive through our estates in panda cars but fail to stop when we flag them down? Why do the policemen in this area not understand and know the area but come from the Wirral and elsewhere?"
  I remember Mrs. Margaret Simey saying that we take 22-year-old young men from the Wirral, give them hardly any training, put them into uniform and send them into Toxteth. Without any training, they are asking Pakistanis for their Christian names and things like that. We should be done for cruelty to children in view of the way we treat some of the young people who join the police force.
  These are the issues that the Labour party is arguing for—training, deployment of resources and political input into the community. There is nothing sinister about it. We are concerned with the traditions of democratic accountability and of local government.
  Mr. David Maclean: If the Labour party's plans to control the police came about in Tottenham, for example, would the hon. Gentleman be quite happy for Mr. Bernie Grant to have operational and political control over the police in that area?
  Mr. Roberts: I would be happy for Mr. Bernie Grant or any other local politician to have operational control over the police. It would not harm the relationship between the community and the police if Bernie Grant was one of the elected representatives on an all-party committee that discussed the policing of the community of which he is a representative. One would expect that, on some of the police authorities or watch committees, there would be people of extreme views such as the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I would suffer for the sake of democracy such people sitting on watch committees if they had been directly elected. Such representation and control would improve the important relationship between the police and the communities that they police.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he has in mind that the committees will do? Are they to be debating chambers or will they have an executive role to play? If so, what?
  Mr. Roberts: It is not difficult to describe their terms of reference. They would do exactly what the watch committees used to do. In the city of Manchester we used to have a watch committee to which the police were
  154
  accountable. It bought police horses and interesting things like that. It had a trip to Ireland and bought three horses. One died on the way home and one was found to be blind. The other was all right until two months later, when the police band struck up in Albert square and the horse stood up on its hind legs because it was a circus horse.
  Those are the kind of decisions that the old watch committees used to take. However, there was some accountability because, having made those mistakes, the then Tory council lost the election the following May. They were the kind of policing decisions that involve the community. People felt that they could go along to a councillor's advice bureau and ask, "Where's the policeman? The lights are out in our area." They would deal with the problem at once. There was some contact between the community and the police. There was nothing sinister about it.
  When the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was Home Secretary, he started the process, under a Labour Government, of amalgamating police forces and making them larger. Even then the joint Salford and Manchester police force had a committee of elected councillors with some responsibility for policing policy, not day-to-day administration or interference. There was nothing sinister or difficult about it.
  Mr. Soley: What my hon. Friend has said about elected people is right. We accept that people are elected, whether they come from the Right or the Left. That is an important point of principle. I wish to return to the point that my hon. Friend left without explaining concerning training. In London, 80 per cent. of the police force come from outside the city and, as in Merseyside, they have only 20 weeks' training. Firearms training takes about 10 days and then one day every quarter as follow-up training. It is totally unfair on the police to ask them to police these areas with such inadequate training.
  Mr. Roberts: I shall say more about police training when I talk about the drug problem, especially in relation to my constituency. I believe I am supporting the police when I say that the interface between them and the community through their elected representatives is a good thing.
  The Conservative party, the so-called party of law and order, has made one of its bigger mistakes by believing its own electioneering propaganda. I believe that that is why crime has escalated dramatically in the past six years. The Conservatives believe that one needs only to make a loud noise about how evil criminals are and suggest that there should be severe punishment, even capital punishment or flogging, and the introduction of the short, sharp shock to solve the problem. They believe that the answer is more punishment and stricter penalties. That is their mistake because certainty of detection is a greater deterrent than severity of punishment. It does not matter what the punishment is: if the criminal thinks he will not get caught, he will take the risk.
  The Conservative party misunderstands the need for expenditure on rehabilitation. People who are put in prison, unless they are to be kept there for ever, have to come out. If money is not spent on rehabilitation, they will reoffend. That point has been missed by the so-called party of law and order. The Conservatives say that to maintain law and order in our society people must be allowed to have a stake in the country. A further deterrent, as well as

  155
  certainty of detection, is the loss of self-respect, the possible loss of a job and the loss of dignity from having committed a crime and being found out. If people have no job, no stake in the country and no self-respect and they leave school with no hope of finding a job and queue up in an undignified way at the Department of Health and Social Security, there is no deterrent because they have nothing to lose. That is the society that is being created as a result of massive youth unemployment and no hope for the future. My community has to suffer cuts in services and live without youth clubs.
  It is no good blaming Labour local authorities or saying that it is all the fault of the militants in Lambeth. The figures for unemployment, crime and drug pushing are higher in my constituency than anywhere in the country. I have to carry the burden not only of a Conservative Government, but of a Conservative council. If Derek Hatton is driving all the investors from Liverpool, I do not know who is driving them from Sefton, because the leader of the Conservative council in Sefton has been there for 10 years and the crime wave and unemployment are still soaring. One cannot make local government the scapegoat. One has to look at the real causes of the problem.
  An organisation on Merseyside called the Merseyside drugs education training unit has been doing research into the drug problem on Merseyside. It is funded by Merseyside county council. It does not know where its funding will come from at the end of the year, but I hope that it comes from somewhere and that the Government assist. The researcher from that organisation said of Bootle:
  "From my research, and informal conversations in the field, Bootle appears to be one of the main centres for the distribution of heroin on Merseyside, with users from Birkenhead, Southport and other outlying areas travelling to one estate to score. As I outlined in the introduction to this report, everyone that was interviewed agreed that the use and availability of heroin had escalated in the past two years."
  The person being interviewed said:
  "'This dealer we used to buy off, he used to supply Bootle, Formby, Waterloo and Litherland, that's how many junkies there were. There was, at the very most, 25 junkies when we started 3½ years ago"
  He was asked how many he thought there were now.
  "'25 million. I've never, ever, gone down to Bootle and come away empty handed. Smack. It's all smack. Like on that Bootle estate'"—
  he is referring to the Church street estate—
  "'there's about ten dealers. If one hasn't got it, next door will have it. It's odd, this is just over a year ago and I wasn't aware there was smack everywhere, easy to be had. It's so easy, if you know the general area, you've just got to walk around for a while and you soon find where it is. For a start, people aren't careful what they say. You find people shouting across the road "Has so-and-so got any gear?" You just see kids openly smoking the stuff. I've seen kids smoking on trains, at stations, and generally just talking about it and not being in the least bit discreet. It's more widespread. We know loads of places in Bootle, Walton, Toxteth, Croxteth—everyone's using it. Every place is the same as everywhere else. You know everyone that's using it … That's another thing, there's lads coming from Southport, Birkenhead and that, coming to Bootle to score, and they get mugged as well.'"
  That is the picture painted of things that are happening in my constituency.
  The residents of the Church street estate in my constituency came to see me to describe what they said was becoming a no-go area. It is a place where drug
  156
  pushers are moving into empty flats or being allocated flats and putting double iron doors behind the front door so that if there is a police raid they have time to put the drugs down the toilet; it is a place where people are coming in the night, during the day, on buses, or the train and in taxis from Southport and other areas to buy heroin, and where youngsters are going from door to door selling stolen goods to maintain their heroin habit. The residents told me that they wanted to go to the police, but were threatened that they would have their legs blown off if they interfered. They also told me that they felt there were always tip-offs to some of the pushers before raids took place and that that frightened them.
  I wrote to the chief constable of Merseyside, Ken Oxford, asking him what was happening and he wrote back:
  "I acknowledge that Bootle has become the worst area within the County of Merseyside for drug offences, but if I simply quote one figure, which is that no less than 247 persons have been arrested within one mile of the Strand precinct this year, you will appreciate that strenuous police efforts are being made to combat the problem. Of that number, no less than 141 were in the Church Street and Jersey Street estates."
  The Strand precinct referred to is the centre of Bootle town, in my constituency. The chief constable admits that Bootle has become the drug trading centre of Merseyside. That figure of 247 is the tip of the iceberg. They are the easy arrests, the kids who have been picked up for possessing not necessarily heroin but marijuana, which is not as dangerous or damaging and is not the main source of the problem. In my constituency the hard drug, heroin, is the main problem. The people who are not reflected in that figure of 247 are the big pushers and the suppliers. They are not small individuals, because many of the pushers are drug takers who have been forced to push by the suppliers to maintain the habit. Often they have been hooked on the drug as schoolchildren outside the school gates in my constituency. The problem of getting the pushers and suppliers has to be addressed by the police, especially on Merseyside.
  The resources that the police have on Merseyside are totally inadequate. There are only 28 officers in the drug squad for the whole of Merseyside. Now and then, I am told that six are deployed in the local authority area of Sefton. There are constant complaints about the lack of training for the ordinary policeman in the panda car or on the beat about what is happening on the drug scene and how to liaise with drug squad officers to deal with this massive drug problem. I hope that not only Home Office Ministers but, even more importantly, the DHSS and the Government generally will begin to look at this problem seriously and to arrange meetings with chief constables to discuss necessary training. Many people who are active in voluntary organisations or who work for local authorities could assist in training and achieve the co-operation that is needed between the police and those in the community who are trying to solve this problem in our schools and areas.
  According to the Home Office, it takes about £1,000 a week to look after a heroin addict in community and support facilities. The Home Office estimates that about 5 per cent. of drug addicts are registered and that, to cater for them alone, expenditure of £70 million would be needed. Yet the Government have made only £2 million available to deal with this problem. More resources are needed.

  157
  There must be life after drugs. It is no good just taking a drug addict to a medically supervised hospital, rehabilitation centre or maintenance clinic for detoxification or providing counselling. Merseyside is developing acupuncture methods to relieve drug addiction, and I hope that the Government will investigate whether services can be made available for that programme. That electro-acupuncture service must be paid for. Its use should be considered in terms of the NHS. I would be happy to send the Minister details of the service that is being developed by a group of acupuncturists.
  It is no good taking the addict out of his environment to a clinic, rehabilitation centre or hospital, taking him off drugs and then returning him to the same environment unless there is the back-up in the community to ensure that his life will not be the same again. People take drugs to escape and, if they return to the circumstances from which they wanted to escape, they will start taking drugs again. Those circumstances include a return to unemployment, which is a major problem.
  I have highlighted the seriousness of the drug problem in my constituency and Merseyside. The metropolitan borough of Sefton—it is not my best friend as it has a Right-wing Conservative council, but it does do some good—has put in a submission to DHSS concerning seven drug counsellors and two day-care centres to deal specifically with the drug problem. One of those centres would be in Southport and the other would be in my constituency. We are still waiting for the DHSS to come up with the goods and provide the necessary funds or to say whether Sefton council will eventually receive those resources. The submission was made in February in conjunction with the area health authority. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) will join me in hoping that the Minister will take those messages to the DHSS. People from my constituency or from Southport, which is a part of Lancashire, have to travel considerable distances to treatment centres or clinics for counselling and assistance.
  The so-called party of law and order has much to answer for. The young people in my constituency—I have seen this problem develop during the past three years—will be nicknamed the Thatcher generation or the lost generation. They are killing themselves by taking drugs because they have no hope, no jobs and no stake in the future. I can be as non-party political over a political problem as the next Member of Parliament, but I shall not be. This is a very political issue. It is about public expenditure, action on jobs and saving this generation of young people. If the Government do not save those young people, it will be on their consciences, not ours.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: When I heard the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) describe Conservative literature on crime prevention before 1979 I began to wonder whether he had read it as fully or as accurately as he had thought. My recollection is that the importance of detection and conviction was always stressed. That was one of the main reasons why so much emphasis was placed on increased manpower in the police force.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I have fought elections against Conservative opponents who put out white cards with
  158
  black edges. Those cards did not mention the word "Conservative" but said, "I am the only candidate in this election who is in favour of reintroducing the rope." I have seen the filthiest law and order tactics used by Conservative candidates. If the Government claim that law and order has nothing to do with them and that the prevention of crime is not their responsibility, why does Conservative candidate after Conservative candidate fight elections on that issue?
  Mr. Ground: As I understand it, it has always been fundamental to Conservative policy that detection and conviction are more important than any other matter. Whatever the hon. Gentleman has seen on election slogans, that belief has always been the gist of Conservative policy.
  I welcome the statement in the Queen's Speech about the British Airports Authority and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reference to British Airways, both of which measures will cause considerable changes in my constituency. I hope that BAA and BA employees will be given as good an opportunity to buy shares as was enjoyed by British Telecom employees. I hope also that a means of giving travel concessions to BA shareholders will be found. That will help to fill the empty seats in British Airways aeroplanes.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in relation to Sunday trading
  "it is absolutely right to give people the choice."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 24.]
  The Government plainly attach importance to giving people the option whether to shop on Sundays. It is right to give people the choice whether to work on Sundays without risking their jobs in the retail trade and without facing the risk when going for an interview that they will not get the job. That right of choice is as important as the right of choice to shop on Sundays.
  I welcome the statements in the Gracious Speech about control of Government expenditure. It is not enough to control the amount—it is necessary to review the purpose and objective of expenditure and to ensure within individual programmes that the money is sensibly spent. That applies to many Government programmes, but it is particularly pertinent to the urban programme, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The time has come to ask what are the objectives of this programme, whether they are being achieved and whether they could be better achieved by other policies. I understand that the employment creating aspects of the urban programme are already the subject of Government review, and l look forward to seeing the result.
  I shall therefore concentrate on the remainder of the urban programme. As I understand it, the criteria for designating an area as a receiving authority for urban aid are principally the number of heads of households born in the new Commonwealth; the number of one-parent families; and factors relating to overcrowding, lack of housing amenities and loss of population. For first generation immigrants to this country, the need for English teaching, for example, is a special need towards which central Government can legitimately give additional funds in order to further such teaching. Similarly, extra expenditure may be incurred by local authorities with large ethnic communities to ensure that services are geared to the needs of the whole community.
  If that be the object of Government policy, should not such help be available to all local authorities with large

  159
  ethnic minorities? Should not the help that is given be specifically aimed at solving that problem? In any event, is it justifiable simply to regard the number of heads of households born in new Commonwealth countries as a sign of deprivation?
  In my view, the number of one-parent families is not a sign of deprivation. It may well be that to some extent they need services different from those required by the rest of the population, but it is an insult to one-parent families—who in many cases shoulder their difficulties well and tackle the problem of bringing up children in a wholly admirable way—to treat their presence as a sign of urban deprivation. When the Government are reviewing this policy, I would specifically ask that whole areas are not labelled "deprived" merely because of the presence of ethnic minorities or one-parent families. Instead, the Government should consider whether particular services are appropriate to those communities and whether central Government should give assistance towards them. Those two factors should certainly not be the cause of putting vast amounts of public money into particular areas for other purposes.
  The trend in overcrowding, housing amenities and loss of population over the past 20 or 30 years shows that these problems are subsiding, and it is doubtful whether any special policies are appropriate to deal with those problems. It is clear from statistics in the inner city areas over the past 20, 30 or even 10 years that there have been striking improvements in the condition of the housing stock, the number of houses with bathrooms and indoor lavatories and the problem of overcrowding. The balance between housing stock and households has constantly improved and is continuing to improve. Is it therefore necessary to have special Government policies to assist in areas where the trends are already improving?
  Loss of population should not in itself be a means of receiving Government assistance. The loss of population in inner cities has enabled overcrowding to be alleviated, and in most parts of inner London the housing stock is now less fully occupied than it was. There has been a loss of population, but that has presented the opportunity to improve amenities and the quality of life for those who remain.
  The voluntary organisations play a part in the urban programme. In the review that is taking place, I particularly ask the Government to look at the content of the work of the voluntary organisations. They must ask whether these are genuinely voluntary organisations or merely facades for professional workers with no substantial voluntary participation. I suggest that the assistance given to voluntary organisations should be geared to the genuinely voluntary content of their work.
  It may well be that in inner city areas other policies can do more for the inhabitants than special measures through the urban programme. I welcome the fact that the Gracious Speech refers specifically to the sale of public sector flats to tenants and to wider private sector involvement in the ownership and management of council housing. It is by no means clear to me how this will be achieved, but it is very desirable in many areas because for many people the council is at present the only option available. One of the benefits for such areas will be a genuine choice between public and private housing both to rent and to buy.
  160
  I should like to have seen a provision in the Gracious Speech to allow vacant property to be left free of rent control and even the letting of vacant property at less than two thirds of rateable value. That was always one of the exemptions from Rent Act control before the last war and for some years afterwards, and that would at least provide a small option for a number of people. I do not think that would offend Opposition Members if it led to the letting of houses at less than two thirds of their rateable value. That would hardly be politically controversial if it meant the letting of properties that would not otherwise be let.
  In many cases, the provision of some property for owner-occupation in inner city areas has been the signal for young, enterprising people to refurbish derelict property and in the long run to make quite substantial profits both for themselves and their families.
  Some houses in Fulham not far from where I live were condemned in the early 1960s and proposed for acquisition at site value by the local authority. Compulsory purchase orders were eventually cancelled and the houses are now selling for between £150,000 and £200,000. That is what can happen when enterprising people move into derelict property. They benefit financially and the housing stock is improved.
  If the Government wish to help people in the inner cities or people who live in areas suffering from urban problems, I suggest that they provide money for open space and playing facilities for children. In my area people living in tower blocks would like to have a three-bedroomed house with a garden. If they cannot have that they want better play facilities and parks locally. I am sure that that is the experience of all hon. Members.
  In our debate on inner city riots a few weeks ago a number of hon. Members referred to concrete jungles and urban deserts. One of the ways to deal with the problems to the satisfaction of the local people is to provide more public amenity land such as play space and gardens, as was intended after the war. I regret that neither central Government nor local government has insisted upon meeting that intention. Central Government could deal with urban deprivation in that way.
  Whatever happens, I hope that the Government will examine the programme analytically and ensure that help is directed towards problems of national importance. Government help must be directed in ways that are seen to be acceptable and welcome by the people who are expected to benefit.
  6.3 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The majority of people in Scotland will draw no comfort from the Gracious Speech. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) talked about unemployment and educational problems in south London. Unemployment is at a scandalously high level in many Scottish areas. In Greenock and Port Glasgow male unemployment is about 26 per cent.
  Few people in Scotland believe that the current teachers' dispute will be resolved in the near future. In the absence of an independent pay review teachers should receive a fair and reasonable pay award. If that met with agreement in the teaching unions, they would be prepared to discuss sensibly new terms and conditions of service. The dispute must be settled soon in the interests both of the children and the teachers.

  161
  As to crime and law and order, it seems that the Government's chief concern in Scotland is to pursue and punish salmon poachers. Salmon fishery regulations take up a half of the one paragraph in the Queen's Speech devoted to Scotland. I should like the Government to pursue drug traffickers in the way that they intend to pursue salmon poachers, not that I have any sympathy for salmon poachers.
  Law and order is not a party political issue and should not be commandeered as such by a party which, while in office, has presided over a huge increase in crime of all kinds. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said in a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee more than two years ago that
  "there has been an arrogant assumption on the part of Conservative Members of Parliament that they have a monopoly of concern about crime figures and the growth of crime."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 25 May 1982; c. 28.]
  That criticism holds today. That arrogant assumption is seen by some Government Members as a way of staving off defeat at the next general election.
  Law and order is of urgent concern to all our constituents. Fortunately, in Scotland good relations exist between the public and the police. There was some anxiety during the coal industry dispute and some allegations about heavy-handed policing but it can be said with confidence that generally the police are assisted by good relations. I do not expect the Secretary of State to disagree with that.
  Scotland has had community policing for many years. We do not experience the ugly disputes that sometimes arise in some English areas between some chief constables and their police authorities. If law and order is a risky subject for politicians, politics is a dangerous activity for chief constables.
  A dreadful increase in recorded crimes has occurred over recent years in Scotland. In 1978 crimes recorded numbered 334,957. In 1984 that had risen to 474,913, an increase of 41·8 per cent. The clear-up rate has remained remarkably and dismally consistent. In 1978 it was 30 per cent. and in 1984 it was 31 per cent. The clear-up rate for housebreaking was 19 per cent. in 1978 and 18 per cent. in 1984. That consistency remained despite a 6·7 increase in the number of police officers between 1978 and 1984.
  Another deeply worrying increase has occurred—in the number of criminal offences involving the alleged use of firearms. In 1978 the number of such offences was 492 and 1984 it was 1,336. These are depressing statistics.
  Scotland has experienced shock increases in drug crimes and drug seizures. The number of drug crimes rose from 1,500 in 1978 to 4,404 in 1984. The seizures of controlled drugs in the same period has risen from 1,275 to 2,955.
  Many of those involved in drug addiction and drug-related offences are young people. The Guardian today stated:
  "More than half of unemployed boys in the Edinburgh region, and more than a third of out-of-work girls, have used illegal drugs such as cannabis, LSD, cocaine, and heroin, researchers said yesterday. A survey of 1,036 school-leavers carried out by Dr. Martin Plant and a team from Edinburgh University shows strong links between drugs and the dole. Drug use among those who were students or had jobs was much lower."
  Although it is difficult to show a close relationship between unemployment and crime, I believe that there is
  162
  clear evidence of a strong link between unemployment, drug addiction and certain types of criminal offence. The Glasgow Herald recently stated:
  "Senior police officials and drug squad officers have claimed that an increasing proportion of crime, particularly theft and housebreaking, has been attributable to increased criminality by illicit drug users supporting their habit."
  Youngsters who become addicted to drugs will, in many cases, steal first from their parents, aunts and uncles. Then, I regret, they will indulge in housebreaking and other crimes. Many of those young people face an utterly hopeless future. In areas of Glasgow and other towns and cities in Scotland large numbers of young people live in decaying houses on bleak, ugly estates. For many of them there is no hope of a job or of transferring to a decent home in a high amenity area. There is no hope of positive change in their lives. For those deprived young people, the Gracious Speech could as well have been written in Latin or Greek.
  The problem of drug abuse among the young is not one for the police alone. That was emphasised in the last annual report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, who said that other agencies have become involved in the task of dealing with drug addiction and drug offences. Numerous other agencies must be given the resources to tackle the problem in an effective manner. A start could be made by increasing the number of front-line Customs officers. The present force does a splendid job, but it is desperately over-stretched. It requires many more resources and increased manpower.
  We need a more humane and compassionate approach to the problems of unemployment and inadequate, decaying housing. This Government display no compassion or concern for the unemployed—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Rubbish.
  Dr. Godman: The Minister might shout "Rubbish", but I speak the truth for many thousands of people in my constituency.
  I want finally to deal with alcohol abuse and alcohol-related crime. I am especially concerned about public drunkenness. We should seek to decriminalise alcohol-induced behaviour throughout Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. We should set up a network of what is known in England as detoxification centres—we call them designated places. They would offer a more consistent policy towards public drunkards, which would encourage them to view their behaviour in a social and personal, rather than a criminal, context. Such a system would also reduce the amount of police and court time wasted in repeated dealings with habitual offenders, and would significantly reduce the prison population.
  Under such a system, an individual would come within reach of helping agencies more frequently, and therefore have more opportunity to take advantage of the services available. One of the main aims of designated places should thus be to decriminalise the habitual drunken offender by accepting police referral of those arrested before they are charged. Emphasis should be placed on the sickness rather than the criminal element of drunken behaviour.
  A number of researchers have estimated that each person brought to a designated centre or detoxification unit results in a saving of up to 12 hours of police time, and court time is also saved. The Magistrates' Association has

  163
  estimated that it costs £115 to process through the courts someone accused of a drink-related offence. If we add police time of £20 an hour and the cost of imprisonment which is not less than £120 a week, it means that every arrest resulting in two weeks imprisonment costs the nation up to £600.
  The savings in police, court and prison time are considerable, but human and social benefits should also be considered. For the homeless offender, repeated processing through the criminal justice system has been shown to be both demoralising and ineffectual. The real needs and problems of such people are never met; indeed, they are seldom examined in any sensible manner. The self-perpetuating cycle of drink, court appearance and prison must be broken if the individual and society are to benefit.
  For those with roots in the community, a home and a job, the stigma and disruption of arrest, court appearance and fines can destroy relationships and reputations without providing any benefit to the individual or the community.
  There are a few principal dimensions of the problems on which action is necessary and to which resources must be committed. First, those who exhibit drunken behaviour in public must be dealt with in an effective and humane manner without recourse to prison. Secondly, the particular needs of the individual must be taken into account. Thirdly, we should replace penal sanctions with social provision.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Godman: I have not finished. I promise that I will not speak for as long as some Conservative Members. I shall finish in a few minutes. Conservative Members have been jumping up and down like the proverbial Jack-in-the-box.
  The major concern of the overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom is to live in a peaceful, law-abiding and tolerable community. To that end, politicians at local and national levels, the Government, the public and the police must work together within the rule of law to deal with crime more effectively than hitherto. I do not believe that there is much hope for such unity of will and purpose while the present Government are in office.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: Opposition Members have sought to present the emphasis on law and order in the Gracious Speech as a smokescreen for the real problem, which is unemployment. However, it is interesting to note that virtually the whole debate has concentrated on law and order.
  I wish to raise some other Home Office issues that arise out of the Queen's Speech but it would be a discourtesy to my constituents if, at the outset, I did not mention a subject of great concern to them.
  It did not surprise me to hear the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), readily condemn those Labour authorities who have sought to prevent the police from giving educational classes in schools. It would not have surprised me on an earlier occasion, when he was Home Secretary or leader of his party, to have heard him condemn leaders of Labour
  164
  authorities who condemned the police. Nor would it surprise me to hear the right hon. Gentleman condemn those who cause trouble on the picket lines.
  Had the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) been as courteous in giving way to Conservative Members as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in giving way to Opposition Members, he might have been asked, for example, how much police time and money was wasted on the picket lines and why it took so long for himself and the Leader of the Opposition to condemn those who condemned the police.
  My constituents are genuinely concerned about law and order and will welcome that portion of the Gracious Speech that shows that the Government intend to strengthen the powers of the police in combating disorder. They will also welcome, as residents of a coastal constituency and Channel port area, the powers that the Government intend to introduce to make sure that those who at present profit from trafficking in drugs are no longer so readily able to do so. My constituents will understand what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) said about the horrors of drug abuse and will wish any penalty to be inflicted on those who traffic in that sort of misery.
  At the end of the Gracious Speech we are told:
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  The Home Office will not have responsibility for the fixed link arguments. However, it has responsibility for immigration and I believe that it is responsible for the control of rabies. I hope that Home Office Ministers will be ready to answer the flood of letters that even now my constituents are preparing to send the Government and that they will pass down the line the message that the prospect of a fixed link of any kind is viewed with dismay in east Kent. It will do, so far as we can see, no good and could cause great harm to a beautiful area of England. I warn the Government that opposition to the fixed link from that corner of England is likely to be vigorous indeed.
  I welcome the provisions in the Gracious Speech for the enhancement of animal welfare. The new provision for the protection of animals used for experimental purposes will be supported in spirit, if not entirely to the letter, by the British Veterinary Association, the committee for the reform of animal experimentation and the fund for the replacement of animals in medical experiments, of which all-party group I am the chairman.
  While we do not accept that all the provisions in the White Paper are perfect, our view is that the proposed legislation will be a major step forward, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on the amount of courageous work that he has done, at tremendous personal cost, in preparing this legislation.
  It saddened me to receive this morning from an organisation known as Mobilisation a paper stating that it would be
  "continuing opposition to the Government's intention to introduce new legislation on animal experimentation based on the supplementary White Paper".
  The majority of people in Britain, never mind in Parliament, appreciate that a unilateral approach to animal welfare, which is what the Mobilisation team proposes, would not only be unworkable but would be immoral. To ban experimentation overnight in this country and simply

  165
  drive the problem overseas, and pretend that we had solved it worldwide, would be a nonsense and achieve nothing for the animals that that body claims it wishes to protect.
  I am pleased to say that on that proposed measure, which appears to be only one of a few on the Home Office slate, I shall be in the Aye Lobby supporting the Government.
  The Home Office also has responsibility for broadcasting. I regret that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, has temporarily left the Chamber because when we debate the televising of the House it may fall to him to explain how, if this brave new experiment goes ahead, it will be paid for. He seems already to have enough problems in financing the BBC without funding from this House 24 hours of television which nobody will watch.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that that debate should take place in full floodlight so that we could experience the heat that we were likely to witness when the television cameras came in. You, Mr. Speaker, and many hon. Members experienced that heat at the State Opening, and the lighting bars are still on view. That was a foretaste of what we shall be in for if hon. Members are foolish enough to concede to what they believe to be an innovation.
  We have available to us already the microphones that are hanging before our eyes. I suggest, as a former television producer, that those who wish to see democracy enhanced should look to the microphones, to the broadcasting of the House, rather than to the televising of our proceedings.
  We are in danger, on occasion, of pursuing change for the sake of change, and in that respect I come to the proposed alterations to the shop trading hours. The Prime Minister said that the legislation would be in line with the main recommendations of the Auld committee. I hope that that is not so because I do not wish to see wages councils perpetuated, and that was one Auld recommendation.
  I accept that there is need for change and that the present Sunday trading laws have fallen into disrepute. But that does not necessarily mean having a free-for-all, which is the message that I am getting from my constituents. All my churches are opposed to a free-for-all on Sunday trading. While I do not normally wear my religion on my sleeve and I do not think that I am regarded as a "churchy" person, I do not mind admitting publicly that I am a member of the Church of England.
  I respect the views of the Church, and you, Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day, in St. Margaret's, Westminster, read a lesson from Romans XII and told us that we should
  "be transformed by the renewing of your mind."
  For most people in Britain, Sunday is a day, perhaps the day, on which the mind can be renewed, in church, walking the dog, in some public hostelry or wherever. You also read to us that we should
  "cleave to that which is good."
  I believe—again, I am getting this message from my constituents—that at present, Sunday, warts and all, is pretty good. It would be sad if we were to implement change simply for the sake of change.
  The Leader of the House said some months ago that there were two kinds of Member of Parliament, bishops and bookmakers. Were I a betting man or a bookmaker,
  166
  I would lay hefty odds that when it came to the crunch, the majority of people in this country would sooner have Sundays left largely alone.
  On the economic argument, there are five chambers of commerce in my constituency, and each is opposed to a free-for-all on Sunday trading. Add to that the weight of the view of USDAW, and we begin to see what the people really want. Let us not forget that about 5 million trade unionists voted Conservative at the last election. I do not doubt that many of them are members of the shopworkers' union. It is wrong for Conservatives to say that that is just a union point of view and should be dismissed. We should not dismiss it.
  It was suggested earlier that people should really have the right to choose. I shall support the legislation when we have built into it the right of every man and woman not to work on Sunday if they choose not to do so, for all time—present employees and those who may be employed in the future.
  I shall support the legislation only if we introduce measures to preserve the quality of Sunday. I received another paper this morning—it was a good post—from the National Consumer Council. It contained the result of some work carried out by Market Behaviour Ltd. It said:
  "The chance to shop on Sunday would give the kiss of life to a day that for many is the dullest and most lonely of the week."
  I believe that it would give the kiss of death to a day that for many is the most enriching, relaxing, refreshing and fulfilling of the week.
  There is a compromise that members of all religions on both sides of the House could support. We should carefully study American laws. Massachusetts has solved the problem. That state has come up with answers that I believe most Members of the House could realistically support. I should take no pride in being a Member of a Parliament that destroyed the British Sunday
  We are contemplating taking measures to allow shops to open on Sundays, but we shall still shut all our public houses on a hot Saturday afternoon. It saddens me that, in this welter of legislation, we still have no measure designed to reform our antiquated licensing laws. I understand the pressures on the Home Office and the demand for legislative time. That is not a criticism of my right hon. Friend and his team, but if one of my right hon. or hon. Friends or I were fortunate enough to be lucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and if we were to select some reform of the licensing laws in England and Wales, I hope that the Home Office would allow not a free-for-all but a little greater licence.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will accept my apologies if I do not follow the precise argument that he has put to the House. I gather from what he has said that we shall be seeing him frequently in the Opposition Lobby. We may have the opportunity to debate at some other time the points that he mentioned.
  I should like to comment briefly on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground). He said that detection and conviction were central to the Government's approach to law and order. I understand that the Government do not especially wish to debate or consider the causes of crime. They adopt a different approach and talk about detection and conviction. They cannot have it both ways. If the

  167
  Government wish to argue the case of detection and conviction, they must offer some explanation to the House and to the public for the 40 per cent. increase in crime in the period of their rule since 1979.
  If the solution to that crime wave can be found in greater police activity, more detection and a greater number of convictions, the Government have failed. We have had additional policing but we still have a record crime level.
  The Home Secretary said that he understood that the Opposition wished to concentrate more on the causes of crime. He referred to the problem of community decline. I hope that Conservative Members understand why we wish to study the causes of crime. I had a conversation last weekend with the police chief superintendent in my constituency. He said that the police could deal with the crime wave and the mindless vandalism, clear up all the cases of larceny, and crack down on hooligans, but it would mean a level of policing which would be unacceptable to any civilised society. It would mean policing with such a heavy hand that neither the Government nor the public would be prepared to accept it. If that attitude is shared by the Government, they must share with us an examination of the root causes of crime.
  I do not apologise for saying that the Queen's Speech contained nothing of relevance to my constituency. I make no apology for detaining the House, just for a moment, with some of the economic statistics of my constituency. Wales has about 200,000 unemployed people. That is the highest level of unemployment since 1936. The unemployment rate is twice that of areas represented by Conservative Members in the south-east of England. If they have an unemployment problem in their constituency, they should imagine what the problem would be like if the numbers were doubled. Can they imagine what it is like to have the national average of one in five of the male population permanently out of work?
  Wales has seen the greatest fall in the percentage of the population employed in manufacturing. Only 22·6 per cent. of our population is now engaged in manufacturing. That is the lowest figure of any of the standard planning regions in the United Kingdom with the exception of the south-east. Special circumstances apply there.
  Mid-Glamorgan has seen the percentage of unemployment rise from 4·2 per cent. in 1974 to 19·7 per cent. in September 1985. Since September 1979, Mid-Glamorgan has had the highest percentage loss of jobs in England and Wales. An employment exchange in the centre of my constituency has an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. In the Rhymney valley, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), there is an unemployment rate of 44 per cent. at the Pontlottyn employment exchange. Of that figure, 50 per cent. is long-term unemployment.
  Looking at overall wealth, with the United Kingdom index of 100 in November 1984, Wales at 83·8 per cent. was the poorest of all standard planning regions in the United Kingdom. The sole exception was Northern Ireland. In Wales, 18 per cent. of all households depend upon social security benefits. Wales is second only to the south-west in having 9·1 per cent. of male full-time employees earning less than £100 a week.
  In the local authority area which I partly represent, a housing survey conducted last month showed a staggering
  168
  figure of 78 per cent. of council tenants eligible for housing benefit—about 12,000 houses. In the private sector the figure was 31 per cent. Is that the brave new world that the Government offer us? Does the Queen's Speech contain anything to ameliorate those conditions?
  We are told by the Secretary of State for Employment that we have the youth training scheme—a marvellous range of opportunities for young people. All that they have to do is put their foot on the ladder; they then have the opportunity to climb to prosperity. Mid-Glamorgan has the lowest retention rate from the YTS in the United Kingdom. The figure for Wales is 43 per cent. Mid-Glamorgan has the lowest county average, with 37·7 per cent. In my constituency, only 33·7 per cent. of the young people on YTS schemes go into employment. If that figure does not worry Conservative Members, perhaps the figure of 1,431 registered job seekers in my constituency will. At the last count last week, the careers service had one job to offer. There were 1,431 young people seeking one vacancy.
  Is it surprising, then, that we talk in Wales about the breakdown of our communities? Is it surprising that we say there must be some correlation between the growth of poverty and the growth of lawlessness? In a community where people have been thrown out of work and are dependent upon state benefits, there must be some correlation between their poverty and the increasing rate of housebreaking. There are thousands of young people with nothing to do and with no prospect of work. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, they become involved in crime for kicks. Surely it can be no surprise when our young people and people of all ages react in that way, so that society begins to break down.
  The Government say that they have certain solutions, and that they will give more licence to employers in the hope that that will provide more job opportunities. People in my constituency have seen the results of licence for employers. They have seen what the National Coal Board and its forerunners have done to our communities.
  Transient employment has been stripped away by Government action, and we have seen what has happened to our environment. Employers have had the opportunity of providing employment on a short-term basis. They have taken advantage of the licence given to them by Government. They have taken advantage of the financial incentives to come to our communities. But at the first whiff of recession they pull up their roots and disappear, leaving us with a legacy of unemployment and a legacy of a despoiled environment.
  The Government say that our workers must work for low wages. At a surgery in my constituency a fortnight ago, I met a man of 38 who had been made redundant for the fourth time. He was a married man with three children. His take-home pay was £74 a week. He was working for 41 hours a week and getting £10 less than he would have received on state benefits. He said, "I do it because I want to work. I know that if I were to accept redundancy, go on the dole and claim all the benefits that I am entitled to, I would be better off."
  People have pride. They have belief in themselves. They have traditions, values, hope and courage. The people of the valleys in south Wales want the opportunity to use those resources. That is why people are working for poverty wages. That is why the Government's message that people must work for lower wages is unacceptable.

  169
  We are now offered the prospect of Sunday trading. It will not do a geat deal to provide extra employment in the Rhymney valley. The only difference is that people will be able to be unemployed for seven days a week instead of six. The measure will cause great offence and it will bring no benefit, yet that is the Government's approach to economic regeneration. We are told that our salvation will lie in additional opportunities for Sunday trading.
  If Conservative Members cannot understand why we draw a correlation between unemployment and crime, I suggest that they look at the policies followed by the Government. They should examine the tensions which arise in our communities.
  The Prime Minister says that crime results from original sin; that it comes from some innate evil in our population. I find that attitude offensive, patronising and incredible, because it means that the Prime Minister and the Government have no understanding of what life is like in Britain in 1985 outside the south-east of England and the favoured areas visited by the Prime Minister, when she deigns to go to the far north, or when she next deigns to visit Wales.
  I have talked to senior police officers about the problems of vandalism in our communities. Our streets are not alight, people are not shooting at policemen, and we do not have riots, but we have increasing vandalism and housebreaking. We are all concerned about mindless, wanton vandalism. I assure Conservative Members that we will take second place to no one in our determination to create a peaceful, just and ordered society. They have no monopoly in their attitude to law and order. We take second place to no one.
  When we discuss community policing with community leaders and senior policemen who are responsible for community policing, we have agreement. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) talked of the advantages of community policing. We are all in favour of policemen getting involved in our communities. We are all in favour of policemen organising educational and sporting activities. We are all in favour of them when they are able to open the local swimming pool on a Sunday afternoon for young people. We are all in favour of their involvement in youth clubs. But if those efforts offer the possibility of ameliorating social conditions, why is it that the Government, by their policy, close down our swimming pools and youth centres and deny financial assistance to voluntary groups? Why do the Government cut the expenditure of local authorities on such amenities? How can it be suggested that those expenditure cuts do not have any detrimental effect? Cannot the Government and Conservative Members see that contradiction? If there is validity in community policing and involvement, and if there is benefit in all those co-operative forms of community action, the Government must realise the damage that is being done to our communities by the economic, social and local government policies which they are following.
  I accept that other factors may give rise to the crime wave, and I am not crediting the Government with the monopoly of responsibility for crime. My contention is that the elements of lawlessness and the breakdown of law and order are made inevitable by the tensions caused in our society as a result of the Government's economic policies. If there is one single condemnation of the Queen's Speech,
  170
  it is that it has nothing to offer our depressed industrial communities and does not address the real problems which Britain is facing.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: I do not question arid never have questioned the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) puts forward his arguments in the Chamber, in the Welsh Grand Committee and in the other debates that we have concerning Wales, but he was very selective with his statistics.
  We had the simplistic socialist argument about the correlation between unemployment and crime. At the end of his speech he said that there may be other factors linked with the increase of crime, but his central argument was simplistic, connecting it with unemployment. Is the hon. Member really telling us—I have asked him this question in the Welsh Grand Committee—that simply by the creation of more jobs the crime rate will come down? Is that his thesis? [Interruption.] I thought that it was the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who was interrupting. If it had been, I would have said that he should not give himself airs because he is not a Welsh Member. Is the hon. Member for Caerphilly really saying that by the kind of massive reflation that the Labour party favours more jobs can be created and the crime rate reduced? That kind of massive reflation will be inflationary in its effect and will destroy jobs in the longer term. If there is one factor that is likely to relate unemployment to a rise in crime, it is raising people's hopes unfairly and unrealistically, only to dash them by the creation of jobs that will not last.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I see no prospect at all of restoring any sense of vitality to our communities unless we can create employment, nor do I see any prospect of creating communities that are worth while, and in which people are happy, content and serene, unless we can increase public expenditure to solve the problems of lack of housing, lack of recreational facilities, and a poor environment. I see no solution to the problem of crime and no prospect of ameliorating the problems that we are facing in Welsh constituencies until we start to tackle some of the basic difficulties.
  Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the old trap that catches all Labour Members. I refer him to an article written by a former Labour Member who represented Birmingham, Ladywood, Mr. Brian Walden, who has now gone on to higher things. I always assume he left the Labour party in frustration because Labour Members refused to listen to his arguments of moderation and common sense. In an article that appeared in The London Standard earlier this week, he asked, in effect, how can we expect common sense in a political debate when all we hear at a time of increasing public expenditure is talk of cuts, cuts and more cuts?
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly must produce a more realistic and sensible analysis. The assessment he has presented to us can be described only as simplistic. However, I do not want to disagree with him too much because he was a strong supporter of the Bill that I piloted through the House during the previous Session, to which I am about to refer.
  We heard earlier the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) describe graphically the horrific drug problem in

  171
  his constituency. It is not only urban areas that are affected by the drug problem; the problem stretches into the rural areas. I represent a Welsh constituency, which is a mix of rural and urban areas and there is a severe drug problem, even in the villages.
  The hon. Member for Bootle said that it is the large suppliers whom we must pursue, and that is right. When the private Member's Bill that I introduced was considered in Committee—it is now the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act—I said that it was limited in its scope as it covered only one aspect of deterrence, which, in itself, is only one part of prevention.
  I welcome the measures that are proposed in the Gracious Speech
  "to provide courts in England and Wales with the power to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking and to penalise the handling of such proceeds."
  I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is occupying the Treasury Front Bench. When he replies, I hope that he will be able to tell us that the proposed measures for England and Wales will be extended to Scotland. The provisions in the Bill I introduced did cover the entire United Kingdom and I hope that the Government's measure will do so, also. The proposed Bill will provide the courts with another welcome weapon to deter drug trafficking and should increase our ability to prevent the spread of drug misuse. It is a badly needed weapon. Lord Lane is reported as saying in another place:
  "Let me take even the lowest figure of 10,000 addicts in the country. It requires, at the lowest, £20 a day per addict to feed their addiction. That is £7,000 a year per addict. If one multiplies that by 10,000, that totals £70 million. Those figures can probably be multiplied by four.
  But whether it is £70 million or £280 million, that money has to come from crime".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 660–61.]
  In addition, the money is going to criminals. It is not surprising that the Metropolitan police estimate that 23 per cent. of their targeted criminals are now involved in drug trafficking. Ten years ago, those men would have been involved in armed robbery and would have confined themselves to that. They have turned now to hard drugs, which they find infinitely more lucrative. It has been shown that some profit by as much as seven-figure sums over a limited period through the importation of drugs. It is clear that they will continue to do so unless they are deterred by the toughest possible system of penalties.
  The Bill I introduced during the previous Session was supported by 11 sponsors, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly. They represented between them all the political groupings in the House and every shade and faction within them, from the bone-dry to saturated wets within the Tory party and—how can I put it tactfully?—from militant moderates to immoderate militants in the Labour party. I hope that we shall see continuing harmony in support of the measures that the Government propose.
  When my Bill was read a Third time, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who was then an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, raised some doubts on that. I am aware that the shadow Home Secretary has given a general welcome to the Government's proposals but I hope that the remarks of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will be repudiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)
  172
  when he winds up from the Opposition Front Bench. Anticipating the Government's proposed Bill. the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said:
  "presumably it will shift the onus of proof to the alleged drug offender to show that his assets were not obtained during the course of his trafficking in drugs, and I am not sure that that will receive the support of the Opposition … it may be useful to point out now that the Minister should not assume that such a fundamental change in our criminal justice system and in the principle of an individual being innocent until proved guilty will obtain the support of the Opposition."—[Official Report, 19 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 567.]
  That was torpedoed neatly at the time by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who pointed out that we already have the concept of the reversal of the burden of proof in taxation matters. There is no distinction between convicted drug dealers and those convicted of burglary or fraud; all gain financially from criminal activity. Neither the burglar nor the person convicted of fraud is allowed to keep the proceeds of his crime. Why should a drug trafficker be allowed to do so?
  If a second torpedo is required to destroy the argument of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North, it was supplied by Lord Denning in another place when my Bill was being considered in Committee. He referred to a case that was heard in the Court of Appeal in 1983 that is known as the Chief Constable of Kent v. V. and Another. In that case a man was reasonably believed to have stolen cheques and goods but had not been charged. He was suspected of realising the moneys, putting them into one bank and then transferring them to another bank account. The chief constable successfully brought proceedings for an injunction before the man was convicted to freeze the moneys before they could be withdrawn from the bank and laundered further. The reversal of the burden of proof is not novel. It has already been established in English law.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in opening the debate on the Gracious Speech, said:
  "The proposals to combat the awful rise in drug selling, drug taking and drug-related crimes will gain support in principle and, depending upon the precise proposals, I suspect support in practice during their process through the House."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 13.]
  Mr. Raffan: I am aware of that. I do not have to be reminded of what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. He spoke of agreement in principle and I am talking about a basic detail of the Bill, which is the reversal of the burden of proof, about which there has been some dispute. I should like the hon. Member for Garscadden to clear up the issue. I thought that it would be helpful to give him the opportunity to do so later this evening. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) would have helped the House more if he had intervened to repudiate unequivocally the comments of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North.
  Just as Parliament should ensure that the efforts of law enforcement agencies are supported by making available to the courts penalties that act as real and effective deterrents to drug traffickers so we should ensure also that the efforts of both Customs and Excise and the police are supported by making available to them the resources that they require—in money and manpower—to catch drug traffickers in the first place. The legislaton that the Government propose will be of no effect and have no value

  173
  unless drug traffickers can first be produced in the courts. During the Akamah case the Lord Chief Justice remarked that few of the big fish among suppliers have been caught.
  I welcome the Government's announcement that further Customs officers are to be posted abroad, to the Indian subcontinent, parts of Europe, the Caribbean and South America. I welcome, too, the announcement earlier in the year of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that 150 more Customs officers are to be appointed who will specialise in drugs. I hope that my hon. Friend will not hesitate to recommend a further increase in these numbers, as he promised in Committee when my Bill was proceeding through the House, if he feels that that is necessary.
  I welcome the announcement that the Home Office made in July on the formation of the national drugs intelligence unit at Scotland Yard, which should help to improve co-ordination between Customs and Excise and the police. Welcome too was the simultaneous announcement, referred to this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that there is to be a 20 per cent. increase—an additional 200 men—in the strength of the regional crime squads so that each can have its own drugs wing. However, I am concerned as to whether this increase is enough. Two hundred men to be shared between 43 forces means less than three men more for each area.
  Mr. David Owen, the chief constable of north Wales, an area that includes my constituency, recently said that because his force is 60 officers under strength, he cannot contemplate any increase in his drug squad. In north Wales drug offences have increased dramatically in the past few years. In 1978, there were 292 drug offences, none involving heroin. By the end of the first eight months of last year, 826 drug offences, half involving heroin, had been recorded.
  It is clear that in north Wales we have an escalating and extremely serious drug problem. The need for extra police officers to concentrate on this problem is indisputable. I hope that, in view of the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon, there will be a prompt response by the Home Office to north Wales' indisputable and obvious need.
  I welcome and wholeheartedly support the measures against drug traffickers in the Queen's Speech, but if such legislation, once enacted, is to be effective, we must provide even greater manpower support to the police so that they can catch the drug traffickers in the first place.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I draw attention to the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. If they follow the good example of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), all will be called.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Ken Weetch: I shall be the first to try to put that advice into operation.
  Various interesting things have been said in the debate and one of the most interesting came from the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) who said that in law and order we need some fundamental analysis to try to discern the basic causes of the problems, so that we can fight those problems and deal with the symptoms.
  174
  It is sad that such a high political profile has been put on law and order matters. I note that, in the newspapers, law and order comes second only to unemployment as a political issue. Therefore, the ordinary members of the public will conclude that, because there are votes in it, it has assumed a high political profile. That is a pity because it is potentially a lethal problem and anybody who has seep any society in which law and order has broken down will know that there is no freedom in such a society.
  I have been in the Lebanon a good many times, and over the years I have seen law and order disintegrate there. That has led to total chaos. Any party that claims to be a party of radical change needs law and order more than a party that claims to be one of the status quo. It is self-evident that law and order has a worse record in inner city areas where unemployment and social deprivation are worse. The depressing thing about that is that it was true 150 years ago. Anybody going to one of the recesses of the House and taking from the shelves some of the blue books analysing the problem, particularly that resulting from the visit that the commissioners made to the Welsh valleys in the 1880s, will see that that proposition was true then. We have not made much progress in improving conditions in the inner-city areas.
  Many people in this country still have a stereotyped image of the criminal. What is a criminal? Who are these people who break the law? I noticed in another part of the Gracious Speech the sentence:
  "Measures will be introduced to establish a new regulatory framework for the financial services sector".
  That sentence reveals much more than the debate has so far implied. Many people see criminals as part of the Bi11 Sykes syndrome—a man who wears a striped jersey and a mask and carries a sack over his shoulder with "swag" on it and breaks into jewellers or houses.
  Unfortunately, the really big money crime is fraud, and big-time fraud in particular, which is permitted in high places. It is created not by ignorant men but by people who have had expensive educations, who know their way around the world and through balance sheets and who are sharp when it comes to criminal opportunities. It is disturbing that big financial crime is on the increase, and I would guess that much of it goes without detection simply because the police and the authorities do not have the manning, expertise and a good many other advantages to keep abreast of it. All this crime is committed in a highly sophisticated way. Two sentences in the Financial Times sum up the problem:
  "One of the biggest headaches facing banking and securities regulators as the City revolution gathers pace is what to do about the growing incidence of business fraud. Public awareness of the problem has been raised by a series of scandals in the City."
  Such crime is becoming more acute with the emergence of sophisticated information transfer technology. There is now a whole new species of computer crime, which is becoming increasingly difficult to detect. The age of the computer criminal, with great and highly technical expertise, is very much with us, and the misdemeanours that he commits are becoming more and more difficult to detect. Secondly, the Government desire to scrap regulations and the complex of rules and control systems in favour of more laissez-faire and the free enterprise approach makes a more favourable environment for such criminals. Making a bonfire of regulations and controls is likely to lead to an increase in such crime.
  Another disturbing thought is that some business managements in the City, I am told, will often try to hush

  175
  up such crime for the sake of the good name of the business. Much of it goes undetected; it never reaches the light because of "reputation". I pay tribute to the police fraud squad, which very often consists of a group of ordinary people with no specialised education, facing massive technical problems of crime and misdemeanour. They do very well to achieve such a record.
  All of us should pay tribute to the police fraud squad for carrying out a difficult job against heavy odds. They have to contend not only with the criminal but also with those who try to cover up for the sake of the commercial reputation of the enterprise. Unless something is done, commercial crime in the City will get worse. A great deal of it is undetected and it is likely to remain undetected.
  This type of crime has certain social characteristics. Much of today's debate has divided the causes of criminality into two parts. The first argument relates to original sin: that it is in the nature of man to carry out nefarious acts and that one must therefore impose barriers to circumscribe those tendencies. The second argument is that crime is generated by social conditions: that it is a matter of environment more than anything else. I suspect that the truth lies in a combination of the two. There is a definite social characteristic to the type of crime that I am describing. Far from being rough hooligans, those who get away with the large financial crimes in this country have often had an expensive independent education. They act with ease in the best restaurants. They are not the great unwashed. Indeed, they are the jacuzzi-bathed bourgeoisie.
  Mr. Maclean: I am loth to stand up after the hon. Gentleman's description of these criminals, but I do not count myself as one of them. I agree with him that this type of fraud is a major problem and that what we know about it is only the tip of the iceberg. Does he agree that in the case of this type of crime there can be no correlation with unemployment? Many Opposition Members have today said that the root cause of crime lies in unemployment. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that unemployment has nothing at all to do with the criminality of the public school bourgeoisie. Why, therefore, are they criminals?
  Mr. Weetch: I began my speech by saying that I thought that in certain circumstances unemployment and social deprivation lead to an increase in crime, but this is not the only cause. Some of those to whom I have referred are motivated by the principle of getting rich quick by speculation, fraud and social deception. Speculation and the get-rich-quick principle is to be seen in the City from time to time, but since I am not a City man I speak not from the inside but from the outside.
  In a careful analysis on 6 June 1984, The Economist said that not only is this type of fraud and commercial crime on the increase but that the criminals consistently seem to be winning. It said:
  "Only the dumb, the naive or the unlucky will land in the dock."
  The clever criminals will launder the money. They will have bank accounts in Switzerland or Lichtenstein and they will operate through a string of offshore companies. Often the crime is discovered only years later when somebody accidentally notices something in the accounts or finds that receipts and invoices have been falsified.
  176
  This is the big financial crime in our society. I am not referring to the down-and-out who gets caught for pinching half a sack of coal in south Wales from the National Coal Board. I am referring to those who are defrauding the country, and business, of millions of pounds. By the time the criminals are apprehended, if ever, they will be basking in the sun doing very nicely, thank you.
  Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman makes a great deal of sense, but is not part of the problem the fact that for police officers this is a less glamorous crime and they are not very keen to investigate it? It is also a crime that is very difficult to understand. Juries often do not convict because they do not understand the facts that have been presented to them. The result is that there is less incentive for police officers to investigate because they will not achieve a satisfactory result. Should we not therefore consider the introduction of a selective jury system so that those who understand finance can consider these cases?
  Mr. Weetch: I do not know. I have found some of the fraud cases which have been extensively reported very difficult to understand. I do not know how the ordinary man in the street can understand their tortuous complexities. It would take a technical expert of great experience to understand the labyrinthine crime of fraud and other related matters. I have an open mind about how to deal with it. I should be willing to consider any suggestion that brought more justice to bear on such cases.
  Is the Secretary of State planning to try to eradicate the big financial crime which is difficult to detect and for which it is difficult to secure a conviction? May I refer him to what his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston said a few minutes ago: what analysis has the Secretary of State made of this aspect of the problem, and could he advise the House as to what is a good way forward?
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: First I apologise to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) for not dealing directly with the points he raised. I do not doubt his sincerity and I accept much of what he had to say. However, I wish to direct attention to 13 words in the Gracious Speech. They are of short, sharp, uncompromising simplicity:
  "A Bill will be introduced to remove statutory restrictions on shop opening hours."
  Some right hon. and hon. Members heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say earlier this afternoon that those who have misgivings about this can expect a visitation of the instant charm of the Patronage Secretary. I await that experience with eager anticipation. I am one of those Conservative Members who have profound and growing apprehension about the course upon which the Government seem to be embarking.
  Nearly two years ago I submitted evidence to the Auld committee. Among other things, I argued against the complete liberalisation of shop opening hours. On 20 May the House turned its attention to the recommendations of the Auld committee, and I was one of about 20 Conservative Members who voted against the acceptance of those recommendations.
  The intervening five and a half months have increased rather than decreased my apprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) summed up

  177
  simply the common ground among all hon. Members when he said that the Shops Act 1950 was totally unacceptable. We do not dispute that there is a manifest need for change. There are anomalies bordering on the farcical in the Act. Shopping trends, demands and needs have changed radically since the 1950s.
  However, I fear that we may be moving from something that is silly and unacceptable to something that is positively dangerous. I shall refer to various effects of total liberalisation that could harm society, but the point to bear in mind is that the 1950 Act is essentially harmless. The Act is illogical and stupid, it may inconvenience and irritate, but it harms nobody. Total liberalisation would take us into uncharted waters and I fear that there are potential dangers. The proposed legislation may contain safeguards, but I have doubts about how safeguards can be included which would be consistent with the declaration that there should be no statutory restrictions on shop opening hours.
  I value very much the dialogue that I have established in recent months with my local branch of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I readily confess that I had no previous contact with the union. I hope that it would agree that we have established a worthwhile dialogue. I have learnt something about the conditions of employment of many people who work in shops. For almost the majority, the hours are long and the pay is low and their collective bargaining position is weak. I fear that the total liberalising of Sunday trading would result in the exploitation of shop workers.
  When we debated Sunday trading in May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), the then Home Secretary, said that it was the Government's intention to include safeguards for "established workers". The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) intervened to seek clarification and the Home Secretary agreed that "established workers" meant those currently working in shops and that protection would not necessarily apply to those not yet working in shops, that those who did so in future would not be protected.
  I have heard anecdotal evidence—the accuracy of which I cannot guarantee—suggesting that bad employers, who are a minority, are beginning to make threats amounting to exploitation of existing workers. That is a matter for grave concern. I fear that the Bill may not contain adequate safeguards for people currently working in shops and for those so employed in the future.
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Scottish experience? There is no exploitation of workers. Financially, they are better off if they work on Sundays. The uptake of Sunday employment in shops is surprisingly low.
  Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am increasingly aware of the Scottish experience and I am delighted that Sunday trading in Scotland has not resulted in exploitation. Nevertheless, I am worried that the proposed legislation may not contain adequate safeguards for shop workers in England and Wales.
  My second area of concern comes under the general heading of environmental factors. Many out-of-town or edge-of-town shopping centres are growing up, often
  178
  dominated by supermarkets. They are often located in or near residential areas and attract a great deal of traffic. There is a worry that a free-for-all on Sundays will result in environmentally unacceptable developments in many areas.
  I make that point with some personal feeling, because that fear led to shop hours becoming an emotive and controversial issue in Basingstoke and also led to the borough council enforcing the 1950 Act. I wonder whether the Bill that we are awaiting will contain any safeguards to guarantee the peace and quiet to which people are entitled on Sundays.
  I stress most my third area of concern. This is the impact of the total liberalisation of shop hours on small shops—those on estates, arcades or precincts, the traditional corner shops and village shops. Some small shops are struggling to survive. They make ends meet, to a great extent, by enjoying a captive part of the market. They often stay open late in the evenings and open on Sundays more often than their major rivals.
  Some argue that if shops cannot compete they should not survive. I reject that argument. Commercial interests and market forces should be our servants and not our masters. Small shops play a vital part in the lives of many towns and villages. They provide a community service as well as a commercial service. Community identity is important. As a number of hon. Members have said, it is declining in many towns. I fear that an important, albeit small, feature of our community life will disappear through the liberalisation of Sunday trading.
  All my comments have been made without reference to what we refer to as the traditional feature of Sunday as the day of Christian worship. In the past few weeks, an increasing number of constituents have written to me saying that on religious grounds they oppose a free-for-all on Sundays. I am not ashamed to say that I wholly accept and endorse those arguments.
  The secularisation of Sundays started a long time ago and will no doubt continue. But it will not continue with the aid of my vote, nor, I believe, with the votes of many of my hon. Friends.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: Before turning to the main subject of the debate, I wish to refer to some other matters in the Queen's Speech.
  Labour Members will oppose with all their power the gas privatisation Bill. It is unnecessary. We should keep this important energy supply industry under public ownership.
  In the not too distant future we shall have to introduce a substitute for natural gas as we prepare for the running out of North sea and Irish sea reserves, and only public enterprise can guarantee a supply in the years ahead by properly planning an all-purpose energy policy.
  I also view with great worry the proposal to review the social security system. That subject will be debated vigorously in the coming year. The proposed measure will affect many of the poorer sections of the community and will hit the most deprived people. That must be wrong.
  I support any measures that will make it easier for people to claim. The present system is complex, but we must ensure that the public are not misled by the Government being allowed to get away with pretending to

  179
  make the system easier when their purpose is to save public expenditure. Many people will lose benefits and be made worse off by the review.
  The Queen's Speech states that the Government will
  "require larger local authority airports to be formed into companies, and to regulate certain airport activities."
  I am worried about the long-term implications of that policy. Coming from the north-west, I have a very high regard for Manchester airport, which was set up through the foresight of the Manchester city council and has been developed by the city council and the Greater Manchester council. The airport has been a tremendous success without Government assistance, but I have fears for its future in view of the long-term implications of the policy.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to Sunday trading and made many of the points that I would have made. I share his anxiety about the proposals outlined in the Queen's Speech. The present law contains many anomalies and there needs to be changes, but that does not mean that we should scrap all regulations governing shop trading hours. We must be extremely careful if we tread that path.
  At present it is possible to find one local authority turning a blind eye to the law and not applying it, while other authorities try to apply it as sensibly as possible. While the present law exists the Government should attempt to make all local authorities apply it equally.
  There will be inflationary implications once the proposed measure goes through because no extra spending capacity will be created by trading on seven days instead of six. If shop workers are paid extra for working on Sundays, as they should be, costs will increase. I fear the implications of increased costs for small traders. I always worry on a Friday evening when I see the news about the week's job losses and gains. When it is reported that a superstore has opened creating, say, 400 jobs, the report never says how many people in smaller shops will go out of business or operation as a result. I accept that there is a need for some superstores, but the proposed policy has serious implications for many people in the industry. While many traders involved with Sunday opening have said that they will man their businesses with volunteers, once the policy is under way workers will soon be told that if they do not want to work on Sunday they cannot work at all. There must be adequate safeguards for them.
  I sympathise with the difficulties of people who work on Sundays because I worked in an industry which had to work on Sundays. We manufactured glass and it is impossible to turn a furnace off at weekends. I very much value Sundays as I only got six Sundays off per year in the 10 years prior to becoming an hon. Member. I believe that many people in this country will regret losing their Sundays off.
  In the long run it will not simply be the people who work in shops who will suffer. As other traders gradually open on Sundays there will be a need to open car parks. If that happens, car parks will not be provided free of charge on Sunday when payment is requested on other days. As public demand for these car parks increases so the councils and other operators will start to charge and more people will have to work. More public transport will be needed—if there is any public transport left after the
  180
  Government's Transport Act takes effect. I have serious worries about the implications of the Government's proposals and I shall examine the legislation carefully.
  I have always said, on all platforms and at all times, that the Labour party believes in law and order. The contrary view is a fallacy built up by the media and by the Conservatives and is entirely untrue and unrealistic. Any sensible political party must want people to be able to live their lives in peace and quiet without fear of robbery, violence or other crime. The Labour party is and always will be in favour of law and order.
  That does not mean, however, that we cannot criticise the police from time to time. No one in this country is above criticism. Members of Parliament and the press can be criticised and I see no reason why we should accept that the police must always be right in all their decisions. I believe that there should be more political input and I hope that the next Labour Government will move towards regional government with responsibility for police, water, hospitals and other matters. I am not convinced that the old style watch committees were the perfect solution, particularly in small boroughs. I certainly had strong reservations about the watch committee that used to operate in Burnley. That does not mean, however, that we do not need some body to which the police are ultimately responsible for overall guidelines on policy and direction. The police, of course, would continue to have power to determine day-to-day running. No Labour Member has ever suggested that they should be told exactly how to carry out every aspect of their job.
  Under the present Government, since 1979, in England robbery has increased by 99 per cent., violence against the person by 20 per cent., criminal damage by 55 per cent., and burglary in a dwelling by 89 per cent. Those figures have been given before but they bear repeating to emphasise exactly what is happening. I do not accept the Prime Minister's inference yesterday that people are born to sin and that certain people are bound to go that way. We must look beyond that attitude to discover why the crime rate is rising. We also need to give the police better training and better facilities. We need more community policemen. More policemen need to be released from paperwork at police stations to go out into the streets on foot so that they can talk to the people whom they are there to protect.
  Whether people like it or not, it is not a political comment to say that people in this country have less confidence in the police now than at any time this century. That is a regrettable trend. There are a number of reasons for that decline in public confidence in the police, but one welcome movement has been getting the police back on community beats. That is the right way to build a better relationship and it should be encouraged.
  I am also worried by the use of the expression, "inner city problem". I accept that there are problems in the inner cities, but there are also problems in other areas. The borough that I represent cannot possibly be called an inner city area. It is designated under the urban aid programme because of the deprivation in the area, but the constituency includes large rural areas. We have problems and, in proportion to the area of the town, they are just as important as those of the inner-city areas and they cause similar results. We have to accept, irrespective of whether the Government agree, that housing and unemployment contribute to present circumstances. The Government must do something to get people back to work. They must

  181
  recognise the problems, especially for the long-term unemployed who have no hope of a job and who know that, as long as this Government remain in office, they will have no opportunity of one.
  It is an appalling fact that, in 1985, a man of 40 who is made redundant can be told that he might as well consider himself retired. I certainly would not have wished to consider myself retired at 40. Young people leaving school have no prospect of a real job. We must do something to give people that prospect.
  The Government must deal with the housing problem. It is no good their pretending that there is no problem and putting a little more money in, because housing needs a lot more money. The Government will be building up a major slum problem for the next decade if they do not act now—indeed, take long-term action—to deal with the housing crisis in the public and private sectors.
  I see the problems of old terraced housing in my constituency. People cannot apply for a repair or an improvement grant because the council does not have sufficient money even to meet mandatory grants, such as intermediate grants. One house becomes derelict and, before long, the whole terrace will have to be pulled down. There are council estates where the council cannot improve, modernise and repair the houses because of an insufficient HIP allocation. Nevertheless, the Government force up rents and fail to recognise the relative cost of living in different areas. In my constituency incomes are lower than those in London. The Government fail to recognise that council houses in my constituency may be sold for only £6,000 to the sitting tenant if the full discount applies. People can buy a modernised terraced house for £10,000 or £11,000 in the Burnley area. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) spoke of houses being sold for between £100,000 and £150,000. One could buy a whole terrace of houses in my constituency for that.
  More money is needed for recreational facilities. People are working shorter hours and they need something to do in their leisure time. A greater variety of recreational facilities must be provided to suit people's needs. It is important that the Government enable local authorities to meet those requirements.
  I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to try to stop drug trafficking, but it is important that even more is done. Although additional Customs officers have been appointed, a great many more will be needed if we are to stop drugs coming in. I accept that there should be heavy penalties for drug trafficking—we need such a deterrent because the people who push drugs are guilty ultimately of murder because drug taking can lead to death.
  We must also recognise that more facilities are needed to deal with addicts who are trying to get off drugs. There is no point spending a lot of money to get a person drug-free and then to put him back in exactly the same block of flats or back on the dole because, after a few months, without the proper back-up, he will go back to drug-taking. From talking to Dr. John Strang, who is head of the regional drug dependancy unit in the north-west, I know that the available resources are inadequate to deal with the medical side of the problem, and there are others. We need people who can ensure that people with drug problems are helped with other difficulties. People on drugs have major problems that can cause family friction. We must ensure that families get all the necessary
  182
  assistance. The drug problem affects the whole of the country. It is not confined to inner-city areas. Indeed, it is quite prevalent in towns such as Burnley and in the whole of the Lancashire area. We must ensure that we put aside sufficient resources to deal with the problem.
  Everybody has a right to live in peace in their own homes and to walk out safely on the streets, in parks and in town centres. We must ensure a return to such circumstances. The police must be trained and given adequate resources, and they must not come down with a heavy hand. The Government must face up to a host of issues which go much wider than policing.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: All I have to say about Sunday trading is that I gave up the traditional Sunday and started trading the day that I was elected to this House.
  I warmly welcome the proposal to privatise airports and look forward to the privatisation of the East Midlands airport and the advantages to that airport of being able to attract venture capital. If we are to attract such capital to municipal airports, we must be able to show that we shall be able to do that if the majority shareholding of a privatised airport remains with councillors with no knowledge of business practices. More than 50 per cent. of the share capital should be put on the market so that the public can participate and outside directors with the requisite expertise can be brought in. That would give investors confidence.
  We have had a White Paper on public order legislation. Today's debate has got better and better, although it got off to a bad start. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) gave no solutions. Rather he gave us a tirade about what has happened in the past six years. Combating disorder and crime is not made easier by Opposition Members siding with rioters. It does not help when they advocate the breaking of laws or when they take part in organised marches which stretch the freedoms of lawful assembly to the limits.
  I wonder how people can expect justice from the Opposition when it is viewed in a one-sided way. We have had a year of talks about the right to picket. Every time anyone talked about the right to work, we had jeers from the Opposition. I am not surprised that they are trying to belittle and ridicule the Conservative party's achievements because they know that the electorate consider that it is the party that gives them the greatest hope.
  Last year, during the miners' strike, we saw violence and intimidation on the picket lines, and it was never denounced at the time. That intimidation and violence is continuing. Two miners in my constituency have moved from south Wales. The stories they tell of what happened during the strike and what was happening until a few months ago are horrifying. The hatred, unchristian thinking and lawlessness that persist in south Wales towards those who exercised their right to work are astounding. One person is still begging for a transfer to Leicestershire because he was one of the working miners and he is still subject to intimidation. I remember undertakings being given in the House, but I want to see them turned into something concrete in the case of that miner. He is the only person left; his family is subject to violence and intimidation and his life is absolute hell.
  Some people who have moved from south Wales to Leicestershire cannot sell their homes. The local miners

  183
  will not let people buy them. They are ensuring that those homes remain unsold. That is an example of intimidation and violence that must be dealt with. I should like to hear that denounced by the Opposition; if they really believe in law and order, they will denounce that behaviour and not just shrug their shoulders and say, "That is what happens when passions are aroused."
  If the Labour party believes in the rights of those who want to work and truly denounces violence, perhaps it will side with the new union that consist of miners who worked during the strike, and recognise its members who are seeking peaceful solutions within the law. Perhaps that is another issue that has been fudged by the Opposition.
  The Opposition have cried time and again about a 40 per cent. rise in crime. We hear the same old story from the Opposition, who exploit unemployment. They have looked at the undeniable rise in crime, especially crimes of violence, and have tried to relate unemployment to that rise. Unemployment is a major problem and we are deeply concerned about it, but I do not think that there is any real evidence of a relationship between unemployment and the rise in crime. The Opposition exploit unemployment, inner-city deprivation and decay when they try to explain that rise in crime, but I think there are other reasons.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman should make sure that his brain is in gear before he engages his mouth. Several things that he said are misleading the House—unintentionally, I am sure. For a start, when I asked my private notice question today, the Home Secretary and his junior Minister were before the House because they had broken the law. The hon. Gentleman did not say anything about that. I should like to hear his views. Secondly, and more important, no one in the Opposition has said that crime and unemployment are directly linked. We are saying that there is a complex set of issues that include long-term youth unemployment and deprivation. That is not just our view, but has been shown by Home Office research. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Home Secretary is wrong?
  Mr. Ashby: Member after Member has spoken about that link, including the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that he blamed crime on unemployment, deprivation, division and decay. To say that there is such a relationship is wrong. It is exploiting the facts and trying to fit them together. It is a gross exploitation of people who are suffering from the effects of unemployment. As the Prime Minister said, to suggest that the unemployed are dishonest is entirely wrong.
  Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashby: No, I shall not give way.
  I have found that there is a direct relationship between crime and broken homes. Young people can understand the death of a member of the family, but they cannot understand divorce. Often broken homes give rise to juvenile crime. There has been a tremendous rise in the incidence of divorce.
  Another reason for violence is sometimes to be found in bad education, particularly illiteracy. We have problems in education, particularly in the inner cities, and there is high illiteracy. Because people cannot express themselves well, that gives rise to violence.
  184
  Another interesting point is that there is a direct relationship between food additives in food and violence. A study at the Great Ormond street hospital shows a direct relationship between behaviour and food additives or the type of food eaten. Several eminent doctors say that fast food, which more people are eating, has been a major cause of the rise in some violence. We should take that into account.
  Mr. Hunter: I should like to place on record the work that has been done in Basingstoke during the past two years on that subject. A clinic has devoted a great deal of time and attention to exploring the link between food and behaviour.
  Mr. Ashby: I am aware of that research, which has shown that there is a link.
  The rise in crime, especially the rise in crimes of violence, is well worth further research. I hope that the Home Office believes that that research should be conducted. It could be profitable.
  It has been said that lack of money is the cause of crime, but I have come across few cases in which people said that they committed the crime because they did not have food or were terribly short of money. Those few cases mainly involved shoplifting, especially by elderly people whose pensions had not stretched to buy a tin of salmon or similar item. Perhaps the people involved in those sad cases should not have been charged.
  Most of the major crimes of dishonesty are committed not by the unemployed or those who lack money but by those who are greedy or out to make a fast buck. There is therefore no relationship between such crimes and unemployment, inner-city decay and similar problems. Criminals often come from criminal families. If the father has been a criminal, there is often a tendency for the son to be a criminal. The reason may be lack of leadership and parental guidance.
  During the miners' strike there was much violence—cars were turned over, houses were burnt down and people were injured. Many of those involved in the riots in Brixton or, closer to my constituency, in Leicester were arrested, tried and acquitted. There are certain fundamental liberties that we must not erode—the jury system, the burden of proof and the standard of proof, which is that no person is guilty until he is proved beyond doubt to be so. It is clear in all those cases that the problem was not the law or the charge but the evidence. The evidential difficulties are obvious in cases involving hundreds of people milling around—some of them throwing missiles, some attacking police officers and others just pushed along with the crowd, committing no offence. This is a fundamental point and it is where all the new legislation that we shall enact goes wrong. Not one of the Bills deals with the evidential difficulty which repeatedly confronts us.
  People who broke laws concerning affray and riotous assembly would have been convicted if there had been evidence, but it was not available. It was clear that the only evidence involved a police officer saying, "I saw a man in a red shirt, whom I later identified as Mr. X, breaking a car window with a stick. I then saw a man in a blue shirt, whom I later identified as Mr. Y, turn the car over." At the trial, pictures were produced showing 10 to 15 people in red shirts and 10 or 15 people in blue shirts. The evidence had no value and the cases failed. That happens

  185
  repeatedly. There must be certainty of evidence; that is why so many cases have resulted in acquittals. It is not right to convict a person on suspicion. These points are fundamental and sacred and must be protected.
  We have to deal with laws that get around the evidential difficulty. In many cases, the only way to get around the evidential difficulty is to make their mere presence there after a time an offence. We need a substantial debate along those lines to provide a law that makes it an offence for a person to be present after a certain time at an incident that is unlawful and riotous. That would get over the evidential difficulty of ascertaining who was doing what at a given time. Unless we enact such legislation, we shall merely be playing around with the problem and not getting down to the fundamental point.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that we must have swift justice. It is essential that these offences should be tried swiftly. There should be an offence of participating in either a major riot or a minor riot and people should accordingly be tried either summarily or in the Crown court. We should provide finance to provide for more summary courts. Most of the money that we spend on law and order goes on Crown courts.
  People are increasingly going to the Crown courts because people who go to the magistrates courts are remanded on one day; the magistrates then look at their lists and remand the accused for six or nine months; the lawyers beg the magistrates to set a day to hear the case; in four or five months the case is heard; and the hearing is then postponed for another three months. Magistrates courts cannot deal adequately with defended cases.
  These problems are caused because successive Lord Chancellors and Governments have given so little thought to them. They have always looked to the Crown courts for the solution and have said, "We shall appoint more Crown court judges", instead of asking why people have gone to the Crown courts.
  Mr. Tony Favell: What about the intolerable delays in the Crown courts, which are the fault of prosecution and defence alike?
  Mr. Ashby: Of course, there are delays in the Crown courts, but there are problems because many cases could be tried summarily. It is inconvenient to everyone involved—defendant and lawyers—to try a case in a summary court because one cannot say that a case will start on a given day, will take three days and will then be concluded. That is the problem, and I believe that there would be much less use of the Crown courts if there was more summary jurisdiction.
  As to drug offences, I am very concerned at the great proliferation of policing authorities. I am convinced that we would be much more efficient in dealing with drug traffickers and drug importers if we did not have such a proliferation of investigating authorities. As I have said several times before, I have never understood why we have the Metropolitan police, other area police forces, Customs and Excise, railway police, transport police and so on. There are dozens of investigating authorities, many of them belonging to Government Departments.
  I believe that there is a case for a national police force—for one police force undertaking all investigations, including the investigation of Customs and Excise matters and so on. I can think of nothing more efficient. I can think
  186
  of numerous examples where different investigative authorities have been in conflict, have failed to agree, have striven for the same objective, but have competed in a way that did not achieve their aims. I have seen that more than once, and that in itself speaks highly for having one coordinated force.
  During the last few days there was a television programme on "Operation Julie". Today, Mr. Lee, the investigating police officer, spoke most eloquently for a national drugs squad, but it will be hard to have such a squad without a national police force. The more I think of it, the more I fail to understand why we do not have a national drugssquad—[Interruption.] I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) tell us the very good reasons why we should not. I can think of some reasons for not having such large squads, but the success that could be achieved might outweigh such disadvantages.
  I hope that we shall give careful consideration to the evidential side of the problem; we solve absolutely nothing by simply playing around and changing laws.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). His last point is the only dangerous point that has been made throughout this entire debate. The thing that the country wants least of all is a national police force, and both the police and civilians would, I believe, take that view. 1 am glad to hear that the Government have not contemplated that at all, even at the height of last year's miners' strike.
  The Home Secretary talked of four Bills dealing with animal welfare, drugs, public order and Sunday trading. Most of my comments will be made as spokesman for the Liberal party, but I wish to make one comment about one Bill on behalf of myself. The alliance parties—and I hope the Labour and Conservative parties—will give their members a free vote on the Sunday trading Bill because in large measure it is a matter of conscience.
  The Gracious Speech states that
  "A Bill will be introduced to remove statutory restrictions on shop opening hours",
  but the Government ought to be aware of the grave risks they run by proceeding all the way down that road. I was a member of the outgoing General Synod of the Church of England which voted by about 390 to one to oppose such legislation. For the Church of England, such near unanimity is a rare phenomenon, and is one of the reasons why I hope that the Government will think again about the consequences of removing all statutory restrictions on shop opening hours. From the beginning it was not the case that all seven days were ordained to be the same, say those of us with our particular Christian belief. In any event, the cycle of rest and work requires rest on one. I therefore hope that the Government will take heed of the many warnings that they have received in the debate.
  I hope that the animal welfare Bill will not be minimalist. Much needs to be done, particularly after 100 years, and I hope that the Bill will not just contain the minimum that is required. Liberals have argued for years that there should be reform of animal welfare legislation, not least the setting up of a standing commission to report regularly on what is required to keep up with scientific and technological changes. I hope that the Government will consider that.

  187
  We welcome and will support the drugs Bill. We shall also support—I believe that I speak for all the lawyers in the alliance—the change in the burden of proof. In this case the problem is so large that it is right that the burden of proof should be on the convicted individual to prove that the moneys that he or she possesses have not come from the sale of drugs.
  I believe that one of the reasons why the Government and Parliament are now responding is that in the past individuals have, often at danger to themselves, been willing to speak out about the danger of drugs. Last year a group of parents on the Old Kent road in my constituency allowed themselves to be filmed for a programme called "The Skag Kids" produced by London Weekend Television. That was one of the breaks in the conspiracy of silence that have now led to a rapid Government reaction. We look forward to that Bill. Those who for profit exploit the helpless should be dealt with most severely.
  The best preface to the public order legislation is a very good article in The Guardian on Monday by Hugo Young. He entitled it "The ill-gotten gains from law and disorder". Many of the figures he used are fact and are clearly agreed. He said:
  "Since 1979, government spending on the police has increased in real terms by 40 per cent. They are the greatest beneficiaries of the priorities of Thatcherite policies. Police pay, police clothing, police weaponry, police vehicles and police numbers have all received the Home Office's most faithful attention. Police manpower is larger by 10,400 than it was six years ago."
  No one disputes that that should have occurred, and there is certainly a case for having many more police than present resources allow. That article continued:
  "This is not a trend wholly peculiar to the Eighties. The increase in spending and manpower has been going on for decades. But it has accelerated under the present government, and has been backed by new laws to increase police powers. This has all been done in obeisance to the central belief of Conservatism, as exemplified by Mrs. Thatcher's attitude to unemployment: that crime is not a problem created by social conditions, but a manifestation of human degeneracy, individual or collective, which can best be met by a simple police response.
  It is possible that the Tories are right about this. The causes of crime are indeed multiple and mysterious. All one can say is that, after six years of this hugely accelerated spending, the evidence is not persuasive.
  For in parallel with the 40 per cent. increase in police resources since 1979 has come, as it happens, a 40 per cent. rise in the rate of reported crime. Crimes of violence are up by nearly 20 per cent., robberies have doubled and burglaries nearly doubled. The trend seems inexorable. Taking 1984, robbery was up by 13 per cent. in the year, burglary by 10 per cent., violence against the person by 6 per cent. (including murder up by 13 per cent.). Overall, serious crime rose by eight per cent. last year.
  Despite the massive increase in manpower, the clear-up rate has fallen: in 1974, 40 per cent. of cases were cleared up, in 1984 it was only 35 per cent. This is a deplorable and rather frightening record. Quite palpably the policy has failed."
  Then comes the important statement:
  "It may not be obvious what other policies would be better. But in other fields the experience of such failure, at such immense cost, would induce a certain humility … No such humility is observable in the government. It remains as wedded to the 'police first' strategy as it is to the conviction that unemployment has nothing to do with the problem: two beliefs which are equally distinguished by the shortage of facts to support them."
  Until this afternoon I would have accepted that analysis. It was exemplified again by the Prime Minister yesterday. But I welcome what the Home Secretary said
  188
  today because he did display some humility and, I hope, the promise of some energy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I hope that that is a good sign.
  The Home Secretary said that there were different causes of crime and the increase in lawlessness and disorder. He talked about the breakdown of family life, communities, unemployment and housing. I hope this means that the Government now believe that social causes must be counted and dealt with. If that change in attitude has taken place with the change in office holder as Home Secretary, I am grateful.
  We must consider four elements of the law and order issue. We must consider the individual, and the fact that each individual belongs to a community, lives in a village, a town or a city and is part of the nation. At a national level if the money given to the police to deal with law and order is reduced in real terms we are asking for trouble, particularly in a time such as this. That is the reality. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was correct to say that expenditure in real terms on such problems has been reduced under this Government. It is about time that that was changed. Increasing resources will not provide a solution when, in real terms, the amount spent on law and order relative to the whole of the Government's budget has been reduced.
  Sir Eldon GriffithsI am something of a shop steward in these matters and while I always want to obtain more for the police—I make no apology for that—the hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. When this Government came to office expenditure on law and order services was about £2·25 billion. Today it is about £4 billion. There has been an increase in real terms in expenditure on law and order services.
  Mr. Hughes: If one examines public expenditure and compares the proportion that was spent on law and order in 1979 to the proportion spent today, one can see that this expenditure has been reduced, whereas expenditure on other services has been increased. That is in spite of increases in police pay and improved conditions.
  At a personal level, individuals, too, are to blame for our problems. There will always be sin and individual crime. A disquieting opinion poll just published shows that more and more individuals believe dishonesty of various types to be acceptable. That is a worrying trend.
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) talked about the problems in the urban areas, although not there alone. One of our problems might be explained by the fact that the Government are not well represented in the inner cities. Let us examine the larger cities, taking inner London as the core here, and thinking of Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Edinburgh and Manchester. Only in Edinburgh do the Government hold a majority of parliamentary seats. A breakdown of parliamentary representation in our largest cities reveals 55 Opposition Members to 25 Government Members. This results in a lack of comprehension by Government Members and may explain the lack of importance attached to the noises from the inner cities of disquiet and dissatisfaction. I am talking not about the rioters alone, but about the old and those who are vulnerable in the places where being vulnerable is most dangerous.
  If one cannot be heard one shouts. That is a practice followed by children and often by young people who have

  189
  been let down by their families—as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West said—and who have not been listened to, loved or cared for. Communities often feel that they have not been heard as well. I endorse entirely what the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), said when he stated clearly that all communities are entitled to the same standards of commitment in law and order terms.
  One of the tragedies of the recent unscheduled reorganisation of the Metropolitan police, about which all political parties and many London Members protested, is that the new division into eight areas makes it appear that the voice of the inner city communities with the biggest problems will be heard less clearly.
  I do not need to remind anyone that it is often in the inner cities and urban areas that the problems of crime and clear-up rates are greatest. Unemployment and a lack of vacancies are greatest in the same areas. I checked the clear-up figures for the Southwark area last year. Mercifully the figure for offences against the person was almost the best, although under 50 per cent. The only other clear-up rate of more than 50 per cent. was for fraud or forgery. The clear-up rate for criminal damage was 13 per cent. and for theft or the handling of stolen goods, 16 per cent.; for thefts in the street it was 6 per cent. and for pickpocketing 9 per cent. For other offences such as burglary, other thefts and offences against property the figures are low. We are not winning the battle against crime.
  The Liberal party has always been strong on law and strong on justice. Both the alliance parties have asserted throughout their conjoined existence that they believe that we need strong law for order—but with strong justice at the same time. That may make us different from other parties, but it means that we do not give total, uncritical support to everything that the police do. Eighty per cent. or more of the police are very good, but some make mistakes and overstep the mark. Sometimes Labour Members complain and protest about the police, but they refuse to meet or speak to police representatives. This is a totally unhelpful attitude to dialogue and working with those who operate at the front line, although I accept that such an attitude was not struck today in our debate. We do not want to escalate either the language or the activities of violence and confrontation. However, we equally do not want the silence of standing by when disorder occurs, particularly if the people standing by are leaders in their communities.
  The media must take their share of the blame. Violence on television and its glorification does not help. The advancing of the acquisitive society through advertising which pretends that the quantity of consumer goods rather than the quality of life is most important leads youngsters with vulnerable minds to do things that they might not otherwise do.
  We hope that the public order Bill, on which we cannot comment in detail as it has not been published, will put some matters right. Of course, there should be notice of most marches because that is reasonable and acceptable. When people plan to gather together to exercise their right to assemble, it is right that that should be managed in an orderly manner. It is right that there should be prevention of disruption and coercion. It is also right that individual marches should not be banned.
  190
  I hope that we hear more of what the Government have signalled, but not mentioned today—of the need to deal with the racialist problems that are increasing in our inner cities. We must ensure that the law is equally tough on those who incite racial violence and hatred and prepare literature in language that inflames an already delicate situation. When I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech, I warned that offences related to disorderly conduct should not be drafted in such a way that they would be open to enormous discretion and become horrendously difficult to enforce.
  I wish to pay tribute to the fire service, as no one has yet done so in this debate. It often has as difficult a job as the police, but is less frequently congratulated. The fire service is often ignored in public plaudits, yet without it our communities would be far less safe.
  I wish finally to deal with crime and punishment. It is not true that it is only in the inner cities that criminality and disorder have increased. I have researched four police authority areas—the Metropolitan police, the west midlands, Cumbria and the rural area of Dyfed and Powys. The increase in offences per 100,000 population during the past five years—and this is not a party political point—has been 30 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area, 55 per cent. in the west midlands, 27 per cent. in Cumbria and 32 per cent. in rural Dyfed and Powys. That must mean that we must look widely at the structures that we organise to deal with problems in our society.
  I hope that the Government realise that structures of government must be altered. For example, in London there is no provision for community or parish councils. It is vital that London has them and that people organise the management of their own communities.
  It is vital that there is a reorganisation of the structures of police in certain areas, and that we do not follow the road which, I regret, the Metropolitan police commissioner is taking—without prior consultation. However desirable the commissioner feels it may be to have larger rather than smaller police areas, that can create dangers. Therefore, I hope that the commissioner will modify his proposed changes.
  I hope that we shall no longer experience the dialogue of the deaf on our police consultative committees. The Home Office introduced guidelines under previous legislation, and then brought forward the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Having negotiated some committee structures with local authorities, the rules were changed. I hope that the police and councils, for example in Southwark, will none the less agree a formula. There are lessons to be learned on both sides. The police must accept that sometimes an enormous, purely consultative body is far from ideal for dialogue; councils must accept that a small political body seeking to control the police is also not acceptable.
  We need improvement in police personnel, manpower and training. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) referred to this point—to officers who could hardly type spending a great deal of time typing charge sheets in the middle of the night. That is not what we pay them to do, and I hope that that practice will end. I have witnessed that practice recently, and it is a great waste of resources intended for other things.
  We need to ensure that there is not discrimination in behaviour. It is surprising that the lead article in this week's edition of The Listener describes how people with no convictions have found that, on occasion, the police

  191
  have gone over the top. I have sent the Home Secretary a complaint from one of my constituents about police overreaction in Tower Hamlets. It is clear that the stop and search powers have, on occasion, been abused.
  Today's article in The London Standard suggests that the courts may also discriminate in their sentences on racial grounds. If that is true, I hope that the Home Office will take seriously that evidence, which has been submitted to the Commission for Racial Equality, and ensure that our courts uphold the principle, by which we all stand, of non-discrimination between races.
  When we deal with firearms offences and increased penalties, I hope that we shall also consider whether it is now appropriate to ensure that when police are issued with firearms they seek permission for a warrant from a magistrate, as they must in certain cases when they seek permission to search or seize. That may provide some of the controls lacking until now.
  We need a society in which the strengths of our resources, our communities and our people are put to work together. That will give hope to our inner cities. The Home Secretary indicated that the Government were beginning to respond to the problems. They need to move quickly if the cycle of despair and disadvantage is not to continue to produce a further cycle of crime and violence. As a society, that is something that we can ill afford.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. David Maclean: I shall not take up all the arguments and quotations of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) other than to disagree with his statistic that only 80 per cent. of our police are good and 20 per cent. bad. If that is the opinion of the Liberal party, it will not advance our debate or help to solve the problems.
  I welcome most of the Home Office legislation outlined in the Gracious Speech, although I have reservations about Sunday trading. I very much welcome the tough action that we will take against the evil drug traffickers.
  I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who has endured a great deal during the past year in bringing forward proposals to reform the law on animal experiments. I hope that both sides of the House will feel that there should be a degree of unanimity on that matter. We must back my hon. Friend, because during the next nine months we will all suffer a great deal of hostile mail from those whose belief in the need for such experiments is not as admirable as it should be.
  I heed the exhortations of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who said that law and order should not become a two-party political matter. He said that the Labour party believed in law and order and that Conservative Back Benchers should not claim that they formed the only party that believed in law and order.
  If we are to heed the right hon. Gentleman's exhortations, Conservative Members want certain conditions to be met. We accept that the majority of Labour party members are as keen on law and order as any Conservative party member. I meet ordinary Labour party members in my constituency, in business affairs and when many of them spend money in the Conservative club.
  192
  Unfortunately, they are the unsung majority of the old-fashioned Labour party, about which we do not hear a great deal these days. They have no time for some of the modern trendies who now speak for the Labour party.
  I regret that many Labour Members who have spoken today have claimed that it is only since 1979 that there has been an increase in crime and an increase in unemployment, and have drawn the conclusion that the crime rate that we suffer today began when the Government took office and that its causes are solely related to unemployment.
  If Opposition Members seek to pursue that argument, we will not achieve all-party unanimity on how to tackle the problems of crime. Indeed, Opposition Members will not be believed in the country. They claim that unemployment is one of the major causes of crime, but that is not proved by history. Although there was record unemployment in the 1930s, that did not result in the rising crime rate that we suffer today. If the argument of Opposition Members is true, surely there would have been a greater crime rate in the 1930s. Not simply in the inner cities but in areas such as Surrey and Sussex, where there is low unemployment, we still find the same levels of crime. In other words, Opposition Members should not try to make too strong a correlation between unemployment and crime.
  While I accept that the majority of ordinary Labour supporters are appalled by the rising crime rates, I hope that they will not allow within their ranks to speak as Labour party candidates those who are not simply critical of the police, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) suggested, but those who undermine the credibility of the police at every stage. It is no secret that I refer to Mr. Bernie Grant. Indeed, after the next election we could find sitting on the Opposition Benches a Labour Member who gloated at the fact that the police "got a bloody good hiding."
  Unless such people are rooted out of the party, my hon. Friends and I will be bound to say that the Labour party is not the party of law and order, and the public will see it to be true. For the hon. Member for Bootle to claim that having someone like Bernie Grant in the party is somehow good for democracy is turning reality on its head.
  Much has been said today about the causes of crime, and, as I said, many Opposition Members have short memories, believing that most of the causes date back only to 1979. I have a much longer memory. A major starting point for the criminal activity today was the 1960s, when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said that a permissive society was a civilised society. At that trendy time the rot set in and we began to hear about the opt-out society.
  I went up to university in the early 1970s. We found then that we had so many liberties, without concomitant duties and responsibilities being imposed on us, that we began to feel that authority no longer mattered. In those days, in the 1960s and early 1970s, parents began to take the view that if their children were caned at school the school was to blame, and they were prepared to back the children against the teachers. This House did not help in many ways because we undermined the authority of teachers in schools. That was a small part of it.
  Local authorities throughout the country were undermining the authority of the police in every way. When, in one part of the country, children who scrawl graffiti on a wall find that the local authority backs them

  193
  rather than the teachers, it is no wonder that other youngsters adopt the attitude that if those kids can get away with it, it must be right.
  In the 1960s and early 1970s we began to change our attitude about what was right and wrong, and too many of us started to make excuses. The Church began to lose some of its authority. Indeed, it began to fudge what was morally right and wrong.
  We recall a deplorable example in this House some time ago when the leader of the SDP tried to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. We recall what was done to prevent him from reaching the Box. Whether or not he was right to attempt to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box, the assault on his person and the activity that went on about him from a small minority of Labour Members received extensive newspaper coverage. If Members of Parliament give the impression that law and order and conventions of what is right and wrong in the Chamber are disregarded, it is no wonder that the green light is given for the breakdown of civilised conventions in the rest of society.
  The media must bear some responsibility, although I do not put all the blame in that quarter. I enjoy that marvellous television programme, "Minder," though perhaps it is dangerous to comment on a television programme; I may be misreported as having said that the root of all our evils lies in "Minder". However, in that one instance—in what I acknowledge to be a good programme—we glorify in some ways the con man or the person who puts one over on the police.
  Many programmes and films could be seen on our screens in the 1960s and early 1970s when the baddies won in the end. It became fashionable in, say, westerns for the goodies not to win. That put in motion something of the attitude that criminality paid and that wrong was sometimes better than right.
  What action we should now take to combat crime is a more difficult matter to determine. I welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that, where there is a declared need, we shall find the resources and more police to meet that need. I hope that, if the chief constable of Cumbria makes a case, we shall be successful in proving it, and I should like to see more policemen on the beat in Cumbria and elsewhere.
  I hope that when the powers of the police are increased in the Bill that is to be introduced, we shall have learned some lessons from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I voted for most of that measure because I found it acceptable, but certain aspects of it were faulty. We started from the premise that most of the measure was concerned with the inner cities and London. Britain does not consist only of those areas. Too much of that legislation was designed to placate minority interests in London in relation to the abuse of police powers. That resulted in the police being surrounded with a massive bureaucracy in that measure, and that was unnecessary.
  It was ironic to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) talking today about the danger of creating too much bureaucracy. At every stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, when my hon. Friends and I said, "We can trust the police. We need not foist all these forms on them", Opposition Members insisted on them filling in forms at every stage, even, for example, when stopping and searching people. The police were obliged to fill in the equivalent of an HORT 1 form every time they suspected somebody on the street.
  194
  Opposition Members insisted that we surround the police with rigmarole and bureaucracy. Their pockets were bulging with books, papers and forms. Let us start from the premise that we can trust the police and need not shroud them in more bureaucracy simply because we are giving them additional powers.
  I welcome the Home Secretary's desire to put more resources into crime prevention, a sphere that has been an unsung hero in recent years. I hope that the Home Office will issue guidance, for example, to the building industry on the standards required for locks and windows. One can walk into almost any new home built in Britain and find that the main locks on the front door are of a lesser standard then are the small locks that hon. Members have on their lockers in the Library corridor. Alternatively, if doors have decent locks, they are often made of flimsy pine and plain glass.
  Simple guidelines to the building industry would result in homes having sturdier doors, and locks with more than two or three levers. I recently spent a considerable time fitting window latches and locks to new windows. They had not been made with such simple devices. No wonder so many con men can be found in the shadier fringes of the security industry selling unnecessary alarm systems to householders, when all they need are good locks.
  I do not like the House to create unnecessary legislation. However, when we had a major problem over health and safety at work and felt that we were far below acceptable standards, we passed the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 containing a system of improvement and prohibition notices. I suggest that the principle of those notices could be adopted in crime prevention. Many police officers become extremely frustrated when they go to domestic or industrial properties and find appalling standards, yet have no power to take action. They can make recommendations, but they can be ignored. The insurance can be a more active force in getting action taken. We could have a system similar to improvement notices which the police could serve on industries, employers and householders whose buildings fall below an acceptable crime prevention standard to such an extent that they invite crime. It might be one way out of our present problem.
  We shall no doubt have a great deal of activity in the House during the next nine months as we debate the various proposed measures. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Home Office work load. If we are to address ourselves to the crime problem, I see no alternative but for everyone to acknowledge that its causes lie beyond the inner-city areas, poverty or unemployment. They lie with our fundamental attitude to law and order, the conventions and the civilised society as we have known it during the past few years.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Some Conservative Members implied that Labour Members do not have a good relationship with the police forces. The relationship that Labour Members of Parliament have with the police in Strathclyde is second to none. I served on a local authority, and we had an excellent relationship with Sir David McNee and Sir Patrick Hamill and no doubt will have with Mr. Sloan.
  After I leave my surgery on a Saturday morning, I am met by a community police man who asks me whether there have been any complaints that he can help with. I do

  195
  not receive anti-police complaints on many occasions. I receive complaints that there are not enough policemen on the beat and in the community. Labour Members of Parliament do not have the attitude claimed by Conservative Members.
  I live in my community. If young people do not have a job, they will hang about street corners and the entrances and corridors of multi-storey flats long after midnight. They have nothing to do. The type of crime that they commit is vandalism, which causes a great deal of distress.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. Springburn has an unemployment problem and now we have the threatened redundancies at British Rail Engineering Ltd. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to study communities such as mine and do something about unemployment. He cannot get away with saying that he is a member of the party that wishes to ensure that we have law and order in our communities and then do nothing about the only major employer we have left. When the local authority asked, on behalf of the BREL work force, for permission to put a group of consultants into the engineering work shops to discover whether they were viable, they were turned away by BREL in Derby. I hope that the Secretary of State will make representations to BREL in Derby to allow the local authority to do the job that he is not prepared to do
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned a point which I believe is worth talking about. We do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the homes thrown up in the 1960s and 1970s by local authorities with the encouragement of central Government—corridor-type housing and multi-storey flats—need security different from that required by the semi-detached and four-in-a-block houses with gardens on the older local authority estates. People who live in houses with gardens can take some security precautions. That is not so easy in a multi-storey flat. There are 22-storey flats in Balgray Hill and anyone can walk in there at any time. People can go into the lifts and vandalise them. Week after week, my constituents have to walk to the top floor because of lift breakdowns.
  The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) spoke about locks. He said that some doors do not have good locks. I should like to take him to some of the multi-storey flats in my constituency. At least one tenant has put in a double security door. That tenant is a drug-pusher. People are being pestered at four o'clock in the morning by drug addicts who go to the wrong door looking for drugs. I have been told by the local housing manager that unless that person is charged by the police there is nothing that the local authority can do.
  The Secretary of State introduced tenants' rights legislation. He should come to the multi-storey flats in Springburn and do something to protect the rights of people in that community because they are living in deplorable conditions. The irony is that people often say that the multi-storey flats are terrible places in which to live, but the people who live in those flats came from streets in Springburn which were due to be demolished. They had lived beside one another for many years, and their fathers and mothers before them, and they all moved into those multi-storey flats. They were excellent places to live in, and those people still want to live there, but they do not want to put up with the deplorable conditions that
  196
  exist at the moment because of the drugs problem. The Government must do something about that. It is not good enough to say that we will send in the police. Those of us who watched "Operation Julie" know that when we are fighting the drug menace it sometimes takes many years to track down those people and arrest them. It is unreasonable for council tenants to have to live in such conditions.
  Security has been mentioned. I go to privately owned flats in London where there are porters on the premises 24 hours a day. No one can get by the main door. In my constituency there are 22 and 32-storey flats—the biggest multi-storey flats in Europe—and anyone can walk in.
  The Secretary of State will tell us that there is no money, but there is money available for urban aid projects, and some of them are crazy projects.
  I have asked questions on the Floor of the House about some organisations which, over three years, have picked up about £300,000 and put on a puppet show in the main street. They have even misplaced some of the funds, and have not paid taxes and national insurance contributions. No one in the community can remember saying that they were wanted. They came on a recommendation from people in community education and social work, who are building an empire in areas such as mine. Yet, in spite of the youth training scheme and urban aid, we are unable to put people on the doors of premises to enable residents to live in peace and quiet. It is nonsensical that money is being wasted when we cannot do the very things that people want us to do.
  When we have serious problems such as vandalism and drug addiction, I wish that the experts, both local authority and national, would ask the people what they want. I wish that they would say, "If there is money to spare, what do you want it spent on?" I repeat that in the past two or three years £300,000 has been spent in my community, with nothing to show for it, yet in parts of the area people have been campaigning for 16 years for a community hall. They are asking only for four walls, a door and a few windows. They will run the hall, provided that the local authority, the Government, urban aid or MSC will build it, but they cannot get it. Yet there are advertisements in the newspapers for community workers and for various types of people that we have never heard of and do not need. It is time that the Secretary of State and other Ministers and officials started to ask the people in the community what they want. If people were given what they need for their protection, the crime figures would come down. It is nonsense that young people should have to sit around seven days a week because we are not prepared to build them a small swimming pool or sports facility. That is madness. It causes many problems, and will do so in the future.
  I heard the Prime Minister say on the radio that she will give more resources to the police to deal with riots. She also said that she will give more resources to the Customs service. I hope that she does so. Then we shall not have people wanting to leave housing estates because of the drug pushers. But are the National Health Service and other services to be deprived because extra resources are put into other Departments? While I welcome the provision of those extra resources, I do not want them to be at the expense of the Health Service.
  Drug addiction is causing serious strains on local health services. There is not one hospital in Scotland that

  197
  specialises in the care and rehabilitation of drug addicts. Drug addicts are being admitted to general hospitals because of the abuse they are giving their bodies, and doctors and nurses are not trained to care for them. I have not been able to check the report, but I have been told that one drug addict in a general ward in Stobhill hospital in my constituency is costing £1,000 a week for antibiotics needed for the treatment of problems caused by his addiction. It would be deplorable if money were to be taken from the NHS to pay for extra Customs officers. If extra resources are to be provided, it should not be at the expense of the Health Service.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) will forgive me if I do not follow the thread of his argument or respond to it. because time is now very short.
  I should like to remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the police in Britain maintain the Queen's peace by consent. We maintain it by respect for the police and by respect for the rule of law. Once that respect and consent goes, it follows that the maintenance of the Queen's peace breaks down. I listened to the right hon. Member for Gorton with amazement. I was astonished by the bare effrontery of his statement that the Labour party supports the police and that the rising crime wave is due to Thatcher's Britain. The Labour party, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, is antipolice. Its record in that respect is appalling at both national and local levels. In recent months no opportunity has been lost by leading Labour politicians to undermine the police.
  Mr. John Maxton: Look at the record.
  Mr. Hickmet: Yes, I shall do so. Labour politicians have taken every opportunity open to them to attack, criticise and therefore undermine the rule of law.
  During the miners' strike, we witnessed appalling scenes of violence. There were 10,000 pickets at Orgreave and we all remember the violence that took place. During that period Labour politicians took the opportunity day after day to criticise the police in the House. The police were criticised from the Opposition Front Bench and by Labour Back Benchers. What example is that for leading politicians to set the people?
  The Labour party endorsed Scargill's claim that the police were an army of occupation and that we lived in a police state. They supported his contention that the police were beating up miners' wives and tapping miners' telephones. The type of violence that we saw during the miners' dispute is condoned and excused by Labour politicians. What effect does that have on the rule of law, respect for the police and maintenance of the Queen's peace? The Labour party has much to answer for.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Gorton that at the Labour party conference delegates described the Metropolitan police as an enemy and were cheered by Labour Members. For almost one year during 1981 the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mounted a campaign that the police were responsible for the deaths of several men who had been taken into police custody. In a letter dated 9 May 1984 I asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he agreed with Mr. Arthur Scargill
  198
  that there was only one law in industrial relations and industrial disputes, which was that picket lines were not to be crossed. I have received no reply to my letter to date.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is an Opposition spokesman on employment. A few days ago he wrote in a journal:
  "In local authority situations, do you obey the law or not obey the law? We don't have any kind of firm principles in the party of how we might deal with this problem."
  The Opposition have voted three times against the renewal of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Throughout the country, police committees under Labour control hamstring the police. They attack them for attempting to carry out certain police functions. In the past week we have witnessed the antics of the Labour-controlled Manchester police committee in its relations with the chief constable and his efforts to police that city properly.
  I remind Labour Members that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has been forced to give up his post as an Opposition Front Bench spokesman on home affairs because of, to use his words,
  "the intimidation, chicanery, lying and cheating by Militant Tendency supporters."
  It is necessary only to be a member of a local authority which is under Labour control or Militant Tendency control to understand the sort of attack that one can come under for opposing the controlling party's policies.
  The violence—[Interruption.] The most unpleasant Member in the House, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, has entered the Chamber to barrack as usual. He is about five minutes late.
  At the next general election, the Labour party candidate for the Tottenham seat will be Mr. Bernie Grant. He is a Labour candidate who said about the riots in Tottenham that the youth took on the police and
  "gave them a bloody good hiding."
  Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, should know that if they wish to maintain law and order, they, like all other politicians, must set a good example. It will not do if Labour politicians choose every opportunity to attack the police. It is little wonder that, following the scenes of the past 12 months, some of those tactics have been imported into the inner cities.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I have listened to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) making an unpleasant, inaccurate and irrelevant speech. I shall say nothing more about it.
  In the past few days, there has been a remarkable manipulation, almost an orchestration, of the newspapers, which have been persuaded on flimsy evidence that we are about to see a war on crime, a tough relentless campaign spearheaded by the Prime Minister herself. That is puzzling because of the extraordinary gap between the rhetoric on the front pages and the substance of the proposals in the Queen's Speech. That has a great deal to do with the Government's cynical judgment about poll ratings and their discretionary tactics to try to divert attention from what has really been happening. This is a damaging and disreputable exercise, which is made the more unpleasant by being complied with by the rather sanctimonious pretence that only on the Government Benches is there any genuine concern about law and order.

  199
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, that assertion is nothing more than pretence. We are committed to effective policing. We want tough but fair sentencing in the courts, and an adequate level of protection for every citizen. The Solicitor-General for Scotland looks astonished, but that is because he must be blinded by his own prejudices and assumptions. I have made a fair statement of the point of view consistently put forward in Scottish debates and, I believe, in United Kingdom debates in the past year or two.
  Law and order should never be reduced to what is effectively a campaign gimmick and there should not be the public parade of concern that comes at times, when they are at their worst, from certain Conservative Members. Such a parade of concern is no more than a way of hiding the truth and deceiving the electorate about what is happening.
  I accept that there is every reason for giving an emphasis to law and order, because the unpalatable and stark facts are in the Scottish figures. I listened to what the Home Secretary said, and I accept that the numbers game has its dangers and that there are many complexities but, at the end of the day, we have the recorded crime figures, which are spectacular in Scotland.
  Between 1978 and 1984, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, the number of crimes recorded went up from 334,000 to 474,000, and up again in the first quarter of 1985—an overall increase of 41·8 per cent. There were 112,000 recorded instances of housebreaking over the same period—an increase of over 48 per cent.
  That should be a cause for concern and we are entitled, and have a duty, to draw attention to those figures if only because we remember the ruthless way in which the same standard was applied by Conservative politicians in the past and the ferocity of the attack, based on such figures, launched again and again on previous Labour Governments.
  There has been an enormous growth in crime figures. We have all seen it and we are all concerned about it. However, I object because an attempt is being made to suggest that the Conservatives have a uniquely impressive record on fighting crime.
  Let us take another statistic, on which we must correct an impression that has been falsely given, that of police and police manpower. In 1979, the number of policemen in post was 13,214. In September 1985, after six years of dedication to improving policing in this country, the number of policemen in post was 13,273, an increase of 59. In 1978 alone—it is not without significance in the context of this debate and the charges which have been bandied about the House that this was the last year of a Labour Government—the number of policemen in post increased by 800. That figure has to be compared with an increase of 59 after six years of a Conservative Government. If one looks at the establishment, one sees that between 1979 and 1984 the increase in establishment was well under 1 per cent. There is no sign of anything, in practice, which reflects the heated rhetoric on law and order from Conservative politicians in Scotland.
  If one compares the number of police officers per 1,000 of population in 1980 and 1984, one finds that in 1984 it was marginally down, from 2·58 to 2·56. That information
  200
  is contained in a written answer to a parliamentary question on 8 June 1984 which I found when preparing for this debate. There is no justification, therefore, for the sometimes irresponsible claims that are made by Conservative politicians.
  The third criterion is the increase in the number of offences. The picture is depressing. There is, for instance, no more traumatic experience for the householder than housebreaking, This is not a middle-class disease. It is prevalent in the area that I represent. In 1979, 20 per cent. of all the housebreaking cases that were reported were cleared up. That percentage has dropped marginally, but significantly, to 18 per cent. Furthermore, in 1973 the percentage of cases cleared up was not 18 or 20 per cent. but 27 per cent. Therefore, I am entitled to say, when asking people to judge the claims made about law and order by politicians, that the growth in crime is depressing and frightening. As for the Government's record concerning police cover on the ground, it is unimaginative and poor. Under this Government there has been a deterioration in the clear-up rate. This must be a legitimate cause for anxiety among the electorate.
  When one looks at the solutions that are offered in the Gracious Speech, one feels dispirited and depressed. Almost no solution is offered for Scotland. A trickle of odds and ends has been gathered up by a conscientious, civil servant who did not like a void and felt that he had to produce something under the heading "Scotland". It is a collection of bric-á-brac and debris. It will contribute almost nothing. It is not so much an anti-climax as a nonevent. In no way will it measure up to the kind of statistics to which we have referred.
  The few measures which have dominated today's debate are geared almost entirely to England and Wales. May I ask the Secretary of State to say a few words about the Public Order Act 1936 and clarify the position in Scotland. If the refugee now in Wales—the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)—had read with attention the Committee stage debates on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 he would know that in part V we legislated for the notification and control of processions. To that extent the Secretary of State is entitled to say that for Scotland no further action needs to be taken. However, he will remember that during the debates on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 there was a great deal of discussion about the future of section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 which still applies to Scotland. This leaves Scotland in a slightly uncomfortable position.
  In my view, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act was right to put the main onus upon the local authority to make a judgment on the course to be adopted, after advice from the chief constable. The local authority is the initiating body and the ultimate decision lies with it. However, rather uneasily but in parallel with it is section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 under which the initiating authority is the chief constable. In Committee I argued that section 3 of the 1936 Act should be withdrawn from Scotland and that we should depend on the new machinery of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which seemed to be adequate. The Solicitor-General for Scotland replied that that could not be done because consultations and discussions were going on about public order legislation relating to Scotland. Perhaps the Secretary of State could say whether he will look more sympathetically at the point.

  201
  I wish to clarify a point about drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) joined me in harrying—a fair description—the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), and the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee on this year's Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Mysteriously, we were given a confused concept of a fine to be added once the courts had decided what the offence was worth under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On top of a sentence of six or seven years, there would be a substantial penalty which would almost certainly amount to a further term of imprisonment. There is much confusion among Ministers about the criteria that would be used by the courts. How do we interpret the phrase in the miscellaneous provisions Act
  "profits likely to have been made from the charge"?
  The Secretary of State knows that we considered the possibility of forfeiture as a simplification and a way out of the morass. We were told that nothing could be done because forfeiture was being considered by the Scottish Law Commission. That may still be the position. I suspect that legislation on forfeiture in England and Wales will result in a much tidier and more logical solution, compared with the morass in which Ministers found themselves when they tried to explain the criteria for the fine to be applied under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act. We should consider again forfeiture in Scottish terms. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say a few words on that matter.
  My final point refers to proposed Scottish legislation that was included in the Gracious Speech—the new legal aid Bill.
  Mr. Raffan: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I did not realise that he was moving on from the drugs issue. If he had listened to my speech, the hon. Member would realise that I did not say anything about the public order measures. I asked for a clarification of the Labour party's position on the burden of proof, which lies at the heart of the proposed legislation on drugs.
  Mr. Dewar: I owe the hon. Member an apology. I transposed him. The hon. Member referred to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act and not the Civic Government (Scotland) Act. I am sure that the hon. Member has fast reading skills from his days with the Daily Express and an ability to simplify complicated issues. If he reads the report of the Committee stage, he will find the answer to his query.
  I am prepared to concede that the legal aid Bill is an important piece of legislation. My colleagues and I do not object to an independent body to administer legal aid in Scotland. The Law Society has done a good job, but there is a possibility, even if it is not a reality, of a clash of interests. I believe that no one would object to that reform as long as the new body is genuinely independent. We would not wish it to become a victim of Treasury cheese-paring, because a threat to the right to representation could arise. We will have to consider the small print of the Bill. The main tests will be whether it infringes the right to representation, whether there is a danger of a proper defence being inhibited and whether a defendant will be able to put his case before the court. If there were any doubts on those tests, we should oppose the measure strongly. I give Ministers the benefit of the doubt—perhaps credit is a better word—because I do not believe that we will have a problem agreeing on that issue.
  202
  However, some of the speeches made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), and some of the suggestions in the consultative document have left traces of doubt in our mind. For example, it was suggested that one criterion that might properly be considered in criminal legal aid was whether legal aid had been granted in the past and whether the defendant had previous convictions. I do not say that that was a positive proposal, but it should never even have been suggested.
  It was suggested that we should ask the legal aid committee to put itself in the improper position of not only anticipating the verdict, but deciding the likely sentence and then making a value judgement about whether it was likely to be serious enough to justify the expenditure of public funds on a defence. That was a serious suggestion in the consultative document and I hope that it has died a death. The confusion was compounded by the Under-Secretary, who referred in a Scottish Grand Committee to legal aid as a social service. He said:
  "Its benefits have to be considered in relation to its cost. Like others, it is demand led. I think again that there would be general agreement that that does not mean that the demands should be met indiscriminately."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 2 July 1985; c. 124]
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the need to define the interests of justice and to define in legislative terms "reasonableness" and a number of other words such as "moderate". If we are to get into that ball game, we shall want to look very carefully at the Government's formulation. We say simply that we should not impose a cash limit on justice. We must never prejudice a proper defence.
  Over the past year or two, there has been a tendency towards gimmickry in the Government"s general attitude. A number of attempts have been made to be seen to be doing something. It is uncharacteristic of the Secretary of State, but there has been a tendency to look for a macho image in law and order. For example, "breach of the peace" was suddenly rechristened "vandalism" and we were all expected to sleep safer in our beds. Young offenders were to receive the short, sharp shock treatment. We told Ministers that that was liable to the law of diminishing returns and they have had to change the system to make sure that people are not put through the machine two or three times, with bad results for the machine.
  I say to the Secretary of State, in passing, that we shall be looking closely at the way in which the Chiswick report on the Glenochil centre is implemented and that we are still not reconciled to his claim that there is no need for a wider look at the operation of detention centres.
  I have considerable sympathy—which is probably wise of me—for Ministers who have to wrestle with the problem of rising crime. I am the first to say that there are no simple solutions, but at least I hope that most of us would try to avoid simplistic claims that simple solutions have been found and are about to transform the situation.
  I know that people such as the Solicitor-General for Scotland who occasionally lapse into moderation and reasonableness are at their most vulnerable at Tory party conferences, but at the Perth conference in 1982 the hon. and learned Gentleman was boasting—that is the right word—that the housebreaker who had committed an

  203
  offence on bail would be charged not only with housebreaking, but with an offence under the Bail Act. He said that that
  "could have dramatic effects, particularly in reducing the most disturbing housebreaking figures."
  What has happened to those disturbing figures? They have gone up substantially and we have not seen the dramatic impact that was cheerfully promised to eager journalists from The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald.
  There will always be arguments about cause and effect in this area, and I accept that it is not easy to see one's way through. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Home Secretary said about that.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton will not object when I say that he was a little hard on the Home Secretary whom he accused of being a pale carbon copy of the Prime Minister. I believe that there is a sharp distinction between the Prime Minister's position and that adopted by the Home Secretary today. He was sheepish, defensive, ill at ease and almost honourably embarrassed about the task that he was facing and the record that he was having to defend. I see none of those human qualities in the Prime Minister.
  No one takes satisfaction from rising crime figures, inner city tensions, alienation or disaffection in our society. No one would pretend that there is a simple correlation between social deprivation, unemployment and the crime rate. That has been said again and again during this debate. The Home Secretary came close to saying this afternoon that, although he would place a different emphasis on the causal effects that he could enumerate, he did not deny that the cause that we were discussing could be taken into account and ought to be considered. I welcome that, because there is a danger in Parliament—Opposition Members are as guilty as others in this respect—of seeing the dawn of history in 1979 and excising from memory everything that happened before, scrapping it as certainly as the Tories have scrapped their earlier "Labour isn't working" speeches on the unemployment issue.
  Prior to 1979, there were Tories who were prepared to say that there was a correlation or at least a connection between unemployment and the crime rate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton quoted Lord Whitelaw on that issue. I therefore object to being lectured by the Prime Minister and told that any such suggestion is in bad taste. I also object to the Solicitor-General for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee referring to such a proposition as a grotesque slur and the Secretary of State for Scotland describing it as
  "a slander on the unemployed."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 24 May 1982; c. 3.]
  It is not a slander. The Opposition are not saying that unemployment is a form of moral depravity. We are saying that it is a misfortune, partially resulting from Government policy, which increases pressures, creates a sense of hopelessness and alienation, puts people at risk in our cities and therefore has an impact on the crime rate.
  Testimony from direct experience has been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow, for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). If one goes into our areas and talks and lives with the people, one can see exactly where that connection exists. In
  204
  Scotland there are 350,000 people in the dole queues, more than 140,000 of them 25 years of age or under. Thousands of Scots have never had a job since leaving school and are drawing benefit. It is ludicrous to say that that is irrelevant or that it is bad taste and an insult to raise the issue. I concede that it would be wrong to say that that was the only cause of crime, but the absolutism that suggests that it has no relevance takes my breath away. We ought to reject that idea comprehensively during the course of this and every debate on the issue.
  The pressures are there and, although I would be the first to accept that we cannot have an exclusive spotlight on that issue, we must have a comprehensive look at how the courts operate. We must ensure that there are adequate powers both for the judiciary and for the police and that we do not erode civil liberties, but we must have the necessary, proper and balanced weapons to proceed with the fight against crime. The Opposition accept that and we ask the Government to accept it also. The Government must also recognise that, if we are to get at the root causes of the problem, the Government must have a change of heart and recognise the damage that their general policies are doing to the people.
  I seek a touch of humility from the Government and I perceived a sense of that in the Home Secretary's speech today—a touch of humility and realism which has been sadly lacking all too often in the past and is certainly lacking in the apology for a programme in the Queen's Speech which in no sense measures up to the needs of the nation.
  9.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): We are all grateful to the Opposition for suggesting that it was a good idea to spend one day's debate on the Gracious Speech talking about law and order. We have had a long debate and many Members on both sides have contributed. I shall do my best, first, to comment on the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), especially those relating to Scotland. I shall then answer as many as possible of the points raised by other hon. Members.
  After all the noise and fury of the past few minutes, the final comments of the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that we had at last reached some agreement on the vexed question of the responsibility or otherwise of unemployment for creating crime. Having set up a marvellous Guy Fawkes to set alight and then knock down, the hon. Gentleman returned to the very position that Conservatives have taken all along—that unemployment is not the only cause but is clearly one of many causes which make problems such as crime more difficult. The fact that the hon. Gentleman can now say that and get away with it is welcome evidence of the happy fact that he has been reselected. We are all pleased about that.
  Mr. Dewar: In reply to that piece of light wit, I suggest that the Secretary of State should be worrying about his own reselection rather than about the fate of individual Labour Members. I was protesting about the attitude of Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State, that anyone who suggested a link between crime and unemployment was somehow insulting the population of this country and was totally out of court. The right hon. Gentleman himself said in the Scottish Grand Committee that the suggestion of any such link was a slander on the unemployed. Is he now retreating from that position?
  Mr. Younger: No. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is perfectly fair to say that unemployed people are more likely to commit crimes because they are unemployed, I think that that is a dreadful thing to say and I should not be party to it in any sense. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the legal aid measure for Scotland outlined in the Gracious Speech. The detailed proposals will be set out when the Bill is published. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the aim is to bring most aspects of the administration of legal aid under the control of one body. That body will take over the responsibilities of the Law Society of Scotland and its various committees and also the assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid currently carried out by the Scottish Office. It will take over from the courts responsibility for criminal legal aid in summary cases.
  The principal objective is to achieve greater efficiency and to meet the criticisms of conflict of interest and inconsistency which have been made by many people, including the hon. Member for Garscadden, the Law Commission and other bodies. The new body will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be independent in reaching its decisions on individual applications. The concentration of these functions in one body should in due course improve the administration of legal aid with better monitoring and increased accountability. The changes are not primarily designed to reduce the cost of administration of the legal aid arrangements, although I hope that that will be the result.
  I stress that the Bill will not be concerned with altering the criteria for financial elegibility for civil legal aid, which will continue to be uprated in the usual way on a Great Britain basis. I think that that provides one of the main assurances that the hon. Gentleman sought. The provision of legal aid is not cash limited. It is a demand-determined service. Therefore, in the future, as now, those who qualify for legal aid will continue to receive it as in the past with, one hopes, rather better administration, and perhaps somewhat cheaper, if the proposed change produces the desired results. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, as it is important that people who think that they may need legal aid should not be afraid that it will be denied them as a result of the changes.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me to comment on the effects in Scotland of the Public Order Acts. As he recognised, much of the subject has been covered in extenso in recent Scottish legislation. The abolition of the existing public order offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and their replacement by a codified structure including the introduction of a new offence of disorderly conduct will not apply in Scotland. There are two reasons for this.
  First, the Scottish Law Commission is considering the law of lobbying and rioting and it is proposed to await its recommendations as this is something on which we should get the best possible advice before making such a fundamental change. Secondly, the behaviour which the new offence of disorderly conduct is designed to deal with is already satisfactorily covered in Scotland by the common law offence of breach of the peace. I hope this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  Many hon. Members have asked about the Shops Act 1950. The experience in Scotland is extremely relevant. The legislation which the Government are to introduce in
  206
  this Session to remove all statutory restrictions on retail trading hours has been covered in the Gracious Speech. It has long been recognised that the present legislation is an unsatisfactory anomaly, impossible to enforce fairly and consistently and does not reflect the needs and Wishes of the people. The 1950 Act is purely a consolidation of previous legislation, much of which has been criticised. It contains provisions on general closing hours, the conditions of employment of shop workers in England, Wales and Scotland and a general prohibition of Sunday trading in England and Wales.
  Most people believe that shop opening hours should not be regulated by law. I appreciate that this is a matter of opinion. Opinion polls, for what they are worth, have consistently shown that about two thirds of the population feel that the law should be changed so that shops may legally open on Sundays. Many people have questioned change, but many social changes have taken place since the law was formulated. People's domestic lives are quite different from those of an earlier age and they now want to be able to organise their shopping differently.
  In Scotland, we have had freedom in shop opening hours on Sundays for many years. Although, from time to time, there may be objections about an individual place, the general experience has been quite satisfactory. There has not been a large volume of complaints. I recommend that this legislation be considered sympathetically as our experience in Scotland shows that the change has been welcome and valued.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: Hon. Members from England are constantly asked whether the change in the law will radically alter the character of Sunday. Has Sunday, or the Sabbath, as Scottish people enjoy it. been significantly affected by Sunday trading?
  Mr. Younger: This is a central question and I would not presume, even in answer to my hon. Friend, to give a firm view as to the possible effect in England. The experience in Scotland has not resulted in all shops being open on Sundays—it is rather the exception to find shops open, although I think their number is increasing. However, it has certainly not altered many Scottish people's habit of spending Sunday mornings, at least, going to church.
  It is difficult to come to any conclusions because many other factors have been at work during that time to change shopping and churchgoing habits. I am sure, however, that if the law was generally unacceptable, I and my colleagues would have been inundated with complaints and with requests to change that law. We have not been inundated, and it might be of some value to English Members to learn of our experience.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the proposals concerning drugs. I am grateful to those who have welcomed what we have announced in the Gracious Speech. Anxiety has been expressed about the absence of provision for Scotland similar to that proposed for England. We have already so provided in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, which became law only a few weeks ago. It is another case of the law south of the border following Scotland.
  We are continuing to strengthen Customs efforts against drug smuggling. In July, we announced that a further 50 specialist investigators would be appointed. That means that the number of key investigative and

  207
  intelligence officers working in Customs on drugs inquiries has more than doubled in the past five years from 121 in 1979 to 262 by the end of this financial year. In October, we announced that a minimum of 150 additional preventive posts will be provided next year, bringing to 310 the number of such posts created since 1984 specificially to combat drug smuggling. The charge that nothing has been done simply will not stick.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) said that he was worried about the Home Secretary's proposals on Sunday trading—a subject of which Scotland has longer experience. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to learn that, when it is published, the Bill will include a clause protecting existing retail employees from having to work on Sundays and giving continuing protection to young workers over working hours, meal breaks and overtime. Further details will be discussed in debates on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) mentioned fraud—an important crime which does not get as much attention as it should. A committee chaired by Lord Roskill was appointed last year to consider what changes in law and procedure are necessary to improve fraud trials. The committee's report will be considered carefully. The Government are as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that those who are guilty of serious financial crimes should be prosecuted successfully.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the treatment of alcohol-related crime and pleaded for the decriminalisation of drunkenness. Some offences must be treated as crime irrespective of whether alcohol is involved, but the Government accept that habitual drunkenness is a medical problem. Such thinking was reflected in section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 which empowers police constables to take a drunk and disorderly person to a designated place instead of making an arrest.
  As for England and Wales, we are encouraged by the development of police cautioning schemes under which offenders are arrested, kept in police cells until they have sobered up and then cautioned rather than prosecuted. It is for chief officers of police to decide whether to adopt such cautioning schemes. The police have considerable potential for diverting drunkenness offenders from the courts. The Government remain committed to treating drunkenness in that way.
  Dr. Godman: Can the right hon. Gentleman remind me of the number of designated places in Scotland?
  Mr. Younger: I am not sure what the precise number is. It is very few. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the precise figure. The point is that the principle is recognised and legislation on it has been passed in the House.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the force's reorganisation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will undoubtedly bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It is worth bearing in mind, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech, that the reorganisation will enable the commissioner to redeploy 200 officers on operational duties. I think that that meets the spirit of much of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said.
  208
  Trial time limits were mentioned by two hon. Members, and that is something in which hon. Members south of the border have shown some interest. As hon. Members will know, in solemn proceedings in Scotland, the accused has a historical right to have his case brought to trial within 110 days of the start of criminal proceedings, if he is held in custody, or 12 months if he is not. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 introduced a 40-day limit for those remanded in custody charged with summary offences. Those limits may be extended by the court if the delay in the proceedings is not the fault of the prosecutor, although such extensions are rare. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 introduced statutory time limits for England and Wales as part of the Home Secretary's strategy for reducing delay in bringing cases to trial.
  I shall leave drugs and further measures on drugs for the present, as I have covered the principal questions that were asked.
  I was asked about detention centres and prison sentences in them. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the Chiswick report. He will be aware that the report by Dr. Chiswick's working group on suicide precautions at Glenochil young offenders' institution and detention centre was published on 24 July and was the subject of an oral statement to Parliament. The Government's initial response to the report was laid with the report in the Library of both Houses. I recognised at the time the importance of the report on a subject that has generated a great deal of understandable public interest and concern.
  The majority of the report's 63 recommendations were accepted and many are now in operation at the institution, thanks to the commendable efforts and positive approach of the governor and his staff. All the recommendations cannot be implemented overnight, but I can assure the House that no effort has been spared in following them up.
  There have been calls, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Garscadden, for a public inquiry to be set up in the light of deaths at Glenochil. It has been argued that a public inquiry is needed to allay public concern about the deaths.
  Mr. Dewar: I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes the matter seriously and that is why I want to put the record straight. We were interested not so much in a public inquiry into the deaths—there have been fatal accident inquiries into the specific circumstances—as in a wider-ranging inquiry into the regime and its effectiveness in dealing with young offenders in that age group, particularly as it is the only recourse for the courts.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate those points, although I do not agree with them all. It is not the only recourse, and that is a very important point to make. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the fact that he does not necessarily mean a full public inquiry in the sense that I meant earlier. It has been argued by some that a public inquiry is essential to allay public concern and to ensure that full and open consideration is given to the wider issues such as the policy on the sentencing and custody of young offenders.
  I believe that further inquiries or investigations at Glenochil would now seem inappropriate given the findings of the Chiswick report and the determinations of recent fatal accident inquiries. They gave a clean bill of

  209
  health to the Glenochil complex. That demonstrates that there is no evidence that there is anything in the regimes or in the actions of staff at either of the two institutions to which any of the deaths could have been attributed. Any reservations that have been expressed have concerned the detailed working procedures in the institutions, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they are being actively pursued.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want inadvertently to give the impression that our call for an inquiry into the regime was an implied criticism—or, even worse, a witch hunt—of the people working there at present, or that they have some responsibility for those sad deaths. That was never implied; in fact it was specifically ruled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who has a constituency interest, and by myself, from the Front Bench. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a little eccentric to say that there is no need for such an inquiry in view of Dr. Chiswick's findings, when one of his findings was that there should be such an inquiry?
  Mr. Younger: That is not precisely what the recommendations said. In one part of the report, it was said that a further inquiry could be made into some aspects. I do not think that Dr. Chiswick would say that he had suggested either a public inquiry or a wide-ranging inquiry. He and the fatal accident inquiries have given us one thing that is satisfactory, although we must not be complacent about it—that the tragic deaths, which we all deplore, were not directly attributable to the institutions, the regime or any of the staff. That is the important thing that we should hang on to.
  I hope that I have answered several of the questions asked by hon. Members. The debate was on an important subject, and hon. Members brought their own flavours to it. The show was stolen by the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who has explained to me that he has another engagement, so he cannot be here for the winding-up speeches. He struck exactly the right note when dealing with this complex matter. He valued and liked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's approach to the problem in his excellent opening speech, and I agree. With respect, the right hon.
  210
  Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not match up to his right hon. Friend's high standard. He might think that it was a bit much to ask that he should.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton came to the debate rather rattled by the fact that the provisions in the Queen's Speech had been generally well received. He was determined somehow to throw a spanner in the works. He came armed with about three statistics, and cleverly repackaged them four times in different ways to make a string of different figures. That was the right hon. Gentleman's technique—rather the same as a destroyer captain who is told, when he gets into trouble, to make smoke and call for full revs of the engine.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden had a different technique. He was rather like a depressed dachshund in a cage, and decided that the best thing to do was bark as loudly and as long as he could in the hope that no one would have a look at his story. The hon. Gentleman made much of the figures. He produced a whole lot of crime figures to demonstrate what we all know, that there has been a great increase in crime. Unfortunately, he ran out of time for his preparation. It happens to all of us. I expect that he was called to the telephone or something. He forgot to tell us the only important statistic for Scotland, that the increase in numbers to bring the police up to full establishment has been prevented by one factor, and only one—that the Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council has refused and still refuses to do so. The council has chosen to do so in the part of Scotland where the vast majority of crime takes place.
  The hon. Gentleman is not only responsible for that, but he is a Member of Parliament in that region, as I am. To produce those statistics without telling us that was misleading and not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He cannot deny with all the figures he likes to produce that, during the past six years, there has been a large and steady increase in the resources and money that have been devoted to fighting crime.
  Mr. Dewar: Crime has increased.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is still saying from a sedentary position—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Urban Programme
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to have the chance to bring up the subject of the urban programme. I am privileged that you, Mr. Speaker, have taken the Chair for this debate. Recent disturbances and civil disorder in our inner cities have focused our attention sharply on inner city problems generally. One thing is certain: these problems are not easily solved. They have taxed successive Governments for many years—Governments of different political persuasions, all of whom have shown concern and all of whom have introduced new and sometimes successful initiatives. This Government in particular have introduced initiatives. I am acutely aware of the concern shown and the action taken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues.
  My family is no stranger to some of these issues. During the war my mother worked in slum housing in Liverpool. My father, who was an Army chaplain for 30 years, is now vicar of the East End parish of Greenwich. My wife worked in the probation service. We have all seen these problems at the sharp end.
  In 1974 I was privileged to fight the general election in the constituency of Toxteth in Liverpool against the then Labour Member, the much-loved and respected Dick Crawshaw. I saw some of the city's problems. Despite the tremendous sense of humour of the Liverpudlian, even then there was an air of despair in Liverpool. There was poor housing—both public and private—and high unemployment. Most of industry had gone. There were a large number of immigrants, who were closely linked through their accommodation. Their prospects, especially of employment, were bleak. Crime was high. There was very bad environment—no green fields and no gardens. There was no real hope.
  There were deprivations, but they were not limited to the great city of Liverpool. In order to respond to a variety of deprivations, the enhanced urban programme was introduced under the direction of the Department of the Environment in 1977. I congratulate the Government on strongly supporting that programme and on increasing its funding to £348 million in 1983–85—an increase in real terms of 43 per cent. over the inherited level of £165 million in 1979.
  The Government have improved the thinking behind the programme, in particular bringing in the important voice of the private sector. They have required authorities to consult chambers of commerce. In 1982 they introduced the commercially oriented urban development grants. The Government have given support to the voluntary sector's contribution to tackling urban problems. They increased the value of support for projects run by or for ethnic minority groups nearly fourfold in the three years to 1984–85. The urban programme has been something of a success story.
  Of course, that programme alone cannot reverse the decline, but it has certainly proved its worth as a way of involving a wide range of organisations in some effective projects. Moreover, the programme has succeeded in persuading local authorities, voluntary organisations and
  212
  businesses to work with Government Departments to cooperate in promoting the new approaches that the citizens of towns and cities need. Opportunities for such collaboration are rare enough to deserve our recognition and support. That is why it is disturbing that after a period of development, this high quality programme—less than one two-hundredth of Government expenditure and excellent value for money—has been reduced in value by about 13 per cent. in real terms in the last year or two.
  Tonight I am particularly concerned with the traditional urban programme aimed primarily at authorities such as Croydon, which contains my own constituency and yours, Mr. Speaker, where relative affluence for most residents sits alongside pockets of deprivation. Three years ago, 131 district and borough authorities secured support from the traditional urban programme. Their numbers have been gradually reduced, and this July the Department published a list of 46 authorities deemed eligible to apply for new projects from 1986 onwards. Croydon was not among them, nor were many other authorities containing pockets of deprivation.
  On the surface, Croydon is affluent, with modern office blocks, excellent shopping facilities and crowds of shoppers. It has an excellent chamber of commerce and a local authority whose rates record is one of which we should all be proud. But behind that there are poor and deprived areas, particularly in the north of the borough, where there is still some very poor housing, an unusually high number of elderly people, a much higher than average number of one-parent families and a high ethnic population. However, housing problems are the most important reason why people in Croydon seek advice from their local citizens advice bureau and Members of Parliament.
  Problems of homelessness also exist in that affluent borough. The Minister knows that I have been concerned with some of the problems associated with bed and breakfast accommodation used for the homeless. In April this year the Department announced that only two applications out of the 10 submitted by Croydon council had been approved for traditional urban programme funding this year. Neither of those applications, both of which were time-expired and came from voluntary organisations, was granted the full amount that they had requested, and one was told to expect funding to end after just two years.
  In a year when 26 applications had been submitted, the news came as something of a blow to the many interested voluntary organisations. Now, this reduction in the amount of money has been superseded by the worse news that Croydon is not being invited to submit applications this year.
  Traditional urban programme funding has had a significant impact on the range and effectiveness of services provided in that borough, particularly by voluntary organisations. I believe that there is a strong case for traditional urban programme money to be made available to the Croydon borough.
  Let me mention some of the currently funded schemes, although there are many more. Croydon Gingerbread is a playschool which for years has provided after-school and holiday care for the children of single parents in the borough. In short, it is a magnificent venture. Croydon play council provides holiday play schemes. Drop-in is a youth counselling service. The North Croydon victims support scheme gives practical help and advice to victims

  213
  of crime. The Croydon Association for the Young Single Homeless provides supportive-type accommodation for 25 homeless young people, and that helps the local authority.
  Among the ethnic groups, several of which are supported, there is the Pakistan Welfare Association, of which, Mr. Speaker, you are the chief patron. It does much good work in the borough.
  I mention those organisations, but there are others no less valuable whose enthusiasm has been dampened by this latest news. I know, Mr. Speaker, of your enormous involvement in the work that goes on in the borough in these and other organisations that do much good for the community. The local guild of voluntary organisations is concerned about the threat to the continuity of the voluntary sector-based services posed by the traditional urban programme exclusion.
  The Government argue that resources should be concentrated on the most deprived inner city areas. I accept the thinking behind that argument and see the logic in it. It is right that Lambeth, for example, should receive millions of pounds each year under the programme and that Croydon should receive less. But the resources available even to the inner city areas have fallen in real terms. The unemployed single parent living in a draughty flat in Croydon feels just as deprived as his counterpart elsewhere.
  The trend is slightly worrying. Uncertainty and worry about the future surround existing projects. Where will the money come from? Will the local authorities take projects on board? In such an atmosphere of uncertainty will future projects so desperately needed be launched?
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary believes, as I do, that the urban programme has successfully brought together local and central Government, voluntary organisations and the private sector to pioneer new approaches to city problems. The Government are determined to press ahead with a variety of measures. The urban housing renewal unit is one such example.
  I speak for many, not just those in Croydon but elsewhere, when I say that I hope that we shall maintain the traditional urban programme and keep up the real value of resources for voluntary organisations.
  We all know the problems, but to none of us is given the answer. However I am cheered by the enormous enthusiasm of those who work on voluntary projects. People give up time and are not paid. They are constantly worried about money and constantly injecting new initiative and enterprise. Throughout the country thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of voluntary workers do much good work.
  Some of what I have said tonight might appear to be critical of the Government. I do not want my remarks to be thought of in that light because this Government have a great deal to be proud of.
  I am also cheered by the awareness of people of all political persuasions—and of none—that every section of society has a role to play in sorting out the problems. In the past that was thought to be the monopoly of the Government and some voluntary organisations. Today people are aware that not only politicians can help but industrialists, schools, churches, trade unions and ethnic leaders can play their part. The role of ethnic leaders is sure to be important in the years ahead. I think also of
  214
  sporting bodies and the voluntary organisations themselves. Each of those groups, and many others, must join a partnership and rise to the challenge.
  Only through a concerted effort of will by all of us shall we be able to hand over to the next generation towns and cities where growth and hope rather than decay and despair are to be found. I am an optimist and believe that that can be done by men of good will. I look to the Government to take a leading role in joining every strand of society to help to cure the city problems that recently have been brought to the front of our minds. I am sure that the problems can be solved.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The House has listened to a well-informed, positive, understanding and sympathetic speech. It is right that at the beginning of the new Session we should have an early debate on the problems in our inner cities and the development of the Government's urban programme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) reminded the House that even in a seemingly prosperous suburb such as Croydon pockets of deprivation exist and that social problems have to be tackled. You, Mr. Speaker, are well aware of those problems as a constituency Member.
  Ministers in my Department have paid great attention to the letters which we have received from you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Pakistan Welfare Association, and from my hon. Friend on behalf of the same association and other organisations such as the Croydon Gingerbread group about their future and the decisions that we have taken about the traditional urban programme.
  Croydon is currently in receipt of £382,000 assistance from central Government under the traditional urban programme. Therefore, we understand the anxiety about any decision that implies that those resources may be redirected to other authorities. I do not disguise the fact that the Government have had to take some tough and unpopular decisions on the urban programme. I hope to explain why we have done that.
  My hon. Friend was generous in paying tribute to the Government's achievements on urban policy. The urban programme is but one vehicle for our urban policy, the main objectives of which are improving employment prospects and opportunities, reducing dereliction, strengthening the social fabric and reducing housing stress. That involves a fairly wide spread of programmes and policies involving a large number of Government departments, each reinforcing the other. They add up to a national attack on inner city problems, to which the Government collectively give a high priority.
  Priority is not just a matter of increased public expenditure. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the energy and commitment of the voluntary organisations whose help we desperately need in tackling some of the social problems.
  While the total of local authority current expenditure has increased in real terms since the Government took office, with many inner-city local authorities leading the field, it would be too simple to expect that the complex and long-term issues underlying the decline of many urban centres could be settled by blanket spending, irrespective of efficiency, the effective targeting of resources and the effect on the households and private firms which must pay through rates and taxes for what the local authority spends.

  215
  We must back policies that strengthen the processes of investment and job creation rather than weaken them. That is why the Department of Employment, and especially my right hon. Friend's policies for strengthening enterprise and improving training, play an increasingly central part in our urban policy.
  In his excellent speech this evening, my hon. Friend concentrated on the direction and administration of resources, as well as mentioning their scale. The Government have given a high priority to the clarification of objectives for urban policy and the improved targeting and management of programmes that deliver them. That is not because we have anything to conceal on the scale of resources. Indeed, my hon. Friend mentioned that in his speech.
  Since 1978–79, urban programme expenditure has risen from £93 million to £338 million. Over the period, nearly £2 billion has been allocated in support of local authority programmes of urban renewal. We have deliberately concentrated resources on the worst areas and have sought to work with local authorities, such as Croydon, to ensure that the maximum value for money is obtained.
  Many authorities have every reason to be proud of their record in using the opportunities provided by the urban programme. The local focus for the administration of the programme is important. Needs and potential for action differ from area to area, and in clarifying objectives at national level we have been careful to leave room for sensible local variations in priorities and choice of action.
  We have encouraged authorities to go for strategies that support economic development, improve the environment and encourage business confidence. They have recently agreed a management initiative from which better structured inner area programmes, with clearer statements of local objectives, will emerge. Better monitoring and quantification of output, as well as more clearly defined management responsibilities, have been encouraged.
  I shall quote from the Islington strategy statement about the programme and especially about partnership. It said:
  "There has been a perceptible improvement in the Borough's environment which is largely due to Partnership funding; none of the rolling programmes would exist without Partnership."
  On the central Government side, the co-ordination and targeting of Government programmes in the partnership areas has been improved by the city action teams. It is part of their job to ensure that national programmes are well related to local needs and that all opportunities for joint action are exploited vigorously.
  This work has been helped by the greatly improved regional policy map, which now includes all the partnership areas outside London and all but three of the programme authorities. The social departments are becoming increasingly involved in the work of the city action teams, not least the Home Office with its programmes of support for the voluntary sector and ethnic minorities, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  My hon. Friend referred to the voluntary sector. The growth of urban programme funding for the voluntary sector has been a particular success, and I endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to that sector's contribution, which is often made in areas where the statutory agencies are less adaptable and less freely innovative in their response to
  216
  particular needs. This year, some £78 million of urban programme resources will be used to back voluntary sector schemes.
  There has been a particularly rapid growth in expenditure on projects which are run by or primarily for the benefit of ethnic minority groups, and my hon. Fried referred to the figures, which have risen from £6 million in 1980–81 to £31 million in 1985–86. The Hackney partnership committee produced a paper in which it said:
  "Probably the major change is that through Partnership the Council has started to open its ears to the very sizeable black and ethnic communities in Hackney who had previously been alienated from the processes of local government."
  My hon. Friend referred to urban development grant. This has promoted private sector investment on some of the rather difficult inner city sites about which we all know. By the end of last month, 165 schemes had been approved. These involve grant offers of £74 million but private sector investment of no less than £325 million. About £60 million of the approved grant will enable industrial and commercial projects, creating 16,000 jobs to go ahead. The remainder is concentrated on housing development, leading to the provision of nearly 4,000 homes.
  The action we have taken is consistent with the recommendations in the Scarman report on inner city policy and housing, Lord Scarman recommended that there should be a better co-ordinated and directed attack on inner city problems to ensure that the resources that the nation is able to devote to the inner city are effectively spent.
  The city action teams and urban programme management initiatives which I have described contribute directly to that objective. In his statement to the House on 21 October, the Home Secretary confirmed that the Government would continue their strong commitment to urban regeneration and attached great importance to ensuring thatthe substantial government resources for inner city areas, including the programmes of the Home Office and other Departments, including my Department's contribution, were spent to the best advantage and were directed to the real needs of the people who lived there.
  The housing initiatives that my Department is now taking through the urban housing renewal unit, to which my hon. Friend paid tribute, are fully consistent with Lord Scarman's emphasis on involving the community in housing management and development. We are also working with local authority associations, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Institute of Housing to improve the responsiveness of public sector housing management to the needs of ethnic minorities.
  Increased housing choice and opportunities for low-cost home ownership are also being promoted by the urban housing renewal unit, which was set up to encourage local authorities to improve the management of their stock, to involve tenants and to explore private sector solutions to their most problematic estates. The unit is also concerned to improve standards of housing education and management.
  It is funding 15 post graduate studentships on the LSE's housing management course.
  Another strand of the Government's urban policy is designed to stimulate the urban land market. Far too much land is lying idle, for no good reason. That is why the derelict land grant programme has grown from £23 million in 1979 to £82 million this year. The programme is

  217
  concentrated on recycling land and on schemes which lead to development. The powers that we have under the land register system to require public sector owners to dispose of unused land are also being used.
  There have been other initiatives. The garden festival in Liverpool—my hon. Friend fought a constituency there in 1974—and garden festivals in Stoke, Glasgow and Gateshead are all going ahead, combining action to reclaim severely derelict sites by turning them into a focus for renewed confidence and investment.
  The other strand has been the urban development corporations which are proving outstandingly effective in tackling vast tracts of disused land in the heart of London and Merseyside. Nearly £80 million will be spent by the public sector on the two UDCs this year. So far, public investment in the London dockland area has attracted £860 million of private investment. Communications are being improved by the light railway and the STOLport. By 1990, nearly 10,000 private houses will have been built in an area which previously offered few opportunities for home ownership.
  Some of those initiatives give the flavour of the range of initiatives that the Government have been pursuing. My hon. Friend mentioned the corrected geographical scope for those initiatives. He mentioned the impact of that initiative on Croydon and some other authorities that receive urban programme help.
  It is right that the bulk of our resources should be concentrated on the areas with the most severe needs. Since 1979, the urban programme has allocated £150 million to the Birmingham partnership and £140 million to the Liverpool partnership—substantial sums of money which reflect the severity and complexity of the economic and social problems at the heart of the major conurbations. There are 23 programme authorities receiving annual allocations of up to £5·5 million.
  The selection of authorities was last reviewed in 1983, and we have given assurances to a number of authorities that narrowly missed promotion on that occasion that their cases will be reconsidered and their submissions taken fully into account when the selection of authorities is next reviewed. In the meantime, they have the benefit of allocations through the traditional urban programme, and in the case of designated districts there is an annual allocation for economic and commercial projects.
  The appropriate geographical scope of the traditional urban programme, which picks up the needs of authorities such as Croydon without partnership or programme status, has been much debated.
  I do not dispute that many local authorities can demonstrate the existence of pockets of deprivation—to use my hon. Friend's expression—within their administrative areas, where, for example, there is a high rate of residential unemployment, poor housing, a concentration of pupils with educational difficulties or
  218
  households with special social needs. In so far as those characteristics can be picked up by the census, the method of analysis which my Department uses is sensitive to the needs of small areas. The overall assessment of need is built up from census information at enumeration district level—a basic unit of about 150 households.
  The real argument is that it is not appropriate or feasible for the urban programme to give specific assistance to every deprivation black spot in the country. If we were to do that, it would place too great a burden on the specific grant machinery. It would also spread our resources too thinly and tend to give assistance to authorities that could cope and have shown that they can run successful projects on their own from within their own resources.
  In concentrating the urban programme on a list of about 80 authorities, including partnership and programme authorities as well as recipients of the traditional urban programme, we have tried to select those with the highest overall intensity of need, those with the greatest scale and concentration of problems and those with the highest levels of unemployment. There is no unique way of doing that and no absolutely authoritative ranking of authorities in terms of a single index of deprivation. I do not believe that there ever will be. We must use our judgment to interpret the statistics.
  I understand the problems that that has caused authorities such as Croydon. There is an assurance that there will be no abrupt termination of approvals which have already been given. In Croydon many of the organisations that receive help will continue to do so until 1990. The traditional urban programme has supported and will continue to support in Croydon important projects for ethnic minorities, disadvantaged groups and young people. There should be no problem with those projects where we have given an undertaking to fund for a given number of years.
  On the broader point, there is evidence that the voluntary sector can work with the local authority to tackle the problems. I hope that Croydon will not always need the incentive of central Government grant to take account of the potential of the voluntary sector in its area.
  The total value of approvals in Croydon over the past five years has been about £250,000. I hope that the urban programme has made an impact. However, one is back to the difficult decisions of public expenditure which have been debated frequently in this Chamber.
  Public expenditure involves difficult decisions on priorities, and there can be no doubt that the relative disadvantage of many other areas, especially those which are facing the pressing problem of unemployment, has deepened, and it is to those authorities that the Government have decided to give priority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Salmon
  Salmon
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Road Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
  Road Traffic Offences (Fixed Penalties)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Immunity)
  Civil Servants (Immunity)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Society Legislation
  Building Society Legislation
  Cable and Wireless
  Cable and Wireless
THE ARTS
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Agriculture Industry (Government Provision)
  Agriculture Industry (Government Provision)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the meaning in Acts, measures and subordinate legislation of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties" in connection with the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the European Communities. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to introduce a Bill to put the finances of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on a trading fund basis; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (the Committee of Selection itself and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jacques, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Televising of Proceedings of the House: Select Committee
The Lord President of the Council(ViscountWhitelaw): My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report on the outcome of the experimental period of public televising of the proceedings of the House of Lords agreed to by the House on 27th November 1984.—(Viscount Whitelaw)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Middleton—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we debate today the Government's objectives in foreign policy and defence. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne will wind up the debate and will then cover some of the defence issues which I have no doubt will be of interest to your Lordships.
In looking ahead, as we shall, it is right that we should also remember the past. In 1985, we celebrate 40 years of peace in Europe and 40 years of work by the United Nations. These anniversaries remind us of past achievements, but also of past failures, to reach the goals of the UN founders, and to create a truly secure and prosperous world.
The challenges which remain preoccupy all governments. This Government will continue to meet those challenges with the persistence and determination we have shown throughout our office—firm in our objectives, true to our partners and allies. The most important question we face is whether, over the years to come, we can manage the differences between East and West and narrow the gap between them. This of course will be one of the main purposes of the first meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev in two weeks' time.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have been and remain in close consultation with the United States Administration in preparation for this summit. We have offered our full support and advice. We welcome President Reagan's resolve that this meeting should mark a fresh start in East-West relations. We too hope that it will lead to real and lasting progress, particularly in arms control. We look to Mr. Gorbachev to play an equally constructive part.
We shall likewise continue to play a leading part in the search for improved East-West relations. In 1985, we have pursued contacts at all levels with the

23
countries of eastern Europe. The wide differences between East and West will not be reconciled overnight. But consistent and patient contacts over time can create that modicum of understanding and trust needed to make progress on the key security issues of our age. Your Lordships will note in this context that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is the only British Foreign Secretary to have visited not only the Soviet Union, but every country of eastern Europe during his term of office.
We do not pursue this course blindly. We are all too aware of the continuing human rights abuses by the Soviet and east European Governments in their own countries, and of their use of force and intimidation against other states, as in the brutal occupation of Afghanistan. These are not reasons for us to give up trying to improve Soviet behaviour. But they remind us of the kind of governments and political systems with which we are dealing.
On this realistic basis, the Government are committed to the development of better relations with the Soviet Union. But this can never be at the expense of national security. Following Mr. Gordievsky's revelations on Soviet intelligence activity, we were bound to take firm action. Soviet retaliation—though unfortunate and wholly unjustified—was a price we had to be prepared to accept. The gain to Britain, in effectively destroying the KGB's operations here, is considerable.
Now we must look to the future. We shall continue to protect our security but wish equally to develop our relations and increase our trade with the Soviet Union. It will be a slow process. The events of the past year have reminded us that there is no short-cut to the vital task of creating better understanding and trust between East and West.
Dialogue is not of course an end in itself. We urgently need concrete, reliable agreements in practical areas of co-operation. Nowhere is this more necessary than in arms control. Here too patience and a consistent policy over time are required.
The Government have warmly welcomed the resumption in Geneva of arms control talks between the United States and the Soviet Union. In recent weeks, the Soviet Union has taken a step in the right direction by tabling ideas of its own. These are unacceptably one-sided but contain elements on which we hope the negotiators at Geneva can build. Only the political will is necessary. President Reagan has shown this political will and has laid the foundations for real progress by putting forward further detailed proposals. We strongly support his initiative, and hope that the Soviet Union will now engage in serious negotiations at the conference table where they belong.
One area of the Geneva negotiations that has aroused particular interest is of course that relating to developments in space, including the United States strategic defence initiative. I shall not go into detail here but would make two points. First, existing Soviet research in this area provides ample justification for the United States programme. Second, the United States Administration has made clear that SDI research will be carried out in full conformity with the
24
ABM treaty and other treaty obligations. It has also committed itself to negotiations with the Soviet Union in advance of any moves beyond that treaty, and the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, reaffirmed these points in his recent speech in San Francisco. These are important assurances which should not be overlooked in the public debate now under way.
More widely, we and our partners made a significant contribution to the recently concluded review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This conference was a particular success. Not only did we adopt a substantive document acceptable to all the parties but all nations present firmly restated their resolve to strengthen and enhance the treaty. For our part, the Government will continue to uphold the treaty's provisions and seek to persuade the remaining non-parties to adhere to it, particularly those with significant nuclear facilities not open to inspection. These examples of co-operation between the Government and their partners are mirrored in the growing sense of common purpose and cohesion within the European Community.
We have only recently debated aspects of the Community's work and policies following reports from Select Committees in your Lordships' House. I shall not therefore repeat these issues today. I would, however, make two general points. First, the past year has seen a remarkable number of important achievements: perhaps most fundamental has been agreement on the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal. Their accession represents a strengthening of democracy in Europe; a boost for our combined voice in the world; and a major extension of the Community market. Your Lordships will shortly have an opportunity to debate the Bill giving effect to the accession treaty.
We have also succeeded in putting Community finances on a sound basis, controlling agricultural expenditure for the first time. Through the Fontainebleau mechanism we have guaranteed that Britain's financial contribution to the Community will be both fair and balanced. Finally, the Community has signed a Third Lomé Convention with 66 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries maintaining their preferential trade access and including a Sixth European Development Fund, of which the United Kingdom share is some £740 million—the largest single aid commitment made by any British Government.
The second point I would underline is the Government's commitment to improving the Community's functioning: to ensure more effective decision-taking and real steps towards a genuine internal market. This may involve amendments to the Treaty of Rome. But political will is at least as important as the mechanics of change. The position we take on the important inter-governmental conference will depend on how far its proposals can contribute to the practical improvements we seek—and to the true objectives of the treaty itself.
There is still much to do. Agricultural expenditure is still too high. The reality of a common market in goods and services still eludes us. But we have achieved major progress in Europe, with real benefits for Britain.

25
Before leaving the Community I would mention political co-operation. In June we submitted to the European Council proposals for a new treaty on foreign policy and security. Current discussions are based largely on that British text, and are making good progress.
I should now like to turn to some areas of the world in which I know your Lordships have a particular interest. First, Gibraltar. The year of Spain's accession to the Community has marked also important developments in Gibraltar and for our bilateral relations with Spain. The Lisbon agreement implemented earlier this year has been beneficial for both sides of the frontier. It has brought a welcome boost to the Gibraltar economy and enabled some 3 million people to cross the frontier. In both Gibraltar and Spain there is evidence of greater willingness to co-operate in practical fields. With this closer co-operation and trust, I believe that the people of Gibraltar can look forward to their future with confidence.
The Government will certainly work to ensure that this confidence is not misplaced. As agreed in the Brussels communiqué, my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary will meet his Spanish colleague soon to review developments over a wide range of issues. As envisaged in the Brussels communiqué we shall consider there the Spanish Government's recent proposals to us on sovereignty. We do so, however, in the context of our commitment to respect the free and democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltar people.
Similarly, we shall continue to honour our obligations to the people of the Falkland Islands. The new airport, the programmes of the Falkland Islands Development Corporation and the new constitution are all, in their different ways, helping to build a secure and prosperous future for the Falklands.
The Government are conscious of the concern about the South West Atlantic fishery. As your Lordships know, we believe the best way to tackle the issue is to establish a multilateral regime for conservation and management. The FAO, with whom we are in touch, agree. They have proposed to interested governments an early technical meeting aimed at working out the details. In preparation for that we commissioned a study of the fishery from Dr Beddington, of Imperial College. It has been placed in the Library. The study shows that the situation gives cause for concern but is not critical. Some stocks are under greater pressure than others. Some are migratory and not confined to Falkland waters. It emerges that some estimates of the size of the catch and of the possible revenue that might be raised from a fisheries regime have been exaggerated. These findings are useful.
We must devise a scheme that is in the long-term interests of the islanders. It must be workable in practice, conserve and manage stocks effectively and allow the islands to benefit financially. Clearly it must also be a regime that respects our sovereignty. In the Government's view, the FAO initiative offers the best way forward. We have been very active in working in support of it, and have urged all the nations with a direct interest in the fishery to participate. There is among them, too, wide recognition that an
26
international effort would be desirable. It is encouraging to see reports that Argentina is favourably inclined to the FAO initiative. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has been in direct contact with the director-general of the FAO. We greatly appreciate that organisation's efforts and hope that a technical meeting will be called soon.
We seek also better relations with Argentina. Sadly, as I have told the House on many occasions., our repeated efforts to achieve this have met with little response. But we hope that as democracy in Argentina strengthens—and last weekend's successfully completed elections give further evidence that that is happening—the prospects will improve. We, for our part, believe that work on practical matters, such as trade, to give only one example, provides the only realistic way forward. We shall continue the search for progress.
No less difficult are the problems of Central America. I am glad to inform your Lordships that on 11th and 12th November, with my right honourable and learned friend, I shall attend the ministerial meeting in Luxembourg at which Britain and its European partners will demonstrate our practical support for this region by signing a co-operation agreement and by establishing an annual political dialogue. It is a continuation of the process Which began with the meeting in San José in September 1984. We sincerely hope that these steps will encourage progress towards peace and democracy in this troubled area. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the Contadora group, which we regard as the best means of resolving the crisis in the region.
Turning now to the Commonwealth, the heads of government meeting in Nassau, at which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister represented the United Kingdom, achieved useful agreement on measures in areas as diverse as counter terrrorism and drug abuse, and on policy towards South Africa—to which I shall return. One subject to which Commonwealth leaders paid particular attention was the development of the world economy; in particular, the growing gap between the richer and poorer nations of the world, the crippling burdens of indebtedness, and the increasing threats of protectionism.
Not only for these reasons, but as a response to the tragic events in Africa, which continue, the Government fully recognise the vital role of aid. I should like to make it quite clear that we remain committed to a substantial aid programme. This is a vital part of our policy towards the third world, and indeed our foreign policy as a whole. Those who have criticised the Government's response to famine relief in Africa should look at the facts. In the year up to March 1985 we spent £95; million on famine relief operations. This year we expect to spend at least £80 million. These funds have made a significant impact.
Equally heartening have been the immense voluntary contributions from this country, and the widespread support—in Britain but also beyond—for the Live Aid concerts and other fund-raising activities. These efforts have brought short-term relief. But the problems of drought and famine in Africa remain severe. Continuing food aid will be required in 1986. Nevertheless, a consensus is emerging for a strategy for

27
long-term development. The countries themselves have to face up to important domestic policy reforms and tackle the crucial issues of population growth, food and agricultural development, environmental degradation and improved management and training. Both the IMF and the World Bank have important roles to play in encouraging countries to make sound policy choices.
Britain is matching these efforts by providing substantial long-term bilateral aid programmes—we spent almost a quarter of a billion pounds in Sub-Saharan Africa last year—seeking better co-ordination between aid donors and closer dialogue with the developing countries themselves. As part of this policy Britain has pledged £75 million of bilateral aid to be used alongside the World Bank special facility for Africa, and in contributing to substantial mutilateral and European Community aid funds flowing in the same direction.
But the fundamental aim of our aid policy must be to promote long-term solutions to the problems of poverty and famine; to build sustainable economic and social progress in the countries themselves. And we shall continue to respond quickly and generously to specific natural disasters, such as the Mexican earthquake.
I turn now to two subjects of particular concern to this House and to public opinion in the country. I have already drawn to your Lordships' attention the Commonwealth Accord on South Africa. This accord showed that the Commonwealth is united in its wish to see fundamental peaceful change in South Africa; and that we all wish to find practical ways in which the Commonwealth can help achieve this goal.
There is no disagreement over objectives. Western and Commonwealth leaders all wish to see the end to the system of apartheid and its replacement by a system of government acceptable to the people of South Africa as a whole. We are also agreed on the need for urgent dialogue between genuine black leaders and the South African Government.
The Commonwealth has called for this dialogue to be initiated in the context of the suspension of violence on all sides. The recently-announced restrictions on press freedom will do nothing to help this process, and are very disturbing. But we must continue to oppose violence and to urge the South African Government to begin a dialogue. It is a significant step forward that the 49 countries of the Commonwealth should have lent their weight to these important principles. The Commonwealth has also taken a positive step in agreeing to establish a group of eminent persons who will try to help facilitate the dialogue. As your Lordships will know, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, will be the British nominee. The Government will give this initiative every support.
In addition, together with our partners in the Community and the Commonwealth we have agreed on a number of restrictive and positive measures designed to send an important political signal to Pretoria. Some of these we were already implementing; others are new. The positive steps are designed especially to assist the black community in South Africa. In taking these steps, the Government
28
have made it clear that we do not intend to adopt a trade or economic boycott towards South Africa. Our reasons for this have been made very plain. We now hope that the South African authorities will respond to our appeal and translate their statements of good intention into concrete reforms. We must build on the small but real improvements that have occurred in South Africa and work constructively to hasten this process along.
Similarly, in Namibia, the Government will continue their efforts to bring about implementation of Security Council Resolution 435. The failure to bring Namibia to early independence is very disappointing. An internationally accepted Namibia settlement is vital to the peace and stability of southern Africa as a whole.
Increased peace and stability is also our aim for the troubled area of the Middle East. The recent escalation of violence in this region has only underlined the urgent need for a negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute.
I have already explained to the House why the planned meeting with a recent Jordanian/Palestinian delegation last month did not take place. King Hussein's initiative continues nonetheless to have our full support. We are also pleased that Mr Peres has acknowledged the need for an international framework for negotiations. It remains the responsibilty of the whole international community to encourage constructive moves by those directly involved. We shall play our full part.
Firm moves for peace are necessary also if we are to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Afghanistan. For six years the Soviet Union has flouted international law and occupied by brute force a sovereign and independent country. This Government are determined that the world shall not forget the plight of the Afghan people. Nor shall we let up on our efforts to persuade the Soviet Government to agree to the UN Secretary-General's peace proposals and bring this unnecessary suffering to an end.
I am conscious that I have covered a large number of subjects and yet omitted many which noble Lords will wish to raise. Such is the scope and scale of international issues that they will not readily fit into one speech. I hope therefore that you will allow my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to pick up these and other issues when he speaks at the close of our debate.
This Government have set clear objectives in foreign policy and defence. We are proud of our record so far but determined to achieve more. We shall pursue our objectives in close consultation with our partners and allies and with our friends in the Commonwealth. In foreign policy, as in other areas, it takes both vision and determination to have principles and to live up to them. This Government have shown, and will continue to show, that they have both.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for setting the scene for this first day of the debate on the Address. The noble Baroness has dealt with the main problems which face the world at this time, and there have been some significant, if predictable, developments since we had a similar

29
debate 12 months ago. I shall refer to these as I proceed and to as many of the points made by the noble Baroness as I can within a reasonable space of time.
I know that it is very much in our minds that our debate takes place between some great events: that is, the Commonwealth Conference, the 40th anniversary meetings of the United Nations, which were referred to by the noble Baroness, and, most important of all, the impending historic encounter between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev. Our profound hope is that this meeting will be successful; and in saying that I am quite sure I speak for the whole House. By success in Geneva I do not mean a detailed solution of all the problems which beset us or indeed an agreement on the complicated issues of arms control. These matters are for the experts and we accept that any agreement, if and when it comes, will take a long time. However, we could call it success if the leaders were seen to be discussing problems rationally and with a genuine will to find solutions; if they set aside propaganda for the time being; and also if they recognised the need for regular summit meetings.
Over the last few weeks we have had a deluge of comment on the prospects and a bombardment of propaganda from both sides, neither side, so we are told, wishing to lose the initiative. "Initiative" has been the great word. I suppose that is inevitable, but we must ask what "initiative" means in this context. It can only mean the propaganda initiative. But when it comes to talks round the table, that must be left outside the conference door if there is to be the start of mutual confidence. Personally, I am fed up with the sustained propaganda to which the world has been subjected by both sides of the argument.
Of course there are statements from Moscow and from Washington which must be taken very seriously indeed. We had a valuable debate on East-West relations fairly recently, which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and I shall not traverse the same ground again. I shall merely say that, although it is necessary to be realistic in our dealings with the Soviet Union, we must not be so cynical as to brush off every one of its proposals as being insincere. Mr. Gorbachev is a communist; he is tough and he may be ruthless; but he no more wants a nuclear war which will destroy his country than we do. Furthermore, Mr. Gorbachev clearly wants to deal with his country's economic problems and to raise the standards of living in the Soviet Union. Like the rest of us, he knows that the Soviet's huge expenditure on armaments—which is much more that it can afford—is a major block in the way of social and economic progress there.
Mr. Gorbachev is also a "new" man on the scene, the first leader of the post-revolution generation. Therefore when he proposes that the nuclear burden should be halved he deserves a reasonable response. As one commentator said:
"We should set aside for a moment the scepticism ingrained by 40 years' experience of trying to do deals with the Russians and say simply that we welcome his proposals wholeheartedly and with sincerity."
However, we also know that sincerity alone is not enough; that tough standards of fairness and equity of performance must be accepted by both sides; that cuts
30
must take effect across the whole range of nuclear weapons; and that there must be a clear understanding about the multi-warhead land-based systems and other complexities which up to now have bedevilled the negotiations which have taken place. The ebb and flow of propaganda has tended to confuse these issues, but there is still a hint that both sides might negotiate seriously when they get together in a few days' time.
There are other shortcomings in the Soviet proposals and no doubt there will be difficulties about the American counter proposals. The future of the strategic defence initiative referred to by the noble Baroness must be one of these. Nevertheless, I return to the basic facts, namely, that a new look at the possibility of arms control now exists for the first time for years, and this is something that we must welcome.
My noble friend Lord Boston hopes to deal with defence policy and the questions of arms control and SDI when he winds up, and I shall therefore end by welcoming the fact that President Reagan has suggested to Mr. Gorbachev that the current round of arms proposals should be extended so that he can make his own detailed proposals to the Soviet Union. These proposals, as the noble Baroness had indicated, have already been made known to Her Majesty's Government.
The aim therefore must be a substantial cut in nuclear arsenals on both sides, and it seems that both leaders have agreed to this in principle already. Progress towards this is the most important issue in world affairs at the present time, and we hope t hat the Government will do everything possible to help it forward. I doubt also whether the United States preoccupation with SDI should ultimately be allowed to stand in the way of a possible practical settlement. We must wait and see, but we should send our best wishes to President Reagan and to Mr. Gorbachev at this critical moment in history.
As the noble Baroness said, there are other matters which we hope will be discussed by the two leaders in Geneva. One of these—perhaps the most urgent—is the Middle East. It is plain that there will be no permanent settlement of this intractable problem without the joint agreement of the United Stales and the Soviet Union. This is one point which the noble Baroness failed to mention.
Following the failure of the initiative to hold talks with the two PLO representatives last month, the noble Baroness repeated that the Government were still committed to the Venice Declaration. At present the position is confused but we all hope that the peace initiative promoted with such courage by King Hussein is not dead, and that the Government will do anything in their power to sustain it. The dangerous volatility of several areas, not excluding Egypt, makes this more essential than ever before.
The speech of the Israeli Prime Minister—the noble Baroness referred to it—in New York was interesting. He called upon the United Nations to assist in arranging talks between Israel and the Arabs. This would only be possible if the United States and the Soviet Union supported such talks, and I think King Hussein has publicly recognised this. I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will strongly encourage President Reagan to open a discussion with Mr.

31
Gorbachev upon the possibility of talks about the Middle East which they themselves would back, if not sponsor.
The Russians are seen to be as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as other nationals, and the return of stability to the Middle East is as much in Russia's interests as it is in ours and other neighbouring countries. Our country is not in an easy position. We are not a party to the Geneva talks although we have a great interest in their results, and although Britain has great experience of the major subjects on the agenda at Geneva. In present circumstances the best we can do is to express our views plainly and bring all the influence we can to bear on President Reagan. Recent experience has shown that there is nothing to be gained by being subservient to the United States. Indeed France seems to have benefited by not being subservient.
There is, however, one subject of the utmost importance which may not be on the agenda at Geneva, and that is the developing tragedy in South Africa already referred to by the noble Baroness. It however occupied the centre of the stage in the Commonwealth conference in the Bahamas, and as the noble Baroness is well aware, we were not jumping for joy with the Prime Minister's performance there. The Prime Minister declared her abhorrence for apartheid, and I believe she means this as does the Foreign Secretary; but she does not want to become involved in any positive action which might help to bring apartheid to an end.
We know all the arguments: it would harm the black population more than the white; it would damage the economies of other neighbouring black countries; and it would create some unemployment in this country. Furthermore, it is stated, economic sanctions never work. And because Britain has more economic clout than the others in the Commonwealth she persuaded them to accept a list of mild measures with a six-month deadline at the end of which, presumably, more severe measures will be taken. I think that is a fair summary of the situation.
As the Prime Minister said with a smile on TV, using her two fingers, "just this teeny weeny action on krugerrands." I know that this is not a simple or easy matter, but we must not be seen to be less committed in our practical opposition to apartheid than our partners in the Community, our partners in the Commonwealth, and indeed the United States of America as well.
The troubles in South Africa, which have been going on for 15 months, involving the death of nearly 800 people and the arrest of more than 6,000 people, have appalled every one of us whatever our attitude to the regime. It is a tragedy of huge proportions, and unless Mr. Botha and his colleagues are prepared to do more than tinker with the system, we know that this will explode into chaos sooner or later; and who can tell what will emerge from that catastrophe? We know that the white people who run the financial institutions of South Africa, and who are mainly of British descent, are deeply worried about the consequences of the current violence for the rand and for the economy. That is why representatives of the financial institutions have met the African National Congress.
32
The South African Government have reimposed exchange controls to prevent foreign companies from repatriating their profits. American and British banks have begun, or are considering whether, to restrict their operations in South Africa; firms like Sainsbury and the Co-op are no longer selling produce from that country. Chief Buthelezi, who is often quoted as a black African out of sympathy with serious action, said on 22nd October that the Western world must not allow the private banks to reschedule South Africa's debts without insisting that the Government there start talking to the leaders of black opinion. We discussed some of these matters during our debate on Namibia a fortnight ago, and at that time the Dutch Reformed Church came in for some criticism. But now, even the Dutch Reformed Church are anxious to meet leaders of the ANC.
The ban on TV and radio journalists and on photographers, and the police control of press reporting of public unrest, are a further sinister development, and we support the Foreign Secretary's rebuke to the South African Government for taking these measures. This was repeated by the noble Baroness today.
I mentioned the explosion that will inevitably take place if the South African Government fail to act in time. This was referred to by President Kaunda in his letter to Mr. Neil Kinnock when he said:
"Yes, we will be hurt by these sanctions but we will suffer more if economic sanctions as a peaceful weapon for change are not applied. The result of the explosion will be far more destructive than the injury that economic sanctions can cause us".
How right he will be if the situation is allowed to develop as it goes now. Many of us know and respect President Kaunda, and his conclusion must be taken seriously.
The Bahamas conference decided to reconsider the position in six months. As I understand it, all the countries who were party to the Accord will take more severe measures if Mr. Botha has not moved significantly. I asked the noble Viscount, when he repeated the Statement in this House, whether we would join in these measures, but he warded me off by saying that the question was hypothetical. I understand his difficulty, but it is a question the Prime Minister will have to grapple with in March if she is to keep the Commonwealth together. An extremely serious crisis will develop in the spring if the Government do not co-ordinate their action with the other members of the Commonwealth.
The initiative to be taken by the "group of eminent persons" is important and we wish them well. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, who is to represent Britain, is chairman of the Chartered Bank and he knows South Africa well. I am sure he will do his utmost to help towards a solution of this most difficult problem. We look forward to what he may have to say to us in the House in due course of time.
As the noble Baroness has said, it is always the case in these wide-ranging debates that we are unable to address ourselves to many issues of great importance. I will refer merely to one or two of them. We have noted with pleasure the success of President Alfonsin in his second election in Argentina, and also the fact that he and his Government have enabled the military junta which caused the Falklands conflict to be

33
brought to trial. The gracious Speech refers to the need for "more normal relations". The House will be interested to know if any real steps have been taken towards a resumption of diplomatic relations with Argentina. I recognise that the Government have made some gestures; for example, on imports, and, as the noble Baroness said, on fisheries. But the time must surely come very soon when bilateral talks should take place. We are now dealing with a more established democracy in the Argentine. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary recognise that and that they will act accordingly.
The gracious Speech also mentions the obligations of the Government to the people of Hong Kong. It would be of interest to hear about progress in Hong Kong following the numerous debates we had at the beginning of this year. The promised White Paper on Hong Kong will enable us to have a full debate, and perhaps we shall be told when this is likely to be published. It would also be of interest to know whether the Chinese Government have started consulting Hong Kong on the Basic Law.
We welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's support for the Contadora peace process in Central America. We would like to know whether these words mean that some new initiative has been taken by Her Majesty's Government. We support the paragraph which deals with famine relief and the aid programme, and, especially after the encouraging words of the noble Baroness, we hope that there will not be any real cuts in aid by Britain following the discussions which are now going on between the Foreign Office and the Treasury, under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
The essential aim should be a long-term project to help these areas of drought to produce food efficiently and effectively under the aegis of the United Nations. If the Soviet Union could be brought in to co-operate in this instead of exporting arms to selected countries, that would be good evidence of their bona fides and would reduce the temperature.
The international political scene at the present time is very unsettled. There are multifarious regional conflicts, as I have said—in the Middle East, in South Africa, in Afghanistan, and so on. Each of these needs resolution if we are to pre-empt an escalation of conflict. Therefore, our foremost concentration must be on the Geneva summit. Many incidents have occurred which could mar the success of the summit—the various spy defections, the confusing debate on the interpretations of the ABM treaty and the indeterminate talks between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gorbachev and others: none of these should be allowed to mar success. The talks must be entered into with a spirit of optimism and co-operation.
The breakdown or failure of these talks, followed by another squalid propaganda war, would be an immense setback that would reveal a bankruptcy of the spirit and, indeed, of statesmanship. Let us therefore hope and pray for their success.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, against the crippling of the
34
negotiations by propaganda from both sides will, I am sure, find an echo in all parts of the House But I should like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness for her usual clear presentation of the policies of the Government. Understandably, with the summit coming up so soon, she laid emphasis particularly on the points of agreement inside the Atlantic alliance. She paid tribute to "the growing sense of common purpose". We respect her attitude at this time, and, no doubt, if we were in her position we would take the same line. Nevertheless, the result has been a statement which is a shade optimistic, which tends to dismiss the very real doubts of some of the European members of NATO—doubts which are shared as we all know by Her Majesty's Government as well. Opposition parties can speak with greater freedom about these things. Indeed, I think we have a duty to do so, and, with permission of the House, I propose to do so.
As our record shows, my noble friends and I are longstanding and loyal supporters of NATO and of the American alliance. We know how much we have in common with the Americans, and we know how vitally European security depends on them. We hold that Britain should be a full member of NATO. which means that for as long as a NATO nuclear deterrent is necessary we think that Britian should play a proper part in supporting it. We oppose any idea of sending back American nuclear bases in Britain. We were impressed by the acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in a recent defence debate that he personally and a number of his noble friends also oppose this policy. We wish them well in the efforts they are doubtless making to persuade their party, and their party leader, to abandon these dangerous ideas.
No more than the Government do we have any illusions about the Soviet Union, and we warmly endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness about the lack of human rights in Eastern Europe. We condemn the Soviet actions in Afghanistan, Angola, Kampuchea and elsewhere. We also condemn particularly their habit of appealing to the Western peoples through the Western media above the heads of the Western Governments, while at the same time concealing from their own people the peace policies of those Governments. This is a thoroughly undesirable feature of Soviet policy.
However, when all that is said, my noble friends and I are a great deal less satisfied with the state of the Atlantic alliance than the noble Baroness seemed to be. Like many European supporters of NATO we seriously question a number of the policies and actions of the Reagan Administration. I do not think we would welcome the results of a recent public opinion poll. This poll suggested that a narrow majority of British people hold that the United States is a greater danger to peace than the Soviet Union. There has never been a time when public opinion polls have been so erratic and unreliable.
Nevertheless, there is a lot of evidence of growing anxiety about the policies of the Reagan Administration and a growing tendency to equate the superpowers in their international conduct. It is only right to examine why, and to consider how this trend can be reversed. When President Truman and Mr. Attlee were confronting Stalin, no civilised and well-

35
informed person could have any doubts where his loyalties lay. The same was true in the eras of President Kennedy and President Carter. But the confrontation between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev is widely seen in a less black-and-white form. This is partly due, no doubt, to new and improved communist propaganda; and partly due to the clumsy presentation of the United States and its policies.
However, it also comes incontestably from policies and actions of the United States Government which are seriously mistaken. In his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Reagan attacked, with justice, Soviet actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but he did not mention his own support for armed insurrection in Nicaragua and he did not mention the money, arms and diplomatic protection which he lavishly provided for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is possible for fair-minded people to see Nicaragua, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Angola in the same framework: as instances of abuse of power and disrespect for international law by rival superpowers.
Similar doubts are bound to be felt in the field of arms control and disarmament. It has been a feature of every Soviet disarmament proposal since the war that it has either been impractical and propagandist or else, if implemented, would tilt the balance of power in the Russians' favour. However, nowadays similar characteristics are seen to attach to a number of American proposals. On the one hand, the Soviet Union is ahead, as we know, in intermediate-range nuclear weapons. Therefore it calls for a freeze, which would maintain its lead. But then the United States is ahead in space-based anti-ballistic missiles and it calls for no negotiations about them at all, which would maintain its lead. The Soviet Union is ahead in land-based strategic missiles: it suggests, therefore, all-round cuts in strategic missiles, which would leave its lead intact. The Americans, on the other hand, have a lead in sea-launched and air-launched strategic missiles: they call for disproportionate cuts in land-based missiles.
Finally, on nuclear tests, to which the noble Baroness referred, the Soviet Union appears for the moment to have completed its series of nuclear tests. It therefore declares a moratorium. The United States, on the other hand, requires tests for some of its SDI equipment and for the Midgetman warhead, and the United Kingdom Government require tests for the warhead for the Trident. Thus these two Governments reject the moratorium and refuse to resume negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
In addition, neither superpower makes allowance for the peculiar feature of nuclear weapons; namely, that after a certain level of capacity further additions become meaningless. Nor do they balance the supposed risk of a cut in their overkill capacity against the very real dangers resulting from a failure to reach agreement with each other. For all these reasons, I think there is growing public scepticism about arms control negotiations generally and also about the West's claim to be approaching the negotiations with greater commitment and from higher moral ground.
It may be, of course, that the Americans are simply taking up negotiating positions; that they are ready to make concessions on SDI and on other matters in
36
order to reach an agreement. Certainly, no one can doubt that in the past Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Carter, among others, seriously tried to get these agreements. However, those who have studied carefully the internal struggles in Washington under the Reagan Administration are bound to feel some doubts.
A fortnight ago I attended a conference of the North Atlantic Assembly in San Francisco. As the noble Baroness said, we were addressed by, among others, Mr. Shultz. There it was possible to obtain a first-hand view of attitudes of the United States Congress and senior United States Administration officials. I did not find this reasssuring. The noble Baroness said that President Reagan had made his commitment to arms control agreement clear. However, there are powerful forces in the United States which are actually opposed to arms control and disarmament agreements. It is argued that past agreements have worked to the detriment of American security. We recall that it was President Reagan himself who campaigned against the ratification of the SALT II Treaty. It is argued that the Russians cannot stay the pace; that if they keep in the arms race, they will bankrupt themselves. It is argued that they are not complying with existing agreements; that they can never be trusted, and that they will not comply with future agreements. This is a particularly serious argument which casts a shadow over the whole concept of arms control and disarmament.
At San Francisco we delegates were given an hour-long illustrated presentaton of the United States evidence for Soviet non-compliance with treaties. My impression was that most of the audience remained unconvinced. The case rested mainly on the famous large phased-array radar at Krasnoyarsk. We were told that this is an early-warning installation for tracking incoming ballistic missiles. Therefore, since it is not on the perimeter of the Soviet Union, it constitutes a breach of the ABM Treaty. It may be so. It is very hard to prove that it does not have this capacity. At the same time, the Russians claim that it is for tracking satellites and no one doubts that it can do this, and that it is entitled to do it under the ABM Treaty. It is noteworthy that the installation is not hardened, and has no air defence, which is what one would expect if it was an ABM installation.
It seemed to me that the United States case was not proven and that the rest of the evidence for Soviet non-compliance was not impressive. It consisted mainly of controversial and complicated borderline cases resting on differing interpretations of the treaty, and often without any decisive military importance. Personally, I find it surprising that on this evidence Mr. Weinberger and Mr. Perle should raise the issue of non-compliance so publicly and so stridently at this precise moment.
We know that a number of these worries about which I am talking are shared by Her Majesty's Government. It is not to their discredit that they are not spelling them out frankly at a time like this. However, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he said that there was nothing to be gained from subservience to the United States. To the extent that the Government express these anxieties forcefully to the United States, they will have the support of my noble friends and myself. It will also

37
have the support of a large section of opinion, including governmental opinion, among the other NATO European countries.
A major lesson to be drawn from all these difficulties is that the Europeans need and deserve more influence over NATO decisions. The Americans at present have a disproportionate influence over strategy, arms control, procurement and relations with the communist world. For the future we want to see a NATO effectively based on two pillars, Europe and the United States, with a clearly integrated top command structure. This calls for greater unity in Europe; for developing the habit of joint consultation and joint decision on issues of security. It calls for standarisation and joint procurement of European weapons to redress the balance of the arms trade across the Atlantic. Above all, it calls for clearer definitions of European interests and objectives, especially when these differ from those of the United States, followed by a dialogue between Europe and the United States within NATO on a continuing basis.
In conclusion, I should say that no country is better placed than Britain for giving a lead of this kind. It has to be said that neither the Government nor the Labour Party seems able or willing to attempt this. Both are still tempted to try to go it alone. The Conservatives keep a distance from Europe; the Labour Party keeps a distance from Europe and the United States. The Conservatives want to see Britain developing nuclear weapons on its own: the Labour Party wishes to see Britain renouncing weapons on its own.
The Alliance parties are the parties of Europe. We believe that that is where our future should rest. In Western Europe we have lived closer to Soviet communism, for a longer period of time, than the Americans. We have a more balanced and less simplistic assessment of the Soviet threat. Since the war we have crushed the internal communist challenge in Western Europe. Now, the example of Western Europe's freedom, its greater prosperity, its greater unity, is providing an increasing challenge to the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. In the view of the Alliance parties, it is time for the Western European countries to assert themselves, and to take their proper place as equal partners with the United States in the Atlantic alliance.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time I crave the customary indulgence of the House to a maiden speaker. But my diffidence on this occasion is much tempered by the fact that I am able to speak about aid for foreign countries. My gratitude springs from 20 years of my ministry as priest and bishop, which began in a country which lived under the indignity of having to survive by foreign aid as well as with all the problems of the poverty which called for that aid's necessity. I lived in South Korea; and when I left it after 20 years not only was that country on the way to solving the problems of its poverty but it had gained or regained a sense of proper pride as a nation and a psychological poise which one had scarcely hoped that it might have.
Knowing what foreign aid can do, I greet with great enthusiasm the statement that our Government will
38
maintain a substantial aid programme, play their part in the relief of famine and other disasters and encourage investment in developing countries But I hope that that can be taken to imply also that there will be no diminution, which might yet be consistent with continuing a substantial aid programme, and that more and more the efforts of this country in aiding countries overseas will be concentrated on care for overseas food production, particularly by the poorest people in the poorest countries.
We have all welcomed the concern that our country has had for the relief of famine, but it is quite clear that the relief of famine is not enough and that although that has become an emotive question for the people of the United Kingdom, who have risen to it in a way which has surprised many of us, yet at the same time our people are educating themselves about the proper use of all our overseas aid and are quite clear that it is more than merely proper budgeting. The growth of concern about poverty outside this country has been first proved by the response to the television programmes on famine victims in Sub-Saharan Africa, by the launching not only by the usual overseas agencies (the familiar Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Oxfam and others) of special funds, but by the inspiring work of people who appear to be more ordinary, people like Bob Geldof, resulting in Band Aid and Live Aid permeating concern about overseas needs to what were previously regarded as uneducated parts of our society.
This has led to a response to what our Government have done, not least I am sure in the sending of RAF Hercules planes, which have ensured that some of the problems of distribution have been solved or at least minimised. We are greatly encouraged, all of us. that these aeroplanes have remained as part of the operation and we trust that they will not be withdrawn until it has been ensured that ground transport is adequate and that those who live and work there are convinced that this is so.
There has recently been another sign of public concern for the administration of overseas aid It. had its clearest symbolism in the presence of 20,000 people in Westminster on 22nd October for the "Fight World Poverty" rally and lobby. Conversations in the most ordinary places, in buses and in parishes, indicate that what everyone is now talking about is how must aid be administered. And it is seen that financial aid alone is not enough. It is seen that aid programmes cannot be taken separately from other programmes administered by the Government. There is a particular abhorrence among ordinary people that while there is so much extreme hunger in many parts of the world the superabundance of food, the surpluses with poetic names that exist in the European Community, should be allowed to continue. The European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society has already brought the churches into discussions with the European Commission regarding the recent Green Paper, Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy. We are therefore the more encouraged to have heard that Her Majesty's Government are committed to the reform of the common agricultural policy The churches will be following these discussions with care.
Aid programmes, food programmes, education programmes and other programmes are all involved in

39
redressing the gross imbalance between the rich and the poor. At present, many developing countries are being crippled by an enormous burden of debt. In some cases the governments of these countries were not the original borrowers but are the inheritors of debts resulting from long histories of loan negotiations. One thinks most obviously of Argentina, because it was mentioned in the Address and because it has been put before us again this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is a country where a democratically elected government are struggling to rebuild a country heavily burdened by crippling debts. We look to our Government to take a generous position when they are present in international forums where consideration is given to the right way to reschedule these debts and perhaps even to alleviate them.
It is a theological truism that self-interest and charity cannot be held in balance. They are mutually destructive. The temper of our nation at the moment gives the advantage to charity, the advantage to generosity. We have already shown that neither credal nor political ideologies or faiths can hinder us where we see that a need is to be fulfilled. It is our hope that under the leadership of our Government it will be charity and generosity which will be the hallmark of our approach to overseas aid.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my first and most agreeable duty is to offer the congratulations of, I am sure, the whole House to the right reverend Prelate who has just addressed us on his very impressive and, if he will allow me to say so, very moving maiden speech. I am sure the House was immensely interested to hear that his views on the question of overseas aid go back to the days when he served in South Korea, then a recipient of that benefit. He must have a feeling of pride, when he sees South Korea today, to know that he played a part in the remarkable build-up and success of that country. The right reverend Prelate spoke with great authority and I know I express the views of all of us when, with very great sincerity, I express the hope that he will be able occasionally to spare time from the affairs of this extremely important diocese to come and give us the benefit of his advice in further speeches.
As we are debating an Address of thanks to Her Majesty, I do not think it would be inappropriate if one noble Lord, at any rate, expressed his enormous admiration and respect for the work which Her Majesty herself has put in in the Caribbean during the last month. It must have been a strenuous and at many times a very difficult mission which she undertook; and that it concluded with such success has perhaps concealed from us the very great effort, skill and experience in the handling of the difficult questions which arose there, which Her Majesty has shown. It is the fact that she is adding—and it is a most interesting constitutional development—very serious importance to her role of Head of the Commonwealth.
Before I pass to the two points on which I wish to detain your Lordships for a very for minutes, I should like to ask a question of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne which he may answer when, I am afraid
40
many hours from now, he replies to the debate. The noble Baroness was very encouraging about developments in Gibraltar since the opening of the border and the figures she gave of movements across the border were very impressive and very encouraging. But now that we are coming to the point of dealing with the Bill which will admit Spain and Portugal to the European Community, I think it is relevant to clear up all that remains of the disastrous quarrel of past years.
My question relates—and I address it with great confidence to the noble Lord in view of his own great experience in this area—to access to the airport. When I asked a Question during the summer I was told that Spain had withdrawn the hindrance she had imposed on access to Gibraltar Airport by civil aircraft but was still maintaining a restriction on its use by British military aircraft. Given that Spain is coming into the Community and given her support for NATO, it would seem wholly illogical for that restriction to continue, if indeed it has. I should be grateful therefore if my noble friend could tell us, as I hope he will be able to, that that final restriction has now been withdrawn.
I come to the two points I wish to lay before your Lordships. I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, express his enthusiasm for the Atlantic Alliance, because it is an enthusiasm which I share and have felt, for special reasons, for slightly more than 30 years. I can recall, as I think one or two of your Lordships can still recall, a meeting at No. 10 Downing Street on the day that Sir Winston Churchill resigned, when he summoned a number of his Ministers to the Cabinet Room to give us what I think really amounted to his political testament.
I can remember the scene to this day: a rather stormy spring afternoon, with the light flickering through the windows of the Cabinet Room. He began by saying that he had stayed in office in the hope that he would be able to achieve a peaceful settlement with the Soviet Union but that clearly was not now to be attained. He then went on to impress us with his passionate belief that it was upon a close Anglo-American alliance that the future of peace in this world depended. I can almost paraphrase his words. He said that if these two countries worked together in friendship there would be no third world war but that if for one reason or another they were separated he would view the future with very considerable gloom. In view of his own vast experience, it seems to me—and I commend this to your Lordships—that that doctrine remains true to this day.
It is upon the close relationship between the United States and this country that the real hopes of a peaceful world very largely depend. Whether anybody else likes it or not, there is "a special relationship", to use the old phrase. A very interesting example of it was that in no other country in the world would we have seen what we saw the other day—the very moving tribute which President Reagan himself paid, in a contribution to The Times newspaper, to the late editor of that paper. That was a very remarkable tribute from the head of a great nation, and indicative, it seems to me, of the close interest and concern that exists between the two countries.

41
It is for that reason that I particularly deplore the policy of the Labour Party in certain aspects of defence. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. who I am sorry to see is not in his place at the moment, did not touch on or refer in any way to the fact that it is the declared policy of the Labour Party to insist on the removal of the American cruise missiles from this country. It has been suggested the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, himself sees how wrong that would be; but it is the declared policy of the party which claims to be the alternative government in this country, and, as such, has either to be withdrawn or very firmly discussed.
If we were to have a government formed by the party opposite and if it were to carry out its own declared policy, for which it apparently intends to seek the approval of the electors, what would happen? Where are these cruise missiles to go? Are they simply to be moved into mainland Europe and other countries made to assume the responsibility and burden which we would have shown ourselves unwilling to carry, or are they to be taken back to the United States and the fabric of American/European defence under the alliance very seriously battered?
I ask your Lordships to reflect on what any country would think of an ally who behaved in that way, who declined to play his part in the common defence effort, and declined to accept that equipment of this kind had to be used, at any rate in the present state of development, as part of a general effort on behalf of NATO. As I say, I can well understand the personal grounds on which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, found it difficult to deal with this issue; but it is an issue that will not go away and I hope very much that the noble Lord who some hours hence will reply, will deal with it fairly and deal in particular with the effect of such a step, if carried out, in the working of the alliance.
I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was a little unfair to the Americans when he referred to their—he used the word—"preoccupation" with SDI. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did not appear to understand that SDI is a purely defensive scheme which is still many years, I am sorry to say, from completion. But surely in this day and age it should be a matter of satisfaction that a scheme of defence against nuclear missiles can be evolved. It is the experience of history, in fact, that every weapon in due course has an antidote found for it. That is the experience of history, and should we not welcome, support and co-operate with the provision of a defensive system which offers a reasonable hope of protecting populations from the horrors of nuclear bombardment?
Of course, one can understand that the Russians do not like it. If it is evolved and put into place, it diminishes at a stroke the efficacy of their threat. But, surely, from our point of view it would be a good thing for the United States to have this so that therefore no American President would ever have to be faced with the agonising decision, in the event of Russian action, whether to risk exposing his own people to nuclear bombardment or to abandon his allies. Therefore, so far from sneering—and I do not think that is too strong a word—at the preoccupation of the United States with this defensive instrument, may I express the hope
42
that it will go ahead and be successful and will offer, if not to us at any rate to our children, a feeling of security because there is indeed a defence against many of the horrors of nuclear bombardment.
The only other point that I want to deal with was also dealt with at some length by the noble Lord Lord Cledwyn. He was very critical of the Prime Minister's handling at the Nassau Conference of the question of sanctions against South Africa. I take the exactly contrary view. I thought the Prime Minister handled that immensely difficult situation with consummate skill and determination and succeeded in rescuing the Commonwealth from what looked like the making of a ghastly mistake.
The first reflection one has is that economic sanctions have never as a matter of history been successful. What would be the point of imposing them? I do not know whether any of your Lordships really think that imposing them would suddenly cause President Botha to abandon many of his foolish policies and to do the kind of thing that all of us in this House would like to see him do. Any of us who know anything about the South African Dutch know that they are a determined, sturdy people who, if put under pressure, go into laager and are prepared to fight things out. But, of course, one thing is quite certain: the great majority of the black South Africans would suffer quite severely in loss of jobs and loss of employment, tragically in a part of the world that offers better employment and better wages than almost anywhere else in black Africa.
Indeed, while nobody defends the follies and stupidities of apartheid—I have been a critic for years of the treatment by the South African Government of their Indian immigrants and of the Cape Coloureds from whom they took away a vote that they had; no one can conceivably defend that—nevertheless the fact that none of us likes this is no argument whatsoever for for pursuing a policy which is likely to make things worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke impressively about an explosion: he said that there might be an explosion. There is indeed—he is right—a very considerable risk of that. But why does anybody think that the imposition of sanctions—a worsening, therefore, of economic conditions in South Africa—is likely to avoid such an explosion? Is it not more likely to precipitate it, by creating social and economic conditions which appear more and more intolerable and thereby produce a more explosive situation? It is because sanctions really would not work, because they are inappropriate, that it seems to me we have been sensible to avoid them.
Indeed, it is a curious idea that economic sanctions, which are, I suppose, a form of sanitised war, should be applied to a country not for anything it has done externally but in respect of its own internal policies; and if they are to be, South Africa is not the only candidate in the world today for such treatment. We disapprove of what their government does and of their policies but there are many other countries—Ethiopia, Uganda, Cuba and many of the South American countries—whose governments are performing all sorts of atrocities and yet nobody suggests that we should apply sanctions to them.

43
My noble friend Lady Young mentioned Russia and Afghanistan. At this very moment, the Russian armies are in their sixth year of hunting the unfortunate Afghans on their mountains and in their valleys, with all the apparatus of modern war, with aircraft and tanks, oppressing them and shooting them down. If you are to say that the policies of a government which you do not like are an appropriate reason for imposing sanctions, there will be just as strong a case—perhaps a stronger case—for imposing sanctions on Soviet Russia. Of course, we do not do it because Russia is large and powerful, because we want—and rightly want—to seek some agreement, some means of living alongside her. But because it is too small, too distant and too weak to offer any particular danger to us, is not really a very good reason for selecting another country for sanctions.
Therefore, I think that the country owes a great debt of gratitude—as do, perhaps, up to a quarter of a million people employed in this country on work in connection with exports to South Africa, whose jobs under sanctions would be at risk—to the Prime Minister for the determination and skill with which she dealt with what looked like a very awkward and very dangerous situation at Nassau.
I want to make only one other point in conclusion. It bears very much on what I have been trying to say about nuclear weapons and is very relevant to the Labour Party's desire to strip us of our nuclear defences. Surely the experience of the last 40 years has shown the truth of the old biblical advice that,
"When a strong man armed keepeth his house then will his goods be safe".
Twice in my lifetime we have endangered the safety of our country by running down its defences to a dangerous, almost fatal, level. Really, my Lords, to do it for a third time would be a bit too much!
4.27 p.m.
Lord Forres: My Lords, as a working farmer in New South Wales, Australia, I have travelled nearly 13,000 miles to make my maiden speech in this House. Should I cross the normal boundaries of convention, I ask the indulgence of this House and beg that any such transgression be put down to my inexperience. Owing to my brief visit to the United Kingdom, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this House during the Foreign Affairs section of the reply to Her Majesty the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament.
The reform of the common agricultural policy of the European Community has already received the close scrutiny of this House through the recently published 17th Report of its Select Committee on the European Communities. This report, while excellent in its handling of the common agricultural policy and its problems within the Community, does not fully recognise the effects that the CAP is having internationally. I wish, therefore, to draw the attention of this House to the very real economic and social hardships that the CAP is creating for rural Australia.
Australia is a young and vibrant nation and plays an important and stabilising role in the South-East Asia region. Despite these obvious area interests, Australia is still a loyal member of the Commonwealth and
44
remains a great ally of the United Kingdom. However, it must be said that Australia's economy, which earns nearly half its export income from the sale of agricultural produce, is under considerable pressure owing to the adverse effects of the European Community's common agricultural policy.
In a country where there are 170,000 farmers, during 1985 nearly 100,000 farmers and rural business people have marched in protest in various Australian cities to draw attention to their economic plight. These people are normally strongly independent and stoic in times of flood, fire and drought, but now are moved to action by anger, looming bank foreclosures and a bleak future. The average farmer in Australia earnt a net £3,500 during the past financial year; this figure being approximately one-third of the average male wage. In the famous Australian vernacular "things are crook".
The Community's agricultural policies have been shown in serveral studies to have depressed and destabilised world prices more than the protective policies of other countries. World prices for wheat, coarse grains, sugar and ruminant meats are estimated to have been depressed by between 9 per cent. and 17 per cent., and those for butter by 28 per cent. Since 1970, European Community support prices for milk and milk products have averaged 130 per cent. above world market prices. European Community exports, virtually all of which are marketed with the aid of restitutions, now constitute more than 50 per cent. of world trade in butter, 40 per cent. in cheese, 50 per cent. in skim milk powder and 70 per cent. in condensed milk. These figures, quoted from a recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural Economics report, clearly indicate that a large part of the responsibility for world dairy produce prices being so low lies with the Community's internal support prices.
Possibly the cruellest outcome of the CAP is its effect on developing countries through its sugar policies. European Community subsidies allow the Community to sell surplus sugar at 4 US cents per pound, about one-third of the production cost incurred by even the most efficient producers such as Australia. The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the European Community pays its farmers 20 US cents to grow each pound of sugar, five times its sale price on the world market.
Since the date that the United Kingdom joined the European Community, Australia has successfully opened up and developed alternative markets for her agricultural produce around the Pacific rim, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. But those very markets are now being seriously eroded by the European Community's dumping policies. This trend is accelerating in view of the slowing of the growth of world trade in the 1980s and the continuing rise of the Community's surpluses. For example, in late July of this year, the European Community extended export subsidies for live cattle, beef and veal to 10 new Asian markets. Australian exporters were no longer able to compete with the Community's dumping prices in those markets and had to withdraw,
The Community argues that its current beef surplus is a temporary, cyclical problem. Clearly, however, with increasing surplus stocks, the European Community is forced to extend the area to which it

45
subsidises exports. Until the Community recognises and addresses the fact that it has a structural problem, the world's beef trade will be increasingly corrupted by the European Community's trade policies. Countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada have a common interest with the European Community in reforming the CAP. All face substantial economic costs as a result of Community agricultural protection. Reform will not be easy to accomplish and real political courage will be needed to change entrenched agricultural policies.
I urge this House to allow the Select Committee on the European Communities wider powers to invite regular submissions from affected Commonwealth countries. This will allow greater understanding of the position of those countries. In the Address of Her Majesty The Queen to Parliament yesterday, it was made clear that Her Majesty's Government intend to press for reform of the European Community's CAP. A return to price policies, both internal and external, that are more closely attuned to realistic market opportunities will be welcomed, I feel certain, by all rural Australians.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I wish first to express my respect and congratulations to the right reverend Prelate who spoke to us earlier on a matter of such supreme importance. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forres, on having spoken so effectively on a subject which to most of us is not within our personal knowledge. The noble Lord has a good right to come to us and speak of the problems of Australia. I am sure that we will all pay the closest attention to what he has said to us today and consider together what action should be taken upon it. At any rate, I am happy to be the first to be able to congratulate my noble friend on what he said to us today.
I decided that I should like to say some words to this House when I listened to the gracious Speech yesterday and came across the phrase so early on "freedom and justice". Then I went to my own experience of areas for which we have an important responsibility where freedom and justice are unknown. I believe that it is a very great responsibility on our country that we have not taken adequate steps to deal with these areas over a long period. I think of Namibia; I think of the Middle East; and I think of Cyprus. Here are areas in which for years there has been no freedom and no justice. In the international sphere, our Government have taken inadequate steps to deal with questions in which we have a very special responsibility. On the question of the Middle East, we know that for very many years—for some decades in fact—people have been dispersed and oppressed. This has been followed up by the oppression of those in the Lebanon, too. People who have been under our charge in the past are now suffering grave injustice. We have done inadequately in the world assembly to attempt to rectify that dreadful situation which continues now and is likely, one imagines, to continue for some time. It surely should be a responsibility of our country which exercised authority over the West Bank for so many years. I was involved at that time. It surely should be our responsibility to urge in the international organisations that an attempt at justice
46
for the people of Palestine should be undertaken now and no longer delayed.
We spoke the other day in this House about Namibia where they were promised their independence a long time ago. Nothing has yet been done to make that effective. We have a grave debt to the people of Namibia who suffer at the moment from a postponement of their independence which may be indefinite. We have taken inadequate action as a Government and as a country to come to their aid.
I mention also the case of Cyprus. I myself, authorised by the Government of this country at the time, signed a declaration that never would Cyprus be divided or the existing constitution be overthrown. We have not carried out our undertaking. We have left that beautiful island cut in two and have taken no specific steps, as we could have done in the international community, to come to its aid. How can we speak in this House of freedom and justice when there are examples which we know so well where we have utterly failed?
We are now in the habit of assuming that we no longer have responsibility for the territories which we administered years ago. I believe that we have a very special responsibility. If we are to talk about freedom and justice then it would be as well to turn to those peoples whom we administered years ago and who are now suffering from a lack of justice and freedom.
It could be said that all this is due at least in part to the activities, or lack of activities, of the United States. That may be so. There is indeed a dangerous tendency to turn away from the methods of the United Nations for dealing with evils in this world. We have seen examples of it lately which have been very disturbing indeed. We were debating in this House not so long ago the freedom of the seas and the treaty of the deep sea, which was almost unanimously supported by every nation in the world but which was rejected by the United States and over which the United Kingdom, to our shame, followed the United States action in abstaining.
We have seen failures to act by the United States. Time after time we have weakly and miserably followed her example—for instance, by abstaining over the deep sea question or on the attack on certain organisations of the United Nations coming from the United States. This is a very serious development and makes it all the more difficult for us to play our part in doing justice to those peoples who turn to us for relief from their suffering.
It is very necessary that we should take a different attitude and not accept what the United States says and then ourselves abstain or refuse to take further action. I believe that we have an obligation as a consequence of our imperial days. We talk about responsibilities to the Commonwealth. Certainly that is a very important aspect of the whole matter. I hope we shall come to realise that we have a direct responsibility and that we should see to it that justice is done and freedom is acquired. We have an obligation that has not been fulfilled and from which we have sought to escape. When we talk of freedom, we should think also of justice and of the occasions on which we have failed to provide freedom and justice for those who are under our responsibility.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, for reasons which I shall give, I am extremely grateful to my noble kinsman Lord Thomas of Swynnerton for allowing me to take his place on the list of speakers. The fact is that shortly after returning from my visit to New York, where I was celebrating the 40th anniversary of the United Nations, I was advised to go slow for a period and in any case to go to bed very early. I am not sure whether that is due to the journey or to the celebrations! However, I fear that I shall be prevented from hearing the noble Lord's winding up speech. If he considers it appropriate not to refer to my remarks then I shall entirely understand. However, in the circumstances he may be prepared to make an exception.
I also inquired whether I should in any case make a speech this afternoon. The reply was that I certainly could, provided that it did not inflict any strain on me. I replied that it certainly would not inflict any strain on me; the question was: would it inflict any strain on the audience? In the hope that it will not do so, I shall make some brief remarks on one aspect only of the vast subject under discussion; that is, the question of star wars and, notably, President Reagan's attitude towards this scheme as revealed in his recent talk with a BBC correspondent.
It is true that, since then, the prospects of arms limitation have become a little less gloomy, as a result of the President's expressed willingness, as part of a bargain, to reduce the United States' strategic missiles by 50 per cent. and even to call a halt, if I understood it rightly, on similar terms to the production on both sides of movable ICBMs. However, there has not been and nor is there now the slightest willingness on President Reagan's part to negotiate on star wars, notably by agreeing to some restriction on tests or to some limitation of funds. His administration has even called into question the long-standing interpretation of the famous anti-ABM treaty of 1972.
Failing some last minute change of heart, it seems therefore that Mr. Gorbachev will have to swallow the fact that SDI will go ahead at full blast whatever concessions he may make on other aspects of the projected East-West deal on arms limitation. It is therefore evident that the President's attitude may result—and I say only "may" although it seems very probable—in the eventual collapse of the whole great idea.
Let us in any case try to consider star wars in its latest interpretation from the Soviet point of view. It is no use just saying that the Russians are very cunning and deceitful people and that they have already been conducting experiments with lasers and directed energy that could be useful in any ABM defence. That is doubtless true. It is less use making the point that the Russians are about to initiate a colossal ABM system of which the so-called "phased array" at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia is the first evident signal. Krasnoyarsk is not yet operational and in any case the Russians deny that it has been erected in violation of the 1972 treaty. Its true function, they say, is to track satellites. In other words, there is no hard evidence that the Russians are preparing to spend the equivalent of 26 billion dollars on a research project about which many leading United States scientists remain deeply sceptical.
48
Nor is it as though even the most fervent advocates of star wars maintain that 100 per cent. immunity from nuclear bombardment, or anything like it, is possible. This, even if the adversary—as would seem quite likely—did not multiply by two or three the number of strategic missiles and decoys designed to penetrate the famous "shield" and also greatly increase the number of submarines with cruise missiles whose mission it would be to fly under the shield and thus destroy at least the coastal cities of the United States.
In addition to the true believers in star wars there are those who say—and perhaps they are not only the cynics—that, populist appeal to the imagination apart, the real object of the whole scheme is, in the first place, to make a lot of money for a lot of people; next, to promote a useful spin-off for American industry; and last but by no means least, to scupper the arms limitation talks, thus buying time for a large effective increase in the nuclear striking power of the United States.
If there is anything in this analysis why should Mr. Gorbachev be so disturbed by star wars, consistently taking the view that there can be no agreement on arms limitation generally unless the President at least modifies his proposals to some extent? If, as some seem to think, it is just an enormous waste of money, why worry? Why not allow the Americans to add to their already huge budgetary deficit in pursuit of an expensive will-o-the-wisp? That is a legitimate question.
Well, I cannot speak for Mr. Gorbachev or read his mind which, for all I know, may well be full of the most sinister intentions. Few would imagine that the Politburo is likely to have a change of heart in its relations with the West, which will remain the great rival and adversary of the whole communist system. But that does not mean that deals between great adversaries are impossible, especially when it would appear that the objective to be attained would seem to be in the interests of both. It is thus only reasonable to suppose that as regards star wars, although in principle he might be well advised to let the American Administration go ahead with it, Mr. Gorbachev will be obliged, politically speaking, to make one basic assumption; that is, that supported as it is by some very high level American scientists such as Dr. Teller, to say nothing of some great technological corporations, SDI must stand a chance of being successful, or at least very largely successful. That is the assumption that Mr. Gorbachev will be obliged to make.
Anyhow, once this assumption is made there would, if reason is any guide, appear to be three broad options in front of the Soviet Government. In the first place, they could at once start constructing their own equivalent to SDI. Indeed, there might in theory be an advantage in so doing if there was any chance of the projects coming into actual operation. According to the Americans, the Russians have already made great progress in ABM defence; although, of course, the installations round Moscow are permitted by the treaty of 1972. It is just conceivable, therefore, I suppose, that they might achieve some form of SDI before the Americans do so. Even if they achieve it more or less simultaneously, they would still have a

49
distinct advantage if only because, both super powers being immune from nuclear bombardment, the Russians, with a considerable superiority in conventional weapons, may well feel that, in the event of war, Western Europe would be at their mercy. However, while research will clearly not be abandoned, it seems almost certain that for financial and economic reasons the strain of actually preparing for star wars of the type envisaged by the Americans will rule this particular option out of court. I think we may assume that.
In the second place the Russians could do nothing much, relying on President Reagan's assurance that when star wars becomes operational the whole secret, as he says, will be handed over to them so that they can—apparently with American help—construct an ABM system in space so that the Soviet Union, too, can be rendered immune from nuclear bombardment. But at this point I can only recall what Andropov, I believe, said on a previous occasion: "We are not a naive people". If anybody really thinks that an American President, toward the end of the century, having invested—before the Russians have anything comparable—astronomical sums in a defensive shield that gives America sure first-strike capability (because that is what it would do) will then with the approval of Congress simply hand the technology over to the Soviet Union and wait until the latter, with United States help, has erected its own SDI, all I can say is that he must be joking. At any rate, Mr. Gorbachev cannot possibly believe anything of the kind. He will certainly not be unduly suspicious if he assumes that, once in a position to erect this gigantic apparatus in space, the Americans will erect it, whatever assurance may have been given years before or whatever the personal inclinations of Mr. Reagan's eventual successor may prove to be.
So what is the third course towards which Mr. Gorbachev may well, if reluctantly, be driven? However much he may be tempted to conclude a deal involving large reductions on both sides of strategic and even intermediate nuclear weapons—after all, any such deal would no doubt enable him to raise the Soviet standard of living to some extent—it may well be that this will be impossible owing to the necessary retention by Russia of sufficient strategic and, indeed, cruise missiles with which, as it were, to swamp or, additionally, to undermine any ABM space system eventually installed by the Americans.
There is thus—and I can only hope that I am wrong—strong reason to suppose that what I would call a relentless pursuit of star wars by the Americans will have only one result. The arms limitation talks in Geneva will not succeed, any more than those in Vienna. The so-called arms race will consequently not only go on but it will be intensified. Although we may be optimistic enough to believe that we will not have to endure a nuclear winter, the destabilising effects of such grim failures will be very great; to say nothing of the highly unfavourable effects on the whole world economy.
As we know, however, the President's noble vision of a world entirely liberated from the threat of nuclear extinction is not confined to some eventual United States/Soviet Union co-operation. Oh no; every country that wants it will eventually be given by
50
America the possibility of setting up its own strategic defence. Thus, vast platforms in space will one day presumably ring China, Japan, and India; and no doubt Israel, America's very special ally, will have a very special ring, too. The amount of resources involved in such stupendous operations defies the imagination. But, naturally, there is no need to worry. All this is just public relations put out to soften up any resistance to star wars that an unthinking public may possibly entertain.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for a second? Doubtless he heard the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter a few moments ago that the whole of military history consists of, first, offensive weapons being matched by defensive weapons and then new offensive weapons being introduced and new defensive weapons. Can the noble Lord explain to the House why, in his view, it should be that because we are living now in a nuclear age the desire to introduce an anti-nuclear missile system should not go forward?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, there is no reason, because we are living in a nuclear age, that we should indulge in any obviously absurd policy. I described the whole effort of President Reagan's initiative recently as the ultimate absurdity of the scientific imagination, and that is what I firmly believe it to be. Therefore we must still, if only faintly, hope that what I suppose might be the combined efforts of Mr. Shultz. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Paul Nitze will, when it comes to the point, prevail over what might be called the "Perleberger" school of thought; perhaps to the extent of letting it be known to Mr. Gorbachev that, in practice, star wars can only be pursued to the extent that funds provided by Congress allow and that if he is eminently reasonable on strategic—and, indeed, on intermediate—nuclear weapons, those in Congress who fundamentally favour some arms limitation deal will see to it that the President's vision vanishes with his term of office or even before he resigns his office. I say "faintly" because the very considerable amount of money already being spent on this fearful scheme may well imbue it with a momentum which Congress, many of whose constituents will greatly benefit from it financially, may find it impossible to stop.
There is something else which can hardly be dissociated from star wars: that is, ASAT, or anti-satellite action. Here the Americans, who have just shot down a satellite, have a present advantage. As always in the past in these matters, it is obvious that both sides will eventually achieve a broad equality and thus be able to shoot down all the adversary's satellites on which the whole conduct of modern warfare almost uniquely depends, leaving the contestants, as it were, to exterminate each other in the dark. It would seem therefore only reasonable for both sides to call off all experiments in this field—something which of course would be easily verifiable. But then it would be equally reasonable to impose something equally verifiable, namely, a ban on all nuclear testing; and we are informed that neither we nor the French can possibly agree to that.
Let me say a word in conclusion. I think that quite a number of noble Lords would be relieved if a discreet

51
hint by somebody speaking on behalf of the European Community were made to the United States negotiators at Geneva of "the dangers impending" should the arms limitation talks eventually break down because of some American refusal to negotiate on star wars and indeed on ASAT, too; for in such circumstances, aggravated perhaps by economic developments, it is surely not alarmist to contemplate in a few years from now the election in western Europe of governments who, however misguidedly, might prefer to be "Finlandised", as the saying goes, rather than, as they might think, to be involved in some inevitable East-West nuclear conflict. I sometimes feel that Mr. Shultz is aware of such possibilities, but I am not at all sure that other members of the American delegation are.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the happy thing about the debate on the gracious Speech is that we often hear maiden speeches by Members of your Lordships' House. I should like to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate, who gave a formidable speech full of other-worldly advice, and to the noble Lord, Lord Forres, who gave a remarkable speech full of nether-worldly advice from the Antipodes. I greatly enjoyed both speeches.
During the war, when I represented the Army on the Joint Intelligence Staff in the War Cabinet offices and was taught, though I daresay I learned the wrong lessons, something about foreign affairs from the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, the paragraphs which I remember that the Foreign Office submitted to papers that we were trying to draft always began:
"The attitude of France"—
or of Spain or Turkey or whatever country whose policy we were trying to interpret—
"will be governed by her own interests".
Now this is a hoary platitude but I think that in effect it meant this: sometimes—as the Prime Minister, to her immense credit, acted in the European Community—it means tough, bloody-minded determination to stand on our rights and a policy of no conciliation; at other times it means recognising the limitations of our power and not entering into commitments which we cannot afford or honour, and those are the times when we have to conciliate. At the moment, on some minor issues—not the great ones which we were discussing just a moment ago—I think we have a rather unenviable record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
I am very glad that in the gracious Speech the Government acknowledged that conciliation is necessary in Ireland. I do not expect the forthcoming agreement between Eire and ourselves to go as far as I should like it to go, but I hope that we recognise what an enormous step forward it is for the Taoiseach to renounce the ideal of a united Ireland governed from Dublin. He is in fact accepting, as Mr. Haughey is not, that Ulster will remain within the United Kingdom and under the Crown. There are many different shapes which that relationship can take, and in my view not all of them necessarily require a United Kingdom
52
presence in Ulster, but I hope that in this case the Prime Minister will not again tell the world on television how unacceptable are all Irish initiatives. We must not miss the opportunity to work with Eire and against the IRA terrorism which threatens Eire as much as ourselves.
Let me say at once that on numbers of occasions the Foreign Office was right and Parliament has been proved wrong. For years the Foreign Office tried to bring home to governments that our power is limited and that therefore we must limit our commitments overseas. I think such advice was disregarded by the Government of 1956–1963, and I think it was disregarded again by the Government of 1964–1970, when I remember that the Prime Minister had no sooner been elected Prime Minister and formed a Government than he was off to the Far East, making many commitments east of Suez which had to be repudiated only a few years later.
I sometimes wonder whether we have yet learnt that lesson. We showed no signs of having learnt it when in 1980 Mr. Nicholas Ridley's initiatives to get agreement with Argentina were thrown out in another place. Then, to meet the demand for cutting defence expenditure, the Government withdrew the few deterrents against Argentinian invasion which were deployed, and, encouraged by this, General Galtieri took a gamble and invaded. We threw him out in a brilliant campaign that reflected the greatest credit on the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the iron nerve of the Prime Minister. She did not commit the error which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the "Belgrano" lobby would have done and which Sir Anthony Eden commited at the time of Suez. She did not attempt to run the battle herself; after the junta foolishly refused to accept new proposals for negotiation she wisely told the chiefs of staff and her commanders to get on with it. But what happened next was that the democratic regime which was elected in Argentina was, and still is, threatened from Left and Right. Senor Alfonsin could not afford to appear to lose face over the Falklands issue, but what did we do? We refused to negotiate or even to discuss the issue of sovereignty.
To date we have alienated virtually all world support on this issue by our obduracy, and whether we like it or not the Government appear to the outside world to be narrowminded, blinkered and bedevilled by old-style imperialism. We irritate our main ally, the United States, and we alienate our partners in Europe, to whom our stand appears as yet another indication of how little we are a true European power. If it came to a vote in the United Nations on the desirability of entering into negotiations, it would overwhelmingly go against us and those who voted with us would be few and far between. We have fortified the islanders at prodigious expense. In my opinion that is money which would have been far better spent on the Highlands and Islands in Scotland; if it had been so spent perhaps the support for the Government would have been greater there. At a time when at last the Government are shaping up to tell the diehard leaders in Ulster that they do not have a power of veto over any settlement, are we in effect saying to the Falkland islanders that they have such a veto?

53
Dozens of compromises which we could offer to Argentina suggest themselves which would safeguard our rights and the future of the islanders. I hope that the reference in the gracious Speech means that the Government are prepared to explore such compromises. In the Falklands I think we have the power to conciliate and to improve our world standing. In the Middle East we have not. There seems to be one lesson to be learnt from the debacle of the invitation to the Jordanians and the PLO to come to London, which is: if humanly possible do not get embroiled in the Middle East. I recognise that the Government took this initiative to please King Hussein and that the King has for long been an ally of this country and, particularly in recent years, a force for moderation among the Arab countries; but surely the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put his finger on the matter when the noble Baroness made the Government Statement on 15th October. The noble Lord then said, in effect, that if the Government really believed that the two members of the PLO could speak for all those who claimed to be members of the PLO, the Government were naive; and if the Government realised that these two men were not plenipotentiaries and could not commit the PLO, what then was the point of inviting them?
The truth is that Britain has virtually no influence in the Middle East these days. We are regarded by Israel as little better than an unfriendly power. Why? Because we stand by the United Nations resolution which demands that Israel return to its 1956 frontiers; and that is totally unrealistic. Israel will never go back to frontiers which are indefensible and will never agree to the partition of Jerusalem for a second time. Let us never forget that it was the Arab states that attacked the Israelis in 1948. They thought to drive them into the sea. Since then, Israel has been trying to ensure that any future attack of that kind will fail.
As for the Arabs, the most powerful Arab state in the Mediterranean, Syria, is in the Soviet camp and regards us as little better than an enemy. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, tells the House that part of the price we have to pay for profitable arms contracts in friendly Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, is to launch one of these so-called peace initiatives every so often, well, so be it. But let us be clear that there is a price to pay. That price, if not the humiliation, will at least be the frequent discomfiture of Britain that follows as peace initiative after peace initiative fails.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the United Nations resolution about the Middle East does not require Israel to return to its 1948 frontiers but to its 1967 frontiers, which is a very different matter and more reasonable?
Lord Annan: My Lords, I stand corrected. I wonder whether it is really understood by the United Nations what will be the effect on Israel's morale of that point. I was going to add simply this—that the initiatives will fail because, with the disintegration of Lebanon, there is no state that can control the terrorists, fundamentalists and extremists who operate from Iran to Libya. In an area where we can only get kicks and no ha'pence, the best thing, in my view, is to keep out.
54
Since I am being controversial, there is the issue of UNESCO. This is an issue on which we should not be bullied and we should not conciliate. The Foreign Office's policy appears to be not just conciliation but craven surrender. UNESCO is run—I must be careful about my words here and not use those which are opprobrious; but let me say it is run by a singular personage, Mr. M'Bow. Mr. M'Bow regards UNESCO as a machine for patronage for his family, retainers and third world diplomats at large; so that UNESCO's funds are spent on the bureaucracy in Paris rather than in the countries it is meant to help. This Emperor Jones also regards UNESCO as a fine base for damaging the West. And UNESCO has had the insolence to expel Israel as a racist country This comes ill from nations whose ruling tribes persecute or, in some cases, try to exterminate other tribes.
Finally the United States lost patience with Mr. M'Bow and, having failed to get satisfaction, took the grave step of leaving an international organisation. It left it because it had become the plaything of a faction and consistently hostile to the West. Her Majesty's Government very properly said that they would follow suit unless major reforms took place. No such major reforms have yet taken place. Mr. M'Bow, who would himself suffer financially if his regime were displaced, is determined not to see them take place. There are always sapient arguments for doing nothing. Why not stay in UNESCO and lead the Commonwealth, which is the only body that cuts across East-West and North-South? Do we not recognise the tremendous efforts being made to reform the organisation since America quit? The answer should be that we do not recognise them as anything except a smokescreen and that the Commonwealth argument is specious since our partners rarely support us. There is a far better area on which to spend our money. Give it to the BBC Overseas Service, which represents Britain to the world far better than UNESCO does.
At present, the omens are bad. Everyone in this country is, I think, confused as to what our policy is. A month ago it looked as if our Foreign Office officials had deliberately set out to flout ministerial policy. The executive board of UNESCO refused to consider the indictment drawn up by the general accounting office in Washington. The British delegation have even been jockeyed into publicly praising Mr. M'Bow. Nor did they challenge a resolution to take the United States to the International Court for failing to pay its dues.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can give your Lordships a hint of what is going to happen. I ask this because recently, The Times exposed the lily-livered conduct of our delegation there. In reply, Mr. Timothy Raison signed a letter to The Times that purported to be a reply to The Times' allegations and the criticisms that it made. I know Mr. Raison's style very well. I used to read his articles in New Society for years with pleasure and with profit. That reply was never written by him. I can only assume that the thumbscrews were applied before he signed the letter. It must have been drafted by one of those pusillanimous officials with the spine of a jelly. The Times printed a devastating leader repudiating the argument in the letter, point by point.
What excuse can there be for Britain running away? The Minister may say, "Should we not consider the

55
careers of the British in UNESCO?" They could be re-employed in the British Council, unless they are so etiolated by the international salaries they receive that they are by now unemployable. Masses of executives as good as they are now without a job in Britain.
The second excuse no doubt is that Britain would lose lots of valuable contracts which UNESCO extravagance brings to us. If that had been the principle on which the Government run the country, the Government's efforts to curb public expenditure would have been discredited long ago and the Minister of Defence would have led a happier life. Why are there two standards employed—one for this wretched international organisation and one for executive action at home? The worst thing for the good name and prestige of this country is to threaten to withdraw from UNESCO unless reforms are made and, when they are not, not to do so.
To huff and to puff and then sneakingly to pretend that all is now well when palpably it is not, is really humiliating. It is also contrary to that spirit of tough reason, coupled with conciliation when conciliation will earn us dividends, that I said a few minutes ago should be the guidelines of our foreign policy. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should think that I am too severe, let me praise the Foreign Secretary and say that since he took over he has often displayed just that spirit and therefore enhanced the standing of our country.
In concluding, I must apologise to the House. As I have explained to the noble Baroness, a long-standing engagement will prevent me from being in my place when her noble friend winds up. Of course I do not expect him to refer to my speech. If he sees fit to draw the attention of his right honourable friend to a few of my remarks, I should be more than grateful.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I use this formula because I did not wish to interrupt his panageric of the Prime Minister when he referred personally to me. Was the noble Lord indicating—I would hate him to go on record as saying something that he did not mean—when praising the Prime Minister for handing over the campaign against Argentina to the commanders, that the Prime Minister handed over, without any control, to the commanders of the armed forces at a time when the Foreign Secretary was in Washington seeking a negotiated settlement?
Lord Annan: My Lords, the Prime Minister took the sensible line that, having given overall instructions to the chiefs of staff and the commanders, she left it to them to fight a military campaign which by then was inevitable. Had she interfered and intervened, as I fear Sir Anthony Eden did at the time of Suez, there would have been a military disaster.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think we were all fortunate this afternoon to hear two brilliant maiden speeches, one from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the other from the noble Lord, Lord Forres. Both speeches were informative and
56
taught us things. I thought they were extraordinarily well delivered, and it will certainly be a pleasure for us to listen to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord again. I wish very sincerely to congratulate them.
I also wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his kind and generous remarks on the Queen's endeavours for Britain overseas. I think we can expand that to include many other members of the Royal Family. What a pity that we cannot say anything good like that about the dreadful performance of this dreadful Government. The name of Britain is sinking all over the world. We have had the Queen's Speech, half of which is concerned with matters overseas. I am not concerned so much with the banality and trivia or the dangerous proposals to continue to damage the British economy; but I find it a constitutional outrage that such an uninspiring, miserable document should be given to our Monarch to deliver in this House.
The facts are that in the past four or five years Great Britain has had little influence in world affairs. It is not so much that we do not have a British voice but that we do not seem to have a British spirit. Once the American say something we start genuflecting under this Tory Government; and that does not make us a good ally. As Lord Attlee used to say when he was Prime Minister, beware of the person who agrees with everything one does or says. I am bound to say that the Americans, with the recent contract given to France, who are not even members of NATO, have revealed the massive confidence they have in this old British ally, but only under this Tory Government.
I hope this House will understand that when one reads that the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee—an all-party committee which was unanimous in its attack on the Government—deplored the Foreign Office cuts, the BBC cuts, the British Council cuts and all the cuts in aid, the only thing that we could show to the world we were doing was not done by this Tory Government but by Bob Geldof, who has honoured our name and our country with a massive, wonderful endeavour which the Government ought officially to appreciate. Indeed, one thought at one time, when we were obsessed with the KGB chap who crossed sides and who was therefore betraying his country, that one would not be surprised if he featured in the New Year Honours List for a CBE. Why do we not honour Bob Geldof for what he has done and the magnificent efforts he has instigated? The fact of the matter is that the Foreign and Commonwealth overseas programmes have funds which have been reduced while the need for them has increased. We are doing precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time; and that is the hallmark, and has always seemed to me, of a Tory Government.
We need to create good relations on all continents. Good relations with the Russians are vital; and we have to accept that. We cannot blithely say that if they do not behave themselves we will wipe out all the Soviet Union, even if they are going to wipe out all of Great Britain. That is a most stupid, banal policy—nay, it is an insane policy. I do not believe that all the people in Greenpeace, all the women who march and campaign against nuclear weapons, are evil people. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quoted the Old Testament. May I quote the New Testament

57
and say, "Blessed too are the peacemakers" and let us not forget that. Let us be generous and understanding. We may not agree with them but they are living in our free country and they are demonstrating their freedom. We can disagree, but I hope that we will not think that every time somebody marches or wishes to protest against any Government that the ultimate answer will be well-armed police forces.
This aspect frighténs many people in this country also. Mr. Yuri Andropov and now Mr. Gorbachev have expressed confidence in reaching some agreement. They have always said—Andropov has said it, it started a new line of approach with various American presidents, and now Mr. Gorbachev has also said it—that they have confidence in us, in America, in the Commonwealth, that together we can find a solution. Of course, the Soviets often declare that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. Is that a bad thing? Which is the better thing to say: that we will never use thermonuclear weapons; or the British Government's point of view that if necessary (whatever that means) we will be the first to start slinging nuclear bombs around. That kind of attitude is what is disturbing people in this country.
I believe that we ought to drop this propaganda war on both our side and on the Soviet side and let it be replaced by verified examinations of the facts. If the Russians declare that they are abolishing this, or reducing that, then they want us in the West to have full rights to see that they are speaking the truth. We should have the same confidence when we say something in the West to allow them to make their examinations. I believe that we must steadfastly seek to abolish the doctrine on both sides that only nuclear superiority can maintain peace. Every weapon of war which has been invented has been used, from the bayonet to the bomb, from poison gas to nuclear weapons. Is it safe to say that because we have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads mankind is at peace and that happiness will be restored in the full Christian spirit? That is what we are trying to say and it is absolute, dangerous nonsense.
I believe what is necessary is that we should build with Gorbachev, we should build with President Reagan, we should build with Mr. Alfonsin in the Argentine, and we should stop genuflecting to Botha, and stop crucifying the British Commonwealth on the altar of apartheid. When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was talking—as he has every right to do—of the magnificent support that he is always prepared to give the Americans, why does he not give support to that great American, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was loved in the last Presidential election in the United States when he made the most bitter attack, in sadness and in sorrow, when he had to deplore the attitude of the British Prime Minister and reject totally the policy of the British Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the nobleLord——
Lord Molloy: My Lords, that was no Russian. That was no Bulgarian. That was a renowned American citizen.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord is good enough to refer to me and to suggest that I should support the Reverend Jesse Jackson because of my general pro-American sympathies. The noble Lord may be aware that when it came to an American election Mr. Jackson was very heavily defeated.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, he did not stand.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what does that prove, that he was very heavily defeated? And where was he heavily defeated?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the preliminaries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, he was defeated only in the selection. He never stood to be President. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter is, as usual, totally wrong. He was defeated in his selection but not defeated in any public election.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants me to make a long intervention, in the course of his very audible speech, I will amplify the point. So unattractive as a candidate did Mr. Jackson appear to be that his Party eliminated him in their preliminary steps. I did not wish to be unkind to the reverend gentleman, but that is the fact and the noble Lord has compelled me to state it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not seem to understand that you cannot even become a candidate in the United States of America without winning so many primaries. I am surprised that the noble Lord knows so very little about the great ally that he loves.
We must also understand that we must avoid hypocritical stances, which seem to be the normal posture of this Government. Quite rightly, we are all saying—particularly the Tory Government and the Tory Party—how dreadful it was that the Russians invaded Afghanistan. But no word was said about the invasion of Palestine, the occupation of the West Bank and the terrorism that took place there, and the occupation of parts of Syria. That apparently was quite all right. The rest of the world wonders what is happening to Great Britain when it talks like that and when it believes that terrorism by individuals, which is terrible, is awful but that a mass invasion without a declaration of war is not terrorism. Ask the Poles whether they agree with that; ask the Austrians whether they agree with that; ask the French whether they agree with that. In their eyes that invasion by the Nazis, without a declaration of war, was one of the most horrendous acts of terrorism in the whole history of mankind.
When countries are invaded without declarations of war—whether they are Arab countries or any other countries—how can it be quite all right for us to laud and praise the so-called "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan but very wrong for a Palestinian to love his country and to fight for the freedom of his country? That is what I mean by Tory hypocritical stances. If the Nazis had ever reached this country, there would have been broadcasts saying that their brave German

59
soldiers had suffered another savage attack by the wicked British terrorists, probably led by Winston Churchill and Ernie Bevin. Of course, they would have said that because we would have been doing it. We must learn that other people in other parts of the world have every right to love their countries just as all of us in this House love ours.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to an important item which has been only slightly touched on by Government Ministers, and that is the strategic defence initiative. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—and I give him credit for never dodging anything—could give us some idea of our involvement with the United States of America and West Germany in some of the researches that are taking place and which are almost whispered about in The Times, the Guardian and other newspapers. Those newspapers seem to know something which we as politicians do not know. The probability is that they know more than the Government, but I hope later on the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will destroy that argument.
What exactly is the offer of "shared SDI technology" which has been proffered by the United States to the USSR? I believe that it is a very good idea, but we want to know what precisely is involved, and we have a right to know. Who runs the United States foreign and defence policy? Is it President Reagan or Mr. Weinberger, because Casper Weinberger does not agree with the President; and I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, nor was he elected by anyone. We want to know the author of the policy and what the policy is. Is the official policy Mr. Weinberger's policy or is it President Reagan's policy?
I believe that the overriding question in East-West relations is: confrontation or co-operation for peace? Honest agreements are needed based on the principle of equality and equal security with verification, testing and proving—all of which are proposed. Let honesty in international relations be raised to the proper status so that all the great super powers involved, including ourselves and other nations, have an open policy and an open door in order to test what is said. If the Americans and the Russians give a lead on that, they will have made a massive contribution to the establishment of world peace.
I want to close with a plea. Our history and our record in Great Britain proves beyond all peradventure that we have much to offer the world. I ask the Government now to start demonstrating our British sanity, courage and goodwill, as I believe we can. We do not have to be saturated in nuclear weapons and we do not want millions of marching soldiers for the great wisdom of Great Britain to make a contribution towards seeking a lasting and genuine peace. I sincerely believe that we have a great rote to play. I hope that the Government will reflect the confidence of our people and make it a reality not only for the sake of Great Britain but indeed for all mankind.
5.36 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will not expect me to support his
60
criticism of the Conservative Government. I would simply say to him that I think that the stock of this country stands considerably higher than it did before the last Labour Government went out of office. The noble Lord criticised Tory hypocrisy, but I rather fear that when I have finished speaking he will be confirmed in his view by the standards that he has set. The noble Lord also mentioned his desire to see, as I understand it, the unilateral reduction of nuclear power. In my view (and I shall return to this matter later) that would be asking for a Russian attack. They already have enormous superiority in conventional weapons.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what are they waiting for, then?
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, at the moment I believe that the Americans have sufficient nuclear power to act as a very strong deterrent.
This afternoon I should like to comment on the proposals that were put forward at the Commonwealth Conference to impose sanctions on South Africa. I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the stand that she took at the Commonwealth Conference and to support the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Young when she opened this debate. I do so for two reasons: first, because of the effect on Africans, especially the black Africans; and, secondly, because of the effect it could have on this country and the risk that it would pose to the security of the West.
However, first, I should like to draw a parallel between the current events and those that led to the imposition of sanctions against Rhodesia. In both cases the objective was to get rid of white domination. The campaign was supported by other black states in many ways, and also, I believe, by Russia. The aim in Rhodesia was somewhat blurred as a result of the constitutional issues that arose there. However, I have always thought that the final objective was South Africa but that because of Rhodesia's geographical position Rhodesia had to be dealt with first.
Similar methods have been adopted in both cases: violence, rioting, murder of both blacks and whites, burning and intimidation—but above all intimidation. There seems to have been some support for this cause from the Churches both inside and outside South Africa, and also from a number of Left-wing organisations. There has been criticism of the South African Government in their efforts to maintain law and order. They have been accused of being repressive, although we should remember that any government have a primary requirement to maintain law and order. I have no doubt that some of the methods used have been rightly criticised, but there has been little complaint about the behaviour of the blacks, which, from the reports that I have seen, appears to have been far worse. Those who criticise the police methods there seem totally to disregard the risk of a breakdown of law and order—a point that was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I thought, if I may say so, that much of his diagnosis of the problems was correct, but I fundamentally disagreed with the solutions he offered.

61
Let us just consider what could happen in the event of a breakdown. I believe that there are some 24 million blacks, and a situation in which complete chaos could arise. May I remind your Lordships of what has happened here in Brixton, Toxteth and Tottenham, although we have comparatively few blacks, and also the support which has been given to the violence there by one or two black leaders. There has also been similar criticism of the activities of the police.
What is the aim of this campaign against South Africa? Who will benefit? It used to be a drive for one man, one vote, but this slogan is not heard so often nowadays, perhaps because it clearly does not happen where black autonomy has been achieved. The cry now is more for democracy, but that does not happen either—at least as we understand it.
We should in considering this problem differentiate between democracy and apartheid. Apartheid has been, I think rightly, condemned everywhere but at the moment the South African Government is rapidly dismantling it, and surely to criticise it without taking note of this is a mistake. We ought to be saying, "This is a step in the right direction. Do go on with it, and go as quickly as possible".
Returning to what happens in other black countries, the democratic constitutions that we have set up have rapidly been either replaced by a Marxist régime or by a dictatorship. This has led to untold hardship, much the same as the conditions in the rioting that I have described. We only have to look at what has happened in Uganda, Tanzania and Angola.
Indeed, I would have said that in South Africa the blacks are much better off than elsewhere in Africa. They receive higher wages, and more money is spent on their welfare. They have better living conditions and they have better protection, so these cannot be the objectives. But this campaign, if it succeeds, will give power to some of the so-called leaders who do not necessarily represent all the people they claim to represent. Of course, where a Marxist state is established, as I suppose they wish to do in South Africa, it would extend the sphere of influence of that régime.
May I remind your Lordships that the British Empire was built on a two-tier system of citizenship, and all those of non-Anglo Saxon stock were better off under this system than they are now after independence. The truth surely is that a lot of these countries are not ready for democracy, and in some cases it is totally alien to what they know and understand.
I notice that the people who support the demands put forward by these black leaders seldom criticise the Soviet Union, its repressive system, and its two-tier citizenship)—those who are members of the Communist party and those who are not. Nor do they condemn its acts of atrocity in Afghanistan—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred—nor to those committed by its Cuban and North Korean allies in Africa. Perhaps they find such actions acceptable if carried out on behalf of Marxism or by the blacks.
I should like to say something on the effect of sanctions on countries north of South Africa, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred.
62
Their economies are not very sound, their standards of living are low, and they are dependent for much of such standards as they have on South Africa. Mention was made of aid programmes by the noble Baroness who opened the debate. I am sure that we all support her promise of further expenditure to help these backward countries, but in doing so I would suggest that we should try to ensure that the money is well spent. After all, it is our own taxpayers' money and in many cases, as we all know, such expenditure has not achieved the results intended.
So far as South Africa is concerned, one of the areas where it helps countries to the north is in transport of goods, both imports and exports, because other routes have largely broken down since they came under black control. So far as the effect of sanctions is concerned on these countries may I quote what Mr. Ian Smith has said. He rightly, I think, claims to know more about the impact of sanctions than anyone else. He is convinced that all these countries will suffer severely if sanctions are imposed, although he believes that South Africa will be able to withstand their impact.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that these countries were prepared to stand for this. It may be that that is all right in the short term, but from what has happened elsewhere there is no encouragement to think that, if this helps them to get their independence, the black people of South Africa will be better off than they are today.
I should like to say a word about something to which again the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, and that is the effect of sanctions on the West as a whole and on this country. There are three points, and they are all self-evident, so I shall only mention them
First, there is the question of communications. One glance at the map is enough to show the key position held by South Africa and, from the strategic point of view, the effect of a power hostile to the West establishing control there. All sea routes in the area could be threatened.
The second point concerns raw materials. Many of these are largely obtainable only from the southern part of Africa, and in some cases the remainder is under the control of Russia. Chrome is a case in point. If the price of these materials was forced up it would be serious for the West. You have only to consider what happened when the Arabs pushed up the price of oil. I would suggest to your Lordships that a similar situation could arise over these minerals. If availability was denied to us the results would be far more serious.
Then there is the question of trade. We have a substantial trade with South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that we could afford to forgo this, but unlike the noble Lord I do not think that it would be desirable to do so because the effect on both our unemployment figures and our balance of payments would be serious.
May I now turn to the question of the legality of sanctions. I first refer to Chapter 1 of Article 7 of the United Nations Charter. This states:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the Domestic Jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter'.

63
Could anything be clearer than that? Yet that is precisely what the United Nations has been asked to do. I suggest that the principle applies whether or not a state is a member of the United Nations.
It has always been accepted by jurists all over the world that the internal affairs of a nation are its own business and must not be interfered with by other countries. It is indeed a fundamental pillar on which international law itself depends. It has been stated by one authority, whom I have quoted to your Lordships once before, Mr. Stowell, that it is the most important role of international law. He concludes that:
"to deny it would be to remove from International Law the salutary system of Territorial Sovereignty and to deprive the principle of the independence of States of all meaning".
I do not believe those who advocate sanctions care a rap for international law.
Meanwhile, world attention is focused on the forthcoming disarmament talks between the United States and Russia.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from the South African issue, from the point of view of clarification will he answer two questions? Can he say, first, whether he agrees that every citizen, irrespective of skin colour, has an equal right to participate fully in the determination of the future of their own community and their own nation? Secondly, is he aware that the percentage of school enrolments and health facilities are far greater in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania than they are in South Africa for the black population?
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, would the noble Lord please repeat that? I did not hear.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Yes, my Lords. The percentage of enrolments in schools and the health facilities are far higher in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania, to take only three examples, than they are in South Africa.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, as far as the first point is concerned, I thought I made my position clear. I suggested that at this stage a two-tier system of government gave better security and ensured better treatment for the blacks than where there was complete so-called freedom to vote, because that does not seem to exist. However, that does not mean to say that they are not entitled to full protection under the law in every sense of the word. I do not have the comparable figures for education, about which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked, but when I last saw them the level of money spent was higher. But I cannot answer for the figure of enrolments.
I was speaking about the forthcoming disarmament conference. I should like to support what has been said on all sides: that we all hope for its success, or, failing that, for some progress to be made. But unlike the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I think that the best guarantee of peace is for some degree of parity between the two major powers in nuclear weapons, which I regard as a deterrent. I am confirmed in this view by
64
the protests that the Russians make, because I do not believe that anyone seriously believes that America is intent on war, least of all the Russians.
Meanwhile, another war is in progress a war in which Russia is steadily increasing its sphere of influence. The West appears to accept this with equanimity. We have seen the invasion of Afghanistan; and control or dominating influence, either directly of indirectly, in Ethiopia, Angola and Mozambique, each with a Marxist Government. This represents a steady advance by Russia, and if nothing is done this advance will continue. I believe the next objective is South Africa, and if the West agrees to sanctions this will greatly facilitate the attainment of it. I suggest that this country has every reason to resist their imposition.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, it is now my turn to pay tribute to the three maiden speakers and to congratulate them on speeches which were highly informative, distinguished and moving because of the presentation of passionately held, sincere views.
On the Arab-Israeli front there seems to be a new air of expectancy, and this in spite of such recent grave disturbances of the peace on land, sea and air as the Cyprus massacre, the reprisal raid on Tunis, the Mediterranean sea-jacking and the avenging interception in the skies. There are live stirrings in Jordan, Israel, even within the Communist bloc, not to speak of the nerve centre of all these efforts—Washington. Yet this air of expectancy is ethereal; it is thin air in need of a hefty dose of oxygen. I believe that, for once, some of this could be supplied from our own, from the European, comer. But if our interventions are to be truly fruitful and appreciated by the protagonists we have to re-examine and revise the policy encapsulated in the Venice Declaration; a policy which has done more harm than good. If Her Majesty's gracious Speech proclaims, as it were, in one breath the need for a vigorous effort to combat international terrorism and the need for a move to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute, the obvious conclusion must be to downgrade and not to enhance, to delegitimise and not to prop up the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and its leader, Yassir Arafat, since they stand in the way of any peace process and substantive negotiation, and indeed are among the main carriers of terrorism.
Equally I think that we should seize on new realities and positive pointers in the direction of peace and conciliation. It is very regrettable that King Hussein (whose condemnation of the recent PLO terrorist actions and whose disappointment with the tragicomic imbroglio of the abortive diplomatic talks in London was so manifest) should not have drawn the right conclusion and detached himself more tangibly from Arafat's movement. In Washington, from where I have just returned, the Administration is doing its utmost to persuade the King to start the peace process and not wait for the PLO. We should, and the European Community should, use our whole influence to give King Hussein the necessary backing and similar advice.
Much credit for these new and more positive vibrations is due to Israel's Prime Minister, Shimon

65
Peres. I was pleased to hear that both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, acknowledged this fact. The speeches of Mr. Peres at the United Nations, in Washington, New York and on his return in Jerusalem, have kindled fresh hope and broken new ground by meeting some of King Hussein's and other moderate Arab's psychological and indeed real political needs. He has done this in defiance not only of much of his own public opinion at home, but also, paradoxically, of much of his loyal support among American Jewish and non-Jewish well-wishers. I say "paradoxically" because Israel's supporters abroad habitually tend to goad Israel into forward thinking and risk-taking for peace, and invariably counsel moderation. Whereas today there are large sections of pro-Israeli opinion which, dismayed by the growth of Arab terror and what they consider devious diplomacy, have become very weary and, frankly, see as the only true distinction between moderates and radicals in the Arab camp the difference between an overt and covert desire to destabilise and ultimately to demolish the Jewish state.
Mr. Peres stands for direct negotiations without precondition, except the renunciation of violence and Arab recognition of United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. On the question of Palestinian representation he would, I am quite sure, be very lenient in defining who would be a valid interlocutor. However, active membership of the PLO, until and unless that organisation changes its charter, must remain an insurmountable obstacle. Yet on the question of an international umbrella for King Hussein, he has proposed a degree of United Nations sponsorship, which of course implies a role for the Soviet Union, provided that the Soviet Union would resume normal relations with the State of Israel.
For Israel, the idea of UN involvement today means a signal concession and sacrifice, and an advanced view. Only the other day, Jews throughout the world gathered in protest meetings, on the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Resolution which equates Zionism with racism, a document which to most Jewish minds is a lineal descendant of those base libels against the Jews ranging from the mediaeval accusation of the desecration of the Host, infanticide and sorcery, down to the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The United Nations, in the eyes of many Jews, is in bad odour for its record of dual morality and hostile treatment of the State of Israel. The idea that the Soviet Union would enter, or re-enter, the Arab/Israeli scene is not only anathema to quite a few Israelis and friends of Israel but because of the plight of Soviet Jewry it is also a live, hotly-debated issue in the United States on rather weighty geopolitical grounds.
Since it is unarguably true that Israel's attitude and actions at this juncture are crucial, it is important to realise that we have in Mr. Peres a man who takes great chances and therefore deserves the greatest consideration from the European Community and from Her Majesty's Government. It is gratifying to know that he will be paying us an official visit next January.
London has already shown its great confidence in and, if I may say so, affection for the King of Jordan. The latest arms package negotiated by the
66
Government is eloquent proof. Unlike the United States Congress, which makes arms supplies to Jordan dependent upon the start of direct negotiations with Israel, the British Government have sanctioned a firm sale. Of course, any injection of adrenalin to our manufacturing industries must be welcome yet whether on political and long-term military grounds a further escalation of the arms race is such an excellent idea remains to be doubted.
In fact one wonders whether these arms are really needed by the Hashemite Kingdom. Largely thanks to the efforts of its new Prime Minister, Mr. Zaid Al-Rifai, Amman is mending its fences with Damascus. If the kingdom's security is to be threatened, I submit that it woud be mainly threatened from within. The source of intermittent yet consistent terror lies with one or the other faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. All Arab regimes, almost without exception, are threatened by terrorism, by fundamentalists, revolutionaries or, if you like, reactionaries and they would do well to equip themselves appropriately in every way to meet internal subversion and destabilisation.
If Britain and Europe were to show a new spirit of determined even-handedness at this grave juncture. it would acknowledge Israel's, and especially its Prime Minister's, manifest will for peace.
This country, in spite of a great improvement in tone and mood in her relations with Israel—an improvement which I think bears the personal imprint of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister and her Foreign Secretary—is still somewhat behind in the European league table as far as some substantive issues are concerned. On the question of the Arab trade boycott, we are way behind the practices of France and Germany. These are countries which carry considerable weight in the Arab and Islamic world, and yet they are largely immune from political blackmail.
While internationally well-known groups, such as Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Volkswagen, trade freely throughout the Middle East, United Kingdom companies of similar renown subject themselves to the control of the Central Arab Boycott Office in Damascus. The British authorities officially deplore any restrictions on trade, yet they still refuse to intervene, and hold the view that companies must use their own commercial judgment. Bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Israel will reach 1 billion pounds this year, and currently shows an increase rate of 18 per cent. Yet German investment in Israel is nearly seven times and French investment twice as large as that of Britain.
Another anomaly in our relations with Israel is our continued refusal to sell North Sea oil to that country. Of course, the third and by no means least important issue, and one that is most difficult to comprehend, is the continuing embargo on arms sales. While Britain supplies its customers from one end of the Arab world to the other, Israel is excluded. Yet her troops have left the Lebanon. She has given tangible proof of wishing to end the state of war on all fronts, and still she is out of bounds for British arms and sophisticated defence technology.

67
But I must briefly revert to the role of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as being the most crucial stumbling block to any hope for peace. There is massive evidence and compelling reason to conclude that the PLO is neither the sole nor the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, whose genuine craving for political self-expression is a very burning and live issue. How can the PLO be the sole spokesman when it is so deeply divided, riven by factions, feuding and fighting and reflecting every naunce of the power struggle within the Arab world? How can it be representative when neither a census, a plebiscite, nor other instrument of democratic identification confers on it a mandate to speak for the whole of the Palestinian people? The Palestinian revolution is constantly devouring its own children. I am not saying that it does not speak for many Palestinians, but it is equally obvious that there are, among Palestinian Arabs, men of goodwill who could be found to come forward and work for peace and who are deeply antagonistic to Arafat or any other PLO leader, deeply hostile to the policies and practices, to the principles and the whole record of the PLO, and I think that they reflect the views of many people on the ground. Have we explored the field sufficiently? It is my contention that there are such truly representative people, and indeed I have met quite a few of them.
I visit Israel several times a year and have done so for many years. I have met many Arabs in the West Bank and in the Israeli heartland—Arab patriots who have fought the Israelis in war and would still fight them again in the future. But they recognise the reality of Israel and either openly or grudgingly have admitted that in some spheres of everyday existence their lives are better than they were. They do not want to be annexed but they are also realistic enough to realise that a Palestinian state is totally inconsistent with the security and viability of Israel. They would go along with the tenets of the Reagan plan, or some form of far-reaching political autonomy. They represent some of the ablest and most distinguished West Bank Arabs or residents of Gaza. But when asked why they do not go public with these or similar views, they will tell you: "Why should we? The Arab Governments say we must work with the PLO; the King of Jordan says we must submit to the PLO, and the PLO itself through a network of terror and extortion, makes our lives unsafe. And, last but not least, the Israeli Government does not give us political encouragement."
I sincerely believe that we should take a new and hard look at the underlying realities in the West Bank and Gaza, and jettison the policy of received ideas which has largely lost its validity. We should encourage King Hussein and Prime Minister Shimon Peres to create the conditions for negotiation and distance themselves from the PLO, in whose leading counsel and in whose rank and file are the partisans of that very terrorism which we have vowed to contest and combat as one of our prime aims of foreign policy.
If we use every effort to reassure the King of Jordan and the Prime Minister of Israel in their arduous and indeed very dangerous task, we will have done a great deal to advance the cause of peace in an area prone to extremes. For let us not forget, my Lords, that according to the best available archaeological
68
testimony the presumed location of the Garden of Eden is little more than one hour's flying time from the sand dunes of Armageddon.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I should like to join with others in congratulating the two maiden speakers this evening. It was a great privilege and pleasure to hear such authoritative voices from such widely different areas. I could not help reflecting that the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Forres, raises the point of how much better it could be if the Peers who live in the Commonwealth (I think it is an increasing number) could more frequently come to your Lordships' House.
I think that most of us would agree that one of the great frustrations of international affairs is the slow pace at which successful negotiations can usually be concluded. Witness the snail's pace at which progress is made in the EC, where the protagonists are nominally our friends and whose governments have broadly similar objectives. It looks to me as if more rapid progress in Europe is as far away as ever, but the opening remarks of the noble Baroness were more optimistic and I hope that she is correct and I am wrong.
It follows that Foreign Secretaries must have more than normal patience and strong determination. I do not believe that his severist critics would deny the present Foreign Secretary credit in both these areas. He has worked methodically on long-standing problems, and not least on the Irish question, on which I do not expect comment to be made this evening. The Foreign Secretary has had a notable success in Hong Kong, which at one time seemed hopeless, and has made progress in the unfinished business over Gibraltar. I myself wish that the Government would be more venturesome over the Falkland Islands, although one must admit that recent events in Argentina show that there is still need for some caution.
I am sorry that no mention has been made about Nigeria and the need for an improvement in our relations with that great African country. I wish that we could return to the state of affairs which existed when the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was Foreign Secretary. But I realise that the difficulties arise from attitudes which are hard for us to understand, especially when we made such a substantial contribution to the unity of Nigeria at a time when it looked as if it was going to be permanently split by civil war.
The Foreign Secretary has also played a leading part in establishing contacts with Eastern Europe, and the value of these contacts may be recognised sooner than one thinks. The need for patience in diplomacy, which also demands discretion and secrecy, is unhappily so often in conflict with public demands constantly stimulated by present-day Western journalism. This journalism looks for sensation, conflict and quick solutions, and seems sometimes indifferent to whether these solutions are good or bad. But it is, I suppose, only human to be unwilling to allow the slow processes of confidential diplomacy to mature. An international impatience is, indeed, at the centre of two of the main problems which face us today: the question of the

69
subjects which are arising at the summit meeting and of South Africa.
As the date of the summit draws near, the negotiators in this supremely important meeting are tempted to throw their energies into rival propaganda ploys. This may be inevitable, but the more they do so the further they push agreement into the future. Mr. Gorbachev must be amazed at the sycophancy of some of the Western press, and he would not be human if he did not try to exploit it. The supreme example, which I am sure did not escape some of your Lordships, was the senior editor of a famous American weekly who gushed to Mr. Gorbachev: "Do you realise that all the West is in love with your wife?"
Would it not be better for the protagonists to try to find their way in privacy through the immensely complicated nuclear issues which are largely beyond the grasp of those not privy to the scientific secrets and capabilities of the rival forces? The President seems to me more ready than Mr. Gorbachev to see the merits of confidential exchanges. Of course, the level of nuclear armaments is not the only issue at stake in Geneva. The summit will be affected by long-standing political problems which do not directly involve either the United States or the USSR, and are certainly not capable of rapid resolution. We have simply got to be patient in the search for reconciliation, not in one but in several conflicts.
The military danger of the present situation between the super powers is frequently and deliberately exaggerated by both powers. More important than the supposed danger of apocalyptic conflict is, I suggest, the colossal waste of resources expended on armaments. Every country, not least our own and the USSR, has pressing human demands which are put aside in favour of military needs. We must therefore pray for significant agreements at the summit, but we should be satisfied if a genuine process is set in motion which may ultimately bring such agreements nearer. There is hope of this. I see no reason to doubt the President's sincerity; and there is a new regime in Moscow. We do not yet know what, if anything, it has learned from past failures or what are the objectives of these more modem men who turn more human faces to the TV cameras. Previously, elderly Russian leaders have been obsessed by the past. I do not believe that this obsession necessarily extends to the new generation.
What is the United Kingdom's role? I think that we must be more than just spectators shouting from the touchline. We are not without experience or ideas, and we must deploy these assets. As far as our own nuclear forces are concerned, the Foreign Secretary is well able to judge if and when they can play a part in the negotiations. In the meantime, I strongly support the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Home, who recently in this House said that we should be more certain of the future of the non-proliferation agreement before we lower our own guard.
May I now turn to Southern Africa, which must necessarily dominate any debate on foreign affairs. It is very difficult to expect the black population and international opinion to exercise greater patience than they have already done. Nevertheless, I believe the Government's policy on sanctions is the correct one for the time being, leaving aside our own commercial
70
interests and their relation to employment. I have e very much in mind my own experience of the fiasco of the sanctions against Rhodesia. Many of those who cried out for sanctions against Mr. Smith's regime were either in no way affected themselves or, as one found out subsequently, were among the most energetic in evading them. They struck poses in the United Nations but disregarded the resolutions for which they ostentatiously voted.
The same would happen, I fear, all over again; and the obstinate and wrong-headed policies of President Botha in any case cause potential investors to hold back without any prompting from their governments. That may in the long run have a practical effect on South African policy. I have studied in recent weeks statements made by Chief Buthelezi and Oliver Tambo of the ANC, and I have listened to them talk in public and in private. As I interpret what they say, neither believes that the transition from apartheid to some form of acceptable multi-racial democracy can take place other than by gradual steps if a total collapse and intolerable human suffering is to be avoided.
May I give just one example? I think that savage sanctions would hit the growing number of highly efficient black workers to be seen in the factories of South Africa today and on whom the country must eventually rely. But it must be admitted that there is no sign of a change of heart on the part of the South African Government. However, history has seen examples of surprising changes, and one has only to think of what happened between France and Algeria.
I can myself see no possible justification for Her Majesty's Government keeping Oliver Tambo at arm's length. They have constantly taken the public attitude that the PLO must eventually be involved in a Middle East settlement. Why should not the ANC be accorded comparable treatment? I think history shows that calls for violence to be renounced are very seldom successful. Violence is only renounced once negotiations have advanced a certain way towards a settlement.
Had time permitted, I should like to have spoken about the Middle East. The chances of reaching a settlement of the Palestine question are obviously slim, and one is tempted to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and for the United Kingdom to wash its hands of the situation. But I do not think that is the right thing to do. It is surely right constantly to work away at the problem—Her Majesty's Government can, and do, do that—and to hope that one day the pieces, however surprisingly, will fall into place.
A new factor is surely the chastening experience, both militarily and economically, that Israel has had to undergo. These experiences, coupled with a new generation of leaders—just off stage—must give some expectation of a relaxation of the totally and often understandably rigid attitude that the Israeli Government has had to adopt. Furthermore, the self-destructive attitude of Arab factions and governments surely cannot continue for ever. If President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev can draw somewhat closer together, a way may be found, and I should like to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say about a future role for the USSR in a Middle East settlement.

71
May I now turn very briefly to a subject which is perhaps of lesser importance than the great questions that I have touched on: that is, the vexed question of the Foreign Office Vote, including the money for overseas aid, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred. I had hoped that the penny-pinching was going to stop, but I am not sure that it has. However, I have detected a more favourable attitude both in this House and in the other place towards the work of the Foreign Office. I thought for a happy moment that even the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was going to praise the Foreign Office, but what he gave with one hand he took away with the other. I was tempted to point out that I thought most of our troubles in UNESCO, for example, derived from the fact that we always had too many academics in our delegations.
I should like to draw attention to the views expressed in the House of Lords Select Committee on Overseas Trade, and particularly to the recommendation which says:
"The Committee call for a greater awareness by everyone, including the Government, of the attitudes and policies of competitor industry and their governments."
This is in part the work of our overseas missions and they should, I submit, have the resources to carry it out.
Another aspect of Foreign Office work which is often forgotten and to which I have drawn attention in the past is the administration of the few remaining territories of the British Empire. It is important work, and it is work which should be done well—for example, in St. Helena. Is the Minister satisfied that everything possible is being done?
Lastly, this debate is intended to cover defence matters, and I have only one point I should like to raise. That is: is the Ministry of Defence sure that the decline of our United Kingdom manufacturing base in some areas is not threatening our defence capability? It is not difficult to think of which industries previously made a great contribution to our defence and which are no longer able to do so. Fifteen years ago I would have been less hesitant about intervening in a foreign affairs debate, and I then had access to official papers and intelligence. I could have confidence in my own opinions. That is no longer so, and for this reason I should greatly like to have reassurance from Ministers on some of the points I have raised.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I also should like to pay tribute to our two maiden speakers today, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Forres. Both in substance and presentation they spoke very well, and it was most agreeable to listen to them.
I should like to concentrate on our membership of UNESCO, which straddles all three topics of our debate today—foreign affairs, overseas aid and also defence (because ideology now much affects defence). This matter was debated in your Lordships' House on 25th January 1984 in a debate introduced by the late and much lamented Lord Vaizey, when many of the arguments were rehearsed.
In the last year or two critics of UNESCO have made much of the alleged large-scale corruption and
72
nepotism under Mr. M'Bow, the Secretary-General, and also of his high-handed methods. This type of criticism diverts attention from a far more serious and fundamental matter. This is the deep-seated and longstanding hostility to the West in UNESCO. Moreover, corruption and favouritism, especially the former, can be constrained by effective financial control and other reforms. Hostility to the West cannot be so restrained in the face of the much greater ideological self-confidence of the Soviet bloc and the built-in great majority of third world countries. It is idle to suppose that membership of UNESCO improves our standing in the third world.
I shall instance only one example of this hostility and of our supine response to it—an instance which long antedates Mr. M'Bow's tenure. As I mentioned in this House before, on the centenary of Lenin's birth in April 1970 UNESCO resolved to invite all member governments to pay tribute to his memory as a great humanist. How did the United Kingdom delegate vote? He abstained. Lenin was indeed a towering figure. But to term a great humanist the founder and organiser of a ruthless totalitarian state reflects perversion of the language and also entrenched anti-Western sentiment. Both of these characteristics are endemic in UNESCO. The promised administrative and financial reforms will not even touch these characteristics, much less abate or remove them. The specific example which I instanced is particularly apposite today, as 7th November is the exact anniversary of the October revolution masterminded by Lenin.
We should withdraw from UNESCO and use the money saved to support the British Council and the BBC's external services. Our participation in UNESCO is anomalous. The longer an anomalous policy is pursued and the greater its political and financial costs, the more difficult it becomes to question the principles and methods in the names of which the sacrifices have been exacted.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caradon referred to the words in the gracious Speech:
"My Government continues to attach the highest importance to the maintenance of national security and the preservation of peace with freedom and justice";
and he laid special stress on those last four words "with freedom and justice". It is interesting to find, if noble Lords will look at the gracious Speeches of the last seven or eight years, that on each occasion there has been an assertion that the Government are going to work for peace, but it has been, as the Americans have put it, "peace period", without the addition of "freedom and justice". This year we have made the important conclusion that the object of policy is not merely the preservation of peace, but the preservation of peace with freedom and justice.
I think that that has a significance in two ways. One way is that if you allow injustice to go on long enough, you will not be able to preserve peace and that is what is happening in South Africa. It has been pointed out in the course of the debate that South Africa is not the only country where tyranny is practised. There are a great many tyrannies in the world and it would be hard

73
to say which are the more wicked or the more cruel. But I would say that, of all the kinds of tyranny there are, tyranny that is based on racial discrimination is the most dangerous to the peace of the world, because if you say to a man "Because of your skin colour, you and your descendants are to be permanently deprived"——
Lord Burton: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider tribal warfare to be racial?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Yes, my Lords, I think I do. The only trouble is that in South Africa it has been practised on so much larger a scale and with so many more instruments of destruction. The point I was making was that when you say to a man that, because of his race or his skin colour, he is to be permanently deprived of political rights, you do him an insult that nothing will wipe out and an insult that not only he resents, but that other people of his race, or similar races throughout the world, resent. That is why what is happening in South Africa has now become an issue of world importance.
I would simply say this to the Government. They have six months in which to decide what they are going to do. I merely suggest that if they are content with what the Prime Minister called "a teeny bit", it will not meet the needs of the situation in six months' time. Therefore, I hope that they will give the matter rather more serious consideration than the Prime Minister appears to be giving it at the present time.
But this connection between peace and freedom and justice works the other way as well. It would be quite easy for us all to say, "Yes, we have a policy of peace. We are not going to have any weapons, we are not going to fight anybody and then we shall be at peace". If we said that, we should not have either freedom or very much justice. I think it is our policy generally—and I trust that it is the policy in every quarter of the House—that we want to preserve the peace, but to do it consistently with the maintenance of freedom and justice. That is why we cannot accept in any form the doctrine that this country or its allies should, by themselves, deprive themselves of nuclear weapons, irrespective of what happens in the rest of the world because, whatever its effect on peace, that would be a sacrifice of freedom and justice.
Some months ago, when questions of armaments in East and West were being discussed, the main issue was: What ought to happen about cruise missiles? Should they be deployed in European countries? There was much argument one way and the other. One of the arguments adduced was: if we allow cruise missiles to be deployed in Western Europe, the Russians have said that they will not carry on any further disarmament negotiations; they will not come back to the conference table. Therefore, it was argued, we must abandon cruise missiles in order to get the Russians to the conference table.
If we had abandoned them, what would have happened? We would seriously have weakened the strength and the mutual credibility of the members of the Atlantic Alliance. We should have created a situation in which there were these weapons in Eastern Europe, but not in Western Europe; the balance would have been heavily against us and the Russians would
74
not have come to the conference table. Why should they do so? What would they have gained by coming to any conference table, when they had gained all they wanted without? By maintaining that we would have the deployment of cruise missiles, we have maintained, or at least put in better shape, the military balance between East and West, and we have apparently created a situation in which the Russians are willing to discuss disarmament matters with us.
However, I most earnestly hope—and here I think I have the agreement of a number of noble Lords who spoke earlier—that the approach to the Summit will not be marked by magnificent displays, the slamming down of cards on the table and impressive offers. I think that my Leader, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, made this point at the very beginning of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said something similar as well and it has been generally echoed. What happens? If one side makes an impressive offer that involves, perhaps, some concession on what it had previously said, then, if later on it goes any further beyond that it will be accused of climbing down. It has nailed itself to a particular niche and there it is. This is what is in danger of happening if we have these series of highly publicised offers. It is significant that the first stages of the SALT agreements—the exercise in agreed disarmament which was probably most successful—were conducted in strict privacy; and that is why I believe they had the limited success they had. I hope that will be remembered in the future.
I was a little surprised also that President Reagan should have wanted to bring into the argument at this stage a number of regional disputes which we quite properly have with the Soviet Union and of which Afghanistan is perhaps the best known. I do not believe that in the course of one summit we are going to be able to set the framework for agreed disarmament and solve all these regional disputes as well. One must proceed more slowly and more carefully than that. But there is this at least that the Soviet Union should remember about Afghanistan. There are some genuine differences of opinion in Western Europe as to what are the intentions of the Soviet Government. They range from the blackest conclusions drawn by the more extreme right wing in the United States to the most facile optimism to be found in Western Europe. Between those two extremes there is a whole spectrum of judgments.
What the Soviet Union is doing in Afghanistan is quite clearly shifting the balance of public opinion towards those who believe that the Soviet Union is a danger, that its purposes are aggressive, that we must conduct our foreign policy accordingly, and that if the Soviet Union wants to get any improvement, either in the field of disarmanent or in any other, it had better reconsider its policy in Afghanistan, which personally I believe it could do now without any great loss.
We have all read of the young defector who turned up at the American Embassy and whose pronouncement on the matter was that he did not like Afghanistan and wanted to go home—an attitude which I think did not distinguish him from the other 105,000 Soviet citizens who find themselves serving in that country. The Soviet Government may very well ask themselves now whether any real purpose is being

75
served by this adventure. I am told—I do not know whether it is true—that, wherever else they are read or not read, the debates in this House are earnestly studied by the Soviet Government. Having said that, I leave them to make what they can of the suggestion I have just thrown out to them.
There is only one other topic I should like to mention; that is, what is popularly called star wars. I put forward the view, which I have not heard expressed elsewhere, that this is not so important and will not prove to be so important or revolutionary a matter as is sometimes supposed. At one stage President Reagan was speaking as though this invention was going to give us permanent security, assured security, against having nuclear weapons dropped on us; that is to say, 100 per cent. reliability. I never believed that because I have never known of any human invention that has had that degree of reliability.
We all know of the splendid and magnificent operations which the United States has carried out in space—in satellites, in voyages to the moon, and so on—and we know that quite often there have been mistakes. Things did not happen when they were intended to happen and they had to be done all over again. I have not the slightest doubt that that happens in the Soviet Union too; only it does not tell us about it. The Americans always obligingly tell us when they get anything wrong, as well as when they get anything right. I do not believe therefore that anyone has invented or is likely to invent something that will make it permanently impossible for people to drop nuclear weapons on us.
What I think is possible is that they will make it very much more difficult, that the process of defence against nuclear bombardment will be stronger than it is at the present time, and that in due course this will be true on both sides—the Russians have already made some progress in this field and will make more—but I do not believe it will be more than that. We should make a mistake if we supposed that something has happened which completely revolutionises the whole problem of nuclear war. What has happened is that the defence against nuclear weapons is rather stronger than it was, but we have no certainty that it is 100 per cent. or that the degree of success so far achieved or likely to be achieved will be maintained. I hope therefore that the British Government will not be too eager in talking as though this invention was a gold mine to help the afflicted British economy. That is not a particularly wise way to behave.
One thing has always puzzled me. Perhaps somebody on the Government Front Bench will be able to help me about this. I think I may reasonably ask the House to believe that it has never been a habit of mine to decry the necessity for military expenditure or to argue that expenditure on social affairs was always necessarily to be preferred to defence expenditure. But I feel obliged to say this. If anyone recommends that you spend public money on building houses that are badly needed or on repairing derelict schools, you are told that these are not real jobs, that this does not really solve the unemployment problem, that there is something bogus about this and that it is
76
inflationary. I can see that it is inflationary if you do it with borrowed money. I have never seen it as inflationary if you have the nerve to collect the taxes to pay for it.
Exactly the same is true of expenditure on taking any part in the development of the star wars process. If it is reasonable, as the Government apparently think, to spend public money on taking some part in the production of the hardware of star wars, why is it unreasonable to spend public money on houses and schools? I cannot see why one should be more inflationary or less desirable than the other. Nothing I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench on this topic has convinced me to the contrary. When the noble Lord winds up tonight perhaps he will try again to explain this matter to me.
What I am saying is that both expenditure for the purposes of peace and expenditure for the purposes of war can be inflationary or can be very sensible, according to how you finance it. If you finance it properly—you do not do it by extravagant borrowing—you can go ahead with either. But now we find that the Government are saying, "We are going to be able to spend quite a lot of public money in the contracts we shall get arising from star wars; we are pursuing a policy on the Falklands which at any rate is bound to cost us a fair amount of money in the near future". I do not quarrel with that, because I believe it is necessary, at any rate for the near future. Yet the Government say at the same time that they are going to reduce taxes. I wonder whether they have worked out the sum and whether it really will work.
Nothing could be more dangerous than to engage in a defence and foreign policy which involved further expenditure on military matters without having considered where the money will come from to pay for it. I have raised this matter before with the Government and the Minister has always replied that after all he is only a Defence Minister and that these monetary matters are beyond him. I am paraphrasing a little what he said, but that was what it came to. Perhaps I shall get a more encouraging reply this evening.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by echoing the tributes that have been paid by other noble Lords to the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Forres. As has been said, they were indeed distinguished maiden speeches. I should have liked to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, in his inquiry into the affairs of UNESCO. I should have liked to support his view that this organisation is one for which our country can have very little use and from which the Government should—as they have given notice they will do—withdraw at the end of this year.
However, there are other matters with which I wish to deal. Before I come to my main remarks I will deal with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, whose views on these matters I have always respected and still respect. However, it is not true that President Reagan ever said that the strategic defence initiative would or could produce 100 per cent. leakproof defence. If the noble Lord will accept that from me, and if he will also refer to

77
President Reagan's speech of 23rd March 1983, I believe he will find that such is a fallacy largely bred by inaccurate press reporting.
I should like to spend a few minutes drawing attention to what I believe to be a very serious weakness which has emerged in the arrangements for our national security. When we speak of defence we tend to think principally—sometimes exclusively—of defence in the physical sense: the provision of armed forces and their equipment, designed to deter a military attack by a potential enemy or to defend ourselves effectively if deterrence should fail.
It can be argued that a much more serious threat to the survival of this country and its free institutions comes not from the movement of armoured divisions across frontiers or even the possibility of a sudden nuclear attack. Of course, it is important that we should continue—as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has just forcefully said—to provide ourselves with adequate defences against military threat. In this context, I confess to being considerably alarmed at reports and rumours which have been circulating recently about the possibility of substantial cuts in the defence budget.
I should like to recall the definitive comment on this matter made by a former Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Denis Healey, in another place. He said:
"Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools., We have a heap of cinders".—[Official Report. Commons, 5/3/69; col. 551.]
That comment remains as true today as when Mr. Healey first made it.
Today I want to concentrate on a different aspect of the threat; the threat that exists in the world of intelligence, security, and counter-intelligence. It will profit us very little, however strong may be our physical defences, if we cannot take steps to ensure not only that our secrets remain secret but that the people of this country are able to resist the spread of totalitarianism without having their resolve undermined and weakened.
The scope of operations generally referred to nowadays as "intelligence" is no longer confined to the simple business of acquiring details of the armed forces and military defences of foreign countries. It has now spread into that area which embraces activities, known in phrases translated from the Russian, such as "active measures" and "disinformation". This is an area of operation in which the international department and the international information department working together in Moscow and collaborating with the KGB have mounted a massive and orchestrated programme designed expressly to destroy the will of the West to resist the expansion of Soviet power and influence.
Its targets, which have already been comprehensively and effectively penetrated, include all the institutions of a free democratic society; schools, universities, the press, the electronic media, the Civil Service and the political establishment itself. That operation employs front organisations and exploits the activities of so-called peace and protest movements.
It has been estimated by intelligence sources of the West that somewhere around 15,000 Soviet citizens
78
are employed full time in the implementation of Soviet active measures, and it has a budget very similar in size to that which we spend on the whole of our nuclear deterrent. Against this massive and organised effort the democracies of the West have no systematic defence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for allowing me to intervene. He has given the House some vital information. Where is the leak in Russia from which all that information has come? The Russians do not appear to be very good at concealing such information if it can be revealed so easily.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord would not seriously expect me to reveal a whole list of sources of information in your Lordships' House. As a matter of fact, the figures I gave are in the public domain and were not received by me from any arcane sources
As I was saying, against all that massive effort the democracies of the West have no systematic defence. That is partly because they are democracies and are understandably reluctant to use the weapons of disruption and deception in peacetime. However, we must be careful not to allow a too punctilious regard for the proprieties of the diplomatic process to place us in a position where those very democratic processes which we seek to preserve are in danger of being weakened and destroyed.
There is considerable evidence that, as matters stand at the moment, the Soviet Union is winning the war of intelligence, security and counter-intelligence. Let us be in no doubt that it is a war. This is psychological warfare and, in common with international terrorism, which is another form of low intensity warfare against the West, it poses a threat as formidable and as immediate as the massive military apparatus of the Warsaw Pact.
As I have said, there is clear evidence that the Soviet Union is winning that war. We have learnt recently of the serious penetration of the United States Navy by Soviet agents. We had our own security disasters at the Government Communications Headquarters and elsewhere. The most recent episode involves a high-ranking KGB officer who first defected to the United States and has now returned to the Soviet Union. Whether that defection was genuine, and the Soviet Union subsequently found means of bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Yurchenko to persuade him to return to the Soviet Union, or whether the whole affair was a deliberately planned KGB operation from the beginning, is not yet clear. Certainly President Reagan, in his press conference yesterday, did not dismiss the latter possibility.
Whatever may be the truth of that latest bizarre incident, it has certainly turned out to be, in the final analysis, a clear tactical victory for the KGB. A short while ago we had a similar case in this country, when Mr. Oleg Bitov returned to the Soviet Union after defecting to Britain in 1983. Mr. Bitov is now back in his old job in Moscow—a circumstance which is scarcely consistent with his having been a genuine defector from the Soviet Union. There remains the possibility that he, too, was a KGB plant. Whatever

79
the truth of the matter in that case, Soviet intelligence probably got far more mileage out of the whole episode than we were able to get out of Mr. Bitov.
Where the KGB certainly scored a notable triumph was in the communications headquarters in Cyprus. I must say at once that I have no wish, in raising this matter, to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. I am fully aware of the implications, in the fields of both the law and security, of the present situation in this case. I recognise also that the whole affair is already undergoing investigation by two separate bodies; the Security Commission and the committee under Mr. Calcutt. It would, however, be irresponsible for anyone concerned with the security of the country and of the West not to recognise that serious damage has been done. Whatever discreet and non-commital a position the Government may take, it is clear beyond doubt to anyone with any knowledge of these matters that there were serious—gravely serious—breaches of security in Cyprus.
The Government would only say, in a recent exchange in your Lordships' House on this subject, that there appeared to be breaches of security at the time when the investigations began. May I, then, ask the Minister quite specifically to say, when he replies to the debate, whether anything has happened since the investigations began to cause the Government to alter their view? If, as I suspect, nothing has changed that view, then another question must be asked, although I would not expect the Minister to be able to answer this directly. If the breaches of security did take place, and if they were not committed by those who were acquitted of them, then by whom were they committed? Here I should like to pose a question to the Government which I believe is legitimate and to which I should like to hear an answer at the end of the debate. Is anyone else in Cyprus, or anywhere else, under suspicion or investigation relating to these breaches of security?
If the answer to both my questions is no, that there has been nothing to alter the Government's view that there were serious breaches of security and that no one else is either under suspicion or investigation, then we shall be in a position to draw certain conclusions—conclusions which, I must say, appear to me to be obvious already.
This matter is too important simply to be allowed to disappear from sight. It is important for two reasons. The first is that having succeeded in penetrating the communications base in Cyprus the KGB was then presented with an uncovenanted bonus in the form of an uproar in the British press directed not, as one might have supposed, at Soviet espionage but at the British Government, the security service, the Special Branch, the Royal Air Force police and indeed against anyone who seemed to be more concerned with defending our security than attacking it. The whole orchestrated campaign—much of it ill-considered and most of it ill-informed—bore all the hallmarks of minds conditioned by years of subtle and powerful disinformation and "active measures".
The second and most important reason, which many of those who attacked the Government and the security services seemed to ignore, is that the informa-
80
tion which the Russians obtained from Cyprus is not low-level, bread-and-butter, intelligence. This is not a question of the number of tanks in an armoured division or the number of warheads in a missile. This is information which goes to the very heart of the safety and security of the western world. It affects the ability of an enemy at some time in the future to calculate when a surprise move of some kind—military, diplomatic, terrorist or subversive—might be able to shift the balance of power substantially and irreversibly against the western world. It might be as well for some still small voice to go on repeating that fact in the uproar about the way in which the matter was investigated.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord told us that the conclusions to be drawn from what he has been saying about the Cyprus affair are obvious. Will he tell the House whether he is advocating the abolition of the jury system or the execution of these particular jurors, and, if not, what his practical recommendation would be?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I have no practical recommendation and nor did I suggest one. I merely said that if we are told that there were grave breaches of security in Cyprus and if they were not committed by those who were acquitted when accused, then by whom were they committed? Is anyone else under suspicion or investigation? I merely said that when we have the answers to those questions we can draw certain conclusions. I make no recommendations. Frankly, for the noble Lord to suggest that in asking those questions I am mounting an attack on the jury system is to go way over the top, and I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that.
In conclusion, I return to the more general issue. I repeat that we are the target of a ruthless and effective campaign of psychological warfare. Our enemies have already begun to succeed to an extent which the great majority of people in this country have so far failed to realise. I do not suggest that the record of the KGB is one of unbroken success; nor do I suggest for one moment that our intelligence and security services have not had their own successes. However, I do suggest that we do not have in this country, nor do we have in many other western countries, adequate machinery to contain and defeat this threat.
Last year President Reagan initiated in the United States a programme of improvements in the counterintelligence and security organisations of the United States to defend that country against Soviet intelligence and active measures. He suggested at the time that other democratic countries might like to follow suit but so far there seems to be no great urgency to do so. I should therefore like to put a specific proposal to Her Majesty's Government. It is that in addition to our existing intelligence, counterintelligence and security services there should be set up in this country a special agency specifically charged with our own psychological warfare programme and our own defences against the psychological warfare of our potential enemies. It would of course have to be in constant liaison with the existing intelligence and security services but its main function would be to ensure that the Soviet Union would have to work far

81
harder for its successes than it apparently needs to do at the moment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take this proposal seriously and not just as an odd idea thrown up in the course of the debate.
I am fully aware, and have been for many years, of the dangers of appearing to be a prophet of apocalyptic doom. I cannot, however, resist the observation that anyone surveying the contemporary scene might be forgiven for believing that the values of freedon and democracy are beginning to disintegrate. The appalling increase in political and criminal violence at home and the widespread contempt for law, order and authority are already cause for widespread and grave concern. To that we now have to add the sombre realisation that the forces of oppression and totalitarianism are beginning to win significant victories; not only in South-East Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East, but also on the American continent and closer to home in Europe, and here in the United Kingdom. They are doing so against societies which appear, to me at any rate, to be corroded by apathy, cynicism and a high degree of political expediency. I believe that it is time for those of us who live in a free society, for the present at any rate, to go over to the attack.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in joining in the congratulations to the right reverend Prelate and expressing the hope that he will address us again I have something specific in mind. It was I think unexpected for many noble Lords that after he spoke on the importance and efficacy of overseas aid he should have given, as his example, South Korea. Perhaps if I were a better student of Crockfords I might have guessed.
But the point I make is this: will the right reverend Prelate on some future occasion when we are discussing this grave and important issue of overseas aid tell us whether he thinks that it was the aid which made it possible for Korea to become no longer a developing country but one of the major industrial countries in the world, or was it something about the Koreans which other countries which have also received massive aid do not themselves possess? In other words, is this an exception to the general rule that prosperity and progress are the result of efforts of individual people and that foreign aid can do no more than occasionally remove an obstacle in their way?
I would also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forres, but since he spoke he has apparently returned to the antipodes: no doubt his flocks demand attention. If he returns among us it will be useful to hear again how this European question is looked at, as it should be from time to time, from the other end of the world.
I spend a good deal of time as a professional historian trying to explain some of the weaknesses and failings of this country over the period of my lifetime, and gradually I have come to the conclusion that the party complexion of governments—which, of course, as politicians, we are concerned about, whether Conservative or Labour, and I was born under the last Liberal Government—matters less than the more durable institutions, notably the public service. I oscillate in thinking sometimes how much better we
82
would have done without the Treasury and at other times how much better we would have done without the Foreign Office. I vary. But when I find the Treasury and the Foreign Office on the same side, I begin to smell a rat.
I have in mind something which was the subject of a long and very informative article in the current issue of The Economist newpaper, dated 1st November, entitled "British Cultural Diplomacy". The Foreign Office and the Treasury appear to have played into each other's hands, not only over recent years but over recent decades, by downgrading the importance of the projection overseas of Britain and British culture, British learning and British education. The Foreign Office prefers diplomacy and the Treasury thinks it can save money, but among all our competitors-—for example, the United States, Japan, France or Germany—we seem to be the odd man out. We seem to attach less importance to the teaching overseas of our language, less importance to the attraction of students to our universities, and less importance to the commerce of ideas, which themselves, though the Treasury will never admit it, are ultimately productive of material as well as spiritual benefit.
The fact that once again no reference appears in the gracious Speech to the matter of cultural diplomacy, to use the phrase of The Economist (though I might think of a better one), and to the importance of projecting our ideas—I would not dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in believing that these basic ideas of our society are too little propagated at home and abroad—is to me a matter of regret. I am aware that the Government are chary about the matter of public expenditure, and therefore it seems to me that they ought to use the windfall of £6½million which we would save on our subscription to UNESCO in order to give more money to the British Council, more particularly, in the light of economic considerations among others, to increase the flow of persons coming to study in this country.
A good deal has been said about UNESCO by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and by my noble friend Lord Bauer, but I think that neither of them really put it in what seems to me to be the important context, which is how far it is in fact carrying out the basic functions which its founders intended for it. I would not disagree with either the description of the politics of it, as given by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, or the administrative and personnel failings, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, dwelt with his usual sharpness of comment; but what strikes me as important is that of all the family of the United Nations it is the only institution which does not seem to recognise that it was given a particular assignment, and it dabbles in other people's affairs.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation deals with some of the basic problems of our natural environment. It has done and is doing very important work. The World Health Organisation has had its weaknesses, no doubt, but it has helped to eradicate some major diseases and there are large areas of the surface of the globe which are healthier in consequence of its work. Education and science—the interchange of ideas, the preservation of the heritage of past civilisations, and the furthering of knowledge—were the objectives entrusted to UNESCO. They are not the

83
objectives which it has been seeking. On the contrary, it has overlapped its interests. I think it is now discussing football violence and the Iraq-Iran war, neither of which seems to me to be very directly concerned with scientific interchange. Moreover, it has neglected to tackle some of the major obstacles to scientific interchange—in particular, those difficulties, which any who have had dealings with the Soviet Union will know, about the freedom of access of their scholars to this country and of our scholars to theirs. One might think that that is an area on which an international organisation devoted to international science and international learning might have spent a little more time. Therefore, it seems to me that even if some minor administrative reforms are forthcoming this will still not be a justification for the United Kingdom Government going back on their notice.
I have received a document from the Keep Britain in UNESCO campaign, sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and other "eminences", so I am aware that not everyone takes the same view. They point to the fact that a report of a committee in the other place recommended that, provided there were certain reforms, which they specified, the notice should be withdrawn. I hope I shall not create a constitutional crisis when I say that this report does little credit to the other place and its committees. I have rarely seen so superficial an inquiry into so important a topic. No witnesses who were critical of UNESCO were called; the witnesses were exclusively either officials defending their own position (and in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, we have been represented on the executive board by former civil servants and not by academics) or those whose general attitude was likely to be favourable.
It is true that there were representations from the Royal Society and from certain other professional bodies, but the interesting point is that, if one reads with care the evidence of those bodies, what it leads to is not the conclusion at which the committee arrived. It is clear from what they say that important and irreplaceable work on an international scale and size—particularly, for instance, in relation to oceanography and in relation to world geological features—is done by associations of scientists of the relevant competence, and that, at best, UNESCO is merely a somewhat clumsy way of funding the work of these bodies. There is no reason, therefore, to believe that our withdrawal from UNESCO would in any way hamper the pursuit of its legitimate objectives and that, on the contrary, because the bodies that run these affairs would not have to take into account, as a United Nations body has to do, the even representation of countries irrespective of their expertise, it might be done a great deal better.
At this late hour I would not wish to detain your Lordships further. I believe that the case has been made by speakers before me. I should, however, like to come back to where I began. It is vitally important that the British Government should appreciate that there is a strong feeling abroad that Britain, somehow or other—this links with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said—has got tired of itself, tired of its virtues and tired of its institutions. Otherwise, why, unlike the French, the Germans and the Japanese, do
84
we feel that making them known to the world is not an object worth spending money on?
7.21 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in congratulating the two maiden speakers this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Forres, and the right reverend Prelate, I would like to make a particular plea that the right reverend Prelate speaks here often. We very much need the voices of compassion so far as overseas aid and our links with the third world are concerned. It is that theme on which I want to concentrate.
Before doing so, may I just say that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has made it easy for me to pass briefly over the subject of South Africa on which I have spoken here so many times. I would simply say in answer to the noble Marquess who attacked the conclusions, if not the analysis, of my noble friend—the conclusions particularly regarding sanctions—that I would have thought that it was an established principle of Western democracy, and particularly of British democracy throughout its evolution, that where individuals are prevented from achieving constitutional reform they are entitled to violent revolution. So long as you cut off the channels of constitutional reform, surely you are inviting violent revolution.
Secondly, I would say to him that in his quoting of international law—it was a selective quoting—he appears to have ignored totally the fact that the South African regime is occupying Namibia against international law and has been invading and bombing her neighbours in Angola, in Botswana, in Lesotho and in Mozambique totally against international law.
However, I really want to concentrate on that part of the gracious Speech with which the right reverend Prelate dealt. I refer to the sentence:
"They will maintain"—
that is, the Government will maintain—
"a substantial aid programme".
In her opening speech the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the Government believing in the vital role of aid and went on to suggest that the Government were going to maintain a substantial aid programme. The phrases, "A substantial aid programme" and "The vital role of aid" surely require some examination. If we take as a fair comparison the countries of the OECD and those members of the development association committee, total aid from those countries in 1984 increased in real terms by 6 per cent. The aid of the United Kingdom fell by 3 per cent. The contribution of the United Kingdom had come down in 1984 to a figure of 0.33 per cent. of our gross national product. In contrast, the OECD and the United Nations target is 0.7 per cent. to which we are supposed to subscribe. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and France have all exceeded 0.7 per cent. How can they do it and not us?
Is this commensurate with the boasting that the Government have done about their generous aid programme and their generous assistance to Africa, assistance that has not added one penny to the aid budget over the past year, as the noble Baroness herself has had to admit in questioning? During the same time, that same year of 1984, when British aid was

85
reduced by 3 per cent., there were large increases in overseas aid from what countries? Not just the wealthiest countries, but Italy, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, and, perhaps most significant of all, Japan. How is it that British aid is falling at the same time as the aid of other countries, also suffering from world depression, according to the Government's own description, are able to increase their aid and increase it substantially? Why this contrast? I would suggest that it fits in very readily with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have been saying. We seem, so far as the Government are concerned, to have forgotten our role and not to care about our role in the world.
This Government have shown that they are a grudging donor—and a grudging donor just at the time when this grudging attitude is so much in contrast to the wave of compassion and generosity shown by the British people. This Government are out of step with the feelings of the British people. Britain is one of only three countries to have reduced aid in real terms over the past six years since this Government came to office. From 1978–79 to 1983–84, only three countries reduced their aid. The other two reduced their aid by no more than 0.3 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. British aid went down, on average, 6 per cent. per annum. And as our gross national product was also falling and has only just reached the point at which this Government took it over in 1979, so the monetary effect of this has been so much greater.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, leaves this subject may I ask him this question. Does he equate giving more with doing better, regardless of the political and economic effects of aid?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord will wait for the rest of my speech I think he will see that I meet this point. But in any case what I am doing at the moment is contrasting the Government's pretentions of generosity in aid with the actuality of their constant reduction in aid.
I realise—and I should like this to be debated much more often and widely in this House—that there is a necessity for discussing the form that aid takes. There is a necessity for discussing the institutions in this country which control and organise overseas aid. But there seems to be a general attitude on the part of this Government, rather like that which we have seen today towards the black population of South Africa, that we in Britain, we in the British Government or we in 10 Downing Street know better than they do what they need.
I refer just to two institutions. The first is the aid trade provision which was introduced in 1977, which it is now suggested may go to the Department of Trade and Industry rather than to the Overseas Development Administration. I see a case for transferring the organisation of the aid and trade provision to the Department of Trade and Industry, but if it goes surely we must insist that that is not at the expense of a reduction in the aid budget. The other institution is the export credit guarantee department, which also has a part to play both in aid and in trade. It seems from its operations as though the Treasury was constantly in charge and that the Government were much more
86
concerned with the cash flow of the public service borrowing requirement rather than the long-term trading strategy for which this institution is designed.
I much prefer to quote from non-socialist sources—even from anti-socialist sources—than from socialists sources; they are so much more effective for our case. I should like to make one or two quotations from a document recently sent to me, not by any socialist or left-wing organisation but by a business group, the Export Group for Construction Industries. The first quotation comes from a comparison between the attitude of the British and the attitude of the French in the use of their aid budget. The quotation is simple:
"The English came and could not offer help to build a hospital, whereas the French came with a loan and a designer and a contractor all tied together".
From my experience, particularly of the past year, that seems to sum up the contrast in attitude towards British and French aid and indeed between aid from other competitors of this country.
I want to link the sentence that I quoted from the gracious Speech to another sentence on the following page of the gracious Speech, because this is the nub of my argument and of my question to the Government. On the second page, the gracious Speech states:
"my Government will do all in their power to encourage the growth of new jobs".
I suggest that there is a direct relationship between the degree of overseas aid provided by a Government and employment in this country. I want to ask this question of the noble Lord who is to reply. I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I have publicly examined the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ex-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I still have no answer. Do this Government regard overseas trade as charity or investment?
I should like a straight answer to that question in this context. I shall not weary your Lordships with quotations that I have given before of instances where aid and trade have been seen as directly related to the industry of this country and places like Bathgate. and the figures given by the Ministry of Overseas Development. What I can say, on the authority of the group that I quoted before, is that the British construction industry estimates that if it achieved only the same degree of overseas performance as the French construction industry this would add between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. to the number of jobs it could offer in this country; and that does not include the suppliers of plant or the process of plant contractors or the various spin-offs.
The industry says in its report:
"Not only is the United Kingdom mean in the amount of benefit which it provides to developing countries with its aid but it fails to get adequate benefit to its own industries and services from the aid which it does give. This handicaps British industry and the economy grows more slowly, so that the ability to give aid is reduced yet again".
That is the case I have been putting to the Government for six years, and I have not had an answer. Do the Government accept—as so many of their organs have accepted, and have accepted publicly—that overseas aid can assist overseas trade and thus can assist British industry, the British economy, and British employment?

87
The Labour Party is pledged to the restoration of the separate ministry of overseas development, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Oram to the noble Baroness during questioning just before prorogation. That ministry of overseas development would be a co-ordinating body within the Government through Government committees, with other departments dealing with overseas trade, such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, and other such ministries. We believe that there is a mutual interest here. There is an enlightened self-interest. The developing world and the peoples who are now suffering under poverty are important to us, but so too are British employment and the British workers in this country. The link is clearly there and has been stated time without number by our own industrialists in this country.
So long as we have nation states, foreign policy must be designed to further the interests of the citizens of those countries. The Labour Party suggests that the interests of the people of this country are served by immediate increasing employment here and by the longer-term character of the world in which our children and grandchildren will live, by the effort to undermine the poverty of the world and to increase the employment of our own people in this country. I ask the Government to give me a specific answer to that case in their winding-up speech.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, after congratulating, like other noble Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Forres, on their eloquent maiden speeches, my first task is to establish beyond a peradventure that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. The mere fact that I speak from these Benches, should not necessarily presume that that is the case, as of course we on this side of the House are always optimistic and we do not think it wholly unlikely that noble Lords from the Liberal Benches might cross over to this side, even in the middle of a debate on the Queen's Speech.
However, the chief way in which I can establish my independence is to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks, put in the form of questions by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the matter of the strategic defence initiative. I do not wish to spend much time on this matter, but I find it very difficult to understand how rational people in this country and abroad cannot see the breathtaking qualities of President Reagan's support for a defence policy which really switches the idea of defence towards defence in relation to a first or second strike of overwhelming dimensions. The lack of imagination shown by many, including many friends of mine, on this subject is a matter of constant wonderment to me.
However, the first substantial point that I want to make is to congratulate the Government and their partners on the successful negotiation which will result in the entry of Spain and Portugal into the European Community in January of next year. Her Majesty's Government might have succumbed—and I am very glad that they did not—to the persuasive and often quite rational arguments of those, including many friends of Europe, who thought that enlargement
88
would automatically slow or damage the process of European integration and therefore damage Europe itself. The Government did not succumb to that narrow point of view.
Now with, as I understand it, the likely confirmation of Spain's membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the process of integration of this nation, for so long outside the circle of European powers in this century and most of the last, should be complete. This represents a diplomatic revolution for Spain, and it certainly represents more than just a simple negotiation for ourselves. I believe that a few words of congratulation should also be directed at the Socialist Government of Spain which, given the long history of isolation and the long series of political problems which have affected Spain this century, might so easily have chosen the path of splendid or insipid isolation.
I also want to make one reference to the often forgotten fact that the entry of Spain into the Community at long last regularises the standing of the large number of Spanish workers who, in this country and in many countries of Western Europe, have done much of the dirty work of our sub-continent over the past generation. That is a highly satisfactory outcome and the Government certainly deserve to be warmly congratulated on it.
In the future we should be able to look forward to a great deal of collaboration with Spain. After all, our historic pasts are not quite dissimilar. Spain and Britain were among the first three nation states.
Like Portugal, we have both created vast cultural heritages abroad, beyond the seas, so that whatever happens to us we can be certain that our culture, customs, laws, religions, literatures and, above all, our languages will survive. The prospects are good for collaboration in the future. It is particularly good to see the recent statements and to have heard the speech of my noble friend the Minister of State about the forthcoming ministerial discussions on the one subject which could perhaps jeopardise collaboration between us in the future, which of course is Gibraltar. Naturally this House and another place will scrutinise with great care the recommendations which may arise from those ministerial meetings. They will wish to be certain that the noble Baroness fulfils her obligation to ensure a secure future for the Gibraltarians.
We should also be determined to ensure that, whatever is decided about this thorny matter, as it has been in the past, we all realise the continuing strategic importance—not only for ourselves but for our new Spanish allies, as I hope they will be confirmed to be, and for the West itself—of the Rock, with the same spirit of realism which characterised those negotiators in 1713 who achieved the Treaty of Utrecht which served this country so well for 250 years.
Spanish and Portuguese entry into the Community is a splendid and probably unrepeatable opportunity for all of us to think very carefully, deeply and openly about what exactly we want to emerge from our association with our European partners, not over the next three or four years or until the next election-but-one, but throughout the next generation. Perhaps the discussion to which we can look forward on what my noble friend the Minister has described as a treaty on European foreign policy will provide the occasion for that.

89
I find the notion of a treaty on European policy a little perplexing. After all, we have the main lines of our foreign policy already determined by a number of instruments. We have the United Nations Charter; we have the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Alliance. Therefore, our relations towards the Soviet Union are presumably already determined by our association with our North Atlantic Treaty partners. Of course, we all have other interests. We have interests in the South Atlantic. France has interests in Chad and other places throughout what used to be and still is French-speaking Africa. West Germany has interests in East Germany and throughout Eastern Europe
Therefore, what actually will be the purpose of the proposed treaty on European foreign policy? Surely it is not to be expected that this will be a treaty which will draw us into making declarations about areas of the world in which we do not have the power to affect the course of events.
In my concluding remarks I want to reflect about the kind of Europe which Spain and Portugal are now about to join on a permanent, integrated basis. I do not think that we have done as badly as my noble friend Lord Chalfont implied in his eloquent and interesting speech in resisting the blandishments of the Soviet Union which, over the past generation or so, has tried to drive a wedge between us Europeans and the Americans. We have also surely resisted a venomous campaign of terrorism in most of our countries with remarkable equanimity and courage; a campaign of terrorism which I am sure that the late President of Italy, President Pertini, was quite right in suggesting probably had much of its inspiration east of the Iron Curtain.
It may be thought that these suggestions that we can take pride in our resistance to Soviet policies over the past generation or so is a matter of history for, after all, these were policies associated with the age of Brezhnev, Andropov, or their predecessors, and the age of Gorbachev is a different matter. I am afraid though that no such optimism can really be sustained.
Let us look, for example, at the recent draft declaration of the communist party of the Soviet Union, which I have with me. That was published on 25th October; but for reasons which I cannot understand little attention was paid to it in the national press. Had the press been the main organ of information in our society, as it was in the past in the 19th century, it would certainly have been published in full. Here we have a draft programme of the communist party of the Soviet Union, the first since 1961, which makes it plain that all the underlying purposes and drives of Soviet policy in the international sphere are likely to be exactly the same in the age of Gorbachev as they were in the age of Brezhnev, Andropov, and their predecessors.
That is to say, we must continue to expect what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, described as squalid propaganda emanating from the Soviet Union; we must continue to expect assistance to terrorism, which as a matter of fact has happened even so far as Ireland is concerned almost continuously since the 1920s; we must continue to expect propaganda campaigns designed to divide us from the United States; and we must continue to expect the diplomacy of
90
intimidation, which is perhaps the first purpose, short of war, of the massive Soviet military build-up which has been the main military event of the last generation.
In these circumstances it is surely difficult to imagine that we can expect soon any form of real disarmament, or arms control agreement, which would substantially reduce the amount of arms spending and substantially lower the risks of the consequences of what a nuclear war would be So far as the possibilities of agreement are concerned. I must confess that I am an unrepentant Shinwellite in the sense that I do not think that very much has changed since 1917 in the character of the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, if there are any possibilities I must say—without wishing in any way to seem despondent or pessimistic just before a meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, devoted a great deal of attention in his most interesting speech—that I cannot believe that an outcome of a really positive nature is likely to be expected from a summit meeting between a Secretary General of the communist party of the Soviet Union and the President of the United States.
We have had a lot of experience by this time of summit meetings (at least 10 since the war) and all the time we have had the same history of expectation followed by disillusion and accusation. The only ones which led to anything substantial being achieved were those under the auspices of President Nixon, whose name is that of the one President of the United States whom all liberal persons wish to forget as quickly as possible.
No, I am sure that if there are things to be achieved in this field they will be achieved by officials, diplomats, bantams—as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, put it in a slightly different connection—and not at the summit, and probably not by the shores of Lake Geneva, a lake which in history is associated with the most destructive political philosopher of all time, Rousseau, and the most virulent and intolerant, and also intolerable, religious fanatic, Calvin.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I, too, must hasten to add my sincere congratulations to the two maiden speakers. I should like to say something about Africa. It is a continent of which I have many happy memories. Much of it is lovely country. So far, fortunately, much of the population is not yet fully corrupted by our civilisation, but I think it is not unfair to say that many of the inhabitants of the African continent have been so ruined.
The fine Zulu race, led by Chaka, has sadly deteriorated, and many are now addicted to drugs as the weed grows prolificacy in Africa; and for all the efforts of the authorities it is impossible to stamp out this terrible habit. The Zulu also brews his own "hooch" from maize, and to give it a bit of a kick some battery acid is often added, although I know it seems unbelievable.
My wife was born in South Africa and spent much of her early childhood in Natal. She always liked animals and she wished to converse with the inhabitants looking after them, so she learned Zulu, which she speaks fluently. Therefore, now when we go out there is no difficulty as I have a good interpreter.

91
It is sad to say that this drunkenness to which I referred is not unusual. The farmers say that it is extremely difficult to run a dairy farm because you never know who will be available to milk the cows, particularly on a Sunday or Monday morning, as so many of the employees are liable to be drunk, particularly at the weekend.
In many ways Africa has now become a sad continent, with dictators, military regimes, starvation, and tribal differences. Where in Africa is there a free vote except possibly Botswana, and in South Africa (where, of course, only part of the population are allowed to vote)?
This brings me to the problem of South Africa. I do not know the answer. I do not imagine that anyone in this Chamber does if they are really realistic. Those who live in this part of the world have seen what has happened in other African countries. Most of the whites who have not already left Zimbabwe would now like to leave, but, of course, they cannot take any money out with them if they wish to do so. Others have had to abandon farms which they have built up, maybe through generations.
Having known Kenya in 1948 I find it sad to return there now to find what used to be beautiful farms now derelict. The last time I was there, there was even a shortage of dairy products in Nairobi. Electricity cuts were commonplace. The rhino, of course, has been poached almost to extinction. Uganda, another fine country, is now subjected to armed strife. Tanzania has been under a Left-wing dictatorship. Enough said.
Nigeria has constantly changed regimes, as have so many other West African countries. Incidentally, I do not know why we do not ban Nigeria from the Commonwealth Games. Apart from the socialist Edinburgh District Council, who might welcome these people, most of Scotland would be delighted to see them rejected so long as they treat our aircraft engineers in the manner they have done, using them as political pawns.
Mozambique is divided by civil strife, as is Angola, whose Government is kept in power merely by the Cubans. Then, in the Horn of Africa, the Cubans, again, and the Russians, are keeping the Marxist regime in power—a regime which prefers to buy weapons than to feed its population.
Is it fair to ask those who live in beautiful South Africa, who have built up a country that is now the most prosperous in Africa, with the African population more affluent than anywhere else, to throw away everything? Furthermore, is it right for us to do so when this is such a strategic part of the world and the inevitable result will be to change the area to one under Russian influence? Also, why do we have so little protest about Cubans occupying large expanses of Africa?
The attempt to settle the problem of South Africa by setting up homelands appears to have failed. This is a pity because presumably it would have provided the African with a vote in his own country. To provide everyone in South Africa with an equal vote would merely reduce the country to the shambles and strife which abounds in most of the rest of Africa. Most so-called emerging nations cannot survive without
92
outside aid. Many cannot even feed themselves, though this used to be practical under the old regimes. South Africa in the past has provided a lot of this aid. The black African countries taken as a whole do more trade with South Africa than with any other country except Germany and Japan. Why, therefore, should we stop trading with a country which has extensive trade with black Africa?
At this stage I should like to congratulate the Government on rejecting the proposals to impose total sanctions. After all, Chief Buthelezi, who has 1 million paid up party members and speaks for 5 million more, realises the dangers of such a policy. Why is the ANC with only 11,000 members so newsworthy? Am I not right in thinking that these current troubles, which started in Lange, arose following the closure of the Ford works in Port Elizabeth which inevitably threw many people out of work? It is only the strident voices of the Left—who presumably would like to see a Left-Wing régime in South Africa—who cry for a policy which would most certainly cause disaster.
Our media as a whole do not tell us what has been happening in South Africa in recent years. I can remember some years ago entering a small village post office which was quite empty except for the good lady behind the counter. I was greeted by a stream of invective in Afrikaans. Not knowing what she was saying and rather surprised I eventually discovered that I had entered by the "blacks only" entrance. That has all been changed for some time and now all queue together in the post offices. Most hotels are now open to all races. Sex and marriage between races is now legal and shortly the hated pass laws are to be abolished. Soon also it will be illegal to reserve jobs for whites only and there is to be a common citizenship.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, whom I am sorry to see has left his place, asked my noble friend Lord Salisbury what was the rate of enrolment for South African children in the schools. I do not know whether he knows, but the current rate is extremely poor because no children are allowed to go to school by the ANC. Any child who does to school, or tries to go to school, is intimidated, so the South African schools are empty thanks to the ANC. Prior to this the enrolment in South African schools was 99 per cent. I do not know what are the percentages in any other African country, but I would imagine that that must be far in excess of any other African country.
The South African Government has been criticised for gagging the foreign press. It seems to me that the mistake which they made was in failing to do so some two or three months ago. Some of your Lordships may have seen Mrs. Mandela on our television sets a few nights ago, furious at the actions of President Botha in this respect.
"The foreign press has been our voice",
she said. Is there anything wrong in gagging the voices of a lot of terrorists? Her husband could have been out of jail now had he renounced violence. Our own Government was quite rightly unhappy about the BBC film on that violent man Martin McGuinness, who was portrayed as a nice comfortable family man playing with his children on the sands of the seashore. Why should the BBC be the voice of the IRA or the ANC?

93
What is apartheid? It has become a dirty word in this country and I think many people do not really understand it. In the early days of Dutch settlement laws were passed to prevent the Dutch from breeding with the few natives living in the area, as it was felt that this cross was very bad breeding. I think it probably was. The word meant "separation" and though not enforced by law one finds the various ethnic minorities, even in London, forming their own communities and living separate from one another. These laws in South Africa gradually built up. Many people seem to think that apartheid means one man, one vote. This seems to me to be a totally different matter. Anyway, Mr. Botha has steadily worked for a reduction in these South African laws. There is a grave danger in proceeding too fast. It will not go unnoticed that in the recent by-elections there has already been a Right-wing backlash.
This week we have had two South Africans staying with us. One of them is a chartered accountant and he told me that they have a black African working with them in their office. He holds much the same qualifications as our friend. He is treated in the same way and is paid the same amount of money as others in the office. But this African cannot accept a lift home from any of the other people in the office for fear that when he gets back he will be attacked by his own people as a collaborator. Intimidation is rife. Kneecapping or a bullet in the head is possible in Northern Ireland, but in South Africa those who do not comply with the ANC and the terrorists are more likely to be burnt alive. Why should our Government talk to such people, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow?
The media never stop telling us that 800 people have been killed in the troubles in the last 20 months, but how many of these were blacks killed by blacks to intimidate others? What would the outlook be for South Africa if these terrorists were to come to power? Is it not extraordinary that some months ago 2,000 people were killed in Kenya in 24 hours and there was hardly a mention of this in our press. One of my sons was in Nairobi at the time and when he got home he asked why there was all the fuss about the killing of 150 people in Beirut when over 2,000 had died in one night in Kenya without a murmur from the media? I asked him how he knew that 2,000 had been killed. He told me for one thing that the mortuary in Nairobi had been closed early in the uprising because there were already 500 bodies in it and it was full. Lorries full of bodies could be seen being driven out into the bush. When my son ventured to look out the next morning he counted 25 bodies in the street. Some little time after that a doctor who worked in the hospital confirmed what my son had told me. Now the media blame South Africa for 800 deaths when in fact the ANC are responsible for many of them.
Will we never learn? Mozambique was seized by only 10,000 Frelimo and is now in a state of chaos and turmoil. There is an outcry because a comparatively small part of South Africa is put under a state of emergency, but what do we hear about Zimbabwe being in this state? The have been like this since about 1960, for many years, entirely to allow Mr. Mugabe to silence his political opponents. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has left the Chamber, but I asked
94
him whether he considered it to be racial to have tribe against tribe, because in Zimbabwe it is entirely a matter of Shona against Matebele.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Salisbury confirm that part of the blame for the troubles in South Africa must lie at the hands of the churches. I have a little booklet which gave the life history of the terrorists at the end of the Rhodesian regime. Almost without exception they had been mission boys, trained by the different churches. I recently secured a coloured photograph which showed a bevy of clergy in South Africa marching under the hammer and sickle. I suppose it is possible that this photograph was faked or misleading, but I think this would have been difficult. It seems incongruous that Christian ministers should have been marching under the flag of a country which suppresses and denies their religion.
I have always understood that it was not British policy to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. Why therefore do we interfere with South Africa? Having heard my noble friend Lord Salisbury I am sure that there is no one in this Chamber who can give a satisfactory solution to the problems of South Africa. It seems an insoluble problem. But I hope that even against all the odds, as happend on sanctions, the Government will stand firm and that we may have some more honest reporting from the media.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I wish to take as my text the passages in the gracious Speech referring to Arab-Israel, Lebanon and aid, with particular reference to the Middle East. As many of your Lordships know, it has been customary over the years to include in the gracious Speech an undertaking to work for the restoration of peace in the Middle East. Re-reading these undertakings, I see in my mind's eye a pretty little girl going to an annual party. Each year she puts on a different party frock; each year she makes a pretty little speech. Basically, what she says is the same, year after year. But how necessary it is that this little girl should make her pretty little speech! How easily the words trip off her lips, but how desperately difficult it is, year after year, to translate those words into reality!
How should Her Majesty's Government attempt to achieve this? In my view their prescription is basically right. In other words, it is "the mixture as before". By this I mean that we should support the worthwhile initiatives for peace, particularly those of King Hussein and Shimon Peres, which have been referred to by various speakers. We should try to develop a meaningful dialogue with moderate elements in the Arab world. Then we should work to support the legitimate aims of the Palestinians. Above all, we should oppose, in the strongest possible terms, violence and terrorism wherever they occur.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, but is the noble Viscount referring to Her Majesty the Queen as a pretty little girl changing her dress every year? Is that what I gather? I hope not, but that is what he referred to in his speech.
Viscount Buckmaster: No, my Lords, indeed not—nothing of the kind. I was merely using that as an example; an image which crossed my mind.
Returning, if I may, to the party, the first game in which this little girl has to take part is one of snakes and ladders. Is that not particularly appropriate to the situation in the Middle East? Have we not had a series of games of snakes and ladders? In the past summer, for example, we have enjoyed a succession of ladders, which has meant that we have been gradually working towards the top of the board; many of our initiatives have been positive and helpful. Then there came a series of snakes—and very unfortunate they were! First, there was the murder of the three Israelis in Cyprus, followed by the "Achille Lauro" hijacking and the bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis. Then there was the rejection of the PLO group which came to London.
All that has perhaps put us back towards the bottom of the board. However, I can assure your Lordships that the overall situation is not all that black. There are many peaceful initiatives in the Middle East. Some of these have already been mentioned. Perhaps I may refer to a few others. There is of course the rapprochement between Syria and Jordan and the invitation of Shimon Peres to King Hussein to take part in talks. Then there are the talks now taking place between King Hussein and Arafat.
In Lebanon, there are the talks taking place in Damascus: the meeting between the three militias—the Christians, the Druze and the Shia'a Amal. That is very important, too. Unfortunately, these talks appear to be breaking down, as so many initiatives have foundered. The problem seems to be that the militias are not fully representative of all the many factions in Lebanon. For example, the Sunni Moslems are not represented, nor are the extremist Shia'as. However, there is one important point to make, and that is that the new leader of the Christian Phalange, Eli Hobeika, is a man of moderation and, I think, an apostle for peace.
A much greater apostle for peace is, of course, King Hussein himself. I should add my words of praise and support to those of other speakers. I think it is worth saying that King Hussein is opposed to partial solutions. He believes that there should be an international conference to settle the problems in the Middle East. He believes in the involvement of the PLO. Although he is anxious for talks with Israel, he has not so far agreed to face-to-face conversations with Shimon Peres. The tremendously important point is that, apart from these government attitudes, there is a growing crescendo of longing for peace throughout the Arab world and also in Israel, where it seems that the people are ahead of the government in this respect. This is also true of the Palestinians and the Lebanese.
All these developments seem to augur well for peace. However, I fear that there is a darker side. First, there is the ability of certain PLO groups—and I say particularly "certain PLO groups", not the PLO as a whole—to cause mayhem. This remains unrestrained.
I think that here it is important to give some kind of analysis of the PLO and its standing. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has spoken with great force about the evil activities of the PLO. I am sure he has done his
96
homework. However, with great respect, I have also done mine. When I last spoke about the PLO, some two years ago, I identified eight different groups. It is impossible to say how many groups there are now. Many of them are no more than tiny little groups, headed by one or two men with charismatic powers of leadership. They appear and they disappear. However, it is important to note that the original group in the PLO, El Fatah, which has been consistently loyal to Arafat and, indeed, provides most of the members of the PLO Executive, has remained largely intact. While it is by no means wholly moderate, it is not extremist.
But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that the PLO is in a serious state of disarray. It is disorganised, disunited, dispersed among 30 different countries; and it holds so many divergent views that I am tempted to quote the Latin tag which I learned as a child, quot homines, tot sententiae. As a result of this, many of the Arab countries, particularly Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are trying to control the PLO. The Saudis particularly would like to see the Palestinian hound brought to heel, if not put on a lead.
So much for the Arabs. I must now, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, say that there are three areas of Israeli policy which in my view cause grave concern. First, there is the Israeli Government's paranoiac hatred of the PLO and their refusal to see them as other than terrorists committed to the destruction of Israel. How wrong they are! Then there is the apparent determination of the Israeli Government to hang on to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and their policy of gradual encroachment in that area. I dealt with that in some detail when speaking in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on 22nd May, and I have nothing further to say on that.
The third and most disturbing of all, in the context of the peace initiatives, is surely the Israelis' consistent over-reaction to Palestinian provocation. The worst examples of this were the attack on South Lebanon in 1982 and the recent bombings of Tunis, but I fear that the Israelis have always tended to take a whole mouthful of teeth for one tooth and a whole faceful of eyes for an eye. I can well remember how in Lebanon in 1971, when I was serving there, week after week Israeli bombers would come over and bomb the Palestinian camps, generally on the slenderest of pretexts, and what great destruction they caused! Then, later, in June 1982, there was that monstrous massacre masterminded by Sharon in which 1,400 innocent Lebanese and Palestinians were killed. Recently, of course, there was the Tunis bombing which I think deserves a word of mention; I do not think it has been referred to in your Lordships' House.
As far as one knows, six bombers took part in this attack. They were carrying 2,000-lb bombs and the whole of the PLO building was demolished. Eighty bodies were extracted of which some 50 were recognised as Tunisians. One could perhaps argue that this attack, the killing of so many innocent persons, was a graver violation of human rights than the killing of one elderly American invalid on the "Achille Lauro." The sad aspect is that the Israelis will not learn. Time after time they have tried to annihilate the PLO or, at least, to destroy its military capacity. They have failed; and they have failed because they will not

97
realise that the PLO is like the hydra; it has many heads and, like the mythical hydra, if you cut off one head, another springs up, more terrifying, more menacing, than the last.
So, my Lords, I turn now from politics to the calmer waters of aid. Here I must say that I was delighted to see in the gracious Speech a reference to substantial aid. I have the greatest admiration for Her Majesty's Government's aid policy in the Middle East; but I would never call it substantial. It is good because it is well thought out and well targeted and because the people who implement these programmes are of the highest calibre.
Hitherto we have given less in aid than the Americans and probably less than the West Germans and certain other countries. But most people would agree, I think—and most of my Middle East friends would agree—that our effort has been more effective. So I hope very much that that word "substantial" will be translated into reality.
Here perhaps I might mention that, apart from the major recipient countries in the Middle East—and I am thinking of Sudan, Jordan and the Yemen Arab Republic which I visited recently—during the Recess I also visited the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen, P.DRY as it is sometimes called. This, as your Lordships probably know, is a wholly communist country. It was a very interesting experience because whereas certain Arab countries—Syria for example, and Libya—have toyed with communism, the Peoples Democratic Republic of South Yemen is the only one which has a wholly communist régime. One sees there all the trappings of communism. One sees the Politburo, and a Central Committee; and there are the same restrictions on travel. For example, no Yemeni is allowed to go to the British Embassy without a special permit. If a South Yemeni gets permission to travel abroad he is bound to return his passport to the Ministry of the Interior. I made a journey into the Hadhramaut in the steps of Freya Stark. It was with the greatest difficulty that I managed to achieve this, even with my diplomatic background, and I was accompanied by the equivalent of an Intourist guide.
But the point I want to make is that the people there would like to break out of that communist mould; they would like closer relations with us. I gathered that time and again; and our aid programme, which is very limited of course, and is confined largely to sewage works—not a very salubrious subject—is widely appreciated. Also, I must mention in this context the very satisfactory EC scheme run by a British official of great ability. That is a scheme for controlling floods in one of the wadis.
I shall conclude, if I may, by paraphrasing a piece which appeared in this week's Observer. The situation in the Middle East, we all agree, is extremely delicate. It is rather like a group of people trying to build a house of cards. There are a number of players. There are the Arab states, of course, and I need not mention their names; there are also ourselves, the Americans, the West Germans and others. There are even the Russians, too; because they are coming into the act in view of recent talks of a rapprochement between Israel and the Soviet Union. All these players are holding back; they are terrified of placing a card for fear of causing the structure to collapse. May I express
98
the hope and the prayer that Her Majesty's Government, taking advantage of their undoubted experience, expertise and wisdom buoyed up by the support which they enjoy in many Arab countries, and aided perhaps by a substantial measure of good luck, may be able to place their card at the right time in the right place, in this infinitely fragile but infinitely important structure.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not follow his eloquent speech into the problems of the Middle East. I want instead to bring back the discussion to the forthcoming Summit. I do not believe that any of us thought that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev would conclude their Summit talks with a warm embrace to celebrate the prospect of a new age of détente and arms control. So the news that Mr. Shultz has found no promising openings in his preparatory talks in Moscow—apart from the possibility of doing a deal on intermediate weapons—has come as no surprise and no disappointment; although we may hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has said, that this, the Summit, may be the beginning of something which could lead to less resources being devoted to armaments.
It is, however, difficult to discern what exactly is going on. Confusing messages and contradictory speeches are coming out of Washington. The prospective Summit, as several noble Lords have pointed out, has become a media event, a propaganda battle; and one must struggle to recall that both sides have made what seem to be serious proposals for strategic arms cuts, for a reduction in the nuclear arsenals But Summits, as we all know from long observation, do not succeed unless successful preparations have been made; and it is the apparent failure of these preparations, or their very, very limited success, that Mr. Shultz now seems to be signalling.
Soviet policy has always been enigmatic but we have learned over the years that there are always hardliners there behind the moderate front men ready to put policies in reverse if they are not making sufficient progress. In recent times we have found America, our great ally, showing publicly, however, a similar kind of ambivalence. If there is one thing on which the European allies are unanimous it is the need for a policy of deterrence accompanied by arms control and detente; for we in Europe can never forget that we inhabit the same continent as do the Russians and that they might be tempted one day, if there was no nuclear defence, to assure their security by moving further to the West.
Of course, we in Europe are determined to defend ourselves against Soviet expansionism, with its threat to our free and kindly societies living under the rule of law. Yet we could not quite share the American perspective as voiced by Mr. Shultz that—and I quote—
"The rivalry between East and West is grounded in fundamental moral differences about justice and freedom".
We share the sentiment, it is true, but I do not think we would give it quite the priority he gave to it because it could so easily make our cause into a crusade that

99
could lead to a new wholly cold war—which could be dangerous.
There are good Americans—some of them in the Reagan Administration—who indeed believe that détente, as a concept, is immoral and dangerous. It is immoral because it implies a degree of tolerance of the Soviet system and it is dangerous because it could blind people to Soviet aspirations. Some of them are against arms control too, because this entails making an agreement with the Russians which we would keep and they would break. And so they see America protected from Soviet ideology by its great free economy and from Soviet threat by the products of its magnificent technological strength. It is a form of intellectual isolationism but not of geographical isolationism. It is consistent with the alliance; and this mood of dependence upon national strength seems to be widely shared in America today.
In October several noble Lords and I, including the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spent a week or more in the United States at the North Atlantic Assembly: that is the quasi-parliament which studies and discusses the political, economic and military problems of NATO. As we arrived, the Americans carried out their brilliant coup of intercepting the Egyptian aircraft and causing the hi-jackers to be apprehended in Italy. It is, of course, impossible to withhold admiration and reluctant acceptance of the deed, although it was in breach of law and although it humiliated Mr. Mubarak, who is one of the most helpful people in the Middle East; and it also embarrassed an ally.
But what was amazing to those of us who experienced it was the prolonged euphoria which was evoked in the United States. We had not realised the depth of frustration caused to this most powerful of nations by its inability to bring to book the terrorists who had murdered its fighting men in Beirut and those who had held its citizens hostage. One would have thought from the celebrations that a major victory in battle had been achieved or that terrorism had been brought to an end. There was at first no sign of recognition that perhaps there might be a political price to pay for the coup.
We were gathered at that meeting in San Francisco perhaps because the Americans wanted to remind us that they are the guardians of another great ocean as well as the Atlantic, and I must say that Europe and the Middle East seemed very far away from the West Coast. While we were there, a disturbing drama was being played out which for a moment threatened to make nonsense of Geneva. I am anxious not to be, and not even to appear to be, anti-American. America is the only super-power friend that we have or ever can have. So I will simply quote from that respected paper the Boston Globe, from an editorial it published on the day that we were leaving. They said—and I quote now:
"A common-sense reading of the ABM treaty bars any pursuit of President Reagan's space-weapons programme known officially as the Strategic Defence Initiative, except for basic research. Because it rules out the development, testing and deployment of 'star wars' hardware, the treaty has been a target for administration hawks who are trying to parley accelerated research into unstoppable development. Conversely, strengthening the treaty is an urgent objective for those hoping for US-Soviet progress in the talks at Geneva".
100
I continue to quote:
"Last week, Reagan's national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, announced an alarming unilateral interpretation of the ABM treaty, defining its restrictions so narrowly that 'star wars' could go forward at full blast".
The paper says that an uproar ensued in the United States arms control community and also in London and Bonn. It goes on to say that the White House backtracked and, getting together with his advisers, President Reagan signed a directive saying that the United States would continue to respect the commonsense language of the treaty. Mr. Shultz came to us in San Francisco and delivered the message in a weighty, closely-reasoned exposition of United States foreign policy; and then he flew to Brussels to repeat it to the NATO Foreign Ministers.
In a subsequent debate in San Francisco the doubts and apprehensions felt by the allies about star wars were voiced, but the heat has been taken out of the debate by Mr. Shultz's address. Mr. McFarlane was to have spoken the following day but he was replaced by Ambassador Nitze, who followed the Shultz line closely. It is this kind of open difference even within the administration, coupled with the Soviet enigma, which makes it difficult to predict even how the Summit will be conducted, let alone how it will end.
How seriously is the administration committed to arms control? How deep are the differences on the subject within the administration? I came away on a faint note of hope. A veteran American democrat said to me that perhaps only a conservative such as Mr. Reagan could have the self-confidence to do a deal with the Soviets, just as it took the conservative de Gaulle to let go of Algiers.
8.37 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, we have had a very far-ranging debate, which has covered East-West and North-South. It has been most instructive, and I am struck by the fact that many references have been made to the importance of our United States ally. But I am also struck by the fact that there seem to be a large number of people who apparently doubt the wisdom of staying very close to that ally; and that is surprising.
I want to take my cue from one line in the gracious Speech, which reads:
"my Government will continue to seek more normal relations with Argentina".
In August this year I visited Buenos Aires and I had talks with parliamentarians, journalists, businessmen, taxi drivers and a wide range of other people. I did not meet any members of the government, but perhaps that was to be expected. The contacts were useful, I think, and I came away with the firm impression that Argentina would like to have closer relations with us. Since then I have read much about the meetings that have been held by the leaders of political parties in another place. I believe those are very important, but this leads me to ask: where are Her Majesty's Government? Why are we allowing the leaders of opposition parties to make all the running? I therefore hope we can move forward faster.
The Foreign Minister of Argentina, Signor Dante Caputo, in a recent speech expressed sentiments and

101
aspirations which I felt were not very dissimilar to those expressed in the opening speech this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Young.
It is very important that in seeking the way forward we are exceedingly flexible. It is also important that we differentiate between discussions and negotiations, because these words have very different meanings to the people on the other side of the Atlantic. I have suggested to my friends in Argentina that perhaps it is unrealistic to demand negotiations so soon, because these inevitably raise expectations of an early, finite solution. I naturally hope that a solution may emerge in due course, but we must start at the beginning. Surely that means that we must have meetings at ministerial level in order to establish an atmosphere of mutual respect and confidence.
By the same token, Her Majesty's Government need to be flexible in their attitude to negotiations. It is frequently reiterated that sovereignty is not negotiable, but this is to confound history. In 1841, President Rosas offered the Foreign Secretary of that time, Lord Aberdeen, a clean title to the Falkland Islands in exchange for the cancellation of the current debt. That might be considered very impudent, but the fact is that there was no response whatsoever from Britain, which seems to me rather foolish. Like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I wonder whether we are really learning from history, because surely the lesson and experience of history is that everything is negotiable. It is against this rather sombre background that I want to give a few indications of some encouraging signs that are emerging.
First, we have seen the unilateral lifting of trade embargoes by the United Kingdom, and I think that was excellent. It is a great pity that there was no reciprocation by Argentina, but this still may come. In the meantime, why do we not proceed to take more unilateral actions? For instance, it would be quite simple to remove the requirement for visas. Currently the United Kingdom does not have any delays in issuing visas, so it becomes a kind of bureaucratic obstacle. But if we were able to take action on that, I see no reason why Argentina should not reciprocate. This might lead to an increase in the flow of visitors between our countries, because in the absence of any official dialogue between our countries, unofficial and private meetings become essential.
In this context, during my visit I encouraged the Argentine politicians whom I met to visit the United Kingdom in the new year, so that they could understand our viewpoint. I appreciate that there are a number of people who are reluctant to entertain discussions with Argentina, and although I do not agree I accept that this is an attitude which is fairly widely held. It therefore seems important that Argentine politicians—and no Argentine politicians have visited Britain for three years—should come here and try to understand what is going on. I hope that this will happen.
I welcome the fact that we will participate in the proposed multilateral regime for fishing under the FAO. Obviously, this must include Argentina and will present opportunities for meetings. The point is that dialogue is important and will lead to the comprehension of our different attitudes.
102
Another very important piece of good news is that Argentina has just endorsed the present austerity programme of the Alfonsin Government. The recent election represents a major personal success for President Alfonsin and will consolidate his position ultimately in both Houses of Parliament. Argentina has extensive natural resources and with a small population is capable of very rapid recovery. if the political will exists. This new-found confidence gives increased hopes for changed attitudes in Argentine approaches to foreign affairs. Now is the time for action. We cannot afford to use up our international diplomatic goodwill by securing reluctant votes at the United Nations in support of unsound policies.
I am glad that we seek more normal relations with Argentina. This must lead to a resumption of official dialogue and thence to the reinstallation of diplomatic relations, with ultimately—and this may yet be some time hence—negotiations at some time in the future. But we need to start now. Let us always remember that when it comes to discussions and dialogue with somebody with whom we have had difficulties, it takes two to tango. I think that we should start now
8.47 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think most people believe that either the CIA or the police exist, but so long as they do the time has come for Britain and the rest of Europe to fight for their lives and expel the CIA. Britain should support the Labour Party's policy of unilateral disarmament and support for CND, in support of the Prime Minister of Romania's suggestion to Sir Geoffrey Howe that NATO and the Warsaw Pact should be dissolved. Once out of NATO, Britain would have no legal obligation to receive the CIA on British shores. Fight for your lives, Britain and Europe, for the CIA are planning to flood Britain with heroin and destroy the younger generation in England, as they have in America! The CIA have joined with the police forces of western Europe to enslave the young and make money out of their suffering.
The right-wing reaction which has governed for so long ought to be put down. The Act on toleration states that British subjects are not to be persecuted for being either Protestant or Catholic, or for any other reason. Parliament has been an idiot to trust the police and the CIA for all these years. England and western Europe will have to wake up before it is too late. The remedy in England lies with Parliament, and in western Europe as a whole with the governments of western Europe. Parliament has only to abolish the police and the CIA, and the Labour Party and the British people are right to attack the police. They will stand no more of what they have suffered in the past 30 years or suffer under a Government passively pledged to genocide and acceptance of the atom bomb. The authorities are always asking for an end to violence. Let them be kind themselves; then they will obtain non-violence.
The police, the CIA and government itself should be abolished throughout western Europe. The young people should be put in charge and there should be no law, no prison, no punishment. Eurocommunism and the abolition of capitalism in western Europe can be a positive force—nothing but kindness, with no danger for anyone and with the Americans and the CIA a bad

103
dream in the past, put out of its mind by the human race for ever.
The modern American cannot prove he is loyal to Thomas Jefferson, or even an American citizen at all. Nobody anywhere in the world thinks that modern Americans are Americans at all. They just think that they are mad monsters. Besides, the establishment of tyranny is a two-edged sword. If the CIA tries to destabilise another nation, what is to prevent the Soviet Union from destabilising democracy in the United States? It is a matter of Soviet choice, of course, and it is up to the Russians, but they could do it. Many Labour Party supporters are now revising the policy of Attlee and Ernest Bevin, and correcting the mistakes of 1948. They now think, after finding out what Americans are like, that it would have been better if Europe had gone communist 40 years ago. And you can bet on it, they are right. Europe can go communist, with a kind form of Eurocommunism.
Nuclear disarmament is the hope of mankind, and when, at President Reagan's direction, the CIA and the State Department have gone left and supported communism, he will find it easy to reach agreement with Mr. Gorbachev, nuclear disarmament will proceed apace and mankind's future will be assured.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am not sure that I heard every word that the noble Earl has just said but I shall read his speech tomorrow in the Official Report with much interest. I also wish to express a word of apology to the two maiden speakers. I was unable to be in the Chamber when they made their maiden speeches but I am reliably informed that the congratulations customary were certainly not perfunctory on this occasion and that the expression of view at the time that they hope to be heard again was more than a simple form. As I did not hear them this time I hope to be among those who will hear them on one of those future occasions.
I should like to begin by expressing a word of appreciation because I found myself in agreement with my noble friends Lord Stewart and Lord Ardwick. This has not always been the case. My noble friends and I do not necessarily come from precisely the same area of the Labour Party but on this occasion I felt that, when both of them expressed serious doubts about star wars or SDI, they were speaking not only for themselves and not only for the Labour Party but for a wide body of opinion throughout the world. I believe that it is common sense to recognise that there is no absolute cure. The idea that a single means can give one side absolute security and solve all problems has only to be examined in relation to the past and in relation to the technical possibilities of the present to be seen to be no more than a dream.
The trouble with dreams of this kind is that they can turn out to be nightmares because, as my noble friend pointed out, the lethality of nuclear weapons today is so great that, even if only a small percentage get through, the damage they can do might well be fatal to the future of mankind. The damage caused by even a small percentage would certainly be very much greater, indeed many times greater, than the damage
104
which was done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I therefore think that there is no future in star wars and, indeed, if it is persisted in there may be great harm.
In the last debate on the Defence Estimates the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that he hoped I would not think him rude but he had written against my name, "Usual speech". Well of course it was rude, but the noble Viscount and I are old friends and both of us have been Members of another and rougher place. That did not and does not bother me, but I am concerned about accuracy and I can only think that the noble Viscount did not pay much attention to what I said on that occasion. I have warned him that I would be mentioning the matter this evening. I am sure he regrets that, because of his obligations elsewhere, he cannot be here himself.
What I was actually doing was examining the Defence Estimates themselves, quoting from them and commenting on the extracts which I read. What the noble Viscount threw aside as the "Usual speech" was one quite closely addressed to the Government's own proposals. It was a speech which tried to hack a path through the dense thicket of the Government's defence policy, and it reached a certain conclusion. It was that conclusion which the noble Viscount found familiar and caused him to brush my remarks aside.
This gracious Speech is not dense; on the contrary, it is flimsy. It is rather long on high-sounding clichés and short on specific commitments. The Government, I see,
"attach the highest importance to the maintenance of national security and the preservation of peace with freedom and justice".
Well, don't we all? The differences between us arise out of the propositions in the defence White Paper which seem more likely to lead to the peace of what Attlee called "co-death" than to the peace of co-existence. We are told that the Government will play a constructive role at the United Nations. Well, that will certainly be a turn-up for the book. I wish the gracious Speech had spelt out exactly how this new role is to be fulfilled. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will tell us. The noble Lord is not here to hear me make this request but I trust it will be duly conveyed to him and that we shall have a response from him on this occasion which we have not always had.
Will he tell us whether the Government are going to accept the offer of the six political leaders from five continents to monitor a comprehensive nuclear testing moratorium? That seemed to me to be a most important offer from some of the most distinguished people on earth. It has not received the amount of publicity it ought to have. I do not believe we have heard the Government's response to it. May we hear it? Shall we hear it tonight? I am not at all sure that we shall, but I live in hope although so often I have been disappointed.
Will the Government give a lead on this and other peace initiatives or will they continue to sit like the dog on the old HMV label waiting for the sound of their master's voice—a voice, incidentally, which shouts aggressively one day, coos peacefully the next, perhaps according to whether the current ventriloquist is the ferocious Defence Department or the more rational State Department? Do the American Government really want peace to emerge from the summit? Do the

105
British Government want it? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will reassure us. If he does not we shall have to fear the worst.
Following a recent NOP poll the Mail on Sunday buried unheadlined the extraordinary finding that, in spite of all the anti-Soviet propaganda, more people in this country seem to believe the Russians are sincerely looking for peace than think the Americans are doing so. I am bound to say that I was surprised. As has been pointed out by Mr. Harper of the United Nations Association, the Americans now claim that their seismic technology enables them to detect the smallest Soviet nuclear underground tests. In view of this, will the Government now drop their claim that they cannot initiate comprehensive test ban negotiations because of the difficulty of verification? Who is right? Are the Americans right in saying that they can verify or are we right in saying, "No, we cannot go ahead with this comprehensive test ban because we cannot verify it"? Will they change their minds or will they find some other excuse for not getting on with this vital development? Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will tell us—but perhaps he will not.
The Government claim to be anxious to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty; but on the other hand they are committed to testing for Trident. What is more important for the Government: that the world gets a test ban treaty before the Soviet moratorium runs out at the end of this year or that they continue to test for Trident? I suspect the latter, and that is why the Government's protestations carry no conviction. Not only do they fail to carry conviction over a wide spectrum in our own country but they carry very little conviction—in fact, none at all—among non-nuclear nations. If I am wrong, let us hope that the noble Lord will tell the House so.
I was among those who were on their way to Burma when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not sure whether I have mentioned this before to your Lordships. If I have, then please accept my apologies for repeating it. After the initial rejoicing, an airman said to me, "I have a feeling that they may have saved our lives at the expense of our children's lives".
That man—and I do not even know his name—may have had a flash of prescience. Everything that has happened since seems to me to confirm the terrible likelihood of his words coming true. So although I have reached the same conclusion from many different routes over the years since then, and although the conclusion is as unwelcome to me as it must be to everyone else, I am convinced that we must face it if we are to be in a position to save ourselves from it.
If your Lordships will again forgive me, I shall repeat the conclusion which I believe was the reason why the noble Viscount was a little upset. I said on a previous occasion:
"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."—[Official Report, 26/6/85; col. 783.]
9.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Forres, on their excellent speeches. In slightly different contexts both speakers referred to the anomalies caused by EC food surpluses. I am sure we would all wish to see early reforms connected with those surpluses which could benefit agriculture in Australia and in other Commonwealth countries, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Forres, as well as alleviate food shortages in the third world, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Forres, has travelled 13,000 miles from New South Wales, where he lives, in fact he hails from the braes of Angus in Scotland. It is therefore hardly surprising that, like everyone who comes from in and around Dundee, he should talk the good sense that he does.
In the run-up to the Geneva Summit, clearly it is to be welcomed that President Reagan emphasises the need for greater political stability in the third world and the role which the United States and the Soviet Union could play together in promoting that aim. Equally, if some such measure of genuine co-operation ever did occur then the current efforts by Western donor countries would become all the more effective in attempting to relieve poverty and raise living standards. As it is, those efforts are to be highly commended. Although—as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has pointed out—the present level of official contributions falls short of that recommended by the United Nations, it is nevertheless no small achievement that the 17 member countries of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD are now contributing an annual world total of £25 billion and an average of 0.36 per cent. of their respective gross national products.
Given that distribution of aid is on the global scale that it is, it would be very surprising if there were no examples of inconsistencies or even of widespread and recurring anomalies connected with the administration of that aid. Obviously they can never all be completely resolved. At the same time the challenge to all the countries concerned must be to agree revised policies and methods to redress and minimise any harmful effects whenever they become evident.
One of the main premises accepted by both donors and recipients has been the idea that the conduct of recipients should not be examined to any great extent, since it is alleged that to do so would infringe national sovereignties. But adherence to that principle has revealed two disadvantages. First, it can be pointed out how Western aid is sometimes used to contribute to purposes directly opposed to what donors intend. Examples of that are the persecution of subjects and military aggression against other countries.
Less dramatically, but no less inconsistent with donors' intentions, there is the second disadvantage that recipient governments simply may not bother to use aid constructively for the relief of poverty. And since a low level of capital is a criterion of assistance in the first place, there is arguably a disincentive to governments to encourage the inflow and deployment of private capital altogether.
Recently, there have perhaps been signs that through structural lending agreements and similar

107
measures, more control is being exercised by the West. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can indicate what plans the Government may now have to improve the system, so that the contributions of British taxpayers and those of other countries are not diverted from the purposes for which they are intended.
There is then the question of the balance between multilateral and bilateral aid—the two types of official aid—and the question of the balance between voluntary aid and official aid itself. It is generally agreed that while certain functions of scale or negotiations through anonymity are better performed multilaterally, others will succeed better through more direct contacts between donors and recipients bilaterally. But clearly it does not follow that there needs to be a rigid balance between bilateral and multilateral disbursement; still less does it follow that donors should not be able to build up in practice and with efficiency an increasing proportion of direct disbursement. And equally, on the grounds that results from voluntary aid are better proportionately than those from official aid—whether bilateral or multilateral—and arguably more susceptible to measurement in the first place, there is a strong case to alter the balance, where possible, away from official and towards voluntary aid.
In view of these considerations, can my noble friend reveal what plans and forecasts the Government may have to increase the proportion of British bilateral aid, which is at present in the region of 60 per cent.? Regarding voluntary aid, the Government are spending £4.8 million in 1985–86 and have agreed to finance development projects by voluntary agencies on a fifty-fifty basis. What are the Government's proposals here for 1986–87?
Turning to the problem of famine and food shortage, there is the question of long-term measures to eliminate or minimise it and the separate question of contingency plans to deal with famines when they do arise. As regards the former, and with current advances in agricultural methods, there is good reason to believe that countries will overcome their present lack of subsistence production and reduce their present difficulties of crop failures. The problem is in persuading them to take proper action, and to do so soon enough. But that process can be greatly eased by consultative group meetings between donors and recipients—bilaterally and multilaterally—in the capitals of the countries concerned.
As regards contingency plans for famine, while the recent Ethiopian crisis, once evident, has produced a very efficient response from donors, at the same time it has reflected insufficient contingency plans in the first place. Does my noble friend agree that this course of action should be advocated to a far greater extent within the Development Assistance Committee and within the EC to ensure that there is relevant and strategic stockpiling of food supplies, among other practical expedients, which may be called for in advance?
Another aspect affecting the basis of British and international assistance is that of trade with the third world. Regarding access to Western markets by the third world, there are in existence, of course, preferen-
108
tial agreements, and recently at the Lomé Convention there has been the attempt to improve the position. But, to date, not enough changes have occurred to enable third world countries to earn sufficient foreign currency from their own exports so that they can then pay for their own foreign imports and thus help maintain proper price structures internally. Can my noble friend affirm that, with other countries which are also members of the Development Assistance Committee and the EC, the Government are pressing for such changes in trading arrangements in order to assist exports from third world countries?
On the other hand, in relation to the aid-trade provisions and British and other Western exports to the third world, it should be asked whether current arrangements are benefiting both the West and the third world as much as can be expected. It is contended that disproportionate attention has been given by the aid-trade provisions to the larger and more prosperous areas of the third world. Equally, it is objected that since contracts tend to go to large British firms instead of being distributed more widely among smaller ones, British employment and new business prospects have therefore not gained as much as they could have done. Does my noble friend agree that such imbalances do in fact exist, and, if so, what corrective measures are the Government prepared to take to effect a wider distribution through aid-trade provision to the third world and also to bring about a wider and more judicious distribution of contracts at home?
My noble friend Lord Beloff stressed the importance of British culture overseas. Finally, in connection with this interest does my noble friend the Minister agree that, in view of the particularly high regard in which the efforts of the BBC World Service, the British Council and other related facilities are held internationally, in plans for the coming years these ventures should be considered as vital components of British initiatives in the third world and not as lesser priorities of Foreign Office spending to be thus subject to Government cuts?
Certainly, both now and over the years the aims and endeavours of all Western donor countries are to be highly commended. But trade barriers should be reduced. Direct contacts between donors and recipients should be advanced through an increase in the proportion of both bilateral and voluntary aid; and direct contacts and dialogues should be emphasised so that recipients adopt necessary long-term action against famine and food shortage.
Those are some of the measures which, if carried out, can give the aid programme a much better chance, so that through time its effects can really match properly its intentions—which are to help conquer human deprivation and poverty, and to promote world harmony and peace.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as usual we have had an excellent and constructive debate on the foreign affairs and defence aspect of the Queen's Speech. I hope that the House will forgive me if I briefly mention a subject which has hardly figured in the debate so far—the Contadora process.
In the Queen's Speech it is said that the Government favour the Contadora process. Indeed, so do all the

109
countries in the world, on the surface. It is on the agenda for the Geneva meeting, and that is obviously a very good idea. If the two super powers can reassure each other about their intentions, that can only help. I repeat: that is only on the surface. Let us now look at the reality.
Peace in Central America is something which President Reagan has, by his own actions in the last six years, made terribly remote. Here is a bunch of four countries, every one of which has an internal fight. In three of them, Left-wing rebels are in arms against a Right-wing Government. In one, Right-wing rebels are in arms against the Left-wing Government. The countries have territorial claims on each other, and it is only natural that the Right-wing Governments should support the rebels against the Left-wing Government and that the Left-wing Government should support the rebels against the Right-wing Governments. That is human nature. But things are at such a pitch, and have been for the last two or three years, that war among the Governments is now very possible.
In such a situation common sense suggests that there should be a settlement among the four countries concerned. Obviously they cannot settle unaided. If they could, they would already have done so. Who is best to help them? Obviously, it is the neighbouring countries which most resemble them in culture and most share their interests; and that is precisely what has happened in the process we call Contadora. Mexico, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela have clubbed together to help. After consulting the Central American countries they have produced a draft settlement and have offered it to them for signature.
Now let us look at the actions of the United States. Far from trying to isolate the conflict and to back the Contadora process, the Reagan Government is putting the boot in, not only publicly but also secretly. The American Administration has not reacted to the general fact of rebellion in the whole group of countries, and to the intergovernmental tensions, but to the situation in only one country—Nicaragua. There, President Reagan backs the rebels or terrorists to the hilt with arms, military training, bases lent to him by the right-wing Government in Honduras, diplomatic and political support, and economic sanctions.
He has mined the harbours of Nicaragua to wreck the economy. He has declared a trade embargo to wreck the economy. To get constitutional authority for these actions he had declared a state of national emergency, no less, in the United States. To avoid the world's blame he has withdrawn the United States from the jurisdiction of the world court. So much for the public actions.
Now let us look at the secret ones. When the first Contadora draft was presented to the Central American countries last year, Nicaragua signed it. So Mr. Reagan immediately found objections to it, mostly to the measures for the verification and control of disarmament, and he dished them out, two or three each, to El Savador, Honduras and Costa Rica. Those countries did as they were bidden. The Contadora countries therefore had to go back to work, reinforced this time by a group of four more Latin American countries, and a month or two ago they produced a
110
new draft regional settlement treaty—the 1985 Contadora draft. The 1984 draft was good. The 1985 one is excellent. It is a great pity that it is not being published in full in the world press. I believe that it is actually the fullest and most intelligent draft of a regional disarmament and peace treaty that has ever been proposed in the real world.
It is not possible this time for the United States Administration to find any complaints, so they have simply gone round buying up the signatures of the Central American governments. To Costa Rica they have merely stated that if Costa Rica signs, their aid totals will be revised. To Salvador and Honduras they have spoken in perfectly clear terms of a reduction or cancellation of bilateral aid. To rub salt in it, they have said something obviously untrue; namely, that the United States Congress itself would reduce aid if the military tension in Central America were relaxed. Of course, the relaxation of military tension is what Contadora is about, and what the United States ostensibly desires.
It also happens to be what West European governments, including our own, really do desire. The Queen has just said so. Next week there is to be a meeting in Luxembourg of the European foreign Ministers and the Central American Foreign Ministers, and also a meeting of the Contadora group itself with the Central American Foreign Ministers on European soil, almost as it were, under European auspices. This is a most unusual moment, and I hope that the Government will be able to seize it with both hands—to seize this opportunity to keep Contadora afloat. If we in Europe can succeed in this. many millions of the most wretched humans on earth will thank us. Let us not turn away from what is really happening in Central America simply because it is easier to pretend that we believe false statements about it.
Unfortunately, the Contadora story is not the only thing that we have to worry about in NATO. We must discuss this frankly. The fact is that the United States Administration at the moment is not a law-abiding one. We cannot forget Grenada. Even though it turned out well in the end and the people were glad that it happened, we cannot forget that the United States invaded that country without an invitation from the legitimate authority. That mere fact, however small the case, makes it difficult for them to criticise the Soviet Union in the great case of Afghanistan.
We cannot forget that President Reagan endorsed the Israeli bombing of Tunisia as a legitimate response to two murders committed in Cyprus. We cannot forget the story of the Sicilian air base, Sigonella, after the United States armed forces had forced that aircraft down. We cannot forget that the local American commander, claiming direct orders from the President of the United States, surrounded a unit of the Italian armed forces with his men and threatened coercion. To prevent even the possibility of a situation like that, we in the Alliance have said that a physical dual key system on United States nuclear weapons based on our soil is necessary. If we are to have a row with the Americans about whose word runs on British soil, it had better be sooner than later.
We cannot forget the matter of the small print on the ABM treaty, fully described by the noble Lord,

111
Lord Ardwick, in an excellent speech. I will not go over it again. We must, however, note that the wrong interpretation, as we think, of the ABM treaty has not been withdrawn. The President has only said that the United States will actually behave as if the right interpretation were the correct one.
The latest indication of American illegality is a leak, apparently from a member of Congress, of a United States Administration plot to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi. Much as we should all like to see him overthrown, we cannot condone an internationally illegal action to do it. Our view on these Benches, and perhaps wider, is that the defence of the law itself must be within the law, internationally as well as nationally. We, in Britain, the Europeans, and the Commonwealth, are faced with a difficult problem. An aged, truly incompetent President thinks, or appears to think, that life really resembles a film script. Certainly the bevy of script writers around him, from whom I exclude the ever admirable Paul Nitze, seem to believe that guns and money are really all that the script needs for the law-bruising sheriff to win in the last round.
The argument is not about presentation. It is not about Mr. Reagan losing the public relations battle with Mr. Gorbachev. It is about the actual policies followed. Mr. Reagan's policies are at the moment based on an inadequate grasp of reality and an inadequate respect for truth in too many of his advisers and their underlings. We cannot afford to go along with such policies. Once again, as in December 1984, it is probably our own Prime Minister who has the best chance of helping the President to understand that it is what is being done in his name that is losing him his own battle, which is, of course, our battle: the battle of wills and wits for freedom.
The Prime Minister did well in New York last month getting the President to realise the need for his Administration to produce something for Geneva. We might also claim some credit for my honourable friend Mr. John Cartwright in another place, who, together with that great power for good, Senator Charles Mathias, and with the help of my noble friend Lord Mayhew, induced the Atlantic Assembly to come up with some firm, useful and helpful wording on the future of SDI.
On SDI, it has long seemed that the President did not really understand that it could be part of an offensive posture, and that this is what the Russians are frightened of. Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev will ram this home. I think, however, that it would be better if our Prime Minister was to take an opportunity to do so. Perhaps she has. I do not think that our own Ministry of Defence—here I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with a special hope of comprehension—has understood in the least that it cannot be a British interest to encourage British industry and British expertise to plug in to an American research programme the results of which would not be in Britain's or Europe's interest. We do not have enough industry or expertise to waste it in that way. We Europeans have things of our own to do with our limited human and capital resources. All this could lead to a brain drain on the spot; a brain drain among scientists continuing to work here in this country. It is
112
always unwise, if one does not want the product, to spend money on gearing up to produce it. Moreover, what our scientists do work on today may be all that they can work on tomorrow.
Will the Government think about whether we are being sucked in by small steps to illegality in the SDI programme? This would mean, since SDI testing is illegal, and SDI deployment is illegal, thinking about what is happening at Fylingdales. Is star wars radar to be put in? If it were, we should be helping the United States to break its own treaty.
What about this new news from Cyprus? I do not mean the security matters that Lord Chalfont was speaking of, but statements that there are discussions about having SDI in Cyprus. That can only be SDI deployments, in the sovereign-based areas; under British sovereignty in that country.
What is happening in Diego Garcia? Is there a requirement that everything that the United States does under its lease there should be in accordance with international law? If not, I suggest that we should make one pretty soon. What is happening in Bermuda? Why is there discussion of the revision of the leases of the American bases in Bermuda? The same should apply there as in Diego Garcia.
The ABM treaty forbids the transfer of ABM technology from the United States to any other country. What about Patriot missiles? Are they going to have an ABM capacity, or not? Where is the line to be drawn on these things? I am not making any accusation that the law has been broken, but I fear that the Government may not have yet thought seriously enough about the possibility of our being dragged behind the United States chariot into infringements of international law.
Just in the last two or three days the situation on SDI has, for the umpteenth time, changed. "The ever-changing vision" was one of the week's headlines. The President now has a new vision: that is, that the strategic defence capacity should be deployed only after nuclear disarmament; that is to say, that the United States and other countries should be endowed with the defensive capacity against nuclear missiles only after all the nuclear missiles in the world have been abolished by agreement in Geneva.
The rationale for having a defence against something that does not exist is, in President Reagan's words, that "maybe a madman would make some", secretly—he is obviously thinking of somebody like Gaddafi—and then everybody would be glad if we had a defence. This is logical, this is optimistic, and if this could become fixed as United States policy we could all sleep a great deal more safely in our beds for the next 10 or 15 years.
It is good, and it should be known to all; it cannot be cancelled that President Reagan has said this. It has appeared in full in Izvestia, and I think that the remarks of an American President in the Russian press will be hard to cancel. Nevertheless, the brawling pygmies whom President Reagan chooses to serve him are already saying that he never said it or he did not mean it, or that it has been misreported. My point is this. The more divided the United States Administration is—and never has one been so divided as thi\s—the more must belief and trust be reserved for the President's own words alone. He has said this. I

113
have earlier urged on the House the view that we ought to be, and indeed that we are, players in the Washington game, not just observers. Let us seize on the wisest word the President has yet said about his own odd invention, and let us hold him to it.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he seriously suggesting that he would take the word of an Izvestia reporter as printed in Izvestia against the word of the President of the United States of America?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, no. Let me make it clear. The President gave an interview to four Soviet journalists in which he said the things that I have been commenting on; and that interview has been printed in full in the American press, and printed in part in the Soviet press. In Tuesday's New York Times the interview was printed in full, including the parts that had been omitted from Izvestia, I think the day before. The President has also given an interview to a BBC correspondent using exactly the same words. The noble Lord shakes his head. I assert that that is so. Clearly, he has not seen the New York Times. When he has had time to do so, perhaps he will agree with me.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to reply to that. I have not only seen the report in the New York Times; I have seen a transcript of the press conference. The President said that he would not wish to see star wars deployed before there had been a reduction in nuclear weapons; he did not say "nuclear disarmament".
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may crave the patience of the House for a moment in this ping-pong battle. I read the President's words to mean after the abolition of strategic nuclear missiles, but we will not haggle over the small print. It is at an extraordinarily late stage in the game. Clearly, either after or immediately before the disappearance of the last nuclear missile was what he meant.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, throughout this debate above all we have been conscious of one thing—the Summit in Geneva in 12 days' time. I join my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in hoping for success. We are almost afraid to hope, yet we know that there is a deep desire—in fact, a yearning—among people throughout the world for something—a breakthrough—leading to real progress towards solving one of the world's greatest problems: the search for arms control and disarmament not only for its own sake but also because that would make us all the more able to deal with the world's other greatest problems: poverty, starvation and disease.
We welcome the commitment to arms control and disarmament in the gracious Speech. In the meantime, we must maintain defence forces strong enough for our own security and make the most effective contribution we can to the commitments that we share with our allies. I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to NATO, which includes the need for a Western nuclear deterrent pending all-round disarmament. I appreciate the words of my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham in his speech.
114
I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating our two maiden speakers. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester spoke of overseas aid in particular, and he spoke with great experience, compassion and realism; that is to say, he spoke in a very practical way. We are delighted that he is now taking part in our deliberations and that we are benefiting from his guidance. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forres. He is a living example of the wide basis of the membership of your Lordships' House, which makes it such a broadly representative Chamber. The noble Lord spoke with deep knowledge of his subject and with some humour, and it is admirable that we can now draw on the experience of Members from the Antipodes, although he is not the only one in your Lordships' House. As one who is married to an Australian, I can say that with a special feeling of warmth. I hope that we can persuade the noble Lord to do the 26,000-mile round trip as often as he can.
I come at once to our capacity to make the most effective contribution we can to the Alliance. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, I shall be concentrating on defence, so I hope that noble Lords who have dealt with other matters will forgive me. We look forward to what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has to say. As this is our first full debate including defence since his new appointment, I should like to record our congratulations on his well-deserved promotion to Minister of State for Defence Support.
We have seen reports of a great exercise to cut Government spending and even ominous warnings of plans to abandon the priority given to defence, The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has referred to this matter. We have seen reports that the Chancellor wants to cut the defence budget by £1,000 million, and other reports that the Secretary of State for Defence is making a last-ditch stand, and also some reports that he could live with a cut of £300 million. Some of these reports conjure up scenes of internecine warfare, violence and carnage on a scale to satisfy even the most voracious appetite of the addict of video nasties. But we do not believe that. I will not say that we would not like to, but we do not, if only because we know who has been presiding over these discussions, and we could not imagine anything so uncivilised under his avuncular auspices, although we know that he can be firm.
We are fortunate that the Minister in charge of that exercise is the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for he is indeed chairman of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee. As a matter of fact I still cannot accept its popular name while he is chairman of it, for one could not possibly associate his benign benevolence with anything remotely resembling a Star Chamber. But there is a serious point here. Not tonight, I imagine, because of when I understand the announcement on those matters is due to be made, but when the noble Viscount winds up the debate next week perhaps he could give us some idea of the scale of the defence cuts, if any, and which parts of defence spending they will affect. Let us bear in mind that £1,000 million is 5·5 per cent. of the total on defence of £18,060 million, and even £300 million is 1·7 per cent.

115
It is important for us to know, for any cuts would come when a series of major pressures is building up on the defence budget. One of these is Trident, which has been referred to tonight, and there is a new development here. Since our last main defence debate we have had the promised report on Trident of the Select Committee on Defence of another place. I shall not repeat the detailed arguments against Trident—we had them last time—but the arguments remain.
There is the growing body of informed, expert, and indeed service opinion against it; the increased cost; the enormous increase in nuclear fire power compared with Polaris, when we are told that all we need is a minimum deterrent; the increase in the amount of money we shall have to spend in the United States, and the decrease in the amount to be spent here; the high proportion of the whole defence equipment budget taken up by Trident, especially in its peak spending years; the adverse effects on our conventional arms. These and the other weighty arguments against Trident still stand with, I think, even greater force.
What they come to is simply this: Trident actually distorts the whole defence budget. At one time the argument on conventional arms was that we would make a better conventional contribution if we scrapped Trident before it was too late, and now the argument is more disturbing. The danger now is that Trident does not just stop us making a better conventional contribution, it actually threatens the conventional commitments we have already.
The Select Committee presided over by Sir Humphrey Atkins points out that the,
"programme is only now moving into the period of substantial expenditure";
and it says that one of the difficulties it had in assessing the impact on the defence budget has been a,
"lack of clarity on the part of the Ministry over its duration";
and it is worried about,
"the programme's steadily increasing pressure on the defence budget".
On managing the programme, it says:
"The Secretary of State remains confident that this can be done without adverse effects on defence capability.…We do not share his confidence".
That is precisely the point that many of us have been making.
There are two other points on the report. The Government have made much of the jobs that the project will create, but they are now down from 45,000 in the late 1980s to 32,000 in the peak years. The other point is that the United States contracts for British firms have been, the committee says:
"rather less than official optimism might have suggested".
By the beginning of July this year 104 contracts worth some 37 million dollars had been awarded to British companies. Just 37 million dollars! That is from our Trident costs overall of £9·285 billion, of which we shall spend £4·143 billion in the United States, and our firms were open to bid for the American's own Trident work as well costing immensely greater sums. Incidentally, that does not say much for our chances of a slice of the action on star wars contracts, if indeed that is what we want.
116
So what are the other pressures on the defence budget? From next year the Government are abandoning the NATO agreed target begun in 1979 of a real increase in defence spending of 3 per cent. a year. They plan level funding on defence, with increases only for inflation—no real increase. But, as has been pointed out, a big funding gap will develop in defence. Defence economist David Greenwood points out that it would be likely to be £4 billion by 1987–88. This is happening with other pressures. There is a need to re-equip and replace major conventional armaments. There is a need to replace, for example, our amphibious fleet, in particular "Fearless" and "Intrepid", which are the key elements in it. We gather that there will be no decision until well into next year and I wonder whether the Minister can say more on that and on the cost of those replacements.
Our amphibious capability is of great importance in defending NATO's northern flank. This was brought home to me particularly on a parliamentary visit in the Recess to defence establishments in Scandinavia, including Denmark, and, more extensively, Norway, arranged by the United States Embassy in London. There was high praise from the Norwegian forces for our services, notably those who train there regularly, including the combined United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force. The area is of growing importance. The Kola peninsula bordering northern Norway is now said to have, with the Soviet northern fleet, the largest single concentration of naval power in the world. The Norwegian coastline is not just NATO's northern flank; it is our own front line, as our Norwegian friends are keen to point out. They are indeed right.
I want to mention one problem. There are no non-Scandinavian forces based permanently on Norwegian or Danish soil in peacetime. There are therefore plans for reinforcements in time of tension, crisis and of course war. There is prestocking of supplies. The message we kept receiving throughout our tour was that more needs to be done, especially on reinforcements. I hope the Minister will reassure us and be able to say tonight that that is in hand.
Those are some specific practical ways of making a better conventional contribution. I have spelt out details before, so I shall not do so again now. I mention this because we have a duty to put forward constructive alternative proposals. There are other pressures on the defence budget and other problems facing the Secretary of State: the delay over Nimrod, the claims of the Tornado programme, the European fighter aircraft plan, the need for a major battle-tank replacement. Those problems underline the point made by the Select Committee on Defence of another place in its third report published in June—that a review of policy priorities is overdue. There is indeed an urgent need for a comprehensive review of defence priorities. It is disappointing that there is no mention of that in the gracious Speech. We hope the Government will say that they plan a new White Paper.
That same Select Committee report had other complaints in examining the defence budget. It said:
"Our purpose was frustrated by vague and evasive answers and elegant but unhelpful hypotheses".
That is not the only case of the way Select Committees are being treated on defence matters. I do not blame

117
our Minister here in your Lordships' House, but I hope he will draw the attention of his right honourable friend to this. Since our last full defence debate we have also had reports published in July of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence on the future of the royal dockyards. It seems that the Bill on the dockyards mentioned in the gracious Speech has failed to take those reports into account.
The Public Accounts Committee was driven to say at one point:
"we have misgivings about the thoroughness and accuracy of the Ministry's costings".
It has not yet
"provided enough evidence to enable Parliament to assess the financial aspects of the options".
That is not all. It is worse, my Lords. These committees were examining the three options being considered by the Government for running the dockyards. Their preferred option—commercial management; or a trading fund; or full privatisation.
The Government have made much of consultation and put out another of their defence open Government documents. The committee said the time allowed for consultation was much too short—eleven weeks—and said that the Ministry's
"handling of the consultation process has been inept and insensitive".
And it said:
"There is strong reason to suspect that 'consultation period' is in any case a misnomer, and that the Government has already decided for its preferred option,"
and,
"What is not acceptable is for Ministers to suggest that options are open…when [they]…have, in reality, been closed".
So much for consultation. What about the merits of the Government's preferred scheme? The Committee found
"Almost all the evidence…was critical of the concept".
What were its own conclusions? After listing the main problems with the Government's preferred plan, it said that on the basis of the Ministry's own evidence,
"we are not convinced that the Ministry…has begun to tackle those potential difficulties. The sporadic issuing of hastily-written briefing papers … —many of which raise more questions than they answer—confirm the impression that much of the necessary information is not yet available within the Ministry…Neither Parliament nor the Trade Unions nor the public have been given enough information to reach a well-informed verdict on the options, or to contribute to a sensible solution".
It added that its report was intended as a contribution to the consultation process and trusted that Ministers would feel obliged to meet those valid criticisms and objections.
What did the Secretary of State do? Within days of another place ordering those reports to be printed, he was on his feet announcing that he had chosen his preferred option and he had not even responded to the Select Committees. In our view, that is no way to treat Parliament and people or to make good decisions. It is no good pretending to have open Government when what one really has are closed minds. We really do urge the Minister to get his right honourable friend, for his own good and that of the country, to stop these hasty piecemeal decisons and have a real, thorough, comprehensive review.
118
We were disappointed to see no reference in the gracious Speech to the Merchant Navy. In our last main defence debate there was great concern in all parts of your Lordships' House over the huge decline in our merchant fleet and the implications for defence. There was quoted the recently published report of the Select Committee on Defence, The Use of Merchant Shipping for Defence Purposes, which said the position was "extremely disturbing". My noble friend Lord Cledwyn raised this matter in his speech and asked whether the study by the Department of Transport with the Ministry of Defence would be published The noble Viscount the Leader of the House undertook to make representations about that. I wonder whether the Minister has any further news of that.
It was suggested in a question from my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should look into the problems of the Merchant Navy, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House reacted positively and said that although there were no resources then available to service such a Committee, the Select Committee on Overseas Trade would soon complete its work. It has now done so, thus releasing facilities. I wonder whether there is news of the possible appointment of a Select Committee along those lines.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn dealt, in his admirably comprehensive survey, with East-West relations and arms control and said that I hoped to mention the strategic defence initiative. This indeed is a subject which has occupied a great deal of your Lordships' attention during the course of today's debate. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn and I think the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew, and Lord Kennet, my noble friends Lord Ardwick, Lord Molloy and Lord Jenkins of Putney raised this, as indeed did the noble Lords Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As we know, grave doubts have been raised, not least in debates in your Lordships' House, and nowhere more potently than in the speeches here of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, with all his experience in scientific and technological matters. For he, like others, has concluded that the arms race will continue if the strategic defence initiative continues; that there can be no perfect anti-ballistic missile system anyway, for some warheads will get through; that no anti-ballistic missile umbrella could keep out cruise missiles or aircraft and that the anti-ballistic missile treaty must not be violated, something about which there have been doubts expressed in your Lordships' House today. His overall conclusion was that:
"mutual nuclear deterrence is infinitely safer than what would happen if we entrusted our security to an automatically-operating imperfect complex of artificial satellites, lasers and computers, in which there was neither place nor time for the exercise of human judgment".
Some of these points were among those made by the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his admirable speech as long ago as last March to the Royal United Services Institution and I am bound to say that there has been precious little sign that account is being taken of Sir Geoffrey's pertinent and probing questions. We wonder whether account is being taken and whether the Minister might be able to tell us that. Then there is the warning by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, of

119
the brain drain from Britain which would occur with the strategic defence initiative. I wonder what account the Government have taken of that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is among those who have been concerned about this very point.
Our scientists have considerable expertise, and according to what the Secretary of State for Defence is reported to have told Mr. Caspar Weinberger in Brussels last week, more than 20 British firms are specialising in lasers, optical computers and data technology. We hear that the Government hoped for contracts worth £1 billion for British firms for strategic defence initiative research, whatever view one takes about that particular matter. We wonder what is the position on that and what guarantees we have, if this is to take place, that there would be two-way traffic in exchanging information. Is there any precedent which gives us any confidence about that?
There was also the report on Monday in The Times that sharing of information is against the anti-ballistic missile treaty anyway, and we wonder whether we can be provided with any guidance on that point. Finally on the strategic defence initiative, it really is time that we had an answer to the fundamental question on research on this project. It is one which I raised in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, as long ago as 27th March. We are told that research is not ruled out by the anti-ballistic missile treaty but the question which needs answering is where research ends and development begins; let alone where production, procurement or deployment begins. And what of the development of a prototype weapon and its testing! We need to know where research ends and something beyond it begins; because it is at that point that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty will be threatened or violated and it is at that point that stability, as we have known it, is also threatened. We need an answer to this question and if the answer is "We do not know", then the situation is even more dangerous than we thought. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on this.
On one final point, we were surprised to see that there was no mention in the gracious Speech of the Secretary of State's idea for Whitehall bonuses for top civil servants who come up with bright ideas to save money, bonuses we understand, of up to £2,800. We thought that they were paid to do that anyway. The Civil Service certainly served us splendidly when we were in office and without these bonuses so far as I know. I wonder what the difference is now. Are the Government in fact proposing privatising Whitehall itself now? What wonderful opportunities this idea provides for civil servants! All you have to do to save costs is to order some extra equipment that you do not need, suddenly find that you do not need it, cancel it and claim your bonus. Or perhaps create a few redundancies, take on the work that no longer needs doing yourself and get a continuing bonus. I would suggest that if there are any bonuses going, the people that perhaps they most ought to go to are the members of the armed forces themselves. That raises this serious point. The great thing about our armed services is that they have shown themselves consistently capable of overcoming whatever obstacles are put in their way, and the greatest of difficulties; and that after all is the
120
nature of their job. We can never ever express our gratitude enough for the way they face the dangers that confront them and the magnificent way they serve our nation and our security.
9.55 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in rising to bring this debate to a close, I should first of all like to pay tribute to the interesting and informed maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Forres and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leicester during our debate this afternoon. Like other noble Lords, I hope we shall hear both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate again, and soon.
I will come to as many points as I can in a few minutes' time; but in doing so I shall wish to have regard to the advice proffered by the late Lord Chesterfield, who wrote to his son and said:
"If you would convince others, seem open to conviction yourself.
But, first, I should like to devote a few moments to some particular aspects of our defence policy. I am sure that I need not rehearse in detail the justification for vigilance in defence of peace and freedom. We had a very full discussion of this most important of issues earlier this year during our two-day debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985. The threat which faces us has not materially changed since then; and neither has the Government's resolve, acting in concert with our NATO allies, to deter the threat or use of force against us. Earlier this year I described to your Lordships the measures that the Government have taken to increase the resources devoted to defence, and the measures that we have been taking to enhance efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and thereby to maximise the output that we get from a given cash input. I summarised the Government's defence policies as "realistic, credible, affordable and prudent", and I stand by that analysis today.
In these introductory remarks I would like to concentrate, as I did during my closing speech in July, on our greatest and most valuable defence asset: the men and women of our armed forces. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, has referred to them, too, in his closing remarks just now. We rely—all of us—on their courage, skills and loyalty; and they deserve our loyalty and support in return. Indeed, as we approach Remembrance Sunday perhaps I can remind your Lordships that a party of some 230 widows and veterans, including my noble friend Lord Gridley, are even now in the Far East visiting war graves of those who gave their lives there for our freedom. I was privileged to be present at Brize Norton earlier this week when they left on their journey and I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be attending three out of the four remembrance ceremonies out there.
The Government are proud of their record on providing good pay and conditions of service for the armed forces. When we came to office in 1979 we honoured our pledge and brought service pay back up to a level comparable with the earnings of those in equivalent civilian occupations. The X factor, 10 per cent. for servicemen, is paid on top of that and takes account of the particular stresses and responsibilities

121
of service life. Since 1979 we have accepted the recommendations of each and every report of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. In 1984 we had to stage the award, because of the need to show restraint in public expenditure generally; but we nevertheless introduced the full rates within seven months, and this year the recommended award was implemented in full from 1st April.
We are no less proud of our record in providing the best possible conditions of service for the armed forces. While there are, of course, limits of justifiable public expenditure, we have been keeping conditions under close review so as to identify and, as far as possible, eliminate particular grievances of service personnel. As a result, it has been possible to bring about a number of much-sought-after improvements. For example, in 1983 we introduced a discounted scheme for the sale to service personnel of surplus married quarters in England and Wales. I am pleased to say that legal and other difficulties have now been overcome and the scheme will shortly be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom on an improved freehold, rather than leasehold, basis.
We are no less proud of our record in providing the best possible conditions of service for the armed the Scottish islands and we have made other improvements such as the introduction of an air conditioning allowance for those serving in Hong Kong. A major grievance identified among service personnel is the present requirement for those serving abroad to contribute up to 3 per cent. of their salary towards the cost of the third visit each year by their children from a boarding school in the United Kingdom. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to announce tonight that the Government have decided to abolish this requirement for a parental contribution. This will allow Christmas visits at public expense this year and will, I know, be very welcome news to the armed forces. It demonstrates once again the Government's firm support for them. We are continuing to pay close attention to all conditions of service, and we shall introduce further changes when justified.
May I now turn to one of the highlights of 1985, which revealed once again the qualities of the men and women of the armed forces, both regular and reserve. I refer to the home defence exercise, Brave Defender, which we staged in various parts of the United Kingdom this autumn. Brave Defender was the largest conventional home defence exercise ever held in this country. Sixty-five thousand men and women from the regular and reserve forces took part, including the newly-formed Home Service Force. Some 1,000 members of the United States forces also took part in and around their own bases, and police forces from all the home defence regions also participated.
The aim of the exercise was to practise the ground defence of vital installations in the United Kingdom against attack by enemy special forces and conventional air attack. In particular, we sought to test our new plans for the ground defence of the United Kingdom. The exercise, which lasted in all from 2nd to 13th September, was a great success, and we have learnt many lessons. In particular, our revised concept for military home defence has been proven. There were some incidents during the exercise which showed
122
both the alertness of the defenders and the ingenuity of the attackers. In one case a staff sergeant, disguised in women's clothing to enable him to observe a key point without arousing suspicion, was finally identified by the defenders because he had forgotten to remove his army boots.
Inevitably, perhaps, it will take some little time before all the details of the exercise can be properly assessed and the points incorporated into future plans and training. However, following a Question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, on 22nd October, I placed a copy of the report of our first impressions of the exercise in the Library.
There were, indeed, a number of notable "firsts". It was the first time all three services, regular and reserves, had been brought together in a nationwide exercise. It was the first time that civilian police forces and United States forces had taken part in such an exercise. Integration of all these was excellent and the exercise should provide the basis for even better cooperation in future. Finally, I should like to mention, in particular, the tremendous response of the volunteer and reserve forces whose turn-out, approaching 90 per cent., was well up to expectation and whose enthusiasm and skills were manifest.
May I now turn to some of the points that have been made during the course of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in his opening remarks, asked me particularly about the Chinese Government consulting the people of Hong Kong upon the Basic Law The answer to that is yes, indeed. In addition to the 23 Hong Kong members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee all the 150 members of the Basic Law Consultative Committee are from Hong Kong and we expect our annual report on Hong Kong to be published in December.
Turning now to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Argentina, which the noble Lord raised and to which my noble friend Lord Montgomery also referred, may I say that we have taken several initiatives to restore more normal relations with Argentina, but we have so far lacked any sort of response at all. We look for an early response from the Argentinians on this matter and I dare say that my noble friend Lady Young will hasten to the House to tell your Lordships of that when it happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me, too, about Her Majesty's Government's commitment to anti-apartheid measures as compared with our European Community or Commonwealth partners. The agreements reached at Luxembourg and Nassau show that we are in line with our partners in the Community and the Commonwealth on this matter. Indeed, our record of implementing previous measures stands comparison with that of any other country. As to the Soviet role in the Middle East, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred, I note the noble Lord's concern that the possible role of the Soviet Union is helping to resolve the Arab-Israel problem should not be overlooked, but we take the view that any settlement of that problem should command the widest possible international support.
During the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the need for greater co-

123
operation within Europe. I believe he was thinking particularly about defence matters. Strengthening European defence co-operation remains a major element in developing a stronger and more cohesive NATO alliance. Our objective is to maintain and develop an effective and coherent European contribution but this can never replace the transatlantic partnership with the United States. The Government's approach is explained in detail in chapter 3 of this year's White Paper. There are three main fora for European co-operation—the Euro group, IEPG and the WEU. All have a role to play but we shall ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication.
In his excellent maiden speech the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester made reference to the RAF aeroplanes presently operating in Ethiopia. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has made clear in another place, the RAF operations in Ethiopia will certainly continue until the latter part of December. The end of the rainy season will of course mean that the roads should be much easier to use at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and several other noble Lords referred to our attitude over the United States Government's position on negotiations in respect of SDI. It is entirely consistent with these areas of agreement that the United States has committed itself to negotiating with the Soviet Union in Geneva on the whole question of the offensive/defensive relationship. It has made clear that it seeks to prevent an arms race in space as well as terminating the arms race on earth. We hope the Soviet Union will show a similar desire seriously to discuss these issues, taking into account the activities on both sides.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, asked me about the arms embargo which we operate with regard to Israel. That was imposed in direct response to Israel's invasion of the Lebanon in 1982. Although the policy is kept under review I must say that Israel's withdrawal is not yet completed and therefore the embargo remains in place.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me about the prohibited air space for military aircraft around RAF Gibraltar. I can tell him that we are in discussions with the Spanish authorities about changes to the prohibited air space for military aircraft, and I hope we shall have something to tell my noble friend before too long.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Beloff, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend Lord Bauer, referred to the problem of UNESCO. I can assure all noble Lords that the Government fully understand the value of Britain's cultural diplomacy overseas, as we have made clear in sending an extremely distinguished team to the Budapest CSCE cultural forum and by the active role that our delegation are playing there. We also appreciate highly the activities of the British Council and the BBC overseas services. This notwithstanding, neither the British Council nor any other Government-funded body can be exempted from the effects of public expenditure constraints.
I have been invited by several noble Lords to describe the Government's policy on UNESCO. We
124
have frequently made clear our concerns. These can be summarised under four main headings: better programmes, less political bias, a responsible attitude to money matters and improved management. On programmes, we believe the need is for clear priorities with resources concentrated on the most valuable activities. We think it necessary for the general conference now in progress to shift the emphasis still further towards those which are at the heart of UNESCO's activities. We also share the concern expressed by some noble Lords about the political bias which has crept into some of UNESCO's activities. The values and ideals for which UNESCO stands are those set out in its own constitution and in other international instruments.
On the financial side we and others have continued to work for zero growth in 1986–87 and no increased burden on member states as a consequence of the withdrawal of the United States. We have also insisted that UNESCO be better managed, and we shall expect the general conference to endorse the importance of prompt and effective implementation of management reforms already agreed.
The general conference of UNESCO now taking place in Sofia is scheduled to end on 12th November. It will not be until we have had an opportunity to assimilate all its results that we shall be in a position to take our decision on whether or not to rescind our notice of withdrawal from the organisation. In making that decision we shall certainly take into account the views of all interested parties, including those views expressed by your Lordships today.
Returning briefly to the subject of the SDI, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, asked specifically about where research ends and development begins. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and others also had this point in mind. This is a complex question because the ABM treaty does not provide a definition of this distinction. It is one of the many questions which the United States will need to discuss with the Soviet Union once the Soviet Union are prepared to abandon their unrealistic insistence on a ban on SDI research—which is of course unverifiable and which ignores their own work in that area. In the meantime, the United States have published in a report by the Pentagon to the United States Congress a detailed account of the SDI programme and its relationship to the ABM treaty, where the point is discussed at some length.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, referred to the funding of SDI work, particularly that which may take place in this country. I can tell the noble Lord that that is not a matter for the British Government because such work will be funded as part of the United States programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Forres, referred during the course of his maiden speech to the effect of the common agricultural policy on Australia. I understand the concern of the Australian Government and of Australian farmers. We believe it is wrong for agriculture to swallow more than 70 per cent. of the Community budget. We have been working to reduce the costs and the surpluses of the CAP. We are conscious of the fact that disposing of beef and other surpluses disturbs world markets and creates problems for countries such as Australia.

125
I will refer once more to the question of the SDI, and I apologise for dealing with it in a rather disjointed way. I will reply now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, concerning United Kingdom participation. Detailed discussions have been taking place with the United States to seek to identify the scope and conditions which would have enabled the United Kingdom to participate in the SDI programme. Much progress has been made, especially when my right honourable friend met the United States Defence Secretary on 29th and 30th October. A decision on participation, which involves the interests of several ministerial colleagues and a wide range of British firms, will be taken shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked about the role of the United States in a Middle East peace settlement. The United States are of course indispensable in the peace process because of their close——
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: I spoke of the USSR, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall come to that point in a moment, but I believe I was asked, too, about the role of the United States in a peace settlement.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: Not by me, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, then it must have been another Member of your Lordships' House, and I apologise. Whoever it was who asked me that question, the answer is that the United States are indispensable to the peace process because of their close links to parties on both sides of the Arab-Israel dispute. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has discussed the situation with President Reagan, and they agree upon the need for early and urgent efforts to make progress.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—and I hope that this point was one he raised—that the Government take seriously their obligations to our dependent territories. They continue to have the first call on our aid resources. In St. Helena, to which he referred, we are doing all we can to further the economic development and social wellbeing of the people there.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, asked about the Israeli arms embargo as part of the Middle East problem. This was imposed in direct response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. To be truthful, I think I have already dealt with that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also referred to aid and asked whether it would be charity or investment. I know the views of the noble Lord on this matter. The fundamental purpose of British aid is to promote development and self-sustaining economic progress in the developing world. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, with an annual income of 800 dollars or less per head. There need be no inconsistency between providing aid to help develop the poorer countries and taking account of Britain's commercial interests. I remind the noble Lord that it was this Government, not a Labour Government, who introduced the aid and trade provisions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord look that up again, because I think he is wrong? It was introduced in 1977 by Dame Judith Hart, then Minister for Overseas Development.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I will indeed look that up again if the noble Lord asks me to do so, but I remember much talk about his matter very soon after we came into office in 1979.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked some direct questions about the recent Old Bailey case concerning alleged breaches of security in Cyprus. I hope the noble Lord will understand when I tell him that there is very little I can add to the announcement made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur last week. However, I can tell the noble Lord that there appeared to have been serious breaches of security at the time the original investigation took place. I can go no further than that except to say that I am advised there is no basis on which to initiate proceedings against any other member of 9 Signal Regiment.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for not being in my place when he spoke. He made some remarks about the Government's record in the United Nations. I think the Government have nothing to be ashamed of in this field. We have consistently supported resolutions and other work which make a genuine contribution to peace, but we see no purpose in supporting resolutions which do not meet this demanding but important criterion. I know the noble Lord is particularly concerned about the comprehensive test ban treaty, but as I think I have said to the noble Lord before, and as I think my noble friend Lady Young has also said, one of the major problems in that area is of course that of verifications.
Turning, finally, to the speech—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Lord comes to a conclusion, may I say that I understand he cannot be in the Chamber all the tune, but I did ask a number of specific questions and perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to read them tomorrow and possibly give me a written answer.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, of course I give the noble Lord that assurance.
Finally, I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, who raised a number of points. I deal first with the question of our future amphibious capability, which I think came very much into his mind during his recent visit to Scandinavia. We understand well the vital part that amphibious forces can play in reinforcement and intervention operations both in and out of area. Our present forces will continue to fulfil this role until the end of the useful lives of the current specialised ships in the mid-1990s.
We have referred frequently to the wide-ranging studies which we have in hand on the options for our capability beyond that date. These are proceeding satisfactorily and Ministers expect to take decisions on this about the middle of next year. Detailed design work involving industry would, on present plans, need to start shortly thereafter to allow us to replace the present ships, if we decide to do so, by the mid-1990s. To suggest, as the Select Committee has done, that our

127
decisions will depend primarily on whether or not the solutions are financially opportune is quite incorrect. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said recently in the other place, the purpose of our studies is to determine the military requirements and to assess their relative priorities in the overall balance of our defence needs. That amphibious capability will of course be part of our reinforcement capability with regard to northern Norway. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into it in detail but I could write to him on some thoughts that I have on it.
The noble Lord also referred to his concern about the merchant fleet. I do not think that I have anything very new to say about that. The noble Lord may like to refer to what I have said in the past; I shall certainly remind him of it. In particular the Department of Transport study to which he referred is now available in the Library of your Lordships' House. As to the question of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the merchant navy, I understand that this is being considered in the normal way through the usual channels.
Foreign policy and defence are inseparable. They are like two sides of the same coin, and national
128
security depends on them both. As President Kennedy one said:
"Diplomacy and defence are not substitutes for one another. Either alone would fail".
The Government need no convincing of the paramount need for a credible and coherent foreign policy. Neither do we have to be reminded of the need for an adequate and believable defence posture to add to the weight and substance of our foreign policy. Our pledge, as expressed in the gracious Speech, is to continue the policies which have brought us security, and to build on them so as to enhance it further in the years to come. I commend them to your Lordships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.
Moved, That this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.

  "LIFTING THE BURDEN": RESPONSE TO WHITE PAPER
  "LIFTING THE BURDEN": RESPONSE TO WHITE PAPER
  SALMON: TAGGING AND DRIFT NET FISHING
  SALMON: TAGGING AND DRIFT NET FISHING