Sitting of 6 February 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL (By Order)
  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)
  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (CITY EXTENSION) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 13 February.

  PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Monday 10 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fisheries Protection
    Dr. Godmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the current level of United Kingdom fishery protection resources, in the light of the recent accession to the European Economic Community of Spain and Portugal.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I am confident that the resources currently devoted to fisheries protection, which are deployed flexibly in response to enforcement needs, are adequate to meet the demands of the present situation following the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community.
    Dr. Godman: The operations of the fisheries protection service are to some extent determined or shaped by EEC regulations. When does the Minister expect the proposed expansion of the EEC inspectorate from 10 to 21 to take effect?
    Mr. Gummer: That is a matter for the Commission, but people are being recruited for the posts. I am particularly pleased not only that that is going ahead under Britain's pressure, but, with the association between France, Britain and the Republic of Ireland, which together have been dealing most effectively with policing in the south-western approaches.
    Mr. Harris: I am the hon. Member whose constituency is nearest to Spain. Will my right hon. Friend give my fishermen an absolute assurance that policing arrangements will be tightened with regard to Spanish fishing so that we can deal with the massive illegal fishing by Spain in the western approaches?
    Mr. Gummer: We have already done a great deal to meet my hon. Friend's request. I was in the west country seeing how effective the arrangements were. I think he will agree that what we are doing has been effective. We arrested a boat in the first week, and that resulted in a heavy fine. I have no doubt that we shall make sure that the Spanish fishermen fish legally. I ask my hon. Friend to tell his fishermen that not only are we doing that, but that we have been surprised and pleased by the way in which the Spanish Government have sought to do that work.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister acccept that there can be no faith in the common fisheries policy unless; it is properly policed, and that the key responsibility falls; on our Government in their fishery protection effort? Is there not a case for increasing that effort with the advent of a power whose fleet is as large as its reputation for observing the rules is small?
    Mr. Gummer: I have made that point a number of times. The great and remarkable success of the common fisheries policy is largely because increasingly it is being enforced, and people know that to be so. When the hon. Gentleman sees the measures that we have taken on the south-western approaches, I feel that, on this occasion at least, he will be able to support the Government.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to allay the anxieties that are being expressed by south-western fishermen, it is necessary for them to see action being taken and convictions being obtained?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I went to see the way in which the policing is being carried out, and why I welcome the action being taken and the conviction that was obtained in the first week. I shall keep a close personal eye on seeing that this continues.
    Mr. Wallace: There is now an added burden upon the fishery protection resources because of the accession of Spain and Portugal. Does the Minister believe that

    417
    sufficient resources are still available to maintain the former level of fishery protection in northern waters, particularly because of the phasing out of the the RAF Nimrod spotter plane?
    Mr. Gummer: The purpose of phasing out the RAF Nimrod spotter plane is to replace it with a plane that will do the job much better. We wish to do it for no other reason. I am, therefore, satisfied. if I were not, I should be pressing for additional resources.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that many of the people in the industry are still not confident that the common fisheries policy is operating fairly? Will he put pressure on the Commission to provide feedback for the industry on how well enforcement is working?
    Mr. Gummer: This country initiated the pressure. We are continuing to apply pressure and it is increasingly bearing fruit. If the hon. Gentleman wants proof, he must look at the very strong representations that have been made to other Fisheries Ministers by their fishermen now that we are being so very much tougher.

    Milk
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had in the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community concerning the future of milk production within the Community.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Joplin): There have been no recent discussions in the Council of Ministers on the future of milk production within the Community. The Commission's proposals for a scheme to buy up and cancel milk quota have yet to be considered by the Council of Ministers. Other matters affecting milk production are likely to be discussed during the price fixing negotiations.
    Mr. Shepherd: In respect of the proposed Community outgoers scheme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Council of Ministers is fully cognisant of the real interests of both landlord and tenant and of the importance of reaching an agreement that is fair to both parties and that will reflect individual circumstances? Does he agree that it is probably better to take a little longer in arriving at a decision of this kind than to take one in haste, which might set unfortunate precedents for the future?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend knows that I am anxious to ensure that there is fairness between the varying interests of landlord and tenant with regard to milk quotas. I am having discussions at this moment, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has told me.
    Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in all the problems of milk production and surpluses it is important to be fair to the various countries? Will he look into the developing problem of New Zealand and its butter agency in this country? It is importing butter from Eire and blending it with its own. It is therefore fulfilling a much larger quota in this country. That is completely against the butter agreement and needs to be looked into.
    Mr. Jopling: I am aware of my hon. Friend's suggestions and I am looking into them.
    Mr. Home Robertson: We recognise the need for an extended outgoers scheme, but what has happened to the
    418
    negotiations over the scheme? We understood that the scheme was to come into effect in January. Will the Minister assure us that he will try to get it right this time, with particular reference to the needs of tenants in this country, and with even more particular reference to the fact that Britain took an excessive cut in production under the original quota system?
    Mr. Jopling: The Presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers has not yet brought this forward to the point of decision. It will now be embraced within the normal price fixing arrangements, which we shall begin to discuss at the end of this month.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the Commission's proposals go ahead, will the Government respond to the almost unanimous view of the milk producing industry, which would require the Government to establish a fund from the quota which could be reallocated to hardship and new entrant cases? The Government have said in the past that they are broadly in favour of such a system. Will the Minister give an undertaking to put it into operation?
    Mr. Jopling: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "a fund". If he means a fund of money, that is one thing. What I need is a reserve of milk quota in order to be able to reallocate. If I want to get some milk quota to reallocate, I have to get it from somebody within this country who wishes to release it. That is much easier to say than to find.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of what my right hon. Friend said about a further 3 per cent. of milk producers taking a golden handshake and going out of milk production, has he considered, with the Commission, the fact that this will throw another 200,000 tonnes of beef on to the beef market and impose restrictions on that sector?
    Mr. Jopling: Yes, I am aware of that. I think I am right in saying that the Community has proposed a 2 per cent. cut. An NFU delegation saw me this week and its members drew my attention to the great difficulty that would ensue for the beef sector if there were any cut in milk production.

    Agricultural Land
    Mr. Cashasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of current overproduction, he will take steps to revise the current guidelines for the release, where appropriate, of some agricultural land for other purposes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The Government continue to attach importance to the protection of agricultural land as a valuable but finite national resource. The Government's policies in this area are implemented to ensure that the right balance is struck between the competing considerations.
    Mr. Cash: I must express some disappointment with that answer. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the 1976 guidelines are under consideration, whether she is having discussions with the Department of the Environment on this issue, and whether sufficient priority is being given to the problems of small businesses in rural areas and the extent to which it will be possible to improve the guidelines in the foreseeable future?
    Mrs. Fenner: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we recognise the need to strike the right balance between the

    419
    interests involved. We adopt a flexible approach to development proposals. We recognise the need to provide more jobs and to improve amenities in areas which are adjacent to towns and villages.
    Mr. John: Is not the real criticism that the balance is entirely wrong in the countryside, in that we are growing vast quantities of unwanted cereals while we are short of protein crops and farm woodlands? Does the Minister accept that the Ministry's reluctance to issue a White Paper that gives any signs for the future is an irresponsible attitude to adopt?
    Mrs. Fenner: We have a consultation paper on woodlands policy, and the entire issue is under that sort of review. We examine carefully any proposals involving first-grade agricultural land if we believe that there is other lesser grade land available for the purposes that are envisaged.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of county councils of varying political colours are granting themselves planning permission to develop good agricultural land for industrial purposes? As the Government are committed to the preservation and improvement of the environment, will my hon. Friend have better consultations with her opposite numbers in the Department of the Environment?
    Mrs. Fenner: We always have good consultations with our opposite numbers in the Department of the Environment. We are consulted at all stages in the preparation of structure and local plans and on all planning applications for areas of more than 4 hectares if they are not within an agreed development plan. That enables us to ensure that the policy for the protection of agricultural land is taken fully into account in the planning processes, whoever is involved.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Dr. Marekasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial provision will be made in 1986 for payments in environmentally sensitive areas under the Agriculture Bill 1985.
    Mr. Jopling: We estimate that expenditure in a full year will be £6 million if, as intended, five or six areas are designated during 1986. Expenditure during 1986 will depend on the timing of environmentally sensitive area designation and the conditions applicable to each area.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister confirm that the expenditure will be for the first tranche of areas to be so designated? Will there be further tranches? If so, when will they be announced, and how much further expenditure does he envisage?
    Mr. Jopling: We shall have to see how we get on with what we hope will be the first five or six areas. Any extension will depend on the availability of cash at the time.
    Sir John Farr: I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming. Who are likely to be the recipients in the environmentally sensitive areas, and for what purposes will the moneys be paid over?
    Mr. Jopling: In general, we are seeking to preserve traditional and historic types of activity in areas where such activity is threatened. We want to encourage people
    420
    who are carrying out, let us say, a grazing policy, in areas which are threatened with being ploughed up for large acres of grain, to keep that form of husbandry.
    Mr. Dalyell: For those of us who were in Committee, will the Minister expand on the two words in his original answer, "as intended"?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know that in Committee my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear that we were intending to designate five or six areas during 1986. The words "as intended" were a way of describing our intention.
    Mr. Marlow: Is the money available within the common agricultural policy? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if it is not available within the CAP, the policy—as a proportion of overall Community expenditure—will not cost any more this year than last year?
    Mr. Jopling: The first step that we took after the British initiative was to allow such schemes to take place under Community law. Currently, there is no Community money available to implement these schemes. Therefore, those five or six schemes will be financed through our own financial resources. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Treasury has agreed to that.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister's first reply mean that there will be no further areas designated during the course of the first five years? Incidentally, is there not enough gobbledegook in the English language without introducing "environmentally sensitive areas" and the inevitable initials ESAs? Why not use the phrase "heritage areas"?
    Mr. Jopling: I understand that in Committee the hon. Gentleman was invited to find a better phrase. He has found a better phrase. Having thought about it for the past five seconds or so, I am not sure that it is better than ours.

    Agriculture (Future Prospects)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper on the future of agriculture.
    Mr. Jopling: I believe that the agriculture industry is best helped by being kept fully informed of our thinking for the future of the industry and of the efforts we are making to secure its long-term prosperity. However, I am prepared to consider all options, including a White Paper.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the uncertainty and aprehension felt by some farmers in this country, does my right hon. Friend agree that guidelines of objectives for the future of agriculture would be helpful and keep confidence high?
    Mr. Jopling: Yes. I intend to take opportunities which are offered by speeches, debates and similar events to make known the Government's view on likely developments. I intend to do that where it will be helpful. I know that some people speak about the possibility of a White Paper. The difficulty is that one tends to explain the situaton in a White Paper as it is one minute and, because Of the speed at which events are currently changing within the European Community, it is likely to be out of date within a month.
    Mr. Torney: If the Minister decides to issue a White Paper, will he consider the huge cereals surplus currently

    421
    in this country and also the colossal cost to the British taxpayer of those cereals and their storage? According to experts in the industry, those cereals are apparently unusable?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that one reason for our not being been able to take more positive steps to deal with the cereal surplus was the action of the German Minister in applying a veto to price cuts in cereals last year. The best thing that I can do is to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a speech that I made to many German farmers in Berlin a week ago today, from which he will see that I tried to deal with that pressing problem to which he is so right to draw our attention.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: When my right hon. Friend is formulating his policies for the future, will he bear in mind the difficulties that he has experienced with the milk quota system? Will he give careful consideration to a semi-permanent set-aside system to take out a percentage of each agricultural holding, preferably by encouraging a lage-scale woodland planting scheme?
    Mr. Jopling: We are giving urgent attention, as we have done for many months, to every device—physical and financial—to deal with cereal surpluses. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the consultation paper, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred, on encouraging farm woodlands.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: In the light of the debate earlier this week, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take on the reported speech of the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, who said that he intended shortly to ask member states for a further £450 million to reduce the cost of disposing of "uncontrollable surpluses", as he called them? Is it not time that the Government took a stand to end this madness?
    Mr. Jopling: I am aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries has made proposals for extra money to deal with the existing surpluses. I suspect that many members of the Council of Ministers will feel that it is not helpful to find a lot more money to deal with the surplus stores in Europe if they are just going to build up again within the next year or two.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up a royal commission to inquire into agriculture's current situation and make recommendations as to the future of the industry.
    Mr. Jopling: I do not consider that a royal commission would be an appropriate response to agriculture's problems.
    Mr. Spence: Will my right hon. Friend keep this matter under review? As he will be aware, in the light of his Berlin speech, the external and internal pressures on the industry are reaching enormous proportions. There are pressures with respect to land use, conservation, use of the countryside, urban development, and so on. Does my right hon. Friend not think that a fully blown royal commission looking to the future might be a much better way of proceeding than has been suggested?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend feels strongly about this idea. I shall certainly keep that point in mind. I must point out to him, however, that one aspect of royal commissions is that an unconscionable time passes before they give rise
    422
    to reports. I suspect that the situation at the beginning of a royal commission's deliberations might have utterly changed by the time its report is published.
    Mr. Deakins: In considering the future of agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman bend his mind to the real alternatives to the present disastrous common agricultural policy which will be fair to consumers, taxpayers, farmers and the Third world? The Third world exports primary commodities which are at present debarred from entry into the Community.
    Mr. Jopling: Frankly, I think that the principles of the CAP, if they had been properly managed over the years, could have met all the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In the past seven or eight years both Conservative and Labour Ministers of Agriculture have made points which suggest that, if there had been more responsible management, we would not be into this mess.
    Mr. Bellingham: In considering the future of agriculture, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the agricultural advisory services and try to diversify them so that they help farmers to set up small businesses and other on-farm enterprises? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the funds saved from cutting back on agricultural support should not go to the Treasury, but should be used to promote this form of job creation?
    Mr. Jopling: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are trying to adapt the advisory service more to fit the desires and demands of farmers. That is one of the purposes of the Bill which has just completed its Committee stage. My hon. Friend should take note of the fact that in recent years the advisory service's work has broadened into other things, not least conservation.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister is not prepared to publish a White Paper or set up a royal commission—I agree with the latter decision—will he give agriculture a clear view in one of his ad hoc speeches, if that is the way he chooses to deal wih the matter, of how he proposes to rectify the appalling decline in agricultural incomes that there has been during his period of office?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman will recall that the drop in farm incomes in 1985 must be set against the increase of 35 per cent. in the previous year. He might also recall that during the past year the amount of public money from all sources that has gone to the support of agriculture has increased from £1·7 billion to £2·2 billion.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have submitted to quite enough humbug from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which is similar to that to which we had to listen in the debate last Wednesday? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of agriculture's problems are man-made and that some are natural, such as the weather, which was largely the cause of the fall in farm incomes, a fall which was preceded by a rise in farm incomes which was almost as great? Will he bear in mind the ripple effects that the changes in farm incomes have on the agricultural machine industry, which is in deep trouble following the withdrawal of capital allowances?
    Mr. Jopling: I am conscious of the difficulties of all sections of the industry, including the agricultural machinery industry. With regard to my hon. Friend's first

    423
    remarks, I have been in the House with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for nearly 20 years. I am used to his hesitant humbug, which has not changed over all those years. Anyone who wants to know has only to read Hansard's report of that debate to discover what a mess the policies of the parties that sit below the Gangway are in.

    Farm Workers
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average weekly wage for employed farm workers in England and Wales.
    Mrs. Fenner: My Department's most recent wages and employment inquiry shows that for the year ending September 1985 the average gross weekly earnings for all whole-time regular hired men aged 20 and over was £129·92.
    Mr. Powell: That is £38·70 less than that of the average industrial worker. Is the Minister prepared to agree that the modest request for a basic wage of £140 for an agricultural worker is £24·40 less than that for an average industrial worker? Why are the Government not considering that matter and taking the appropriate action?
    Mrs. Fenner: Statutory minimum rates are a matter for the independent Agricultural Wages Board, not Ministers. About 86 per cent. of full-time adult male workers earn more than the statutory minimum for the hours worked. It is difficult to make comparisons on the basis that the hon. Gentleman tried, because almost half the whole-time adult male agricultural labour force pay little or no rent for their accommodation.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend please consider the case of single workers on small farms, and the fact that they must accept the basic minimum wage, although I know that in my district the wages are far higher? She must bear that fact in mind.
    Mrs. Fenner: I must again make the point that the independent Agricultural Wages Board fixes the minimum rate. The board has employer and employee representatives. They take a balance of the argument.
    Miss Maynard: Is the Minister aware that the gap, currently £38·70, between the average weekly earnings of farm and industrial workers is becoming wider all the time, and that farm workers comprise the biggest group of workers drawing family income supplement because of their low earnings? At the same time, some company directors are paying themselves salaries of £90,000, £100,000 and, in some cases, £125,000 a year. In view of the farm workers' production record, when will the Government honour their pledge that those who increase production are entitled to a real wage and not peanuts?
    Mrs. Fenner: I readily acknowledge the notable contribution of farm workers to agriculture's good productivity record, but reward for improved productivity is a matter to be negotiated between the employer and the employee. Many of them do this.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the massive pay claim submitted today by the farm workers' union, if conceded, would have a grossly inflationary effect and would therefore affect the weekly bills of everybody?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware that negotiations on this claim are due to start soon, but it is not for Ministers to try to influence those negotiations, because there is an independent Agricultural Wages Board.
    Mr. John: Have the Government a secret pay norm which they want to impose on the farm pay negotiations? If so, rather than take it out on the chairman of this supposedly independent body, as they did by sacking Professor Dickson on the last occasion, when he made a higher than desired increase, why do they not make it public? After all, any personal and confidential letter will do.
    Mrs. Fenner: I reiterate, the Agricultural Wages Board is an independent body.

    Outgoers Scheme
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct a survey of the current use of land which has been taken out of the dairy industry under the outgoers scheme.
    Mr. Gummer: We have no immediate plans to conduct a special survey on the impact of the outgoers scheme. We shall, however, be monitoring the changing trends in agricultural activities, through existing statistical series.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Are we going to see the Minister paying people to take land out of dairy production, then paying people to take the same land out of beef production and then paying people to take the same land out of cereal production, in a highly expensive game of musical chairs, or can we have a sensible strategy for agricultural land use in the country?
    Mr. Gummer: The answer to the first half of the question is no; to the second half of the question, yes.
    Mr. Dickens: Will the Minister concede that, because land is available as a result of overproduction, it does not necessarily follow that that land has to be filled with residential or industrial development? Why can we not have a few decent golf courses?
    Mr. Gummer: Golf courses do not come within my many responsibilities, but my hon. Friend must be right in saying that there are different considerations when we are dealing with land that can be taken out of use as agricultural land for purposes that would enable it to be returned to such use and the situation where it would be covered with concrete.

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is collected by his Ministry about the number of sites of special scientific interest which have been damaged by agricultural activies over the past 12 months.
    Mrs. Fenner: Information on damage to SSSIs is collected by the Nature Conservancy Council and published in its annual report.
    Mr. Taylor: In thanking my hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask whether she thinks the agricultural community is careful enough with scientific sites and, for that matter, with ancient monuments?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed. Government policy on conservation is founded on the voluntary approach. Generally speaking this works very well with the majority of farmers, who are very conservation conscious. The instances of damage to SSSIs should not be allowed to disguise the fact that most biological SSSIs are receiving protection by the good management of the farmers. It is the farmers, indeed, who are providing this.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that only a few months ago her right hon. Friend appeared to become the champion of British conservation? Is she now telling us that the Ministry of Agriculture does not know how much damage has been done to sites of special scientific interest for agricultural purposes?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, we do know—
    Mr. Hardy: Why not tell us?
    Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend asked whether we kept the figures. I pointed out what is accurate, that the Nature Conservancy Council keeps the figures, but, of course, we have read the report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be reassured by the fact that the figures produced in the report were for a period before the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which seeks to close that loophole, came into operation. I think that we should bear in mind that the figures produced by the NCC show that there were only eight cases of serious damage caused by agricultural activities.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures announced by her right hon. Friend the Minister during the past year, and those available through the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, provide every opportunity to enhance the countryside and the habitat, and that it is high time the anti-farming lobby stopped bashing the countryside?
    Mrs. Fenner: I would add to my hon. Friend's remarks that recently we introduced a clause into the Agriculture Bill in Committee, which was generally welcomed and which imposes a general duty on Ministers to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of agriculture and those of the environment. I trust that that will further expand and improve the position.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that a farmer in my constituency wants to work his land, but the Ministry will not let him? Apparently weeds of scientific value are growing there, but he wants to earn his living. He must sit in the cottage and watch the weeds grow all day. What will the Minister do about that stupid position?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am aware that there are certain plants of inestimable value, including some weeds. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I shall look into the matter.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Patchettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to announce his provisional choice of environmentally sensitive areas as provided for in the Agriculture Bill 1985.
    Mr. Jopling: We are currently consulting the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council over the selection of areas. We expect to receive their final advice within the next three months.
    426
    Announcements will be made as soon as possible after that, following consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and other interested parties.
    Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister agree that the proposed £6 million for the ESAs is in terrible contrast to the £1·8 billion for agricultural support? Will he agree to press for the figure to be increased as soon as possible, rather than merely to continue consultations, which seem to have delayed the report?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as generous as his hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the introduction of ESAs, which has been warmly welcomed on both sides. To be budgeting to spend £6 million in the first year on five or six of those areas is a good start.
    Mr. John Carlisle: What plans has my right hon. Friend to monitor the effectiveness of ESAs?
    Mr. Jopling: We shall seek to monitor them as soon as we get them into being. I am sure that many people will pay particular attention to how well they work in practice.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Ministry's objectives in regard to the common agricultural policy; how he is monitoring their implementation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: My Ministry seeks to promote the Government's policies by negotiating for improvements in the common agricultural policy so that it is more economic in its operation and fair to our producers and traders.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend resist all attempts to spend an extra £500 million on vast and ever-growing surpluses?
    Mr. Jopling: During the next few months I shall devote my attention to ensuring that steps are taken to bring the production of foodstuffs within the European Community back to a realistic rational and prudent level.
    Mr. John: As Herr Kiechle thinks that the way to limit production is to pay farmers more for their produce, and as the Minister seeks to do exactly the opposite, when will he seek to reach a compromise between those two views?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman knows that I made a speech in Berlin last week, and Herr Kiechle was present. I hope that when I next meet Herr Kiechle he will have seen the light.

    Cereals
    Mr. Yeoasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of cereal production for 1985.
    Mr. Gummer: The United Kingdom production of cereals in 1985 is currently estimated at 22·3 million tonnes.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that, following a very sharp drop in farm incomes in 1985, there are many farmers in East Anglia, especially cereal farmers, who are anxious about possible measures to restrict the production of cereals, and that quite a number of them would favour the introduction of a quota system?
    Mr. Gummer: I am aware of that, but I am quite sure that we shall need a package of measures. Foremost among them must be price restraint. There is no way in which we can deal with surpluses without a policy of price restraint.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the letter that was sent by the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland saying that if Gartcosh were closed Ravenscraig might not be viable? As the Conservative party's standing in Scotland commands the support of only 14 per cent. of the electorate, and as it is fourth in the opinion polls, is she aware that if she allows the Scottish steel industry to be wiped out, she will also allow her right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies to face the same fate at the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, the Government have done a great deal to ensure the future of Ravenscraig as far as we can during the currency of the present British Steel Corporation plan. With regard to the letter, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland replied on 4 February to the letter from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He confirmed that the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency had written to his predecessor in November last year confirming the agency's general views on the future of the steel industry in Scotland. He said that this was a private letter. My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that it is for the Scottish Development Agency to decide whether it wants to make its views known.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competition is good for the Scotch whisky industry, as for others, and that that might best be achieved by companies such as Bell's and Distillers competing with each other at home and overseas?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that competition is generally good for industry. I wish the industry well in getting increased sales of its products.
    Mr. Steel: Without encroaching on the wider issue of the future of British Leyland, can the Prime Minister explain why, when the Land Rover division is profitable, when it has been a symbol of British engineering quality around the globe for 40 years and when it does a great service for our armed forces, she is trying secretly to sell it off to the highest foreign bidder?
    The Prime Minister: There will be a full statement on British Leyland later. I think it best to leave the answer until then.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in its wisdom, the Trades Union Congress has somehow found the electricians guilty of conduct
    428
    unbecoming to the trade union movement? Does she agree that during the past 20 years the two unions most involved in this dispute have—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bad habit. The hon. Member must ask the Prime Minister a question relating to her responsibilities.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend is responsible for the wellbeing of the country, for the newspaper industry and for a becoming trade union movement. Have not the two unions involved abused everything that the trade union movement should have stood for during the past 20 years?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate any union, especially the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, which abolishes restrictive practices and overmanning and embraces the latest technology. That is how to have the best and most efficient industry.
    Mr. Dixonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dixon: Is the Prime Minister aware that during recent years the number of ships in our merchant fleet has fallen from 1,600 to 600 and that the number of men working for British Shipbuilders has fallen from 87,300 to 10,000? According to the news, the unions had meetings with the chairman of British Shipbuilders today and it is reported that another 4,000 men will be declared redundant before the end of this year—half of whom will be from the northern region, which already has the highest percentage of unemployment in mainland Britain. When will the right hon. Lady do something to save that industry, which is vital to an island nation? When will she show the same type of patriotism to our country as she asked for from the British people during the Falklands war?
    The Prime Minister: The problems of British Shipbuilders, and shipbuilders the world over, is a shortage of orders. That shortage is difficult to overcome by any of the methods that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Since 1977, taxpayers' support for British Shipbuilders has amounted to £1·4 billion, and accumulated losses have amounted to £800 million.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be a Bill before the House tomorrow dealing with the removal of Crown immunity from National Health establishments? Does she recognise that if the Government concluded their urgent review of Crown immunity that would be welcomed by the House with gratitude and would be immensely popular throughout the country, because it would show the Government's concern to protect the health and welfare of patients?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, we are very concerned to protect the health and welfare of patients. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has had this matter under review and I understand that he will make a statement later this afternoon.
    Mr. Leighton: Has the Prime Minister noticed the cynical and deceitful way in which, over a period of

    429
    months, Mr. Rupert Murdoch has been cold-bloodedly conspiring and scheming to sack his entire work force in one go?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the Prime Minister's responsibility in this matter?
    Mr. Leighton: This has been described in some quarters as Thatcherism in action. Would the right hon. Lady care to say whether that is an accurate description, or would she like to dissociate herself from that brutal and unprecedented action?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is a matter for me, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so resistant to getting the latest technology into British industry and to improving newspapers.
    Mr. Budgenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Budgen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that during the previous month the Government have not attempted to hold up the value of the pound, either by wasting the country's reserves of foreign currency or by increasing interest rates. Will she please remind those who are interested in heavy manufacturing industry in the west midlands that they have more to gain from a low pound and lower energy costs than from state protection and state subsidy?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Lower energy costs will be welcome to many manufacturers. Lower exchange rates are not, and must never be, considered as an easy option. The only assurance of sustained success is for industry to be competitive by virtue of its efficiency, not by relying on the exchange rate.
    Mr. Torney: In view of the condemnation expressed yesterday by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) of the proposed sale of British Leyland to the Americans, will the Prime Minister reconsider the proposals? Will she make a statement, especially in the light of the threat, as outlined by her right hon. Friend, of no security for the workers at British Leyland?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be making a statement on British Leyland. Regarding investment from the United States to Britain and from Britain to the United States, inward investment and equity investment in Britain from overseas have created 100,000 new jobs and safeguarded many more. One purpose of our entry into the Common Market was that we might attract investment to this country.
    Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to remind those engaged in United Kingdom car manufacturing that their share of the home market has dropped from 90 per cent. 25 years ago to 34 per cent. now? How many job losses in suppliers such as the steel industry have been caused by this abysmal performance?
    The Prime Minister: The performance on productivity has improved, but not by enough to recover a sufficient share of the car market. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the only way to do that is to be competitive not only on price but on design and delivery, and I hope that the car industry will continue to strive to that end.
    Mr. Kinnock: British public investment saved BL. Does the Prime Minister believe that British taxpayers saved it so that it could be used for a foreign sell-out?
    The Prime Minister: The British taxpayer has been very generous to British Leyland. We wish there to be a secure future for the car industry in Britain and, with that in mind, we have taken decisions which will be the subject of a statement later this afternoon.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister discussed the matter in Cabinet this morning, may I ask what security she believes will be provided, and which assurances can be sustained, in the light of the international car market and the fact that decisions would be made well outside Britain for reasons which would primarily benefit a multinational company outside Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The assurances are that one gets a larger share of the market by virtue of being efficient and having a very good distribution mechanism. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government did not object to Chrysler taking a majority shareholding in Rootes.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister believe that that precedent should be followed? Does she believe that after £2 billion of British taxpayers' money has gone into the industry, all the benefit should be reaped by a foreign multinational?
    The Prime Minister: If there were a private sector buyer for the whole lot in Britain, that would be very welcome.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the inevitable great pressure on the defence budget, the time has come for a thorough defence review? Does she agree also that that must include a reassessment of the role of the British Army of the Rhine?
    The Prime Minister: We have thorough defence reviews at this time of the year, and the House has several debates on different parts of the defence services, as it will later today. I recognise the question which my hon. Friend is asking, but I must ask him to consider the political consequences of any such review.
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maxton: As the Prime Minister and Ministers have consistently said during the past months that we must have regard to the views of the work force of Westland in deciding the future of that company, will she give the same regard to the work force of British Leyland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government decided not to mount a rescue package for Westland or to put in any more money other than to write off the launch aid of £40 million, which expenditure had already occurred, should the W30 project be terminated.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend join others in congratulating the Daily Star this week on cataloguing the corrosive and cumulative amount of television violence that comes into our homes? Does she expect the television or broadcasting authorities to take that mounting public concern into account in their policy discussions?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I saw that catalogue of violence displayed over a short time on television. There is much public disquiet about it, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called in representatives of the BBC and the IBA to discuss how they would alter their guidelines on violence to ensure that violence was reduced. We must wait to see what they do, monitor it carefully, and see whether further action must be taken.
    Mr. Bell: How much in taxpayers' subsidies has gone into farming?
    The Prime Minister: The system of support changed from direct support when we went into Europe. The amount of support through Europe is too high a cost on the taxpayer, and we are trying to achieve a reduction in surpluses.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to continue to uphold the excellent standards of British Army bands—which add splendour to royal and state occasions—and which are trained at Kneller hall, Twickenham? As the Public Accounts Committee has today reported its "grave disquiet" at the lack of any financial basis for the decision of the former Secretary of State for Defence to move the bands elsewhere, will the new Secretary of State take a fresh look at the facts?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his valiant campaign in support of the excellent military bands. I note that the report of the PAC on that matter has been published today. Obviously I cannot at this stage reply to that, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that the new Secretary of State will indeed look at matters afresh in the light of the latest facts.

Sellafield (Release of Radioactivity)
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Energy whether he would make a statement about the release of plutonium nitrate at the Sellafield site of British Nuclear Fuels plc in the Copeland constituency yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): British Nuclear Fuels plc has reported that during maintenance operations yesterday there was a small release of plutonium radioactivity within the main reprocessing building at Sellafield. The incident arose during maintenance operations on a pump, during which air was accidentally blown across a flow of liquid with plutonium in it. This caused a mist with a small amount of plutonium in suspense. Monitoring equipment in the building, which is extremely sensitive, gave an alarm. The staff quickly traced the sources of the escape, shut off the flow of air and instituted procedures for evacuating all non-essential staff.
Tests on staff contamination have so far shown no cause for concern. BNFL will carry out further tests on staff over the next few days. On present evidence, there was no risk to the public.
A member of the nuclear installations inspectorate was on site and was notified at the time. My Department and other interested Government Departments were notified shortly afterwards. The company has estimated that a very small radiation release from the building of 50 micro-curies may have occurred, but no release was, in fact, discernible from its monitoring equipment outside the building.
The nuclear installations inspectorate has already initiated an investigation in co-operation with the radio-chemicals inspectorate, and will make a statement about the incident within the next few days. The company is also conducting its own inquiries into the incident.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When, if ever, will it be possible to quantify the total of material that was lost in that release? Is it true that, contrary to statements given to me yesterday by BNFL, some material did in fact escape into the atmosphere and was effectively released from the site?
How many of my constituents and others employed at the plant are still under medical supervision, and what is the nature of the tests that they are likely to have to undergo?
Will the Minister discount the inevitable, predictable and unjustified opportunist calls that are likely to be made for the Government to close the plant, which would immediately throw 11,000 of my constituents out of work?
Will the Government institute the most rigorous inquiry and ensure that reports are available to the House and public as soon as possible?
Will the Government convey to the management of BNFL the fact that the industry can have a future only if there is public acceptance of its activities? Is it not clear that a regular series of such incidents, whether they are serious or not in terms of the nuclear material involved, will simply undermine public confidence in the industry and the political credibility of those who seek to support it?
Mr. Goodlad: The precise amount of the discharge will be known when the inquiry has been completed, and I do not wish to anticipate its finding. About 50 people were evacuated, and as I said, they are undergoing medical tests. I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about resisting any suggestion that the plant should be closed. The report will be published. I endorse what he said about the necessity for public confidence and public acceptance. I trust that there will be no regular series of incidents.
Mr. Michael Morris: Many hon. Members are well aware of the dangers of reprocessing this difficult material. Is it not encouraging that the management of the establishment had proper early warning system which ensured that there was an amber alert? Should there not be confidence on the Goverment Benches, and I hope on all other Benches, that at least the management have proper procedures to deal with such difficult situations?
Mr. Goodlad: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the EEC has described Windscale as the source of the worst radioactive pollution in western Europe? In view of this plant's deplorable record and of the fact that assurances from BNFL are about as reliable as assurances from the Government, will the Minister, in the interests of the people of Cumbria, Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland see that this dirty and dangerous plant is closed?
Mr. Goodlad: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is no. On the whole, the company has a very good record.
Sir Hector Munro: Should not these events be kept in proportion? Does my hon. Friend agree that those who live near nuclear plants in the Solway and Irish sea areas have the highest confidence in the management of those plants and hope that they will continue in the future?
Mr. Goodlad: I heartily endorse my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the repeated incidents at Windscale make it increasingly difficult for those of us who support nuclear power to defend the industry? Our position, both in the House and in our constituencies, is becoming quite untenable. Is the Minister aware that, between my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and myself, 11,000 of our constituents work in this industry in west Cumbria? When Members call for the closure of Windscale they do not understand the catastrophic effects that it would have on an area of high unemployment. Is not the answer to this question to demand of the Windscale authorities higher and higher standards so as to secure the objective of zero or near-zero effluents in aerial atmospheric discharges and marine discharges, as is proposed, by 1991?
Mr. Goodlad: I do not wish to anticipate the evidence of the inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman should keep the significance of this incident in proportion, as we all should. In this respect at least, I should not wish to make the hon. Gentleman's position in his constituency untenable.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no risk-free way of harnessing energy and that, in comparison with the nuclear industry, the coal industry is far worse in this respect? Is he aware that two of my constituents have been killed in coal mines recently, and that the effect of a pit on its environment, in terms of spoil, building and the amount of land taken is far worse than that of any nuclear installation? By contrast, does not nuclear power have a first-class record?
Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I endorse everything that she has said.
Mr. Chris Smith: Has the reprocessing operation been restarted? If not, when does he anticipate that it will be restarted? Can he give the House any guarantee that when it restarts, discharges, both accidental and regular, will decrease rather than increase?
Mr. Goodlad: The operation of the plant restarted today. I have every hope that there will be no further discharges.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Are there any statistics available about the number of deaths per 100,000 people and the number of injuries per 100,000 people who are working in the nuclear power industry that can be compared with statistics for the coal industry? If they are available, could we have them? If they are not available, could they be provided?
Mr. Goodlad: They are available and they are favourable. I shall give them to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Minister recall that this incident occurred in a portion of the plant that is reserved for the de-canning of isotopes that are used for stripping metal from radioactive elements? Will he take note of the fact that, if the Select Committee on the
436
Environment's study of radioactive waste disposal has done its job, it ought to tell him when he receives its report that the recycling of radioactive materials is quite unnecessary for the survival of the industry and that it ought to be stopped? If that is the result of the Committee's report, will he support it?
Mr. Goodlad: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall of course read with care the report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister tell us how near to public property the particular part of the plant was in which the incident happened? Can he confirm that there have been over 300 incidents with safety factor risks at this site in the last 30 years, of which yesterday's was the third serious incident? Can he also tell us whether he and his Department are satisfied with the safety and modernity of the plant and buildings, given that the reported view of hon. Members who recently visited the site on official duties is that in many respects the site is primitive, even in 1986?
Mr. Goodlad: The site is subject to inspection by the nuclear installations inspectorate, upon whose advice the Government rely. As I have already said, I do not wish to anticipate the report of the inquiry into this incident.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statements.
Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that I have raised it before—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it after the statements.—[Interruption]. Order. I shall take points of order after the statements. Business statement.
Mr. Skinner: It arises out of that statement. I am being gagged.

Business of the House
3.43 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I0 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock private Members' motions followed by a debate on a Government motion to approve the White Paper on the channel fixed link.
Remaining stages of the Australia Bill (Lords).
Motion on the Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order.
TUESDAY II FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Wages Bill.
Remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill (Lords).
Motion on the Local Government Act 1985 (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order.
Motion on the Precept Limitation (Passenger Transport Authorities) (Prescribed Maximum) Order.
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Government Economic Policy and the Level of Unemployment".
Motions on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Motion relating to the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contributions Limits (Scotland) Order.
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Until about Seven o'clock, a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, followed by a debate on the report of the fraud trials committee chaired by Lord Roskill. Both debates will arise on motions for the adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARY — Second Reading of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill (Lords)
Afterwards, there will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC Document No. 7163/85 relating to new community energy objectives.
[Debate on Monday 17 February
Relevant Document
7163/85 Community energy objectives Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 5-xxvii (1984–85) para 2.]
Mr. Kinnock: In recent weeks the Opposition have had to provide time for debates on Westland and British Leyland. Next week we must provide time for the scandal of the 3·4 million people who have been made unemployed as a consequence of the Government's policies. As there is no rush, would not the country be better served if the Government gave time next Tuesday to debating the plight of the jobless instead of using their time to present legislation that will cut the wages of those who are, already poor? When will there be a debate on this
438
week's report by the Select Committee on Employment to discuss the various ways of assisting the long-term unemployed?
Why will the House have only three hours to debate the White Paper on the Channel fixed link? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is an appropriate period for a debate on such a crucial issue?
Why will the right hon. Gentleman not find proper time for the debate on the order to limit precepts for the police and fire services, when rising crime rates are a matter of major public concern? Why can we not debate these proposals to reduce resources for the inner-city police and fire services earlier next week?
An examination of next week's business reveals that the Government are squeezing a debate on the Channel fixed link White Paper into three hours, despite the great importance of that issue. The Government are pushing through secondary legislation to cut funds for education, for public transport, for housing in Scotland and for the police and fire services. All those matters will be dealt with late at night in very little time. Next week's business is the agenda of a Government who hope that they can avoid having their policies properly debated and who hope, even more, that their policies are not recorded.
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that I can entirely satisfy the Leader of the Opposition. I think that next week's business is a sensible balance between private Members' business, legislation and general debates. I do not suppose for one moment that come this time next week we will feel that we have misused our time.
The Wages Bill is an important piece of legislation, and I cannot relate it to the parody that was represented by the Leader of the Opposition. The House will benefit by giving that legislation a Second Reading.
The Select Committee on Employment's report on long-term unemployment has only just been released. It is customary for the Government's observations to be available before any subsequent stages. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider that through the usual channels.
The Government may consider extending the debate on the Channel fixed link and would be happy to have discussions on those lines with the right hon. Gentleman.
Finally, I note the strictures upon the police and fire services order. I believe that that is being arranged at a time which is not without precedent in the arrangement of business, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like to have the matter re-examined, we shall be happy to oblige.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: May we have an early debate based on early-day motion 280 signed by 80 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties and headed "Miscarriage of Justice"?
[That this House notes the widespread concern felt in Parliament by eminent scientists, by other responsible observers and by members of the public who have viewed programmes on the matter screened by Channel 4, that Anne Maguire, Patrick Maguire (senior), Vincent Maguire (then aged 17), Patrick Maguire (then aged 14), Sean Smyth, Patrick O'Neill and the late Giuseppe Conlon, sentenced in 1976 to long terms of imprisonment since served, now appear, despite confirmation of their convictions at the time by the Court of Appeal, to have been entirely innocent of the crime with which they were charged; further notes at the conclusion of the debate in

439
the other place on 17th May 1985, the recognition by the Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Home Office of the strength of feeling on this matter in that House and his pledge to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what had been said; and therefore earnestly urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the interests of the highest standards of British justice of which this country needs to feel rightly proud, to move without delay for a review of these convictions, either under the provisions of section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or by such other public process of review as he may deem appropriate to this disturbing case.]
Should not the High Court of Parliament take up the Maguire case in defending the rule of law against terrorism? Should we not ensure that the sword of justice is kept shining bright?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend puts his case very eloquently. I think he will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already written to him on that matter, and I am not sure that I can add much to that. I will say that I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. David Alton: In the light of the statement about Sellafield, will the Leader of the House arrange for a full day's debate in Government time on safety installations at Sellafield and other nuclear plants?
Bearing in mind the number of early-day motions on the Order Paper about the problems of funding theatres and concert halls, especially in the provinces, post-reorganisation of local government, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made on that subject next week?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend with ministerial responsibilities for the arts. I realise that there is great and natural concern about the Sellafield incident. I am sure that we would all wish to have the report available before making subsequent comment. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to raise too much easy optimism about the possibility of a debate in Government time.
Mr. William Benyon: My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 208 on the formation of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary body.
[That a Select Committee be appointed to give further consideration to the establishment of an Anglo-Irish Parliamentary body. Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; That the Committee shall consist of 16 members; that no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of the Committee or their discharge unless: (a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously and (b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or another member of the Committee; that five be the quorum of the Committee; that the Committee have power: (a) to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time; and (b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply informaton which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference; and that this be a Standing Order of the House.]
440
Will my right hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made?
Mr. Biffen: A number of tentative inquiries have been made through the usual channels about this matter.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House accept that it is extremely rare that we are given the opportunity to thank him for providing time for debates in which we have an interest? On this occasion I must thank him for providing time for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement on. Thursday. Will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry be participating in the debate? It is important that he should do so, as he has been closely involved with the negotiations for a long time, as opposed to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who has been appointed Minister for Trade only very recently. Secondly, if next Thursday is like today, and several statements are made, the time for debate will be extremely short. Will he ensure that the full three hours is given to the debate?
Mr. Biffen: I fully recognise the argument that the hon. Gentleman advances about next Thursday's business and how it can be affected by statements, and I shall bear that in mind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that thanks from him are rather like a Grecian gift. I shall consider his thanks most carefully. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry his interest that he might take part in the debate.
Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is probably already aware that there is a delegation of Polish so-called parliamentarians in Britain. It was only this morning that I learned that their visit here included governmental hospitality. If we cannot have a statement on the subject, will he at least draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that this is an especially unfortunate moment to choose for upholding such an invitation? The House will be aware that Lech Walesa, the trade union leader, is about to go on trial. Will my right hon. Friend also draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, before he meets these so-called parliamentarians, that there is a Polish Government in exile in this country? Will he ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend makes that fact clear to our visitors?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend requests me to make known his views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I shall do so. However, I should tell my right hon. Friend that I met the Polish delegation and that I was pleased so to do.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 385 on the privatisation of Welsh water?
[That this House views with total opposition the Government's proposal to privatise water and sewerage services in Wales; and believes that it endangers a century of public control and improvement of these services and flood protection schemes, provides no safeguard against the future level of water charges and commands no support amongst the Welsh people.]
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that we had only 28 minutes yesterday to ask questions on the statement of the Secretary of State for Wales? There are 38 Welsh Members and we had only 28 minutes to debate

441
such a major matter with the Secretary of State. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to have a debate on the matter next week, or as early as possible, so that we can allay any fears that we have not been given all the facts by the Secretary of State for Wales?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales gave a measured and balanced statement on Welsh water. I shall draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's comments. I must say in all candour that there is little likelihood of an early debate on the topic in Government time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be two statements following business questions, and they will be followed by an important debate in which there will be great pressure on time. I shall allow business questions to continue for a further 10 minutes. If questions are brief, I hope that I shall be able to call all those who have been rising in their places.
Sir Anthony Grant: I appreciate that there is to be debate today on the Royal Navy but will my right hon. Friend say when there will be an opportunity to have a general defence debate? Some of us, particularly those who are near the Molesworth cruise missiles site — which has been the subject of a demonstration today—would like the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party to have the opportunity to explain the apparent differences in their policy.
Mr. Biffen: I have such faith and confidence in the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party that I am certain they will not need Government time in a full-scale defence debate to inform us of their differences.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Many of us appreciate that Ministers do not bump into one another frequently, according to the recent revelations on another matter, so will the Leader of the House make a special effort today to see the Secretary of State for Energy or one of the junior Ministers? I see that the Secretary of State is at the end of the Front Bench. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that on the matter of Sellafield some of us are disturbed about the fact that we cannot put any trust in British Nuclear Fuels plc, because it told a pack of lies three years ago about the waste. Only a few weeks ago it said that there were only a few kilograms of uranium nitrate deposited and it turned out that there were 440 kilograms in total and it admitted yesterday, belatedly, that some of the nuclear fuel had escaped. In view of that and the Labour party policy, which is a little different from that explained today, will the right hon. Gentleman take all those matters into account and call for an independent public inquiry so that the British people can know the true facts about Sellafield?
Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tag on behind the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) calling for a debate about Sellafield. I can be no more forthcoming in my answer than I could to the Liberal party spokesman.
Mr. Roger Gale: Considerable concern has been expressed in north-east Kent about the implications of the Channel tunnel White Paper. Will my
442
right hon. Friend consider protecting the interests of Back Benchers by ensuring that those of us who seek to represent those interests have sufficient time to debate the issue properly?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a point which was originally put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about the desirability of extending the debate. I am perfectly happy to consider that.
Mr. Hugh Brown: May I add to the worries of the right hon. Gentleman for next week and ask him as a matter of urgency to investigate the enormous pressures which Hansard reporters are working under in trying to get the Committee proceedings made available to Members? Is he aware that in the Scottish Standing Committee, although we finished at a civilised time, the report of the proceedings of Tuesday afternoon, was not available until 10.30 this morning?
Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me formally about the difficulties of Hansard reporting, I shall see what can be done.
Mr. Richard Holt: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his usual diligence, will have read my Adjournment debate, which took place just before Christman at 7.30 in the morning, word for word. I am sure that he will have particularly read the reply from the Minister who agreed that it was time for Parliament to review the working of industrial tribunals and the way in which they have become over-legalistic after 10 years in operation. It is time that the House reviewed that, so may we have a statement?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Don Dixon: Further to the answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Select Committee on Employment's report on long-term unemployment, if the Leader of the House cannot find time for a debate next week will he assure the House that we shall have a debate on this important matter and important report in Government time in the near future? On the matter of the Government studying the report before they make observations, will the right hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and tell him not to rubbish reports before they are even published.
Mr. Biffen: I heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General make some pertinent comments on that programme. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so sensitive about having to contend with that sort of criticism. However, I think that there is a good tradition in the House that when the reports of Select Committees are presented we have the Government's observations on them before any subsequent development. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, earlier this afternoon at Question Time, anxieties were expressed in several quarters about taking agricultural land for industrial development? In view of the Government's commitment to the preservation of the environment, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to have a short debate in the near future on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: If my hon. Friend has a particular example that will illustrate the more general problem, he may do us all a good service by having a debate on the Adjournment.
Mr. Toby Lloyd: I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on fire services in metropolitan areas. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the great anxiety about reduced resources for the fire services? There will be a serious danger to life, because the standard of fire cover will be reduced. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will be an adequate debate on the issue so that it can be properly discussed?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not concur with the premise to his question, but I shall certainly consider his point.
Sir John Farr: Will there be an opportunity at an early date for the House to discuss the value of the Select Committee system as it is at present set up? It is of particular interest to my right hon. Friend and the House that some Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Defence, seem all the time to deal with matters that are now past history, such as Westland, when the vast majority of the people want the Government to get on with the job of running the country.
Mr. Biffen: The departmental Select Committee system is of fairly recent origin. I should have thought that, on the whole, we are acquiring experience of its utility to the House and that there are many advantages in the way it works. I note that that view would not necessarily be universally endorsed.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Further to the earlier question on the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything will happen in that respect?
Mr. Biffen: Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement, elaboration is necessary, involving the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Republic. I have no reason to doubt that, in due time, details will emerge.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House has spent more than an abnormal amount of time discussing the employment of 3,000-plus people at Westland and that many people will welcome his announcement today about a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, which involves the employment of more than 500,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the proposals contained in any ultimate arrangement between the European Community and the United Kingdom before that arrangement is agreed within the EEC?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says about Westland, but I suspect that, when we are a little more distant from and have possibly a little more balance on these matters, we shall recognise that Parliament was wise to spend the amount of time it has on this issue. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments on the multi-fibre arrangement to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry. I think that my
444
hon. Friend will understand that, for the moment. we should make the best use we can of the time available next week.
Mr. John Ryman: The Leader of the House will have seen with pleasure, and relief, that the independent colliery review procedure has decided to keep open Bates pit in Blyth in my constituency, despite vehement and vicious opposition from the NCB. In the light of that decision, which is welcomed by the coal mining community in Northumberland, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the chairman of the NCB so that he immediately says, perhaps with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Energy, that this decision is accepted by the NCB? That will allay the anxiety that still persists in the north-east coalfield.
Mr. Biffen: I note the decision of the colliery review board. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman and I might meet up to have a drink to celebrate such an occasion, unless that were to prove too embarrassing to him, either socially or politically. As to the wider issue involving the NCB chairman, I shall refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Government were criticised by many of their friends for the apparently undue haste with which they assessed the complicated bids for the Channel tunnel project? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will seem somewhat insensitive, less than three working days after the White Paper has been received by the Kent local authorities, to compound those sins by rushing ahead yet again to have a debate so soon on the White Paper? Is there not a feeling that this reckless speed means that the Government have something to hide?
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that there is no question of anything being hidden. It is a matter of whether it would be appropriate for the House to have the chance to have a debate before the treaty is signed. I take note of my hon. Friend's comments, but I must tell him that I see little likelihood of that item of business being dropped from next week's programme.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Now that the European Commission has formally adopted proposals for next year's farm price review, which would have disastrous effects on the beef and cereal support systems, especially north of the border, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about an early statement and debate before the Council of Ministers meets to make a decision?
Mr. Biffen: I note and endorse the hon. Gentleman' s comments on the European Commission's proposals. I shall of course refer those comments to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As it now seems clear that the Opposition have no desire to initiate a debate in Opposition time on the events at News International and as members of the electricians union are bullied and intimidated when they try to go to work, may we have an early debate in Government time on this subject?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has identified a matter of signal importance to the development of the United

445
Kingdom's economy in what is happening at Wapping. I cannot guarantee a debate in the near future in Government time, but, clearly, I shall keep this matter under consideration.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night the new General Synod met and voted on a free vote by 427 to 6 against Sunday trading and asked the Government not to push a three-line Whip on the debate on Sunday trading? Will my right hon. Friend take account of that when he announces the business some time in the future? Will he provide time for a debate on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977? A constituent in Leicester has suddenly brought seven members of the ethnic community to the city, resulting in ratepayers having to pay the cost of putting those people up in a three-star hotel at £186 a night. Should not this matter be corrected and the House have an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Biffen: Procedural arrangements in the debate on Sunday trading are entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. As he is not here, I shall ensure that he knows the views not only of my hon. Friend but of the Church of England Synod.
My hon. Friend in his second point has raised a matter that is within the experience of many hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom where people are homeless as he described. I cannot offer a formal debate in Government time, but I wish my hon. Friend well in any efforts he may make to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: Statement—Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it arise immediately out of the business statement?
Mr. Dubs: It arises out of questions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is a little late, but I shall take it.
Mr. Dubs: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that he could not make a statement.
Mr. Speaker: I did. Just to clear this point for every hon. Member, I take points of order arising out of questions immediately after Question Time and other points of order in their usual place, at the end of statements. As the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has a question arising out of questions, I think that he should have raised it at the end of Question Time. However, I shall take his point of order now, as I said I would.
Mr. Dubs: I must have misunderstood you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover not to ask a question after Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: I did, because it did not arise out of questions.
Mr. Dubs: My point of order is this: in answer to a question about Crown immunity, the Prime Minister said that the Minister for Health would make a statement later today. Do you know of any such statement, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No; I regret to say that I do not.

Inner Cities
4.10 pm
The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Government help to people living in inner city areas.
We are all only too well aware that people who live in many inner areas of our cities suffer from a wide range of long standing problems. The Government have increased the amount of central Government money spent on employment and training programmes, urban regeneration and industrial assistance in these areas. We have taken a number of measures, including setting up last year city action teams to co-ordinate and target Government effort in the seven inner city partnership areas.
In order to complement and build on that existing work, we have now decided to try out a new approach to the task by intensifying and bringing together the efforts of Government Departments, local government, the private sector and the local community in eight small inner city areas.
This initiative is a further step to improve the targeting and enhance the benefit to local people of the money channelled through existing central Government programmes. They include the employment and training programmes of the MSC, the Department of Trade and Industry's programme of regional and industrial assistance, the Department of the Environment's urban programme, and the Home Office programmes of black business support and grants to support staffing of services to ethnic minority populations.
Within the chosen areas we shall try out new approaches, particularly on training provision, and employment or self-employment opportunities for local residents. That will be tackled through projects and activities of wider but direct benefit to the residents of the areas concerned and their environment. We shall seek to stimulate enterprise and provide a stronger base for the local economy. We shall give special attention to the problems of young people from ethnic minorities where they are particularly disadvantaged.
To test our approach we have selected eight areas which are diverse in their character but whose residents all share problems of deprivation and lack of opportunities. They are not necessarily the eight most deprived areas in our cities, but the people who live in them need more employment opportunities, support for their local business economy, and a better physical environment. We shall introduce our new initiatives in Notting Hill and north Peckham in London, the Chapeltown area of Leeds, north central Middlesbrough, the Highfields area of Leicester, Moss Side in Manchester, St. Paul's in Bristol and Handsworth in Birmingham.
We shall be establishing small task forces in each of those areas. They will work with the local authorities and local community and voluntary organisations. They will quickly seek to attract private sector participation.
We shall seek early discussions with the local authorities concerned about the details of this initiative. We hope to persuade the local authorities to join us and use their own programmes alongside our own in a concentrated and targeted effort to improve work prospects and the quality of life in those areas.
448
Large sums are already available to the chosen areas under existing Government programmes, but, in order to help the initiative get off the ground, the Government will be supplementing the sums with £8 million of additional money of which £3 million will be found from within my Department's existing provision and £5 million will be found from the reserve.
The initiative will be led by a team of Ministers drawn from the Departments of Employment, Education and Science, Trade and Industry, Environment and the Home Office. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will have overall responsibility for the co-ordination of the initiative. I shall have responsibility for its day-to-day management and supervision with the support of a small central unit. This inner cities initiative will complement and not replace existing Government programmes.
I hope that the House will welcome a bold experiment in concentrating all available efforts and resources in a joint way on the improvement of job expectations and the quality of life of the residents of those small inner city areas.
Mr. John Prescott: That is a mouse of a statement compared with the scale of the problem that our inner cities face. There is little new in the statement to encourage our employed inhabitants in our declining inner city areas. It is a measure in line with the policy of the Secretary of State for Employment to improve the Government's image on employment for which over £1 million is being given to an advertising agency. The measure is designed solely to counter the overwhelming impression held by 3–4 million unemployment claimants—the real level is nearer 5 million—that it is being used to improve the Government's image and to show that they are doing something about unemployment when people realise that they do not care a damn about mass unemployment.
The statement confirms the victory of the Secretary of State for Employment over the management of such programmes and the downgrading of the Secretary of State for the Environment who was in charge of the city action programme of which we have heard little. It is a game of musical chairs for which the only new resources are £5 million—a kind of transfer fee for the change of chairmanship.
I can at least welcome the fact that the statement recognises the problems of our inner city areas and the need to co-ordinate—why do we not call it planning?—and use public funds to create jobs. That is Labour's programme for returning our people to work.
Will the Minister confirm that those new resources, if we can call them that, of £5 million will not begin to replace the 28 per cent. cut in real terms since 1981 of inner city grants and the losses of rate support grant in the years that he mentioned in the statement which amount to almost £1·7 billion? Those are in addition to the cuts of 70 per cent. in the housing programmes. All that should be compared with the £5 million that he offers the unemployed in those areas.
Does the Minister accept that the statement implies that there is a connection between social disorders and race riots and the extraordinarily high rates of unemployment among the ethnic minorities in those areas? Will the policies advocated earlier in the year by the Home Office

449
—contract compliance and discrimination to provide more training places and jobs for the ethnic minorities in those areas—be pursued by the Government?
How many jobs are likely to be created by that new £5 million, and what criteria led the Minister to choose those areas? Does the Minister accept that his statement that the Government will work with local authorities will be seen as a major change in the Government's attitude, if they were to carry it out? The Government have done more to damage local democracy and reduce local democratic accountability than any other Government.
The statement says that the Minister intends to "persuade" local authorities. That is further proof that the statement is to do with a panicking central Government trying to improve their image when doing nothing to reduce unemployment levels created and deliberately maintained by Government policy.
Mr. Clarke: True to form, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has gone straight into knockabout politics and completely ignored the substance of the statement to which he is meant to be addressing himself.
The announcement that the Government have made today will be taken much more seriously in Peckham, Chapeltown, Highfields and the other places that I named. The essential part that the hon. Gentleman has missed is that the new initiative will go alongside all the other initiatives, policies and expenditure of this Government in all their Departments. The urban programme administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has trebled in money terms and doubled in real terms compared with expenditure when the Labour Government were in power. Spending on employment and training measures through the MSC has doubled since we have been in power. A great deal of that expenditure already goes into those inner city areas. We estimate, as best we can, that £670 million of central Government money goes into inner city areas on environmental, dereliction and employment measures alone.
Within those eight small areas, we shall see what better targeting and concentration of effort can produce. We shall get all the agencies of central Government, local government and the local private sector to work together to produce results.
The new money, in addition to at least £75 million going into those areas under central Government programmes, amounts to £8 million only. We are talking about small areas of cities — Peckham, Chapeltown, Handsworth—with a total population in all of them of about 300,000. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that £1 million in each of those areas over and above the central Government money already going in, which we are going to target more directly, will have a most significant effect. The hon. Gentleman was misled by the impetuous barracking of those behind him who misunderstood what I was saying. He was quite wrong to seize on that point and to stress it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about other matters, some of which have relevance to what we are talking about and others which have not. I do not think it helps in this area to draw the simplistic connection which he does between
450
riots and employment. Indeed, it is an insult to the inhabitants of inner cities to believe that they react in criminal ways to the problems that they all face.
The question of other ways in which we can improve in particular the position of ethnic minority youngsters who are at a disadvantage in the employment market was seriously considered by the Select Committee on Employment, to which I gave evidence yesterday. It is indeed true that there are various measures of positive action which can be taken to improve the job opportunities of those ethnic minorities. A large part of this initiative will be to try to build up black business skills and to give more management training and more opportunities for self-employment among ethnic minority communities. We intend to tackle the task much more seriously than the hon. Gentleman, who seems disposed to criticise it.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that, in spite of the rather churlish reaction of the Opposition this afternoon, his statement will be extremely warmly welcomed by all of the many varied elements in the population in North Kensington. On a personal note, I should like to say how glad I am that the increasingly urgent questions which I and other borough councillors have been pressing on Ministers, drawing attention to the special problems of Notting Hill, have borne fruit in this most imaginative response.
I wish to ask whether the implications of the new policy are that if prominent areas of derelict land or old structures in Kensington are likely to be dramatically changed, the borough council and bodies like the Kensington Society will be taken into full consultation and, indeed, whether the Member himself might also be consulted?
Mr. Clarke: We obviously hope to produce quite significant improvements in that part of the borough, represented by my hon. Friend, which is particularly deprived. A key part of our efforts is to involve as quickly as possible the local authority, the people who live in the deprived part of London which we are trying to help, Notting Hill, and certainly — most importantly — the Member of Parliament. As soon as we set up the task forces, we will get them on to the ground and in touch with the local people whom we are trying to benefit as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Paymaster General accept the alliance's best wishes for the members of these eight small task forces, especially if they start by sparing hard-working voluntary workers in the inner cities their present interdepartmental paper chase, which is so frustrating to their work?
Can the Paymaster General explain to the House the conspicuous absence of any Treasury Minister from the managing team, bearing in mind that this downward spiral of deprivation is largely due to the application of false Treasury dogma which has now crumbled away under events? The modest sum of £8 million—or £5 million of new money—will very quickly need supplementing.
Lastly, why is there not one mention in the statement of housing accommodation or dwellings, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that the inner cities desperately need decent and appropriate housing?
Mr. Clarke: If we find evidence of interdepartmental paper chases, certainly that is one of the first things that

451
we shall have to eliminate. Most importantly, we shall bring together the efforts of all central Government Departments even more closely in the areas concerned, which I think will be of benefit to the residents in particular.
We are obviously not going into the whole business of housing allocation and housing policies in these small areas. However, it is certainly right that in all these areas there is a great need for further improvement in the environment, which includes improvement in living conditions. We wish to continue to improve the environmental setting in a way which benefits local people by providing additional employment, training and work experience for those who live there rather than just improving housing and the environment by employing contractors and people who live in other parts of the city.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind that there is a further important statement after this and an important debate. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.45 pm, and then I think that we must move on.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Urban deprivation cannot be effectively tackled unless there is a cohesive interdepartmental approach. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this statement will therefore be widely welcomed in Bristol in achieving a cohesive interdepartmental approach?
In carrying out these proposals, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the teams encourage self build projects along the lines on which I have written to him in the past?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I think that his first point is extremely valid and important. I am, of course, aware of the extremely successful self build project which has been organised in Bristol. I look forward to getting to know it more closely and to seeing whether the example of Bristol can be spread to some of the other cities which we are discussing today.
Mr. Michael Foot: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to prove that his proposals are not derisory, will he tell us, in the case of each area affected, how much money has been withdrawn in rate support grant compared with the new money, as he calls it, which he now proposes to offer? Will he also take into account that some of us expected that at least there would be a major proposal for assisting the inner city areas, which would be a proper thing to greet with enthusiasm? What about those areas which have had chronic unemployment since 1979 and earlier persisting all through that period which have had money taken away from them? When are we going to have new money to compensate for the cuts in regional aid and the cuts which have greatly added to our unemployment problems and all the other dangers which go with it?
Mr. Clarke: It is certainly the case that a number of local authorities in this initiative, because of the totality of their expenditure on all their programmes covering the entire territory for which they are responsible, have overspent and incurred penalties. There have been many debates in the House because of that. I should have thought, therefore, that those authorities and those who live in the areas would welcome the fact that, in those parts of the authorities which are most particularly deprived,
452
there is now this opportunity to see what can be done, to get more of the central Government programmes co-ordinated with the local government programmes, to add the new money which I have announced and to tackle the problems of these small parts of the authorities concerned.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, when he visits Highfields in my constituency tomorrow night, he will not find the same corrosive pessimism which disfigures the Opposition Benches? He will find energy and optimism; he will find many businesses which have been built and are run and owned by Asians; he will find a large sector of owner-occupation; and he will find many effective youth training schemes and everybody anxious and willing to co-operate with him.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am particularly grateful for the fact that, as he knows, by coincidence, he has pressed me to visit the Highfields area of Leicester and to meet at least 200 Moslem inhabitants tomorrow evening. That promises to be an extremely good start. I am most encouraged to hear of the reception that he believes I shall get there.
Mr. Stuart Bell: We in Middlesbrough are not interested in bold experiments; we are looking for real job creation. There are 11,401 unemployed claimants in Middlesbrough, and the £8 million over eight areas will represent a very meagre morsel of the national cake. That having been said, this modest initiative will be supported by Middlesbrough district council and Cleveland county council.
The Minister has referred to private sector participation. Is what he proposes dependent upon private sector participation, or will that be additional to the £8 million?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that Middlesbrough suffers from some of the most acute problems of unemployment in the British Isles. Indeed, Middlesbrough has the highest rate of unemployment in Great Britain outside Northern Ireland. For that reason, we have already tried a large number of things in the area, including starting up job clubs in our Department, and the Cleveland initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we are now adding to that with this experiment in a small area in the north of Middlesbrough with a further £1 million or thereabouts, coupled with a co-ordination of all our efforts and agreed targets. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to get together as quickly as possible with the council so that we can agree on the objectives which local government and central Government wish particularly to pursue to see whether, by concentrating our efforts on the worst of these problems and starting with the combined effect of the programmes, we can produce some visible improvements.
Mr. Michael Stern: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) in saying that the whole of Bristol will welcome the initiative. When my right hon. and learned Friend evaluates the experiment—he has described it as such—will he take into account the recent evidence from Bristol city council that deprivation of the sort that is commonly referred to as inner-city deprivation also occurs on outer-city housing estates, such as Southmead and Lawrence Weston in my constituency? Will he look beyond the traditional inner city?
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. A great deal of deprivation exists on outer-city housing estates around many English and Scottish cities. One must choose where to experiment with new initiatives of this sort. The eight areas that we have chosen are not the eight most deprived inner-city areas, but they have the most diverse individual features. They are a good selection of deprived areas on which to try out the new initiative.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Is the Minister aware that all those in the inner city of Manchester will see the initiative as a pathetic cosmetic exercise which will do nothing to resolve the problems and as merely papering over the cracks? When will the Minister provide the real finance and facilities for local authorities that the Government have stolen from them?
Mr. Clarke: It is possible to make a significant change in any area the size of Moss Side through existing central Government programmes, plus the additional money that I have announced, if we have the good will of those involved in the locality. I trust that on reflection the hon. Gentleman and his council will discuss with us how best to apply these funds.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I join the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in saying that we shall work together with the district council, although I am banned from it, for the sake of the people of central Middlesbrough whom we both represent? I find £8 million a small sum. Over what period will it be spent? Would not my right hon. and learned Friend have done a better job if, instead of setting up a huge bureaucratic machine, he had found an ex-ICI director, given him £1 million and told him to get on with it?
Mr. Clarke: We are talking about the next financial year. The money, together with existing central Government programmes, will be best expended if we have the co-operation which appears to be forthcoming from Middlesbrough and Cleveland. Private sector participation is important, but my announcement is in no way conditional on private sector involvement. We shall seek to identify as quickly as possible local private sector interests which will be willing to participate and add their efforts. Given the good will in the north-east, we shall not have too much difficulty in finding suitable people to do something about the endemic problems of central and north Middlesbrough.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Paymaster General aware that he demeans himself and his Department by making that derisory non-announcement, which is an insult to the House? Is he aware that the Government's chief contribution would be to restore the cuts in the urban programme and to give partnership status to the London borough of Newham, which would be worth £10 million, which is more than the total of £8 million? Is he aware that the Select Committee will investigate the employment aspect of these matters, and that we shall visit some provincial centres, including Liverpool, this weekend? Does he think that that is constructive? Will he undertake to consider the Select Committee's comments? Will he denounce and rubbish the report when it is produced before he has even thought about it?
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that it is possible to make bids for various areas, and to say that they would benefit more
454
from another initiative than the eight selected areas, but that is not a fruitful approach. We intend to see how we can change the position in those eight areas, which we have chosen precisely because of the diverse nature of their problems. As I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, I welcome the fact that the Select Committee will visit deprived parts of our cities and make recommendations on the position of ethnic minorities in the labour market. I certainly undertake to consider its proposals with care.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's final strictures. The public and the House would have found it extraordinary if a Minister charged with responsibility for employment who is particularly concerned about the problems of the long-term unemployed, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and I have been during the past six months, could not have given a view yesterday about the proposition that £3·5 billion of public spending could somehow solve the problem. My views were restrained, but perfectly fair in the circumstances.
Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the teams' emphasis must be on action and decision, and that Left-wing councils which often dominate deprived inner city areas should not be allowed to lessen the teams' impact, because inaction has often produced the present unhappy results? Does he further agree that the way to deal with inner cities is to give the teams some clout to form something like the docklands board?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that what we do, the action we agree upon, and how quickly we can apply ourselves to targeting all our efforts on the biggest problems regarding the environment and work opportunities matter most, especially to those who live in those districts, whom we should have in mind. That is what we intend to do. The docklands development corporation and the docklands board in Liverpool are outstanding examples of the success that can be achieved in restoring and bringing new life to run-down areas. The docklands development corporation was particularly concerned with redeveloping a large area of derelict land, and with bringing it into fresh and productive use. Today we are talking about inner city areas, where there is not the same area of land to be developed, and about how we can target our efforts on fairly concentrated numbers of people.
Finally, I agree that the people who live in those areas will be interested in discussions about action programmes and what we shall do, and will be dismayed by the knockabout knee-jerk reaction from the more Left-wing Opposition Members. I hope that we shall get that out of our systems today so that, when we meet the people on the ground and the councils, they will be altogether more constructive.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is the Minister aware that £5 million will do nicely for three or four acres of the Handsworth Lozells area of Birmingham, but at £15 a head it is not up to the task? So far as my constituents and I are aware, the contribution so far from the city action team is a big fat zero. If the Paymaster General is taking day-to-day charge of the matter, will he for once involve the elected Members of Parliament who represent the areas? Will he also rely on the local authorities? Will he ensure that he is not misled by many

455
of the self-appointed windbags who maraud our inner cities as so-called community leaders and who have vested interests in ensuring that solutions are not forthcoming?
I offer the Paymaster General one piece of advice and a warning. My advice is that he and his Ministers, not civil servants, would do well to spend some time listening to what general practitioners who work in Handsworth Lozells have to say about their patients. My warning is that my constituents, whether old, young, black or white will not tolerate any more activity and resources, however meagre, unless they carry out the work. They are not prepared to continue to see busloads of outsiders coming to do work that they can do themselves.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with just about every point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), despite the vehemence with which he has made them. I also think that most of the advice that he gave to me is well worth heeding. At present £7 million is being spent in Handsworth under the urban programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been closely involved in it. The Government intend to complement, not replace, this programme. We hope to work closely with the council, with the elected Member and with the responsible leaders of the local community. We shall listen most carefully to the population and those who know the population well. The general practitioners, cited by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, are an excellent example. I shall seek to follow his guidance and visit the part of Birmingham which he represents. I hope we shall achieve success with the scheme.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal for short questions, please.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's initiative, but will he say more about the role of the private sector? Does he accept that Opposition Members forget that the private sector can add substantially to the sums that are available?
Mr. Clarke: We shall seek to identify as quickly as possible some private sector partners and try to get partners in local industry to give us some assistance. One problem which we will find in many of these areas is that there is not a great deal of local private sector activity to give business training, provide the self-employment opportunities, and so on, that are required. We will also have to persuade some of the employers whose premises are in the outer city areas to recruit more actively from the inner city. We shall be seeking to do all that.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Paymaster General for explaining why the Department of the Environment did not fight too hard to sponsor this programme. The question we face is unemployment. Can he tell us specifically how many new jobs will be created?
Mr. Clarke: The Department of the Environment is closely involved in this programme. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that rumours that anybody was fighting to sponsor this programme are greatly exaggerated. For those who are intrigued to know why the Department of Employment is in the lead, the best explanation is that we have two members in the Cabinet whilst other Departments have one. These initiatives cover all areas of Government activity, and all Departments will be committed to them.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As the representative of the Charnwood area of Highfields, I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today. The people of Leicester have felt forgotten under successive Labour Governments which had, but wasted, the opportunity to give sums of money to the inner cities. Is it not ironic that some of the people of Leicester still vote for the Labour party which does not want to give them any money today?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know Leicester and I know the Highfields area reasonably well. The area is not as well known to the general public as it might be compared with other slightly more fashionable areas. I agree that it is Leicester's turn, and I hope we will achieve something in that city.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand that Chapeltown in Leeds is in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Will the Paymaster General ask his right hon. Friend whether it would be better to supply more money for schools, housing and jobs? That is what is needed in Chapeltown. As desirable as this programme may be in a small way. it will not touch the problem.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science will be a member of the team of Ministers directing efforts in Chapeltown and elsewhere. I agree that, in all those areas, one has to look at the combination of problems from which they suffer. We are not redirecting efforts from any other area. This initiative will supplement all the other considerable efforts that we are making in the inner cities.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that over the past 10 years the consistent experience of the Small Business Bureau has been that the two great problems for small business have been training in management skills and access to capital? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure that the problems, which are even worse for the ethnic minorities, are tackled with vigour? Will he perhaps make use of the loan guarantee schemes to reassure the banks, which seem incredibly reluctant to lend to would-be entrepreneurs from the ethnic minorities?
Mr. Clarke: We already have the Home Office black business initiatives. We have recently set up three enterprise agencies in areas with high concentrations of ethnic minorities to create business opportunities there. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment has written to the banks to draw their attention to what we are trying to do. I shall certainly take on board the well-judged points of my hon. Friend in our efforts in these eight areas.
Mr. David Clelland: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that the initiative that he has announced today will be of any great benefit to the areas mentioned? Can he explain why the inner city areas of Newcastle and Gateshead are not on his list? Does it mean that we are in some way being penalised or neglected? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how the latest Government initiative in my constituency, the city action teams—CATS as they are affectionately known—has improved the city since they

457
came to the area? Is he aware that what we need in the inner city is not CATS but MICE — more inner city expenditure?
Mr. Clarke: None of the proposals that I have announced today is in any way at the expense of other parts of the country. It is a new initiative with additional resources for the eight small areas I have named. The city action teams will continue. They cover much larger areas, and they have achieved a great deal of success in coordinating the activities of central Government Departments across those areas. The team in Newcastle has been one of the most successful of the seven city action teams that we have. It does not help at all to seek to denigrate that team because we have chosen Middlesbrough, not Newcastle, for this initiative.
Mr. Geoff Lawler: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his initiative. Can he explain why Bradford was originally on the short list but is not included in the statement today? There are authorities in the statement that have contributed, through their own council policy, to the economic decline from which they now suffer. Bradford has a long record of responsible government and constructive use of Government money.
Mr. Clarke: There are always invidious problems when choices have to be made. Our selection of Chapeltown in Leeds does not mean that we minimise the problems of Bradford. If one is trying out a new initiative of this kind, one makes the best progress if one forces oneself to make a selection of eight areas and tackles the problems on a manageable scale. Of course, we shall see how successful it is and consider the lessons for other areas.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Is the Paymaster General prepared to admit that the paltry sums that he has offered must be less than what he first asked for from the Treasury? Would he care to say what those initial sums were and by how much he had to divide to arrive at the sum he has now offered?
Secondly, on mixed ventures between the public and the private sectors, is he aware that the Greater London Enterprise Board has created jobs for one tenth of the cost of the London Docklands Development Board? The sum involved is £1 million. If the scheme succeeds, will he offer each and every other similarly deprived ward in the country £1 million, including those in Lambeth?
Mr. Clarke: The last part of the question is somewhat inconsistent with the first. The sum of money which is directed to such small areas is significant when one looks at the total population. It is no good getting up and airily waving that aside. I have heard these claims for the Greater London Enterprise Board before, but I find that they are not substantiated. I believe that that enterprise board has a patchy record in making any real contribution to the economy of London.
Mr. Tony Marlow: One of the reasons why this statement is especially welcome on this side of the House is that we are all aware of the vast sums of money that have been spent already in some of these
458
areas. Much of that money has been subsequently wasted. My right hon. and learned Friend is helping with the targeting of that money so that it is properly spent.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues address themselves to one of the worst problems—law and order? Will he look into the legacy of Lord Scarman which we discovered from the press today was responsible for two rapes and one murder in Brixton last summer?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one important matter that we are seeking to implement in this initiative. We will seek to target more effectively the large sums of money already expended in these areas. I shall draw my hon. Friend's second point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department — — [HON. MEMBERS: "Condemn it."] I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would defend the practices and experience of the police in the inner city areas. I do not think it is right for my hon. Friend to make a rather sweeping attack on the efforts and achievements of the police.
Mr. Eric Heifer: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am from an area where there is a task force? The proposals that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward today on behalf of the Government will be regarded by my constituents as a sick joke. He must be aware that, despite the cosmetic activities of a task force, there has been no real creation of jobs in the area. Liverpool 8 has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. The constituency which covers Liverpool 8 is at the top of the league in unemployment. Is it not clear that the time has come for the Government to get down to the task of creating employment in those areas, and not to come forward with this ridiculous load of nonsense this afternoon?
Mr. Clarke: Merseyside has an urban development corporation working in the south docks, it had a garden festival and it has the Merseyside task force spending £21 million on Merseyside. Like most Ministers in this Government, I have visited it frequently. I would not minimise the grave problems in and around Merseyside, but I ask the hon. Gentleman not to have a blinkered view. If he ever has an opportunity to visit Middlesbrough, Highfields, Handsworth, Peckham or Notting Hill, he will find grave problems there as well. We are justified in trying out initiatives in those areas.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Paymaster General aware that his statement is long on good intentions but woefully short on financial commitment? Although it is right to use scarce public resources as a lever to attract more private investment, how are the task forces to avoid the mistakes of previous programmes which have merely created well-paid jobs for people commuting into the inner cities and precious few job opportunities for people who live in the inner cities?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman can assert that there is a lack of resources, but I have already said that £670 million-worth of Government money already goes to inner cities. We are talking about how to add to that. I believe that we have had an effect.
The hon. Gentleman's latter point was deeply relevant. It is no good having an inner city programme which spends

459
money on buildings in the inner city if the employment generated is generated for building workers from the suburbs and further afield. Our main focus will be on benefiting residents —the people who live in the deprived areas—and seeing what we can do to improve their environment and job prospects.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If £1 million is a significant sum for my constituents in Moss Side, how much more significant are the millions of pounds that have been withdrawn from Moss Side as a result of the withdrawal of grants from the city of Manchester?
Mr. Clarke: Manchester council has got itself into penalty as a result of overspending on the totality of its programmes throughout the city. If the hon. Gentleman claims that that has caused difficulties in Moss Side, I should have thought that he would have welcomed our coming into Moss Side seeking his agreement and that of the local authority to target Government programmes better and to add money.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Why did the Government choose Notting Hill instead of the adjacent area of Kensal Rise and Harlesden, where inner city problems are more acute, as the Minister's colleague the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) knows? The housing problem is more acute there than in any other London borough and the concentration of ethnic minorities is higher than anywhere else in London. Was Notting Hill chosen because the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to help the borough and the Member of Parliament? Has my area been penalised because its Member of Parliament comes from this side of the House?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot assert that. If he looks at the list of Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected by the proposals, he will find, not surprisingly, that far more of them come from his side of the House than mine. I assure the hon. Member that we
460
selected the areas first and only then discovered the Members of Parliament we would have to approach and work with. I can understand his disappointment on the part of Kensal Green. We had to make a choice. I concede that he is probably on sounder ground wishing that we had included Kensal Green than following the line of some of his hon. Friends, including some who will benefit, who try to pretend that the scheme is of no earthly use in Moss Side.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Secretary Channon to make a statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can almost anticipate the points of order. I have already allowed the statement to run on nearly 10 minutes more than I originally planned because I fully understand its importance. However, with the best will in the world, I cannot get everybody in on every statement. I will follow my usual pattern and ensure that those hon. Members who were not called today will get preference on another day.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member is not challenging what I have just said.
Mr. Madden: Not in any way, Mr. Speaker. Does not this situation illustrate vividly the difficulties that you are put in by the Secretary of State for Employment being a member of the House of Lords and therefore utterly unaccountable to the House and to hon. Members whose areas will not get one penny out of this meagre announcement? We are unable to ask why we have been left off the list. It is an outrage—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. The Paymaster General is, after all, a member of the Cabinet.

British Leyland
4.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): Yesterday, I informed the House that talks were at an advanced stage on the proposal for a merger between Land Rover —Leyland and the Bedford Commercial Vehicle subsidiary of General Motors. It is the Government's intention that, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, and the receipt of firm undertakings from GM on its manufacturing and sourcing intentions, these negotiations should be brought to an early and successful conclusion.
I also confirmed that, following an approach by the Ford Motor Company, wide-ranging but, at this stage, exploratory discussions with the Austin Rover Group were in progress which might lead to a proposal for the merging of those businesses. I wish to inform the House at the earliest opportunity of the most recent developments affecting these discussions, in particular as regards Austin Rover.
The Government would have preferred to have waited until the exploratory talks had clarified the difficulties and opportunities a merger might have created and then taken a decision in principle, on the basis of a considered analysis, whether to pursue the possibility further. Speculation surrounding these exploratory talks has itself given rise to very great public concern and uncertainty. If that were to continue for an extended period, it could have seriously damaged the prospects for Austin Rover's business, its employees, its suppliers and its dealers. Nor would such a period of uncertainty have been helpful to many people associated in comparable ways with Ford's business in this country. Concern about these developments was expressed very clearly on both sides of the House in yesterday's debate. The Government have given full and immediate consideration to the situation so created. We have decided that the right way to end the uncertainty is to make it clear that the possibility of the sale of Austin Rover to Ford will not be pursued.
It is the Government's intention, with the agreement of the BL board, that negotiations should be pursued for the separate privatisation of Unipart by the early placement of shares with United Kingdom institutions.
Collaborative arrangements in the motor industry will become increasingly necessary and important. Austin Rover Group's successful relationship with Honda is an example of that. I hope that Ford and Austin Rover will also consider positively other opportunities for collaboration. I should like to pay tribute to Ford's contribution to the British economy through research and development, manufacturing and employment.
I hope that the Government's decision and the ending of uncertainty will leave Austin Rover free to devote its efforts to the further development and growth of its volume car business, building on creditable progress which has already been achieved.
Mr. John Smith: Can the Secretary of State explain why he has managed to attract some members of the Cabinet to sit beside him today although he was signally left on his own with his unfortunate task yesterday?
As for the proposals for Land Rover-Leyland vehicles and Bedford, can the Secretary of State tell us what is the
462
difference between what he calls a merger and a takeover? Are the Government involved in the discussions to ensure that no arrangement which sells our crucial British interests is arrived at? What are the implications in terms of jobs and of the location of manufacturing plant?
In view of the history of an industry in which assurances have frequently been given, how will any assurances be made binding and unbreakable? Will the Government arrange for a full debate in Government time at an appropriate stage so that the full implications for jobs and British interests can be assessed properly before any conclusion is arrived at?
In making it clear on behalf of the Opposition that I welcome with relief the decision taken by the Cabinet this morning to abandon talks about the sale of the Austin Rover Group to Ford, may I remind the Secretary of State that he and his colleague, the Minister of State, derided the Labour party's motion yesterday suggesting that the talks be abandoned forthwith? Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted last night against the motion that the talks should be abandoned, is it true that the Cabinet had to accept the force of the Labour party's case?
Has the Secretary of State reflected on the fact that if the Opposition had not exposed the existence of the talks, flushed out the Secretary of State on Monday and had not debated the issue yesterday in a way that allowed the full force of parliamentary and public opinion to be expressed, the likelihood is that the secret talks would have been continuing with the prospect of the sale of Austin Rover still alive? Why were talks that were never in the public interest ever started?
Why are the Government persisting in the sale of Unipart, the loss of which will only weaken the strength and integrated force of the British Leyland group at a time when all its strength is required to survive and prosper now that, at last, it has been permitted to remain British?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman asked about General Motors in relation to Land Rover-Leyland. As the House will remember, I made a full statement a few days ago. I outlined, with care and in some detail, the undertakings that we would require before any deal with General Motors would be acceptable to the Government. The question of a further debate in the House is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is noted.
As to the reason for deciding not to pursue the talks between Austin Rover and Ford, I have tried to explain why, in my view, it is essential at this stage to end uncertainty. I believe that it is in the interests of Austin Rover and Ford. It will be widely welcomed in the House that the Government have taken an early decision to end that damaging uncertainty.
Mr. Steve Norris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed by the work force of Austin Rover at Cowley. I especially thank him for the speed with which he has killed the damaging speculation, which arose as a result of the leak of the confidential talks. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the workers of Unipart who, contrary to what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) suggests, welcome the move towards privatisation? Will they have the opportunity to be included in any anticipated share issue?
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He certainly welcomes our decision. I shall take on board his point about the work force of Unipart. I believe that our decision on the privatisation of Unipart will be widely welcomed.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I put to the Prime Minister earlier? Why is the Land Rover division not being treated separately, for example, as a management-employee buyout? Will he confirm that it is profitable, that Land Rover has been a symbol of British engineering round the globe for almost 40 years and that it is of crucial importance to our armed forces? If it is not treated separately, the suspicion will remain that it has been put in as a succulent carrot along with the truck and bus division at the same time as an announcement that production of the American jeep is ceasing. Will he justify that?
On the matter of the Leyland truck and bus divisions, why are the Government not giving a similar commitment to open negotiation and public discussion, which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out would have happened if the Ford deal had been going ahead?
Turning to the Austin Rover Group, will he confirm that the British Leyland board will be left to get on with the management of that company? Given the successful turn-round, will he confirm that no public money has been put into the company in the past three years and that it now has a successful range of vehicles, which are competing well, not only on the domestic market, but in the European market? Does he agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that in this episode there is one cause for rejoicing, which is the fact that the House of Commons has been able to change the Government's mind?
Mr. Channon: It is very nice to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to these discussions. On public expenditure, as the House has been informed on many occasions, guarantees under the Varley-Marshall assurances of up to £1·5 billion are available to BL, which is a factor that the House would do well to bear in mind. I am convinced that the proposals regarding Land Rover are in the best interests of the company. That is also the view of the British Leyland board. I would not put forward the proposals to the House if I was not convinced that they were in the best interests of Land Rover, including the opportunities that will arise from increased distribution in the United States. I hope that the talks will go well. Obviously, I shall keep the House in touch with the progress of the negotiations.
Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of many workers in the west Midlands and Birmingham that the cloud of doubt over the future of Austin Rover has now been lifted? Does he accept that the work force and the management will work and continue to work with new models designs and with productivity plans to produce, in collaboration with other manufacturers, the type of products that will lead the company into renewed prosperity in the knowledge that the Government have been able to give a helping hand?
Mr. Channon: Yes. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in encouraging British Leyland to make progress along those lines, so that it increases its share of the market
464
and makes increasing efforts to produce profitable results. In that way we can ensure a secure future for Austin Rover without it being a drain on the taxpayer.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the report I have had that a deal has already been agreed between Bedford Motors, part of General Motors, and Leyland and that it was probably signed on 27 January, but could not be announced that day because that was the day that the Westland fib fabrication exercise was at its height?
Mr. Channon: That is a strange allegation. I have known the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for a long time and occasionally we hear such remarks. As I have already told the House, talks are at an advanced stage on the proposal for a merger between Land Rover-Leyland and Bedford Commercial Vehicles. No decisions have been taken. I assure the House that that is the exact position.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to stop the Austin Rover talks. Will he use the opportunity to discuss with the owners of motor vehicle assembly plants how to get more British content into their vehicles and will he draw into the discussions the motor components buyers, whose future rests on the success of the assemblers?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am grateful for his support He will remember that my predecessor announced an improvement in content in December. The figures that I gave to the House yester y about Ford are extremely impressive.
Mr. Terry Davis: In view of the links between Austin Rover and Freight Rover, will the Secretary of State reconsider his insistence on including Freight Rover on the menu being offered to General Motors? Alternatively, will he insist on an undertaking that the manufacture of Sherpa vans and the jobs that go with it remain at Washwood Heath?
Mr. Channon: I will not consider taking out Freight Rover. It is part of the discussions that are taking place. I have already explained to the House the sort of assurances that I shall be seeking and I have nothing to add.
Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, on behalf of the 8,000 Land Rover employees who work in my consitiuency, I shall be looking to him and hope that he will look to General Motors if this deal goes through for guarantees on British identity, British content, flagship status for the Land Rover plant at Lode Lane at Solihull, research and development in Solihull and increased commitments to exports, not least to America?
Mr. Channon: I understand and share my hon. Friend's views about all those matters. I assure him that the proposal is good news for his constituents, good news for the future of the company and good news for Land Rover.
Mr. George Park: Although I welcome the news that the talks between Ford and Austin Rover have been abandoned, can we be assured that they will not be resurrected with another company? Will the Government do two things to assist Austin Rover? Will they take positive steps to improve the miserable Spanish

465
export quota allocated to Austin Rover, and will they finally do something about the differential tariffs which give great advantages to firms such as General Motors, but work against the best interests of Austin Rover in trying to export to Spain?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the extremely unsatisfactory Spanish tariff system. We inherited the position from negotiations long ago. As a result of fresh negotiations before Spain's accession to the Common Market, those differences in tariff will be reduced over a period. At the same time, our reduced duty quota will be increased. Now that Spain has acceded to the European Community, the end of that ridiculous system is in sight.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as usual, the attitude of the Opposition is hypocritical? They know perfectly well that thousands of British workers have good and secure jobs with Vauxhall and Ford, and that many American workers have good jobs with British firms in the United States. Is not investment international? Would it not be in the interest of the trucks part of British Leyland, and Land Rover in the long term, to be part of a big group with worldwide marketing facilities, and would it not increase jobs in Britain?
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I tried to point out yesterday, Ford in the United Kingdom employs about 50,000 people, supports more than 100,000 other workers through its dealers and suppliers and spends nearly £750 million a year on product development in Europe, about half of it in the United Kingdom. Any Opposition Member who attacks that does a grave disservice to Britain and to the constituents of many hon. Members.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a former parliamentary private secretary to Rab Butler, does the Secretary of State recollect that it was the Government in which he served who required the then British Motor Corporation to come to Bathgate? It grew into the greatest concentration of machine tools under one roof in Europe. In those talks, what obligation do the Government believe they have towards Bathgate?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows the present position at Bathgate, which is unchanged by my announcement. If we are going back into the history of British Leyland, I should say that the Labour party has a lot to answer for.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the uncertainty that surrounds the future of the Leyland truck and bus divisions is still very much evident? Does he also agree that the possible purchase of Leyland Bus by Laird is not mentioned in his statement? Will he comment on that and say whether another offer is in prospect for that, too? Will he also comment upon the position of Multipart, which is another successful aspect of the Leyland group? As a matter of urgency, will he answer the questions raised by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) in the debate yesterday, so that I can alleviate the anxiety of people in my constituency which, after all, includes the town of Leyland where this great company was born?
Mr. Channon: I shall study carefully what my hon. Friend said yesterday and write to him about the points that I have not already covered. As to the trucks division, the merger proposals are at an advanced stage, and I hope that it will not be long before I can inform the House of the arrangements. As he said, talks are continuing with Laird. My statement today does not relate to Leyland Bus, but I shall keep my hon. Friend closely in touch with progress.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the British public would have expected him to have the good grace to thank the Official Opposition who, with a little help from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), saved Austin Rover from an American takeover? Although we have been watching the disintegration of the Government before our eyes, the British public did not expect that the Opposition would achieve so much power in such a short time. But why are the Government still considering the privatisation of Unipart? Have the Conservative party in government completely lost their patriotism?
Mr. Channon: Unipart will go to British sources, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I have never heard such rot in my life. We are proposing the privatisation of Unipart, and I believe that the Government's privatisation programme has wide support inside and outside the House.
Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on having the good sense and courage to put an early end to the uncertainty, greatly aggravated by the attempts by the Opposition to mike political capital out of the matter? Will he not be deterred by the damaging leak from ensuring that further discussions on collaboration with Austin Rover are pursued and that alternative sources of financing are examined?
Mr. Channon: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I greatly welcomed his constructive speech yesterday. It is right to end the uncertainty that existed, because that is in the interests of the companies concerned. As he said, the Opposition are clearly not interested in the issues—only in trying to stir up trouble.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not terrible that Britain imports railway locomotives from the United States while closing long-established engineering works, such as those at Swindon? Is this with the permission of the Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the subject of the statement.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree with that import, and can he tell us whether that deal has anything to do with—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that line. It is a completely different matter.
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I conclude my question?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think it will help, because I do not think the Minister can answer it. This statement deals with British Leyland. If the hon. Gentleman can relate his question to British Leyland, he may continue.
Mr. Spearing: I was about to conclude the question, which the Minister could answer and which is directly

467
connected to the statement. I was about to ask the Minister whether that deal has anything to do with the one between British Leyland and General Motors.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman asks about something completely different from the subject of my statement. I shall be in touch with him, but my statement has nothing to do with what he asks.
Mr. Edward Heath: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the decision he has announced this afternoon, and may I assure him that the decision reached by the Cabinet about Austin Rover and Ford is absolutely right? However, I must tell him that he has done nothing to alleviate the very real fears and anxieties expressed by Conservative Members yesterday about General Motors taking over the remainder of British Leyland. My right hon. Friend referred to a "merger". Is it not accurate to say that what is proposed is a complete takeover by General Motors of British Leyland and that control would leave Britain and go to Detroit? That is what many of us strongly oppose, and we shall maintain our opposition.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the first part of his question, but he will not expect me to agree with what he said in the latter part. I have already explained to the House the exact details of what is proposed between General Motors and the Land Rover-Leyland group, and, in due course, I shall inform the House of the exact arrangements, if and when the companies produce arrangements that are satisfactory to the Government.
I assure my right hon. Friend that if I was not convinced that the proposals are in the interests of Land Rover and the other parts of British Leyland about which we are talking, I would not put them before the House. I am convinced that such a merger would, if the assurances are satisfactory, lead to substantial benefits to both companies.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Do not the S-bends during the past 96 hours show that the Cabinet is looking increasingly like a headless chicken running around in its death throes?
In persisting in the statement promoting a multinational takeover of British Leyland Truck and Buses by General Motors, is the right hon. Gentleman continuing to tell the House that there is 40 per cent. overcapacity in that sector of the vehicle market? If so, has he tried to convince Oxfam and other aid agencies of that 40 per cent. overcapacity? Is he not aware that they cannot get trucks for Ethiopia and the Sudan to shift food for the millions of starving people?
Mr. Channon: I am saying that there is substantial overcapacity. I explained that to the House yesterday. I also explained the reasons that led me to believe that if a merger on acceptable terms could be arranged, that would be in the interests of all concerned.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his speedy footwork, may I ask what difference there will be to the amount of contribution that the Government are making now, and will have to make in the future, to British Leyland if the General Motors proposals come to fruition?
Mr. Channon: It is clear that the sections of British Leyland that will be involved in any merger between
468
Bedford Commercial Vehicles and General Motors—if satisfactory terms are arranged —are those parts currently making a substantial loss, which is something the House should recognise.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: How can the Secretary of State justify the sale of Land Rover to General Motors? Do not the BL interim results show that last year Land Rover made a profit of £5·7 million and had record sales? Is he not aware that the sale of Land Rover will cause widespread dismay, not only among the work force but among all customers of Land Rover throughout the world? Having decided not to go ahead with the discussions with Ford, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the implications for the collaboration with Honda? Does it not place a great cloud over future collaboration? What is to be the future of the arrangement with Honda?
Mr. Channon: As I said in my statement, I hope that collaboration with Honda will continue. Austin Rover's collaboration with Honda has been very sucessful, and I see no reason why that should change. I very much hope that it does not.
There are substantial advantages for Land Rover in any deal that may be agreed—and that is the view of the BL board, not just my view. The opportunities for Land Rover in the United States, taking advantage of General Motors' distribution network, could lead to greater sales of Land Rover in the United States and other markets and to substantial opportunities for Land Rover's work force and management. If those assurances I have mentioned can be obtained, it will be a very good deal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the three hon. Members on the Government Benches who have been rising. I hope that they will be brief.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any objective observer will regard the way in which he has listened to and informed the House as both exemplary and impeccable? However, will he bear in mind that there is still widespread disquiet about the future, especially of the Land Rover-Range Rover group? Will he consider carefully what has been said on that subject from the Conservative Benches?
Mr. Channon: Naturally, I will consider anything that is said from any quarter of the House. I must repeat my belief that I have expressed on a number of occasions to the House that this is the best opportunity for Land Rover. I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the early part of his question.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend accept my heartiest congratulations on the wisdom of his statement today? Has he now abandoned all attempts to try to find other sources of finance for the Austin Rover group? It will require additional resources if it is to increase employment, production and its market penetration both in Europe and in the United States. I hope that my right hon. Friend has not abandoned that pursuit.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Austin Rover's forward plans do not require further Government equity finance. Its financial requirements will be considered in the usual way, in the context of its corporate plans.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Oxfordshire realise the long-term guarantee of Austin Rover at Cowley is in their making cars that people both here and abroad want to buy, with ever more competitive design, marketing and delivery, while at the same time not being dependent on the Government always being prepared to write cheques on the taxpayers' bank account?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. We must try to get Austin Rover's share of the European car market higher than it is at present.
Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State appears to be satisfied that he can find what he calls suitable assurances. Can he give the House an assurance that he will not sanction any arrangements that mean the effective takeover of Leyland Vehicles by General Motors so that the power to take decisions passes from Britain to Detroit?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he meant by the political history of this matter when he attempted to criticise the Labour party? Does he not recollect that when British Leyland collapsed as a private sector operation in 1975 it was rescued by the Labour Government against the wishes of the then Conservative Opposition, many of whom are sitting in front of me?
Mr. Channon: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. As he well knows from my statement on Monday, I outlined to the House precisely the full undertakings that I would require. On the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I think that the least said about the history of the matter by the Opposition, the better.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take a few moments later this afternoon to consider the fact that the Secretary of State's statement was made available to the press well before 3 o'clock, yet shortly before 4 o'clock his Private Office denied that the draft of the statement had been finalised? It was not until almost 5 o'clock that the right hon. Gentleman gave his statement to Members of Parliament. Is this Secretary of State carrying on where the last one left off?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the statement given to the press was leaked before the House heard it, that is a different matter. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was alleging that.

Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, we have a rather late start to the debate. A considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part. I hope that, in view of the time element, they will keep their contributions brief.
5.27 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): This last year has been a busy and effective period for the Royal Navy. Within the NATO area, the Navy has taken part in a series of important national and NATO exercises in the eastern Atlantic, the Norwegian sea, the Baltic, the North sea, the Channel and the Mediterranean. Out of area, the Navy has maintained a constant presence in the south Atlantic, the Caribbean and in the vicinity of the Gulf.
Since our last debate on the Royal Navy, Royal Navy ships have visited a total of 83 countries, including the first visit to a Warsaw pact country, Romania, since 1979. The Navy has made a significant contribution to the surveillance of Warsaw pact shipping worldwide, and has ensured the round-the-clock viability of Britain's strategic deterrent.
Since the last Navy debate, the Navy has also taken delivery of 13 new ships and 22 aircraft, and orders for further ships and equipment for the Navy have been placed to a total value of more than £3 billion.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: How many ships has the Minister ordered?
Mr. Stanley: I shall come to that point later.
Other navies have been busy too—busy in operations and busy in construction. In July last year we saw the largest ever exercise by the Soviet northern fleet, designed apparently as a demonstration of how it might attempt to thwart NATO's reinforcement of Norway and establish Soviet sea control, not merely in the north Norwegian sea and the Barents, but in the south Norwegian sea and the north Atlantic. It was an impressive exercise, although the House will wish to know that the Royal Navy remains confident that, in conjunction with its NATO allies, it could establish sea control in areas of the north Atlantic and Norwegian sea, when so required.
The Russians currently have the largest submarine fleet in the world, with nearly 400 submarines now in service, including 63 nuclear ballistic missile submarines. At least six different classes of submarine are under construction, and a new submarine is continuing to be launched on average once every 35 to 40 days. The Soviet Union has an increasingly formidable fleet of surface warships that includes 320 ships of frigate size and above, and it has just launched the first of a new generation of aircraft carrier of a displacement approximately half as much again as the Kiev class.
The Russians are steadily improving their amphibious shipping. They have the largest stocks of mines in the world. They have one of the largest merchant fleets, the largest oceanographic fleet and the largest fishing fleet. Ships of all these fleets are regularly employed in naval and intelligence collection tasks in addition to their nonmilitary roles. They also have a strong, and still growing,

471
naval aviation arm, with aircraft such as the Backfire with a significant conventional and nuclear stand-off capability against surface ships.
Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergey Gorshkov can put his feet up on the mantelpiece, well content with his service to his country. There is no reason to expect any slowing down in the pace of the Soviet naval programme under his successor Admiral of the Fleet Chernavin. Admiral Chernavin is a submariner. For the foreseeable future, the Soviet navy will constitute a major, and growing, challenge to the NATO countries.
I stress that the challenge is to the NATO countries as a whole, and it is NATO's collective response to the Warsaw pact's naval threat—not just Britain's—that is all-important. Fortunately, the NATO countries taken together are still way ahead of the Warsaw pact in the strength of their surface fleet, particularly in sea-borne tactical air power. We also continue to have significant advantages in other sectors such as the submarine detection technologies, replenishment at sea, and in the calibre of our seamen.
Many of these NATO maritime advantages are represented by the United States navy and that makes the commitment of the Labour party to send the main element of the USN in this country packing all the more reprehensible and irresponsible. We should be doing all that we can to strengthen the USN's presence in Europe, and not weakening it.
I move on to the Royal Navy's contribution to our defences both in the NATO area and outside. Later on, I shall come to the naval programme.
Of the European members of NATO, the Royal Navy provides the biggest single contribution to NATO's surface fleet. Of the naval assets committed to NATO, the Royal Navy provides the only European ballistic missile firing submarines, the only European nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines, and the only European aircraft carriers and amphibious ships. In defence, it is certainly always possible to argue that we should do more, but I do not think that anyone can reasonably suggest that we are not shouldering our fair share of NATO's maritime defence.
I shall mention two other operational commitments inside the NATO area with which the Royal Navy is continuously involved. The first is fishery protection, provided by the fishery protection squadron, based on Rosyth. Following a recent internal review of our fishery protection arrangements, the Government have concluded that the Royal Navy should continue its fishery protection responsibilities.
Over the years the squadron has developed a great deal of expertise in the surveillance of fishing vessels, in boarding them at sea, and in the abstruse but all-important subject of United Kingdom and EEC regulations governing the protection of a wide range of fish.
In addition to its primary fishery protection role, the squadron also provides valuable back-up to the civil authorities for search and rescue operations, for the protection of our offshore oil and gas platforms and for possible use in support of the Customs and Excise, for instance, against drugs traffickers. The work of the Royal Navy's fishery protection squadron is often, I am afraid, largely unsung, but it does a very important job in small ships, often in thoroughly unpleasant sea conditions, and it does it extremely well.
472
The Navy's second continuous operational task in home waters is in supporting the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland by patrolling the Province's 150-mile long coastline. During the last year we have replaced two of the ships in this role with more capable vessels. The Royal Navy ships and smaller craft engaged on this task, together with the Royal Marine detachment that serves with them, provides an important deterrent to the insertion of terrorists, arms and explosives into the Province by sea.
Although the commitments of the Royal Navy are largely in the NATO area, the history of the post-war period shows that actual operations are more likely to occur out of area. We have sufficient naval assets to take on some limited commitments outside the NATO area, and we consider it important that this capability is retained. We have no plans to withdraw our naval presence in the Caribbean or in the vicinity of the Gulf.
Royal naval vessels will continue to be maintained in the south Atlantic, but at the minimum force level that is commensurate with our defence commitment to the Falkland Islanders. We shall also continue to maintain our naval presence in Hong Kong in order to help counter illegal immigration there. As the House knows, I announced on 18 December that a Royal Navy task group would deploy to Asia and the Pacific this year. The deployment will be called Global 86. It will allow us to exercise with friendly navies in the Pacific. It will give some excellent opportunities for defence sales demonstrations, it will enable us to strengthen our naval contacts with both allied and non-aligned countries, and, as I said in the Army debate last week, it will enable us to give our Army and RAF exercise in Oman this year—Exercise Saif Sareea—a maritime dimension.
Global 86 should prove excellent value nationally and for those in the Royal Navy ships taking part. I understand that there has been no little enthusiasm to join the ships' companies involved.
I cannot leave the Navy's operational commitments without referring to its success in saving civilians from death and injury. We regularly see on television the way in which Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters perform the role of aerial lifeboats and save people from certain death in often appalling flying and sea conditions. In 1985, Royal Navy search and rescue helicopters in the United Kingdom lifted a total of 194 people out of danger from the sea. Overseas, the crew of a Greek merchant ship that was breaking up on a reef off the Seychelles was saved in difficult conditions by HMS Exeter's helicopter.
Most recently, we saw last month how the Royal Navy took part in one of the largest beach evacuations of civilians from a fighting situation since the second world years? Between them Britannia, Newcastle, Jupiter, Hydra, Brambleleaf and the merchant ship Diamond Princess evacuated about 1,400 people of some 50 different nationalities—plus, I understand, one dog of nationality unknown. This evacuation required some fine judgments on putting our ships inshore without undue risk to the civilians being brought to safety. It required the creation of communications links from scratch with those ashore. It required much patient and difficult negotiation, and skilled boatwork and helicopter flying. I know that the whole House will want to send our warm congratulations to Rear-Admiral Garnier and all those involved in that outstandingly successful operation.

473
I now turn to the size and shape of the fleet and to the naval programme. I said at the beginning of my speech that since the last Navy debate orders for further ships and equipment for the Navy had been placed to the value of over £3 billion. The new ship orders represent two frigates, three mine countermeasures vessels, one nuclear hunter-killer submarine, and three conventional submarines, bringing the total number of ships on order to 28.
In considering the naval programme, I of course fully recognise the importance of the actual numbers of hulls. However, hull numbers are by no means the only key factor to be taken into account. Ships not merely need to be present in the area of sea required; they also have to be effective and survivable. There has therefore to be a continuous process of optimising the balance between ship numbers and ship capability.
Simply to ignore the huge sums that we have been, and are, spending to improve both the effectiveness and the survivability of our existing surface ships and submarines, as Opposition Members often do in these debates, is no doubt politically convenient but is in fact highly misleading. I am therefore going to start with the ship capability improvements that we have set in hand since our last Navy debate.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Before the Minister leaves the question of numbers, which I suspect concerns more hon. Members than any other single matter, will he agree that to achieve the Government's programme of a surface destroyer and frigate fleet of 50 or 52 they will have to double their present ordering rate of destroyers and frigates during the next 10 years?
Mr. Stanley: I shall deal in a moment with the destroyer and frigate programme. The ship capability improvements that we have set in hand since our last Navy debate include joint procurement with the Army and the RAF of a further Skynet communications satellite; a major programme for the improvement of Sea Dart, including the production of further missiles; the main production order for more than 2,000 Sting Ray advanced lightweight torpedoes; a new electronic support measures programme for submarines, involving the retrofitting of both our Oberon conventional submarines and our Valiant and Churchill class nuclear powered submarines; an improved hull-mounted sonar for some of our Oberon submarines; and an improvement programme for the towed-array sonars for both our frigates and submarines. The total value of these measures and others taken since the last Navy debate to improve ship capability is some £1·7 billion.
I hope the House will bear in mind that these orders of equipment for existing ships and naval aircraft are operationally every bit as significant and valuable as the orders for new ships.
Turning to the different classes of ship and submarines, with HMS Ark Royal joining the fleet last year, we have settled into the operational pattern described in the last statement on the defence Estimates of maintaining two modern carriers operational and one in refit or reserve at any given time.
HMS Hermes is now on the disposal list and we hope to sell her abroad.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that he intends to keep two
474
Invincible class carriers in commission. Will he clarify the position with regard to aircraft and air groups? Is it not the case that there will be only two operational air groups and that there could be a deficiency of aircraft and crews? How will the Royal Naval reserve air squadrons, which are working very well, help to keep the front line up to strength?
Mr. Stanley: I shall deal in a moment with the Fleet Air Arm. As my hon. Friend is aware, the assumption is that at any given moment we shall have two operational aircraft carriers. A fairly intensive refitting cycle has to take place. The third aircraft carrier will probably be undergoing a refit—possibly an extended refit.
Since the last Navy debate the final three type 42 destroyers have been accepted into the fleet. The last eight of the type 22s are on order, as is the first of the new class of type 23 frigate. The tenders for the next three of the type 23s have been received and are being evaluated, and we expect to be able to announce the first follow-on order for the type 23 later this year.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Stanley: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that both he and the House will be mindful of what Mr. Speaker said about the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate.
Mr. Brown: Does the Minister intend to place No. 2 of the type 23s as a separate order with Swan Hunter, as was previously pledged, or does he intend to treat Nos. 2,3 and 4 as a package and place all the orders at the same time?
Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we reach a final decision on the package for the follow-on orders.
Mr. Brown: A promise was made about No. 2.
Mr. Stanley: No. 2 was committed to Swan Hunter. I believe that that is still the position. As for the remainder of the package, I can go no further than what I have already said. I think that I have given to the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wanted in relation to the second type 23 frigate. My understanding is that the undertaking that was given that it would go to Swan Hunter still holds good.
As far as our amphibious ships are concerned, HMS Intrepid has recently come out of refit and HMS Fearless's next refit is planned for next year. These refits will help to ensure the operational effectiveness of our LPDs into the mid-1990s. The largely rebuilt landing ship Sir Tristram has just rejoined the fleet, and on present plans the new Sir Galahad will do so next year. We have been progressing our studies both inside the Department and with industry on the options for continuing our amphibious capability and we should be in a position to decide the way ahead later this year.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Minister confirm that a hovership—I think from Bells—has been delivered to Portsmouth and is under assessment? Is there any future for the hovercraft industry if a hovership is being assessed? Will the Minister please promise that any work for hovercraft will go to the British Hovercraft Corporation?
Mr. Stanley: I cannot anticipate the outcome of the studies on the amphibious options. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is able to elaborate on the hovercraft possibilities when he winds up the debate, I know that he will do so.
Mr. Keith Best: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend wants to get on with his speech, but he will understand that considerable concern is being expressed about the future of the amphibious forces. I appreciate that a decision will be taken later this year. However, my right hon. Friend will have seen press reports which suggest that consideration is being given to extending the life of Fearless and Intrepid into the next century and to converting merchant ships to provide a facility for amphibious forces. My right hon. Friend must understand that that would be completely unacceptable to the House.
Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will understand that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes his decision he will want to be able to tell the House that he is suggesting a cost-effective way forward. The evaluation of the various options requires a detailed and expert study within the Department.
Incidentally, the House will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the inevitably great pressures on his timetable, is going to northern Norway next month to see the Royal Navy and Royal Marines amphibious capability for himself. We are grateful for the sustained interest of Members of both Houses in seeing our Arctic warfare training in northern Norway. Ten Members of this House and of another place visited 3 Commando Brigade in Norway last year and another nine will be going next week. I should particularly like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on her zeal in forsaking the comfort of a hotel bedroom for the delights of the arctic ration pack and a night in the snow with the Royal Marines.
The House is fully aware that the main operational commitment of the Royal Marines is to the United Kingdom-Netherlands amphibious force. The standard of Arctic warfare training that the marines have now achieved through training in Norway each winter is exceptionally impressive. Even the Norwegians now acknowledge that the Royal Marines are as good in the Arctic as they are themselves. Last year we sent a Rapier unit to train with 3 Commando Brigade for the first time, from which many valuable lessons were learnt, including confirmation that the operational performance of Rapier is not degraded by continuous exposure to very low temperatures.
Quite apart from their amphibious landing and Arctic warfare skills, the Royal Marines perform many other valuable operational roles. They have undertaken 26 Northern Ireland tours since 1969. 40 Commando is now making the first Royal Marine deployment to Belize, having carried out a United Nations peace-keeping tour in Cyprus last year.
The Royal Marines also provide units for protecting our offshore oil and gas installations, boarding detachments for the Falkland Islands patrol vessels, an air defence element for the Royal Navy ships in the vicinity of the Gulf, our maritime counter-terrorism capability and an important element of our special forces in the shape of the special boat squadron.
476
We are indeed most fortunate to have a highly trained and versatile Corps of Royal Marines, with its valuable reserve element, within our naval forces.
The modernisation of our mine countermeasures force continues. Since our last debate one more Hunt class ship has joined the fleet and another will do so shortly, and the last two of this class have been ordered. The first of the Sandown class of single-role mine hunters has also been ordered. Mine hunting with variable-depth sonar and the use of remotely controlled submersibles launched from the mine hunter is the most effective means of neutralising modern Soviet mines in the deeper waters of the continental shelf. We believe that the Sandown ships will be the most capable mine hunters in any western navy.
We are at the same time improving our minesweeping capability with the phasing out of the old Ton class ships and their replacement by the new River class. Nine of the 12 River class minesweepers are now with the fleet. Eleven of these will be operated by the Royal Naval Reserve, with one to be attached to each of the RNR sea training centres at Belfast, London, Bristol, Southampton, Dundee, Glasgow, Cardiff, Newcastle, Brighton, Edinburgh and Liverpool. In addition, the new class of patrol craft being built exclusively for the reserves and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service should all be operational by this autumn.
These new orders have given a tremendous boost to the RNR which, for the first time since the second world war, now has a class of warships to operate itself. We are confident that the RNR and the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, both of which are being expanded, will discharge their important responsibilities most effectively.
In relation to merchant shipping, we have said previously that the size of the British flagged merchant marine in the particular categories of ships that we require for defence purposes was such that we could discharge our NATO obligations, with the exception of stern trawlers for minesweeping. I am glad to say that we believe that we have found a satisfactory alternative way of meeting the minesweeping requirment by using North sea support ships. With the Department of Transport we are continuing to monitor very closely the potential availability of merchant ships for defence purposes into the early 1990s.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: How will troops be transported to Europe in moments of heightened tension when the Channel tunnel is built and the number of ferries in service in the English channel diminishes?
Mr. Stanley: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 43 of the White Paper on the Channel fixed link which was published this week. It states:
"After carefully considering projections of the tonnage of total UK-flag cross-Channel fleet in relation to its existing level, the Government has concluded that there will still be sufficient ferry capactiy to fulfil our defence requirements".
Sir Edward du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the serious and most carefully considered opinion of many people in the House and elsewhere, the Minister's statement that he believes that our merchant marine is adequate in time of war to reinforce the Navy is simply not justified by the facts? Many hon. Members are immensely concerned about that matter. Will my right hon. Friend please bear this view in mind?
Mr. Stanley: I stress to my right hon. Friend that I am talking about the requirements for merchant shipping for

477
defence purposes which is a fairly restricted area of needs to be called on in wartime. That matter has been the subject of detailed study by the Select Committee on Defence which had full access to the classified information about our requirements and the availability of ships. If my right hon. Friend examines the Select Committee's response on that matter, he will find that its response does not reflect the view he expressed.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I believe that the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) is correct. There is general concern throughout the country that the merchant fleet is declining. There is anxiety that the fleet has declined to such an extent that it cannot fulfil the total commitments that are required for all our defence requirements, not just our NATO obligations.
Mr. Stanley: I appreciate and understand that concern but I return to the basic point that we have carried out a very careful analysis which was virtually a ship-by-ship requirement analysis of the defence requirements. Those requirements are quite separate from the wider requirements to maintain the economy in time of war, which is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but a matter for the Department of Transport. That raises a much wider issue. However, for specific, clear, defence requirements, we carried out a very careful analysis and I repeat what I said at the Dispatch Box—that, with the exception of the position on stern trawlers, for which we have an alternative, we are satisfied that we can meet our NATO obligations.
Since the last Navy debate, the Fleet Air Arm has taken delivery of nine more Sea Harriers and 16 new helicopters have been ordered. The helicopters comprise nine Sea King mark 4s, which will update the Fleet Air Arm's commando lift capability, and also seven Lynx mark 3s, which will be a valuable addition to the fleet's offensive capability. Work on the EH 101 with the Italians is progressing well.
Naval flying, both fixed wing and helicopters, is one of the most exacting tasks in the armed services. The standards that have to be maintained consistently by both ground and air crews are extraordinarily high. It is to the Fleet Air Arm's great credit that such standards are maintained.
Sir Antony Buck: As my right hon. Friend the Minister is dealing with helicopters, he must be aware that HMS Brazen is nigh unto Westminster at present. That is a splendid ship and has a helicopter on board. It does, however, have a capacity for two helicopters. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that future type 22 ships and existing ships of this class will have the additional capability and are equipped with two helicopters.
Mr. Stanley: My hon. and learned Friend is quite correct. The type 22 does have the capability to carry two Lynx helicopters, and that is obviously an important potential operational enhancement. My hon. and learned Friend will understand that the situation in peacetime is not necessarily that which would apply in wartime. By having the additional physical capability on the type 22, we can
478
increase the helicopter capabilty in wartime. It is not at the moment our intention in peacetime to put two Lynx helicopters on the type 22.
I come last, but by no means least, to the underwater navy. In 1986 we expect to order a total of five submarines, which will be the largest number of submarines ordered in a single year since 1963. Four were ordered last month—the first three follow-on orders of the new Upholder class of conventional submarines, together with the seventh Trafalgar class nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine. The Navy now has 14 SSNs in the fleet, with a further four on order. We expect to place the order for the first Trident submarine in the next few months.
It is absolutely clear from the detailed and expert work carried out within the Government —and reflected in non-classified form in the open Government documents —that the only option that Britain has for maintaining an effective deterrent is Trident. The supposedly cut-price alternative deterrents that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) invariably comes forward with on these occasions—such as putting cruise missiles on to this and that and so on—would not give us an effective strategic deterrent.
Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Gentleman should look at the US navy.
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the US navy. He knows perfectly well that that particular deployment is not the primary strategic capability of the US navy. If he had discussions with the US navy, he would know that, if they were in the same position as us—being able to choose only between a ballistic and a cruise system—the US navy and the US Defence Secretary would choose the ballistic route.
If there was a sensible, cheaper alternative, we would have bought it. There is not, and the right hon. Gentleman is simply kidding himself when he claims that there is. It is also absolutely clear that no equivalent expenditure on conventional equipment can produce a fraction of the contribution of deterrence that Trident represents.
No protection whatever is afforded against strategic nuclear blackmail, or worse, by any number of frigates, any number of tanks and any number of tactical aircraft. The idea that expenditure on conventional capability is any substitute in defence terms for expenditure on nuclear capability is pure illusion. Conventional expenditure may be an alternative; it is certainly not a satisfactory substitute. But it does seem from what was said last week that the Opposition are not even in the business of increasing conventional spending as an alternative to spending on the British nuclear deterrent.
When asked last week by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) whether the Labour party would use the money from Trident to strengthen conventional forces, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) gave a very significant answer. He said:
"We have made it clear that we will abolish Trident. We have also made it clear that, without Trident, it will be possible to maintain conventional defence spending at present levels." —[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1126.]
In other words, all that the Opposition are committing themselves to is the possibility—not even the certainty, just the possibility—that conventional defence spending will merely be maintained at its present level even after they have done away with Britain's deterrent.

479
Clearly the Opposition have concluded that the present level of conventional spending is satisfactory. In the light of that, they have no justification to call in this debate, or any other, for more ship orders or more spending on the conventional Navy. Their policies clearly would not produce either.
The Royal Navy enters 1986 in good shape. The Government have spent about £3 billion more in real terms on the Navy than if expenditure had been kept at the level that applied when those who sit on the Opposition Benches were in office. The fleet is well balanced. It has good ships' programmes and much-improved ships' capabilities. The men and women of the senior service are of high calibre and strong commitment, as are the civilians who support them. They do both their service and our country proud.
6 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: We last debated the Royal Navy on 29 November 1984, and many of the phrases we have heard uttered by the Minister were used on that occasion as well. It is obvious that the MOD's word processor has a fairly large memory bank. The previous debate came within a period when there was still the prospect of 3 per cent. per annum increases in real expenditure. It came within the last year of that period, but there was still the belief on the Government's part that everything would turn out for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Although Westland did not appear as one of the hazards in Voltaire's "Candide", certainly Doctor Pangloss's optimism was reflected in the calculations of the previous Secretary of State for Defence when it came to spending on defence, especially on the Navy. The objectives were quite clear to him. He believed that it would be possible to maintain fortress Falklands in the south Atlantic as well as other out-of-area commitments. It was to be possible to sustain the Nimrod programme, for example, and to finance the ever-increasing Trident programme. It was to be possible to keep at sea a 50-warship navy and to fund what might almost be described as diversions such as the torpedo programme in varying shapes and forms. All that was to be achieved within existing budgets, with the one caveat that if the Trident programme became very expensive something somewhere in the budget would have to be cut.
We were told that there would be no need for any defence reviews, that no additional funding would be available, and that that would not be possible in any event. We were told that if there were any problems, Mr. Levene would arrive with one of his gimmicks and produce the necessary savings. Many of us believe that if Mr. Levene is to justify his salary, he will have to be an alchemist rather than a business man. That will be necessary if he is to find anything like the resources that will be required. We have heard talk of 10 per cent. savings across the procurement budget but that is a remote possibility.
The half-baked proposals to privatise and contractorise the royal naval dockyards have not commended themselves to anyone except the zealots on the Government Front Bench. I realise that the proposed legislation is still in Committee. I have never been in a Committee room in which so few speeches have been made in support of the Government's proposed legislation. I remember the Second Reading debate when the Government Whips had difficulty in dragging
480
Conservative Members into the Chamber to give the Bill unqualified support. That is to question the loyalty and the support of Conservative Back Benchers for the Government's policies.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has the hon. Gentleman asked the Royal Navy whether it is keen on the Government's proposals for the dockyards? If he consults engineering officers and those who serve in the Royal Navy in the dockyards, he will find that they are delighted by the proposals that are set out in the Bill that is now in Committee.
Mr. O'Neill: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that much depends upon those to whom we speak. Those to whom I have spoken show no enthusiasm for the Bill. They are worried about their prospects and what they see as uncertainties. That worry is not confined to their self-interest in employment. It extends to the quality of the work that will be carried out when set against that which has been undertaken in the dockyards and the service that the Royal Navy has received over the years.
The primary purpose of privatising or contractorising the dockyards was to save money. No body of any standing in the House, either in the shape of the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on Defence, has been impressed by the arguments advanced by the MOD. The PAC is normally a fairly restrained body when it comes to submitting its conclusions, but it regarded the evidence put forward by the MOD to support its case as being among the weakest, the most inadequate and insubstantial of that with which it had been presented. We cannot look for substantial savings in that area, even within the modest targets that the Ministry has set itself, before the end of the decade.
The newly appointed Secretary of State is not in his place and we are aware that he is still reading through the files. We might not be getting a full-blown defence review, but something is stirring in the undergrowth. We have heard already of the Cabinet's willingness to consider alternatives to Nimrod. The American journal entitled Aviation Week and Space Technology has been explicit. It has stated that
"Studies indicate that Britain could purchase about six E-3A aircraft"—
that is with AWACS—
"or a greater number of E-2C's for the same amount it would require to get the 11 Nimrod AEW aircraft".
There is quite specific talk about the options that are available and these issues will probably be raised in the forthcoming debate on the Royal Air Force. There is widespread discussion of the relative merits of the available options.
Within hours of being in the job, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Defence concluded that he could not continue with the level of commitment that the Government had set themselves within existing budgets. The latest public expenditure figures have suggested that there will be cuts of 5 per cent. in the budget over the next three years. If we were to assume that the Falklands expenditure was to be included, the figure would increase to about 7 to 8 per cent. If we were at the same time to take account of the fact that defence inflation is always about 1 to 2 per cent. in excess of the normal rates of inflation, we would be likely to see a 3 per cent. cut in real terms every year over the next three years in defence spending.

481
The Minister has described—this is how he would put it—the number of hulls and the improvement in capability. I do not know whether he has been able to convince any of his right hon. and hon. Friends on that score. I know that some of my hon. Friends will be seeking the opportunity to put some searching questions to him and to obtain some rather more specific answers than those which he has given so far.
I am sure that we all welcome the fact that the Government have not reneged on their promise that the second type 23 would go to Swan Hunter. We are grateful for that. However, we are cynical, perhaps, in remembering that when the Defence Estimates were published in 1985, a significant gap was the omission of any announcement of tenders for type 23s. At the press conference at which the Estimates were introduced, the Secretary of State stated that three new type 23s would be ordered in the course of the year, according to Mr. Desmond Wettern, the naval correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. He is a man who should know, as the Minister has said. He certainly seems to have enough to write about and he seems to be the recipient of authorised or unauthorised leaks that are not investigated by the head of the Civil Service. In their own way, they are just as significant as some of those which are subject to his scrutiny. Having bounced the type 23s into this year's Defence Estimates we now find that they will be bounced into next year's Defence Estimates. If we live in hope, we shall doubtless have some prospect of a type 23 eventually.
My hon. Friends representing Tyneside constituencies will be trying to get in because they are anxious to give full vent to the bitterness and sense of betrayal felt by the shipyard workers on the Tyne. At the time of the Falklands war they were national heroes but they are now part of the forgotten army of the north.
About eight frigates are currently being built, four being replacements for ships lost during the Falklands war. By 1990 one third of the 51 warships in the Navy will be more than 25 years old. The Minister did not say, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could be a little more specific and tell us how many of the ships which will be more than 25 years old by 1990 will benefit from the improvements in capability to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. Will he also confirm that if the ordering rate is not increased dramatically there will be no way in which we can maintain the standard of our fleet which we believe to be our rightful contribution to the Alliance? For the past five years an average of one ship each year has been ordered. That rate will have to be trebled if we are to maintain our commitment to the Alliance and provide our men with craft that are commensurate with their skills and loyalty to the service.
Mr. Sayeed: If the Labour party form the next Government will the hon. Gentleman say how many ships they will order, of what type and with what frequency?
Mr. O'Neill: The answer to that is simple. We cannot make any commitments until we know the ordering priorities of the Government. At present it is clear that the Government have no idea and a Government coming into power, as we will in 1987 or 1988, will have to wait to see the state of the Navy at that time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): That was a clever
482
reply but it dodges the main issue. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to add or will he confirm the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in the debate on the Army last week when he said:
"by cancelling Trident, we can maintain present levels of conventional defence spending." [Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1127.]
Mr. O'Neill: I have nothing to add. My right hon. Friend said that following the cancellation of the independent nuclear deterrent and the decommissioning of Polaris we shall sustain our commitment to a conventional force.
I want to raise the matter of submarines. The Minister sought to claim some credit for the ordering of submarines. I can well imagine the satisfaction felt in Merseyside and Barrow-in-Furness over the orders that have been placed. The prospects for Scott Lithgow and the Clyde are worrying. Unless more submarines are ordered quickly the prospects are that that yard will have to close and it is unlikely that it wll be able to open again. It is a yard which has a tremendous expertise in that area and it would be a great loss, not only for the economy of that part of Scotland but to the engineering capabilities of the United Kingdom, if it were to be blighted simply because the previous Secretary of State had some emotional commitment to Merseyside from his days at the Department of the Environment.
I realise that there is now a new Secretary of State and it may be that he will look more favourably on that part of the United Kingdom. One can only hope for that. In Jane's Defence Weekly it was suggested today that there may be a possibility of a conversion order on the Atlantic Causeway and that it might go to Scott Lithgow. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that because Jane's Defence Weekly is a reasonably reliable source and is one which occasionally expresses the inner thinking of the Ministry of Defence. It would be useful if that rumour could be scotched or confirmed.
Mr. Cecil Franks: I understand the comments of the hon. Gentleman regarding the prospects for Scott Lithgow. Is he not aware that the official policy of the Labour party will mean the devastation of the shipyards in Barrow?
Mr. O'Neill: It is not the policy of the Labour party to achieve that and it is certainly not the view of Mr. Rodney Leach of Vickers. When I met him earlier this year he was happy with the assurances which I gave on behalf of the Labour party that on the basis of cancelling Trident there would still be sufficient work. If the hon. Gentleman read his local newspaper he would find that that was well covered at the time of my visit. It may be that he was out of the constituency on that day and did not read it but the management of Vickers has been assured by the statements of the Labour party.
Miss Janet Fookes rose—
Mr. O'Neill: I will not give way. There are many people who want to speak. If the Government are committed to giving the submarine orders to Cammell Laird and Vickers it may be to help and protect those areas but it could simply be to fatten them up before privatisation. The Labour party recognises the Government's need to get as much money as possible out

483
of the privatising ventures which they are trying to carry out. Whether that money will be reflected in the Defence budget is another matter. I doubt it.
The subject of Westland will continue to come up in one shape or form and there was a reference to the hovercraft capabilities of that firm. It has been drawn to our attention that if the Minister or the Secretary of State had been as concerned about sustaining the orders for Westland as they were about sustaining one form or another of ownership, some of the problems that confront that firm may not have been as great. Will the Minister perhaps give us some idea on the question of additional helicopter orders? We welcome the statement about the orders that are currently in train, but I am led to believe that there is a possibility of about another 14 that could be ordered by way of commando and anti-submarine Sea King helicopters. Do the Government have any plans to increase their amphibious capability? Would they consider other uses for hovercraft and the like to help firms such as Westland which need assistance and which have products that the services could make use of?
The Minister made reference to the efforts of the men and women in the services and we echo his sentiments and congratulations on their sterling work in the Gulf and the evacuation role they played some weeks ago. However, some of us remember the great rebellion on the Conservative Benches last summer when the generals, admirals and vice-marshals received a rise of 17·6 per cent. more than the judges and the civil servants. The irony was that while those people had to be given the money to be kept in the job not many of them were actually leaving to go elsewhere. However, that is not the picture with the middle-ranking officers.
There seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Navy not only about rates of pay but conditions. In common with other parts of the public service, more and more is demanded of the armed services, and this is having a detrimental effect on morale. The Navy is short of officers by about 10 per cent., and the air crew for the Harrier jump jets is about 30 per cent. short of the full complement. There is a shortage of principal war officers to staff the ships' operations rooms and the like.
In the debate on the Army, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) raised the question of overseas allowances. He pointed out the Government's parsimony —on the one hand, they were increasing allowances but, on the other, they were increasing charges, which affected morale in the British Army on the Rhine. Some hon. Members may not be aware of one problem in the Navy. On the surface, the Bridport bus syndrome may seem to be a petty problem. Because the distance between Plymouth and Portsmouth via Bridport is less than 200 miles, expenses cannot be claimed for the trip. Serving officers are required to make a long journey at their own expense to take training courses. That is unreasonable. It may not be a major issue, but it is one of the gripes and grievances of men whose loyalty is beyond question. They should not have to be troubled by the Government's petty parsimony.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Neill: I said that I would not give way.
Mr. Viggers: It is an important point.
Mr. O'Neill: I give way, on this point.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this is a matter of great significance to my constituents. How dare the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Labour party criticise this Government when the Labour Government in 1978 held down the pay of the armed forces by 32 per cent., which meant that the Conservative Government's first action was to increase pay by 32 per cent? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those people who suffered under the previous pay holdback are still suffering through their pensions? Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of that?
Mr. O'Neill: I recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. At that time, the Labour Government required sacrifices from many groups, not just the services. At the present time, many people not in the services are doing very well. One of the reasons so many people in the services are leaving and taking jobs elsewhere is that salaries outside the services are so attractive. Their training and skills would be of far greater assistance to Britain if they remained in the services. The Government must take account of the fact that the resignation rate in the services is approaching the level described earlier. We are coming full circle on this issue. We are now reaching the stage when the services regard the Government with the same distaste as they regarded the Labour Government.
We welcome the orders that have finally been placed for Sting Ray. We should have liked the Minister of State to be a little mare forthcoming on the issue of Spearfish, the cost of the programme and the possibility of obtaining co-operation with other countries with a view to defraying expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) may raise this and related procurement matters.
I do not believe that the Minister satisfied any hon. Member with respect to the merchant fleet. He fudged the issue. To suggest that a study, which was carried out solely to meet the needs of the Ministry of Defence, was valid at a time when the Ministry of Transport will be chasing after the same craft to fulfil other related functions is almost to mislead the House. That is not good enough. I think that there is unanimity on this matter. In 1975, there were 1,600 British owned and registered ships; in 1986, we have 640. In 1975, there were 81,000 officers and ratings in the Merchant Navy; in 1986, we have 33,700. Such decreases are a national disgrace and should not be viewed with the complacency the Minister showed.
The Minister told us that there had been a working party report. I understand that many of its points will be rebutted. in the next few weeks by a publication produced by the Maritime League. Those of us who are members of the maritime group in the House will await the working party's detailed examination with interest. I do not think that the report will in any way support the Minister's complacency. If we are to have an adequate response in a time of crisis, we must look to the Merchant Navy for assistance. It is an essential part of our defence arrangements.
In my speech I have placed more emphasis on procurement than on any other strategy. At the heart of the Opposition's case is the fact that the Government's commitment to the grandiose, irrelevant and increasingly dangerous independent nuclear deterrent is forcing the rest of the Navy to carry out its duties with aging craft and out-of-date equipment, supplied by industries that are ready to

485
provide some of the best craft in the world but are denied continuity of orders and the assurances that they will get the work for which they have tendered.
The Government have succeeded in pleasing no one with their naval policies. To fund orders for Trident, other orders have been half called for and then cancelled. Creative accounting techniques are being adopted to keep certain aspects of expenditure down. We have areas of high unemployment where people have the skills and capabilities to provide support for the Navy, as they have done in previous years, but those skills are being lost to the country because the Government do not have the guts to face up to reality. We are now a medium nation with limited economic capabilities. We have neither the right nor the means to carve for ourselves the role that the Minister sought to advance.
6.27 pm
Sir Edward du Cann: It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his place. I hope that he will allow me as an old friend, because we served together in the Territorial Army during a period that we much enjoyed and look back on with nostalgia, to wish him every success in his new responsibilities. Providing he keeps a flow of money coming to the Royal Navy in ever-increasing amounts, he will certainly have no trouble from me.
It may be within the recollection of hon. Members that in the past few years I have raised the subject of hydrography in these Navy debates a dozen times. I regret the need to do so again. Paragraph 4.21 of the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Marine Science and Technology", which was published in the 1985–86 Session, states:
"there was criticism of the failure to develop a coherent policy to survey, exploit and manage the UK's Exclusive Economic Zone".
That is followed by a series of references to evidence taken by the Select Committee. The report continues:
"existing knowledge of the UK EEZ was by no means complete … the Hydrographer"—
of the Navy—
"commented that only 15·7 per cent. of the UK Continental Shelf was considered by hydrographers to be properly surveyed, a figure which was increasing … at only 1-2 per cent. per annum".
I do not know what the opinion of the House may be about that clear view. Mine is simple and simply put. I applaud what my right hon. Friend had to say in his excellent speech about increased expenditure on maritime matters, but it is surely a scandal that, seemingly through carelessness, we do not afford the comparatively trivial funds necessary to survey our home waters thoroughly. The potential for riches in and under the sea is unlimited, as the discovery of oil in our waters has evidenced.
By failing to co-ordinate research —that is the report's theme, and it is well worth careful study—and failing to research in our own backyard, so to speak, we betray the tradition of Cook, Beaufort and other great navigators of whom the contemporary Navy is so rightly proud.
Future generations will condemn our contemporary indifference. We are becoming a nation of non-decision and non-doers. In that respect, speaking of the hydrographic fleet, I hope that we shall soon hear something about the replacement for Endurance.
486
That is not the only failure. I come to the chief matter which I wish to raise—the fourth arm of our defence, referred to by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). I can put my point in one sentence. It is an urgent matter. The serious decline in Britain's merchant fleet now puts our defence and our economy in deadly peril. The answer to the point that my right hon. Friend made in his reply to the intervention that he was good enough to allow me to make is that this country's defence and commercial maritime interests are wholly indissoluble. Underlining almost all the United Kingdom's trading activities is an inescapable maritime link, the most important element of which is merchant shipping. The British merchant fleet, and many other important elements, are now in such sharp decline —that is the point that the hon. Member for Clackmannan was making —that they face possible extinction within the next few years. The process is not a self-correcting one. It can only worsen if present policies are allowed to continue. We have it in our power to arrest the decline, to safeguard and create employment in our society and to enhance our defence capability. That is what I wish to argue for.
I have such respect for my right hon. Friend that I regret to have to make these points, but I am glad to make them in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The complacency of the Government and Ministers in this most serious situation is astounding. The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the great Dr. Pangloss of whom Francois-Marie Arouet—Monsieur de Voltaire, the phoney philosopher—wrote, and who said that everything was
"for the best in the best of possible worlds."
As my right hon. Friend said, we have had a report —no doubt most carefully worked on in his Department —but if ever a report was Panglossian, that was it. I give him an immediate answer to the point that he was making, after my intervention and that of my hon. Friends, if he believes that our merchant shipping capability is adequate for our defence needs. I shall give him one example of the way that it plainly is not. The whole House knows it is not. We could not mount another Falklands operation today. We do not have the ships.
What are the facts? As the House is aware, and as the hon. Member for Clackmannan said, 10 years ago there were 1,600 ships of 500 gross registered tonnes and upwards on the British register. Today, the number is not the 640 that he mentioned; it is less. It is probably only 600, and the number continues to fall. The latest evidence was shown by BP flagging out the other day. What a blow that was for British maritime pride.
The order book for new ships for the British fleet is now at rock bottom—a mere 250,000 tonnes. I have long felt, and often said, that we could have many more ships in the Royal Navy if only we went for simpler and cheaper ships. We often complicate matters of design.
Mr. Best: Hear, hear. The S90.
Sir Edward du Cann: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.
As a young man in the Navy, in the closing stages of the war I served in what was called a "Woolworth aircraft carrier". How effective were those cheaper ships. They did an extremely good job. We badly need more naval ships. My right hon. and hon. Friends face great difficulty in ordering them because of the expense. We all understand

487
that. If there were a change of Government, the successor Government would face the same difficulty. That was one aspect of the teasing that went on earlier in the debate. If the designs were simpler and we had cheaper ships, we could undoubtedly have more.
There are no ships in the distant water trawling fleet. I do not know how my right hon. Friend can, with a straight face, quote that report and say that we have an adequate defence capability while we have no ships in the distant water trawling fleet.
If we have fewer ships, other industries suffer. We heard an impassioned comment from the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) about shipbuilding in a question to the Prime Minister earlier today. We see on the tape today that three north-eastern yards are going to amalgamate. We all know of what that is the first stage. One of them will close shortly. That is what that means.
If there are fewer ships, other industries suffer —shipbuilding, ship repairing and those businesses which produce many kinds of marine technology and marine engines. The list of industries is long.
The net contribution to the balance of payments made by United Kingdom-owned ships has fallen by £2 billion over the past 10 years.
Qualified seafarers—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Clackmannan —have decreased over the same period from about 90,000 to 30,000. Five colleges of nautical education have closed. We are rapidly losing not just our material and financial assets, but our professional people who could do something to restore them.
The defence implications are disturbing for the United Kingdom as well as for NATO. The capacity of our country, if not of Europe, to supply itself in time of war is now in doubt. There is a shortage of ships of all classes — minesweepers, troopers, tankers, general cargo carriers and ships for harbour duties. The list is long.
The manpower reservoir for the Royal Navy is hopelessly inadequate. At the outbreak of war in 1939, there were 140,000 people at sea. The number today is a mere quarter of that figure.
On the economic side, the percentage weight of United Kingdom exports carried by British registered ships has fallen to about one quarter of the total. If we take the tonne-mile figure, it is now below 20 per cent. —less than one fifth of the whole. That means that the bulk of the United Kingdom trade —and the overwhelmingly greatest proportion of it by weight, 98 per cent. or so, goes by sea—is in the hands of our competitors. I do not know the view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but I regard that as an intolerable and dangerous position. One might ask, what is the point of having a Royal Navy if we have no merchant marine to defend?
There are many reasons for the decline of the British merchant fleet —the worldwide economic recession, changing trade patterns, the misjudgments that have been made, especially about tankers, depressed freight sales, protectionism and a lack of profitability. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen could no doubt add to that list. I do not think that we would quarrel about any of the matters that we would put into the list.
The main underlying cause for the decline of the British merchant fleet is the impracticability of trading fairly in a market which is no longer governed by economics alone. Competitors will do anything to survive when far too many ships are chasing too little cargo.
488
This debate is primarily concerned with the military threat to the United Kingdom and our NATO allies. The commercial threat is equally important. It was Nye Bevan in a much quoted phrase who said, "Why look in the crystal when you can read the book?" That is the declared intention of those who threaten us commercially to force us beyond the point of recovery. Read the proceedings of the International Marine Conference in Peking in 1984 or the reports from the shipbuilding industry in South Korea in 1983. Our competitors in the free world seek to destroy our civilian maritime capacity, and that is a fact.
In the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate we heard of the immense increase in the activities of the Communists in maritime affairs. My right hon. Friend was saying: look at the expansion in their merchant fleet, look at the expansion in their fishing fleets, and so on. We are under attack, therefore, from both sides —from those who should be our friends as well as those who are opposed to us politically and ideologically — and what do we do? Every right hon. and hon. Member knows what the answer to that question is: we do nothing.
The time has come for action. We face an emergency. It is time that we had and announced a national maritime policy; it is time that we had a declaration of interest at the highest political level. What should we say? We should say that Britain recognises how vital is her maritime trading system. We should say that we intend to safeguard what we have, not let it slide away still further, and to develop it. That involves co-ordination, of course.
I thought it was very interesting that in my right hon. Friend's speech at one moment, on the subject of the merchant marine, he said, "Oh, well, you see, all that would be a matter for the Department of Transport". That is just the trouble—divided responsibility. There are 14 different Departments concerned with maritime affairs and a multiplicity of organisations outside the business of government.
I suggest to the House in all seriousness that we need a single Minister who will be responsible for evolving policy. He might set himself these priorities: to make a thorough assessment of our defence needs in terms of ocean-going and coastal merchant shipping, and then to harness support within the European Community. There is not much sign of that at the moment. I thought that one of the great advantages of going into Europe was that we could all act together and come together. Here is Europe, this great trading block, vastly bigger than the United States, much bigger than Japan, for instance, and we seem to be fighting one another. We have plenty of muscle and no common practices.
Why do we not make a start with coastal shipping and cabotage instead of having a whole series of different organisations and permitting, as we do, ships from other countries in Europe to do virtually what they like in United Kingdom waters while we are precluded from trading successfully in theirs?
I would mobilise the European countries and international support in order to see that excess tonnage is scrapped and that we return, so far as we can, to normal economic criteria in the market place. I would seek to harness all the talent and research resources that we have in the United Kingdom so that this single co-ordinating Minister could be helped in his task.
I would take as a firm objective the profitable operation of merchant shipping in private hands. The industry has put up some excellent suggestions to the Chancellor for

489
fiscal measures which would be of great help in his forthcoming Budget. I hope that they will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Defence, additional ship allowances, rollover relief, and so on. There is a window of opportunity at the moment through which it would be easily possible for British ship owners to purchase second-hand ships. The market is very much in their favour for doing that. It would be a pity to let the opportunity slip.
One could continue with a list of items which it is possible to do. The fact is that the present situation is intolerable and the reality is that there is no earthly need for us to tolerate it. I believe that it would easily be possible to mount a series of constructive proposals which could transform the present situation from being a hopeless one into one which contained a new degree of hope.
If I may, I will quote from the humble address of the Commons to the Sovereign, Queen Anne, in 1708:
"Other nations which were formerly great and powerful at sea, have, by negligence and mismanagement, lost their trade and seen their maritime strength entirely ruined. Therefore we do, in the most earnest manner, beseech your Majesty that the Sea Affair may be always your first and most peculiar care".
Plus ça change—those words are as relevant today as they were 277 years ago.
I beseech my right hon. Friend to realise the peril that we are in—"peril" is a word I use advisedly—from the defence and from the economic point of view, confident in him, as I am in his new, proud office, urgently to take those measures that are necessary and possible to improve and to restore the situation to what it should be.
6.46 pm
Dr. David Owen: I agree with every word that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) has stated about the dire peril facing our merchant marine. I hope that the new Secretary of State, whom I wish well, will reflect on the views that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed because I think that they are widely held, not just on both sides of the House, but throughout the country.
The Secretary of State deserves our congratulations, but he also deserves our sympathies. I do not think that anybody has ever taken over the job of the Secretary of State with such a number of postponed decisions and facing such a very difficult financial squeeze. There are many reasons, of course, why the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is no longer in the Government, but certainly he was going to face some politically very difficult questions.
I am not sure how clearly right hon. and hon. Conservative Members have realised what is happening to the defence budget. After all, until November last year, we were still hearing pledges about the defence budget being held to "level funding", yet we now discover in January 1986 that the Secretary of State for Defence will have to make do in the coming year with a defence budget that will be further cut. Between now and 1998–99 we are to see the equivalent in real terms of a 7 per cent. cut in the defence budget. That is on some very optimistic inflationary assumptions. If one looks at the problems in the Secretary of State's in tray, one sees, just to name a few, the Nimrod airborne early warning system—a very difficult decision which now faces the Secretary of State,
490
postponed by his predecessor. Next is the question of the amphibious forces. Many of us are simply not prepared for us not to have an amphibious lift capability, for which there is a continuing argument. Yet the Minister of State confirmed that there will be no early decision. Then there is the question of fortress Falklands which is costing us £52 million in 1985–86 and is estimated to cost £192 million in 1988–89. On top of that, as the right hon. Member for Taunton said, there is the question of the replacement of HMS Endurance. Then there is the question of agency management in the dockyard, to which I shall return, which will cost the Navy more money over the next few years—these very difficult years in which we are adding to the budget. The Minister of State hopes that in the longer term it will produce economies. I have great doubts about this. However, it is an additional cost. On top of that, we have Trident—the cuckoo in the nest.
I shall now deal with the inflationary assumptions that may face the Secretary of State. The Government are assuming that in 1986–87 the Armed Services Pay Review Board will suggest an average pay increase of 4 per cent. If it suggests a 5 per cent. pay rise, it will add about £200 million to the defence budget, which is 1 per cent. above the assumption. It must be remembered that people will make many comments about the problem of morale, especially in the middle ranks. A 10 per cent. sterling depreciation against the dollar in 1986–87, which nobody can rule out, will add £300 million to the real terms cost of Trident.
The Secretary of State will have to make some unpalatable decisions, especially as the new fighter aircraft, which is the result of a welcome European procurement decision, is not even included in the longterm costings and must now be absorbed. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine Trident, and that his decision not to announce the Trident order today, which many people expected to be made in January, means that he is reconsidering Trident. Given the Conservative party's commitments, that is an extremely difficult decision for a new Secretary of State to make.
Many people throughout the country and a growing number in the armed services who want Britain to retain nuclear weapons, as I do, and believe that we should contribute to the European nuclear deterrent honestly believe that Trident is not affordable. I have never denied that it is a brilliant system, and I am glad that the United States has it, but I call in aid the recent change of position of the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships. He now calls into question the cursory look given to submarine-launched cruise missiles. He says that submarines would be brought too close inshore, and would not have the obvious advantage of being 3,000 miles out to sea. He says of the outer Hebrides, the waters of the south Norwegian sea and the North sea:
"Anybody who has carried out operations either in, or in pursuit of a submarine in the confused waters which can be found in all those places might suggest that detection and destruction are by no means easy. If, as the essay says, the cruise missile is vulnerable to Soviet defensive systems, this, presumably, is true of the land-based version and calls into question the efficacy of those now being emplaced in Europe. These, indeed, are not classified as 'strategic' missiles but today too many are inclined to dismiss 'mere kilo-tonnage' ."
It is essential that we hold a minimum deterrent, and it is right that we should consider submarine-launched cruise missiles, which are extensively deployed in both the United States and Soviet navies.
Mr. Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one cannot operationally combine in the same SSN an attack role and a deterrent role? If he accepts that, will he tell the House how many dedicated SSNs for the carriage of a British submarine-launched cruise missile system our country would need to provide a credible deterrent to the Soviet Union, and what it would cost?
Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman is making the great mistake of trying to mirror the Trident system. It is not necessary to have a completely dedicated submarine system, and neither the United States navy nor the Soviet navy has one. They have a mix, which is right. The dedicated submarine increases the costs substantially.
The British deterrent is a contribution to NATO, and is in place, first, for political reasons with the operation of the French, and, secondly, for use, if NATO frayed at the edges, the United States pulled back and there were major questions about the nuclear guarantee. In that case it would be possible to change the deterrent, give it a more dedicated commitment, and to pull out some conventional armament. We would have warning of the break-up of NATO, but we would have insufficient warning to start laying down new submarines and systems. A minimum deterrent means that one is not getting the best, but is saving money.
Mr. Gorbachev's proposals have produced a dramatic change in the Soviet arms control position. Instead of being deeply hostile to the French and the British nuclear deterrents, the Soviets have accepted that missiles with a range over 1,000 kms will be held by the French and the British into the second stage of the disarmament proposals, which they have advocated. They regard it as a quid pro quo for them rejecting the part of the zero option that required them to take SS20s targeted on China and Japan out of Asia, Therefore, at least there is now a degree of symmetry in the Soviet position. The Soviets have accepted the need for a European-based nuclear deterrent, although they want America to remove all its land-based missiles in return for them removing all SS20s from a line beyond the Urals which has already been agreed in the arms control negotiations. That is a significant and major change, and Britain should now be talking to the Soviet Union about the issue, as well as to our American allies and, particularly, the French. We have a new opportunity to reach a broad agreement to replace Polaris with an equivalent level of megatonnage and of deterrence; and not to opt for the staggering increase in megatonnage and warheads that is so critical. That must be faced, and is an important part of arms control and disarmament.
Resources will be necessary if we are to maintain the nuclear submarine build rate, for which the Minister, rightly, claims some credit. I am pleased at the conventionally powered submarine build rate, and at the emphasis on submarines, which are the most crucial part of a modern navy. Moreover, the Royal Navy can make a unique contribution to NATO with its submarines. We need role specialisation within NATO, and it is natural for the United Kingdom to emphasise its maritime wing. If we could share roles, it may be possible slowly to reduce our contribution to BAOR with the agreement of our allies so that we can devote more resources to our naval and maritime role.
Unfortunately, I shall not be present when the Minister replies, so I shall not take up too much time. The Secretary of State is present, has legislation in Committee, and
492
knows the position of the SDP which has been ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in Committee, and of the Labour party. It is clear from reading the Committee records that the Government will not give way on two fundamental points. First, they will take the dockyards out of the Civil Service. I bitterly regret that decision and think that it is a poor way of repaying dockyard workers for their years of dedicated service. Secondly, it is also perfectly clear that the Government will create a commercial company. I beg the Secretary of State to review the agency management proposal of his predecessor. I know of no one who believes that an enterprise the size of Devonport dockyard, let alone Rosyth dockyard, can be run, if it is split in two, with the Ministry of Defence owning the capital assets and a private management agency employing the men on a contract of only seven years. The Government have never in any of their privatisation measures put in jeopardy the contracts of employment of the workers, and limited it to seven years. Workers at British Telecom, British Gas and the rest have the normal expectation that if they work reasonably well, they will have a job until retirement. The seven year contract of employment for dockyard workers is a ludicrous and savage way of repaying them for their years of loyalty. It does not make industrial sense. Many private industrialists have criticised this agency management scheme. I know of none who thinks it a sensible idea. Independent consultants who have advised Plymouth city council have come out against the idea of the separation of capital from management and employees.
If the Secretary of State for Defence cannot change and has to go ahead with the commercial plc, then at least let it be an integrated corporation, with the majority shareholding owned by the Ministry of Defence. The shares could be quoted and the management and the work force could buy shares. There should be one unified enterprise and the agency management scheme should be ditched.
If the Secretary of State for Defence did this or expressed a readiness to do this, perhaps after the Committee stages, he would be surprised at the cooperation he would get from the trade union movement. He would be surprised at the extent to which it would be prepared to look at the practices and to contribute. It does not like any of the proposals—which is understandable — but it deeply fears this proposal of separating out management and employment from capital. The trade unions know how often the dockyards have scrimped and saved in the past. They fear for its efficiency and its capacity to compete. The Devonport dockyard is prepared to compete on even and equal terms but it needs to be given the unity of an integrated enterprise.
The Secretary of State for Defence earned quite a reputation for himself as Secretary of State for Scotland for his open-mindedness. I therefore hope he will reassess the whole position. If he does so the Royal Navy will be grateful because it will not have its best interests served by the agency management proposal. There are a good many of us who fear the consequences of the present reorganisation at Devonport dockyard. If the Secretary of State was to rethink, he would earn a great deal of respect from many people who have worked in the dockyard a lifetime and who wish to continue to contribute to the maintenance of the fleet and in service to the Royal Navy. They are prepared to make changes in work practice and become more efficient but they want to see some give and

493
understanding from the Government on an issue of fundamental importance for themselves. It is of fundamental importance for my constituency and the city of Plymouth.
7.1 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: It is good, sound and accepted parliamentary practice for a Member to declare an interest, if he has one, in the subject matter of a debate. I declare such an interest without any sense of shame—the interest of 12,500 constituents whose livelihoods and those of their families depend upon Navy defence contracts and expenditure. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the relationship of Government defence contracts to employment and employment prospects.
It is pertinent to remind Opposition Members, in particular, in this centenary year of submarine building in Barrow, of the long, close relationship between south-west Cumbria and the Royal Navy—a relationship going back to 1877 when HMS Foxland, the first frigate, was commissioned by the Royal Navy, followed by the first submarine, built for a foreign country, in 1886, the Nordenfelt, and then by the first submarine built for the Royal Navy in 1901, HMS Holland. Since 1901, 297 submarines have been built in Barrow for the Royal Navy.
It is fair to say that the whole economy of south-west Cumbria depends upon naval contracts and especially on submarine building. Yet throughout the whole of the 30-minute speech from the Labour Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), there was not a single grain of comfort nor a single word to reassure the 12,500 people working in Barrow of their continuity of employment should Labour party policy prevail. In response to an intervention to point out this omission, the hon. Gentlenan said:
"I have nothing more to add."
Does he not feel that the largest heavy engineering complex in the United Kingdom deserves better than
"I have nothing more to add."?
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that we can provide documentary evidence to show, if he is not satisfied that at least the management of Vickers is satisfied, that, in the event of a Labour Government cancelling Trident, work will continue at Barrow and there will be a sufficiency of work to maintain the labour force at its present level.
Mr. Franks: I shall come back to that point. It is a point that I shall certainly not forget because the senior management of Vickers is listening to this debate. What it wants from the Labour Front Bench is not platitudes —it wants specifics.
The Opposition have been hooked for a long time on their commitment to scrap Trident. I do not wish to deal with the strategic implications of that policy, but I remind the Opposition, especially the Labour Front Bench, that Trident is the cornerstone of British and NATO naval defence policy.
The Trident programme is also vital to those constituents in Merseyside and south-west Cumbria whose livelihoods depend on it. Notwithstanding the words of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State
494
for the Armed Forces, who opened the debate, for his reassurance, recommitment and reaffirmation of the Trident contract. The Trident programme has already started. The design and the long lead orders are being fulfilled. Currently there are 2,300 of my constituents employed on that programme, and at its peak there will be over 10,000 constituents employed on Trident. What does the Labour party propose as substitute employment for those 10,000 constituents? It is a question that the Labour party has consistently avoided. Labour Front Bench spokesmen continue to come out with platitudes—but platitudes are worthless when jobs are on the line.
No Government have done more for my part of the country than the present Government. We have the commitment to Trident and the work has started. In addition, the Barrow shipyards are currently building four submarines recently ordered by the present Government. The shipyards at Cammell Laird, a subsidiary of Vickers, are building a further three submarines. Those orders represent jobs. Those jobs will take my part of the country into the next century in terms of security and prosperity. The value of the orders is in excess of £1,000 million. Continuity of employment is assured for approximately 15,000 people.
Those orders have been won not by special pleading, but by hard, commercial tendering in competition. I hope the new Secretary of State for Defence will follow his predecessor who, when appointed to the office, paid a visit to the shipyards in Barrow. We are grateful for the frequent visits made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to our part of the country; he has always been and always will be welcome.
The Government's commitment is in sharp contrast to the Official Opposition who make regular pilgrimages to Barrow. Tomorrow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will visit the area; a few months ago we had a visit from the hon. Member for Clackmannan. They come and they go, yet they still lack any firm commitment to what will take the place of Trident.
It is not yet official policy, but the Labour party has suggested that it intends to replace Trident by building more SSN hunter-killers. I hope that this is not what we shall hear from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Has the Labour party ever thought through what it is saying? Does the Royal Navy need or want that many more hunter-killers?
Mr. Duffy: Yes.
Mr. Franks: Does the Royal Navy have the personnel to man them? That is the weakness of the Labour party's thinking. It is no good fudging the issue, as it does over and again. Four years and more have passed since the Labour party made its commitment to scrap Trident. It has had long enough to come up with specific proposals as to what will take its place. The nation wants an answer, my constituents want that answer.
The Labour party is not just anti-Trident; it is emotionally anti-nuclear. I invite Labour Members to explain their inconsistency; they oppose nuclear energy but want to increase the number of nuclear-powered submarines. That inconsistency rings hollow.
On 31 March, Vickers, which incorporates Cammell Laird, will pass into private ownership. We do not know at this stage who the bidders will be and it would not be proper for me to express a firm commitment to any of

495
them, but I should like to express my firm commitment to the philosophy of a management-employee consortium buyout. The whole House should welcome wider share ownership. I trust that, when the decision is made, we shall have a strong and truly independent naval defence contractor.
I remind the House that the Royal Navy embraces far more than ships, submarines and the men who man them. Within its family are whole communities whose prosperity depends on it, just as it in turn depends on the skills and enthusiasm of the men who build the ships.
7.12 pm
Mr. Ted Garrett: I believe that I am the first Labour Member to congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I endorse what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said about his having a more pragmatic approach. He faces enormous problems and I hope that he can overcome them for the general good of the nation.
I should like to endorse what the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said. I thought that he was reading excerpts from some of my speeches about the Royal Navy and the shipbuilding industry. He made some strong and pungent criticisms and it would be foolish of the Government to ignore what he said.
I speak on behalf of my consitituents in Wallsend in the north-east and the Swan Hunter group, which is the biggest employer in the area and has been privatised. We are facing up to the reality of vigorous competition in defence and other activities. The public should rid themselves of the idea that the shipbuilding industry delivers late and has massive industrial relations problems.
I have looked at the record of delivery dates of some of the vessels built on the Tyne in the past two years. I found that, with the exception of the Atlantic Conveyor, all had been delivered on time. Indeed, much to the embarrassment of the Royal Navy, the Ark Royal was four months early. The Navy did not know what to do with it so it had a play about, after which it was delivered on time.
The original Atlantic Conveyor was sunk in the Falklands. The replacement could be a lesson to some of us. It is geared to perform a dual role. Part of the bridge is designed for Merchant Navy use and another is designed for action in the event of hostilities. It was late principally because it is owned by Cunard, which was trying to get a Rolls-Royce for a Morris Minor price. However, that saga has now ended.
The tragedy of shipbuilding is that when a ship is delivered, work ends. Men become unemployed. When the Ark Royal sailed down the River Tyne on completion, more than 50 per cent. of the personnel were put on the unemployment list when they were flown off the ship. That is a fact of life in shipbuilding and ship repair.
The work force is now down to 4,490—a reduction of 30 per cent. since 1984. There is a grim, but not completely pessimistic, outlook for the future in the area. The region has a long tradition of shipbuilding and ship repair. There is immense loyalty to the Royal Navy there —those who were on the ships and those who serve on them. That loyalty extends to the Merchant Navy. If hon. Members ever go to South Shields and see the war memorial for those who died in the 1914–18 and 1939–45 wars while serving in the Merchant Navy, they will get some idea of the scale of the sacrifice.
496
I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the size of the order book. We have three type 22 frigates under construction—HMS Sheffield, which is due for delivery in 1987, HMS Coventry, which is due for delivery in 1988, and HMS Chatham, which is due for delivery in 1989. All the pieces have been brought together with the help of new technology, and I am confident that they will all be delivered on time.
In addition, we have the replacement for the Sir Galahad, the original having been sunk in the Falklands. It is due for delivery in 1987. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the Sir Tristram. I do not know whether he was on board when it was in the pool of London before being fully commissioned, but it is a tribute to the ingenuity of the designers and those who built it, as it is an exceedingly difficult ship to design and build. I hope that it will perform its role fully in the Royal Navy.
It is important to remember that work has to continue. It is important for the company to get off to a good start in the private sector. I beg the Minister urgently to consider the order for the auxiliary oil replenishment ship, for which I understand tenders have been placed. I do not want to appear to be too greedy, but I like to think that a second one might be ordered in the near future. On a more sour note, I know that Harland and Wolff has placed a tender for this ship.
The management of Swan Hunter are worried that the politics of Northern Ireland may come into the placing of the order. The Government are committed to free competition in defence contracts, so I hope that they will not be gulled into accepting a lower tender, which has probably been bolstered by the many forms of aid available to Northern Ireland. I should like a frank, open, fair and competitive tender. I hope that the influence of the Northern Ireland Ministers will not be brought to bear.
The Minister mentioned that he is honouring the commitment made last January to the ordering of a type 23. That was promised to Swan Hunter, but again, for political reasons, it has been given to Cammell Laird at a cost in excess of £7 million more than it would have cost if it had been built at the Swan Hunter yard.
The Swan Hunter management has built up an efficient team with technical expertise and qualifications. Massive amounts of money have been spent to bring new technology into the yard. It would be remiss of the Government not to consider giving the yard all the T23s that are supposed to be coming up for tender. I should like contracts for T23 Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to be placed at that establishment.
In the long run, the placing of that contract would be to the benefit of Swan Hunter and to the benefit of the Ministry of Defence, because the ships would be designed to the required qualifications much more cheaply than if they were spaced around the country in other shipyards.
In my judgment, the men who serve the ships are doing a good job. I am a little concerned about the wastage and the loss that was noted in a Daily Telegraph article recently. I understand why the Royal Navy's personnel lack the commitment to sail in peacetime for long periods.. They probably do not feel the same urgency. They are sometimes bored with the routine, but they are still men and women of a high calibre.
I recommend increasing the personnel of the Royal Navy. Those who serve in the Royal Navy develop special characteristics. When they return to civvy life, they perform a useful role in society. They are committed,

497
dedicated and reliable and when they return, they are an asset to any prospective employer. The present need is to increase recruitment. At a time of 3·25 million unemployed, the calibre of the people that could be recruited would be of the highest.
7.24 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The House always listens with great interest to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and I have listened to his remarks this evening with much interest. I shall not follow them except to say that I hope that Ministers will pay regard to the capacity of yards when placing shipbuilding orders and that they will not overlook Vosper Thornycroft on the south coast.
I wish to discuss the match between demands on royal naval and defence budgets and the cash available to meet those demands. First, I wish to raise a constituency matter of great importance that I shall seek also to raise in another debate. My remarks relate to the search-and-rescue helicopter based at HMS Daedalus at Lee-on-the-Solent. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is reviewing helicopter search and rescue availability on the south coast. The search and rescue helicopter based at HMS Daedalus comes within that review. The Spithead, Solent, Portsmouth harbour and Chichester harbour area is one of the busiest waterways in the world, with thousands of tankers, liners, yachts, ferries, surfboards, swimmers and fishermen. It is not surprising that the search and rescue helicopter at HMS Daedalus is the busiest of the search and rescue helicopter services operated by the Royal Navy.
If that helicopter should be withdrawn, the nearest helicopters would be at Portland and at Royal Air Force Manston in Kent, each of which would require about 20 minutes' extra flying time. When it is remembered that the Daedalus helicopter in the past 14 years has carried out 2,000 sorties and has rescued 850 people, the House will recognise that it would be unacceptable to the people of that area if that helicopter were withdrawn. It is a matter of great local concern.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be thrilled to discover that the local newspaper is proposing to run a campaign entitled "Save Our Helicopter". I am sure that he will hear much more about this matter and I hope that he will give an assurance soon that that helicopter will not be withdrawn.
My main point relates to defence commitments and matching them with resources. There is growing concern about their increasing imbalance. We have four main defence commitments. The first is the nuclear deterrent —Polaris, which is to be replaced by Trident. That is our most important defence commitment. The second is our commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom homeland. Our third commitment is to the European mainland, involving 55,000 troops in BAOR and a tactical air force in Germany. Our fourth commitment is in the eastern Atlantic and in the Channel.
To meet those commitments, we currently have resources at the level of £18,060 million in 1985. For the seventh year, the Government have honoured their commitment to NATO to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. a year. We spend about 20 per cent. more in real terms than when we inherited the Government in 1979, excluding Falklands expenditure.
498
I perceive symptoms of strain in the defence budget. There is a delay in procurement of ships. We are committed to about 50 frigates and destroyers, which relates to an ordering programme of three frigates or destroyers a year, but none has been ordered this financial year. There has been a delay in the replacement of the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid. There has been an increasing use of existing ships, and ships are now spending 50 per cent. of their time at sea, which is 10 per cent. more than they spent in wartime. A heavy burden is placed by the five-month rotation of ships that are serving in the Falklands.
It is clear that the Royal Navy needs more men. The 1981 Defence Review proposed that the Navy's strength should be reduced to 62,800 in 1985 and would be 60,400 in 1986. According to a press report dated 1 February 1986, Captain Michael Gretton, director of naval officer recruiting, said that instead of running down the naval strength to 56,000 by the early 1990s, the Government now propose that the number of men in the Royal Navy in 1993 will be about 63,000. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the truth of those figures.
There is an urgent need for the replacement of the Shackleton aircraft and for an adequate early warning system. This point is outside the immediate area of the Royal Navy, but it is relevant. We shall soon be faced with the massive cost of the fly-by-wire, inherently unstable, air superiority European fighter aircraft. We must also take into account the fact that our commitment to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. a year has ended. Therefore, it is increasingly urgent that we should match our commitments with our resources. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I welcome to his present post, may be unwittingly cast as John Nott mark 2.
How do we resolve this conundrum? Dedicated though I am to defence and to the armed forces, I do not believe that a further increase in the defence budget is realistic. We have increased our budget by 3 per cent. for seven years, and we are now spending 20 per cent. more than we did in 1979. We spend more per head on defence than any of our NATO allies except the United States.
The Government sought to reassure us in the defence White Paper by showing how we shall meet our commitments and match them with our resources. Paragraph 503 of volume 1 of the 1985 White Paper states:
"The forward programme should not be seen as a rigid plan stretching ten years ahead, establishing commitments in detail to exact equipment numbers with specified in-service dates. It is in practice continually being adjusted for a range of reasons, including technological and industrial constraints and opportunities, as well as budgetary limitations."
It goes on to describe this policy as "programme adjustment".
Apart from programme adjustment—whether it be a change of mind, delay or uncertainty—becoming almost an art form, I must tell my hon. Friends that programme adjustment has built into it two inexorable rules. The first is that costs increase and do not decrease; the second is that programmes move to the right, not to the left. In other words, programmes are delayed, not brought forward.
We could do two things to contain the growing demand within a static budget, and the first relates to procurement. We pay little more than lip service to co-operation. Only 15 per cent. of our defence ventures are collaborative. It is extremely important that we have more collaborative projects so that we can pool our productive skills with

499
those of other nations, but, perhaps more importantly, so that we can pool our market demands. In civil aircraft manufacturing, a run of 500 of one model is regarded as the break-even point, yet that rule is consistently broken in defence procurement.
Our national pride and the need to create jobs make us insist on our own ships, early warning radar, tanks and submarines, but the additional cost is enormous. For example, the British Army has the Ptarmigan battlefield communications system, which Plessey failed to sell to the United States. It became apparent then that Ptarmigan cost 60 per cent. more than the French alternative, yet the British Army bought it. We need much more co-operation and interoperability. Our pride and our nationalism often stop us operating with common sense in this area.
There is a common torpedo size among NATO allies, but there is no common fire control system. Therefore, if British submarines have no more torpedos, they cannot use torpedos produced by our NATO allies because the fire control system is different. We are incurring great costs in all those areas. NATO spends more on defence than the Warsaw pact countries, yet we are outnumbered by two or three to one in some aircraft, guns and tanks in Europe. But that is a result of the ruthless specialisation and mass production of the Warsaw pact countries and NATO's failure to do the same.
The United Kingdom spends half of its Government-funded research and development resources on defence, but it is still not nearly enough for us to keep up in the major league. Therefore, we need much more co-operation in ventures and the pooling of production runs is essential.
My second proposal is that we should also save money on the British Army of the Rhine. Although this debate is about the Royal Navy, I should point out that Britain spends 60 per cent. more on defence than Germany, yet we maintain in Germany an Army of 55,000 people and a tactical Air Force at a cost in 1985 of £1,899 million. Of that, local defence expenditure, representing drawings of foreign exchange necessary to support our forces overseas, amounted to £920 million. How can we justify that expenditure when we already spend so much more than the Germans? I recognise the crucial role of the United Kingdom as the linchpin of NATO, but we must try to make economies in that area.
Many defence Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and promise us cuts in the tail, not in the teeth, of expenditure. My constituents hear those claims with scepticism because they know that the rhetoric is better than the reality. I know from my visits and other contacts over many years that the naval yards and depots play a vital role in the maintenance of the fleet, and it is time that their dedicated service was recognised. Recently, many of the local civilian functions have been under review, which causes great uncertainty and worry. If the workers were not so dedicated and loyal, I am sure that there would have been industrial action before now. But they are loyal and dedicated, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to join in paying tribute to the workers at royal naval aircraft yard Fleetlands and other establishments.
For those hon. Members who may not realise the extent to which my constituency is bound up with the Royal Navy, may I mention the names of other establishments in my constituency, every one of which employs more than 1,000 people and some of which employ several thousand people. They include the royal naval armaments depot at
500
Gosport, the Royal Clarence victualling yard, HMS Centurion, HMS Sultan, HMS Dolphin, HMS Daedalus, HMS Collingwood and the royal naval hospital Haslar. It is time that the back-up boys and girls had a word of recognition and I ask the Minister to accept that any savings in that area are likely to be modest and could even be counter-productive.
7.36 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: I was pleased to hear the Minister pay tribute to the present-day personnel of the Royal Navy. As someone who, like the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), spent his wartime service in the Navy, I am glad to hear that the high standards of the service with which we were connected have not slipped in any way. The Minister mentioned the Navy in the Falklands when he listed our present commitments. It occurred to me that if the Government had not stupidly withdrawn HMS Endurance from the south Atlantic, there might have been no need for the Navy to be in the Falklands now.
I welcome the Minister's assurance of the continuation of the Navy's role in fishery protection. That is more essential than ever with the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Common Market. Those of my age group will recall the vital service performed by the Navy in the early part of the second world war before the other services made their contributions. The patrol service was manned by fishermen and merchant seamen. Of course, others served, but initially the trained seamen came from the fishing and merchant fleets. Now the deep sea trawling fleets have gone altogether. Liners from the merchant service were requisitioned as armed merchant cruisers for the protection of convoys.
I refer briefly to the need for a helicopter on the west coast of Scotland. Recently, there was a tragic accident when the crew of a fishing boat was lost because of the delay in getting a helicopter to the scene. I do not criticise the helicopter crew or the service, but it had to come from the other side of Scotland and valuable time was lost. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen sympathetically to the recent campaign for a helicopter base on the west coast.
I confess that I know little of today's Royal Navy, other than the information available in the press. Therefore, I shall not waste time commenting on the current naval establishment or its building programme. However—the Falklands conflict confirmed this, and it underlines the point made so cogently by the right hon. Member for Taunton—the Navy cannot function without auxiliaries from the Merchant Navy. Without the pool of trained seamen from the merchant and fishing fleets during wartime, the Navy would be in dire trouble.
The Minister referred to the number of ships—but the issue is manning those ships with trained people when the time comes. The protection of our maritime nation cannot be guaranteed by vessels flying the white ensign. The Government have allowed the Merchant Navy to disappear to an extent that is dangerous to defence. In past speeches I have referred to the effect of that shrinkage on trade and employment. This Government, so dedicated to defence and apparently putting no limit on the money that they are prepared to spend on it, show an indifference to the disappearance of the merchant fleet that is hardly credible.

501
The proposed Channel tunnel will add to the loss of jobs for seamen. There is also the decision of BP Shipping to sack 1,700 United Kingdom seafarers and to transfer 30 of its ships. Two BP-owned tankers, flagged out of the Bahamas in 1985, are manned with an all-Filipino crew, with the exception of a British master and engineer. No doubt, in time, those two posts will also go. The Government must intervene to safeguard the loss of those 1,700 jobs.
If the Soviet fleet is of the scale suggested by the Minister—and I have no reason to doubt his figures—and if the Soviet Union is the potential enemy, we shall start with grave disadvantages should there be an outbreak of war. It is vital to reverse the trend of allowing the Merchant Navy to bleed to death. The operational requirements of the Royal Navy and its strategic role are impossible without its link with the Merchant Navy.
I hope that that message, at least, will be taken on board by the Minister.
7.42 pm
Mr. Keith Best: The House listened to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) with great care. I share much of his sentiment about the Merchant Navy. I listened with interest to what he said about Scotland because, as a naval gunfire officer, I frequently fire NATO ships' guns on to Cape Wrath—not in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, as he will be relieved to hear.
If anyone thought that there was a vestige of credibility remaining in the Labour party, that myth was dispelled tonight by the extraordinary statement of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who tried to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) — who made an effective speech — that the shipyard workers at Barrow were content with the prospect of the cancellation of the Trident programme. That was an extraordinary statement, and I do not think that anyone in the House believed it. The shipyard workers in Barrow will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said, especially as he provided no specific alternative for work for those who so desperately need it.
The Labour party is clearly intent not only on not spending more on defence, but on cutting defence expenditure dramatically.
Mr. Denzil Davies: We shall spend more.
Mr. Best: I shall listen with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman says when he replies to the debate. I shall put my specific allegation to him, and he can deal with it later.
The Labour party will cancel Trident, but it will not spend the money that is saved on defence. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to gainsay that, I shall certainly give him the opportunity.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I have merely said that, without Trident, we can meet all the present conventional commitments. With Trident, this Government cannot meet all their conventional commitments — such as a 50-warship Navy, Nimrod, amphibious vessels, the Europoean fighter aircraft and the maintainance of the British Army of the Rhine. With Trident that cannot be done. Without it those commitments can and will be met.
Mr. Best: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has now clarified the matter. The Labour party is saying that it would spend the money that it saved on Trident on conventional forces. That is a welcome admission, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman really means. He will have another opportunity to clarify that later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said in a most effective speech, ships currently spend 50 per cent. of their time at sea—10 per cent. more than during the war years and three times more than the level of the 1930s. That is a tremendous strain on those serving in the Royal Navy—as I realised when I have had the privilege of serving with them. That leads me to the conclusion that we are in grave danger of having far too few ships.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister said that Hermes is now on the disposal list, I wondered whether he had thought seriously about the American way of dealing with these matters. That is to update the technology, but keep the hulls. Carriers such as the Coral Sea and the Midway had their hulls laid down more than 40 years ago, but are destined to serve well into the next century. Modern technology has uprated those ships. The Americans do not have our attitude, which is to scrap our so-called redundant ships. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the American option, especially for Hermes, which is a very fine ship?
Self-corroboration is the lowest form of parliamentary debate. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to the fact that on 28 November 1983, in a debate on the Royal Navy, I drew the Government's attention to the great benefits of the S90 over the type 23. I mentioned that tests on models doing a comparison between the type 23 and the S90 showed that in calm waters the S90 was one knot slower than the type 23, that it matched it in rough weather, but in high seas, with waves of up to 50 ft in height, maintained a steady 25 knots, whereas the type 23 pitched and rolled so violently that it had to be restricted to 15 knots for its own safety.
The question of cost is especially relevant. In figures of that time, the type 23 was likely to cost £100 million or more, and perhaps £200 million by the completion of the final ship at the end of the rolling programme. The costs appeared to be increasing by about 10 per cent. in real terms over the rate of inflation. Therefore, by the end of the century the Royal Navy could afford to buy only one ship a year, leaving only 30 frigates by the year 2000. I believe that it is generally accepted that there should be a minimum of 50
The S90 can be produced for £60 million to £70 million. To take the hull away from the combat suite—the hull itself is £33 million — is far cheaper than the Government's decision to buy the replacement frigates.
I shall not fight old battles. However, only recently the press reported that a secret report, which will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, demands a judicial inquiry into the choice of recent warship designs, claiming that the Royal Navy has been buying expensive frigates when a cheaper and more powerful alternative has been available. That report follows an investigation by Lord Hill-Norton and an official committee of experts, set up with the knowledge of Downing street. It suggests that the Royal Navy and the Government were misled by their

503
advisers and may have been buying expensive frigates and destroyers when a cheaper and more powerful alternative was available.
The investigating team was unable to discover how that advice came to be given, and was so concerned by its findings that it recommended that a judge should head a further inquiry by experts outside the Government. It wants the merits of long, thin traditional design and the radical short fat alternative re-examined.
We know that that report exists, because I put down a question to my hon. Friend the Minister and he replied most helpfully:
"I cannot comment on Lord Hill-Norton's report until it is received and I have had the opportunity to study it. Publication will, of course, be a matter for the author."—[Official Report, 31 January 1986; Vol 90, c. 640.]
That question was answered to my satisfaction because my hon. Friend acknowledged the existence of the report. I hope that the House will be informed as to what the report says, and whether there is to be a judicial inquiry into whether we are buying one warship when we could be affording three for the same cost and overcoming the problem to which I have referred.
I move on now to our amphibious forces. Lieutenant General Steuart Pringle, the Commandant General of the Royal Marines, in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on 5 June 1984, said:
"A nation which lives on an island cannot turn its back on the sea … It follows that if that nation sees the possibility of a need to influence events by use of military power, it needs either an amphibious force or an airborne force, or, preferably, both."
I think that none would dissent from that view. It is obvious in this debate that we should concentrate on the amphibious forces and that they should be credible.
Mr. Garrett: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I feel that he should go a little further and attack the present level of amphibious forces. If we are to mount campaigns and exercises in Norway, we must again draw upon the Merchant Navy for our vehicles.
Mr. Best: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I listened to him with care. He always speaks with great authority, as the House has come to expect. I agree with much of what he had to say about the Merchant Navy. I shall develop the theme of our amphibious forces.
I had the privilege to serve on HMS Intrepid in September last year on exercise Rolling Deep in my military capacity. That was a well planned and successfully executed exercise. However, I was able to see the strains placed on our amphibious forces by the nature of the shipping. Fearless and Intrepid are in need of replacement. When I served on Intrepid we had a brigade staff, and the ship was full to bursting, with no extra space. Without going into further details, which might be of an tendentious nature and which I might not be allowed to mention in any event, that demonstrates the fact that we need to concentrate far more on the replacement and renovation of our existing amphibious capability.
We are no longer a great military power, and we cannot pretend otherwise. That point was made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. We are no longer a prime military power in the world, but recent history has demonstrated fully that we must be prepared to undertake operations outside the NATO area. Indeed, all active operations in recent memory have been conducted outside
504
that area. Our amphibious forces are the one aspect of our defence that gives us full flexibility in time of national and NATO need.
Within the NATO context, amphibious warfare is the only scope that we have for offensive diversion. That was recognised in an essay on amphibious warfare written by Sir Basil Liddell Hart in 1960, in which he examined the way in which large German forces during the last war had been diverted disproportionately to the threat of amphibious operations posed by the allies.
One of the most important aspects of deterrence is the uncertainty of intention, and that can be achieved more effectively by amphibious operations than in any other way. He wrote:
"the basic lesson is that offensive distraction is most effective when it carries a wide strategic threat, and where there is ample room for its development by attack to be expanded easily and quickly into a widening practical threat."
That is a sentence with which I wholeheartedly concur, as I do with his opinion that amphibious forces have become more necessary as a deterrent and as a counter to local limited aggression—a counter that can be used without being suicidal and a deterrent that is therefore credible. Had the capability of our amphibious forces been appreciated, I very much doubt that Argentina would have invaded the Falkland Islands.
This theme is developed in an article in the August 1985 edition of the RUSI journal by Captain H. A. Corbett. He used an example from a planning process in the 1950s that could be used to set the scene. To obtain planning agreement for eventual construction of the Fearless class of assault ship, provision was required for an armoured squadron with its specific establishment of tanks and vehicles to be embarked. The outcome was that initially the size of the flat upper deck space required was elevated to the number of three-ton lorry equivalents that could be stowed between decks with tanks embarked.
By the time that HMS Fearless, the first of class, came to be built, arrangements were already being improvised to make alternative use of this deck to operate helicopters and, happily, it was both large and strong enough. In reality we now have triphibious operations rather than just amphibious operations.
It is imperative that we leave the rest of the world, particularly Argentina, in no doubt that our amphibious capability will not only continue but will be enhanced in the future, so that there can be no speculation as to whether the Falklands conflict would have ended differently if the Argentine fleet had come out of port. The idea of amphibious operations being used as an offensive diversion—in effect, the only one that we have—falls into line with the United States concept of operations.
There are two reasons for the relevance of this to Britain. The first is the significance of the northern flank, especially Norway, which was understood by Hitler only too well, and has not been lost on the Soviets with their large marine infantry group based in Murmansk and the Kola inlet which is home for their northern fleet and its 190 submarines. If an advance were made to Tromso, that would bring Soviet aircraft 500 miles closer to the United Kingdom, and if their advance were to move further to Bergen, the result is obviously a great threat to our nation.
In the event of aggression, it is essential that we protect the northern flank, and with the coastline and limited communications possible in Norway this can be done only by amphibious forces. In the event of aggression, to lose

505
Norway would seriously imperil the United Kingdom by bringing Soviet forces within closer range of our home base.
Secondly, denying the northern flank to any Soviet aggression reduces the capacity of Soviet forces to endanger the vital supply line across the Atlantic. In addition, offensive operations on the northern flank could strike close to the heartland of the Soviet Union—the only point at which this can be done with any feasibility—and thus check any aggression within central Europe, where NATO would be forced to fight a defensive battle in any event. It would also have the effect of bottling up the powerful northern Soviet fleet.
Therefore, it was with great concern that I read in the newspaper that consideration is being given not to the replacement of Fearless and Intrepid or their upgrading, with a great deal of new technology, but to extending their life into the next century, and using merchant ships to give us some sort of second-class amphibious role. That would be unacceptable to the House. Our amphibious forces are the finest in the world, and we owe a duty to them. More importantly, we owe a duty to our nation to preserve and enhance the credibility of the only offensive forces that we still have — forces that have served the nation well throughout their history and will, I believe, do so in the future.
8 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I shall confine my remarks to three broad headings: the strategic implications of the subject of this debate, the merchant marine and the important constituency interests which, representing a shipbuilding community, it is my duty to place on record.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred, rightly, to the growth in the Soviet Union's conventional naval capacity. He was also right to refer to the fact that it poses a challenge not just to the United Kingdom but to NATO. I see no immediate prospect of the United Kingdom having a defensive strategy outside NATO. The logical consequence is that there are two key strategic issues for this country: first, the cost of Trident and the effect of that cost on the defence budget, and, secondly, the rationale for an independent United Kingdom nuclear deterrent.
Important decisions have to be taken. The decisions that are taken in the next two years will set the course of British defence policy until the turn of the century. My view is that this country's defence interests will be better served by supplementing NATO's conventional forces with our 50 fleet Navy rather than by duplicating the massive nuclear arsenal of the United States with a smaller nuclear arsenal of our own. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which this country would independently use its nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union without the involvement of the United States and, having done so, survive. Other nation states with economies the size of our own, or indeed larger, do not think that it is necessary for their defence to have an enhanced nuclear capacity. That is a strategic argument. The logical consequence is that our contribution to NATO should be expressed in conventional terms. Part of that conventional contribution should be made through the Royal Navy.
506
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) made some important points about the merchant fleet. He said that it was an integral part of our ability to defend ourselves at sea, and he set out effectively the frightening situation that faces the British merchant fleet. By endorsing his remarks, I hope that I do not do him too much harm among his hon. Friends.
A report of the Select Committee on Defence, headed "The Use of Merchant Shipping for Defence Purposes", summed up the position in 1984–85. That was a year ago. It said:
"Although the consequences of the present decline in British maritime resources may appear to be largely economic, we believe the Government should show greater awareness of the risk to national security inherent in loss of independence in the carriage of seaborne commerce. Effective deterrence requires that no would-be aggressor is tempted by vulnerability. Present trends seem to be setting in this dangerous direction. The striking contrast between British, and indeed Allied, maritime resources and those of the Warsaw Pact countries, in inverse proportion to the relative dependence of each alliance on sea communication, is extremely disturbing."
We have received a reassurance from the Minister, but for how much longer will Ministers be able to come to the Dispatch Box and give such reassurances? The right hon. Member for Taunton pointed out that the trend of events is going in one direction, that it will not plateau out and that it will not turn around unless the state intervenes. It is not just a question of ships; it is also a question of people.
I, like many other right hon. and hon. Members, have received a letter from John Newman, the deputy general secretary of NUMAST. This is a consortium of groups that incorporates the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association, the Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Radio and Electronic Officers Union. In his letter Mr. Newman refers, as did the right hon. Member for Taunton, to British Petroleum. He says:
"We do not believe that BP has any intention of ensuring continued British manning on its ships. If its flag-out moves are allowed to follow the pattern of others in recent years we can confidently predict that within the very near future, firstly, the UK ratings will be replaced; then the junior officers' jobs will be handed to Filipinos or others; very shortly thereafter most of the UK senior officers will go; after a further period the UK Master and Chief Engineer will be replaced, and the ships will then be totally manned with foreign crews and 1,700 jobs for British seafarers will be lost for ever together with the professional maritime expertise we need in both peace and war. That is our hard experience of other flagged-out tonnage in recent years, and our predictions for the future in BP are further reinforced by the fact that two BP owned tankers flagged out to the Bahamas during 1985 are currently manned throughout with an all Filipino crew plus a British Master and Chief Engineer."
The Government have a duty to do something about that now. It cannot be allowed to continue; otherwise there will be nothing left about which to intervene. We cannot afford to lose either the ships or the ownership and, most crucial of all, we cannot afford to lose skilled people.
A few of my hon. Friends and I had the privilege recently to meet representatives of the General Council of British Shipping to discuss these problems. We were told that the corporate future for a substantial part of its operations lies outside shipping and that it certainly lies outside shipowning. It was pointed out that it is still possible to make a profit from managing ships, if there is corporate expertise, but that it is not possible to make a profit from owning ships. The significance of that for our defence interests should be obvious to every hon. Member.

507
The right hon. Member for Taunton rightly said that we are not discussing just the trends in the industry. We are discussing economic warfare. The possession of a merchant fleet and of heavy industry is evidence of economic strength. They make a nation powerful. We are under attack from two sources: first from the Eastern bloc, not just for economic reasons but for strategic and military reasons, and, secondly, from the trading communities in the far east. If we allow our merchant marine to decline and disappear, the trading organisations of the far east will then show us the true price of shipping and shipbuilding and of possessing a merchant fleet. Our nation will be unable to do anything about it. The right hon. Member for Taunton also called for the creation of a Minister for the marine fleet. A Minister of Cabinet status is needed to take an overall view of this deplorable situation.
I come now to the points that I wish to make on behalf of my constituents. I welcome the new Secretary of State for Defence to his appointment. For the people of Tyneside anybody is better than the last Secretary of State for Defence. We feel that he had an affection for other parts of the country—not an affection for the north-east of England. I do not intend to repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). We share a shipyard. The Neptune yard and the old Walker naval yard are in my constituency and the Wallsend yard is in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Until recently Swan Hunter was not solely a warship yard. It has been forced by the Government to become a warship yard. Until recently it had a proud tradition of building fine merchant and specialist vessels as well as general vessels. It is not by choice that it is now confined solely to building warships. It is not by choice, either, that well over half the work force have lost their jobs during the last 10 years. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) rightly stood up for the 12,000 jobs at the shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. Union leaders tell me that they can remember the time when thousands of men employed by Swan Hunter could march up the bank and when there would be mass meetings of 20,000 men. Swan Hunter now employs 3,100 manual workers. The effect upon the riverside community that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend and me has been traumatic.
We realise that, since Swan Hunter has been forced to become a warship yard, it has but one customer, the Ministry of Defence. All that our community asks of the Ministry of Defence is that it should be treated fairly. That has not happened in the past. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have always hesitated to state clearly whether orders were to be placed solely on the basis of competitive tendering or whether the Secretary of State was running some social policy of his own, independent of the rest of the Government and certainly independent of the structural needs of the shipbuilding industry.
We feel that we were badly treated when the type 22 order, which could have come to Swan Hunter, was placed with Cammell Laird instead. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend quoted the on-cost of splitting that order as being about £7 million. An article in today's Daily Telegraph suggests that the on-cost to the Ministry of Defence under the social policy of the previous Secretary of State for Defence was £9 million. Although I am happy to see employment continue at Cammell Laird, I have to say that, in compensation for that, it was made clear that Swan Hunter would receive the No. 2 type 23 warship in
508
good time subject to price. That promise has not been kept. We are still waiting for the type 23 to be committed. We have had an assurance tonight that it will be committed and I am grateful for that. I do not want to be churlish but we have not had an assurance as to whether the type 23 will be committed on its own or alongside the No. 3 and No. 4 type 23.
These vessels are equally crucial to the short-to-medium-term existence of Swan Hunter. Through no choice of the Tyneside community, Swan Hunter has now been forced into a restrictive order programme. We either get the type 23 and two auxiliary vessels or there will be major redundancies in a community which cannot tolerate any more major redundancy rounds. The last redundancy round at Swan Hunter saw 2,200 jobs disappear in one swoop. That is a hell of a job loss for a community like ours to sustain.
The other aspect which affects my constituents is the matter of the two auxiliary vessels for which Swan Hunter is in competition with Harland and Wolff. I understand the difficulties in Northern Ireland and I make no criticism of the Government for trying to preserve employment there. I have to say that the unemployment levels in the communities around Harland and Wolff are lower than those around Swan Hunter. That is a horrific fact and one that is overlooked by Parliament and the Government.
The careers centre in Newcastle upon Tyne, to which all school leavers are encouraged to go to seek what employment is available in the city, has a whole range of leaflets. The leaflets offer information about careers for plumbers, electricians and all the things that young people would like to do if the jobs were available. On the desk at the front of the centre where the senior careers officer sits is a tiny card index. That index contains the jobs available. Last week there were only 40 jobs available for school leavers and they consisted mainly of filling up shelves in supermarkets and working in the retail industry. That is a horrendous prospect for the young people of our community. If the Government stretch defence orders because of the difficulties they face in financing the defence programme—involving either the type 23 or the two auxiliary vessels — they will cause substantial damage to the communities which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend represent.
There would be no need to stretch that programme if the Government had not invested and committed an enormous sum of money to the Trident programme. We are asking for a fair hearing for our communities, for both the type 23 and the fleet auxiliaries which go alongside the type 23s and without which the type 23 programme does not make much sense.
All that I have said is a call for help from a community that used to be legendary in its association with the shipbuilding industry. We realise that the industry has been substantially run down not least by the policy that the Government are taking towards the Royal Navy. My fear is that when these difficult decisions are approved by the Secretary of State, he will find it easier to elongate the Government's commitments to a 50 fleet Navy than to make any of the other difficult decisions that face him. I would urge him very strongly not to do that. The Royal Navy has been treated for far too long as the easiest cut for the Secretary of State to make. That must stop—not just for the sake of the community that I represent but for the sake of the defence interests of the country.
8.16 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier this afternoon about the programme for ordering new frigates. I find it difficult to reconcile the firm commitment that he appeared to be giving with the assurance, which we have accepted to be absolute, that we will maintain a surface fleet of 50 major vessels.
The number of vessels which were firmly promised today would not guarantee that position. My arithmetic may be wrong, but I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give a resounding and clear commitment to a 50 ship Navy for the foreseeable future. That would have a great influence on improving morale not only in the Navy but in all the cities and towns which support the Navy and which are so closely associated with it.
The Minister also referred to the torpedo programme. In considering the ordering of frigates and the consideration given to the torpedo programme, one of the ways in which the rapidly escalating costs of naval defence can be positively influenced is by ensuring that the maximum possible overseas sales are obtained for the type of equipment which is selected for use by the Royal Navy. It is many years since this country sold a new frigate overseas. We have not been successful in doing that, and I wonder whether the suggestion which was floated earlier this afternoon—that we look for closer links with our NATO allies—might not perhaps be a misleading way of approaching this task.
The specific duties of our European NATO allies are not the same as the duties we place on the Royal Navy both through our membership of NATO and through other roles. While we have heard from hon. Members from the north-east, the north-west and from Scotland about the need for placing orders for new vessels with yards in those areas which have unemployment problems, I suggest that there is also a need to ensure that we reinforce success where that is possible.
Vosper Thornycroft, in Southampton, both in its earlier private form and in it nationalised form, has consistently been able to maintain an export market. That company needs to have the opportunity of a major warship order to ensure that it keeps its workforce together. That workforce has proved itself in the past to be capable of building warships for export. At present that yard is exporting warships to the Middle East.
I realise that there is a limit to the number of type 23 frigates which can be allocated. No one will receive all that they would like, but I would suggest that the Minister ought to be discussing with the successful exporting ship building yards such as Vospers the prospects of building ships for the Royal Navy which could also be sold overseas.
I am not thinking necessarily of vessels such as the type 23, which began as relatively simple platforms and gradually developed to become ships as complex as any that the Royal Navy has ever had. I have in mind the type of rugged vessel that might be needed in a situation that precedes war, or which might prevent the outbreak of hostilities. I can well remember the disproportionate damage which was inflicted on some of our sophisticated vessels by the relatively simple Icelandic gunboats during the cod wars not so many years ago. There is a need for the Royal Navy to have rugged vessels that are capable of
510
operating within a limited distance of our shores. Such vessels would have a prospect of sales overseas, which is something that the Ministry of Defence and the successful exporters should be exploring at all times.
When we have a winner that can be a world beater, the message should go out loud and clear from Her Majesty's Government. They should make it known that we are proud of what we have and that we have absolute faith in it. Our torpedo programme had a chequered history before it was placed in the hands of the Marconi company. The lightweight Sting Ray programme is well within cost and time in production terms. In Sting Ray we have a weapon which is proven to be capable of meeting the Navy's requirements. Such a weapon is a prime instrument for exporting. Exports will reduce unit costs and the result will be a saving for the Navy in future.
The Public Accounts Committee reviewed the history of the torpedo programme, and it was unfortunate that it failed to recognise the remarkable changes that have taken place over the past few years. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will forgive me if I appear to be preparing his reply for him, but I ask him to sound a clarion call that we in Britain have a world beater in the Sting Ray. The Navy is satisfied with it; it believes that it is the sort of weapon that is necessary for anti-submarine work in future. All the signs are that the heavyweight torpedo, which is known as Spearfish, will in its turn be as successful as Sting Ray. If we are to sell overseas, it is important that the MOD bangs the drum for products that come within sectors in which we are already successful.
We have fewer ships and fewer men in the Royal Navy than in the past and there has been a disproportionate running down of the naval presence in the great and premier naval port of Portsmouth. Against that background, it is vital that the Navy should be seen, and one way in which that is possible is through its military bands. I shall not attempt to raise the issue of whether we should have separate bands for individual services or a defence school of music. However, having had the chance to read the PAC's report on the proposed defence school of music, which was published today, there is no doubt in my mind that the arguments which were advanced by my late colleague, Mr. Ralph Bonner Pink, and which I have continued to advance since 1979 on behalf of the Eastney option for the Royal Marines school of music, have been proved to be correct.
Whether we should have a defence school of music at Eastney is another matter, but there is a clear need for us to retain the Royal Marines school of music at the Eastney barracks. The school is combined with and is supplementary to the magnificent Royal Marines museum. It would be unthinkable for that building to be left like a sore thumb, as it were, among a housing estate, for example. The museum and the school are complementary.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I wrote to him only a short while ago about the need to maintain the Royal Marines voluntary cadet corps, which is an extremely important recruiting service for the Royal Navy. It has a membership of 200 boys, who meet regularly in the Eastney barracks. Portsmouth believes in the cadet corps fundamentally and it believes also that the museum-school-barracks complex should be maintained.
Mr. Garrett: I am 100 per cent. on the side of the hon. Gentleman. Those who have not read the PAC report will

511
realise when they do so that meagre savings are involved when they are set against the pleasure that the 80 bands of Her Majesty's forces give to the public. They provide training in musicianship and the necessary complementary disciplines for the spending of a comparatively meagre sum. In an Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an impassioned plea for Kneller hall. I recognise all the economies that are needed, but it would be an act of vandalism to abolish Kneller hall.
Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention. I criticised the PAC a few minutes ago, but it must be recognised that we are all selective in our praise and criticism. In this instance, the PAC has done an invaluable job in setting out objectively cases which were difficult to judge for the Ministry of Defence when they were made by individual Members. I accept that that has been a difficult task, but it is clear now that the place for the Royal Marines school of music is at Eastney, and it is for that that we should be pressing.
I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister to sound two clarion calls and a roll on the drums. If he can give me the three assurances that I seek, I can assure him that he will receive a generous and warm welcome when he next visits Portsmouth.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I should like every hon. Member who has been present throughout the afternoon and evening and who wishes to participate in the debate to have the opportunity of doing so. If hon. Members who catch my eye confine themselves to 10 minutes, all those who wish to contribute to the debate will be able to do so.
8.28 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall use my time to focus on one illuminating episode involving discredit on politicians and not on the Royal Navy. I shall focus on the loss, or alleged loss, of the control room logbook from HMS Conqueror.
Before I start to set out the story in narrative form, I wish to make it clear that I have no criticism whatever to make or imply about two police officers, Detective Chief Superintendent Ron Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown, to whom I must necessarily refer. To the best of my belief, they are competent and sensible police officers and a credit to the Scotland Yard serious crimes squad. I should say this as I am sending a copy of my speech to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington.
Out of the blue, the BBC and Independent Radio morning news on 7 November 1984 told their listeners that it had been discovered that a logbook from the Conqueror, the submarine that sank the Belgrano, had gone missing. I was surprised for two separate reasons. First, how could the Navy, with its reputation for efficiency, have allowed apparently crucial documents and data simply to disappear, even in ordinary circumstances? To allow documents pertaining to the sinking of the Belgrano to disappear — the only time that a nuclear-powered submarine has ever been involved in actual military action —was doubly incredible.
My second cause for surprise was that the announcement was made on the very morning on which the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the
512
then Secretary of State for Defence, was to appear before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. at a hearing which had aroused so much interest that it was to be broadcast live on Radio 4.
Was the loss of a logbook a political smokescreen to divert attention from other matters? The private notice question that was heard on 7 November 1985 on the missing logbook and the setting up of a board of inquiry did not answer that question.
For the sake of coherence, I had better say that I subsequently made discreet inquiries of the members of the crew of HMS Conqueror. They told me that there was no way in which, given their debriefing, any of them could have taken vital documents before the submarine went for her refit. To the idea espoused by some hon. Members that a member of the crew had suddenly taken the notion that the logbook would be a nice memento to have on a sideboard of his dining room in years to come, I was given the caustic answer, "Do you think that any of us would have risked a court martial for stealing such a document simply for a memento? Don 't be daft?" Submariners tell me that it simply beggars belief that any crew member would have taken a logbook and rendered himself subject to a court martial offence.
I ask the new Secretary of State, first, if he will find out from his Department and from the Navy whether any logbook ever did go missing. Secondly, if a logbook did go missing, is anyone in the Navy under suspicion for having taken it for his own reasons? Thirdly, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the aftermath of Westland. if anyone in the Navy removed a logbook, did he do it under "ministerial instructions"? Could he put the answers to those questions in the "public domain"? If there were any "differences of understanding" about the logbook, can the House of Commons be told? If a logbook was lost, who took it away, why and for what motive? Who would have the opportunity of taking it away? Who, apart from Ministers, in October and November 1982 had any interest in taking it away?
I should like to put on record two questions which I asked the Attorney-General. I asked him:
"if the conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions that further police investigations were unlikely to produce any evidence of a criminal offence, regarding the disappearance of the control room log book of HMS Conqueror based on information about the whereabouts at the time, or the current whereabouts, of the relevant portions of the log; and if he will make a statement."
The Solicitor-General replied:
"The police investigations were unable to identify at what point of time or in what circumstances the control room logs in question were improperly handled with the result that they are now missing. Their present whereabouts are not known. The conclusion that further investigations are unlikely to provide evidence of the commission of a criminal offence is based on the inconclusiveness of the information so far obtained about the circumstances in which the logs disappeared and the absence of any leads to further avenues of inquiry which might throw light on those circumstances."
Sir Humphrey Appleby could not have put it more clearly. I asked the Attorney-General—
"pursuant to the answer of 21 October, Official Report, column 12, regarding the disappearance of the control room log of HMS Conqueror, whether the police inquiry revealed that a criminal offence had been committed; and if he will make a statement "
The Solicitor-General replied:
"I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 21 October. The conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the light of the report of the police investigations, was that the evidence available did not establish that a criminal offence had been

513
committed in connection with the disappearance of the logs. I concurred in that conclusion."—[Official Report, 24 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 194.]
Sir Robert Armstrong, in his great form yesterday, could not have put that more eloquently.
I fear that the comparisons with Westland do not end there. Just as Her Majesty's Government set up a leak inquiry on the Solicitor-General's letter, when a Secretary of State—a former Home Secretary no less—knew well that he had authorised the leak, so other Ministers went through the motions of an inquiry into the loss of the logbook. They sent busy detectives on a wild goose chase to the West Indies when they knew perfectly well that the supposed suspect, the former supplies officer of HMS Conqueror, had left the Navy at least two months before the Government say that a logbook went missing. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) called it a "waste of police time". What would happen to the rest of us or our constituents if we wilfully squandered police time?
If I set out the facts as I see them, Ministers will be only too delighted to correct me if I am wrong. Ministers and/ or the Director of Public Prosecutions required Detective Chief Superintendent Ron Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown to go to St. Lucia in the West Indies at a cost which eventually turned out to be £6,940·82. The figures come from the Solicitor-General's reply to me of 24 October 1985. [Vol. 84, c. 194.]
On Friday 8 February 1985 the two senior police detectives turned up in the St. Lucia harbour office of Lieutenant Mahendra Sethia, the former supplies officer of HMS Conquerer. His remarkable and well written diary features in Arthur Gayshon's unchallenged book "The Sinking of the Belgrano". Lieutenant Sethia had already been interviewed, not only by Mr. Hardy but by Rear-Admiral William Lang, Director of Naval Security, on Thursday 29 November 1984 in his office at the Ministry of Defence. Admiral Lang had a photocopy of the Sethia diary which had been given surreptitiously to the Ministry of Defence by the Sunday Times. I believe that it was unknown to the journalist of the Sunday Times to whom it had been entrusted as background material. Admiral Lang asked Sethia if he had stolen the control room log of the HMS Conqueror. Sethia forcefully denied that he had done any such thing.
Sethia was interviewed at New Scotland Yard by Mr. Hardy and Mr. Ashdown of the serious crimes squad on the same day, 29 November 1984, for over two hours. If they believed, which they probably did not, that Sethia had taken the control room logbook of the HMS Conqueror, why did Scotland Yard not take action there and then? Why did Ministers and the Director of Public Prosecutions send detectives to the West Indies, who may have been fed up with the whole inquiry? Was it because they thought that Sethia had the control room logbook? No. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), revealed in a reply to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower):
"It is clear that the logs were compiled and probably remained on board the submarine until October or November 1982."—[Official Report, 30 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 593.]
Sethia left the Navy in July 1982, and in September and October 1982 it was known by the Ministry of Defence that he was cruising around the coast of Europe on a 31
514
ft sailing boat. As the logs of the critical months, April and May 1982, had been bound together with the logs up to the end of 1982, how could Ministers and the DPP suspect him of stealing the logbooks? My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who knows about such matters, is nodding in agreement. Do they suppose that Sethia furtively went back to HMS Conqueror when it returned to Devonport on 5 November 1982 to prepare for the refit which began on 17 January 1983?
I would like a comment from Sir Thomas Hetherington, a distinguished public servant, to whom I am sending a copy of this speech, because it appears that he inadvertently allowed himself to be used by politicians for their own nefarious purposes. Knowing what the Ministry of Defence did, the DPP authorised the scandalous waste of £6,940·82 of public funds. For clarity I shall outline the chronology of events.
On 7 November 1984, the headline in the Daily Mirror was "Belgrano Sensation: Killer sub's logbook missing". That was a front page exclusive by Paul Foot. At mid morning on 7 November 1984 the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley, gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Belgrano inquiry. At 2.35 pm on that day the former Secretary of State for Defence answered the PNQ on the missing logbook, and the board of inquiry was set up.
On 8 November 1984, an opening date of the Ponting trial of 28 January 1985 was set.
On 29 November 1984 Lieutenant Sethia was first interviewed by Detective Chief Superintendent Hardy. He was questioned about the diary and the logbook.
On 30 November 1984, the former Defence Secretary disclosed in a written answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) that he had now referred the matter of the missing logbook to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In a separate written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the former Defence Secretary disclosed that the matter of a diary kept by a member of the crew of Conqueror had also been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
On 7 January 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions instructed Hardy and a colleague to travel to St. Lucia to interview Sethia again. On 28 January 1985, the Ponting trial opened. On 8 February 1985, Lieutenant Sethia was questioned in St. Lucia by Hardy and a colleague about the logbook and diary. On 10 February 1985, several Sunday newspapers reported the detectives' visit to the West Indies and The Mail on Sunday claimed that the logbook was "probably" recovered. The newspaper's blazing headline said "Conqueror logbook seized. Exclusive Belgrano breakthrough".
An article by crime correspondent Chester Stearn went on to claim that the logbook was "almost certainly back" in the hands of the police. It stated that "certain navigational books" from the Conqueror were said to have been recovered from "a former officer" on the submarine. Lieutenant Sethia was not mentioned by name. On 11 February 1985, Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan concluded his summing up and Clive Ponting was acquitted.
I turn to the real reason why I believe two busy police officers were sent to the West Indies. The jury in the trial of Clive Ponting under the Official Secrets Act 1911 was about to be sent out to consider its verdict. The headlines would be full of another "traitor to the Government" being

515
brought to book. The cumulative effect of both stories on the public mind was not to be underestimated. At the Old Bailey, a "disloyal" civil servant was to be taught a lesson and, on the other side of the world, a "disloyal" naval officer was also to be taught a lesson.
As we now know, the British public, as represented by the men and women of the Ponting jury, were not so easily fooled. Thank goodness, British people as a cross-section can still recognise and reject outright Government lies when they see them.
When the decision was made to send those detectives to St. Lucia, it was known that all the events had been set in motion. It is in Hansard. The logbook was still there at the time. In a sense, Westland is an action replay of much of what we went through on the Belgrano.
I hope that my speech is read by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It may be for him a matter of delicious irony that the victim of the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter was himself one of the ministerial instruments, if not the perpetrator—I believe that the perpetrator was in Downing street — of the bogus and expensive inquiry which was a waste of police and Civil Service time, no less than the Westland leak inquiry.
Using inquiries not to ascertain the truth but for political ends is demeaning to British public life. This morning, I listened, as did many others, to the former Secretary of State for Defence refer to
"the time when I was defending the Government's position on the Belgrano".
Much of it was impressive evidence. That is a long way from the debate on 18 February 1985.
The trouble is that the truth has to be chiselled out of the Government. In all that I have said I seek the views, first, of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, secondly, of the former Secretary of State for Scotland—the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—who I believe is an honourable man and who, as incoming Secretary of State for Defence, should take a fresh look at these events.
8.43 pm
Mr. James Couchman: Just over two years ago, I spoke during our annual Royal Navy debate and made something of a valedictory speech over the rapidly cooling corpse of the Royal Naval base and dockyard at Chatham. It was a well-received speech, and I certainly do not intend to use my few minutes going over old ground. That would, in any case, be graceless and churlish to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who was so helpful at the time of the rundown at Chatham, and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who, in his previous incarnation in the Department of Trade and Industry, took decisions that are now bringing forth fruit. Phoenix is rising from the ashes. There will be life at Chatham and Gillingham after the departure of the Royal Navy.
The commercial dock, which opened shortly before the Navy left Chatham for the last time, turned over 500,000 tonnes of cargo in its first year, and 1 million tonnes of cargo in its second year and it expects in its third year to turn over 1·5 million tonnes. English Estates, which was appointed to redevelop Chatham, has begun to achieve in preparation for its redevelopment what world war two failed to do. It has flattened the site and it is now a green field, or at least a grey concrete, site. English Estates has signed up its first major tenant—a most worthy tenant
516
for the former fine naval barracks of HMS Pembroke. The recently declared enterprise zone will be a fine catalyst to firms to locate at Chatham. The work of the Historic Dockyard Trust is at an early stage, but we have great hopes for the future.
The affection of the Medway towns for the Royal Navy is undiminished. The recent brief visit of a squadron of three minehunters was hailed as the return of a long lost and very dear friend. It is because of that great kinship that I feel moved to speak briefly this evening.
Last week, during the equivalent debate on the Army, I made what I hoped was a reasonably positive and helpful contribution. I fear that this evening I may be somewhat more critical of recent decisions concerning the Navy. I am worried by a series of newspaper articles in responsible papers which ask questions about the Navy's preparedness to face a conflict as limited even as the 1982 operation in the south Atlantic. I am the first to concede the inclination of defence correspondents to scaremonger and seek to dismay those of us who take an interest—albeit a lay interest—in defence matters.
I propose to say nothing about strategic deterrents—we have heard enough about Polaris and Trident—but instead I should like to articulate some misgivings about current naval procurement and recruitment. Much of my concern centres on the major ships of the surface fleet—the destroyers and frigates. I, too, am concerned at the slowness in ordering the eight type 23s. I understand that only one has been ordered but that three are to be ordered shortly. There is speculation that the original number of eight type 23s may be halved with the substitution of much smaller and cheaper patrol vessels. A very convincing case would have to be made if apprehension about the Navy's ability to fulfil its role is to be stilled.
The concern about delay and escalating costs of major defence contracts was highlighted in last summer's report by the Committee of Public Accounts. In connection with the tardiness in ordering the type 23 ships, I should like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) who so ably advocated the case for the S90 design for frigates. I shall be interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the arguments for and against the S90.
From looking forward to the ships of the near future, I should like to touch on the provision of better defences for existing major warships. If we learned anything from the Falklands conflict, it was that existing defences, especially on the type 42 ships, were woefully inadequate to deal with sea-skimming missiles, such as Exocet. It is more than three years since the Government pledged new equipment for 17 ships. Only two, as I understand it, have been so equipped, and as yet no decision has been taken on the type of defence to be provided for the assault ships, which it seems may be needed into the 21st century, and for the 12 sister ships to the Sheffield, the sinking of which was such a salutary lesson to us all.
Are we to buy more Vulcan-Phalanx guns? Are we to buy Goalkeeper? Are we able to defend these important ships against missiles with a British system? It is time that my right hon. and hon. Friends made up their minds.
A final thought in connection with our frigates and destroyers is prompted by today's report in the Daily Telegraph on the combined tanker, stores and workshop vessels for which Harland and Wolff and Swan Hunter

517
have tendered. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will award this important contract soon, for these ships are vital to the viability of the type 23 ships under construction.
We are delighted by the orders announced on 3 January for Sting Ray, the three Upholder class submarines and the vital SSN. We hope that that may be an omen for this year and that we can expect that the logjam of naval procurement will be broken during the year.
I hope that, during our Royal Navy debate next year, we shall be able to applaud the wisdom of the procurement decisions that have been taken.
Another of my worries, which is just as pertinent to the fleet's competence and efficiency as procurement, is the recruitment, in particular, of officers. I understand that considerable pressure is arising because too few junior officers have been recruited since the 1981 defence review. Because an average of only 350 officers have been recruited in the past four years, we shall have to seek 800 per year for the forseeable future. Those are the words not of a mischievous defence correspondent but of the Director of Naval Recruiting in the Ministry of Defence.
That warning confirms my recent contacts with the Royal Navy, during which officers have confided their worry that a significant problem, especially in the older and smaller frigates, is now apparent. My right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate, far better than I, the pressures of life at sea. Ships are now spending an unprecedented 50 per cent. of their time at sea. They will understand the changing social patterns which make prolonged and recurring periods at sea less attractive and acceptable than hitherto to wives and families. They will have had an opportunity to study increased attrition rates.
I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance, when he replies, that he and his fellow Ministers have taken on board the dangerous position which will arise if the Navy continues to under-recruit officers. A shortage of junior officers now will manifest itself as a shortage of middle-ranking officers in 10 years time, and who knows, in a quarter of a century we may even be short of admirals.
My constituents' interest in the Royal Navy is not one of mawkish sentimentality born of the long naval tradition of the area. They see the Royal Navy as vital to this island nation's defence and completely symbolic of the Government's commitment to that defence.
I have asked questions tonight—not to be unhelpful, because that is not my way—which have been prompted by apparently responsible press reports reinforced by recent contacts with the Navy. I look forward to my hon. Friend reassuring me and proving that my fears are groundless.
8.52 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As someone associated with the fishing industry, I naturally have a great deal of respect and admiration for the Royal Navy. I shall always remember the equanimity and resilience displayed by the sailors and officers of the frigates involved in the United Kingdom-Icelandic fisheries disputes. Ships and men were placed in an almost impossible position by the stupidly short-sighted policies of Tory and Labour Governments. The crews of those frigates earned the deep gratitude of British
518
fishermen and their families for the protection that they gave to our trawlers during those foolishly futile fishery disputes with the Icelanders.
The Royal Navy appears to be bedevilled by a defence procurement policy that Walpole might have called a heap of contradictions and incoherence. Before discussing the pantomine of a defence procurement policy, I shall bring to the Minister's attention and that of the House a matter that deeply worries some of my constituents. I have already mentioned it to the Minister informally. I am deeply grateful for the courteous reaction that he has always shown to delegations of shop stewards from my constituency and myself. I only wish that he could match that marvellous courtesy with generous orders for my shipyards.
The anxiety centres upon fears of radiation-induced illness amongst employees at the Royal Navy armaments depot at Coulport. Is the Minister satisfied with safety standards at Faslane and Coulport? Has exposure to radiation at Coulport remained below internationally recognised safety limits? Are the small teams of men that fasten the warheads to the missiles at Coulport subject to, or protected by, the most stringent safety regulations? Is an examination of the safety regulations and radiation levels at Coulport being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive? If so, will the Ministry of Defence publish the report produced by that group of investigators? I hope that the Minister will give me some assurances on those matters.
I called the Government's defence procurement policy a heap of contradictions. One general point about it is that it favours the "deep south" of England. Last week's New Society stated:
"Defence expenditure has become the main regionally selective government assistance to industry. Between 1978–79 and 1983–84, defence spending increased by over a quarter in real terms. By contrast, total public expenditure grew by only 7 per cent. It is significant that one of Michael Heseltine's last acts before he resigned as Defence Secretary over the Westland row was to direct a contract for three diesel electric submarines to Liverpool … All the same, most domestic defence procurement takes place in lowland England".
Perhaps the Government have written off Scotland. What is plain is that Scotland has written off the Tory party. Recent opinion polls in Scotland show the Tories trailing in fourth place behind the Scottish National party. The Tories are a minority party today in Scotland.
The submarine orders for Vickers-Cammell Laird clearly reveal the contradictory nature of the Government's defence and industrial policies. On 26 November 1985, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told the House:
"It is the Government's intention that there should be a number of submarine builders in this country, just as there are at present. Vickers has a monopoly not of conventional but of nuclear submarines. We envisage that there will be plenty of competition for conventional submarines".—[Official Report, 26 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 735.]
The decision of the then Secretary of State to award a contract for three conventional submarines to Vickers-Cammell Laird gave the company a monopoly of conventional and nuclear submarine construction. In a letter I sent to the Minister I said that in my view he had misled the House on 26 November 1985. However, I accept the Minister's word—he is an honourable man—that he did not mislead the House on that occasion. In a reply dated 13 January 1986, he said:
"I cannot accept your assertion that I have in some way misled the House. The order for the three Upholder class conventional

519
submarines…was placed as a result of a competition, with the order going to the yard which offered the best terms and conditions. It would have been more expensive to split the order."
His letter again shows the heap of contradictions in procurement policy. Clearly the decision to place the contract with Vickers-Cammell Laird is a plain and simple attempt to lengthen the order book immediately prior to privatisation. It certainly places Cammell Laird at Birkenhead in a much more appealing light.
The Minister said in his letter that the orders went to the company that offered the best terms and conditions. It would have been more expensive to split the order. In a letter to me, he said:
"Bids from the three companies who tendered were close, but Cammell Laird offered significantly the best value for money to the Ministry of Defence overall."
However, this benchmark, these criteria, were not applied to a recent contract for two frigates. If value for money were the sole criterion, both vessels would have been ordered from Vosper Thornycroft. In fact, the then Secretary of State for Defence decided to save jobs at Cammell Laird and awarded one of the frigates to that yard.
In a statement to the House of Commons in January 1985 the then Secretary of State said:
"The cheapest solution from the point of defence procurement would be to place the order for both ships with one yard, but, in the light of the wider and relevant factors involved, I have decided that an order for one type 22 frigate will be placed with Cammell Laird and for the second with Swan Hunter, and I am prepared to authorise the necessary expenditure."
This is important because he went on to say:
"This offers the prospect of the survival of Cammell Laird as a major warship builder; without such a contract the yard would have closed. I hope that the yard will succeed in obtaining other business in the short as well as the long term." —[Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 21.]
In an editorial entitled "Sentimental Heseltine", the Daily Telegraph said:
"The decision of Mr. Michael Heseltine to divide the order for two Type 22 frigates between Swan Hunter of Tyneside and Cammell Laird of Birkenhead is easy to understand. Although it would make financial sense to build both ships at Swan Hunter because of economies of scale and because it is a more efficient yard than its Merseyside counterpart, the Secretary of State for Defence was influenced by the 'wider and relevant factors' … Mr. Heseltine may well have had additional sentimental reasons for granting Cammell Laird a reprieve."
With regard to the three submarine orders, it is to his shame that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) felt no sentimental concern for Scotland and Scottish shipyard workers. His sentimentality took him no further north than Birkenhead. I have to say with respect that it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not resign three or four months earlier. Had he done so, his successor the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) might well have followed his earlier decision, with these "wider factors," and awarded a contract to Scott Lithgow for one of the submarines. This confused, biased and confusing procurement policy has inflicted severe damage upon my constituency which has at present a male unemployment rate in excess of 26·5 per cent. It is a scandalous state of affairs. I sincerely hope that the new Secretary of State for Defence shows some concern, sentimental or otherwise, for the work force and management of Scott Lithgow. In the short run he can best demonstrate that concern by advancing the orders promised to this yard for a range mooring vessel and two
520
powered mooring barges. He could also in the medium term award a contract to Scott Lithgow for an aviation support ship.
Finally, it is very plain to me that the operative factors are not identical in all instances of warship contracts. When considered desirable or necessary, Ministers at the Ministry of Defence simply re-write the rules. Given the habitual reluctance of Departments to disclose fully and openly the factors determining decision-making, it is impossible for a Back-Bencher, and perhaps even a Select Committee, to determine how decisions are reached. That is a great shame.
One factor that encouraged real change was the Falklands campaign. With regard to shipyards today, it would appear that the overriding factor is the privatisation drive.
9.4 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is good that we continue to retain single service debates. It allows us to deal in detail with items which are not necessarily appropriate when we discuss the defence Estimates, and it is a morale booster for the services that want their individual service debated properly and fully.
I shall deal with three matters which have been covered only partially by hon. Members earlier — damage control, spares provision aboard warships, and encouragement for co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the happily denationalised warship yards in attracting warship orders from overseas.
Since 1983 I have had the good fortune to visit four warships—HMS Illustrious, a type 42, a type 21, and a type 22—and in a few weeks time I hope to go aboard an OPV. Each time I have noted an increasing emphasis on damage control. The lessons that had been dangerously forgotten since the second world war and which have been relearned since the Falklands campaign are now being put increasingly into practice. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that during the second world war more ships were lost because of inadequate damage control procedures than directly due to enemy action. During the Falklands campaign we had frightening instances of ships burning, of men dressed in plastic or terylene overalls being extremely badly burnt, and of plastic burning and producing noxious gases aad thick smoke. When I visited HMS Brazen yesterday I was particularly pleased to see a ship that was better designed and equipped for carrying out damage control than the type 21 or type 42, and that gave considerable emphasis to damage control training aboard ship.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all men on warships have clothing made of pure cotton, and that there are no terylene overalls, number eights or action working dress? Will he or his Department consult the captain of HMS Brazen? When the men were practising damage control they were using modified steel pit props. That seemed to be a better idea than using wooden shoring. All hon. Members will have experienced a heavy London smog. It is quite frightening and disorientating. I have done two damage control training courses, one in Australia and the other in the United Kingdom. One must go inside a metal cabin which is on fire, one's breathing apparatus is removed, and one cannot see anything. One must first control oneself and fight down the panic. It is desperately important that we provide every man with a personal breathing apparatus so that if he is caught inside a ship in

521
thick, acrid smoke, he can cover his head, breathe and control his panic. That will permit him to operate as an effective fighting unit.
Regarding the provision of spares, I know that warships are getting Oasis, although HMS Brazen did not have it, and other comparable automated systems for ordering spares. Meanwhile, however, some items are in short supply, as many naval officers and senior ratings have told me all too often. These are often minor items, but as a consequence the system does not work or it works considerably below optimum because of a failure to deliver spare parts or because items fail faster than expected. Until Oasis or a similar system is working properly, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he should send a simple questionnaire to all warships in service. There are no more than 100 warships in operation at any one time.
Mr. Denzil Davies: What navy is that?
Mr. Sayeed: There are no more than 100 RN warships in operation at any one time. The questionnaire should ask each head of department — executive, supply and secretariat, marine engineering and weapons electrical—two questions. First, they should list the main five items where shortages have caused or are causing operational problems. The second question would be to list the three items with which they believe the ship is over-supplied. They should state how many of the over-supplied items they have and how long it would take to use up that number at the current rate of consumption.
If the Ministry of Defence says that it does not have the personnel to handle this simple exercise, then I make my right hon. Friend an offer that he cannot refuse. If my right hon. Friend will reconfirm my security clearance and invest me with the authority to act, I will write to the warships and when I get the answers I shall collate them for him. I believe that these answers will show one thing clearly — that important operational inefficiencies are occurring because of a lack of a number of minor spares. Steps could be taken to correct that and thus increase the operating efficiency of the fleet. The questionnaire would also show that warships are holding spares that they do not need or want and which are taking up valuable space.
I believe that the Ministry of Defence should co-operate with the newly denationalised warship yards in promoting the sale of warships overseas. The Ministry of Defence should suggest to these yards that they design a warship — a frigate or a destroyer or even an OPV. The shipyards should design it—not Bath—in a form which they believe will be attractive to overseas buyers. The dockyards could build this new warship and then the Navy could borrow it and operate it as a shop window. The Navy could go around the world showing friendly powers how well we can build ships, and cheaply at that.
The warship yards may or may not like the idea but it is worth exploring the concept. We have the expertise in the warship yards and the Navy is a superb ambassador. It would be little skin off the Ministry of Defence's nose to provide the sailors. The Royal Navy could evaluate a much simpler form of warship and we may thus avoid the argument about the merits of S90s or type 23s. If the dockyards believe they can sell an S90 overseas, let them build one and allow the Navy to operate it as a floating shop window.
522
I will not deal with the defence policy of the Labour party. It does not know what it wants and its policy makes no sense at all. The Social Democratic party has perpetuated an insidious con trick by suggesting that cruise-carrying submarines can provide a viable alternative to Trident.
To provide even minimal deterrence, we would have to have many times the present number of cruise-carrying submarines. The Social Democratic party would reduce defence expenditure, but it is unable to say where the money for all these extra submarines would come from. To illustrate why it is necessary to have more cruise-carrying submarines one just has to note that the range of cruise is 1,500 nautical miles whereas Trident has a range of 4,500 nautical miles, which gives submarines much more room to hide in. The SDP forgets that cruise is a single missile and that Trident is a multiple re-entry vehicle. It forgets that cruise is subsonic and can be taken out by aircraft whereas there is no technology yet which can intercept Trident re-entry vehicles.
I should have liked to develop my argument, but I am aware of the constraints of time. I hope that I shall get some answers from my hon. Friend the Minister.
9.15 pm
Mr. Michael Hancock: I shall not waste the valuable minutes at my disposal by answering the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). I propose to pick up some of the issues that have already been raised and to develop some of them which concern the city of Portsmouth and the Royal Navy's involvement with it.
As for air-sea rescue and Lee-on-the-Solent, it would be stupid even to consider removing that facility from HMS Daedalus. It serves a population of several million people—residents and visitors—during a year. The local newspaper and other hon. Members who supported its retention should be congratulated.
My colleague, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) talked about the school of music. What he said would enjoy universal support in Portsmouth, which was badly savaged by the Nott cuts of 1981. The cost of moving to Deal has doubled. I have written to the new Secretary of State and I hope that the matter can be reconsidered, especially with regard to Eastney. It is logical for naval bands to stay there, even if that is not true for all defence bands.
Will the Minister give us an answer about the future of Fleetlands — the largest helicopter repair facility in Europe? The work force there is nervous about the future, about whether it has one and whether any future lies in Government ownership or private ownership, and whether it will be sold off to Sikorsky.
I recently had a short voyage on one of Her Majesty's ships and I should like to describe the feeling of men serving on it, and of people in Portsmouth. Morale is not high in the Navy. The figures speak for themselves. There has been a 37 per cent. increase in the number of ratings and officers wanting to come out of the Navy between 1983 and 1985. There has been a fall, despite a figure of 3·5 million unemployed, in the number of people wanting to enter the service, whether as officers or as ratings. We must ask what is wrong in the Navy.
In one section of a type 42 destroyer, all 14 men had put in their notice to leave the Navy within 18 months. Many of them spoke of their problems—too long at sea, undermanning, the difficulties of sea training and

523
problems at home. None of them was happy, but all were incredibly proud to be in the Navy. Other hon. Members have talked about the pride of serving members of the Navy and those who have left and their ability to serve the community. Although they are immensely proud, many are sick at how the Navy is operating.
It is ironic that, while we can spend £2·8 million refurbishing the officers' mess at HMS Nelson, in my city there are 37 able seamen to a mess on a type 42 destroyer. Such conditions are a disgrace in 1986. We must question the suitability of some of the things that are happening on those ships. The Fleet Air Arm has insufficient facilities for flying time, because of restrictions on fuel and the economies that it is forced to make. The exercises of one of Her Majesty's ships are not carried out with the Fleet Air Arm or the Royal Air Force, but with private commercial pilots brought in to fly sorties over our ships to provide the required expertise and training. Live rounds of ammunition cannot be fired at seaborne targets because of the cost involved. That adds up to a restrictive use of facilities.
Radar is shifted from ship to ship, because of the lack of sophisticated new equipment to go round. That all undermines the morale of the Navy at rating and officer level.
Many hon. Members have quoted figures about the merchant service. Is it permissible for this House to allow that service to diminish? In details passed to me recently it was interesting to note that the British Fern and the British Ivy were requisitioned during the Falklands war to take cargoes to Ascension Island, only to be recalled to Gibraltar because the Indian Government objected to Indian nationals serving on ships involved in the conflict. The cargoes had to be offloaded at Gibraltar and transported to Ascension Island by other ships.
Is it right to undermine the merchant service support that is undoubtedly required by the Royal Navy? Many hon. Members have spoken about a reduction on the Channel services when the Channel tunnel is built. Have we really considered the effects of that?
In Portsmouth and the greater Portsmouth area there are 650 empty naval houses. That is a small point, but it is important to service personnel when there are 5,000 people waiting for houses. Something must be done about those empty properties because it is a disgrace and a stigma on the service establishment in that area. If naval lands are not to be used, let us have some of them. The Navy owns 1,200 hectares of land in the greater Portsmouth area. Much of that land has only anchors and chains on it. If naval lands are not to be used, decisions should be made quickly so that they can be released. I make a special plea for the Fraser gun range at Eastney. Please make a decision so that Portsmouth can plan for some of its needs.
I am sorry that I had such a short time to discuss such a big subject for my area. I regret that bitterly. I should have especially liked to develop the arguments about Navy morale and the need for us to support it. There are serious problems and I do not believe that the Government have the policies to put the fibre and fabric of the Navy back together to give Britain the type of Navy we have come to expect and to want.
9.22 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: This is the second of the three annual services debates in the House. Last week we debated the Army, and tonight we are debating the Navy.
524
In last week's debate and tonight, an underlying concern has been expressed about whether it will be possible to fund even the defence expenditure that the Government have set out in their various documents and in the public expenditure White Paper.
As was said last week, the defence budget is gradually getting out of control. Difficult problems must be faced. We should remember the defence review of 1981 under a previous Secretary of State, Sir John Nott. If that review had been carried through, the Royal Navy would have been reduced to a coastal defence force. That review was against the background of the Government's decision to buy Trident mark 1 from the Americans. In those days, the estimated cost of Trident mark 1 was about £5,000 million.
Since then, the Government have decided to purchase Trident mark 2, because the Americans will stop producing the mark 1. On present estimates, mark 2 will cost £9·5 billion. I do not say that the mark 2 is twice as expensive as the mark 1, because inflation must be taken into account, but on 1981 figures, Trident mark 2 would probably have cost about £7·5 billion, which was way in excess of the estimated cost of the mark 1.
The Nott defence review was conducted against the background of purchasing Trident mark 1. It was stopped largely as a result of the Falklands war, although Chatham dockyard was closed and Portsmouth was substantially run down and is no longer a dockyard. Apart from those economies, if they can be called that, most of the proposed cuts under the Nott review were restored as a result of the Falklands war and the lessons learnt from it.
The present position mirrors the position before the Nott review in 1981, with the addition of a more expensive Trident and the fact that, during the next few years. the cost of Trident will escalate rapidly within a defence budget which will not increase and which, on the figures, looks as though it will decrease during the next three years. There is a real danger that the brunt of the cuts will fall upon the Royal Navy, as they were intended to fall upon the Navy in Sir John Nott's analysis of the position in 1981.
The 50-warship, destroyer and frigate Navy to which the Government are committed is extremely important not only to the armed services but to the future of our warship yards and to employment in many parts of Britain. During the next 10 years, frigates will have to be ordered at least at twice the rate that they have been ordered since 1979. If that is not done, the Navy faces the prospect of operating an increasingly aged fleet of destroyers and frigates, with increasing maintenance costs and diminished effectiveness. The maximum useful life of a warship is about 22 years. To secure in 10 years' time a force of destroyers and frigates within the 22-year life span, the Government would have to order another 17, and orders would have to be placed within the next six years. During the six years since they came to power, the Government have placed nine orders for new frigates, but four of those were replacements for ships lost in the Falklands; the resources for them came not from the normal defence budget but from the special fund that the Treasury allowed to the Ministry of Defence to make good war losses in the Falklands.
Against that background, and the effect of the failure to order frigates from companies such as Swan Hunter, we are anxious not only about the Navy but, as my hon.

525
Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said, that jobs and skills should not be lost in our warship yards.
When the type 23 frigate was first thought of in 1981 or 1982, against the background of the closure of Chatham, it was considered to be a throwaway frigate that would not be refitted. This may be history now, but it is worth examining a quotation from the Secretary of State in a debate on 25 June 1981, which was repeated in the Navy debate on 19 July 1982:
"Secondly, we can maintain our surface fleet at its present full strength only through a continuous programme of refits and major mid-life modernisations, requiring a huge and costly dockyard infrastructure. Typically it can now cost up to £70 million to modernise an old Leander frigate, which is actually more than our target cost for the new type 23 frigate." — [Official Report, 19 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 58.]
There was some doubt about the figure of £70 million. It is questionable whether that is a correct figure for the refit of a Leander frigate.
At that time, the cost of a type 23 frigate was £60 million. That frigate was to be thrown away—it would not be refitted or modernised. It was against that background that Chatham was closed, Gibraltar was scheduled to close and Portsmouth ceased to be a dockyard.
I do not know the current target estimate for a type 23 frigate, although I understand it to be between £110 million and £120 million, depending on what is put on it. It surely cannot be a throwaway frigate any longer; I cannot believe that is will be disposed of. There may be questions about future dockyard capacity and we may face problems because of the background to that new frigate.
We have debated the dockyards fully—although not more than fully because it is an important subject, as the Minister understands. I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who said that he had read all the speeches. Without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), perhaps we should have had the benefit of the presence of the right hon. Member for Devonport on the Committee—he would not then have had to read the speeches, he could have spoken on an important matter concerning his constituency. However, he did not avail himself of that opportunity.
Several hon. Members have spoken about merchant shipping — notably my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend and the right hon. Members for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I make no apology for returning to that subject. This year we have heard nothing from the Government to allay our fears about the dangerous decline of the merchant fleet, and the consequences upon the availability of seamen and ships for the Royal Navy.
The Government's figures are extremely optimistic. As the Select Committee on Defence said in its first report of 1984–85, the figures are dependent upon a theoretical view of the availability of ships. I understand that, in theory, there are three categories of requisition or availability—United Kingdom owned and registered ships; United Kingdom registered ships—apparently owned in British dependent territories, of which there are still a few left — and flagged out ships that are United Kingdom beneficially owned.
526
Perhaps there is no problem with requisitioning United Kingdom owned and registered ships. In theory, there should also be no problem with United Kingdom registered ships. However, the Committee points out quite reasonably in paragraph 19:
"Nevertheless, if the vessels remain on the registers of the United Kingdom or dependent territories the application of the prerogative power is clear. In the case of the dependent territories, the ability to requisition may be subject to political constraints."
That may cause a problem with the number of ships that we can obtain.
In the third category of flagged out ships, the Committee states in paragraph 20:
"We cannot be confident that, say, a Panama flag ship owned by a Panamanian registered company could be relied upon for requisition."
The figures are, therefore, extremely optimistic. The Government have not really taken on board the seriousness of the decline of the merchant fleet.
I have some sympathy with the MOD, because it is not the lead Department in this matter. It used to be the Department of Trade and Industry, but that responsibility has now been passed to the Secretary of State for Transport. Whatever one may say about that right hon. Gentleman, he has not shown great enthusiasm for Government intervention in the market place.
The answer in the case of the Merchant Navy does not lie with the Department of Defence but, as the right hon. Member for Taunton said, with a national maritime policy. Under the Government, we have no national policy on anything, and until somebody agrees that the Government must intervene in the market place, nothing will happen, because decisions on merchant shipping will be based on commercial, financial and taxation decisions. The Government will have to decide on these matters and intervene if we are to stop the decline and ensure that we have a merchant fleet that can support the Royal Navy.
We have not had any satisfactory answers about assault ships from the Government. As we know, assault ships were to have gone. Before General Galtieri invaded the Falklands, such ships were to go to the Nott's knackers yard, but they were reprieved as a result of the Falklands. However, a decision on them must be taken, and I hope that the Government will end the uncertainty before long and tell us that they are to be replaced. They have an important role to play in Norway especially, because of our commitment through the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy in that part of NATO's defence. I hope that we can be told something more by the Under-Secretary.
We have three carriers but only two crews and only two lots of aeroplanes, fixed and rotor wing. It is no good saying that we can swap the crews over so that when one carrier is being refitted, the crew is taken from one carrier and put on another. There are problems in such a system, such as keeping sailors at sea for a long time and their morale. This is not a satisfactory way to go about such things.
There is the question of torpedoes, which are—
Mr. Franks: There is the question of Trident.
Mr. Davies: I shall be coming to the hon. Gentleman's rather excitable speech—he should not be excited any more. The visits of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) are having an effect up there in Barrow and we shall continue to go up there and preach the message that the Royal Navy needs hunter-killer

527
submarines and under a Labour Government we shall be able to afford to put crews on them. The hon. Gentleman should take that message back to Barrow, and if he does not, we shall. He knows that he will have great difficulties in the next election.
Neither the Government nor the NATO strategies have resolved the problem of what to do with the Navy. The issue came to the fore in John Nott's review, and it is still there. If the intention is that war in central Europe, should it come, is to last for seven to eight days and then we shall go nuclear, there are questions about the role of the Royal Navy. If, on the other hand, the war is not to go nuclear, and remains conventional, the role of the Navy is different, especially in the eastern Atlantic.
These issues must be resolved, but the Government have not resolved them, nor the issues of the budget and how to pay for a proper Navy as well as paying for Trident, which they cannot do. These issues will come back in the Defence Estimates and will have to be faced by the Government sooner or later.
9.39 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): It gives me great pleasure to close this year's Navy debate. Before dealing with the specific topics that have occupied the attention of right hon. and hon. Members, I should like to address the main thrust of today's debate, defence expenditure, and within that naval expenditure. The Navy budget, in common with the defence budget as a whole, has benefited from an unprecedented period of sustained real growth. This is reflected in the size of the shipbuilding programme over the past seven years.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said earlier that since May 1979 this Government have ordered 50 warships, whose total value is equivalent to about £3,600 million at 1985–86 price levels. This figure included nine nuclear and conventionally powered submarines, nine frigates and 21 mine counter vessels of three different classes. There are 28 vessels currently at various stages of construction, with a value approaching £3 billion. The Government can be justifiably proud of their record of support for the Royal Navy. It is now much better equipped all round than it would have been if expenditure had been maintained in real terms at 1978–79 levels.
In 1984–85 our sea systems expenditure in the United Kingdom industry was approximately £1,870 million. This directly employed about 70,000 people; indirectly it employed a further 50,000 people. These figures exclude any Ministry of Defence personnel.
The remarks made in the Army debate last week by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) are beginning to haunt him. I repeat the quotation:
"by cancelling Trident, we can maintain present levels of conventional defence spending."—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1127]
The Opposition have made no secret of their eagerness to cancel Trident. However, until now, as I understood their position, their intention had been to switch over resources to make some enhancements to the conventional capability. Now it appears that, not content with throwing away the ultimate guarantee of this nation's security, the right hon. Gentleman does not intend even to compensate for this by increasing the orders for conventional forces.
528
When the right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) visited Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering at Barrow they endeavoured to reassure the work force, whose livelihood in the latter part of this decade depends upon Trident and who are naturally apprehensive about Labour party policy, that although the Labour party would cancel Trident the yard's future would be safeguarded by additional semi-submersible nuclear orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) asked where the right hon. Gentleman would produce the money from for this if, as he has said in the House, he intends to cancel Trident and to maintain only existing levels of conventional defence spending.
Without wishing to be too cruel to the right hon. Gentleman, he must suffer enough from the cross that he has to bear of his party's defence policy. I remind him again of the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement when he wound up last week's debate. My hon. Friend highlighted the yawning gap between the right hon. Gentleman's statement that conventional defence spending is inadequate and the statement of his Front Bench colleague the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who confirmed that Labour would not have increased defence spending by 3 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1985, as this Government did. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that? Where will the money for defence come from under a Labour Administration—that question has to be asked—on top of the increased spending on education, pensions, the National Health Service, roads, the youth training scheme, overseas aid and industry? Name it and the nation's cheque book will be available. Cash appears to be no object at all.
It is a bit much for the Opposition to go on about the supposed inadequacy of this Government's spending. When we came to power we inherited the lowest level of defence spending in real terms since just after the Korean war. We have increased it substantially. We have concentrated the increase on the conventional forces that were left in such a sorry and demoralised state by the last Labour Government. The truth is that the Labour party's defence policy is bogus, intellectually dishonest and just does not add up, in either military or financial terms.
I say to those Opposition Members who represent ship-building constituencies — the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—that we understand their concern over their constituents' interests. Sadly, there is a substantial over-capacity in our warship building yards. I hear what Opposition Members say in this House but I do not often hear similiar speeches from Opposition Members in favour of increased defence expenditure at Labour party conferences.
Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), made much of the impact of Trident upon the rest of the defence programme and the dire consequences for the conventional navy of Trident. This is, of course, nonsense. It is a well-managed programme. There has been no real increase in the estimate for Trident D5 since it was first announced. The differences are entirely due to inflation and exchange rate movement.
In that context I remind the House of the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who

529
sadly is not with us this evening, but who knows a great deal more about the Royal Navy than many Opposition Members. On the Second Reading of the Dockyards Services Bill the hon. Gentleman said:
"What kind of Navy are we likely to have in the late 1980s and 1990s? Clearly it will be a mixed Navy of surface and sub-surface vessels. Though I may hold different views from others about the degree of mix that should exist, it is clear that, despite the difficulties of financing Trident, we shall have a Navy with a substantial surface component along with a sub-surface component." [Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88,c. 58.]
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is a member of the Select Committee on Defence and that is why he is absent.
Mr. Lee: I appreciate that information from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West is correct. Alongside Trident, there will indeed be a Navy with substantial surface and sub-surface components. Opposition Members would do well to heed those words from one of their colleagues.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I have heeded the Under-Secretary of State's words and it all sounds very reassuring. Can the Under-Secretary now give us a firm commitment to the placement of the No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 type 23 warships and also a sound decision on the two auxiliary vessels which are in contention between Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff?
Mr. Lee: I shall discuss specific procurement matters shortly.
I would like to put the costs of Trident into context. Trident will cost, over its 20-year life, approximately one half of the total defence budget in one year. For.that expenditure we shall get our ultimate strategic deterrent for well into the next century.
As for competition in naval procurement, it is Ministry of Defence policy to place warship contracts, wherever practicable, by competitive tendering. That policy has achieved keen prices ranging from the major order for Upholder class submarines, placed on 3 January, to orders for smaller craft. As for the Upholder class diesel-electric submarine, the order for a batch of type 24-00 submarines placed as a result of competition gave a saving of about £20 million. Almost one half of that figure was due to competition and the rest to batch ordering.
Recent examples of orders for smaller craft where competition has been especially fierce and where MOD obtained savings compared with original estimates included four ramped craft logistics for the Army and 71 of the 5.5 motorboats for the Royal Navy.
Competition, often in conjunction with other factors such as technological advances, has also provided some significant savings in the area of naval weapons. As an example, we are obtaining savings on unit production costs of new sonars which are typically between 10 and 30 per cent. less in real terms than the cost of the equipment that they replace. At the same time, advances in technology ensure that they are considerably more capable than the equipment they replace.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members raised the question of escort numbers. We are continuing our programme of construction of the highly effective type 22 and type 23s to replace the older type 21 and Leander class frigates. The order for the last two type 22s was placed in
530
January last year. Construction of the first class 23, HMS Norfolk, is proceeding satisfactorily. We are currently evaluating tenders for the first follow-on vessels of this class. Subject to agreement on price, we intend, as the House is aware, to order type 23-02 from Swan Hunter.
It will be some time before we will be able to make an announcement on the outcome of the competition for type 23-03 and 23-04. Broadly, it remains the Government's intention to order approximately three type 23 frigates a year. Nevertheless our future plans, as always, are subject to the availability of resources and the House will appreciate that these are exceedingly tight.
Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lee: I shall give way in a moment.
I can assure the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), that there has been no change in the Government's intention to maintain a force of about 50 escort vessels.
Dr. Godman: What is the likelihood of Yarrow winning one of the orders for this type of surface vehicle?
Mr. Lee: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to answer that question. Competition has to be won on the basis of merit and I certainly cannot make comments on particular yards like Yarrow.
Mr. O'Neill: I am almost reassured by what the Minister is saying, but I ask him to be more specific about the rate of ordering, which we shall have to treble if we are to sustain a 50-warship Navy beyond 1990. Has the hon. Gentleman given thought to that? What is the Government's view on that?
Mr. Lee: I can only repeat that we shall be ordering at the rate of broadly three vessels a year. I stand by what I have said. However, that will be subject to the budget.
Mr. Garrett: The Minister's announcement will be accepted with quiet satisfaction on Tyneside. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to make a statement on the prospect of the order for the auxiliary oil replenishment vessel.
Mr. Lee: I was about to turn to that matter. The AOR was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallsend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). Tenders have been received for the design and build of the first two "one-stop" auxiliary oil replenishment vessels and they are currently being evaluated. Two shipyards have tendered for the design-and-build package, and these are Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff. It is intended that the AOR will provide simultaneous replenishment at sea of liquids and solids. It will replace the ageing Royal Fleet Auxiliary. No decisions have been taken on the size and timing of orders.
It will be of interest to those who represent shipbuilding constituencies that there is the certainty now of a refit for Britannia. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces paid tribute in his opening remarks to the recent exploits of Her Majesty's yacht Britannia and its crew in the Red sea, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks.
The House will be aware that Britannia is over 30 years old. If the yacht is to continue in service for the next 10 to 15 years, we intend to have it refitted during 1987. We

531
are considering inviting commercial tenders for this work later this year, which will ensure that we obtain the best value for money.
Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister give an assurance that when commercial tendering takes place for the refitting of the royal yacht it will be on the basis that the work will be done in the United Kingdom and not in a foreign yard?
Mr. Lee: I can give the categoric assurance that Britannia will be refitted in the United Kingdom.
A number of hon. Members mentioned amphibious shipping, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best). We have referred on several occasions to the wide-ranging studies that we have been undertaking with industry with the aim of properly examining our future fitness capability when the current ships begin to be phased out in the mid-1990s. The studies were initiated well in advance of the need to commence detailed design work, thus providing the opportunity to examine exhaustively all aspects of our future requirements and all militarily viable options. We expect to make a decision on the best way forward later this year.
Mr. Best: Is it right that the joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended total replacement of HMS Fearless and Intrepid with a view to enhancing our amphibious warfare capability?
Mr. Lee: With great respect, it would be entirely improper for me to comment on service advice that has been rendered.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred to the Sea Harrier. Hon. Members will know that we are planning a mid-life update for the aircraft to maintain its ability to counter the threat for which it was originally designed until about the end of the century. The project definition contract with British Aerospace for the mid-life update was referred to in paragraph 439 of last year's statement on the Defence Estimates, albeit somewhat opaquely, and it has now been completed. As part of the mid-life update work, we are proceeding with the development of a new radar system for the aircraft. We hope to take a decision to proceed to full development of the mid-life update programme later this year.
No naval debate would be complete without the contribution—I say this in the nicest way—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) on hydrography and the merchant fleet. My right hon. Friend is not quite as persistent as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is on the defence school of music, but he is a regular contributor to these debates. As he knows, I visited Taunton last year and witnessed the fine work that is done by the Hydrographer for the Royal Navy. The hydrographic department continues to provide invaluable service to seafarers generally.
The survey flotilla once again demonstrated its versatility with HMS Hydra's involvement in the evacuation from Aden. The new coastal survey vessel, HMS Roebuck, should be in service later this year. We clearly have a continuing requirement to carry out ocean survey work around the globe. This work can be done by royal naval survey vessels or by civilian experts working under the control of the MOD. The balance between those
532
three resources must depend upon their relative cost-effectiveness. When we have more experience of contract and charter survey work we plan to undertake a review of the future size and shape of the survey flotilla.
The subject of merchant shipping was mentioned by a whole host of hon. Members, not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton but the hon. Member for Clackmannan and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). We have always recognised that merchant shipping is a vital defence resource and, as stated in last year's statement on the Defence Estimates, it plays an important role in our planning when considering our national requirements and NATO obligations. Those commitments require the use of merchant ships of a wide variety of types. The recent decline in the overall size of the United Kingdom merchant fleet has been monitored closely by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport because we are aware that if the decline continues for several more years at the present rate, it would become increasingly difficult to discharge some of our NATO obligations. However, currently there are sufficient United Kingdom merchant ships available to meet our foreseen defence needs. The exception to that, as has been said, is certain types of trawlers for minesweeping duties. Studies are in hand to find alternative ways of meeting that requirement. Those studies will be completed in the spring.
I fully appreciate and understand the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton but I implore him not to exaggerate the situation. He specifically talked about the Falklands operation. He is entitled to his view but I have to say that the Ministry of Defence believes that, in the unlikely event of another Falklands-type scenario, we could man a similar exercise. That is our considered view.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to the subject of hoverships. The Ministry of Defence has been taking a close interest in new ship technologies but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not currently see an operational role for such craft.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton expresses concern over the future of HMS Endurance. That ship will undergo a major refit later this year and the work will give her an economic life extending into the mid-1990s. As that will allow her to continue her pattern of deployment in the Atlantic during this period, it would be premature to talk about a replacement.
I heard what the hon. Member for Linlithgow said on the matter of HMS Conqueror's logbook. Obviously, my Department and the new Secretary of State will read in Hansard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Ministry of Defence reply to me as soon as possible if there are any mistakes of fact?
Mr. Lee: I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I cannot go any further than that tonight. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
I shall look into the matter raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the allegation, or suggestion, of radiation illness at Coulport and Faslane. Obviously that is a serious matter and we shall look into it very soon.
I am more than happy to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), as I am sure are all

533
hon. Members, in paying a tribute to the backroom boys and girls who support our Navy in all the establishments, so many of which I know are in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) talked about his visit to HMS Brazen and the lessons learned from the Falklands. We have certainly learned many lessons from the Falklands campaign, particularly on fire resistant clothing, damage control and smoke control. I shall take his suggestion of a questionnaire on board.
I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on the matter of search and rescue from Lee-on-Solent.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan inquired about our plans for the possible conversion of the Atlantic Causeway into an aviation support ship. The aviation support ship remains a concept which is of interest to us but we are not yet in a position to decide whether it is sufficiently important to warrant a place in the full defence programme. If the project were to proceed, it would be our intention to seek competitive tenders from all interested firms. We would, of course, consider each tender on its merits and award a contract on grounds of best price and delivery terms. I am afraid that I cannot be more positive than that at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn referred once again to the S90—the short fat ship—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. We understand that Admiral Hill-Norton is to present his report on cheaper warships to the Prime Minister's Office some time this month. I cannot comment on the report until I have had the opportunity to study it. All the options were exhaustively examined in 1983, and I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 1 November 1983. The way for the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it gets value for money is to proceed with the design it has. We shall accordingly start with follow-up type 23s this year, as I have intimated.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

    SALMON
    That the draft Importation of Live Fish of the Salmon Family Order 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert]
    Question agreed to.

Lieutenant-Commander J. A. Bird
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10 pm
Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has had a long and productive day and I owe him a great debt of gratitude for being so good as to stay on to reply to the debate.
Perhaps the best I can do to introduce the subject of my unfortunate constituent, Lieutenant-Commander J. A. Bird, is to read an extract from a letter he wrote on 6 November 1984 to the Naval Secretary. He said:
"I was operated on for a cataract on my left eye at Haslar on 11th October, 1983 and left hospital on 17th October. The intention was then that a contact lens would be fitted in the eye. I attended Haslar as an out-patient at approximately fortnightly intervals after the operation and eventually a contact lens was fitted in early February 1984. Although wearing the lens regularly, it made no improvement in my vision and eventually I asked for an examination by a surgeon other than the one who had performed the operation. The operating surgeon had, by this date, seen me as an out-patient on at least half a dozen occasions.
I visited Haslar on 13th March 1984 and was examined by a different eye surgeon who diagnosed a detached retina requiring a prompt operation. During his examination he used the expression 'time is not on our side'. I entered the hospital the next day and was operated on 15th March, leaving on 21st March.
I then made at least two further out-patient visits to Haslar (at my own expense) with no resulting improvement in my vision.
Early in May I transferred from treatment at Haslar to the specialist eye hospital at Weymouth to avoid the expense of constant travelling to and from Haslar."
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows, that is in Portsmouth or thereabouts.
Mr. Peter Viggers: It is in Gosport.
Viscount Cranborne: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.
The letter continued:
"This action was with the knowledge (and, I presume agreement) of the surgeons at Haslar. (I have visited my local eye hospital on several occasions and my local GP also arranged for me to visit Moorfields eye hospital in London. I understand that this latter is the best eye hospital in the country. I have eventually been told by an eye specialist that I cannot expect to recover any sight in my left eye as the retina is totally destroyed.
The current state of my left eye is that I now have no vision in it, it is bloodshot, the lids are partially closed and it has a cast in it."
I have seen Lieutenant-Commander Bird. He is an unfortunate sight. It is unfortunate from his point of view that he has suffered so long. He followed up that letter with another letter on 25 November in which he added that the vision in his right eye has
"now deteriorated to the extent that I am unable to drive a car any more and can read for short periods only."
He underwent a retirement medical examination at HMS
Osprey at the end of February 1984. He said—I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will mark this—
"no mention was made of the prospect of such a rapid deterioration of my right eye, nor of its onset after a matter of a few months."
On 31 December, Commander Bird received a reply to his letters advising him that he could not pursue his claim under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is all too familiar with that. The civil servant wrote:
"This Act effectively debars any claim against the Department in respect of injuries suffered by members of the Armed Forces who are on duty or on property being used for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown."

535
The letter further suggested that Commander Bird should write to the Department of Health and Social Security asking it to consider paying a pension or gratuity in respect of the injury. My hon. Friend will be aware that that is standard practice.
The plot begins to thicken with a letter that Commander Bird received from Surgeon-Commander Tolley dated 6 February 1985 which finished by again advising him to pursue the DHSS route. The letter also stated:
"Although it could be said that a cataract operation is a routine matter it is, like any operation, not without its attendant risk of complications and, should they occur in ocular surgery, it is usually to the detriment of the expected results. Unfortunately, you"—
that is, Commander Bird—
"Unfortunately suffered one of these complications in that a haemorrhage developed. This was noted on the first post-operative examination of the eye and prevented good vision being obtained, even with a contact lens".
As far as I know, Lieutenant-Commander Bird and Surgeon-Commander Tolley have never met. Surgeon-Commander Tolley was obviously referring to medical reports that he had received from the doctors who attended Commander Bird. Nevertheless, Commander Bird maintains emphatically that he was told nothing of that by the doctors whom he saw. I shall support that assertion by quoting from a letter that my constituent sent to me commenting on letters which my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne sent to me when I first inquired about Commander Bird's case. Commander Bird said:
"I was indeed informed of a state of my left eye on all my visits to Haslar between October 1983 (the date of my first operation) to the middle of April 1984 when my case was transferred to the Weymouth Eye Hospital. Without exception I was told that the eye was healing satisfactorily and that I could expect, with a contact lens, to be able to see 'half way down the chart'."
I wish that I could do as well.
"Surgeon-Commander Tolley can have only hearsay knowledge as he was not present on any of my visits to Haslar and I have never met him."
We are all clearly sorry for Commander Bird. As a result of my noble Friend's replies to my inquiries on my constituent's behalf, I have a suspicion of the type of things that my hon. Friend will say when he replies. First, he will say that the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 has been under fairly constant review for some considerable time, that it is difficult to discriminate between officers serving in the front line and officers who are pursuing other duties out of the front line; and that those difficulties of definition are beyond the Ministry of Defence and the Act must stay where it is. I suspect that he will go further and say that the arrangements with the DHSS, to which Commander Bird referred, and which were mentioned by the Ministry of Defence, were invented to ensure that there was some redress which did not cut across the provisions of section 10.
Far be it from me to impute such thoughts to my hon. Friend, but I suspect that some of us might think that doctors are a pretty tightly run trade union, that if one is going to sue for negligence it is difficult to get one doctor to say that another has been negligent, and that if Commander Bird were sensible he would forget about going through the trouble and expense of suing even if he could, because he would find it difficult to obtain a judgment in his favour. That may well be so. Even if my hon. Friend does not say so, perhaps he would agree with that.
536
Against these considerations, perhaps we should set others arising from Commander Bird's circumstances and from the general points which arise from this rather tragic case. There is some disagreement—I hope that this is clear from the rather lengthy quotations which I have read from the correspondence — between Commander Bird and the doctors who examined him repeatedly at Haslar during the months following his operation as to whether they thought his recovery was proceeding satisfactorily. However difficult it is to prove negligence, surely it is only fair that people who are subject to this kind of operation on what is, after all, a pretty important sensory item in anyone's physical make-up should at least know that, if they suspect that somebody has been negligent, they have the opportunity to put it to the test. It is very difficult for poor Commander Bird to sit there in pain, doubtful about whether he can see anything at all and finding it difficult to travel and to get a job.
I suggest also that it is not good enough to say that the DHSS benefit, which is the alternative—if, indeed, it is granted—is a sufficient compensation on the grounds that it is a permanent grant and anyway can be updated to take account of inflation. This seems rather absurd when one considers that at present Commander Bird is drawing invalidity benefit amounting to the princely sum of £54·99 a week. If one considers some of the court settlements in such cases, that amount would hardly come to the interest that he could get on any lump sum settlement if he decided to invest it sensibly.
More generally, my hon. Friend may like to consider that it is not conducive to good management, however professional doctors are, to except operatives of any kind from consequences of negligence. It only encourages people to be negligent, however sensible and assiduous they may be. I think that all of us in the House, saving my hon. Friend's presence, realise that Ministers, for all their good intentions, would get away with murder if it were riot for the attentions of the Conservative Back Benchers, if not of the Opposition Back Benchers—who, yet again, are conspicuous by their absence.
Commander Bird served for 39 years 10 months in the Royal Navy. He joined, aged 16, as a cadet. He is a loyal Navy man. He refers to taking his case outside the family —something he was reluctant to do. He feels strongly that he owes loyalty to the Navy, and, perhaps, that the Navy owes loyalty to him. I think it is a pretty scurvy repayment of that loyalty if Commander Bird is not able to get some crack of the whip and some public attempt to ascertain whether that difference of opinion between him and the doctors is a matter that it is his right to have considered.
Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend has the respect of the House for the manner in which he is putting his constituent's case before the House. I am not in a position to comment on the case at all. However, I should like to say that the Royal Naval hospital, Haslar, is in Gosport, my constituency, and serves civilians and service personnel. Its facilities are excellent and its reputation in the locality is extremely high. I am anxious that that should be known and recorded in the debate.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my noble Friend. I have no experience of Haslar. It is clearly important that my hon. Friend's experience of this institution in his constituency should be brought to the

537
defence of its reputation in a debate of this kind. I have no means of knowing what its reputation is and I gratefully accept the good character which my hon. Friend has given the hospital.
Finally, I shall ask my hon. Friend four questions, and I should be extremely grateful if he would address himself to them when he replies. First, is there any chance of an inquiry into the case of Commander Bird, if only to clear Haslar's name, which may have a shadow over it as a result of my raising the matter this evening, let alone to set at rest Commander Bird's mind about whether there was negligence? Secondly, it may be sensible to put in the fast lane a review of the effects of section 10 on serving officers who are away from the front line. After all, civil servants can sue if they have the same trouble as Commander Bird had at Haslar. Thirdly, have there been any other complaints about Haslar? If there have not, it will certainly support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). Fourthly, in the event of an inquiry reporting that there has been negligence, is it possible that a lump sum of compensation could be paid to the unfortunate Commander Bird, whose loyalty has been severely stretched by his past two years' experience?
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) on his good furtune in securing an Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to the vigorous way in which he has pursued his constituent's case through correspondence with my Department and, of course, in his deeply sincere and elegant speech tonight. I am also grateful for the praise of the Royal Naval hospital Haslar from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North set out clearly the grievances felt by his constituent, Lieutenant-Commander Bird, over the complications that arose from a cataract operation performed at the Royal Naval hospital Haslar in October 1983. As I understand it, there are three main aspects. First, Lieutenant-Commander Bird feels that as a cataract operation is, in the majority of cases, a routine affair, the unsuccessful outcome of his operation is not entirely due to misfortune. Secondly, he feels that he was not kept properly informed, and thirdly, that a claim for compensation is being hindered by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. I shall answer each of those points in turn, but, before doing so, it would be helpful to set out briefly the sequence of events, as they have a bearing on the somewhat complicated legal aspects of the case.
Lieutenant-Commander Bird had two operations. The first, which is the one that he feels aggrieved about, was a cataract eye operation performed at Royal Naval hospital Haslar in October 1983. At that time Lieutenant-Commander Bird was still a regular serving officer. In February 1984 he left the service, and at the time of his second operation in March 1984, for a detached retina, which was also performed at Royal Naval hospital Haslar, he was a civilian. I shall come to the details of the medical and legal aspects of the case in a few moments.
The medical aspects of the case are straightforward. The operations were carried out at the Royal Naval hospital Haslar, which is experienced in this type of
538
operation, and carries out approximately 150 a year—most of them by the consultant who operated on Lieutenant-Commander Bird. The treatment and medical management of the case have been closely investigated by Defence Ministers, and have been found to be correct at all stages. The claim of negligence, which is implied by Lieutenant-Commander Bird's phrase
"not entirely due to misfortune",
is without foundation.
It is recognised within the medical profession that every operation has its attendant risk of complications. In operations, such as that undergone by Lieutenant-Commander Bird, it normally prevents restoration of reasonable eyesight without further treatment. Although it has been said that a cataract operation is a routine matter, it is not without hazard. As a national average approximately 2 per cent. of those operated on experience some form of complication. Unfortunately, Lieutenant-Commander Bird suffered one of these hazards in that, subsequent to his first operation, a vitreous haemorrhage—internal bleeding of the eye—developed. It was noticed at the first post-operative examination. The haemorrhage may have been caused by the slightly raised blood pressure combined with the patient's restlessness on the first post-operative night. The contraction of a vitreous haemorrhage and formation of fibrotic bands—clotting of blood—is a well-known precipitating cause of detachment of the retina. The haemorrhage and subsequent inflammation which developed prevented reasonably good eyesight being restored, even with use of a contact lens.
As a result of these indications, Lieutenant-Commander Bird was examined very carefully on a number of occasions but no sign of a detachment was discernible until 13 March 1984. The longer such a condition, once discovered, is left untreated, the poorer the chances of successful corrective treatment. Lieutenant-Commander Bird was therefore operated on a second time almost immediately, on 15 March 1984. Despite careful surgery and post-operative care, the result was less successful than had been hoped. However, the last record at Royal Naval hospital Haslar of Lieutenant-Commander Bird's eyesight does not accord fully with the statement, made in one of the officer's letters to my Department, dated 6 November 1984, that he had no vision at all in the left eye.
With regard to the second issue of being kept informed, it is not normal procedure to speculate on possible untoward complications of an operation in advance of surgery, but any questions asked by a patient would be answered. The consultant would, moreover, routinely explain the operative procedures and likely outcome. Following the operation, Lieutenant-Commander Bird was kept fully informed at all stages—indeed, it was recorded that he had on many occasions produced a written list of questions and the answers to these were discussed with him. The Defence Medical Services believe that keeping the patient informed of his condition and prospects is an important aid to attaining a good recovery. For these reasons, I cannot agree that Lieutenant-Commander Bird was not kept informed.
Lieutenant-Commander Bird's third point touches on the application of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. It may be helpful if I begin by summarising how section 10 works. The section is not a complete ban on legal action by service men but in broad terms provides an absolute defence for the Crown, and for other service men,

539
against actions alleging negligence brought by service men or their next of kin who are injured or killed in circumstances attributable to their service. Instead, a special gratuity and pension scheme is available to these service men upon leaving the service. There is not, I accept, the prospect of courts possibly awarding a lump sum under the law. But, importantly, the individual does not have the considerable burden of attempting to prove negligence in the courts. For example, if he failed to prove his case, the court would award no compensation and he might be called upon to pay costs. Court procedures can often be lengthy and uncertain, and an award—if made — cannot be adjusted if his condition subsequently deteriorates. Moreover, the income from any damages is taxed as unearned income. By contrast, a service man entitled to an invalidity pension does not have to prove negligence. The pension is based purely on the level of the disability and is payable irrespective of the presence of negligence, and even in cases where the negligence is his own. The pension is tax free, adjusted each year for inflation and can be further increased if there is a deterioration in the service man's condition.
Section 10 was originally enacted because service personnel, by the very nature of their profession, are called upon to perform hazardous tasks which go beyond anything likely to be encountered in normal civil employment. Parliament accepted, and successive governments since 1947 have concurred, that it would not be appropriate for service personnel to be able to bring civil actions for negligence against one another, given the risks associated with the necessarily highly realistic military training that service men undergo. To do so would run counter to the fundamental requirement for mutual trust, confidence and loyalty which is so essential to an effective fighting force.
It has been suggested that this argument should not apply to situations such as treatment in service hospitals, where a civilian in the same circumstances would not be debarred from an action at law. However, attempts over the years to distinguish between activities with a military character and those which are essentially civil in nature have always foundered because of the discrimination it would cause against one category of service man in favour of another. It would, I fear, create more anomalies than it would solve. Nor is it possible for decisions to be taken whether to apply section 10 on a case-by-case basis; if the conditions of section 10 are met. the provisions do not allow any discretion and the law automatically applies.
That said, the Government wish to be sure that it is right for section 10 to continue and have undertaken a comprehensive review of how section 10 works and whether any changes should be made. This review necessarily involves complex legal and disciplinary
540
questions and is not yet complete. I would not wish to pre-empt the conclusions which might be drawn but I can assure the House that we shall take account of all the relevant factors before coming to a final decision.
Turning to the specific aspects of Lieutenant-Commander Bird's case, it has already been explained to him in correspondence that the provisions of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 rule out a compensation claim in common law by him against the Department, alleging medical negligence arising out of his cataract operation at Haslar in October 1983. It has been pointed out to him that alternative provision for compensation for service men injured in the course of duty is available through the conditions of the DHSS war pension scheme. Lieutenant-Commander Bird has been advised several times that his best interest would be served by applying to the DHSS for a war disability pension, and he is aware that he does not have to prove negligence by the Ministry of Defence to succeed in his application. It has only to be established that his disability was attributable to, or aggravated by, service with the Armed Forces. However, inquiries with the DHSS have shown that, apparently, no application from Lieutenant-Commander Bird has been received.
Lieutenant-Commander Bird might be reluctant to apply for a war pension because he considers such action might weaken any case against this Department, alleging medical negligence on the part of Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar. I can only repeat that payment of common law compensation by the Ministry of Defence is ruled out by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, and I should say that Lieutenant-Commander Bird is only damaging himself financially by not applying to the DHSS. I must again reiterate that the Ministry of Defence does not, in any case, believe itself to have been negligent and, in a hypothetical absence of section 10, could have been expected to contest any writ for damages. Thus, Lieutenant-Commander Bird might well have received nothing by this route, even if it had been open to him.
In conclusion, the case of Lieutenant-Commander Bird is one of those most unfortunate cases which arise from time to time. Through no fault of any of the medical personnel involved, a complication arose and the desired outcome of the operation was not achieved. I deeply regret this, but I cannot accept any suggestion of negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence and surgeons at Royal Naval hospital Haslar. As I said, Lieutenant-Commander Bird's interests would be best served by applying to the DHSS for a war disability pension, which does not require him to prove negligence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Medical Negligence
  Medical Negligence
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Maintenance
  School Maintenance
  Teachers (Hampshire)
  Teachers (Hampshire)
  Schoolchildren (Hampshire)
  Schoolchildren (Hampshire)
  Mid-day Supervision
  Mid-day Supervision
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  Private Members' Motions
  Private Members' Motions
  Early-day Motions
  Early-day Motions
ENERGY
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Alternative Energy Projects
  Alternative Energy Projects
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  NHS (Services)
  NHS (Services)
  Rates
  Rates
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Virus B
  Virus B
  Mrs. B (Invalid Carriage)
  Mrs. B (Invalid Carriage)
  Conceptions (Statistics)
  Conceptions (Statistics)
  Pensions and Benefits (Payment)
  Pensions and Benefits (Payment)
  South London Blood Transfusion Centre
  South London Blood Transfusion Centre
  Health Authorities (Grading)
  Health Authorities (Grading)
  Orthopaedic Operations (Devon)
  Orthopaedic Operations (Devon)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Social Security Bill (Actuary's Report)
  Social Security Bill (Actuary's Report)
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Venereal Diseases
  Venereal Diseases
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  NHS Employees
  NHS Employees
  Pensions
  Pensions
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Horses, Ponies and Donkeys
  Horses, Ponies and Donkeys
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Reward Payments
  Reward Payments
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Martina Anderson and Ella O'Dwyer
  Martina Anderson and Ella O'Dwyer
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Prisoners (Disclosure of Information)
  Prisoners (Disclosure of Information)
  Passports (False Documentation)
  Passports (False Documentation)
  Stop Orders
  Stop Orders
  Leeds
  Leeds
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Dogfighting
  Dogfighting
  Race Relations
  Race Relations
  Metropolitan Police (Specialist Squads)
  Metropolitan Police (Specialist Squads)
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
SCOTLAND
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  Lothian Health Board
  Lothian Health Board
  Boards of Governors
  Boards of Governors
  Latent Damage
  Latent Damage
  Scottish Health Service
  Scottish Health Service
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Crown Notices
  Crown Notices
  Clothing Industry
  Clothing Industry
PRIME MINISTER
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  EC (Food Exports)
  EC (Food Exports)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Unemployment (Costs)
  Public Sector Employees
  Public Sector Employees
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  BR (Capital Investment)
  BR (Capital Investment)
  Motor Cars (Spare Wheels)
  Motor Cars (Spare Wheels)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Air Travel Reserve Fund
  Roads (Lighting and Signs)
  Roads (Lighting and Signs)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Meetings
  Meetings
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
WALES
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Russian Teaching
  Russian Teaching
  Departmental Staff (Equality)
  Departmental Staff (Equality)
  Task Forces
  Task Forces
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
ENVIRONMENT
  Liverpool Ice Rink
  Liverpool Ice Rink
  Local Authorities (Lost Revenue)
  Local Authorities (Lost Revenue)
  Flats (Freehold)
  Flats (Freehold)
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Hedgerows and Amenity Woodlands
  Hedgerows and Amenity Woodlands
THE ARTS
  Museums and Art Galleries (Funding)
  Museums and Art Galleries (Funding)
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  Liverpool Empire and Philharmonic Hall
  Liverpool Empire and Philharmonic Hall
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Diesel Fuel
  Diesel Fuel
  VAT
  VAT
  Furs (Illegal Importation)
  Furs (Illegal Importation)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Audio and Video Tapes
  Audio and Video Tapes
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Engagements
  Engagements
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motor Vehicles (Incidents)
  Motor Vehicles (Incidents)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Takeovers (Poison Pill)
  Takeovers (Poison Pill)
  Engagements
  Engagements
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Ewes
  Ewes
  Hormones
  Hormones
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Field Drainage Design Service.
  Field Drainage Design Service.
  Official Secrets Act (Food Standards Committees)
  Official Secrets Act (Food Standards Committees)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Farm Workers
  Farm Workers
  Red Meat
  Red Meat
  Outgoers Scheme
  Outgoers Scheme
  Agriculture (Future Prospects)
  Agriculture (Future Prospects)
  Freezer Trawlers
  Freezer Trawlers
  COMA Report
  COMA Report
  Female Agriculture Workers
  Female Agriculture Workers
  River Mersey (Silt)
  River Mersey (Silt)
  Untreated Milk
  Untreated Milk
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  EC (Beef and Wine)
  EC (Beef and Wine)
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmental Conservation
  Environmental Conservation
  Chicken Feed
  Chicken Feed
  Animals (Ritual Slaughter)
  Animals (Ritual Slaughter)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Annandale and Hartfell—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the Peerage Act 1963.

Airports: Security against Terrorists
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether action is being taken to improve security against terrorists at British airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): Yes, my Lords, the security arrangements at British airports are kept under continuous review. Most recently, in January, my department directed Heathrow and Manchester Airport to change the checking-in arrangements for E1 A1 passengers so as to protect them from terrorist attacks.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I do not expect particular measures to be divulged publicly, but are the airport authorities being encouraged to improve the screening of persons starting employment at terminals?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the preface to his question. As the House will realise, I cannot give detailed answers on many points relating to security, but there is going to be a tightening up in the procedure of employment at airports.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I welcome any steps to improve the security at our airports, but will the noble Earl comment on the statement by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester that if machine guns have to be carried at Manchester Ringway Airport he would prefer them to be carried by the armed forces rather than by the police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think it would be right for me to comment, but I shall pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall the Written Answer which appeared in Hansard of the other place on 27th January, in which a very helpful reply was given on the question of airport security? Can he say what results have been achieved in contacting the British Airports Authority regarding the issue of temporary passes and also airside passes?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, we are in regular touch with the airports authority. As the House will probably like to know, there are more than 100,000 staff who need to go airside and therefore it is probably impracticable to vet them all. But there is increased vigilance to make sure that such things as addresses correspond with names.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the pictures of machine gun toting policemen and soldiers, however necessary they may be at the airports, is having a disastrous effect on tourists—an effect which is doubtless highly satisfactory to the terrorists, who are our enemies? Can he find a solution to this dilemma?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure the solution is to rid the world of terrorists.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, with regard to security during the flight of an aircraft, can the noble Earl say whether that could be enhanced if a much more stringent limit were placed upon the amount of baggage passengers are allowed to take upon the aircraft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to baggage, since September airlines have been legally required to reconcile passengers boarding their aircraft with hold baggage with those passengers who have checked in, so there has been a stricter control on baggage as from September last year.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, my question related to the amount of luggage passengers were taking on board aircraft. Would it not enhance security if less baggage were taken on board the aircraft?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in view of the fact that some baggage will have to be taken on board, provided that is carefully screened and can be checked to passengers on board that aircraft I do not think the amount is so relevant when those precautions are taken.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in considering the possibly disastrous effect that armed police may have on tourists at London Airport, will the noble Earl also bear in mind the deterrent effect that it might have on terrorists?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when considering those rather unlikely press stories about the machine gun toting police and soldiers at London Airport having an adverse effect on tourism, will the noble Earl bear in mind the fact that there have been machine gun toting soldiers at Italian airports for the past 15 years and that tourism into Italy is still at an astronomical level?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, we are aware that other airports do have armed police.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, will the noble Earl bear in mind that the reality of the situation is that some of

1271
these terrorists, these lunatic types, do not mind and would love to be shot and killed so long as they can blow up hundreds of others? The submission of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is unrealistic and does not count. What really is essential is absolute and thorough searching, so that anyone who appears to be the slightest risk is not allowed on any aircraft.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said earlier in reply to, I think, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, we are tightening up, and we shall continue to tighten up. It is an extremely difficult area, but we shall be vigilant in all respects.

London Docklands Development: Progress
3.7 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by the London Docklands Development Corporation since its establishment in 1981.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, since July 1981 delay and decay in Docklands have been replaced by enterprise and action. Up to November 1985 more than £1 billion of committed private sector investment and more than 200 new companies had been attracted there; 4,700 new permanent jobs were created and 1,300 existing jobs were preserved; 2,700 private homes were built, of which 42 per cent. were bought by residents of the dockland boroughs; and more than £10 million was spent by the corporation on direct community support.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Will he agree that it is an instance of a very considerable success of the policy? What is the situation as regards the proposed STOL airport for short take-off and landing aircraft? Can he say whether that is going to go ahead and when the first flights may possibly start?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the reception of the Answer which I have just given him. Following a public inquiry into the STOLport proposal the Secretary of State gave outline planning permission on 23rd May last year. The corporation is now considering detailed planning applications and has asked the London borough of Newham for its comments. The private company Mowlem plan to complete the construction of STOLport by mid-1987.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that perhaps the most satisfactory aspect of the redevelopment of the Docklands is what I call the leverage argument—that is to say, for every £1 million of Government money that has been invested, private enterprise has spent up to £14 million of its money. This goes to show that if Government money is spent
1272
in the right way there can be tremendous results. On the housing front, will the noble Lord emphasise and will his honourable friend take note of the fact that the vast majority of houses built by London Docklands have been built for ordinary people at below the price range of £40,000? They have been queueing up all night to buy and this is a tremendous success story.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. My answer is implicit in his question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend happy, as I am sure he is, to confirm the very considerable public service performed by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, in this context, and also by Sir Nigel Broackes?
Lord Elton: Indeed, I am, my Lords, and I am glad of the opportunity of so doing.
Lord Somers: My Lords, may ask what is the position as regards the Docklands railway? Is that still in hand—
Lord Mellish: I can answer that, my Lords.
Lord Elton: I am sorry, my Lords, but an aside from someone sitting near me obliterated the key word of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I was asking what the position is as regards the Docklands railway. Is that still in hand?
Lord Mellish: Yes it is, my Lords.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it seems I am superfluous in these exchanges. The railway at present under construction is being financed by the Government through London Regional Transport and LDDC at a capital cost of £77 million. I think that puts it well in hand.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the railway is going ahead splendidly and is ahead of schedule?
Lord Elton: Thank you for the ride, my Lords.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that London is not the only place with decaying docklands. We have many decaying docklands on Tyneside and would welcome more Government resources there.
Lord Elton: My Lords, although the LDDC was started as an experiment, there is, I agree absolutely, a lot we can learn from it.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us where the London Docklands Light Railway is to end? Is it to be at the Minories or the Bank? Will my noble friend also comment on the proposed Canary Wharf development scheme?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first question I would not like to tell the noble Viscount where it is to end because I am not certain but I will write to him. As to the Canary Wharf scheme, this is an imaginative scheme using the enterprise zone system which makes the planning system very much easier. It is intended that, if it goes ahead, it will create a very large number of extra jobs. I do not think I can add to what I have said.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reference to the Canary Wharf scheme. However, it has been reported that the Corporation of the City of London has opposed the railway link between Canary Wharf and Bank tube station, which of course is vital to the scheme. Can the noble Lord say what other petition, if any, has been received, as I understand that the closing date is today, and whether the Government think the issue between the Corporation of the City of London and the developers can be resolved?
Finally, as regards the increased employment it is calculated that 40,000 jobs may well be created. Can the Minister tell us whether a large number of these jobs will be for unskilled and semi-skilled labour, which would, of course, go a great way towards relieving the high unemployment in that area?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the number of jobs expected to be provided by the scheme is 45,000 of which 36,000 will, it is anticipated, be new jobs. I am not clear as to the amount of unskilled labour that is involved in banking but I would not have thought it was a very high component part of the banking profession. The project is subject to planning permission under the EZ scheme, as I said, and the Secretary of State has no powers to call it in for his own decision. He has said that it would not be right for him to intervene since the EZ registration exists to enable regeneration to take place and should not be overridden because of the size of a particular scheme. The noble Lord's interest extends, I think, beyond the area of the EZ and my right honourable friend will, of course, be looking at any matters properly put to him which fall outside that area.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, are the Government prepared to carry out an inquiry to see what adverse effects the development of the Canary site may have on the rest of the South-East?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I have already replied concerning the planning processes and what the noble Lord asks about is part of those.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does it involve that kind of thing?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord asks whether the matter is under control I can say that it is under the control of the enterprise zone system.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I asked whether the Government would be prepared to carry out an inquiry into the possible adverse effects the development of this site would have even on some parts of the South-East.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we do not think there will be an adverse effect on the South-East region arising from the development of Canary Wharf. We think the effects will be beneficial.

Oil Prices and Revenue
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annualised effect on their revenue of a fall of 1 dollar per barrel in the price of Brent crude oil, if the sterling/dollar exchange rate remains constant.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, about £500 million assuming that the price of all North Sea oil deliveries falls by a sustained 1 dollar per barrel.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that response. In view of the substantial decline in oil prices since the Autumn Statement, and hence the projected shortfall of revenue in both this financial year and, more importantly, the next, will the noble Lord kindly tell us whether the Government have any policy towards the oil price, and, if so, what it is; and whether they have any corresponding policy towards the exchange rate, and, if so, what that is?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, those supplementary questions go very far of the Question on the Order Paper. What I can say is that in fact the recent price changes had little effect on 1985–86 receipts, since the 1985–86 revenues were largely determined by prices for oil deliveries up to the end of 1985. Lower oil prices for 1986 will of course reduce Government revenues from United Kingdom oil and gas production in 1986–87. However, consumers and industry will benefit from lower oil prices. Lower prices will permit higher world trade and output with lower inflation, and that must be good for Europe, the United Kingdom and for jobs.

Oil and Other Fuel Prices
3.17 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the impact of falling oil prices on coal and gas prices.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, it is too soon at this juncture to be clear whether recent lower trends of oil prices will persist or how sterling oil prices will react. Continuing low oil prices would, of course, exert downward market pressure on the prices of competing fuels such as coal and gas in certain markets, but detailed

1275
decisions on coal and gas prices in the United Kingdom are for the boards concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask whether the noble Lord does not believe that in fact we are now on a long-term decline in oil prices? May I ask also whether he recalls the Statement to the House of Commons by the right honourable David Howell on 16th January 1980 when he announced that domestic gas prices would be increased by 10 per cent. per annum over and above the rate of inflation over three years on the basis that the policy of the British Gas Corporation, endorsed by the Government, was to sell gas at a price broadly related to that of the competing oil product? Further, since in 1980 the price of oil was between 35 and 40 dollars a barrel but is now only 16 to 17 dollars a barrel, should not the price of gas be reduced by 33 per cent? Similarly, should not the price of coal be cut to keep it competitive with oil for the generation of electricity and other steam-raising activities?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in my initial reply to the noble Lord I said that at this juncture it was too soon to be clear whether recent lower trends in oil prices will persist or how sterling oil prices will react. We can go no further than that. This may not be a situation which will last for a very long time. As we have experienced in the past, the price of oil can rise just as quickly as it can fall.
The effect on gas prices will depend on such factors as how far the oil companies pass on the lower crude prices in their prices for heavy fuel oil and gas oil, and secondly, the commercial decisions made by the British Gas Corporation. I have no wish to speculate about hypothetical outcomes.
With regard to coal, the same answer applies, but of course the ultimate price of coal will depend on the extent to which the delivered prices of heavy fuel oil and gas oil fall in sympathy, together with the commercial perceptions of the National Coal Board and its largest customers. All those things will come into the equation.
Lord Morris: My Lords, to back up the point that my noble friend has just made, may I ask whether he is aware that even today, according to the papers, there has been a modest surge in oil prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I take the point which my noble friend makes and it does re-emphasise what I have said. As we have found in years gone by, I am afraid, oil prices can rise as quickly as they can fall.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in today's late press it is said that oil may well drop to 10 dollars a barrel? What is remarkable is that in fact the public, who are entitled to be worried and unhappy about the economic problems of this country, receive no advantages at all. It cannot be justifiable that oil and gas prices should remain constant. To speak on behalf of the motorist, it is really a scandal that the moment oil prices rise the prices at the pump also rise
1276
automatically, but when oil prices go down petrol at the pump does not. Why is this?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is not quite correct in what he says. On many occasions in recent years the oil companies have taken a collective decision that prices would rise but those prices did not stabilise and in a reasonably short time there was a price war which resulted in prices coming down again. So far as the present situation goes, my information is that there has been a drop in the price of petrol at the pumps; and if oil were to drop to 10 dollars a barrel I do not think there is any doubt but that we should see a very substantial drop at the pumps.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the position concerning oil for fuel for heating in the home? At the moment that is very much more expensive as a means of heating than gas or coal, yet time was when it was much cheaper. When can those people who are now finding they have an installation which is very costly to run expect to see some improvement in their oil prices? Can the Government do anything to encourage the companies to bring down prices to the consumers?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I take the point the noble Baroness has made. I think what will happen if the oil prices continue to remain low is that we shall see this reflected in the price charged for the fuel oil to which my noble friend refers, just as in the price at the pumps.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in support of his submission that when oil prices drop so also do gas prices, can the noble Lord give us one example to substantiate this claim?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has not been following closely what I said. I said nothing of the sort. I said that the price of gas would be a matter for the British Gas Corporation and a lot would depend on whether the drop in oil prices was reflected and passed on to the main suppliers, of whom the gas corporation would be one.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord reply briefly to this? I think he just did not get the point I was making, which was that when oil prices went up to 40 dollars a barrel the Government forced up the price of gas; I want to know whether the Government will force down the price of gas since oil prices have halved?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I really must suggest to the noble Lord that he is not being completely fair. He referred to the statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 16th January 1980. Now 1980 followed very closely upon 1979, and of course until June 1979 the party of which he is a member had been in office for some considerable time. My right honourable friend found it necessary to make his statement as to how the price of gas was to be treated because our predecessors had not faced up to the problem. Indeed,

1277
the result was very successful. The result of this may well be that the British Gas Corporation itself will take a commercial decision on the matter if the prices remain at a low level, but that must be for the gas corporation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Gowrie made exactly the same point, not in 1980 but 18 months later, thereby reiterating the Government's right and indeed their intention to force up prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the policy which was followed was followed for a period of three years in order to re-establish the position whch had been lost during the time in which the party of the noble Lord was in power and the situation was not faced up to.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall—and it is a point that consumers remember—that during the lifetime of this Government, which is more recent than the one to which he referred, they have forced up the prices of water, gas and electricity, when not one of the chairmen of those industries thought it was necessary?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, on a previous occasion I think I have paid tribute to the work of the noble Baroness and her concern for the consumer; but sometimes, when dealing with a situation which has got very much out of hand, it is necessary to take steps which are unpopular at the time in order to achieve the proper results in the longer term.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, having regard to the prepenultimate answer which the noble Lord gave, is he assuring us that the gas board will have recourse only to commercial considerations in any prices which it charges between now and the time of privatisation?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords, I am not giving the noble Lord any such assurance. I made it absolutely clear that this must be a matter for the British Gas Corporation, and if he has any doubt about that I suggest he writes to the chairman of that corporation.

Business
3.29 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on British Leyland.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Shops Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Gaming (Amendment) Bill and the Importation of Live Fish of the Salmon Family Order 1986 will be taken.

Inner Cities: Government Assistance
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on Government help to people living in inner city areas.
We are all only too well aware that people who live in many inner areas of our cities suffer from a wide range of long-standing problems. The Government have increased the amount of central government money spent on employment and training programmes, urban regeneration, and industrial assistance in these areas. We have taken a number of measures including setting up last year city action teams to co-ordinate and target government effort in the seven inner city partnership areas.
In order to complement and build on this existing work we have now decided to try out a new approach to the task by intensifying and bringing together the efforts of government departments, local government, the private sector and the local community in eight small inner city areas.
This initiative is a further step to improve the targeting and enhance the benefit to local people of the money channelled through existing central government programmes. They include the employment and training programmes of the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Trade and Industry's programme of regional and industrial assistance, the Department of the Environment's urban programmes, and the Home Office programmes of black business support and grants to support staffing of services to ethnic minority populations.
Within the chosen areas we shall try out new approaches, particularly on training provision, and employment or self-employment opportunities for local residents. This will be tackled through projects and activities of wider but direct benefit to the residents of the areas concerned and their environment. We shall seek to stimulate enterprise and provide a stronger base for the local economy. We shall give special attention to the problems of young people from ethnic minorities where they are particularly disadvantaged.
To test our approach we have selected eight areas which are diverse in their character but whose residents all share problems of deprivation and lack of opportunities. They are not necessarily the eight most deprived areas in our cities, but the people who live in them need more employment opportunities, support for their local business economy and a better physical environment. We shall introduce our new initiatives in Notting Hill and North Peckham in London, the Chapeltown area of Leeds, North Central Middlesbrough, the Highfields area of Leicester, Moss Side in Manchester, St. Paul's in Bristol and Handsworth in Birmingham.
We shall be establishing small task forces in each of these areas. They will work with the local authorities, and local community and voluntary organisations. They will quickly seek to attract private sector participation.

1279
We shall seek early discussions with the local authorities concerned about the details of this initiative. We hope to persuade the local authorities to join with us and use their own programmes alongside our own in a concentrated and targeted effort to improve work prospects and the quality of life in these areas.
Large sums are already available to the chosen areas under existing Government programmes. But in order to help the initiative get off the ground the Government will be supplementing the sums with some £8 million of additional money of which £3 million will be found from within my department's existing provision and £5 million will be found from the reserve.
The initiative will be led by a team of Ministers drawn from the Departments of Employment, Education and Science, Trade and Industry, Environment and the Home Office. I will have overall responsibility for the co-ordination of this initiative. My right honourable friend the Paymaster General shall have responsibility for its day-to-day management and supervision with the support of a small central unit. This inner cities initiative will complement and not replace existing Government programmes.
I hope the House will welcome a bold experiment in concentrating all available efforts and resources in a joint way on the improvement of job expectations and the quality of life of the residents of these small inner-city areas.
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making his Statement this afternoon. However, the measures contained in it do not in any way meet the urgent need to tackle the desperate and growing problem of unemployment, particularly in respect of those who have been out of work for over a year. It is surprising that the response to last month's shocking unemployment figures should be that Statement and the modest measures proposed. I do not think that the measures are bold; they are very modest indeed.
Naturally, we welcome any proposals, however modest, that will assist in overcoming mass unemployment, particularly in the inner cities. But does the noble Lord believe that so small a sum as £8 million will have much effect? Can he say how many additional jobs are likely to be created by the initiative? Can he relate that £8 million to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds to the urban aid programme as a result of Government cuts, and also to the £1,487 million which has been lost in rate support grant by the areas mentioned since 1979? In relation to those figures £8 million is a flea bite.
The Statement talks of providing a better physical environment. What does that mean? What kind of better physical environment is envisaged? Are more houses to be built in those areas; if so, who is to provide them? Will it be the local authorities, the private sector or a partnership among the local
1280
authorities, the housing associations and the private sector?
Can the noble Lord also tell us why the areas mentioned have been chosen? Does that mean that the Government now accept that there is a connection between unemployment and inner-city riots? Bearing in mind his reference to the need particularly to assist black people, what is now the Government's view on contract compliance? What discussions have taken place with the interested parties—the local authorities, the voluntary organisations and the private sector, all of whom will be important if the initiative is to succeed? The Statement refers to city action schemes, but since they were formed, we have heard little about them. What success have they had so far?
I do not want to be entirely critical. As I said, we welcome the proposals, modest though they are. I am glad to find from the Statement that the Government have apparently been converted to the need for planning and co-ordination if we are to solve the problems of the inner cities. That is something that the Labour Party has been urging on the Government for a long time. It is pleasing that at least in that respect they are now adopting the advice that the Opposition have been giving them over a long period.
Finally, may I ask whether we can expect further Statements on measures to deal with mass unemployment, particularly in response to the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Employment which reported on special employment measures and the long-term unemployed? It recommended that the Government should spend £3,300 million on additional employment measures. Following this modest Statement, will we be getting a bold Statement, perhaps in line with the Select Committee recommendations, in a short time?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Minister for making the Statement in your Lordships' House. It is gratifying to have the opportunity on these occasions to get at the Minister with direct responsibility. We should like to see recognition of the need for a change in the Government's macro-economic policy. We have long been urging that what is required is carefully targeted expenditure on infrastructure and particularly on housing and housing repairs. In the areas with which the Statement deals, housing and housing repair developments would be particularly welcome and would make a substantial contribution both to the environment and to job opportunities. Having said that, one recognises that this is a new initiative, modest but nonetheless useful.
All of us who have been connected in any way with the many local experiments to try to bring about improvements in those areas—and there has been a great deal of local initiative of one kind or another—are aware that there is confusion in many parts because people do not know to which Government departments to go, as there has been a considerable amount of overlapping. For the organisations that are working at grass-roots level the bureaucracy of trying to get at the available resources has hindered progress. If the Statement means that the

1281
red tape will be cut and the relationships among departments will be co-ordinated by the Secretary of State's unit in such a way that people locally do not have to do the work themselves but can go direct to one place to get the information and support that they need, that would be a very great help indeed and a development which we should very much welcome.
In that connection, I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain this point a little more. The Statement says that it is hoped that local government programmes will run alongside those of the unit. Is the unit to do actual work or is it to co-ordinate, to assist and to cut red tape? It would be unfortunate if there were another set of initiatives being taken from the centre, running in parallel. I think that it is paragraph 8, but without my spectacles I cannot read it properly. Will the noble Lord just explain what the term "alongside" means?
I turn now to more detailed points. Will the premium payments for specially difficult groups under both YTS and the community programmes be extended in those areas? As the Secretary of State will realise, there is a great deal of anxiety in voluntary bodies working in these areas and throughout the country that the premium payments for difficult-to-employ people are not going to be sufficient. The voluntary bodies that have been dealing with schemes for difficult-to-place people will in some cases have to give up their efforts because they believe that the money forthcoming will not be sufficient. Is the Secretary of State saying that in these areas these special payments and the support for the voluntary bodies' working will be at least as much as it has been in the past and perhaps enhanced, rather than, as the voluntary bodies fear, reduced?
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State whether this also means that, when there is this emphasis on training and where the community programme is being carried out under the MSC, the opportunity to use the community programme for training on a much more extensive scale than has been possible up to now is part of what is planned for the aid areas. Some of us believe that the community programme, rightly handled, could be an extremely useful instrument for training and replacing in employment the long term unemployed, but that the present provisions in the community programme do not make this practicable in a great many areas. I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any thought of experimenting with contract compliance, with the emphasis being laid on the needs of the ethnic minorities.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The noble Lord said, I believe, that he was not being particularly critical. If that was not being particularly critical, I should not like to be in the House when he is being critical. May I say at the outset that this is not in any way a response to the unemployment figures, last month's or at any time. The problem of unemployment is at the forefront of the Government's mind. This is a response to conditions that have been perceived for many years in the inner cities. The noble Lord opposite makes the mistake, as many who sit on the Opposition Benches do, of confusing quantity with quality. It is not a matter of the amount of money that
1282
we have spent. Everyone in your Lordships' House should know how much we have spent over the past decade or two on the inner cities. Nor is it money spent to improve the physical environment. All too often, we seem to have spent money to improve the physical environment without it having any particular effect on the inhabitants within that improved environment. This is a dedicated attempt by government departments working together to restore to the inner city that which made the inner city great in the beginning, which was a sense of enterprise, of business and of work. It is no good trying to improve the environment without actually bringing to those who live within that improved environment a sense of belonging to our society, playing their part in our world and having pride in working for themselves and working for others. That is the purpose of this initiative.
Indeed, it is not just about the £8 million. In these small areas, in which some 300,000 souls live, the Government spend over £70 million on a variety of different programmes. It is a way of getting together. I am afraid that I cannot rise to the bait this afternoon of discussing or making an immediate response to the Select Commitee of another place about discussions or solutions for dealing with long term unemployment save to say that the net additional cost, I believe, was some £3.3 billion, and the gross cost some £5.5 billion. I suspect that those of us who are concerned with the steady growth in the community programme, of the problems that we see in finding the projects to increase it by a modest 10,000 places a month—modest in its terms but in fact a very real increase of 10,000 a month—were slightly appalled at the thought of having to find 750,000 places or some other figure. I have no doubt however that we shall be able to come back with a considered response to that in due course.
3.45 p.m.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is part right and part wrong—part wrong, I regret to say, because it is not the infrastructure that these particular areas are vitally concerned with. Of course, the infrastructure is important. It does not do the inhabitants of these areas much good to see re-enveloping schemes carried out, in which outside contractors are brought in, the work is done and the outside contractors go away while the inhabitants stand by and watch. What I hope we can see in this is a way in which we can put together programmes and let the inhabitants of the areas share in the work being done, maybe even carry it out, and, maybe—yes, my Lords, cut through the red tape—look at some of the rules and perhaps experiment to see whether we can adapt the community programme not so much for training alone but for ways in which we can start people off in their own jobs, and also perhaps look at the community benefit rules and at premium places within YTS, and do so in areas where there are particular problems.
This is not a programme that is directed solely at ethnic minorities. One area at least has very few of those who come within the description of ethnic minority communities. This is a programme that looks towards better co-ordination among all government departments in respect of a problem that

1283
is real and longstanding—a problem that other government programmes, instituted by those who sit on all sides of the House, have not succeeded in making great progress in tackling.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer two simple questions? In the first place, he says in his Statement that these new initiatives are to consolidate already existing ventures. Can he say to what extent his already existing ventures in the inner cities have reduced unemployment in those areas since they were begun? Secondly, we have been told on this side of the House consistently by a whole series of Ministers from the Government Front Bench that this Government do not believe that they can create jobs. Has he changed his mind? Is he telling the House this afternoon that these new ventures which the Government have cobbled together are, or are not, going to create any new jobs and reduce unemployment within the inner city areas?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I normally fear simple questions because they often prove hard to answer—but not on this occasion. If Government programmes had created jobs in the inner cities, I suspect that we would not have the need for this experiment. The difficulty that we have—it is one faced by all governments—is that many programmes seem by their very nature to avoid the very worst areas of deprivation in our cities. What these programmes are doing is to seek out and confine themselves to these areas. That is what I hope we shall learn from a series of experiments and a series of models. The jobs that Government can directly create are jobs in the Inland Revenue and the VAT offices—not the sort of jobs that people normally think of as being job creation. What the Government can do is to create a climate in which jobs can grow. As we have seen, we are creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. What we now want to do is to create jobs in these particular inner city areas and to see conditions in which these jobs can grow. These are areas in which many young people have not benefited from 11 years of compulsory education. Far from it! They are areas in which many have not even come into the youth training scheme but have stayed outside the simple rules of society. These are the people we want to reach. I am sure that all in your Lordships' House will wish the experiment success if only for the sake of the inhabitants of these areas.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I have noted that among the departments to be involved in this initiative and represented by Ministers, there is no mention of the DHSS. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are many existing locally-based and community-based schemes sponsored by and run by the local social services, which include elements of training—training for employment and other forms of training, particularly for young people. Can he explain why the DHSS is not to be involved and represented by Ministers in this initiative?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, in these particular areas it was thought appropriate that we start with co-ordinating government departments,
1284
which had already begun. They are my own department, Education and Science, Trade and Industry, the Environment, and the Home Office. I have no doubt at all that if any other government departments are involved co-operation will not only be sought but be given.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, I should have thought there would be a warm welcome for improving the physical environment of the people living in Notting Hill and north Peckham. But there are other vast areas of London where the housing conditions are deteriorating rapidly because the houses there were all built about 120 years ago. From my own experience in dealing with these matters I should have thought a sum of £8 million would be just a drop in the ocean towards solving the problem which exists in the inner areas of London.
Can my noble friend say whether the measures which he has just announced are in addition to those which were previously announced by the Department of the Environment? If they are not, I fear that this programme will have very little effect on those areas beyond Notting Hill and north Peckham—and vast areas are involved. It is not just the ethnic minority who are living in bad housing conditions because of the deteriorating housing stock; it is also the indigenous Londoners who have lived here for generations who I think ought to be looked after as well.
What is needed here is a central organisation. I hope that this matter is not being dealt which piecemeal. Unless we can tackle it over the whole area by a central organisation—and I have to comment that the central organisation in London is going—I cannot see that the measures just announced will be anywhere near enough to tackle this enormous problem.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plummer. May I say that if a central organisation was the answer—Londoners having had a central organisation for these many decades—surely there would not now be so many areas of central London to which he draws attention in need of urgent rebuilding. That is neither the answer nor the way. I thought I had made clear that within these areas the Government already contribute, through the programmes, the Manpower Services Commission, the Home Office and the Department of Environment, over £70 million, to which we are adding another £8 million merely for the purpose of co-ordinating and getting special schemes going. It is not the shortage of money that is the problem; it is the quality of that spend, not the quantity.
In small, particular areas—which are not confined to those with large ethnic minorities because there are some which do not really have any ethnic minority populations at all—we are endeavouring to demonstrate that it is possible to spend Government moneys better by co-ordinating Government spend with local authority spend and private sector spend. I hope that we shall learn from all of this how to begin to make a quick and permanent cure to the problems of living in the inner urban areas.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does the Minister recognise in the generally dismal record of recent years on inner cities that there has been one small but encouraging development; namely, the increase in the number of small co-operative businesses? I have in mind housing co-operative societies and small producer co-operatives in the service sector which have grown in number from some 200 five years ago to 1,000 now, employing in new jobs some 10,000 members of these co-operative societies in a distinct form of self-employment.
Will the Minister ensure that of the small funds which he has announced some part will go to the encouragement of this kind of small enterprise? If he agrees with that, will the Minister consider channelling those funds through local co-operative development agencies where they happen to coincide with the areas mentioned in his Statement?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. I would willingly pay testament to the worth of the cooperative movement itself and to co-operatives in getting people to band together to form small businesses. However, these are not small amounts of money. We are talking about some £70 million or more, to which we have added a further £8 million, in areas in which we have some 300,000 people living. The programmes can be co-ordinated better, but they will, I hope, not result in people simply having employment for as long as the tap is turned on but in the end in businesses in which people will carry on when Government funds have come to an end. Indeed, that is the only way we can restore the inner city. Among the varieties of schemes which we shall set up, with the assistance of the private sector, local authorities and the world of education, I hope that there will be many co-operatives and that young people will learn the advantages of working together.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, will the Secretary of State concede that deprivation is not confined to inner cities but is sometimes at its worst in housing estates which are at some distance from those inner cities?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that deprivation is often a state of mind as much as anything else. Much of our planning and much of the state of poor living conditions exist in areas far from the inner cities, but in areas of large housing estates. We in this country have a great deal to learn about our living conditions. We have, I believe, 27 per cent. of our housing owned by local authorities compared with 5 per cent. in the United States, and 3 per cent. in Germany. I am not sure that that size has contributed towards the removal of deprivation in our society.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I welcome this initiative, perhaps because it is a belated although modest attempt to put into effect a recommendation made in a certain report which was published as recently as 1981. I ask one question of the noble Lord. Will this centrally co-ordinated effort, of which I strongly approve, pay particular attention not only to the direction of funds—which, whether they are modest or large, is a very important feature of any effort if it is to
1286
be successful—but to communication with the people who live in the inner cities?
There is the age gap of the young people who at the moment are very alienated. Will any attempt be made to discover what they want and what are their aspirations? In allocating the housing effort, will any effort be made to discover the design of houses that they want? In matters of education, will any effort be made to discover what are the minorities' feelings about our educational system? I suggest that unless this is done this effort, like so many other well-intentioned efforts, will fail.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for his comments. I am glad to give him the assurances he seeks. The essential difference between this, and I suspect other, initiatives that have taken place is that, while there will be central co-ordination, it will be locally directed; while it is concerned with programmes, it is concerned much more with people. What I should like to see above all else in these programmes is a sense of ownership given to the local communities. We shall endeavour to bring community leaders and the inhabitants into the programmes. We shall pay great attention to all the lawful aspirations of the inhabitants so far as we can. Indeed, that is the only way, so far as I can see, that this programme will succeed.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, may I ask whether there are many schemes such as that of the YES organisation, which I think was started by Mr. Angus Ogilvy? This organisation is no charge on the Government and I believe is largely subscribed to by private people or firms. It is particularly for young people. I also believe that this has been expanded to Northern Ireland.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. I hope to be assiduous in going out to friends and acquaintances—I do not expect to have too many friends after this—in the private sector to ask them to contribute towards programmes such as YES and others which exist through business in the community, and which will, I hope, play a real role in helping to bring a sense of business enterprise and a sense of achievement to those who live in these areas.

Sex Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision instead of Section 6(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to amend Section 77 of that Act; to provide for the removal of certain restrictions applying to the working hours and other working conditions of women; and to repeal the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before we proceed I should like to ask whether page 8 of the Marshalled List is correct and, if it is not correct, how it should be dealt with. The reference to "After Clause 1" at the top of the page must be wrong because it is dealing with the continuation of a clause to be inserted after Clause 2. However, there then follows Amendment No. 13, which I read as being after Clause 2. I do not know whether any of the noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment are present. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was here a moment ago. Amendment No. 14 reads as if it ought to come after Clause 1. Amendment No. 15 reads as if it ought to come after Clause 2. There must be something wrong on this page, and I should be grateful if I could be told how it can be most conveniently dealt with.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there is one mistake, and that occurs at the top of page 8, where it says, "After Clause 1". It certainly should read, "After Clause 2". As regards Amendment No. 14, which in the view of the noble and learned Lord should come after Clause 1, and Amendment No. 15, which in his view ought to come after Clause 2, I cannot give an answer immediately, but I shall endeavour to let the noble and learned Lord know shortly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entitled to express an opinion on that matter as he is one of the signatories to Amendment No. 14.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seems to take great delight in putting me in a position of intense embarrassment. May I say that he has succeeded!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to raise a point on the order of the amendments. Surely there is a mistake. Amendment No. 2, according to the original list, was to appear before Clause 1. In the present Marshalled List it appears after Clause 1. It is inconsistent and lies in conflict with Clause 1, and, therefore, surely it should be taken before Clause 1, because otherwise it will not be possible to consider the matter logically.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his observations. Indeed, he was kind
1288
enough to give me an indication that he wished to raise the matter. I have looked into it, and I am assured by those who are responsible for marshalling the amendments that the matter has been investigated and the Marshalled List is in fact perfectly correct. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend. I could obtain more information on the matter if necessary, but I believe it to be in order.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Clause 1 [Removal of restrictions on opening hours and Sunday trading]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("For an experimental period of three years")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment No. 1 is to allow the Bill for deregulating trading on Sundays to go ahead as suggested in the Bill, but only for an initial period of three years. After that period the matter should be brought back to Parliament for Parliament to consider, in the light of the experimental period of three years of operation, whether or not there are any matters which in the public interest require some changes. There has been a recent precedent for such a course—
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Would I be right in thinking that, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, he is also speaking to Amendment Nos. 9 and 16 as well? It would be helpful to know whether or not that is so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 16, as they contain the same words.
Amendment No. 9: Clause 2, page 1, line 9, at beginning insert ("For an experimental period of three years")
Amendment No. 16: Clause 3, page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("For an experimental period of three years")
As I was saying, there is a recent precedent for this kind of procedure and that occurred in the Bill, which is now an Act, for the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Seven years ago there was great controversy as to whether or not the wearing of seat belts should be made compulsory. The Bill was brought in, and it was agreed that seat belts should be made compulsory for an experimental period of three years, after which time the matter would be brought back to Parliament. As your Lordships know, that happened a few weeks ago, when the Act was continued after a very interesting and helpful debate. Similarly, at present there is no doubt that there is a cleavage of opinion as to whether it is right to have total de-regulation of trading on Sundays.
I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of the apprehensions which were so cogently put to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with all their great experience in trade union and industrial relations matters. We have also heard splendid speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, based on his great experience in local

1289
government. Your Lordships may remember, too, the very moving speech of my noble friend Lady Seear about the dangers which she thought might arise in respect of women workers, whether part-time of full-time. As she pointed out, they could be exploited by some employers if total deregulation without some safeguards were introduced at the present time. All along the Government's answer to all the matters raised has been that times have changed; the regulations of the Shops Acts are not required; there is now a better approach to industrial relations and a better approach by employers to their employees, and therefore the difficulties which we on this side of the House envisage will not arise.
In spite of those assurances which have been given by the Government, it appears that they do not trust their followers because they have introduced a compulsory three-line whip in order to enforce these matters. It seems to me that a caring Government, in the light of the speeches which have been made in this House, would welcome at least the general theme basic to my amendments, that deregulation should be continued for an initial period of three years and that the matter should then be brought back to Parliament for reconsideration in the public interest. I hope that the Government will feel able to make this concession in the light of all the conflicting evidence before the House. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is a very important amendment which I believe the House should consider very seriously indeed. The Report stage provides all Members of your Lordships' House with the opportunity to reflect, and I very much hope that the Government are also in a reflective mood.
Together with other Members of this House, at the Committee stage I brought forward an amendment, the purpose of which was to let the Government have their Bill, amended or unamended, but that at the end of 12 months the Home Secretary should come to Parliament and report on the consequences of the Bill and the outcome of it in practice. One of the criticisms of that procedure was that one year was too short, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, spoke briefly on this matter. It was said that it would be difficult immediately the Bill became an Act for people to be faced with the prospect of not merely radical changes taking place on day one, but, after one or two years, in the light of procedure, perhaps even more radical alternatives.
Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has brought forward the same principle but in another way. The Government and their supporters, who are faithful in their attendance and support, apparently have no shadow of doubt that every line of the Bill and its meaning will turn out all right. They are not even prepared to entertain the possibility of doubt. The Bill seeks wholly to deregulate the control of shopping on a Sunday. Up to this stage of the Bill the Government have refused to countenance any possibility not only that they are wrong but that there are no other ways of achieving substantially that which they say they want.
I have taken careful note of what Home Office Ministers have said in another place. Of course the
1290
Minister in this House, who will be in touch with them, is very well aware of what was said. In another place, in response to a question as to what kind of representations had been made on the purpose of the Bill, Mr. David Waddington said only last week that the Home Office had received 32 letters in support of the Bill and 20,763 against. I have checked the figures and found them to be correct. That is the situation. For every one letter in favour of the Bill, 650 are against.
On an earlier occasion, when the figures were not as drastic as that, I heard the Minister say that people who are in favour of something are very rarely moved to write, but that those who are opposed to it will write very strongly. The Government must be very confident indeed that a ratio of 650:1 does not represent at least a caveat, a voice, telling them to think very carefully.
Of course, there are those who have urged others outside to write letters. As politicians—and we are all politicians—we know that it is one thing for people to put their names to a petition and to attend meetings, but it is quite another for people to be moved to spend money and time in writing letters. Around the House at different times Members have quoted this or that survey; we are all in the business of selectively quoting the statistics that suit us. I should like the Minister to explain how he intends to get round the sincerity of the 32 and the sincerity of the 20,000. I am not prepared to say that one group is less sincere than the other. They have all been moved to write to the Minister—and I do not know who they are—stating their views.
4.15 p.m.
It is against that background and also against the background of the Synod, which met this week, that we are considering this matter. The Synod has almost by as large a majority said that it does not like the Bill in its present form. The Minister cannot leave this debate without tackling head-on why the Government persist in believing that what they are doing has somehow been endorsed. Certainly it has not been endorsed by an election, a manifesto or by overwhelming votes of one kind or another.
What are we inviting the House to do? We are inviting the House to accept the Bill, amend or unamended. I suspect, that, in the light of discussion, it will be amended only in so far as the Minister wants it amended. We are saying that, against a background of passionate opposition, after three years we should examine how it has worked in practice.
At the earlier stage I suggested that we should look at the Bill after 12 months' operation. When speaking to that particular amendment I said that a number of groups ought to be canvassed during and certainly at the end of the experimental period, and they were listed. We should bear in mind the impact on the exercise of the right to worship, the impact on employment, wages, costs, the interests of the consumer, crime, transport and the effect on the environment.
More than once it has been said that once a law is passed, we cannot go back on it—that it is all or nothing. In this context I cannot believe that we are

1291
talking simply of another piece of legislation. I believe that we are talking about something which when carried into effect, either wholly or partially, will have a major impact not just on the nature of Sunday but on the character of British life. Unless we are prepared to look again at how the Act is working, that could be the case.
In his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has introduced a device whereby, at the end of a three-year period, we look at the experiment. In spite of all my preconceived prejudices and bias that this Bill will be a disaster, I am prepared to accept the Minister's view that it will provide employment, that it will stimulate industry, that neighbourhoods will not be disturbed, that trade will flourish and that the consumer will have a better choice. At the end of three years I am prepared to look at the evidence, and if the evidence cannot be denied, I am prepared to say that I was wrong. Is the Minister not prepared to provide a device which will allow Parliament to look at the impact of what I believe is a major social revolution contained in this Bill? Is he not prepared to give the people of this country an opportunity so to do?
I very much hope that the Minister will not regard this as a wrecking amendment but rather as an amendment designed ever so modestly to hold out the prospect that, if the House and the Minister are wrong, the Minister will have the opportunity to think again, without being embarrassed and without having to go through the procedures of enabling, amending and piecemeal legislation. We must look at everything and not have preconceived ideas as to whether we are right or wrong. We are simply saying that if this is what the House wants, let us have it, but at the end of three years let us look at how it has worked in practice. I very much hope that the Minister will be conciliatory in his remarks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, subject to anything he may say by way of correction, would have the effect that on the expiry of three years from Royal Assent of the Bill it would lapse. There would be no provision, as I understand it, for continuation by statutory order. It would simply lapse, and the Government of the day would at that time have either to let it lapse and revert to the present position or alternatively to introduce a completely new Bill. For that reason, if I am right about that—and the noble Lord is always most willing to be helpful in correcting one if one gets something wrong—the comparison with the seatbelts Act is misleading because that had provision for its continuance if Parliament so approved. This has none.
There is also a difference of principle. The seatbelts Bill imposed a compulsion; this Bill removes restrictions and rather different factors apply. The noble Lord who has just spoken said that those of us on this side of the House who support the Bill believed, as I do, that its coming into force would help employment and help investment. What is going to be the effect if it is, on the face if it, solely a temporary measure expiring at the end of three years with no guarantee of continuance, or even a legislative facility
1292
for continuance? Very few people, are going to make investment over a short period like that.
Equally employers would hesitate to take on extra staff over so short a period as that, particularly bearing in mind the effects today of employment protection legislation. If one were to take on additional employees for Sunday work, after two years, and within the three-year period, one could not dismiss them without incurring heavy expenditure on redundancy.
It seems to me that the adoption of this proposal would not produce the kind of experiment that the noble Lord opposite has referred to, but would in some considerable measure frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill. It would not be a fair demonstration of what the effect of the Bill will be for those two vital reasons: the restriction, the discouragement, of investment, and the discouragement of taking on employees. This amendment would blur the whole issue. When the Bill came into force we should not get a clear demonstration of its effect; we should have only a rather uncertain and hesitating reaction, while those concerned awaited the outcome of the three years.
The noble Lord said that Parliament should have the opportunity to review the working of the Act. I wholly agree. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent Parliament keeping the closest possible eye on the Bill. Ministers would have to answer questions as to its effect, and it would be open to Parliament to introduce legislation to repeal it if it seemed to be a disaster.
There really does not seem to be anything in this amendment except the inherent disadvantage of seeing to it that the Bill comes into effect in the worst possible circumstances, and without the possibility of its demonstrating its clear value and clear benefit as some of us see it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject it.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment in the hope that if Parliament passes this measure there is at least an opportunity to stop its evil in three years' time. There are, alas, many people in Britain now who no longer attend any form of worship in churches or chapels on Sunday, or have no form of belief whatever. But I maintain that they still need a quiet day in the week which is different from their working days, when they can have the opportunity to relax, reflect, enjoy peace, and spend the day with their family
Having worked in Marxist states where attempts are still made to obliterate the traditional Sunday and force people, including women and children, to attend political rallies, I realise more and more that we in Britain either by accident or by legislation, throw away our liberty, and forget God.
There are in Poland and Ethiopia especially people who refuse to be bullied. They continue to worship God on Sunday and their churches are overflowing. Many have indeed died for their faith. Moreover, they would be horrified to see shops doing business on Sundays here. But as everyone knows, those countries are so short of food that this matter does not apply to them.

1293
It is a real pity that some noble Lords and noble and learned Lords can never witness those scenes of stoic courage and incredible faith, and that instead they choose, for reasons which they think are right, to allow Sunday to go by the board in Britain. If we delude ourselves into believing that some of the big stores are not interested in opening, well, we are being extremely naive. The greed for money and power changes minds so easily. I have a vested interest in remembering Sunday because the foundation that I represent has some 200 charity gift shops, but only seven or eight open on Sunday to offer coffee and refreshment, and this is after the times of Sunday services
What example do we give young people, especially those who are disillusioned, indisciplined and unemployed, if they see materialism grow stronger and Sunday no different from any other day? I stand here simply and humbly to plead that Sunday itself should be observed as it is in the majority of other countries on the Continent. Why should Britain be so different? I plead at least for an opportunity to think again after three years if this Bill is passed—as I hope it will not be.
Clearly the Government are determined to have their own way on this matter, but as a committed Christian I deplore their action, and, equally as bad, the indifference which many, alas, express towards God and all that Sunday stands for. I remember with sadness that this was originally a Christian country, but I rejoice to see our Jewish friends continue to observe their Sabbath and day of rest.
May I now read to your Lordships from the Ten Commandments:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—and I respect his views about deregulation, and I know he respects mine—referred to this amendment as a "device", and that is exactly what it is. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made some interesting and, I would suggest, most telling points concerned with the lapse, and the need for continuance, which require no repetition. But so far as I am aware—and I ask my noble friend the Minister and any of your Lordships whether they are aware of any—there is no precedent for this type of legislation by experiment: an experiment with automatic lapse at the end of a certain period of time. I know of no such precedent.
4.30 p.m.
The Bill is concerned with the principle of deregulation not with an experiment in the principle of deregulation. The case for and against deregulation has been argued already at various stages and various Divisions and the House has taken a view. There is no point, certainly for me from these Back Benches, in seeking to enter into the pros and cons of a decision which has been taken, although, as your Lordships know, I agree with it.
Finally, I should like to say that if I believed that this Bill truly prevented anyone from worshipping God I should not for one moment support it because I also, curiously enough, am a committed Christian. If I truly
1294
believed that was so I would not support the Bill, but I do not believe it for one moment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder if I may put a point of view to your Lordships and a plea that there should be an objective look at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and supported in various parts of the House. I believe that the House will have been touched by the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, whom we hear all too infrequently, but whose life for the benefit of this nation—in that way I should also associate her gallant husband—has been of terrific worth to all of us. When she speaks, we listen to her with great respect.
There is an opinion in this country which is very similar to that of the noble Baroness. We know that as it is reflected in 20,000 letters to the Home Office. Quite rightly, people who object are more likely to write than people who support, but there cannot be many fervent supporters if all that was in the Home Secretary's postbag was 20 or 30 letters against the 20,000. But there is a great body of opinion that feels as she does.
There is also a great body of opinion which is anxious about another tradition which is being broken and one that I have a little more authority to speak on: a great family tradition which will be affected by more work on Sundays. There is a body of opinion which, untested, says that a great number of sections of employment, other than shopworkers, will be brought into Sunday trading: there will be a need for more police, more inspectors, more people dealing with rubbish disposal and so on. There is a great body of opinion that thinks that their districts will be adversely affected on a Sunday by its being turned into a repetition of a Saturday, that their quiet and their tranquillity will be interfered with.
There has been no testing of that opinion by any vote at all. Only an opinion poll has been taken. I am sure that of all people the Government would not wish to be persuaded at this time that opinion polls ought to be considered with respect. If they take that view concerning themselves, will they please be as charitable in their view of my condemnation in this instance of an opinion poll being a satisfactory test of public opinion?
We are an objective Chamber. I do not suppose that any of us has any sort of vested interest in the passing or the non-passing of the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I have, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on being so gainfully and usefully employed. Without any doubt, without the opinion of the nation being known but with all of us realising that there are these apprehensions and different points of view, we are trying to do what is right. Nobody in this Chamber, and I include the noble Lord the Minister, can say anything more than, "I do not think family life will be interfered with; I do not think people will be prevented from going to church if they want to; I do not think that neighbourhoods will be interfered with; I do not think people will be thrust into employment on Sunday who would not want to be; and I do not think this change will have an adverse effect on youth".

1295
The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to this amendment was extremely forceful. One usually finds that in debate he is a very forceful speaker, but I thought that his logic on this occasion was quite apparent to me as it obviously was to him. The noble Lord said that this amendment means that the Act comes to an end, if it is enacted, at the end of three years. He says that if one finds that things do not turn out as well as anticipated Parliament could repeal this Act. Did he pause to consider what that would mean? It would mean that with the Shops Act provisions having been repealed by this Act the repeal of this Act woud leave a complete and absolute void. One would then have to pass, with all the rigours of the types of debates that we have had, an entirely new Bill. That may be a fearsome speculation that the noble Lord is prepared to envisage, but why in those circumstances should he not be absolutely prepared to envisage that at the end of three years this matter should be considered anew in exactly the same way because the result would be the same?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord turns his back to me while he addresses a question to me. Will he deal with this point? He is perfectly right so far as he has gone, but if the amendment were carried those of us who believe that these restrictions are out of date and should go would have to go through a completely new Bill on the lines of the present one. Although that would involve the pleasurable experience of hearing a great deal from the noble Lord himself it might involve other factors which would seem unnecessary. Parliament is taking a great deal of trouble over this measure. It seems rather otiose to seek to go though the whole process again after so short a time as three years.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would permit me, without thinking me discourteous, to pose a question to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord found in this amendment not the end of an Act at the end of three years, but the words that Parliament could by affirmative order renew the provisions of the Act, if Parliament so desired, would he then be in favour of such a provision? Because if he was, and told us so, I am sure that it would strengthen us in having a certain amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know what authority the noble Lord has for saying that I told him that I would be happy with a provision of that sort.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I certainly would not because I think it is wholly unnecessary. I will give the noble Lord this point. I think that it would be less damaging than this amendment, which I am glad to see he shows signs of withdrawing. But I would still feel that it was wrong.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with respect to both noble Lords, I should remind the House that we are at
1296
Report stage. I do not like to interrupt a private debate but I think I should do so on this occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to remind him, if it be necessary, that on Report stage if the noble Lord addressing the House is good enough to give way to another noble Lord to whom he has referred, that noble Lord, by long custom of the House, is entitled to take advantage of that courtesy?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise feeling almost a peace-giver to the House. I continue, I promise your Lordships, not at any greater length than I have spoken already, to add to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been kind enough to discuss with me and with the House. Your Lordships heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that he was apparently so positively certain of the advantages and the outcomes of this Bill that he would not even want to have an order at the end of three years to continue its provision. It does not show to me very much faith that his views would equally be the views of Parliament, because if he had that confidence he would have said something rather different from what he did say.
I am merely going to say this. There is doubt in your Lordships' minds and there is doubt in the country. All that this amendment asks for is that we look at this matter again as Parliament at the end of three years knowing then what the conditions are, rather than dealing with definite, final legislation at this point when we just do not know what the effects will be.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening in this debate but I must say a few words; I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Graham of Edmonton, both of whom are good parliamentarians and always worth listening to. I must admit that I have listened with interest to everything that has been said by the noble Baroness and others. However, I think we take it a bit narrow. This is, after all, a liberating rather than a restrictive measure; and if we in this country are going to continue to pass, or to fail to pass, Bills of a liberating and not restricting character on the basis that they must be for nothing more than an experimental period of three years, then we shall sink beneath the waves and we shall deserve to do so.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships for a long time, either. May I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, on what I thought was an absolutely excellent speech. I agreed with every word she said. Who are we to disregard the third Commandment? Look in the Book of Exodus: it says that should go on for ever.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we are not asking people not to do anything; we are telling them that they may do something if they want to. That is the difference. We are not asking the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, not to go to church; we are not asking any Muslim not to go to the mosque; we are not asking any Jew not to go to the synagogue; we are not asking

1297
anybody not to keep the sabbath holy. What we are saying is that those who want to get on trading may do so if they want to. We are also introducing and keeping protections for those who work in it. That is the difference.
We are not bossing people about, We should not boss people about. They are old enough and clever enough to look after their own interests. That is what modern society and modern education is about. It is about people being adult and sufficiently capable of doing the things that they want to do. It is not for us to tell them. Nanny says, "You may not go to the garden centre, which is owned by me, at Guildford outside on a Sunday. But you may go and buy a pornographic book in a bookshop; but you may not buy a Bible". That is the muddle into which we have got. What we are saying is that we should allow people to be grown up and adult. That is what this Bill is all about.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Bill before us, as my noble friend Lord Onslow has reminded us, removes the statutory restrictions from retail trading hours. It does so in recognition of the strong demand that exists—and I shall return to Lord Graham's points and those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about representations in a moment—and which has consistently been revealed in surveys of public opinion and is regularly exhibited today, now, in people's shopping habits. The Bill recognises the fact that trading outside the hours currently permitted in the legislation is already happening. Shopkeepers want to open their shops, shoppers want to shop and the Government do not believe that they should prevent these activities which after all are perfectly harmless activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised the point quite fairly about the numbers of letters that the Home Office had received on the subject. But, as the noble Lord recognises, lobbies may be formed (as, I am certain, they have been in this case) to persuade persons to petition and to make representations to the Government. One certainly does not doubt the sincerity of the organisers of these petitions, or indeed those who respond to them. But it is certainly not an indication of the wishes of society to compare the number of those making representations against a particular proposal with those who are content with it and see no need to write. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear to anybody who had any experience of receiving letters on issues which arouse the emotions which are touched by this Bill. If we wish to gauge the views of society on this Bill, we have only to look at the results of the various opinion polls, despite the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that perhaps we ought not to put much weight upon opinion polls—but there, again, perhaps he may not do so upon certain opinion polls when they do not seem to be helpful to him. The opinion polls that we have had on this Bill show quite clearly and quite consistently that over two-thirds of the people in this country support the Government's proposals for deregulation and that nearly 70 per cent. use shops on Sunday, anyway.
As well as responding to demand, we also believe that the criminal law has no place in regulating
1298
behaviour such as shopping. I listened with great care to the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw. But shopping is not harmful, it is not wicked. The noble Baroness referred to the evil in this Bill. With the greatest respect to her, I really think that is going a little bit over the top. Shopping is not wicked, it is not a behaviour that needs to be prevented. Even were it to be felt necessary to regulate shopping hours, the present law is not satisfactory. It has been roundly condemned on all sides in your Lordships' House by the Judiciary, by local authorities and by the general public variously as unworkable, unnecessary, unenforceable, unwanted, anomalous and obscure.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, prayed in aid the case of seat belt legislation. In the case of seat belt legislation, it was possible and sensible to have an experimental period. I understand the force of that argument. We were talking about safety of life. There were those who were concerned that people who were compelled to wear seat belts in cars may be injured because of that. The effect of that legislation on injuries to motorists and passengers could be measured and, if necessary, the status quo could be restored if the experiment was found not to work. That is not so with this Bill, and I honestly do not believe that the noble Lord is comparing like with like.
This amendment will create uncertainty in the retail trade. After the passage of this Bill, retailers will begin to plan for their new freedoms. They will be able to decide their opening hours without legal restriction and without fear of prosecution, in order best to meet the needs of their customers. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said words to the effect that change is unsettling. I understand that point of view. I can therefore appreciate the anxiety, which he clearly does, felt by many about what they see as a great change in our shopping lives. But that change is already under way, and I cannot believe for a moment that we can stop that change by providing for a temporary removal of restrictions for only three years. What on earth are we going to do then? We would return to the present law.
We have had many long hours of debate in your Lordships' House in favour of this Bill and against it, in favour of amendments and against them, and yet to the best of my recollection I have heard no-one argue for the status quo, for the advantages of the present law. Why, my Lords? It is because the present law is indefensible, and it would seem doubly or perhaps triply so in three years' time if retailers and consumers were to be forced back into the straitjacket of the present law after a period of more sensible and suitable retail trading patterns. And what then, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked? Are we to begin this procedure all over again, with another committee of inquiry and another Shops Bill? The proposition is unrealistic, and I cannot think of anything more exhausting.
The effect of this amendment could be disastrous. We would be forced back to the present law with no alternative available. It also assumes that the machinery of government is not working. The Government constantly monitor social trends, as I said in answer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in Committee. Social

1299
trends, social patterns and social changes are monitored, and on the basis of such monitoring the Government decide on the need for legislation. It may be that in three years', five years' or 20 years' time, even, the Government of the day will decide that legislation in the area of retailing is necessary. If they so decide, I cannot predict what form that legislation may take, because I cannot with certainty foresee the social changes and social needs of a future time. I can, however, predict one thing with as much certainty as I can muster: that is, that whatever legislation may be introduced it will not be the same as or even similar to the Shops Act 1950.
This amendment seeks to create uncertainty for retailers and consumers alike. It will return us to the present unsatisfactory situation in three years' time, with no option but to start the process of legislative reform anew. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also spoke to the other amendments in his name. Again, these amendments seek to undo this Bill and to return to the present state of affairs. They will also leave shopworkers less protected than this Bill proposes. A shop which opens on a Sunday after this change in the law may decide to continue opening in three years' time, although by the first of the noble Lord's amendments it might be permitted to sell only some of its range of goods. At that time, all protection for employees against Sunday working would be lost and a refusal to work on a Sunday might result in dismissal. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
I return to the theme which my noble friend Lord Onslow addressed when he spoke just now, which I think, too, meets the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, when she compared this Bill with the sort of compulsion of which she has evidence on other matters in other countries. There is no sense at all in which this Bill seeks to compel anybody to do anything. All this Bill is trying to do is to sweep away the unnecessary and outdated legislation, to allow people to open their shops on a Sunday if they wish, and to allow those who wish to shop to do so. I cannot see in any sense that the amendment which the noble Lord proposes to look at this matter again after three years can in any way assist the purposes of this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of reason and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I never anticipated in what kind of moment I should be praying in aid the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the speech of the Minister in support of the basic, fundamental aspect of the theme of my amendment; and I am very grateful indeed to those noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. I was very careful in putting forward this amendment to point out that it had an objective. I asked the Government, if they were a caring Government, at least to welcome the general theme which is basic to my amendment. Why did I do that? I also said that I hoped the Government might feel able to give some concession in this matter. Why?
It was because one of the two pillars on which I was basing my speech was that this matter that is before the
1300
House is a community matter. It affects large numbers of the public, employers and hundreds of thousands of employees. The second pillar upon which I put forward this amendment was that there is unquestionably a cleavage of opinion in the country, in this House, all over; that people are not entirely happy with what the Government are proposing. I do not want to enter into any question of statistics, but even the noble Lord the Minister talked about two-thirds of the country being in favour of the Bill. What about the other one-third? It is implied that the other one-third might be not so much in favour. Therefore, you have this great cleavage of opinion.
When I put down this amendment I anticipated that the Government would make some concession and would attack it in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did so well. He was very kind to me and said that I would correct him if I felt he was wrong. The noble Lord was right, but the subject of his first speech this afternoon was based entirely on a technical matter, which was that I had not produced an amendment to say what should happen at the end of three years. That is a technical attack which, with great respect to the noble Lord, I anticipated. I thought that the noble Lord having made only that kind of attack upon the Bill, with his great experience of local and national Government, he would accept that there is a cleavage of opinion throughout the country on this matter and that this is clearly a case where some kind of experimental period of use could be introduced, coming back to Parliament by some simple procedure. It would have meant only a slight amendment to Schedule 1.
But, no doubt unhappily, the noble Lord the Minister felt bound to keep to his brief—and I can understand that—though the two pillars upon which I based my arguments and the attitude that I have adopted in presenting this to your Lordships is that here is an opportunity for the Government to make some concession. Even at this late stage perhaps I may make an appeal to your Lordships to support that objective theme as embodied in my amendment and to ask the Minister once again whether he can make some concession in this matter by introducing some kind of amendments to deal with the obvious technical difficulites which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, dealt extremely well with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his first speech this afternoon and said that really it was not a fundamental objection to my amendment. I ask the Minister to consider whether even at this late hour, in the circumstances of this being a matter involving so many hundreds of thousands of people in the community outside this House, this is an occasion when the Government could make a concession without loss of face and without the loss of any kind of prestige. The Government could only gain at this moment from saying, "There is a cleavage of opinion in the country; we do not know whether we are right about all that we say on the position of employers and employees but this is a clear case on matters involving so many thouands and thousands of people that some kind of concession can be made at this stage". Unless the noble Lord the Minister can make some kind of

1301
concession—I ask him to consider whether some kind of concession could be made—I shall have to test the opinion of the House.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Amherst, E.

Liverpool, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

London, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brentford, V.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Oxford, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Denning, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Derby, Bp.

Rochester, Bp.

Durham, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Stallard L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Stamp, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampden, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wheatley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

York, Abp.

Leicester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Brookes, L.

Abinger, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Broxbourne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caccia, L.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Cameron of Lockbroom, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Cathcart, E.

Bessborough, E.

Chelwood, L.

Bolton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Boothby, L.

Clinton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cox, B.

Brain, L.

Craigavon, V.

1302

Cranbrook, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Norrie, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Forester, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Porritt, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimond, L.

Renton, L.

Haig, E.

Rodney, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sandford, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stockton, E.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ingrow, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Suffield, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kissin, L.

Terrington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teynham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Tryon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Manton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Margadale, L.

Westbury, L.

Marley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marsh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

British Leyland
5.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place on the subject of British Leyland. That Statement is as follows:
"Yesterday I informed the House that talks were at an advanced stage on the proposal for a merger between Land Rover Leyland and the Bedford Commercial Vehicle subsidiary of General Motors. It is the Government's intention that subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, and the receipt of firm undertakings from General Motors on their manufacturing and sourcing intentions, these negotiations should be brought to an early and successful conclusion.
"I also confirmed that following an approach by the Ford Motor Company, wide ranging but at this stage exploratory discussions with the Austin Rover Group were in progress which might lead to a proposal for the merging of these businesses. I wish to inform the House at the earliest opportunity on the most recent developments affecting these discussions in particular as regards Austin Rover.

1303
"The Government would have preferred to have waited until the exploratory talks had clarified the difficulties and opportunities a merger might have created, and then taken a decision in principle, on the basis of a considered analysis, whether to pursue the possibility further. Speculation surrounding these exploratory talks has itself given rise to very great public concern and uncertainty. If this were to continue for any extended period it could have seriously damaged the prospects for Austin Rover's business, its employees, its suppliers and its dealers. Nor would such a period of uncertainty have been helpful to many people associated in comparable ways with Ford's business in this country. Concern about these developments was expressed very clearly on all sides of the House in yesterday's debate. The Government have given full and immediate consideration to the situation so created. We have decided that it would be wrong for the uncertainty to continue, and the right way to end it is to make clear that the possibility of the sale of Austin Rover to Ford will not be pursued.
"It is, however, the Government's intention, with the agreement of the BL board, that negotiations should be pursued for the separate privatisation of Unipart by an early placement of shares with United Kingdom institutions.
"Collaborative arrangements in the motor industry will become increasingly necessary and important. Austin Rover Group's successful relationship with Honda is an example of this. I hope that Ford and Austin Rover will also consider positively other opportunities for collaboration. I should like to pay tribute to Ford's contribution to the United Kingdom economy through research and development, manufacturing and employment.
"I hope the Government's decision and the ending of uncertainty will leave Austin Rover free to devote their efforts to the further development and growth of their volume car business, building on the creditable progress which has already been achieved."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. It would seem that there are certain marginal advantages in the return to Cabinet Government, because the decision not to continue with the Ford negotiations was expressly repudiated by the Government only yesterday. This is what the Government said yesterday:
"The question that we must address is: can or should BL continue as it is, whether in public or private ownership? I believe that it cannot do so. Even if it could, it should not, because in today's world standing still means dropping backwards."
Concluding his speech in winding up, the Minister said:
"At this stage, we should negotiate as best we can."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/86; cols. 345–47.]
Now today we have in the Statement:
"I hope my decision and the ending of uncertainty will leave Austin Rover free to devote their efforts to the further development and growth of their volume car business, building on the creditable progress which has already been achieved."
1304
It is amazing what public opinion, and opinion even within the ranks of the party opposite, can do. It is good to see that the first time there was Cabinet discussion on the subject a different decision was reached to that reached by the Department of Trade and Industry.
However, having now decided the principle the Government go on to say that they are continuing, and advising the company to continue, its proposals in regard to the merger that was the subject of the noble Lord's Statement on Monday last. We should have thought, applying the principle that we should develop British industry and that we should stick up for Britain, that the first part of the deal would also be annulled. It is quite clear that the Government have considered, not having discussed it in Cabinet—and we have it on record in the other place—and have decided, presumably at today's Cabinet meeting or one held last night, that they cannot at this stage back out of the General Motors deal. This is clearly something on which we shall have further debate. There must be a debate in this House in which this whole matter can be ventilated.
The Statement makes no mention at any point about the negotiations in regard to the buses. The noble Lord referred to it himself in his Statement on Monday last. He said:
"Separate discussions are taking place with the Laird Group, who own Metro Cammell Weyman, about the future of Leyland Bus."—[Official Report, 3/2/86; col. 906.]
To turn to today's Statement, Leyland Bus is still in limbo. We shall be glad to hear any further information the noble Lord has about that because it has not been mentioned.
The noble Lord referred in both Statements—there was a Statement in another place and in the debate there yesterday—to a merger affecting these other interests, including Land Rover. Does the noble Lord mean "merger" or does he mean "take-over"? Which? If there is a merger on, that implies a degree of shared capital risk. Are we sure that the Government wish to continue with a shared capital risk in something which, according to their speeches, they are quite prepared to flog off to United States' interests?
Will the noble Lord enlarge further on this and will he state categorically whether, in the light of previous undertakings that have been given by General Motors in regard to the maintenance of the British components, the Cabinet consider that it is likely to maintain the British component in the latest deal with which the noble Lord has made us acquainted?
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, on behalf of the Alliance Benches, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for repeating the Statement on the future of British Leyland and its key subsidiaries. I think that these Benches greet the Statement with a mixture of relief, continuing apprehension and absolute stupefaction.
I am surprised that the Statement omits to reveal that the Government will be offering a new testing ground for British Leyland on the Road to Damascus. There is stupefaction that the Government have allowed the preliminary discussions proposed by the Ford Motor Company to be pursued and yet, as soon

1305
as this sad and unworthy secret became known, they can declare that the uncertainties that were created justified breaking off the negotiations. British Leyland is still a public company quoted on the London Stock Exchange and sooner or later the deal that the tiny circle of Government Ministers was prepared to consider would have had to have been circulated in detail to shareholders, employees and the general public, as indeed the Statement acknowledged.
Many public companies which propose mergers or takeovers, or are subject to takeover bids themselves, become affected by uncertainty: for the employees, the shareholders, the trading partners and customers. But where they believe that there are genuine commercial grounds for a link, they willingly tolerate the inevitable uncertainty and speculation in order to achieve their aims. In the case of the proposed acquisition or merger of Austin Rover with the Ford Motor Company, the hasty, undignified but still welcome retreat by the Government shows that a more balanced and less prejudiced assessment of Austin Rover's progress and prospects, and a more careful preliminary analysis of the effects of a sale to Ford, would have avoided the management of Austin Rover being forced into precipitate and commercially damaging negotiations.
The competence of this Government in exercising stewardship over nationalised industries, which in his book Sir Michael Edwardes compared unfavourably even with that of the last Labour Government—or should I say the incompetence of this Government?—is the best but possibly the only advertisement for continued privatisation. I suspect that the blushes of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are only spared by his ability to attribute this tragi-comic pas de deux to another misjudgment on the part of his predecessor.
As I said, the stupefaction is mixed with relief that the Government have at least pulled back from their ill-considered attempt to abdicate from responsibility for Austin Rover, but also with apprehension that the future of Land Rover Leyland is in the melting pot. There is universal recognition that Leyland trucks technology, products and facilities are now superior to those of Bedford, while Land Rover is a company coveted by companies and investors throughout the world. If this deal really makes sense, can the noble Lord assure the House that every effort has been made and will continue to be made to achieve a genuine merger of Land Rover Leyland with Bedford, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, also advocated, and not a sale of the company to General Motors, whatever conditions are attached?
In a genuine merger British Leyland could retain a stake—a substantial one—and the employees could acquire a stake, and still General Motors, as a joint venture shareholder, could provide its international marketing network. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, assure us that this approach, which any competent, commercial management would have pursued, has not been ignored in the Government's rush to pass one more buck for a few more quick ones?
Finally, can the noble Lord also assure us that in the future in its actions, its propaganda, its policies and its leaks, the Government will actually assist Austin Rover-BL and its constituent parts to achieve the aims
1306
of developing their business to which this Statement I hope sincerely referred.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I acknowledge the receipt of this Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. I think that there is very little to which I have to respond and perhaps I shall do it best by saying that the Government have responded quickly to both public and parliamentary opinion as expressed yesterday—as properly they should—and have come to the Houses of Parliament with the conclusion of that decision. I am surprised that there should be any criticism of the Government on that score.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked specifically about the position of the buses. I have nothing more to add to the statement and comments that I made on the 3rd February when I repeated a Statement made in another place that negotiations with the Laird group for the bus arm of Leyland were proceeding. That position remains the same three days later.
As regards the General Motors truck division and the Leyland truck and Land Rover arm of British Leyland, noble Lords will appreciate from Monday's Statement that this is quite a different matter from Austin Rover group and Ford. I said on Monday that negotiations were in an advanced stage. If I may just repeat this afternoon's Statement, it is the Government's intention that, subject to satisfactory terms and conditions, and the receipt of firm undertakings from General Motors on their manufacturing and sourcing intentions, these negotiations should be brought to an early and successful conclusion. That remains the position.
Other than that, I would remind your Lordships that for some many years now General Motors truck subsidiary, Bedford, has had its European headquarters, its European research and development arrangements and its manufacturing arrangements centred in the United Kingdom. General Motors have put in £1.2 billion worth of investment over the past 10 years; it employs 27,000 people; local content for 1986 will be 60 per cent. on its car and truck operations, and it is on target to meet the commitment which was made last year. I do not believe that one should criticise General Motors for being anything less than supportive of the United Kingdom's manufacturing industry. I say the same of Ford, whose interest in investment, employment and development in their area of industry is second to none in so far as support for the United Kingdom is concerned.
We are disappointed—the Statement says so—that the discussions between Ford and ARG were not allowed to proceed so that a calm and careful analysis could be made of any proposals. As regards assisting BL, the Government remain committed to British Leyland, the Austin Rover Group, in securing all the opportunities for that group to prosper and to achieve their fair share of the domestic and overseas market. One would look for the board of Austin Rover Group to continue with their collaborative arrangements and perhaps make others, such as with Honda, Peugeot, or VW-Audi, in a variety of ways, and that is how they would probably be able to succeed.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the noble Lord for the Statement that he made. As he said, it will do a great deal to alleviate the deep anxiety and distress in my city of Birmingham about the future for employment. I wonder whether he can say something about the consultation that will be taking place with the workforce before further arrangements are made, because of the consternation that will be caused among the workers on hearing that arrangements are being made, as it were, over their heads.
What I want to ask the noble Lord most of all is this. In the arrangement that he spoke about concerning Land Rover, Unipart and Leyland Trucks, the West Midlands is likely to be affected as a centre of component making. That is an important part of the industry. We have to consider not just the assembly of the cars and the trucks but the components and the service industries that depend upon them. I think that the people of my diocese will ask themselves what effect the arrangements for these other parts of BL will have on employment. In my diocese I have one ward with an unemployment rate of over 41 per cent.; in another it is over 35 per cent. There will be deep anxiety that the arrangements may cause more unemployment. Anything that he can say to give people confidence will be greatly welcomed.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution and indeed for his questions. As I explained on Monday, and I thought this afternoon, the Leyland Trucks, Land Rover and General Motors negotiations are at an advanced stage. I think that the House will agree that it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the result. However, we believe that an arrangement between two of the largest truck makers in the United Kingdom would be in the best long-term interests of the people employed in the truck industry. Across Europe that industry is in decline and there is massive over-capacity.To join the activities of those two important companies would be in the best interests of the industry. It would make it better able to compete in the European and the world markets to the long-term advantage of those employed in that sector.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what is Austin Rover's current share of the United Kingdom market in its respective class? Can he also tell us whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to put the £1.5 billion guarantees to British Leyland into the category of public expenditure, since it must be likely as a consequence of today's Statement that that guarantee could be called?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, speaking from a fairly reliable memory, I can tell my noble friend that the Austin Rover group has 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom domestic car market and a rather small share of the European market; but one hopes that it is expanding. If my memory serves me right, it has 19 per cent. of the truck market in the United Kingdom. The Government stand behind the so-called Varley-Marshall arrangements.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord a little further? I asked him whether he would confirm that the arrangements, which he says are at an advanced stage, so he ought to know the form, are strictly merger or take-over? Exactly the same considerations apply to his statement about the Cammell group. He referred to separate discussions taking place with the Laird group about the future of Leyland Buses. Are those discussions with a view to merger or take-over? Surely he knows which term applies, even at this stage.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not in a position either to agree with the noble Lord or disagree. I have said that the Leyland-General Motors negotiations are in an advanced stage, but the detailed arrangements as to how they may be completed and put together have not been arrived at. The Laird group discussions are not at such an advanced stage. I should certainly not wish in either case to prejudice the negotiators, particularly those of British Leyland, in suggesting in any way from this Dispatch Box how they should proceed or what should be the outcome.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that far from being criticised, his Secretary of State is to be commended, after only a few days in office and one debate, on having responded to some of the views expressed to him? It would indeed be a sorry day for Parliament if Ministers were to be bitterly criticised every time that they respond to arguments put forward in this House or in another place.
Will my noble friend continue to bear in mind that the danger to jobs in the motor vehicle industry is just as great or greater if we do nothing whatsoever than if we move out and try to expand and enlarge the size of the operating units? Will he press upon the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the simplistic and intensely nationalist view that he had been putting forward from that Bench, and indeed the fears of the right reverend Prelate, should not be allowed to weigh too much with us, for if we took that simplistic and nationalist view not only in the motor industry but in many others the damage to jobs in this country would be incredibly large?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his questions. I am sure that your Lordships will share my admiration for his great knowledge not only of parliamentary affairs but of business and commence. It is in the light of that experience that he asks such apposite questions. There is a great danger to jobs if we fail to recognise the importance of investment, both internal and from overseas, in our industries. The investment comes not only with money but with technical expertise and a whole range of other advantages to our industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quoted fairly extensively from what my right honourable and honourable friends from the Department of Trade and Industry said in the debate in another place last night. He will remember that it was said that the motor industry is moving at a fast pace across the world; no longer can we build cars plainly for the domestic market, nor indeed for the European market. We need to build for world markets. Collaboration is vital if our

1309
manufacturing base is to be secured and, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, jobs in the industry preserved in the long term.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said in his original Statement that the negotiations over Austin Rover are to come to an end. Most Members of the House, I believe, welcome that. Can he tell us, though, what has changed since yesterday? Is it not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has suggested, that the Minister has been influenced by the voices from another place—and quite rightly so? But how does it come about that the debate in the other place took place yesterday? What would have happened if there had been no leak about these negotiations? Can he tell this House whether the Government intended to pursue those negotiations, if possible to a conclusion? Can he also tell the House where the leak came from which was the occasion for the debate on which, apparently, the Government, and particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, have completely reversed their policy? What has happened since yesterday, and why?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, really, I am so surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I made clear in repeating the Statement that the Government would have much preferred to have waited until the exploratory talks had clarified the difficulties and the opportunities that a merger might have created. Then we could have taken a decision in principle and discussed it on the basis of a considered analysis. However, because certain events took place—I have little doubt in an endeavour to embarrass the Government—speculation surrounding those talks rose and gave great uncertainty both to the public and, indeed, to the two companies. This was explored during the debate yesterday in another place. As a result of public expression and as a result of parliamentary expression, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and colleagues decided that no useful purpose to the two companies would be served if a decision was prolonged. I have made that clear in the Statement. As to the question of what would have happened had this matter not been raised on Monday, since the matter was raised and since things did happen I can see no profit in speculation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a quick technical question on the issue of manufacturing and sourcing intentions of GM? The noble Lord mentioned twice in his answers that GM already had 60 per cent. United Kingdom content. Is that what the Government are thinking about? I would remind him that Nissan has given an undertaking of 80 per cent. United Kingdom content. Does United Kingdom content mean United Kingdom content or EC content?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in fact, I did not say that General Motors had 60 per cent. United Kingdom content or, indeed, local content. What I did say was that we had received assurances that local content of GM's products across the range would reach 60 per cent. in 1986. On Monday, I said in
1310
answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who said it was 46 per cent., that it was, in fact, 48 per cent. They are on target to reach the undertakings that they gave. I might remind the House that in the truck area local content is 80 per cent.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord further on an essential matter that he has not found it possible to answer? Is he aware that what the whole House is interested to know is whether the negotiations which are still going on—the details of which he naturally does not want to disclose—are negotiations aimed at securing a take-over or at securing an amalgamation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, can press me as much as he likes. I have said all I am able, or willing, to say about that matter other than repeating that the negotiations are aimed at securing a viable truck industry in this country and securing the long-term employment prospects of those engaged in it.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, the Minister will, I hope, allow me to express what I wish to say in the form of a statement rather than a question, because my remarks are rather difficult to phrase. I speak from some knowledge of the industry. The upside worth of the proposed deal with General Motors—it is very much upside for GM—can also be upside for this country. We are talking—and the Minister is talking—about trucks, as if Bedford and Leyland were common or similar. They are very different. Bedford produces trucks in the light to medium range and only touches the borders of the heavy range of trucks. Leyland was once, years ago, the great European leader, expressed in its lovely calendars of beautiful ladies—"To Leyland, she's a lady". I hope that the Minister will take care that the lady is not raped in the process of the situation. The great attraction for General Motors—it is not a disadvantage to our own country—is that General Motors badly needs a European base for heavy commercial vehicles. Leyland might well have a better future in such a circumstance than it is likely to have with any other partner.
The other great upside worth for GM in this deal is, of course, the Range Rover and the Land Rover—something which, I believe, is entirely missing from GM's international marketing package. So there are great advantages to General Motors in this situation. All that I pray is that the Government, influencing the use and power of their shareholding will ensure that there is substance, purpose and commitment in the local content—that is, British content so far as conditions permit—imposed as part of this deal. I believe that GM, faced with an attractive target like this, should be very willing to negotiate upon those aspects. The great danger when dealing with a multi-national in the car industry is—
A noble Lord: Speech!
Lord Brookes: My Lords, forgive me. May I ask the Minister to be mindful of the danger that if General Motors were to switch its castings and forgings to plants in Europe which it owns, merely to fill them up,

1311
that would not be fair competition. I am sorry for almost having made a speech, but I believe that it was worth saying.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I recognise my noble friend's great interest in this industry, in which he has played an important part as principal of a component manufacturer. I would not wish this afternoon to comment in detail upon his remarks other than to say that nothing stands still, least of all the motor industry. It would be wrong for me to commit any company into an action several years hence. I repeat, however, that General Motors have demonstrated over many years very good faith in the United Kingdom, particularly in the truck industry. We have no feeling that they would change course from that which they have employed over so many years.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
5.49 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2.
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Local authority supervision of Sunday trading
.—(1) The provisions of this section shall be construed in the light of the general proposition that the special character of Sunday ought to be preserved, as far as practicable, as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses.
(2) Sunday trading, that is, the opening of shops for trade or business on Sundays (which has hitherto been precluded or restricted by Part IV of the Shops Act 1950) shall in future be permitted only in the circumstances and to the extent allowed by the local authority.
(3) Every shopkeeper who desires to open his shop for trade or business on Sundays shall apply to the local authority for permission to do so.
(4) In deciding whether to grant or refuse permission, the local authority shall take into account all relevant considerations such as—

(a) the nature of the shop and the goods to be sold there and the size and situation of it; and

(b) the effect, in their opinion, which the opening of it on Sunday would have on the shopkeeper, the shop worker, the customers, the passers-by and the residents of the area.

(5) In order to achieve a degree of uniformity over the country the Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice for the guidance of local authorities, but such a code shall not be issued unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) Any interested person may appeal within a reasonable time to the Secretary of State against a grant or refusal of permission to open a shop for trade on Sundays, and the Secretary of State may allow or reject the appeal on written representations or on public hearing as he thinks fit.
(7) If any shopkeeper should open his shop for trade or business on a Sunday without the permission of the local authority, he shall not be guilty of a criminal offence, but the local authority may apply to a Circuit Judge for an injunction to restrain him from repeating it; and the judge shall have available to him all the remedies usual for breach of an injunction.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was much discussion on several amendments. Useful comments, and objections, were made to some of our amendments. I have tried to take all those into account and to present to your Lordships what I hope will be an acceptable way of preserving
1312
our Sunday. If your Lordships have the amendment before you, you will see that in a rather unusual form of construction we try to state, in the first subsection, the principle that,
"the special character of Sunday ought to be preserved, as far as practicable, as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses".
If that principle is accepted I think it follows, as I will show, that the whole of the rest of the clause should be accepted.
In stating that principle I have gone back to the important departmental committee chaired by Lord Crathorne, a very distinguished Member of this House, and including the Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede. I have taken the words from that committee's report. Let me read them to you:
"We came to the conclusion that the special character of Sunday ought to be preserved as far as practicable as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses".
It goes on:
"The special character of Sunday would be seriously impaired if the majority of shops were open as on weekdays and most shop assistants were required to work on that day. It is however, generally recognised that some goods and services are required on a Sunday".
In 1964 that committee thought that the practical way of doing this was to revise that list of exceptions. As has been said, in the course of experience that schedule of exceptions has been criticised, put to scorn and the like. I am afraid that there is no chance of getting any list of exemptions through your Lordships' House now. However, does that mean that there is no practicable way of securing our Sunday? That is what the Government would put forward.
It is for those reasons that the following clauses are suggested. The next clause permits Sunday trading, but only,
"in the circumstances and to the extent allowed by the local authority".
That has been going on a good deal. But the local authority have had the control hitherto, and there has been some variation. Some have enforced prohibition; others have not.
If I may turn to the Auld Report, it felt that there was a great deal to be said for the local authority being able to have the control. In paragraph 219 the report said:
"In fact, shopping seems to us to be one area where a reasonable case might be made for local discretion. Shopping is primarily a local activity, employing local people, and it would be local residents who would be disturbed by any untoward noise or traffic congestion".
The Act of 1950 and the others have therefore entrusted this matter to the local authorities. They are, after all, democratically representing the people; they represent the tradesmen in the districts. Your Lordships will know how they are formed. After considering that the ground for opposition, set out in the Auld Report at paragraph 226—
"But the major difficulty with a pattern of local variations, and it is one that would apply whatever the method of local determination, would be the lack of consistency inherent in the system, both geographically and over time"—
it goes on to say that policies may vary. One local authority may have a different view from another. A person from one area may go just across the border to find a shop that is open.
In these amendments we have tried to overcome that, and I hope successfully. In the next subsection, subsection (4), local authority special exemptions are not proposed, or anything of that kind. Let each shop be decided by itself. Let the local authority have a list of applications, whether it be do-it-yourself shops or food shops. A lot of these open on Sundays now. Let the local authority have a list of the shops which are available to open on Sundays without any restriction. Shops would then be named. As subsection (4) says, in dealing with these applications one considers,
"the nature of the shop and the goods to be sold there and the size and situation of it".
An example is the small shop which already gives a reasonable service to the community; let that be open. Let the local authority say so. Let the do-it-yourself centres be open. But at all events let there be this regulation by the local authority.
It is then said that there will be differences all over the country. That argument is dealt with in subsection (5):
"In order to achieve a degree of uniformity over the country the Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice for the guidance of local authorities, but such a code shall not be issued unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
One will not get any difference if one goes from Hampshire into Sussex or Wiltshire or whatever it may be. The local authorities will have a code of practice which the Secretary of State will issue. One will therefore have a system uniform throughout the country, so that objection would be dealt with.
In order to ensure further uniformity one comes to subsection (6). If a trader is refused permission when he thinks he ought to have it, or one of the residents thinks that he has been granted it and that he ought not to have it, a very simple method would be to have an appeal to the Secretary of State by written representation. The Secretary of State would then decide it. That would also give uniformity throughout the country.
A further objection was that one was making a criminal offence of infringement in this matter; that one ought not to make it a criminal offence, subjecting a person to penalty of imprisonment, if he opens on Sunday. That is dealt with in subsection (7). One does not make someone guilty of a criminal offence. If he has opened a shop on Sunday without permission one simply applies to the judge and says to him, "This man is opening a shop on a Sunday"—as do some of the great stores in London—"He has done it without being granted permission". Then an injunction could be granted to stop him from doing it again. It is not a criminal offence. He will not do it again, or if he does, contrary to the order of the court, then he can be fined, reprimanded or whatever it may be.
Those are simple remedies I suggest for all the objections which were made previously to the local authorities in their own districts being able to say, "These shops, well and good, they can open on Sundays"—I shall not go into the exceptions; most of them will have done it a long time. There will be no difficulty about those, but all the others must get permission or they must not continue.
In other words, through this amendment one has tried to find a practical way of framing the first
1314
proposition. But if the first proposition is ignored it merely means that the Government, through this Bill, will be saying, "Well, Sunday is free for all. The law has no part in it".
I would ask all those who agree with this proposition to vote for the amendment. It is fundamental. It is the only way of dealing with the situation. I repeat:
"… the special character of Sunday ought to be preserved as far as practicable as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses"—
to go to church, as I hope people will if they wish to, or to go for recreation if they wish to, to go if they please to the do-it-yourself shop, because they will certainly have got permission. In other words, one preserves in this way the "special character of Sunday", which I am sure all the right thinking people in this country would wish to do. They would wish to preserve this special character of Sunday which we have had over the centuries. I hope and I think that this is a practical way of ensuring the character of Sunday. I ask your Lordships to support the amendment.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at Second Reading—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that one of the proposers of the amendment takes priority.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry; I beg the right reverend Prelate's pardon. I can see him now and I ask him to excuse me.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord if I have in any way pre-empted him, but I thought that your Lordships' House would wish to know that the General Synod of the Church of England has just ended. Indeed, one of the reasons why we are a little late here is that we had a meeting of our House: that was the reason why we were late. The presidents agreed to have an emergency debate, so strong was the feeling of the members of the General Synod. During that emergency debate we reaffirmed our opposition to total deregulation by an overwhelming majority of 427 in favour, six against and three abstentions. I thought that your Lordships' House would wish to know that.
So far as the amendment is concerned, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with the principle of subsection (1): namely; that we would wish to preserve the special character of Sunday so far as possible. As regards subsections (2) and (3), we understand that it is part of Her Majesty's Government's policy that there should be as much decentralisation as possible and those subsections take that into account.
As regards subsection (4), we take into account factors with which I would hope the noble Lord the Minister would himself be concerned; namely, the effect of Sunday opening on shopkeepers, shopworkers, customers, passers-by and the residents of the area.

1315
I listened to what seemed to be many hours of debate when the noble Lord the Minister successfully steered us through all the stages of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill in this House, As regards that Bill, the Minister successfully persuaded us that the Secretary of State should have discretion—discretion concerning approval of all projects involving scientific procedures, and discretion concerning the approval of codes of conduct. Your Lordships will see that under subsection (5) of this Bill discretion is given to the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice which will have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already spoken about the fact that the criminal law would not enter into it. Perhaps I may add that it would be flexible. Codes of practice could be changed. We hope that it may be possible for what seems to us to be the stony heart of the Minister to be melted by the good sense of the amendment so that he can agree with almost every principle of it. Briefly, those are the reasons why I am very happy to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I was moved, as I think other noble Lords who were here were moved, when the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, spoke on the previous amendment. It is a pity that the noble Baroness was not present to express views like that on Second Reading. However, as many of us made clear on Second Reading, the fact is that with this Bill we are not concerned to safeguard the character of Sunday or the sanctity of Sunday, because we do not believe—I do not believe, the Government do not believe and the majority of us do not believe—that the sanctity of Sunday is threatened by the deregulation of shopping; we are concerned to ensure that the deregulation is done in an orderly way and that the interests of those who work in the shops are safeguarded.
At the conclusion of the Committee stage, I had thought that it would not prove possible to design any amendments worse than those which had already been offered from the point of view of the authorities whose job it would be to implement and enforce them. However, I have to say to your Lordships that the four noble Lords whose names are attached to the amendment have succeeded triumphantly in producing such an amendment. Indeed, it puts me in two difficulties.
First, I cannot imagine how four noble Lords of their eminence, distinction and authority could possibly have agreed among themselves to draft and table this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just retired from the very peak of the learned profession. The right reverend Prelate occupies with great distinction one of the most important sees in the Church of England. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speaks with all the authority of a Front Bench spokesman of the main Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, speaks not only with knowledge of local government, but with distinction as the leader of a local authority for a considerable number of years. I cannot imagine how they have
1316
combined together to produce such an extraordinary amendment.
The other difficulty which I am in is that in order to express, as I sometimes seek to do, the views of the Association of District Councils, I should have to use the homely and colourful language of the lower deck. That would be appropriate on HMS "Brazen" when she was not open to visitors, but it is not appropriate from a member of the cloth in the company and in the distinguished setting in which we are being recorded, possibly, for radio. Therefore, I have to sacrifice accuracy for seemliness.
Let us imagine the situation that an amendment like this one would pose for the local authorities. Visualise, for example, the chief executive of the City of Birmingham—a city which has 12,500 shops—or, to take one of my own members of the Association of District Councils, the City of Bristol with 5,700 shops. If this amendment were enacted, he and his staff would have to gear themselves to receive applications from all those shops. Of course this legislation will not lead to all those shops opening on Sunday. However the owners of the shops will know that the first thing that they will have to do in order to be able to open just for an hour on some Sundays or for the day on two or three Sundays before Christmas is to get their application in, and therefore, the local authority will have to be geared up to deal with applications on that scale.
They then have to turn over the page and see what it is they have to deal with. They have to receive from those shops something setting out the nature of the shops. That is easy enough. They then have to take into account the goods to be sold, and that amounts to something near to a complete stock list. One does not need to know the number of items, but one has to know all the categories. Then the Chief Executive of the City of Bristol will have to consider how to form an opinion on the effect of the opening of the shop on Sundays, and of course that will vary according to whether it opens for an hour every Sunday or whether it opens all day for a few Sundays just before Christmas, or whether it is open during the tourist season and so on. There are endless permutations. The local authorities have to form an opinion of the effect of all that on their shopkeepers—5,000 in the case of Bristol and 12,000 in the case of Birmingham—as well as all their shopworkers. For some of the big shops the exercise will be easy because USDAW will be able to express an opinion. However, at least half the shopkeepers are not represented, so they will have to find some way of getting information in respect of them.
They then have to consider the customers. The customers are not just the citizens of Bristol and Birmingham—they go miles wider. The City of Birmingham at the heart of the West Midlands has to form an opinion about the effect of the customers who come in from the whole of the West Midlands and the shire counties beyond. Let us leave aside the passersby for the moment and turn to the residents. As regard the residents, the exercise is relatively easy because they are the people whom the councillors are elected to represent and one might reasonably go direct to them for their opinions. In relation to passers-by, the task is extraordinarily difficult. The passer-by is a person who can only be defined by behaviour. It is perhaps a job

1317
which the traffic wardens could do when they are properly trained. You have to observe and make sure that the chap in question is not a resident, that he is not a customer (that he is not actually going in and out of the shop), but that he is just passing by. Once you are satisfied about that you can consult him and ask him how he thinks he will be affected—not how he has been affected.
When you have all this together you still cannot quite deal with these applications because, in order to do so properly, you must have regard to this code of practice. There are very few things which local authorities dislike more than codes of practice issued from central government, but they are in this amendment and regard must be had to them.
Clearly, a new division would have to be established in the Home Office to work on this—a Sunday Opening Division, with the short title, SOD. That division would need an Assistant Secretary and probably an Under-Secretary. It would be a very important, responsible job. They would have to design this code of practice. The Assistant Secretary (SOD) would need an advisory committee: the Sunday Opening Committee (short title, SOC). On that committee would need to be someone to represent the shopkeepers, someone to represent the shopworkers, someone to represent the customers—and in that case we have Which? magazine and all those people—someone to represent the residents (and there are many residents in the United Kingdom) but perhaps that could be done, but to find someone to represent the passers-by really would be difficult. My noble friend on the Front Bench would have to sort that out. Therefore, you would start off like that.
Then we come to subsection (6) which deals with appeals. Can noble Lords imagine that the local authority will be able to deal with matters to the satisfaction of all their 12,000 shopkeepers in Birmingham without some of them objecting and appealing? If only 10 per cent. appealed, that would mean 1,200. This would lead to a whole series of public local inquiries. We all know what planning public local inquiries are like. They deal with well-established rules, regulations, customs and conventions. These public local inquiries would be looking into whether the local authority had formed the correct opinion on the matters set out in subsection (1) and in the light of all the circumstances which they have ascertained following subsection (2). It would be an absolute bureaucratic nightmare and I hope that the noble Lords who have a tabled this amendment will not give it another thought. If they do, I hope that the House will reject it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is the second time that I have intervened. The first time was before the right reverend Prelate spoke. I apologised to him and I repeat my apology. Now I have interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
I entirely follow the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Of all the amendments that we have had, I think that this really is the worst, and it is the worst not only for the reasons which the noble
1318
Lord, Lord Sandford, has set out but because it compounds the existing anomalies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to completely indefensible anomalies. Indefensible anomalies are now to be compounded by territorial fragmentation.
On Second Reading we owed it to the right revered Prelate that the question was posed with complete accuracy and clarity before your Lordships: should we have total deregulation or partial deregulation? Your Lordships decided on the former. The right reverend Prelate has again today reiterated his opposition to that, and very naturally he supports, and indeed has sponsored, this amendment because it is the latest of many which seeks to go back on what was decided on Second Reading.
6.15 p.m.
Subsection (1) is certainly an instruction to the courts as to how they are to construe what follows. It goes no further than that. It proclaims a principle which would be of value to the court if the matter ever came before the court. Subsection (2) is rather obscurely drafted, but I take it to apply to every single retail outlet. It is susceptible of a narrower interpretation. However, subsection (3) begins with the words "Every shopkeeper …" and subsection (7) states "If any shopkeeper …" Therefore, this applies to every single retail outlet, even though today it may be lawfully transacting business on a Sunday. For example, it applies to every petrol filling station, newsagent and tobacconist. Every single shop in this country must apply to the local authority for leave to trade on a Sunday.
My noble and learned friend quoted from the Auld Report, but this amendment goes right against the final Auld recommendation on this part of the issue. Not only does it go against the Auld recommendation and what your Lordships decided on Second Reading, but it exemplifies what has been described as the "tunnel vision" which vitiates the approach of the opponents of this Bill. They regard retail trading on a Sunday as peculiarly obnoxious, as something quite different from the commercial and industrial activities of the other four to six million people who work on a Sunday.
On a previous amendment I drew attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who was moving the amendment, lived in an area in close proximity to the newspaper offices. I mentioned how the Embankment is thronged with cars; that the narrow streets between the Embankment and Fleet Street are blocked with massive vehicles on a Sunday, as are Fleet Street, Gray's Inn Road and Holborn. I twitted the noble Lord that he failed to see any of that rattle, hubbub and throng simply because he was gazing, as the opponents of this Bill have habitually gazed, in horrified fascination at the shops in Fleet Street and Holborn which might open in order to serve the people who work in the area. At the time I also mentioned Gray's Inn Road, but perhaps that has now been overtaken by events.
It is not enough to say that newspaper people are entirely different from people who work in the shops. You have the office messengers; you have the cleaners. How are they to be differentiated? Yet nobody suggests that all these other businesses must apply to a local authority for a licence to carry on their trade.

1319
There is another matter. What is given to the local authorities is an unfettered discretion. It is quite open to them to say that in the whole of their area, or part of their area, no shops shall open at all on a Sunday. Obviously a number of opponents of this Bill would like to see that happen.
What would happen then? The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on an amendment in Committee referring to local options, suggested looking at the United States, where some have Sunday opening and some do not, and all that happens is that in the places where Sunday opening is banned the people who want to shop get in their cars and drive across the state boundary, That, of course, is an admission that Sunday trading is desired, and that people will go to considerable trouble to get it.
However, in England, under this proposal, it is much more serious. A district council is often divided from its neighbour by a street. Therefore, you may well get, say, a draper's shop open on a Sunday on one side of the street and its rival for custom on the other compulsorily closed because it has not been licensed by the local authority. Further, this does not face the difficulty that both the Gowers Committee and the Auld Committee referred to, that shops increasingly have mixed stocks, and that that is an invitation to evasion, an invitation to a breach of the criminal law, bringing the criminal law, both those committees said, into disrepute and contempt.
It is perfectly open to a local authority to say, "No Sunday opening in this area", or, "No Sunday opening in part of this area", or, "Let us apply the schedule", which is now utterly discredited, "Schedule 5 of the 1950 Act", or, "Let us apply one of the other schedules that have been proffered". There have been no less than five during the course of our discussions, and not one has stood up to examination.
What you get is a patchwork of retail trading across the country. How does my noble and learned friend propose to deal with that? The first way is the bureaucratic appeal to the Minister, added to the vast local bureaucracy to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has referred. The second is to paper over the cracks with a document labelled with the current vogue words in statutory affairs, "A code of practice". What is the status of that code of practice? Obviously it is not intended to tie the hands of the local authorities, which can go their own sweet various ways. It merely would be Whitehall nanny exhortation. That is the way that those fissures, cracks, are papered over.
This seems to me to be the worst of all the amendments for that reason; but there is one matter that I raised several times as early as Second Reading. It is fair to say that it was in an intervention in the speech of one of the right reverend Prelates. There is the question of the ethnic minorities in this country, and that has never been faced. What I questioned then has not even been referred to because it is so much easier to deal with generalities such as, "local democracy", and, "Let the people choose", and so on.
Take an area where there is a total ban on shops opening on Sunday. At the moment, by legislation which goes back before the last war, practising Jews
1320
who keep their sabbath on a Friday and close their shops on a Friday can open on a Sunday morning.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for intervening, but as a practising member of the faith he is now describing may I say that the sabbath day is in accordance with the Commandments. It is on the seventh day, and it is on Saturday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged. I apologise if I have offended any susceptibility. I think I am right in saying that it starts on a Friday evening, does it not?
Suppose you have it that all the shops are to be closed on a Sunday morning. The question then arises whether the practising Jew shall be allowed to open his shop on a Sunday morning, as at present. Do any of your Lordships think it desirable that a local election should be fought with that as one of its issues? Can your Lordships imagine what the National Front would make of that?
It is not only the practising Jew: there are also the Moslem communities. They are expert shopkeepers, and valuably there is a growing middle class from among the Moslem shopkeepers. They told the Auld Committee that many of them shut their shops on a Friday and that they would like to open them on a Sunday. Considering the way that the Moslem shopkeepers were a prime target in recent riots and assaults, do any of your Lordships, do any of the proponents of this amendment, think that it would be desirable to have a local election in the Midlands to decide whether the Moslem shopkeeper should be allowed to open his shop on a Sunday morning to compensate for the Friday closing?
This is an unconstrained discretion given to the local authorities subject only to appeal to the Secretary of State. For those reasons, as well as those given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I hope that your Lordships will have nothing to do with this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords, particularly those who have given way. I hope not to delay the House for very long. Indeed I should have thought that all the criticism that can be made of this amendment has been made in the telling speeches of the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I wanted to add a word or two becaue I am somewhat perplexed by the form of the amendment.
I used to visit close relations of mine who were members of the strictest sect of the Wee Free Kirk and the sabbath was kept holy. No vehicle could be taken out. The only things that were allowed was church in the morning, a lot of eating, reading the Bible and other good books and going for a walk in the afternoon. They kept the sabbath because it was God's will, because it was what the Bible entailed upon them. Yet that argument appears to have died out and we are

1321
told now that keeping the sabbath is a matter of convenience, that it is a question of leisure. One amendment which was moved, and I believe supported by the right reverend Prelates, as I understood it, would have ensured the opening of shops on Sunday morning and the closure of shops on Sunday afternoon. That would have very much surprised my free kirk cousins. They would have found it bad enough for the shops to be opened on Sunday afternoon, but the idea that someone could seriously propose to open them on Sunday morning and shut them so that we could all play golf on Sunday afternoon would have struck them as irreligious to say the least of it.
I do not intend to go over the difficulties of the amendment, but subsection (1) reads:
"a person [must be] free to do as he chooses".
My liberal soul may demand that I keep a shop; I choose to do that. It seems to me that I should have freedom to do so, unless I am convinced and convinced for religious reasons that it was wholly improper. Over the page we read the words which have already been dealt with where:
"the nature of the shop and the goods to be sold there and the size and situation of it"
are to be taken into account. There is no guidance about what is to be taken into account except that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that in principle he would favour small shops being opened. Why small shops should be opened and larger shops closed I really do not understand. It is the small shopkeeper who may be working a seven day week and who may wish to play golf on a Sunday afternoon. He may even wish to go to church. Thus I feel we should have to give guidance about that.
The next subsection reads:
"In order to achieve a degree of uniformity over the country the Secretary of State shall issue a Code of Practice".
I am not clear whether we want uniformity or whether we do not. We hand this matter over to the local authorities so that each area may be free to choose and to differ from other areas. I rather approve of that, if we are to have it at all, because the only place in which I can see this amendment really being of use and value is in the northern islands of the Hebrides. There the free kirk still flourishes. There may be there a strong community desire to keep the shops shut on Sunday, I suspect for all Sunday and none of this business about leisure. As they are separated by sea, it is extremely difficult to go over to shop on the mainland. It is conceivable that this amendment might be of use in the northern islands of the Outer Hebrides, but it is the only place I can think of in which it would have a chance of working. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has such experience in these matters, would agree with me.
In Scotland we used to have a local option at one time. It was not a success. It was designed to stop drinking. In fact it greatly increased drinking because people would motor for miles and miles and having motored they thought they might as well drink up to the gills, which they did, or they bought drink by the case and took it home. Therefore I am doubtful about that, but on the whole I should prefer that local authorities were given some power simply and solely for the sake of the northern islands of the Hebrides
1322
(not the southern islands which are Roman Catholic and I have the idea that they would get on with their own affairs!).
I feel that this amendment—although I am sure it is brought forward in a spirit of compromise and of goodwill—does not seem to me to have any religious significance whatever. Even I, a renegade from the Church of Scotland, still feel that the sabbath means something, but I do not think that appears in this amendment. However if we are to leave the sabbath—I for my part am prepared to do that—we must therefore go the whole hog and accept that if the shops are to be open on a Sunday we must open the whole lot and leave it to the common sense and the effect of whole community opinion to see if this is sensibly carried out. In my view it has been sensibly carried out in Scotland. I hear no complaints in Orkney about the opening of the shops, or very few compared with other matters, and over Scotland as a whole Sunday opening—much as it is disapproved of by those who feel deeply religious about it—is for the rest of the population accepted and acceptable and they would be loath to go back to any other system.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment, however well intentioned, is open to most serious objection because, in the first place, it fails to take into account the effect of the Government Amendments Nos. 19 and 22 which acknowledge the special character of Sunday as relevant in modern society for those who work in shops. Secondly, it proposes a wholly impracticable concept of the special character of Sunday with licensing protection for those who work in shops but no such protection for the many others. Furthermore, it conflicts with the principle of deregulation for the avoidance of anomalies. It proposes also a novel system of application and enforcement which is neither practical nor acceptable. Worst of all, it puts us all back on that old familiar well-trodden treadmill which calls into question the principle of deregulation.
The special character of Sunday as distinct from any other working day is recognised and enhanced by the Government's Amendments Nos. 19 and 22: the moratorium of two years on repeal of the provisions of the Shops Act referred to in Clause 2—that is Amendment No. 19—and there is also the strengthening of the safeguards against dismissal for an action short of dismissal for refusing to work on Sunday under the Employment Act as proposed in the new schedule which is Amendment No. 22. These two amendments introduced after the telling speech of my noble friend Lord Stockton go a long way to meet the point he made that the existing safeguards for the protection of shopworkers should not be removed in the principle of deregulation.
Subsection (1) of the amendment, couched in terms of leisure, freedom not to be required to perform weekday work on a Sunday (taken verbatim from a 1964 document) ignores the realities of living, earning, spending, saving and even shopping in a multi-religious, largely agnostic society of 1986, a society in which, assuredly, there is no justification for making any long-term distinction between those who work in shops on Sunday and those who render services or supply goods other than in shops, a disparity which

1323
could only be resolved, one day, if it be resolved at all, by general legislation quite beyond the scope or intendment of this Bill.
As to the intendment of the Bill, of course the position is, as has been said by other noble Lords, that the principle of deregulation has been affirmed on more than one Division on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House; and the ingenious licensing system, ingenious and novel, proposed in this amendment is clearly inconsistent—inconsistent, that is to say, with the principle that has been accepted which lies at the very heart of the Bill. Indeed, this amendment stands in stark, irreconcilable conflict with the plain intendment of Clause 1; and, if it were carried, this amendment would work havoc on this Bill.
In conclusion, I want to say a word about the proposed means of enforcement, for these of themselves are open to most serious objection. You start with this code of practice having no legal effect. It is to apply to individual licensing for each shop in each area which has to be individually dealt with. How on earth can you achieve uniformity? Why on earth in the name of justice should you seek to achieve uniformity? Each individual application ought to be dealt with on its merits if you are to have this curious bureaucratic system at all.
But these codes of practice have no legal effect whatever, and whether they induce uniformity or do not is neither here nor there because at the end of the day you end up by asking the circuit judge, of all people, to restrain a breach of a code which has no legal effect. And not only that. In the intermediate stage where you get to this appeal to the Secretary of State against the grant or refusal of a licence, the code would be, as presumably the Secretary of State issued it, taken into account. On what basis—uniform application, the merits of the individual case? It is impossible to answer the question. And then at the end of the day, at the suit of one of the parties to what is a purely administrative decision by the Secretary of State, on mere proof of breach, the judge is called upon to enforce that decision by injunction without ever being able to entertain the individual merits at all. It is respectfully suggested that such a departure from settled practice is contrary to the very essence of justice.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for a few moments because family life has been mentioned as being damaged if shops are open on Sunday. I come from New Jersey in the USA where I live most of the time now. Far more people go to church there than do here. All the shops are open. And not only are they all open, but if you ask farmworkers, "You going to church on Sunday? Are you going to take all the children?" they say, "Yes, because after church we are going to the supermarket and then they are going to dodge round the counters having a splendid time while we, mother and father, shop together". It is quite wrong, looking at the American experience, to think that opening the shops reduces the number of people going to church. I am quite sure that it does exactly the opposite.
1324
Of course, in America there is no great authority like an established Church to tell you what the special character of Sunday is. People are very religious. Many of them there have a very fine idea about Sunday but they do not accept it from authority. Surely the need for a day of rest which is in the amendment has greatly changed. In the old days, of course, you had six days' work, a lot of it manual work and a man was very tired. It was perfectly proper that he should have a day of rest for physical reasons. Now he works only five days a week; now the man shares the household jobs; he knows how to cook; he can look after the children—and he does. People are able to do things as a family today which they never could a few years ago. If the wife wants to earn a certain amount of money as a part-time worker on Saturday or Sunday—and it may very well be that that is very good for the children—she does so. Father now looks after the children. I think really that these two days at the end of a week have a different character now.
I do not know much about religion but I think that if you want to attract followers to the Christian faith it matters much less what you say about this or that form of dogma than what you do. It is the way people act, how they behave, that creates examples which make us better neighbours and better able, I think, to look after our own families. Therefore, I think the opposition to this Bill is founded on an out-of-date view of our society.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House knows that I have a very deep respect for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, but I would respectfully remind them of an advice that was once given to me by a great advocate. He said, "If ever you mock or you laugh at your opponents in court, or if ever you over-exaggerate in your language in condemnation of your opponent's case, it is a sure sign to the judge that you have a very weak case indeed". I did not enjoy—and I noticed that the Front Bench did so—the comments that were made about this amendment in a rather mocking tone, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Everybody is entitled to his opinion. They may have reacted differently from the way I did.
One could be very caustic. The noble Lord who spoke a moment ago spoke about this being an agnostic era. I could say in common parlance, "A fat lot of good it's done this country and all of us that it is an agnostic era". Is our youth any better, or is it worse? Is our family life any better, or is it worse? Is our record as a people better, or is it worse? So I should have thought one takes no pride in the fact that it is an agnostic era.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the words that I used—and it was I who used the words—were, in fact, a "multi-religious, largely agnostic society". That is what I said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I return to the same sentiment that I was trying to express, I use the words "largely agnostic" at the request of the noble Lord—and he rightly requests it—instead of the quotation that I gave. The sentiment is the same. A fat lot of good it has done us by being largely agnostic.

1325
But having said that, one can of course produce a problem for every solution, and that is what the noble Lord the Minister and those who are in favour of this Bill have done. We brought forward amendments saying that this was a local matter. We are not dealing again—I say this with respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—with this business of people who want to go to church or do not want to go to church, and with the question whether this is a religious issue or not a religious issue. We dealt with all that in past amendments. We are dealing now with whether local authorities should have the right to decide if a shop should open. I turn immediately to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who said that he regarded this as the worst amendment of all time. He then went on to deal—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, not of all time; only of this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord is being so moderate in his criticism. But he then went on to say that this amendment would produce a situation where local authorities could decide whether or not there should be any shops open in their areas. That is what he said, and I notice that he does not correct me. If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, that was the worst argument in the debate on this amendment because, if he turns to the amendment itself, he will see that there are principles laid down upon which a local authority have to make a decision. They have to take into consideration various matters before they consent to an application, or refuse it. If they merely issued a blanket edict that no shops were to open in their area, it would not take long on judicial review for that local authority to be castigated at once. The noble and learned Lord knows that, and therefore, with respect, he should not as a distinguished lawyer have used that argument.
What are we deciding? We have previously, as I have said, produced a problem for every solution. Local authorities were brought in first on the basis of deciding by way of a planning permission whether or not shops should open. Noble Lords on all sides of the House said "Yes, we understand that local authorities obviously have local considerations well in their minds, principles that could guide them locally and local likes and dislikes. All that is very sensible, but you cannot really apply planning permission; that is out." They were right. So we threw out that amendment for that reason.
We then said that local authorities ought to decide on general principles. Everybody paid tribute to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said he did not think that local authorities would like the job. Some of us replied that national government do not like many jobs, but they have to do them. If that is so, that is not an argument. Then everybody said that local authorities are very suitable for this but there could be such a variation. You are dealing with Brighton, Bermondsey, Barnstaple and Bristol, which are all very varied areas, and in those circumstances you could get a lack of uniformity in the principles that were then laid down by local authorities. So the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and those of us who
1326
support this amendment have tried to meet both those objections. We do not have planning law as the guiding principle and we have tried to produce uniformity; not, as was said very recently, uniformity as between one shop and another, but uniformity as between areas, because certain principles will be laid down.
Codes of practice have been laughed at in connection with this amendment. When we on these Benches, on very serious Acts indeed, were dealing with police powers, the liberty of the subject, whether people go to prison or whether they are kept in custody, the Government answered that codes of practice would be obeyed by the police and that that was a sufficient safeguard. But suddenly codes of practice have become wastepaper; nobody wants them. They do not have the force of law, say the Government and others on the Government Benches.
Let us look at this amendment rather seriously. This is possibly our last chance to deal with the question of whether local people should be able to decide what they want in their locality. I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. We are not deciding this on religious grounds. It would be wrong and improper. I have said so quite openly to this House, and my colleagues understand me very well. It would not be very fitting if I were to stand at this Dispatch Box and try to lecture your Lordships upon matters religious. I have my own faith, and your Lordships have yours. In so many ways our faiths converge, but upon this matter it would be quite wrong for me to address your Lordships. I have addressed your Lordships on the subject of family life, the environment, the crowding of areas on a Sunday, and the fact that there should be a different day of the week within the cycle of days of the week. Is it wrong for local authorities to have to decide this, and is it wrong that they should have a code of practice?
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said—smiling as he said it—"Look at the numbers in Birmingham. There are 12,000 shops in Birmingham." We have been told, "Please don't worry; only a few people will want this. You are quite wrong to think that there will be Oxford Streets throughout the towns of this country. Only a few people will want to do it." So, presumably, there will be only a few applications. "What", says somebody else, "newsagents will have to apply? They are shops that are already open within the law." There is nothing within this amendment to stop a local authority from saying, "We have taken into consideration all these shops in our area that are legally open. Newsagents, or whatever they may be, will get a completely formal consent. All they will have to do is to make a formal application."
Great play has been made of the fact that all that is being done in this legislation is to echo the voice of freedom throughout the land. Nobody need open a shop unless he wants to. I have never heard (and I do not want to use exaggerated language) a sentence more mocking at freedom. Will the workers who start shopworking after the date of commencement of the Act have any freedom as to whether they will work on Sunday? Will they have freedom to keep their jobs if they say, "We don't want to work on Sunday"? No, my Lords, they will not have that freedom. Will shops which do not want to work on Sundays but which wish to keep themselves economically alive because other shops with a competing trade are open have the

1327
freedom that has been talked about to decide whether or not to open on Sundays?
I commend this amendment to your Lordships on the basis that it puts the rights to deal with these matters where they should be—with local authorities who know their people and know their conditions. There is nothing in this amendment which deserves laughter or extreme language. It is an amendment that deserves support.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say a word. I do not want to use extreme language at all, and of course the views of the local authorities are not decisive. But the Auld Report, having gone through all the various ways of controlling Sunday trading and pointing out that they had defects, did say at paragraph 227 that of all the options this was the only one which actually made the situation worse.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to say only three things. First, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mocked our modern society. I would rather my children were born now in the era of tolerance and listening to other people's points of view than in 1938 when I was born—I am not quite sure when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was born, but it was a little earlier than that. It is a better society that we live in now than it has ever been before. That is the first point. Secondly, what this amendment is saying is that it is the last chance for the bossy-boots to get their oar in, if that is not a terrible mixture of metaphors. What we are asking the Government to do, those of us who agree with it, is to allow people to do what they want. It is not for nanny state to say "Do this, do that". We are mature and civilised human beings.
The last point I want to make is specifically directed at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. The right reverend Prelate has put into his amendment "passers-by". I thought that the New Testament was rather scathing about those who pass by on the other side. Is this a new Christian doctrine, to go with the Eusebian denial of the Virgin Birth, that now "passers-by" should always be consulted? I sincerely hope that this last bossy-boots amendment is thoroughly resisted.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am bound to recognise after this long debate that some of your Lordships find it an attractive proposition that the regulation of retail trading hours particularly on a Sunday should be in the hands of local authorities in order that they can be tailored to the needs of local communities. That has come over quite plainly. But I rather hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will see that such a scheme would introduce a quite intolerable burden of bureaucracy, as we have heard from so many who have spoken this afternoon. This burden would fall on traders, it would fall on courts and it would fall on the local authorities.
If this amendment were to be accepted, as my noble friend Lord Sandford so vividly illustrated, local authorities would be faced with a flood of applications upon enactment of the Bill. Every sweet shop, tobacconist and newsagent, every garden centre and
1328
do-it-youself shop, every pharmacy and video shop, every petrol station and station bookstall, every shop in a holiday resort and every other shop now open on a Sunday, legally or illegally, would be required to apply for permission to open on a Sunday. What a burden that would be!
Under the terms of this amendment a shop will either be granted permission to open or refused it. There is no scope for conditional or limited opening. Local authorities will have to consider each and every one of these applications. They will have to establish detailed policy for each shopping area and neighbourhood and decide whether to allow all or some shops to open; and, if some, what kind. They will have to consult, deal with representations, deal with petitions and deal with lobbies. Inevitably, there will be difficulties and disagreements, all of which will fall to the Secretary of State to be solved on appeal. I shall return to that in a moment. For fairness, it will be necessary for such appeals to be processed rapidly in order that a trader does not lose custom to a competitor. In this case the burden will fall upon the taxpayer.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, quoted from paragraph 219 of the Auld Report. As I think has been pointed out, he did not go on to mention paragraphs 223 or 224, or indeed the last paragraph to which my noble friend Lord Sandford referred just now, which all go to point out the other side of the coin and the very real difficulties that this would introduce. While I can see that it might be superficially attractive, this amendment continues to shy away from the problems and practicalities that any new system of regulation will introduce.
The Secretary of State is required to draw up a code of practice, presumably stating the principles and conditions under which a shop should be allowed to open. My noble friend Lord Sandford again pointed to the difficulties of this. In this House and elsewhere it has been shown time and again that it is not feasible in today's retail trade to devise a system which will differentiate fairly between shops. Yet this amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice and that code of practice is to be agreed in both Houses of Parliament.
Were the amendment to be accepted we should begin our discussions all over again as we tried to define a code of practice that would be fair and simple and easy to enforce. This would not solve a problem; it would merely delay it. The problems would be tackled not as part of this Bill but when considering a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. Although a code of practice will be issued by the Secretary of State, the judgment and the application of it will be local. Surely, there is a strange inconsistency there. Nor will such a code be binding. This would be a total abdication of responsibility. It would be an admission that Parliament could not solve the problem and had decided to pass the buck to the individual local authorities.
If local authorities disagree or diverge in their interpretations of the code of practice and their granting of permission, we may find a trader is forced to close when a nearby rival is open. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, gave an example of how boundaries may lie along a street and shops on one

1329
side would be able to pick up business where others on the other side of the road would not. There are bound to be local anomalies. If they are to be eliminated, it will presumably be through the system of appeal to the Secretary of State. Such appeals may come not just from shopkeepers whose application has been refused but from any interested person. This may include his trade rivals or any member of the public.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to indicate that the right to appeal would be a very simple method of achieving uniformity. Would it really? The amendment allows any interested person to appeal against a grant or refusal of permission. It would mean a shopkeeper could appeal against refusal of permission; it would mean a rival shopkeeper could appeal against the grant of permission; it would mean that people who objected to shops being opened could appeal against the grant of permission; it would mean that people who wished to shop could appeal against the refusal of permission. In short, it would mean an extremely busy Secretary of State, but I cannot see that the system would be simple or that it would lead to a simple method of achieving uniformity. As my noble friend Lord Sandford pointed out, if one went into the realm of public inquiry the mind really boggles.
I cannot envisage that that would be a sensible way to proceed. I do not regard it at all as any part of the Government's business to decide whether or not an individual shopkeeper should be allowed to trade on Sundays. The amendment may remove the offence from the scope of the criminal law but the only sanction that can be imposed on a shopkeeper is an injunction. Thereafter he would be liable to the penalties associated with contempt of court should he not abide by the terms of that injunction. Is that really a practicable way of dealing with a trader for opening a shop to meet the needs of the customer? Do we really want that to happen? I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; of course we do not.
This amendment proposes a system of regulation that would create an unacceptable burden on all concerned and at a cost to ratepayer and taxpayer. It is a procrastinating amendment since it leaves discussion of the policy underlying the proposed code of practice to another time, even though such a policy has been unsuccessfully sought on many occasions both here and in another place. Furthermore, it proposes restrictions on Sunday trading in Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond indicated, where there are none now. I think that many of your Lordships will agree that Scotland will not particularly welcome that.
Retail trading hours do not need restriction by law, nor are such restrictions desired by the majority of the people of this country. I share the views of those who have pointed to the serious shortcomings of this amendment, which would produce a complex and costly bureaucracy at local and at national level to regulate a harmless activity which most people do not consider should be regulated.
This amendment does not have the good case in reality which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thinks it has. That is why my noble friend Lord Sandford, with his great experience, stressed the nonsenses it would lead to. I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, we have heard today the sort of arguments I have heard dozens of times in the courts of law. They say, "If you do not like your opponents' argument and cannot deal with it in any other way, pour scorn upon it". It is like the partner who had to leave a case to his colleague. He put a note for him on the brief, reading, "No case, abuse the other side's attorney."
That is what has happened throughout our discussion today. Time after time, at Committee stage and now, we have put forward amendments to preserve the character of our Sundays. They have all been well-intentioned, well thought out and well planned but we are met not with reason but with scorn. I tell your Lordships that all those round the country to whom I have spoken, all right-minded people, want to preserve our Sunday as much as they can and to restrict Sunday trading so that it does not impair Sundays. That is what we have tried to do in these amendments. Well, we did not succeed with exceptions. That proposal had scorn poured upon it. It was said, "These are ridiculous exceptions. There are anomalies." We did not succeed, although we tried time after time.
We now come to the amendment we are at present debating. Surely it is sensible. It is not unworkable. What I would envisage would happen, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, is that if the amendment goes through all those shops which are now opening on Sunday will just make a formal application to the local authorities and in nearly every case those applications will go through on the nod because the local authorities have not taken any steps against the shops under the existing Act. Therefore, there will be no trouble about those at all. Of course, any new ones like the do-it-yourself centres will be allowed. It will only be a few who want to open freshly on Sundays. I hope there will be only one or two in our areas or perhaps half a dozen or more—people who hitherto have been closed on Sundays—who will say, "Now we will apply for permission."
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, envisages floods of applications. That is what is feared. I dispute the suggestion. There will not be floods. The only people who will apply will be those existing shopkeepers whom we already tolerate opening on Sundays—whether newsagents or food centres. They will be granted permission automatically. Applications will only come from those who want newly to open on Sundays. Why should not our local authorities—good, sensible people—say, "We have got enough already open on Sundays. We have that little shop around the corner. We do not want you next door to open"? Why should not they say that? If there is abuse of authority as suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, where shops are open in one area but not another, or you cross the border to find shops open but cannot, those will all be ironed out by the code of practice and by the appeal mechanism.
We have tried many amendments and this is the last step, the last opportunity, for us to preserve the character of our Sundays by some means in law and not to let Sundays be flooded with shops that are open. Whether your Lordships agree with the details or not, I ask the House to say that this amendment should be carried in order to emphasise the real opinion of the

1331
people of England that the character of Sunday should remain and that we should not allow free, unsolicited Sunday trading for all shops. I am ready to test the opinion of the House because I feel so strongly about it.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Birmingham, Bp. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brentford, V.

Mulley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Brockway, L.

Nicol, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Oram, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rea, L.

Collison, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Denning, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Diamond, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Durham, Bp.

Southwark, Bp.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Swinfen, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grantchester, L.

Underhill, L.

Greenway, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Wheatley, L.

Hereford, Bp.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wilberforce, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

York, Abp.

Leicester, Bp.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Geddes, L.

Arran, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Grimond, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Caccia, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Chelwood, L.

Manton, L.

Clinton, L.

Margadale, L.

Coggan, L.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Monson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

1332

Norrie, L.

Stockton, E.

Onslow, E.

Suffield, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Portland, D.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Renton, L.

Vinson, L.

Rodney, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Davids, V,

Ward of Witley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Young, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it would appear that this is a convenient moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not resume the Report stage of this Bill before 8.30. I move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we have now adjourned, but I think noble Lords are anxious to get home this evening, so would 8.15 be acceptable to the Government?
Viscount Davidson: I thought, my Lords, that 8.30 had been agreed through the usual channels; but obviously it was not. Yes, it is agreed—8.15 then.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 16 of Gaming Act 1968]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("(not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Bill, as I am sure those of your Lordships who have remained here will be aware, is to legalise what is known as the redemption of cheques in gaming clubs. As I hope I made clear at Second Reading, I am completely in favour of this Bill.
If one goes to a gaming club and writes a cheque to pay for one's chips and then, for once, wins a lot of money, it is extremely annoying that it is then not possible to get the cheque back. Also, gaming club proprietors of course would much rather return the cheque to you and have your cash instead, because it is always possible that the cheque may be dishonoured.
It was not the intention in 1968 that the redemption of cheques should be illegal, but Section 16(3) unintentionally made it so.
I have put down these four or five amendments. They will not in any way affect the operation of the Bill but I believe that they would improve it and remove one or two points that are not clear at present. This first amendment deals with the question of dishonoured cheques. Of course, the gaming clubs have a great deal of trouble with dishonoured cheques because players come in and write cheques for more than they can afford and when the cheques are presented they are returned. It is then up to the gaming clubs to collect the money one way or another, and in many cases when cheques are re-presented they are honoured. If not, in most cases the player will eventually go back and give the money that will enable the cheque to be returned to him.
The Committee will notice that in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, the redemption of cheques is permitted provided that certain conditions are complied with. The words to which I am taking objection are those in parenthesis:
"(not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)".
My amendment would delete those words. My reason for doing so is that the subsection reads:
"shall permit to be redeemed any cheque (not being a cheque which has been dishonoured) accepted in exchange for cash or tokens",
etc.
My point is this. A cheque that has been dishonoured cannot be redeemed. It cannot be a redeemed cheque because that is defined in subsection (7) as meaning:
"a cheque accepted in fulfilment of the conditions specified in subsection (2)",
and one of those conditions is paragraph (b):
"it is redeemed during the playing session in which it was accepted, or within thirty minutes after the end of the session".
Of course a dishonoured cheque would have been accepted a day, two days or three days before. Therefore, a dishonoured cheque can never become a redeemed cheque and there is no need to talk about redeeming any cheque
"(not being a cheque which has been dishonoured)".
For 18 years, since the Gaming Bill of 1968 became law, there have been well-established procedures between gaming clubs and their members for the members to make good—I must not use the word "redeem"—cheques that have been dishonoured. None of those procedures has ever been thought illegal and could not be illegal in any way because neither subsections (1) nor (3) of Section 16 of the Gaming Act could conceivably have been contravened. There is therefore no need to legalise what has been held to be legal ever since the Gaming Act became law. I therefore feel that those words should be deleted, and I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. As he rightly reminded the Committee, he indicated his firm support for the Bill on Second Reading. As he pointed out, the intention of these amendments is in no way to affect its central purpose. In some cases they are rather more than drafting amendments. I can assure him, as I have told
1334
him already, that we have looked at them carefully to see whether they could be incorporated in the Bill. I apologise in advance if he thinks that in any sense I am taking a negative attitude to what he has proposed, but substantial problems arise in relation to the amendments. If I may, I shall deal with the one that he has just moved in order to explain the problems that would arise if it was incorporated in the Bill.
As the noble Lord said, the law as it now stands applies in this way. Dishonoured cheques can already be discharged and recovered by a player. That is as it should be. They have already gone through the banking process; that is, they have gone through a bank within two days as a result of Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968. The central purpose of the Bill is that their position should not in any way be affected. Players have always been able to redeem by payment of either cash or chips a cheque given for gaming on a previous visit to the casino which was subsequently dishonoured and returned. There is no reason why they should not continue to be able to do so.
The words in parenthesis are designed simply to make it absolutely clear that such dishonoured cheques are outside the scope of the Bill. By definition, having already gone through the banking process—a point that I have made already—a dishonoured cheque could not comply with the second condition, (b), required for any redeemed cheque under subsection (3) of the Bill. The general prohibition against redemption specifies in the two words immediately preceding those in parenthesis, "any cheque". If that is construed as including dishonoured cheques, they could no longer be redeemed. The words in parenthesis eliminate that possibility and are therefore I am afraid absolutely essential. It could lead to all sorts of extremely vexatious litigation if the form of words set out in the amendment were added to the Bill. I very much hope that as a result of my explanation the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Viscount Davidson: The Committee will be grateful for the close interest that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has taken not only in what the Bill sets out to achieve but in its drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has explained why the words referred to in the amendment were included in the Bill. We take the view that the words are helpful and important in making it clear that a cheque which has been dishonoured may be returned to the person who offered it in the normal way. It is conceivable that without the words there might be some confusion as to whether the conditions which will apply before cheques can be redeemed also apply to dishonoured cheques. For this reason we cannot agree to the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I still feel that a bouncing cheque cannot be redeemed under the definition in the Bill; it is in a sense beyond redemption. But in view of the line that both noble Lords have taken on this point. I do not intend to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) any substitute cheque is not post-dated; and").
The noble Lord said: My second amendment deals with the question of post-dated cheques. Under the 1968 Act it is of course illegal to give a post-dated cheque because that would amount to the giving of credit and would be contrary to Section 16(1) of the Act. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has included paragraph (c) of Clause 1(3) which extends that prohibition of post-dated cheques to any substitute cheque that is given by the player when he redeems it.
But the matter to which I must draw attention is that, as the Bill is at present worded, it seems to me certain that that prohibition would apply only if the substitute cheque were for the full sum of the cheque that is being redeemed.
Paragraph (c) reads:
"where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque".
We have to consider the case where the original cheque was for £100 and the member who comes to leave the club has £50 in chips and wants to pay in the £50 and write a substitute cheque for the other £50—something he is quite likely to want to do and something that is specifically permitted under subsection (3). It seems to me that this is a drafting matter, but that it would not be possible because the whole cheque is not redeemed, only part of it. To get around this I have left out the wording,
"where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque"
because that is unnecessary. It is only when a cheque is exchanged for a substitute cheque that a substitute cheque will be involved. The paragraph would instead read,
"any substitute cheque is not post-dated".
That would include a case where a substitute cheque was only in respect of part of the amount involved in the original cheque. I feel that there is a mistake that should be corrected. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has rightly said that this is really a drafting amendment. We looked at it carefully with the legal authorities responsible for these matters. I do not believe that the problem, as the noble Lord has set it out, will be a matter of any difficulty. It is primarily a question of the use of language rather than any particular issue of principle. Reasonable men can take different views on what is the right form of words to use. On the basis of the advice that we have received, we have concluded that the present form of wording is preferable to the alternative. It is a narrow issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, indicated, when he pointed out that it was a drafting issue. The position is that we preferred our own choice of language, having, as a result of what the noble Lord said, discussed this with the authorities concerned. I do not know whether the noble Viscount cares to add anything.
Viscount Davidson: I should perhaps add that I can confirm that, while we appreciate the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, to simplify the wording of the Bill, we do not believe that this suggestion fits in
1336
grammatically with the surrounding provision. It is, in our view, desirable that the words,
"where the cheque is redeemed in exchange for a substitute cheque"
should appear to make the position as clear as possible.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to both noble Lords. I am sorry that the Minister accuses me of being ungrammatical. As a working sub-editor, one of my duties is to follow the laws of English so far as I can. It seems to me that the Bill would read:
"unless the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—"
and then,
"any substitute cheque is not post-dated".
That seems to me to be a condition just as,
"it is redeemed during the playing session in which it was accepted",
and so on, is a condition. If I may take it, as I think I may from what has been said, that the wording of the Bill will not prevent a member or a player from redeeming his cheque in part with cash or tokens and in part with a cheque that is not post-dated, I am perfectly content to leave it as it is, and to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 11, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with what the Act, in its rather quaint way, refers to as tokens but what I and everyone else in the gambling world describe as chips—the chips are down. This is an amendment to paragraph (d) of Clause 1(3), which I had better read out. One of the last of the conditions is that,
"where tokens are given in whole or in part exchange for the redeemed cheque, the value of each token is equal to the amount originally given in exchange for it or, if the token was won in the gaming, the value it represented when won".
This seems to be considering a situation in which the chips that you get for your £25, your £100, or your £10,000, depending on your scale of play, may in some way or other differ from the amount of money you pay for them. In other words, you go in and cash a cheque for £100 and get only £95 worth or £90 worth of chips—or maybe it will be £105 worth of chips; if there is any such club I would immediately become a member of it. But that is not, of course, the way that it happens.
The way that it happens is that if you give the cashier £100 you get chips with a face value of £100. That, as I have confirmed, although I knew it already, is the situation in all the licensed premises in Britain and also in France, Monaco and elsewhere. It would probably be illegal—in fact, it would be illegal—for a casino or gaming club to give you chips with a face value of less than the amount you gave, under Section 15 of the 1968 Act which makes clear that Section 4 of the Act also applies in Part II. Section 4 states that no gaming shall take place
"where a levy is charged on any of the stakes or on the winnings of any of the players, whether by way of direct payment or deduction, or by the exchange of tokens at a lower rate than the rate at which they were issued, or by any other means".
Section 15(2) states that, in the case of licensed premises, regulations made under the section may provide that a levy may be raised. However, this has never been done. There is no sign that it ever will be done. And the gaming clubs are surely making enough money already without giving them 5 per cent. up front when you go to buy your chips. Since the face value, which the dictionary defines as the value written on the coin or other object, is always what you have given for it, I do not see why there is any necessity to go into all the detail in paragraph (d). I do not see why the question has to be raised at all, in which case paragraph (d) could be omitted altogether. That is what I propose in my third amendment. If, however, that is too radical a solution, I would suggest instead my Amendment No. 4, which would leave paragraph (d) reading,
"where tokens are given in whole or in part exchange for the redeemed cheque, each token is given its face value".
I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, quite reasonably asked the question: why does this issue have to be dealt with at all? I shall endeavour to explain very briefly why it does indeed have to be dealt with. It would be a matter of substance were this amendment to be incorporated in the Bill.
The paragraph (d) which the noble Lord is seeking to strike out governs the value of tokens. It is simply there to ensure that the player receives the same value for them as he gives. It is a simple addition to Section 16(2)(b) of the 1968 Act. It would prevent any possibility of the licence holder, for example, discounting a proportion of the value of tokens in any such transaction. It is a necessary safeguard against the possibility of malpractice. That is indeed the purpose of it. It is to safeguard the position of the player. I think it is essential to have that provision in the Bill, and that is why it is there.
Viscount Davidson: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained that it is a prudent precaution for paragraph (d) to provide that tokens used to redeem cheques should be given the same value as when they were first obtained. We regard that as an important safeguard in ensuring that cheque transactions are conducted fairly. We consider that the provision should be retained.
Lord Kilbracken: In view of what both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount have said, I do not propose to take the matter any further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("a") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("period") to ("on") in line 30 and insert ("throughout which gaming is taking place").
The noble Lord said: This is a proposed amendment to subsection (7) of Clause 1, in which there are three definitions. The first definition is of a "playing session". The need for this is because that phrase is used in paragraph (b) above—one of the conditions which is imposed. The condition is that the cheque must be redeemed,
"during the playing session in which it was accepted, or within thirty minutes after the end of the session".
The "playing session" is defined as meaning:
"a continuous period during one day, or two consecutive days, throughout which gaming is permitted by or under this Act to take place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force".
I would first point out that in the 1968 Act there is no reference to any time when gaming is permitted to take place. All the Act has to say on this matter is that gaming may not take place for a period of about 11 or 12 hours on Sunday. But in one of the schedules to the Act—I do not have the reference in front of me—it authorises the licensing authority, when granting a licence, to lay down the hours to which gaming should be confined if the licensing authority feels inclined to do so, and the licensing authority in fact always does.
I am not sure whether an order made by the licensing authority as to the hours when a club may be open does or does not constitute hours permitted by or under this Act. They are not permitted by the Act but they are permitted by the magistrates, who are authorised to permit them by the Act.
However that may be, it seems to me that this paragraph does not say what it intends to say, because what this means is that a cheque may be redeemed until 30 minutes after the time prescribed by the licensing magistrate for that particular club on that particular day. That is probably three or four o'clock in the morning. We can well understand that it is essential, if a cheque is going to be redeemed, that it has to be redeemed during that playing session—in other words, before the player goes home—or within half an hour after gaming has ceased.
But the position may quite well be that the hour at which gaming ends is perhaps considerably earlier than the hours during which gaming is permitted. For example, it may be snowing very heavily, no one comes to the casino, at midnight the club is deserted, they are entitled to continue until three o'clock in the morning, but they close down. Sometimes these clubs decide to have a staff party in the casino, so on that particular night they stop playing at half-past 10 or 11 o'clock although they are perfectly entitled under the law to go on playing until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning.
Under those conditions, under the Bill as drafted at present the man who wants to redeem his cheques could come back three or four hours after the club has completely closed to people and demand to redeem his cheque because it is during the period for which gaming is permitted. My point is that it should be for the period during which gaming is actually taking place. That is what I hope my amendment would do.
The words "during one day, or two consecutive days" are not necessary. I found them confusing I see what this means: that gaming is normally going on both before and after midnight, so it has to apply to the day that ends at midnight and the next day which

1339
begins at midnight. But I do not see that we have to say that. Surely what the Bill is trying to say is that the "playing session" means a continuous period throughout which gaming is taking place on premises, etc., not "is permitted … to take place". That is the whole object of my amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The problem about this particular amendment is that it would make no allowance for a situation arising in a casino which necessitated some temporary interruption to gaming. One has to accept in these days that not only is there the risk of a fire alarm going off, but there could easily be a bomb scare as a result of which the casino had to be evacuated. The wording of the Bill in terms of:
"continuous period … permitted by or under this Act"
would accommodate that particular contingency which otherwise may entirely fortuitously bar players from redeeming their cheques. I am sure that that is not the noble Lord's purpose, but that is why that particular form of wording appears in the place that it does in the Bill.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having written to me and given me a clear explanation of the amendments which he proposed to move. I must admit that I have been rather baffled by the descriptions of cheque transactions and so on and I am not sure whether the Minister, if he did not have the full weight of the civil servants behind him, may not also feel rather baffled. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the very interesting description he has given of the changes that he has tried to make to the Bill. However, as I, with my limited experience, understand the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it has the very clear objective of trying to rectify an imperfection in the present Act. The Bill which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has received the general agreement of the many people who have worked on it.
Therefore, although I fully recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would like to make it even better, I personally should like to accept the very minor alterations which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is making today through his amendments and which will leave the Bill very much as it was on Second Reading. I should like to wish the Bill a very safe passage.
Viscount Davidson: I should also like to thank again the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for the interest which he has taken in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel too isolated.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained the importance which the Royal Commission attached to restricting the redemption of cheques to the period of the playing session and immediately thereafter. The Bill seeks to follow the Royal Commission. In so doing, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is important to be completely clear about the playing
1340
session, and the present definition appears helpful and informative.
Lord Kilbracken: This seems to me to be quite a difficult point. I can quite see that if there were a fire or some emergency and all play suddenly stopped for 15 minutes while people hid under the roulette table it would constitute an end of play. On the other hand, I believe that what I said was true. If it refers to the hours during which play is permitted, then play may end several hours before that time and that would be unfortunate too. However, on balance, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Minister are right because if it has to be one or the other it is better that it should be too late than too early. I have raised the point in order to clarify the issue, but in the light of what has been said I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("accepted") to ("in") in line 39.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This is a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("by either the holder of a licence under this Act or a person acting on behalf of or under any arrangement with the holder of such a licence.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. This is also a drafting amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation, short title and commencement]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("(4) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: If the 1968 Act does not apply to Northern Ireland, then surely it follows automatically that this one cannot do so?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is always difficult to decide how clear to make a statute. On balance, we came to the conclusion that it was desirable to make it absolutely clear and that is why that particular form of words appear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Importation of Live Fish of the Salmon Family Order 1986
8.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Importation of Live Fish of the Salmon Family Order 1986 will allow live fish of the salmon family to be brought into Great Britain from Northern Ireland under licence. When the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 was enacted, it prohibited all imports of live fish of the salmon family into Great Britain and that prohibition includes those fish originating in Northern Ireland.
However, in the Diseases of Fish Act 1983, the opportunity was taken to amend that provision of the 1937 Act so that the total prohibition could be relaxed by order, the draft of which having first been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The draft order which I am putting before your Lordships today has been approved in another place and is the first example of such a relaxation that we have proposed.
The absolute prohibition under the 1937 Act has contributed greatly to Great Britain's relatively high fish health status when compared with many of our neighbours in continental Europe. The fish farming industry in this country finds this advantage of considerable value and I can only assure your Lordships that the draft order which we have brought forward will not jeopardise our fish health status in any way.
Following extensive and detailed discussions between officials in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, my right honourable friends and I are satisfied that we should allow live fish of the salmon family to be brought into Great Britain from Northern Ireland under licence. We have taken that decision in the light of Northern Ireland's excellent fish health status which is certainly as high as Great Britain's. Moreover, imports of fish and fish products into Northern Ireland are strictly controlled in order to safeguard their high status. All fish farms in the Province are regularly tested and no fish stocks may be moved from farm to farm without consent in Northern Ireland. For those reasons we have concluded that the present absolute ban is not reasonable in relation to live fish of the salmon family coming from Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords may wish to have some details of how the arrangements will work in practice. When the order comes into force, live fish of the salmon family may be brought into Great Britain from Northern Ireland but only under licence. Licences will only be issued for consignments which come from fish farms which we know to have a satisfactory fish health record. Licences will require the certificate of origin and health to be completed in relation to the individual consignment and that the certificate accompanies the fish during their journey. If those requirements are not met the consignment may be seized and disposed of as we see fit.
The fish farming industry throughout the United Kingdom will benefit from the arrangements which we
1342
propose. Northern Ireland fish farmers will have many more potential customers for their fish while fish farmers in Great Britain will have a greater choice of suppliers. Our fish health status will not be jeopardised in the process. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we should like to thank the Minister for explaining this order because it is a little unclear whether it refers to fish from farming or fish from rivers. However, the Minister explained that it relates to fish from farming and not to fish from Ireland's rivers.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is present at the moment, but I discussed this matter with him earlier. He said that, although he did not know much about salmon, he did not think there was much salmon in Northern Ireland. This measure will certainly help because fish farming in both countries is expanding at a tremendous rate.
However, I wonder whether a danger could be involved. The Minister must know that quite recently storms destroyed the cages of a fish farm in Scotland and literally tens of thousands of fish were let loose. I do not think we can control fish as we can control sheep. I cannot believe that they would not swim across from Ireland to Scotland, because it is not very far! If storms burst the nets or cages of particular fish farms and the fish get loose, there could be a disease danger there. I do not know whether any allowance has been made for that sort of thing happening. It has happened in Scotland but I do not know where the fish went. There could be a danger there.
I think the Minister said this ban has been in force since 1937. If the Irish have cleaned up the disease situation, it is all to the good that the ban should be lifted. It reminds me of a situation in relation to importing cattle from France. I tried that way back in 1954, but the disease situation was such that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland would not even accept a letter from me making such a request; they said that I would be wasting my stamp. However, in due course the French tidied up the disease question and the ban was, as we know, lifted in 1962.
If the Minister could answer my question about what happens to the fish that escape, along with him I would be delighted to approve the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, always has one shrewd thrust, and he produced one on this order. My response is that fish might escape in one direction but they might very well escape in the other direction and therefore there could be pollution either way across the Irish Sea. It is something which could happen whether or not this order is agreed to.
I think it is important to say that, under this order, before issuing a licence we shall look very carefully at the health status of the specific supplying site, not just at the health status of Northern Ireland in general. Therefore, we look at the particular fish farm first to see whether we can grant a licence. Sites from which movements are proposed must have been regularly

1343
tested to rigorous standards for at least two years. They must have been found free from a range of diseases. They must also operate on a water source free from potential disease contamination and they must operate good husbandry practices in order to minimise disease sites. Therefore, that really means that the health status from the individual supplying site will be of the very highest, and all this will be kept under close observation by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland veterinary offices. I hope that that is a good enough reply to the noble Lord on the particular issues that he has raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we find ourselves in a slight difficulty in that we are due to resume consideration of the Shops Bill at a quarter-past eight and it is now only fourteen minutes past. Whether I should attempt to speak for another minute, which I might find difficult at this stage, or whether I should adjourn the House during pleasure for—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord clearly underrates his ability to fill in a mere minute and a half. I am quite sure that with assistance from other Members of your Lordships' House we can help him out of his agony.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We have now probably almost reached the stage when we can continue consideration of the Shops Bill on Report.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, before I call the next amendment, I should announce a correction to the number of those voting in the last Division, Division No. 2. The number should have been: Contents, 56, not 55; and Not-Contents, 86. So the Not-Contents have it.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Late opening on week days.
.—(1) Transactions carried out in shops after 9 p.m. on week days and 7 p.m. on Sundays may take place in accordance with provisions to be included in an order to be made by the Secretary of State. Such an order shall not come into effect until a draft has been laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) Variations to an order made under subsection (1) above may be made at any time by the Secretary of State by order. Such an order shall not come into effect until a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) Orders referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above shall specify the names of enforcing authorities as well as a scale of fines for non-observance of the provisions of this section by any occupier of a shop found guilty of contravening these orders.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has as its purpose the writing into the Bill of statutory closing times for shops on weekdays and also on Sundays. Having said that, I would also claim that the closing times which are proposed are so liberal and so
1344
much in advance of what are currently in the 1950 Act that the Government should have little difficulty in accepting this amendment—that is to say, if they are disposed to accept in principle the idea of statutory closing times at all. I would assume that, if there is a rejection of the times proposed in this amendment, we can take it as being fairly definite that, so far as this House is concerned, Her Majesty's Government's mind is closed, and that this is in fact an "open all hours" Bill.
First, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that on Mondays to Saturdays at the present time shops may open until 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the so-called late night. The purpose of this amendment is to make 9 o'clock the universal closing time on all six weekdays, so that by itself this particular amendment will increase the legal shopping hours by five hours per week.
I should say in passing that the Auld Committee received no great requests for much in the way of an extension of the existing week-night opening hours. In fact, I can recall that only one major retailer asked for an extension beyond 9 p.m., and on examination it was found that only two of his 240 stores were opening later than 9 p.m., and those stores were in highly specialised locations in central London.
It has also been suggested that the problem of enforcement would be easier if, instead of having one late night which is variable from retailer to retailer, the late night closing was universal so that retailers could not say, when asked why they were open after 8 p.m., "This is my late night" when they had also probably been open the previous night after 8 p.m., calling that the late night. Therefore, 9 p.m. would facilitate the enforcement process.
Turning to Sundays, it has been my contention throughout the piece—and I make it again this evening—that the Auld Committee received no great request for Sunday night shopping. Equally, I concede that there was demand for shopping on Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon, and by choosing 7 p.m. on Sundays I think we have met all the evidence which the Auld Committee received, and are in fact providing a major change in the law of this land.
Furthermore, if one assumes that 7 p.m. is selected I think one can say that this would meet most of the demand which is likely to ensue. It meets the present practice of the law breakers; I refer to the DIY stores and the garden centres, most of which are closing at 6 p.m. It allows a closing time for shops to coincide with the opening time of pubs, which I think should facilitate life for those people who find Sunday boring in that they can move from shopping to drinking. I think that in other ways it meets with the general demand which the Auld Committee received.
If we take together the proposals in the amendment, and pay attention to the fact that there is no statutory opening time for shops in Britain, and if we assume that most shops are now open by 8 a.m. on weekdays and can remain trading throughout until 9 p.m., we are talking of a 13-hour shopping day, six days a week, a total of 78 hours. If we assume that on Sunday business starts a little later and shops decide to open around 9 a.m. and remain open until 7 p.m., we have a 10-hour shopping day, which give a shopping week of 88 hours.
For a country which is enjoying the benefit of a five-day 39-hour week, to most people that would seem quite reasonable and would certainly legalise shopping hours to an extent which is probably greater than in most parts of Western Europe. If in addition to that one adds 56 hours' sleeping time—eight hours a day, seven days a week—one gets a total of 88 plus 56, 144 hours. Effectively, there would, under the amendment, be only 24 hours in a week when shops should be closed. But in point of fact shops need not be closed during that period of time because the amendment provides for shops to open provided they are not selling goods other than those specified in the schedules which the Minister will be empowered to make under the Bill.
You may say to yourselves, "Why close at all?" I would say, first, to protect those who live near shops from the problem of nuisance. I would say, further, to minimise the demand on the police, transport authorities, and other enforcement bodies arising from having to provide a service which may, or may not, be required but which in law should be available throughout the total period that shops choose to remain open.
There is also the important point made by the Association of County Councils that although the county council is not the enforcing body for shop hours it is in fact the enforcing body for a wide range of consumer protection legislation. Given the strain which will be placed upon the enforcement authorities as a result of the extension of hours, it is fair and reasonable to suggest that there should be a limit to the period of time during which county councils are expected to enforce the law.
I asked the county councils to tell me how much law they were expected to enforce. I have a list showing that there are 52 Acts of Parliament designed to protect the consumer and enforceable by county councils. The county councils make it clear that not all those Acts of Parliament are enforceable within the shop, but many of them are. In addition to that there are 1,007 statutory instruments to be enforced as well as 100 European Commission regulations.
Among the legislation which has to be enforced are the Trade Descriptions Acts 1968 and 1972; the Fair Trading Act 1973; the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the Prices Acts 1974 and 1975; the Food Act 1984; the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act 1967; the Medicines Act 1968; the Weights and Measures Acts 1963, 1976 and 1979; the Consumer Protection Acts 1961 and 1971; the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; and the Consumer Safety Act 1978.
That is a fairly formidable corpus of legislation. If one bears in mind the undoubted problems which retailers will have in maintaining service throughout the extended trading hours, and in particular the supervisory problem for management, I would submit that protecting the consumer becomes more important under the proposed Bill than it did under the Shops Act 1950.
There is also the important point that if there is no statutory closing time at all in shopping legislation one has a conflict between that legislation and the licensing laws. We read in the press that the Government are perhaps minded in the next Session of Parliament to do something about implementing the report by the
1346
noble Lord, Lord Erroll, which was produced in 1972. I cannot believe that in implementing that report, whatever form the implementation takes, the Government are going to have a situation in which public houses need never close. If, therefore, you have a situation in which there is a closing time for pubs and no closing time for shops, then you have automatically created yet another anomaly, and for that reason I would suggest that there is merit in having a closing time for shops in this Bill.
So far as shopworkers are concerned, I am referring here not to those covered by wages councils but to those covered by agreements between fairly large bodies of employers and the trade unions. My experience of labour relations has been gained entirely on the employers' side, so I know very well what the trade unions are likely to do so far as the existing agreements are concerned.
They will say—and quite rightly, in my opinion—that the existing agreements are based on the Shops Act 1950, and that if you have a situation in which shops may be open for 24 hours a day then there is a need to conclude new agreements covering those workers. I think that will be used by the trade unions—and again I have no objection to this—as a justification for saying that in every case where other workers are obliged to undertake shift work, to work on Sundays, and generally to have the social inconvenience which these liberalisations will mean for them, that is recognised in the agreements which they already have with employers, and I think they would have little difficulty in convincing any independent chairman of an arbitration tribunal that a major increase in wages is justified as a result of the changes which this Bill now proposes.
That can only mean higher prices for consumers. It may not have entered the heads of the National Consumer Council, or indeed of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but it is the harsh reality of life and something that ought to be taken into consideration so far as the protection of consumers is concerned in this Bill.
So far as concerns the owners of small shops, the problem is perhaps less acute. But even here where the family is asked to man the counter there is a justification for not allowing, perhaps, a bossy father to tell sons, or even nephews—as in the case of "Open All Hours" with dear old Granville and Mr. Arkwright—to perform all hours of the day, and so on. There is a case for a closing time there.
In my opinion the problem of opening well into the late evening will become a difficult one. It will place employers who would not normally open so late in the position of having to make a decision as to whether or not they must continue to open in order not to lose trade to competitors who are forcing the pace regarding closing hours.
The amendment will allow for shops to remain open until 9 p.m. on six nights, and 7 p.m. on Sundays. It will permit the Minister to make, by statutory instrument, a list of goods which can be sold after those times on those seven days. It will further permit the Minister to amend that list by statutory instrument as and when changes in shopping habits, or other reasons, make such changes seem desirable.
Finally, the Minister would also be able, within the some legislation, to provide for the rate of fines which

1347
he was going to ask the courts to impose on conviction for non-observance of those hours, and also to specify the enforcing authority. Here I would suggest to the Minister that, if the amendment is of any interest to him whatsoever, there may be a case for taking away enforcement in England and Wales from the Association of District Councils and offering it to county councils, because then consumer enforcement and shop hours enforcement would be under the control of a single authority, and on balance that might prove economical from the point of view of the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have rather more sympathy for this amendment than for most of the amendments moved by noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, but only a little more sympathy, given the way in which this amendment is presently drafted. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the possibility of 24-hour shopping. As a matter of fact I believe that for shops to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in non-residential areas would actually add to the gaiety of the nation—I use the word "gaiety" in its correct sense, assuming it is still legal to do so. Equally I would concede that for shops to open for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in residential areas would tend to add to the misery of the nation, and I agree therefore that some local authority control may be needed so far as residential areas are concerned.
But why go over the top and propose such early closing hours? Nearly all the Asian-owned and Asian-run grocery shops and mini-markets in the part of London where I live are open until 11 p.m., or possibly 10.30 p.m., every day of the week. Certainly nobody I know in my street, or anywhere near where I live, has any objection to this at all—quite the opposite. Why should they object, because, after all, the pubs are open until 11 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. on Sundays? If the pubs, or indeed the Asian-run shops, were to stay open until midnight, people might well think differently: they might be deprived of sleep, and a genuine nuisance would have resulted. If the amendment referred to 11 p.m. closing on weekdays and to 10 p.m. on Sundays, to bring shops into line with pubs—it was, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who referred to a possible anomaly in this respect—I could bring myself to support the amendment, but certainly not as it is drafted at present.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it has been a curious feature of our debates on this Bill that noble Lords on the Benches opposite seem to have a craving to restrict the opening of shops wherever they can. It leads one to wonder why they adopt so restrictionist an attitude. The tendency in this country in recent years has been to extend the hours during which shops are open and available to the public. We owe a good deal of this to immigrants from the continent of Asia, from where come hard-working people determined to make a success of their business in the best possible way by providing the service which the public wants. Many of them have prospered, deservedly in my view, because they have studied the needs and wishes of the public
1348
and they have sought to serve them. There has been a considerable liberalising of the hours during which shops are open.
I see no reason to restrict it, either as this amendment proposes on week days—which seems to take it outside the general scope of the Bill, which as I understand it is concerned with Sunday opening—or, still less, to close at 7 o'clock on Sundays. There would have to be all kinds of exceptions. There are the all-night chemists, which are essential in case of emergencies; and there are the shops at airports, which have to cater for the arrival and departure of aircraft at all sorts of unseemly hours. In the light of that, there does not seem any point in imposing this restriction.
Indeed, it would hit another rather praiseworthy aspect of our life. Certainly in central London, if bookshops stay open late at night, as they do, lawfully or not, one finds that people, particularly young people, go there without intending necessarily to buy a book but to browse among the books, well into the evening, educating themselves. If the shopkeeper wishes to keep his shop open to serve this purpose, I cannot see why Parliament should intervene to stop it.
The only argument that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, seemed to adduce was that it might lead to excessive hours for shopworkers. He made this wonderful calculation, that shopworkers would theoretically be working for a whole week minus 24 hours. The amendment does not deal with that at all, because it gives no indication of the hours at which the shops concerned would open. The concern of the amendment is only with the time that they would shut. There are shops in the centre of cities which regard their main trading time as being in the evening and which therefore do not open early. Any speculation about the length of workers' hours seems wholly irrelevant because one has left out the other factor—that of opening.
Finally, it is worth remembering that this tendency to later shopping reflects the social tendency in this country under which more and more married women work. If they work in the day, as do their husbands, they can only do their shopping at week-ends—the main advantage they gain from the Bill is Sunday opening—or in the evenings. In both those cases they can do their necessary shopping, and do it very pleasantly with their husbands, who, after all, are very useful, as some noble Lords know, to carry the packages home. Some of us have experience of this.
I cannot see why we should seek to impose these further restrictions. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will see the point of this and will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I do so because I am concerned about the conditions of shopworkers. I have received representations from unions affiliated to the TUC and from other associations looking after the interests of shopworkers. I have had some submissions from a staff association representing numbers of shop employees. They are concerned that the Shops Bill will greatly encourage late-night trading. Because late-night trading seems so much more likely, they believe that there is a much greater need for workers to be

1349
protected, particularly against dismissal, if they do not want to work late nights. They also make the point that most shopworkers are women. They need to be home in the evenings to look after their children, to prepare meals, to do the housework and so on. Unrestricted late-night trading and late-night working will destroy jobs in retail shops for married women because they will not want to do that work.
There is another point we should bear in mind when we talk about late-night working. Late-night working means that people have to return home at a time when other people have already gone home. This greatly increases the fears women have of being attacked on their way home.
During the debate we had earlier, several noble Lords referred to the fact that things have improved. Although we are now in an agnostic era, things are much better and more tolerant than they used to be. That may be so, but in certain respects, unfortunately there has not been an improvement. One of those respects is the safety of women at night on our streets. Regrettably, people are now frightened about being out late at night. I live in an area of North London where there have already been several unsolved crimes against women at night, and even I feel a certain amount of unease if I am out very late at night. Public transport is not what it was, and there are real fears when women have to work late at night and go home late. Thus this will increase the dangers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would not exactly the same thing apply to women who work in pubs and cinemas?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, it probably does, but why increase the numbers at risk? This is the point I am making. Why should we have a situation in which as a matter of course shops open late at night with no restrictions? Indeed, the amendment proposes liberal hours. It provides that shops can open until 9 p.m. on week days and 7 p.m. on Sundays. If shops are to stay open all hours—much later than that—without any restrictions, the pressures will be on for everybody to trade in that way and far more members of the workforce will be exposed to the risks. Of course some people are exposed to risks. People who work in night clubs or other places where they have to walk the streets in the evening on their way home late at night are at risk, but we do not need to increase the numbers. Although there is much to be said for freedom for people to trade and freedom for people to shop if they wish to do so, that freedom must be restrained or restricted to some extent if, in so doing, we are risking the exploitation of another section of our population.
As I said earlier in debate on the Bill, if we want to extend shopping facilities either on Sundays or late in the evenings we have to ensure that we do not do it at the expense of a vulnerable section of the population, and shopworkers are vulnerable. The Auld Committee said they were vulnerable, and we agree on all sides of the House that they are. In these circumstances, it is up to the legislators to see that this vulnerable section of the workforce is adequately protected. I therefore commend the amendment to your Lordships.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his kind and
1350
sensible references to late-night trading in bookshops. It just so happens that we close our bookshops at 7 o'clock on Sundays, purely because trade is thinning out at that time in the evening. Why should we have to close our shops at 9 o'clock, on week days? On week days most of our bookshops in central London remain open until 10.30 in the evening, because there is sufficient trade to justify staying open until that hour. In so staying open we make a profit, the employees are well recompensed and the public is served. It is good for the publishing industry and good for the hook selling industry.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl to say that bookshops, of which he has knowledge, open until 10.30 p.m., which at the moment is against the law? If in fact it is against the law, and this law has been flouted in that way, how does the noble Earl expect us to believe that future laws will be obeyed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think that we are breaking the law. I think that one is allowed to trade until midnight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we can all learn from experience. If the noble Earl genuinely believes that it is legal to open until midnight then, with great respect, I believe he is wrong. But not only, with respect, would traders be wrong to want to do so; we come back to the local councils who have a spokesman in this authority who knows that they ought not to do so but yet he does not enforce the law. The question remains. If the present law is being broken and not enforced by people who are urging that it should be abolished, what laws are those people going to enforce in the future?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise if I am wrong in this respect. I thought I was right but I am sure we can find out at a later date. But I can assure your Lordships that we do not stay open until half-past ten at night purely because it is nice to see the lights twinkling in our bookshops. Furthermore, I predict that it will not be too long before we have 24-hour trading in London, and we really ought to get used to that strong likelihood. I just wonder if the noble Lord has taken that into account.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I might say a few words in support of this amendment. Perhaps I could start by saying that I think there is a very great difference in the ways that this whole issue is being argued from these Benches and from the Benches opposite. The difference is that we are always arguing in a wider context. Many of the arguments that are coming from the Benches opposite are in support of the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was quite right when he said that it is very nice for a woman shopper to have her husband with her to carry back her shopping. We are not arguing about that; we are saying that this is the case. What we are talking about is the sacrifice that is being made so that the consumer has wider choice. That is what we are trying to present in these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why it should be 9 o'clock and why not later. We feel that 9 o'clock

1351
is the limit for shopworkers. One must remember that shopworkers are predominantly women, and one must therefore surely look at the situation in a different way. We are worried about how women are going to get home. My noble friend has made this case. I am quite sure that any of us who have daughters worry about them when they come back very late and we wonder whether there will be any public transport for them. They are in a vulnerable position. I do not think that one can brush this aside and always argue in favour of the benefits that the consumer will get.
I should like to support this amendment because I think we have thought it out and it would suit the consumer who wants a wider choice. After all, 9 o'clock is of extra benefit to shopping. It means that there is a long time remaining after people have left their offices in order to shop together. At the same time, it does not mean that there will be too many inconveniences and hazards for those shopworkers on whom we all depend to offer a greater choice to consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave the example of the Asian family and their industry. I do not think this is entirely relevant. Here the family is very often working together and in many cases the woman would not have a serious problem in getting to and from work. As my noble friend has asked: why increase the number of women who are going to be in some form of risk?
I hope your Lordships will look at this amendment favourably. I think it has been thought out very carefully, that it has got a balance in it, and there is something in it which should please everybody. I hope that it will get support from your Lordships.
8.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for the following reasons. The major purpose of this Bill is to give shopkeepers the chance to serve their customers at the times they choose, the times at which they think there is a demand—a point well brought out by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This amendment stands in direct opposition to that purpose and seeks to reimpose limits on retail trading hours. Shops would only be able to open after 9 p.m. or after 7 p.m. on Sundays where the Secretary of State has made an order approved by both Houses of Parliament.
There is no principle discernible in the amendment on which the Secretary of State could base his decision on whether to allow opening after these times. Is it to be done on a local or a national basis? The amendment does not say. How could the Secretary of State be expected to make orders on a local basis? The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, expressed fears about increased late-night trading but shops are allowed legally at the present time to remain open until 8 p.m. and until 9 p.m. on one night a week. But how many do so?—a minority.
My noble friend Lord Arran might have to be reminded that he had it slightly wrong and that shops at the present time may legally reopen at midnight.
1352
They are not allowed to stay open legally until midnight at the moment.
I think it is worth asking the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who spoke about sacrifice, why she should use such an emotive word? Why is the noble Baroness so keen on nannying and preventing a great deal of women from doing what they want to do? It is not only in the dark that women have need to be frightened for their safety, I am sorry to say. I would also remind her that many women throughout the war worked night shifts in every kind of trade and factory, and did so willingly.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the security on our streets has very much deteriorated since those days?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. To return to the subject, there is no indication that shops that are open after 9 p.m. on weekdays or after 7 p.m. on Sundays at present cause any significant problems from either the residents' or the workers' point of view. Those shops opening so late are really so few and far between, catering largely for the sale of food and wine. They are often used for "topping up" where an item or two suddenly becomes immediately necessary: because visitors have arrived or something has been forgotten from the weekly shopping trip. The excellent services provided at all hours by these small corner shops is what makes them so valuable in our community. And it is from trading at unsocial hours that they derive much of their income.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, should support this amendment. He has in previous amendments argued for special protection for small shops. This amendment would seek to deprive them of one major source of income. These small shops tend to be in the larger cities, often in small shopping parades, not in residential neighbourhoods where they might be a disturbance or cause the nuisance that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, feared. Where the shops that open do exist, they are very welcome to many people, not least, I would submit, to the staff and Members of this House who work jolly long hours. One can understand why controls have been thought necessary for places open for entertainment and refreshment after 10 p.m. and for take-away foods shops after mid-night; but it hardly seems appropriate that ordinary shops should be liable to restrictions beyond the hours specified in this amendment. I believe the House should reject this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Baroness chides me for having on one occasion urged protection for small shops, while on this amendment I support the principle, regardless of the size of shop, that they ought to be allowed to open longer than they do at present. This is all part of a piece of the defence mechanism of the noble Baroness and those who support her complete abandonment of any regulation. It goes along the lines that, if you start off with the premise that you wish for no restriction at all and on Second Reading have accepted the principle that you do not accept any restriction, there is no amendment of any kind that is tolerable. If it is the case that every time you put up any variation from complete deregulation it can be argued "We have already agreed

1353
that we will have none", and if, every time we try one way, it is pointed out that it is contrary to another amendment, then that is completely against not only parliamentary procedure, but also good debating practice.
Of course, there are best solutions and there are less than best solutions, and what those of us who are opposed to complete deregulation are about is trying to get the best solution that we can. This will not be the ideal solution. It certainly is not the one—given the range of options, of which there have so far been a dozen—about which I could have said "If I can have one, this is it." But it is the best we have. At five minutes to nine on a very cold night, this is the one that we have in front of us and we shall argue it. It will not be the last one because there will be others. There are also other stages and there is the other House, too.
I am not saying that the noble Baroness ridiculed the amendment, but it is interesting to note that one of the defences of noble Lords opposite is that something is contrary to arguments used earlier. What we are being criticised for is seeking a compromise. It may be that the noble Baroness and her supporters believe that it is not only "all or nothing at all" with the Bill, but also that once you have accepted the principle there is no way in which one can possibly try to ameliorate the position or live with it. We shall have to remember that on some other occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked: why stop at nine? This has been the argument on other amendments. Why have 1 o'clock on Sunday? Why stop at six on Sunday? Why do lots of other things? I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out that in his area Asian shops sometimes stay open until 10.30 or 11 at night. I can tell your Lordships that if noble Lords are basing their opinions about the future under a changed law on what is happening under the present law, they are sadly mistaken. Sainsbury's at Croydon are open till 10 o'clock at night. It is against the law, but they do it. If they had a choice, they would open late every night and not open on Sunday. But they are breaking the law with impunity from the point of view of enforcement.
If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, believes in a situation where, in the main, the late-night opening shops are the Asian shops, and all the big shops are closed because they are observing the law or are waiting, it needs only one of them—maybe Sainsbury's, maybe the Co-op, maybe Presto, maybe Tesco—to decide, "We can now open not merely till 8 o'clock, but till any hour." So they decide to open and lots of the trade which at present goes to the Asian shops will go to the big stores. Then the little shops will say, "This is terrible". That is the argument for protecting the existing small business or shopkeeper. But it is not the only argument.
The noble Baroness asked: why are we stopping shopworkers, and women shopworkers, who want to work, and in this instance want to work late? If the shop is open late, why do we want to stop them?" Many of them will not want to work, but many of them will work because they must. I do not mean just because their jobs are at stake, but because there will be all sorts of arrangements in respect of payments. Most people work because they are paid for it, and not
1354
because they want to work. They will work because it is worth their while.
If an entrepreneur decides that it is in his interest to open later—and he is in business only because of his interest; he is not there just to serve the customers and provide employment; he is there to make money, which is the nature of business—he will have means of saying to his employees, who are mostly women and part-time, "I now require you to work till 10 or 11 at night." The women will say, "We have to think about this because our jobs are at stake. We will continue to work."
As regards what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about being restrictionist, I ask: why not think about the consequences of having restrictions or of having no restrictions? Although noble Lords opposite think that they cannot be wrong—I believe that I can be wrong—I consider that where there are no restrictions it will be at the cost of certain groups. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs used the word "sacrifice" which is appropriate. There are groups whom the deregulators are not prepared to take into account. One group is the residents who are affected by late-night shopping. The noble Lord opposite tells us that we have to get ready for 24-hour shopping in London. If that is the case, it will be to the detriment of what London is and of London as we know it.
I know of little communities where I live, and in general shops do not open in the morning because there is no trade. By and large, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. is the time-scale for shops now. But competition in the retail trade gets fiercer every day, never mind every week. Once you have lifted the restriction—and, apparently, noble Lords opposite are not even prepared to consider in three years' time whether it is right or wrong—we shall have a situation where, in the very nature of being a good entrepreneur, someone will say, "Nobody else's business in this area is open beyond six or 7 o'clock. I will be the exception and I will take a risk." It is that person's business and he may open till 9 o'clock.
There are some stores now that open till 8 o'clock because that is the legal limit, but when there is no limit they will open until nine, 10 or 11 p.m. and believe that they are entitled to do it. Noble Lords opposite will say "We do not believe in restricting them"; despite the possible adverse consequences for the workers, for the residents, for the cost of goods and for the general ambience of the community.
My noble friend Lord Gallacher made a very powerful case against those who say that the present law does not allow adequate time for shopping. He said that counting the hours of sleep at eight hours a day, there will still remain more than 80 hours when people can shop legally under this amendment. I know that if you close a shop at 6 p.m. you get people coming along at 6.5 p.m., and if you close the shop at 7 p.m. they will come along at 7.5 p.m. There are always one or two on the margin.
I looked very carefully at the idea that the Asian family is anxious, able and willing to work until all hours. I shall simply tell noble Lords what my theory is. They are working until all hours again not because they want to but because they have to. They come to

1355
this country and they have the kind of fibre which makes them say, "If we have to survive, we will work all hours", and they do. But I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The sons and daughters of those families who have worked all hours, when they are mature and educated, will reflect on whether they want to work all hours and there will be a change. There will be a change in the attitude of those who have to work all hours.
9 p.m.
I think that this amendment is very reasonable and I am very sad indeed that the noble Baroness has once more demonstrated that, whatever interest the Government serve, it is not that of the consumer. In future the noble Baroness will hear the evidence which she refused to take into account. It will be given to her by a great many forces, not least by her own eyes, and will show that what she is party to is a destruction and dereliction of a character and a kind of life in this country which we ought to try to protect. This amendment has been a very simple attempt to do just that.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I found the reply of the noble Baroness more than a trifle disappointing. She had nothing to say about the protection of consumers over a 24-hour shopping period. Presumably it may happen—the last time this was raised I remember the noble Baroness made a remark to the effect that it was all tinned beans that were sold out of hours. I hope that she will not persist in those arguments because undoubtedly there is a body of law for the protection of consumers which was put on the statute book only with great difficulty and which it is essential should continue in force so long as shops are open. It serves the cause of consumers very little to say that you may shop 24 hours a day but that you will have very little protection during those hours when county council inspectorates are not available to enforce the law.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I was quite mildly amused to think that someone who has the protection of the net book agreement is the man who is currently breaking the law. I can only say that, if bookshops are as prosperous as he makes out and if they are able to operate the extended hours which he makes out and presumably pay a reasonable wage to their employees for those hours, it may be that the justification which the restrictive trade practices court accepted so many years ago for the continuance of the net book agreement should be re-examined in the light of modern conditions. If we are to have competition, let us have it across the board and let the book trade face the same kind of competition that other retailers are having to face since the abolition of retail price maintenance.
I turn now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I think it is pretty obvious that, even in the 24 hours when shops should be closed, the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to permit sales to continue during those 24 hours
1356
in the same way as Schedules 2 and 5 to the 1950 Act allow sales to be made. It will be a matter for the judgment of the Secretary of State to decide what is to happen at airports, railway stations and places of that kind. It is quite misleading for anyone to suggest that in point of fact we are asking the Secretary of State to make individual orders for every nook and cranny of this country. He would obviously make orders covering the whole nation and in that way the situation for trade after 9 p.m. on weekdays and after 7 p.m. on Sundays could be effectively regulated.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton has dealt with the impact of this on the small shop. I think the Government proceed from the assumption that it is going to be like Scotland and that not a lot of use will be made of the freedom which the Bill proposes. I examined the evidence to the Auld Committee and I am satisfied that 50 per cent. of the multiple retailers are simply waiting for the law to be changed. Once that happens, their competitors will have no option but to open alongside them. What we are getting is a major change not merely in the retailing life of this country but, I believe, in its social life. I am grateful to my noble friends who have tried to point that out to the Government. I believe that their minds are closed, and since that is the case I see no reason why I should delay your Lordships any longer in trying to persuade them to take a more liberal view of the proposition before the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): Amendment No. 4, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am conscious of a number of factors which one minute of your Lordships' time will help to resolve. It is quite clear that the Government are certainly not prepared to look remotely on some very good amendments that have been moved so ably. I am looking at the rest of the amendments on the Marshalled List, Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which precede the amendments relating to Clause 2. I very much hope that when we get to Clause 2, noting what the Minister has already done, there will be scope not only for satisfactory amendments to be moved but for a better response to them from the Government.
I am also conscious of what I understand are the difficult weather conditions outside. With the approval of the House, I should like to indicate that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. I believe we have an understanding that at this point the present proceedings on the Report stage will be adjourned.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on opening hours of adult shop assistants etc.]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  SUICIDE IN PRISONS: PREVENTIVE MEASURES
  SUICIDE IN PRISONS: PREVENTIVE MEASURES
  HOSPITAL KITCHENS: CROWN IMMUNITY
  HOSPITAL KITCHENS: CROWN IMMUNITY
  BRITISH CONTINENTAL SHELF: SURVEYS
  BRITISH CONTINENTAL SHELF: SURVEYS