Sitting of 26 February 1986

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Rural Schools
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to allow independent local public inquiries to be held when education authorities seek to close small rural schools and the local community has made objections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that that is a disappointing answer? Is he not aware that there is a great deal of anxiety about the process of consultation that local authorities have implemented north of the border for the closure of rural schools? The Borders regional council went through a period of consultation last year that was exemplary, but there are still problems about getting an independent element or some form of appeal procedure into the existing machinery. Will he reconsider that?
    Mr. Stewart: The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires that parents must be fully consulted, and a standard form of consultation is set out in the regulations. I believe that it is right, after consultation, for the majority of cases of school closures to be decided by the locally elected representatives, the education authority.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to change the basis of funding of schools so that it is on the basis of the number of pupils attending a school? Will he allow parents who wish to set up their own schools, perhaps in rural areas, to receive the equivalent of the state funding which would otherwise be provided?
    Mr. Stewart: I note with interest my hon. Friend's points. I underline to him the Government's commitment to parental choice in education.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Given the example that we all had to live through in Tayside when Tayside decided to close not only rural schools, but schools in the inner city, will the
    926
    Minister think again and allow an independent local inquiry when, as in the case of Tayside, there are justified arguments for not leaving it to the local authority?
    Mr. Stewart: The provisions are that, in the majority of cases, the decisions should be made by the education authority. It is the elected representative of the people and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support local democracy.

    Teachers' Dispute
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effects of the teachers' action in support of their campaign for an independent pay review; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the teachers' dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I receive a great many representations which deplore, as I do, the immense damage being caused by teachers' action in this dispute. Further escalation now will not bring a settlement of the dispute any closer. Only by realistic negotiation will a solution be found.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, in addition to the real harm to which he has already referred, teachers and parents are alarmed at the prospect of disruption to this year's O-grade and higher examinations? Is he also aware that the teachers are more determined than ever and that the Government have a responsibility to provide education for our children? The Educational Institute of Scotland is prepared to negotiate when new proposals are put forward, and the one thing that is needed to settle the dispute is a new initiative from the Government. When will the Government bring forward a new initiative?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the damage that could be done to examinations by the disruption that the teachers are proposing. That must bear heavily on the individual teachers if they carry out the kind of threat that is being made. I hope that, on reflection, they will decide that that would not be appropriate.
    As to the way in which this matter can be resolved, I remind the hon. Gentleman that all the education authorities—Labour-controlled as well as Conservative-controlled—have insisted that any outcome of this dispute must involve a package covering conditions of service as well as pay. However, although the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has shown its willingness to think on those terms, the EIS refuses to do so. Given that all the education authorities are calling for such a joint package covering both aspects, I hope that Her Majesty's Opposition will call for such a solution.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State recall that some six weeks ago, when he was appointed to his present high office, there was hope that he, as a new broom, would be able to look afresh at the teachers dispute? Notwithstanding what he has said, what initiative does he propose to take as a response to the meeting that he had with the Scottish churches? Does he not realise that many parents, not to mention teachers, were looking towards negotiations between himself and the churches to come up with a settlement?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that after the meeting the Church representatives said that, like me, they found the meeting to have been useful in helping to clarify a number of points. At that meeting I said that the objectives of both the education authorities and the Government on conditions of service make it right and proper that those who wish to see changes in conditions of service and contractual matters should be dealt with on a flexible basis. We accept that if the teachers do not receive all that they would like on pay, the other changes that many would wish to see in the education service may have to take that into account. Compromise is required all round. I emphasise that the EIS must show flexibility. It has not yet put a claim on the table or shown any willingness to consider conditions of service as part of the package, despite reported signs that its leader, Mr. John Pollock, has suggested that this might be appropriate.
    Sir Hector Monro: To a parent or any unbiased observer, it is incredible that the EIS will not discuss the favourable terms that my right hon. and learned Friend has offered it. Does he hope to have meetings in the next two weeks or so that will bring this unfortunate dispute to a conclusion, bearing in mind that all the weight of evidence now is that the teachers, parents and others have had more than enough of this strike
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the £125 million of new resources that the Government have said would be available for teachers' salaries on top of what might be negotiated in the normal way. It is also worth pointing out that Scottish teachers should reflect on the fact that their colleagues in England and Wales have today balloted by a two to one majority in favour of an interim settlement on the basis of the resources available in England and Wales, which are comparable to the resources available in Scotland.
    Mr. Pollock: May we take it from the previous exchanges that my right hon. and learned Friend still values the good intentions of the Churches in their desire to act as honest brokers in this—
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I know that there is another question on the Order Paper about this.
    Mr. Pollock: Do the Government still value—
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of this question?
    Mr. Douglas: Yes it does. There seems little point in tabling questions if hon. Members are called beforehand to ask supplementary questions on the exact wording of those questions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is on the effects of the teachers' strike for an independent pay review. I judge that the supplementaries are in order. However, I draw the attention of the House, as I was about to when the first supplementary question was asked, to the fact that there are subsequent questions—Nos. 12 and 13—on this matter.
    Mr. Pollock: May we take it from the earlier exchanges that my right hon. and learned Friend values the efforts of the Churches to act as honest brokers in this unhappy affair? At the same time, will he take pains to
    928
    emphasise that real progress depends entirely on the parties directly involved in the dispute negotiating. and seeking a reasonable and responsible settlement?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The outcome to the problem has to be primarily for the employers and the employees. I emphasise to the Opposition and those who criticise the Government that the education authorities across the political spectrum have emphasised the need for package proposals covering conditions of service as well as pay. The Government have shown their willingness, in an unprecedented way, to help in the dispute by offering at this stage, before any claim is put forward, no less than £125 million of new resources.
    Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to keep off the subject of Churches in this question.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Secretary of State understand that his free market economy is not working in connection with the supply of teachers? Does he share my concern about the recent loss of teachers in Kilmarnock academy, and, in particular, the loss of a biology teacher who has just gone into industry for a 65 per cent. increase in salary? When will the Secretary of State meet the EIS and start negotiating properly to ensure that there is an independent inquiry, which may not resolve that anomaly, but will at least get the teachers back to work?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are certain shortages of mathematics and science teachers. However, when considering the whole of the teaching profession, there are far more qualified and able people wishing to take up posts in teaching than there are posts available. The teacher's unions would be the first to reject any suggestion that differential salaries should be paid to teachers in different departments. The shortages of teachers in any areas could be corrected if the unions were prepared to contemplate such action. There is not, however, the slightest suggestion that the teachers' unions are interested in that course of action.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend know that a number of parents cannot understand why the teachers, who have a just claim for more money, do not appear to be picking up last year's normal annual increment, and the forthcoming year's annual increment, which, I understand, is available without strings attached? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a sensible basis on which to start negotiations, with all the factors involved, if the teachers want a relative increase in wages in relation to other groups of graduate workers in local government?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, and Scottish teachers must be asking themselves whether the tactics of their union negotiators are correct as those tactics have led to no increase in their pay packets during the dispute. That cannot be in the teachers' interest, nor is it a necessary part of the dispute.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to take some independent initiative on this matter, which many hon. Members hoped for when he was appointed to his position, or is he tied across the board, like a tin to a cat's tail, to the policies of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which show every sign of being an unprecedented disaster for education at all levels?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that conditions of service and matters

    929
    affecting contracts of employment are quite distinct in Scotland, and clearly any solutions to these problems would be geared to Scottish requirements. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise the matter of overall resources for teachers' pay, he would be the first to accept that the teachers' unions in the various parts of the United Kingdom would be the first to draw attention to any significant difference between the pay offered to teachers in Scotland and that offered to those in England. Whichever group was offered more, the other unions would expect equity and parity of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman would not dispute the accuracy of that view.
    Mr. Hirst: With practically every secondary school in my constituency affected by strike action, may I remind my right hon. Friend of the deep anxiety felt by parents and pupils alike, as well as the anxiety felt by many reasonable teachers, who want to see an end to the strike? Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the teachers' demand for a more realistic salary structure is a legitimate one, it must be accompanied by fair and reasonable conditions of service which avoid a recurrence of what has happened? As this wretched dispute has dragged on for nearly 18 months, will my right hon. Friend personally intervene to get negotiations under way?
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that I am very willing to do all that is in my power to help bring the dispute to an early end. If teachers wish to be paid for the work that they do, it is not unreasonable that their contracts and conditions of service should also reflect what they actually do.
    Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State talks as though the £125 million were Government money, but will not the bulk of it have to come from local authorities and thus from ratepayers? In any event, does he appreciate that 10 per cent. spread over four years on top of an indeterminate base will not settle the dispute and that more money must be put on the table? Will he take an initiative in that respect in the hope of bringing forward what he calls sensible negotiations?
    Mr. Rifkind: The £125 million is new Government money which the Government are prepared to provide for local authorities to help finance increases in teacher's salaries above that which would be negotiated in the normal way. It would represent an average of about £1,000 in the salary of a teacher in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Over four years."] It would mean that at the end of that period a teacher would have £1,000 more than he would otherwise have had. I think that most people would acknowledge that that is a fairly significant increase. I genuinely put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's proposal and the additional sums to which I have referred should surely be the basis for negotiations to begin between the teachers unions and the education authorities.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, fair or not, there is great disappointment that there has been no movement since he became Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he consider convening all-party discussions with the teachers to see whether there is any way of ending the long deadlock in a spirit of compromise? Does he agree that unless there is a
    930
    settlement by the end of March we look set to have a strike lasting until the next general election, with irreparable damage to schoolchildren?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that there is, indeed, all-party agreement that an outcome to the dispute must be a package including conditions of service as well as pay. If the hon. Gentleman can make representations to the EIS to the effect that it should accept that as an essential part of any satisfactory outcome I think that that would enable significant progress to be made.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are parents fed up with the disruption of teaching, but they are terribly concerned about the possibility of this year's examinations producing disastrous results for the children's futures? Will he confirm that he does not rule out the possibility that he may be required to take measures to have the necessary powers for him to impose on the teachers' unions a review of the conditions of service under which they now work and are remunerated—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Walker:—so that teachers are adequately rewarded for the work that they do?
    Mr. Rifkind: With regard to examinations, I think that the Scottish Examination Board should be congratulated on the splendid work that it is doing in trying to ensure that the maximum possible number of markers will be available. The latest estimate suggests that slightly more than two thirds of the necessary number will be available. Although that will not prevent all disruption, it will ensure that the bulk of the work is properly done.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the difference between him and the leaders of the EIS is that they enjoy the overwhelming support of their members for the action that they are taking, whereas he enjoys no support from anyone in Scotland for what he is doing about the dispute? Is he further aware that since he took up his high office he has done absolutely nothing to bring about a resolution of the dispute, despite the promises that he made when he was appointed? He rightly referred to John Pollock's statement at Galashiels yesterday. Many I now plead with him to take up the offer made by Mr. Pollock yesterday in asking for a substantial offer to be made so as to allow negotiations to begin? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if he does not take up that offer he will be solely responsible for the severe and serious damage being done to education in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman would have made a more positive and helpful contribution to the resolution of the dispute if he had given his unqualified support to Strathclyde, Central and Fife regional councils in their demand, with other local authorities, that the EIS should accept a package involving conditions of service a well as pay. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in helping to resolve the dispute, let him support the Labour education authorities.

    Drug Addiction
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress of Government measures to seek to counter drug addiction in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): We have introduced many positive measures with the aim of reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs. Earlier this month I launched the second stage of the Scottish campaign against drug misuse; and I announced a substantial increase in the strength of the Scottish crime squad specifically to tackle drug-related crime.
    Mr. Brown: Does the Minister not understand that this is a national emergency—an emergency compounded by the fact that many heroin users unfortunately now have AIDS? Will the Minister provide the resources for dealing with this problem, even if it means providing clean needles? More important, will he listen to Dr. Martin Plant and his colleagues, who have confirmed the link between unemployment and drug abuse? Will the Minister study their report and bear in mind that it was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department?
    Mr. MacKay: I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for suggesting that needles should be made available to drug addicts in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. I believe that it is a serious step to take, as it could be interpreted as encouraging heroin abuse and leading to its increase. However, I am deeply concerned both about heroin addiction and the spread of AIDS. My chief medical officer has set up a committee of experts to advise him and me of the spread of this virus. I shall take very seriously any advice made to me by the chief medical officer or by the committee.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend accept that drug addiction is affecting children at a very early age? Will he have discussions with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), so that lectures can be given in schools to give children some idea of the horrendous problems that drugs cause and which may lead to death?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is quite right. Some people have not approved of the advertising campaign conducted by my Department and by the Scottish Health Education Group. It is right that we should warn the public, especially youngsters, of the dangers of drug misuse, and not just heroin abuse. I can tell my hon. Friend that today my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has announced the setting up of a working group to develop in-service training courses on drug misuse for community education workers.

    Scottish Assembly
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to establish an elected Scottish Assembly.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): No, Sir.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As we approach the seventh anniversary of the referendum in which the Scottish people voted, by a majority of over 77,000, including, I understand, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to establish a directly elected Scottish Assembly, will the Minister accept that the minority administration of Scotland is becoming intolerable? I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware that I am introducing a private Member's Bill on Tuesday based on
    932
    the principles which nine years ago in this House he himself suggested were good. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to sponsor my Bill and, if not, what has changed in the interim period?
    Mr. Ancram: I must congratulate the hon. Member on his singlemindedness and consistency in bringing up this subject every year. I remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when he wound up the debate which repealed the Scotland Act 1978. He recognised that the referendum had displayed a lack of demand — two thirds of the Scottish people eligible to vote did not vote in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member would be more honest in his approach to the Scottish people if he were to explain to them that the effect of his proposals would be to increase taxation for Scottish people.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scots already are grotesquely over-represented at every level in Parliament? We already have Scottish Question Time and Scottish Grand Committees, and the general obsession with Scottish affairs is positively unhealthy. If the suggestion of an Assembly were ever to be taken up, would he undertake to reduce or eliminate Scottish Question Time, Scottish Grand Committees and all other elements of over-representation in the House?
    Mr. Ancram: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that Scotland is over-represented. It is well represented, although we will have to wait until after the next general election to see Scotland represented in a more proper way—when more Conservatives are elected.
    Mr. Dewar: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is not answering the question himself. May I ask the junior Minister, who is presumably empowered to speak for the Scottish Office, what the position on devolution is in the Scottish Office? The Minister said that the Secretary of State advocated or supported, presumably reluctantly, the repeal of the Scotland Act 1978 on the basis that there was a lack of demand in Scotland. Does the Scottish Office team believe that the Scottish people do not want devolution, or that it is not right in principle? If it is the lack of demand, there is now clear evidence that, if the Scottish people were consulted, they would over-whelmingly support the principle of devolution.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is presumably referring to opinion polls, which ask a simple question, but do not ask whether the Scottish people would be prepared to vote for an Assembly that involved an extra tier of taxation, which the Labour party proposes, and an extra tier of bureaucracy, which it also proposes. If they were honest enough to ask the Scottish people that question, they would get a resounding no in reply.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that his reply is the best possible argument for the Government to sponsor a constitutional convention to establish the ground rules for an Assembly? Does the Minister recognise that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people have accepted that there is a degree of devolution to the Scottish Office, but no accountability to the Scottish people? The Conservative party, with 14 per cent. of the votes, does not represent the Scottish people.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has a rather lowly opinion of the role that he plays in the House. He is

    933
    supposed to be part of the democratic process by which the Government are accountable. His party, among others, has put forward proposals on devolution, and suggests that that is a panacea for all Scotland's ills. When proposals were put forward in legislation making clear to the Scottish people the extra costs and burdens that they would have to bear, two thirds refused to vote in favour of them.

    Highlands and Islands Airports
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subisdy was paid to the Civil Aviation Authority for the running of the highlands and islands airports for each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Ancram: I have deposited in the Library details of the subsidy paid in each of the past five years. No separately indentifiable figures for grant-in-aid paid prior to 1980 are available.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the public purse, properly, supports the operations of the highlands and islands airports. Can he confirm that after the passage of the Airports Bill the highlands and islands airports, like the local authority airports, will be required to obtain the best possible services, if necessary by seeking outside tenders?
    Mr. Ancram: The new arrangements, whereby the CAA will operate aerodromes in Scotland as a separate company, follow a long period of uncertainty about their future. It is only right that the arrangements are given time to work. I agree with my hon. Friend that we expect better value for money from the arrangements. He will accept that the first priority is that the present service to the communities involved with the aerodromes should continue.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that some airports in the highlands and islands are extensively used by the military? Stornoway airport, for example, is a Ministry of Defence airport. If these installations are to be dumped on us, should not the Government foot the bill?
    Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Stornoway airport is owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by the CAA. He must understand that the Government have recognised the essential social function of the aerodromes, which is why we continue to subsidise their operation.
    Mr. Pollock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when the airports were offered for sale some time ago no commercial interest was shown in them? Will he give an undertaking to my constituents in Moray that he recognises the Government's social obligations to provide an adequate service for them?
    Mr. Ancram: The Government recognise the essential social functions of the aerodromes, which is why we have subsidised them and will continue to do so as necessary. Our reason for not pursuing their privatisation was precisely that none of the interested parties offered adequate assurances of continuity of service. That is what we intend to provide.

    Student Grant
    Mr. Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received recently from the National Union of Students (Scotland) concerning the level of the student grant.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and education has received a letter dated 15 January from the president of the National Union of Students (Scotland) on the subject. He has agreed to meet representatives of the union on 17 March 1986.
    Mr. Steel: When the Minister meets representatives of the NUS, will he take into account the changes both in the assessment of parental contribution and in housing and supplementary benefits? As a result of those changes, one student in my constituency is expected to survive the summer vacation on £2 a week.
    Mr. Rifkind: The changes in supplementary benefit relate to the short vacations and not to the long summer vacation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that even taking into account the changes that are proposed the United Kingdom will continue to have by far the most generous system of grants for students of any major country in the Western world.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the best universities in Scotland have withdrawn from the National Union of Students? Because most of the English universities still adhere to the National Union of Students is no reason why we should not review yet again the amount of grants paid to the National Union of Students.
    Mr. Rifkind: That is quite a separate matter, but clearly the authority with which the NUS speaks in Scotland is influenced by the number of universities affiliated to it.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that there is now genuine hardship not only among students but among parents who have to support them? Clearly the increase for 1986–87 of 2 per cent. represents a cut in real terms in student incomes. Does the Minister accept the NUS compilation that under this Government there has been a fall in the purchasing power of the basic grant by 20 per cent.? If he does accept that, is he prepared to defend it, or will he use his good offices with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to do something about it? Has the Secretary of State no sympathy with the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council's argument, which links the level of grant, the availability of student finance, to access to higher education?
    Mr. Rifkind: Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have to say to him that notwithstanding the decisions that have been made on student grants over the last few years, the number of those actively seeking admission to higher education in Scotland is greater than ever before. This year there are 5,000 more Scottish students than there were in 1979, when this Government came into office. The suggestion that somehow the Government's policy on grants is deterring youngsters from coming into higher education is not true. If the Government were to accede to the NUS demand for a minimum of £35 per student per week, that would add

    935
    £550 million to the cost of supporting students. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to commit a future Labour Government to costs of that kind.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total revenue value of equity realised by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the financial year 1984–85.
    Mr. Rifkind: The total value of share investments realised was £419,701.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State accept that the provision in the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) piloted through the House in 1968 to allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board to keep revenue from equity realised, was designed to enhance the financial viability of the board to support projects in the highlands and islands? Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that this will continue beyond the present financial year, particularly at a time when there is a great squeeze on the board's finances? Will he continue the guarantee given by his predecessor, that any viable scheme presented to the Highlands and Islands Development Board will not fail because of the board having inadequate funding?
    Mr. Rifkind: The expected receipts of the board are always taken into account when grant-in-aid is being determined. I can give an absolute assurance to the hon. Gentleman that none of the commitments that the board has entered into this year will not be met because of any financial constraint. The board will be able to meet all the commitments it has entered into. Since this Government came into office, resources available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board have been increased from £17 million in 1979 to £30 million in the current year.
    Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State is always going on about the need to give incentives. What incentive is available to the Highlands and Islands Development Board if, every time it makes a profit on investments, the Secretary of State takes it back?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman puts forward a proposition that no one else has put forward and then tries to criticise it. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has had the advantage of the receipts it has received over the last few years.

    Afforestation
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about how the economics of new afforestation schemes on upland areas are assessed by him.
    Mr. John MacKay: Forestry grant schemes are administered by the Forestry Commission, whose consideration of an application for planting grants embraces agricultural, land use and environmental aspects. The expected return from the commission's own planting schemes is assessed on the basis of net discounted revenue.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but since upland sites generally result in the least
    936
    economic afforestation schemes, should not Government policy ensure that commercial tree planting in our nation's uplands must not be at the expense of highly important and sensitive landscaped areas? Will he confirm that some recent schemes have had a deleterious effect on such environments?
    Mr. MacKay: Without knowing exactly what schemes my hon. Friend has in mind, I would rather not comment on the last part of his question. The expected rate of return from private planting is entirely up to the owner who is proposing the private planting, but I accept that the right balance must be sought between forestry and the needs of nature conservation. The commission will accept for grant-aid only those proposals which are sound in forestry and environmental terms. The Forestry Commission consults the Nature Conservancy Council on SSSIs and such matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: Have the SSSIs been taken into account in the contingency plans for the transfer of Forestry Commission property to private ownership?
    Mr. MacKay: The matter has not gone nearly as far as to consider the impact of SSSIs, but the commission, either for its own planting or for the making of grants to the private sector, must take the SSSIs into account and must consult the NCC in these matters.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: When blanket afforestation is given the go-ahead over a large area, is any consideration given to environmental matters?
    Mr. MacKay: Yes, indeed it is. The private forestry industry and the commission are more mindful now than perhaps they have been in times past about the environmental consequences of planting. The commission and the private sector take those matters into account along with the NCC and, where necessary, they have spoken to bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other environmental groups.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has said that the economic rate of return for private forestry companies is a matter for them, but how does he propose to safeguard the public interest in wide-scale afforestation? Does it not strengthen the case for extending planning controls over forestry to ensure that all considerations which ought to be kept in mind, including conservation and proper land use, are subject to the review of the local authority?
    Mr. MacKay: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, because I am aware of the problems in his constituency, which is heavily forested, like my own. The Forestry Commission consults the planning authority—the district council—when it comes to planting, along with the other bodies that it consults before it comes to a decision either about its own planting or about grants to the private sector.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend accept that, with the enormous excesses of food production, not only in Britain but throughout Europe, and the enormous cost to Britain of timber imports, if in future the rural areas are to survive, there will have to be a move towards forestry and therefore grades of land that are not allowed to be planted now may have to be allowed to be planted in future? Does my hon. Friend accept that forestry, properly planted with a mixture of hard and soft woods, does not spoil the environment?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. My Department is considering redefining the land that might be freed for planting in future. Against the background of increasing food surpluses, forestry offers a sensible use of land and one which employs a lot of people in the countryside, which must be something that both sides of the House would welcome.
    Mr. Home Robertson: It is supposed to be part of my job to make life difficult for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but just this once I am prepared to allow the Scottish Office in on the act. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the universal opposition to the idea of handing over the precious national asset of the Scottish Forestry Commission forestry enterprise to the private sector? Will he categorically reject the principle of privatising the forestry enterprise of the Forestry Commission? The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the matter had not gone that far, but just how far has it gone?
    Mr. MacKay: The policy on the sale of Forestry Commission land was set out in a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), on 8 November 1984. That remains the position.
    Mr. Steel: We have all read inspired reports about how the Secretary of State for Scotland has been fighting against his Cabinet colleagues to stop a change in that policy. It remains the policy at the moment, but is the Minister able to give an undertaking that it will remain the policy during the lifetime of this Government?
    Mr. MacKay: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not have experience of Government matters and, therefore, perhaps does not appreciate that the Government keep their policy on all fronts continuously under review. There have been informal discussions between Forestry Ministers about various aspects of forestry policy, but, as I said a few minutes ago, the policy remains that stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.

    Dunblane Bypass
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now announce the line of route of the Dunblane bypass; and if he will indicate the proposed starting date for construction (a) if there is no public inquiry and (b) if a public inquiry is held.
    Mr. Ancram: The orders for the main line and associated side roads for the Dunblane bypass are to be published in draft on 28 February. If no public inquiry is necessary, construction will begin as soon as the statutory procedures are completed and funds can be made available. I hope that this will be possible during the financial year 1987–88. If an inquiry is required, the scheme would be unlikely to start before mid-1988.
    Mr. Forsyth: As this bypass was originally promised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was a candidate in my constituency, may I, on behalf of my constituents, welcome the announcement that my hon. Friend has made? I welcome his assurance that it will be given priority and that it will be under construction in 1987–88 provided that there are no strong objections to the line of route. I am very grateful.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to my announcement. I can confirm that we attach priority to this scheme, and we are well aware of the beneficial effects that it will have on the community in Dunblane.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: If the Minister is able to say something about Dunblane, can he say when we will be told the line of the M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will just have to be patient.

    Teachers' Dispute
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on meetings between his office and the Churches in Scotland on the current dispute in Scottish schools.
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Church representatives and the parties involved in the teachers' dispute.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned. Friend had a useful exchange of views with representatives of the Churches on 10 February. He emphasised that any final package had to deal with teachers' duties and conditions of service as well as pay, and said that he recognised that a balance had to be struck between the aspirations of both sides if an early end to the dispute was to be found. He expressed the hope that the negotiations between teachers and employers would now begin on the basis of the resources available.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary admit that it was the Churches in Scotland that met the Secretary of State and that they showed an inclination and desire to preserve the distinctiveness of Scottish education? Does lie therefore agree that no comparison should be made between negotiations in England and Wales and the Scottish position? He ought to know, and the Secretary of State ought to recognise, that the Scottish teachers are determined to have their claim conceded, and the Minister ought to take some action to get this vexatious dispute settled as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stewart: The House will recognise that the Scottish Churches have had a long interest in education. The hon. Gentleman referred to conceding the teachers' claim, but the teachers have not put in a claim.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that while the Churches' initiative is greatly welcome, the complicated tripartite nature of these negotiations makes agreement particularly difficult? Will he confirm that he has received the suggestion from a number of quarters, including myself, that the appointment of an independent conciliator, who could identify the position of all the parties involved, as well as the level of flexibility on this issue, might help towards an agreement? Does he agree that there is nothing to be lost, and possibly everything to be gained, by the appointment of a conciliator, and will the Government give this further consideration?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout this dispute he has made one or two constructive suggestions and he has generally received a

    939
    much more favourable response from the Government than from the EIS. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the NAS/UWT has suggested that the Scottish dispute should be referred to ACAS, but the EIS has refused.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that during this long, drawn-out and damaging dispute, the running has increasingly been made by initiatives from the Churches, all the Opposition parties in Scotland and other interested bodies? As all the Opposition parties, and the Churches, were willing to give the Secretary of State every possible support, or at least every good wish, in bringing in a new broom to settle the dispute, it is a matter of profound disappointment that, although the personalities may have changed, the tune remains the same? Can the Minister offer something more constructive?
    Mr. Stewart: I repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have taken initiative after initiative to try to resolve the dispute. The problem with the dispute in Scotland is that the EIS refuses to enter into normal pay negotiations by putting in any pay claim. It also refuses to negotiate on the basis of the type of pay and conditions package that has been put forward by the Labour-led education authorities. The sooner realistic negotiations start to resolve the dispute, the better.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, like parents, the Churches have a real interest in finding a solution to the problem? Does he agree that the only solution that could make any sense is one that embraces conditions so that we know exactly what teachers are being paid for and, more important, one that ensures that teachers are rewarded adequately for what they do?
    Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the smaller unions have at various times suggested pay and conditions packages. I understand that the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association recently put forward such a package and that it was rejected by the EIS.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, when I joined parents in Lenzie in my constituency a week last Saturday, in extremely cold weather, they supported the Churches' initiative and the teachers and had great difficulty understanding why the Government will not agree to an independent pay tribunal? They concluded that that was the Government's stance because they know that an independent inquiry would be bound to support the teachers' case.
    Mr. Stewart: Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in the rest of Scotland, want the dispute ended. The Government and the education authorities, including those led by the hon. Gentleman's party, have consistently and rightly said that a lasting resolution of the dispute must involve conditions of service as well as pay. I believe that the great majority of teachers now realise that. I urge the EIS to enter into negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, the submission of a normal pay claim would at least get negotiations under way. That would be a major step forward.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Warrant Sales
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the law on warrant sales.
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission to discuss proposals for changes in the law on warrant sales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I meet the chairman and members of the Scottish Law Commission both formally and informally from time to time. The Government are seeking public comments on the commission's report on diligence and debtor protection, including its proposals for reform of the warrant sale procedure. Once the period of consultation is over, I anticipate meeting the Scottish Law Commission again before final policy decisions on implementation of the proposals are taken.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when he was an up-and-coming young Back-Bench Member of Parliament, before he was sucked into the Westminster Establishment by patronage and appointments to being the Solicitor-General for Scotland and a Queen's counsel and all that, he and his ministerial mate, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) were very sympathetic to a private Member's Bill which I introduced to abolish warrant sale and to replace it with a system of debt arbitration? Now that the hon. and learned Gentleman is Solicitor-General for Scotland, with all of the power that that entails, does he not have a responsibility to do something about warrant sales and to tell the Scottish Law Commission that it has been dithering about this matter for 13 or 14 years? Is it not high time that the Government took the initiative and introduced legislation to abolish this barbaric practice?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Law Commission's report has been published. We wished to have consultation over a short period, and the period of consultation that we suggested should end in the middle of March. Several views have been expressed in Scotland about the proposals of the Law Commission, which were favourable in the main. If the hon. Gentleman, who I know is concerned about the matter, or any organisation with which he is connected, wishes to express an opinion about the proposals, I would be grateful if they would do so at the earliest possible moment, and certainly before the middle of next month. I remain of the view that I expressed some time ago. We wish to make warrant sale procedures more humane and sensible, but we do not wish to leave ourselves in the position where those who find credit most difficult to obtain cannot do so because of the changes.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Solicitor-General share my abhorrence of those who pursue that squalid type of action, which seldom realises the initial debt, but seeks to humiliate people and at the end of the day deprives poor people of the few bits and sticks of furniture that they might have and takes away their essential household contents? In the light of the investigations, it would be better to end warrant sales.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The report to which I have already referred deals carefully with that problem. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consider the details of the report, he will see that it addresses his complaints. I urge him to do so. If he believes that changes should be made to the proposals, I extend the invitation to him and to any organisation to let me know as soon as possible. I would be grateful for such action. I recognise that there is a need for change.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that warrant sales are anachronistic, an undignified experience for anybody and should have no place in civilised society?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend will recollect that in our manifesto at the general election we expressed a clear commitment to bring to an end what we believed to be inhumane procedures which currently apply. If it is difficult to do away with all the processes so that nothing can be done about getting payment for the debt due, at least we wish to ensure at the earliest possible date a distinction between those who can pay and those who will not pay.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Solicitor-General give a guarantee that those undignified and anachronistic procedures will be swept away before there is any possibility of those defaulting on the community charge becoming subjected to them?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman's own party is among the organisations and parties that have failed to comment on the warrant sales. As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I am sure that he has taken the opportunity of reading that valuable, albeit long, report. I look forward to an immediate expression of his view on what is right and what is wrong.

    Lord Justice General
    Mr. Pollockasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he last met the Lord Justice General; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I met the Lord Justice General on 21 February, when we discussed various matters relating to the administration of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
    Mr. Pollock: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable concern in Scotland about the impact of the large number of criminal appeals on the progress of civil business in the courts? Can he advise us whether any consultation with the Lord Justice General has enabled him to take any step to remedy the problem?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The problem to which my hon. Friend refers is, unhappily, a real one. We have time limits in criminal business and, accordingly, at first instance and on appeal it must have priority. Because of the problem of civil business, my hon. Friend should be aware that the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Maxwell, has been invited to consider the way in which we might more effectively use judicial time in the superior courts. I hope that that problem will be carefully addressed by the chairman. If my hon. Friend has any view on better arrangements for judicial time in the superior courts, it would be welcome.
    Mr. Dewar: As the Lord Justice General has an obvious interest in the housing of the High Court, does the Solicitor-General for Scotland intend to discuss with the Lord Justice General plans to remodel the High Court in Glasgow, and if so, are those plans going ahead?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That has been a matter under discussion with the Lord President, but not on Friday. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the buildings of the High Court and gaol square are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that the Lord Justice General is aware that there is a long tradition of Labour Members bellyaching about social problems, a good example of which is warrant sales?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I did not discuss warrant sales with the Lord President, but to go back a question, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is often the case.

    Cigarettes (Sale to Children)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will discuss with procurators fiscal the number of prosecutions for the sale of cigarettes to children.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal are aware of the relevant provision, which is section 18 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, and that they will give every proper consideration to such reports received by them.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Solicitor-General aware that the latest figures show that the illegal sales of cigarettes to children in Scotland amounted to £9·5 million last year? Why does he not take some action to stop that? It is the law of the land, like any other law. Will he take vigorous action to ensure that it is enforced and to stop tobacco companies hooking children on this fatal habit in their relentless pursuit of profit?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that figure or how he ascertained it—
    Mr. Foulkes: From an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys document.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Whatever view he or I take of the matter, unhappily for him, the Scottish courts still require evidence and it must be corroborated. I have recently emphasised to procurators fiscal that if evidence of sales is available, prosecutions should be mounted.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing problem of children buying cigarettes from cigarette machines? Will he ask the appropriate authorities whether those machines can be put in sites where they can be carefully watched, so that the number of prosecutions can be reduced, not increased?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but he highlights the point that it is extremely difficult to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children from vending machines. I hope that his point: will be properly appreciated.
    Mr. Maxton: As so many people die from smoking-related diseases and there is increasing evidence that very few people start to smoke in adulthood—it is usually in childhood —will the Solicitor-General ensure that the Government support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to strengthen the law in this area? Will he also, as his colleagues do in England and Wales, collect evidence about the sale of cigarettes to under-16s, which his office does not do at present?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is aware,
    944
    even if the hon. Gentleman is not, that the Government support his Bill. The hon. Gentleman must accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for health in Scotland is positively aggressive in the way that he puts forward his views on the campaign to prevent or dissuade children from starting to smoke, whether they are aged under 16 or not. However, that is a matter of persuasion. I am responsible for those who break the law under the 1937 Act, and I have already said that we are considering the matter carefully.

Philippines
3.33 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the position in the Philippines.
The House will be aware of the dramatic development yesterday in the Philippines which led to Mrs. Aquino taking up office as President. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in warmly welcoming this development, the more so because it has come about with the minimum of bloodshed and violence.
The Government wish President Aquino and her colleagues well in the fulfilment of their new and heavy responsibilities. The task of restoring the Philippines to peace, stability and economic regeneration will, indeed, be challenging.
We have been greatly impressed by the courage President Aquino, her colleagues and the Filipino people have shown in defence of democracy. This, and the evident wish of the Government and people of the Philippines for reconciliation, bodes well for the future.
The Government look forward to a close and positive working relationship with Mrs. Aquino and her colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is sending the President a congratulatory message. I also pay tribute to our ambassador in Manila, Mr. Robin McLaren, and to his staff. The information and advice which they have provided, and their protective role in relation to the British community, has been an excellent example of our missions abroad at work.
President Aquino said last night:
"A new life starts for our country tomorrow."
The House will, I know, wish to send her and the people of the Philippines its warmest good wishes on this new start.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We unreservedly join the Minister in welcoming the triumph of democracy under President Aquino. We hail the victory of people's power over a corrupt dictatorship as a model for the peaceful transition of power in other troubled lands about which we differ from this Government's policies, such as Chile and South Africa. We praise the role of the Church in the Philippines and the constructive role played, ultimately, by the United States Administration, who acted swiftly, decisively and to good effect to end the conflict.
Will the Minister confirm that in the circumstances no formal act of recognition of President Aquino is necessary from our Government? Does he also agree that those events pose a series of challenges for President Aquino —to cast aside the oligarchies of the past, to repeal the draconian laws and to meet the popular expectations of the radical restructuring which is vital if the insurgency is not to start again?
There is a challenge to the United States Administration, who must avoid a narrow, strategic and military view and come to terms with the fundamentally different relationship which must result from the new nationalism in the Philippines. Finally, there is a challenge to us in Europe, as the new Government may well look to Europe, especially since the accession of Spain to the European Community, as a counter to United States
946
influence. To that end, will the Minister tell the House what efforts he will make to consult our EEC partners on the development of joint policies in that area?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, especially those at the beginning of his statement. He is correct to say that no formal action is required for the recognition of the new Government. We do not recognise Governments, we recognise states; so no formal action is required. I agree with him that the United States Government are to be congratulated on the part that they played in the encouragement of the restoration of democracy. I also agree with his statement about, the challenges that lie ahead of President Aquino. The whole House will agree that she has shown great restraint and firmness of character, especially in recent days. That must augur well for her ability to tackle the undoubtedly heavy tasks that lie ahead.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, about the Community's role in this matter, he will be aware that the 12 Foreign Affairs Ministers who met yesterday issued a joint statement on the situation in the Philippines and warmly commended Mrs. Aquino on the part that she has played. There are two meetings in prospect between the European Community and the Association of the South East Asian nations. One, between officials, may well take place in Manila towards the end of June or early July. There is also the possibility of a European Community Foreign Ministers' meeting when again the whole subject of co-operation between the Community and the ASEAN countries, including the Philippines, will be fully discussed.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not clear that, despite the welcome changes of the past few clays, the new Philippines Government is likely to face considerable problems in establishing and preserving stability? Will Her Majesty's Government consider offering the new Government any technical assistance that they may wish from this country, especially on matters of internal security and counter-insurgency?
Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's question. I shall pass on his comments about assistance with internal security. He knows that we have a small technical co-operation programme. Last year it was worth about £250,000. However, we stand ready to discuss our assistance programme with the new Government of President Aquino.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I fully endorse the Minister's congratulations to President Aquino and will encourage her in her attempts to build up a Government of reconciliation, would it not have been better if this note of congratulation had been sounded yesterday by the Prime Minister? She seemed to indicate that she was waiting for the OK from Mr. Shultz before recognising what had happened in the Philippines. Does the Minister agree that Mrs. Aquino has a difficult but essential task to perform in restoring the civil liberties that were taken away under the Marcos regime and in releasing political prisoners? Will she receive this Government's encouragement in restoring those basic rights to the people of the Philippines? Does the Minister realise that the relief and self-congratulation in Washington must be tinged with the

947
realisation that the United States was rather slow to recognise how discredited the Marcos regime had become and that it very nearly finished up on the wrong side?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. However, his statement that the Prime Minister might have been slow in congratulating President Aquino takes no cognisance at all of the fact that, until yesterday afternoon, the situation in Manila was extremely confused. It was quite clear that neither we nor any other sensible Western Government wished to say something which could add to the confusion or which could lead to the possibility of greater loss of life and greater bloodshed in Manila. I said earlier that the Prime Minister is sending a congratulatory message to President Aquino. We have long been concerned about the abuse of human rights in the Philippines. We are confident that President Aquino will give priority to doing all she can to achieving a rapid improvement in human rights. We shall be watching events. If she does this, it will be closely in line with the ideals that she has mentioned and upon which she stood in the recent election campaign.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that I hold him and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in great esteem? But was it really necessary to have a statement today on the Philippines? Are there any British interests there? Do we have any power or influence to guard there? Are we to have a debate every time that there is a change of Government far away from here?
Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his esteem. Esteem is welcome, from whatever quarter it comes, but it is particularly pleasant when it comes from such an old friend as he. The United Kingdom has, and has long had, a valuable and important relationship with the Philippines. Our relations are long standing. Last year we exported to the Philippines about £100 million-worth of goods and we imported about £170 million-worth of goods. It is a very important country within the framework of the Association of the South East Asian Nations. In recognition of this triumph of the ballot box and of democracy in Manila during the last few days, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that perhaps a brief statement was worth while.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister congratulate the people of the Philippines who played such a noble role in this transition while others were sitting on the fence? Will he particularly endorse the actions of those Filipinos who placed their bodies between the contending military groups? Finally, will he accept that that bravery perhaps prevented the Americans from making their greatest foreign affairs mistake in Asia since Vietnam?
Mr. Renton: I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of experience in foreign affairs, says about the bravery of the Filipino people. However, I do not agree with his closing remarks about the United States. Unless 10,000 people had interposed themselves literally between the tanks and Camps Aguinaldo and Crame, it is clear that the results might have been very different indeed. The people who did this are indeed to be congratulated upon their bravery and upon their commitment to democracy.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: While warmly endorsing my hon. Friend's support of President Aquino's welcome new Government in the Philippines, does he have any evidence of possible Russian subversion in the delicate weeks that lie ahead for that country?
Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I do not have any evidence of Russian subversion, but the Soviet Union appears to have been the only country to congratulate Mr. Marcos on his election victory. It must be wondering if it did the right thing.
Mr. Ken Weetch: Before too much credit is given to the United States, would the Minister not agree that the United States has been propping up this brutal, corrupt regime for the past 20 years, just as it has propped up the Duvalier regime in similar circumstances? When the Minister gets close to United States policy makers, will he tell them quite clearly that it is too late when they fly the tinpot dictators out when the game is up, and that in future could they make recommendations to regimes which are a little less disreputable?
Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that he will recognise that the United States has long and traditional historic links with the Philippines. It has strategic links there, and the existence of those links has always put it in a particularly committed and prominent position. I think that today we should congratulate the United States on the part it has played in recent days in encouraging the restoration of democracy and helping President Aquino to the position that she now holds.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Before we all get carried away by euphoria over the events in the Philipines, would it not be as well to remember that Mrs. Aquino was not even the winning candidate in the recent fraudulent elections? Therefore, has my hon. Friend any knowledge as to when free elections may be held in the Philippines which will give some legitimacy to the Administration which has now been taken over, quite unconstitutionally, by Mrs. Aquino?
Mr. Renton: I have listened to what my hon. Friend says but I think that above all that is a matter for the Filipino people to decide. The impression I have, from the decisions taken in Manila last night, is that they are quite confident that they now have a legitimate Government and one they wish to support.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that the Government's message of good wishes to Mrs. Aquino and her colleagues accurately reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of people in this country? In view of the very real economic problems which will be faced by the new Administration in Manila, will the Government actively and sympathetically support any request which the Philippines Government make for a rescheduling of their international debt?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remark and I am certain that it accurately reflects overwhelming opinion in the House and in the country. We have fully supported the package of assistance of 615 million special drawing rights which the International Monetary Fund is providing for the Philippines. However, I recognise what he says. Although this is a fundamentally rich agricultural country, it has no great natural mineral wealth on which to rely. I am sure that the international

949
community, including ourselves, will now look forward to a beneficial relationship between ourselves and the Government of the Philippines.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be the policy of the Government to maintain and, if possible, increase trading links with the Philippines in the future?
Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. That is one of the things that I hope we would be discussing in the context of the European Community and ASEAN meetings, and in bilateral meetings.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since Ministers now hold Mrs. Aquino in such high regard, would they ask her advice on two matters? Does she think it right that in the Pacific basin our French partners should continue their testing of nuclear weapons at Mururoa atoll? Is that what she wants? Secondly, a bit nearer home, what are Mrs. Aquino's views on the naval exercises called RIMPAC and, in particular, the taking of British nuclear weapons to the Pacific against the wishes of the New Zealanders? Does the Philippines want to see our ships with nuclear weapons on those exercises in the Pacific?
Mr. Renton: I point out that Mrs. Aquino has been President only for some 20 hours, and neither I nor any other Ministers have yet had time to discuss her views on nuclear testing on Mururoa atoll or naval exercises in the Pacific. Let there be parity of abuse. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Soviet Union has its own base nearby, in Vietnam, at Cam-Ranh bay, and this is also a fairly important strategic factor, about which the new Philippines Government will be well aware.
Mr. Rob Hayward: I reiterate my appreciation of the efforts of diplomats both in Manila and this country on behalf of our citizens who have been in Manila in the past few weeks. As my hon. Friend is aware, I have a personal association with this problem. However, I also draw his attention to trade and the need to get alongside the new Government as quickly as possible, given the fact that the Philippines has the largest British aircraft fleet of any airline in the world, including British Airways.
Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am aware of his family interests in the situation in Manila and I am grateful for his kind comments, particularly those about Foreign Office staff in Manila, who have done their best to give advice to British citizens throughout the Philippines in the past difficult few days. I take on board his point about trade. The Philippines is an important potential trading partner for us. I note what my hon. Friend says about the aircraft fleet and I hope that we shall be able to discuss this a great deal in dialogue with the new Government.
Dr. John Marek: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the single most important thing is for democracy in the Philippines to become firmly established, and to that end will he see what can be done to foster cultural and other interchanges between the Philippines and Hong Kong?
Mr. Renton: That is an interesting point. There is a traditional relationship between the Philippines and Hong Kong, and I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's points are brought to the notice of officials in the Hong Kong Government.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I am pleased that there has been such a swift and bloodless changeover in the leadership in the Philippines. However, will my hon. Friend resist any temptation to grant political asylum to any of the 18 diplomats from the Philippines residing in the United Kingdom who might be supporting Marcos and who might become a burden on our state?
Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend says. Some of the diplomats in the Philippines embassy in London declared firmly and bravely their support for Mrs. Aquino on Sunday when the dice had by no means been thrown in a certain direction. I bear in mind what he said about asylum.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that Labour Members strongly suspect that if the United States had not given support to the new regime, we should not have had the statement today? Is it not time that we told the United States, our good friends and allies, that they should stop supporting many other tyrannical regimes, certainly in places such as Chile and Guatemala, and that it would be better for the western world and western democracy that the Marcos-type regimes did not exist?
Mr. Renton: I am saddened by the hon. Gentleman's somewhat twisted approach to this success of democracy and the ballot box in Manila. I remind him of something that Mr. Shultz said yesterday when he was speaking about the new President in the Philippines. He said that that was not something that the United States had done but something that the Filipino people had done. We should bear that in mind.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the possible precedent that we may be setting in elections being held in a far-off country, someone crying foul, the election result being overturned and us welcoming a result that has not come from the election? Does he recall whether any statements were made in the House in 1960 at the time when the presidential elections in the United States were cast in some doubt after the activities in Cook county?
Mr. Renton: No, Sir, I do not recall that. I wondered for a moment, knowing my hon. Friend's interest, whether, once he had started to talk about elections, he would lead into the elections for the European Parliament, and that that was going to be the twist to his question. I was fortunate to receive first-hand accounts of the conduct of the elections, from Lord Mackie and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), both of whom had been observers, soon after they returned to the United Kingdom. It was clear from what they said that they had no doubt—nor did the other observers—that massive fraud had been taking place during the election. It is against that background that we can firmly welcome the new Government as democratic representatives of the Filipino people.
Mr. Ernie Ross: While welcoming President Aquino's offer of amnesty for political prisoners, will Her Majesty' s Government impress upon President Aquino the need for an early dialogue with the political parties which were banned by President Marcos, in particular the National Democratic Front, the Communist Party of the Philppines and the New People's Army? After hearing the statement by the Vice-President

951
this morning that he expects most Communist guerrillas to lay down their arms and come home, does the Minister think that that will come to pass if the land which was stolen from the guerrillas, the loss of which led them to become guerrillas, is not returned to them?
Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the reports of a general amnesty are encouraging and that very much lies within the character of President Aquino and the remarks that she made in the election campaign. However, with regard to his specific points about the Communist party, we shall have to wait and see what developments take place in the coming days.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Minister said earlier that it has long been the British Government's policy to be critical of the human rights record under ex-President Marcos. Is not one of the lessons to be learned from the series of events in the Philippines that it is all very well for the Government to have a critical policy about human rights records but that if that policy is not expressed publicly and clearly we are in effect giving tacit support to dicatators? Should we not now review the Government's stand on human rights and urge the Minister to consider being much more public in his condemnation of breaches of human rights wherever they occur?
Mr. Renton: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I understand his deep concern on this issue, which is shared by many hon. Members. I said earlier, and this is correct, that the Government have long been concerned about the abuse of human rights in the Philippines. In all seriousness, however, the hon. Gentleman must stand back and consider how any Government can most efficiently and efficaciously press their case to help political prisoners or other detainees.
The case immediately comes to mind of the many detainees and political prisoners in the Soviet Union. Those cases are often advanced by Oppositon Members for reasons that I well understand. We must always form a balance of judgment as to whether we can more efficiently help people to be released by acting quietly in talks with visiting Ministers and through our Ministers' visits to Moscow or whether we can get people released by more public outcry and by shouting from the rooftops.
It is a matter of judgment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I and other Ministers at the Foreign Office regularly bear in mind and consider how best to proceed to help political prisoners.

Official Report (Standing Committee Proceedings)
3.58 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise this point of order as I think it will be of great assistance to the House and its proceedings.
The Public Order Bill is in Committee at present, but we are still awaiting some of the Hansard reports for last Thursday. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, most Committees are behind in the production of the records of their proceedings. I raise this point in connection with the future business of the House as I believe that the proceedings of Committees will be further delayed if action is not taken. I notice on page 334 of the Votes and Proceedings that notification of the First Reading of the Shops Bill [Lords] has been laid on the Table, and that page 1954 of the Order Paper shows that Second Reading of the Bill is to come before the House.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that these Bills will create further pressure on Committees and on the Official Report.
As we had a statement from the Minister of State, Home Office on Monday, in which he declared that 310 letters were recorded for and 37,370 letters were recorded against the Shops Bill, can you intervene, Mr. Speaker, to persuade the Government to block the Bill altogether and save the time of the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is patently not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman so wishes, and if he catches my eye, he should direct questions on that matter to the Leader of the House on business questions.

Severe Weather Payments
3.59 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No.10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need to provide adequate heating assistance for pensioners and others on very small incomes in view of the continuing exceptionally severe weather in all parts of the country."
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will now accept that the matter is sufficiently urgent and important to meet the criteria laid down in the Standing Order.
The matter is specific because of the continuing very severe weather in all parts of the country, yet in many areas exceptionally severe weather payments have not yet been authorised. Indeed, I think it is true to say that in most parts of the country that payment is still not being made. That is surely unjustified.
I emphasise that a large number of elderly people with very small incomes do not qualify for supplementary benefit and thus receive not a penny from the DHSS to help with their heating bills. I submit that that group could well be most at risk during the present freezing weather.
The matter is important because of the reports coming in from welfare agencies about the tremendous difficulties facing the elderly at this time. Casualties and tragedies have already occurred. For example, it is reported today that a 79-year-old pensioner was found dying of cold in her freezing flat in High Wycombe—the constituency of a DHSS Minister, whose office I notified that I intended to raise the matter—and others, too, have died as a result of the freezing weather.
The director of the Family Policy Studies Centre and author of a book entitled "Old and Cold" estimates that 10 people per day are dying from hypothermia and several hundred from other cold-related conditions. Help the Aged, the organisation concerned with the welfare of the elderly, has also stated that it fears a big increase in the number of old people who will die during this period.
The matter is therefore extremely important and urgent, so I make no apology for the fact that I raised the matter under Standing Order No.10 not long ago and that the present application is made on the day following the unsuccessful application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West(Mr. Meacher).I believe that it is our duty and responsibility to see that the problem facing so many people in the community, especially the elderly, who simply do not have enough money to keep themselves warm, should be raised here in the House of Commons. The time has come for a debate to take place.
954
Speaking frankly and honestly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why no debate leas yet taken place. During this period of freezing weather, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West yesterday as the coldest February for years, it is essential that we have the opportunity to debate this subject. I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, to allow this application so that tomorrow we can have the debate which my hon. Friends and I have been seeking. We can then raise these matters and try to persuade the Government to allow far more money for those so desperately in need of assistance. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No.10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need to provide adequate heating assistance for pensioners and others on very small incomes in view of the continuing exceptionally severe weather in all parts of the country."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I mentioned to him yesterday —[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pay attention while I am speaking lo him —having listened carefully to his submission and to what was said yesterday, is my sole duty in considering these applications to decide whether the matter should be given priority over the Orders of the Day set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know no one in the Gallery and certainly not the person—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We never refer to what goes on in the Gallery. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise another matter?
Mr. Winnick: If someone elsewhere is not aware of our habits and regulations, could you take steps to ensure that that person is allowed to go back to where he was?
Mr. Speaker: We never take notice of what goes on in the Gallery.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 14 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Steve Norris

Sir Bernard Braine

Mr. Tony Favell

Noise Abatement
4.5 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel employers to provide adequate protection for employees and the public by reducing sound levels at work and by preventing exposure to harmful noise levels.
I declare an interest on two counts. First, I am sponsored by the General and Municipl, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which has fought very hard over the years to ensure that its members have their hearing protected and, when it has been unsuccessful, has obtained substantial compensation for its members. Secondly, having worked in the shipbuilding industry for a considerable time, I suffer from industrial deafness.
I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that sometimes not being able to hear everything in this Chamber has advantages as well as disadvantages, but noise-damaged workers pay for their employers' neglect by social isolation, friction with friends and family in appearing not to listen, putting the television or wireless on too loudly, and so on. They also suffer from ringing in the ears and head as well as from other stress problems. There is greater potential for accidents and loss of pleasure through failing to hear music or even birds singing.
Being deaf is not funny. Any Member who thinks that it is should try spending a weekend with earplugs in his ears and see how comfortable it is. That is what those suffering from industrial deafness have to endure all the time. If noise levels at work were reduced from 100 decibels to 90 decibels, 21 workers in 100 would be saved from severe hearing loss because only 11 instead of 32 in 100 would be damaged by exposure to that level over the years. If the level were reduced to 80 decibels there would be a further saving of eight workers in 100 because only three in 100 would suffer at that level. Employers also pay through reduced productivity, higher accident rates, more absenteeism, compensation claims and poorer industrial relations.
Manufacturers and designers of noisy equipment may suffer loss of markets because many countries now insist on quieter machinery. Indeed, many United Kingdom manufacturers already supply quieter machines for export and noisier ones for the home market.
Some employers have made improvements, but many have done nothing at all. Many talk about the cost of reducing noise levels, but the cost would not be so great and in many cases there need be no cost at all. For example, noise control for tractor cabs costs less than 2·5 per cent. of the cost of a new tractor. The new, quiet road drills cost the same and in some cases less than the noisy ones. Improvements can therefore be made at a cost of hundreds, not thousands, of pounds.
Not long ago the Minister sent out secret instructions to the health and safety inspectors which said:
"Where engineering controls are considered reasonably practicable, but the employer has opted for the provision of ear protection, further enforcement action should not be considered … provided the protection is effective and worn in noisy areas at all times."
This is a blatant example of failure to enforce the law properly. It contradicts the 1972 code of practice, the spirit of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the policy of the Health and Safety Executive. That instruction condones employers who have broken the law. It is reminiscent of the infamous Home Office instruction to
956
inspectors in the last century, which asked them not to enforce the then law on fencing dangerous machinery above 7 ft from the ground. That instruction was based on the spurious belief that there was no danger once the minimum safety precautions had been taken. It was the result of pressure from what Dickens called "The society for the mangling of operatives" and, because of the many fatal accidents that had occurred near drive belts many feet from the factory floor, that instruction was withdrawn several years later.
Do we have to wait for several thousand more workers to become deaf before the present instruction to the health and safety officers is withdrawn? According to the Trade Union Studies Information Centre, which is based in Newcastle, there are 45,000 people in the Tyne and Wear area waiting for hearing tests. It is believed that it takes on average 49 weeks for a person to have a hearing test.
The present control limit of 90 decibels is unacceptable because it will allow 11 per cent. of exposed workers to suffer a severe health handicap—a 50 decibel hearing loss. That is accepted by the DHSS as a reason for a disability pension. An example for hon. Members of a 85 decibel noise level is being in a train going through a tunnel. Workers have to work in those levels for up to eight and a half hours a day. I accept that, because of the employers' and Government's neglect of noise control and hearing protection over the past 50 years, the economic cost of saving all but 1 per cent. of exposed workers—which a limit of 75 decibels would do—is a task that is too large and would take a number of years to achieve. My Bill proposes a threshold of acceptable harm of 80 decibels and a duty to reduce noise levels above that limit to as low as is reasonably practicable.
There should be an upper limit for impulse noise and a ceiling of noise beats peaks of 115 decibels. Employers should have a legal duty to reduce future noise levels from machinery, processors or work systems, when they are creating new work. Noise surveys should be carried out every two years by competent persons in consultation with safety representatives. Reports should be made available to those safety representatives. However, hearing protectors should be a temporary last resort and part of a timed programme of noise reduction. There should be a duty on the designers of machinery to reduce noise levels to the lowest practicable level and in any case to 85 decibels by 1987.
There are over 3 million workers in the manufacturing industry, construction, agriculture, forestry, mining and quarrying, who are exposed to noise levels above 80 decibels. That is why occupational deafness is the most widespread industrial disease and over a quarter of a million people in Britain suffer from this severe health handicap. Fifty years ago the Newcastle-based leader of the boilermakers' union, Jack Hill, took this issue up on behalf of the TUC. I hope that this year, Industry Year, something will be done to rid industry of the scourge of industrial deafness.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Robert C. Brown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Giles Radice, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. George Robertson, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Laurie Pavitt and Mr. Frank Cook.

Noise Abatement
  NOISE ABATEMENT
  Mr. Don Dixon accordingly presented a Bill to compel employers to provide adequate protection for employees and the public by reducing sound levels at work and by preventing exposure to harmful noise levels: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 May and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
4.14 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on the Royal Air Force, a service which occupies a key place in British defence policy. Its role in United Kingdom air defence is central not only to this country, but to NATO's ability to withstand any Warsaw pact attack on western Europe. The crucial place of United Kingdom air forces is illustrated by the fact that the Commander-in-Chief of RAF Strike Command occupies an important senior post in the NATO command structure.
In the central region, too, Royal Air Force Germany plays a vital role in support of our ground forces in the land battle —strike-attack, close air support and reconnaissance. The RAF is also vital for out-of-area commitments. The defence of the Falklands and the airbridge to the islands is only the best known of a range of activities which require men and machines of great diversity and first-rate quality.
Perhaps I could briefly remind the House of the great improvements in Soviet capability which are currently taking place. The Fulcrum agile, all-weather fighter-interceptor is coming into service. It is similar to the F-18, a very advanced and formidable aircraft. The Flanker air superiority fighter, which is similar to the F-15, is also nearing deployment. They are supported, and their effectiveness increased, by the new Soviet airborne early warning aircraft. A cruise missile carrying variant of the Bear bomber is now in production.
This list is by no means exhaustive but it illustrates the considerable improvements in quality which the Soviet forces are steadily achieving. These improvements are to forces which substantially outnumber those of the NATO Alliance. The Warsaw pact deploys some 2,700 fixed wing tactical aircraft on the central front to NATO's 1,300. The Warsaw pact production rate of aircraft is at a ratio of 1·4:1 against that of NATO. Against that background it has been this Government's policy to carry through a major re-equipment programme for the RAF, making it one of the most sophisticated air forces in NATO.

The RAF share of the defence equipment budget is some 36 per cent, in the current year. That is a share of a defence equipment budget which has grown from 39 to 46 per cent. of the entire defence budget since 1979. That defence budget is about one fifth larger in real terms than when we entered office. These figures are the measure of the extra resources that we have been able to devote to the re-equipment of the RAF. It is a capital-intensive service and takes a large part of the equipment budget, and for that reason the majority of my speech will be about equipment.
By any standards, a major milestone in the continued progress of this re-equipment programme occurred last year when the national armament directors of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain signed the Turin agreement to proceed collaboratively with the new European fighter aircraft. Following on from the success of Tornado, EFA was in fact the logical next step in terms of European collaboration. The United Kingdom will need a new agile combat aircraft to replace its Phantom and Jaguar aircraft from the mid-1990s. Other European

959
countries have a similar need in the same timescale. It is one thing to perceive a need and an opportunity, another to turn that into a collaborative programme. By his initiative and energy my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) gave impetus to this project and, despite great difficulty in reaching a consensus on requirements, secured its launch: a tremendous political achievement.
Work on the project is proceeding well. The industries of the four countries started on the project definition stage last September shortly after the national armament directors reached agreement on the technical and organisational basis of the project definition study. One of the major technical characteristics relates to aircraft weight, about which there has recently been considerable press comment. I confirm that it has always been, and remains, our firm intention that aircraft design shall respect the characteristics which were agreed last summer in Turin. I welcome this opportunity to make that position clear.
It would be wrong to imply that the task that has been set for EFA is easy. The definition and design of such an aircraft, incorporating state-of-the-art technology, is inevitably a challenging process. There is clearly much to be done during the coming months before the industrial reports are submitted to the four Governments for appraisal later this year. But we are fortunate to have the firm technical foundation of the Tornado partnership to work on. Moreover, we have the political and industrial resolve to follow up the success of that programme with an even more ambitious and exciting one.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a difference between the European staff target and the European staff requirement? One was 9·75 tonnes and the other was 12·5 tonnes. The difference must be resolved quickly.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my remarks were directed exactly at that point. I want to make it clear that we wish to stick rigorously to the Turin agreement. We got the project together with enormous political effort, and it cannot become unstitched by the industries in different countries adding to the aircraft, gold-plating it, and making it more elaborate. We must keep to the agreement.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It is worrying that it is not only manufacturers but air forces that change aircraft requirements. The Minister must face those factors in future. Will he give a categorical assertion that he will not allow air forces or manufacturers to change the specifications?
Mr. Lamont: I have already done that. The hon. Gentleman is correct. We wish to stick to the Turin agreement, but that is not an easy technical task. That is our objective. We want to keep the project together, and we do not want people constantly altering the requirements.
The Government regret that France was unable to join the programme, since a five-nation project would have been an even greater achievement for European aerospace. Both France and the United States have subsequently
960
broached the possibility of collaboration at the component level between EFA and their own projects. Obviously, we are looking carefully at that possibility.
Another major equipment highlight of the past year was the sale of Tornado and Hawk aircraft to Saudi Arabia in a deal worth more than £5 billion—our biggest ever single overseas sale.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lamont: I shall give way in a minute.
There has been some speculation that this is the biggest ever overseas defence sale by any country. By any standard it was a great achievement, sustaining some 9,000 jobs in the United Kingdom industry. Last week a memorandum of understanding and contracts for the aircraft and initial spares and support were signed, and the first aircraft will be delivered at the end of March, only six months after the inception of the project. The first cash payment from the Saudi Government has been received.
That is major defence sales news in its own right. I mention it in the context of my remarks about Royal Air Force equipment for three reasons. First, to acknowledge that there will be a need to support the sale in its early stages through diverting from the production line equipment, including 18 Tornado GR 1s,which would otherwise have been delivered to the Royal Air Force. Our aim will be to minimise the impact on the Royal Air Forces front line. I am pleased to confirm that, through agreement reached with British Aerospace, all equipment so diverted will be replaced at no cost to the defence budget. Secondly, such sales can only be good for the Royal Air Force, in that longer production runs and a wider range of markets will spread overhead costs and help to contain unit prices. In assisting the Saudi deal we are helping not only British industry but also ourselves. Thirdly, this important sale, in the face of fierce competition, to a demanding customer surely testifies to the quality of this superb aircraft whose deployment of which to Royal Air Force service the Government are bringing to fruition.
Defence exports are sometimes criticised, but the Tornado sale illustrates the substantial benefits that come from a responsible policy of vigorously promoting defence exports. It is surely right that we assist our allies in their legitimate right to pursue their self defence. Then there are the economic benefits to the United Kingdom in terms of foreign exchange earned and jobs created. As my hon. Friends know, some 120,000 jobs are secured by defence exports.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sale of Harrier jump jets, following their remarkable performance in the Falklands campaign, has been disappointing? What more can the Government do to help with that?
Mr. Lamont: It is true that following the Falklands the export of Harriers has been surprisingly disappointing. There are some prospects for it. The collaborative programme with the United States' marine corps is a huge project. It is tremendously to the credit of British Aerospace that such a project should be secured in collaboration with the United Kingdom. There deserve to be other export orders, and we hope that they will materialise. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything possible to assist such sales.

961
All those considerations and the interventions today make an unassailable case for the energetic policy of assisting defence exports which the Government have pursued. We have enjoyed some notable defence sales successes recently, and we intend to continue that policy vigorously.
I should now like to deal with the RAF's Tornado programme. It forms the basis of the re-equipment programme. We now have in service nine squadrons, the last of which formed in May 1985, of the strike-attack variant, the GR 1. With their terrain-following radar, those aircraft can penetrate enemy air defence at low level and high speed, and can deliver weapons accurately. They can operate at long ranges, which can be further extended by air-to-air refuelling.
Negotiations are also in progress for the purchase of nine additional Tornado GR 1 aircraft for the RAF. The aircraft are required to help offset expected attrition losses. Orders have been placed for long-lead items but the timing of the main production effort is being reassessed in the light of Tornado export orders.
The aircraft has an extensive fit of armaments, including the JP 233 cratering and area denial weapon. The weapon combines an ability to hit and crater runways with devastating effect, with an ability to scatter great numbers of mines, thus rendering enormously difficult and dangerous the work of the repair crews. We did not have the advantage of that weapon in the Falklands.
All in all, the Tornado GR 1 is an extremely capable aircraft. That capability was most effectively underlined when Tornados of no. 27 squadron, supported by Victor tankers of no. 57 squadron, took part in the 1985 strategic air command bombing competition. It is a most prestigious military competition, and I am delighted to say that for the second year in succession our crews achieved outstanding results. Against the best crews and aircraft in the United States Air Force, this clearly demonstrates the exceptional operational capability of the Tornado and the excellence of its crews.
We are of course not neglecting the opportunities that exist for further improving the capabilities of the aircraft. Together with our collaborative partners, we are studying options for a mid-life improvement package to enable the Tornado to continue to meet the evolving threat through the 1990s and beyond. The F-2, or air defence variant, represents the most significant airborne element of our major programme to improve the air defence of the United Kingdom. Fourteen of these aircraft have been delivered to RAF Coningsby. The first operational squadron will form next year. The aircraft has a formidable range which can be extended by air-to-air refuelling. As some of my hon. Friends know, there have been problems in the development of the radar, which have entailed adjustments to the build up of the ADV force to its planned total of seven squadrons. I am happy to say that these problems are now largely overcome.
Another major step in the equipment programme was taken when the two Harrier GR5 prototypes flew for the first time during 1985. This is another major collaborative aircraft programme on which we are engaged. The GR5 will greatly increase the offensive support capability of the RAF when it enters squadron service in 1988. Because the GR5 has the same name and operational role as its predecessor, the GR3, it is not always appreciated that it is a very different aircraft with considerably greater range and payload. We are at an advanced stage of negotiations
962
with the United States to extend the collaborative programme in order to give the GR5 and its American counterpart, the AV8B, a full capability to operate at night and in poor visibility.
A vital part of our air defence and an important role for the RAF's out-of-area commitments is our air-to-air refuelling fleet. Our major plans to modernise this force will be completed this year. The tanker force performed well during and immediately after the Falklands campaign but the existing elderly Victor aircraft are to be replaced by a mixed force of VC1Os and TriStars. One Victor squadron will disband at the end of June, while the other continues in service. The conversion of a squadron of nine VC10 aircraft to the tanker role is almost complete. We have also bought nine TriStar aircraft which will have the flexibility to perform a variety of roles, including the carriage of passengers and freight as well as refuelling.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the cost of nine TriStars?
Mr. Lamont: Off hand, I am unable to give that figure to the hon. Gentleman, but will make sure he is supplied with the information.
The new VCIO and TriStar tankers will greatly increase the amount of fuel our tankers can dispense to front-line aircraft. TriStar, in particular, can offload, airframe for airframe, about two and a half times as much fuel as the older tankers it is replacing. In war this would allow more operational aircraft to extend their radius of action and in that sense they would act as a force multiplier, greatly increasing the effectiveness of our own front-line forces. That is a good example of the Government's determination to make better and more effective use of defence resources.
Mention has been made in previous debates of operation Swift Sword, the out-of-area training exercise in Oman to be held in late November. That will demonstrate, among other things, the value of this investment in terms of our strategic mobility and capability for rapid military deployment. Swift Sword will involve the use of the TriStar fleet, the VC1Os arid Hercules aircraft of the air transport force, and will also include six Tornado aircraft. About 5,000 personnel from all three services will participate in this exercise which will last for three weeks.
A major part of last year's debate on the RAF was also about the selection of a new basic trainer for the RAF which is required to replace the Jet Provost. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced the selection of the Shorts Tucano for which an order for 130 aircraft has been placed. In general, the programme is going well, although the build-up has been less quick than we had hoped. Shorts has advised us that there will be a few months delay in the delivery of the first aircraft, but it is hoped to recover some of the slippage later. Because the price of the contract is fixed, the delay will not result in any cost increase to the Ministry of Defence. A prototype Tucano fitted with the Garrett engine flew for the first time in February.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Will there be any additional operating costs for the RAF as a result of using the Jet Provost for an extended life? Will there be no greater fuel consumption?
Mr. Lamont: An increase in cost is not expected.
I should now like to deal with the Nimrod airborne early warning project. The House will recall that in March 1977

963
the then Government announced their decision to proceed with the Nimrod system to replace the Shackleton in the airborne early warning role. Contracts were placed with what is now British Aerospace plc for the necessary work on the Nimrod airframe, and with GEC Avionics Limited for the development and production of its mission system avionics. At that time it was envisaged that the aircraft would enter service with the Royal Air Force in April 1984. Since 1977, work has been proceeding on the project which will be an important component of the United Kingdom's air defence capability and our contribution to the NATO mixed AEW force.
British Aerospace's work on the airframe is proceeding satisfactorily. However, as the House is well aware, serious difficulties have arisen in the development of the avionics system and that has led to significant time and cost overruns. Given these difficulties, the Government have concluded that it would be right to consider all of the available options, both from this country and from overseas, for meeting the RAF's needs before taking a final decision on the way forward. We must ensure value for money on this project as elsewhere in the defence programme. GEC has fully accepted the Government's view that this evaluation is now necessary.
The Government also believe that the project management and contractual arrangements for the Nimrod AEW programme, which were established in 1977, have clearly not provided a satisfactory basis for the timely completion of the project and that it can go forward only on a revised basis. We discussed with the company arrangements for sharing the risk and providing adequate incentive for completion. I am pleased to inform the House that these negotiations have been satisfactorily concluded. We have reached agreement both on arrangements to cover the interim period while all of the options, including, of course, Nimrod AEW, are fully evaluated, and on a possible basis for the longer term should we proceed to completion with the Nimrod project.
During the next six months, GEC Avionics will press ahead with the Nimrod development programme but on a revised contractual basis under which that company and the Government will bear 50 per cent. of the costs properly incurred within a maximum financial limit for the programme of £50 million. Before the end of this period GEC Avionics will provide us with a firm price proposal against a technical specification aimed at fulfilling the needs of the Royal Air Force. The company will also demonstrate to the Ministry the progress it has made on the development of the project. During this period we shall explore with other contractors at home and abroad alternatives to the Nimrod AEW approach and their technical, cost, industrial, and other implications. We shall also consult the NATO authorities.
Following this six-month period, the Government will reach a decision on the way forward. Should we then decide to accept a GEC Avionics proposal and to continue with the Nimrod AEW project, the contract will be extended within an agreed firm price and period for completion and with funding to continue on the basis of equal shares. Once the work had been completed satisfactorily to time, the funding borne by the company would of course be paid in full. In the event that completion were to be delayed beyond the agreed period, the company has agreed that it would bear the cost of the
964
programme until it was satisfactorily completed. Those arrangements would then provide for the company to be paid in full for work completed satisfactorily to time and for the company to bear the consequences should this not happen. They would, I believe, be fair to the company and fair to the taxpayer.
The Government are anxious to give the company the chance to demonstrate that it can complete the project satisfactorily. The company has now shown its commitment to, and confidence in, its ability to do this. It has also recognised—I pay tribute to it for this—the need to show that its solution is competitive with the alternatives that are on offer. The Government have sought in the negotiations to give it every opportunity to recover a most unsatisfactory position which reflects, in part, wider shortcomings in the management of defence procurement. That too must be vigorously tackled.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend make two important clarifications to his carefully worded statement? First, what are the interim operational provisions for airborne early warning, which is such a critical part of an overall national air defence system? Will he lease E3A Sentry aircraft from the United States air force or enter into some operational collaboration with our allies? Secondly, will he assure the House that the operational requirement of the Royal Air Force will be the paramount criterion and that the equipment selected at the end of the day will be that which best meets the operational requirement?
Mr. Lamont: This is a serious matter for the air defence of the United Kingdom and I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the defence needs of the United Kingdom must be paramount in our minds. My hon. Friend will be aware that we revised the staff requirement downward to a minimum operating capability. That is what we have discussed in the recent past with the company. We shall be making available to the company —GEC—and to all the other people who may wish to tender for the remainder of the programme the cardinal points of the original staff requirement, because obviously it is not enough to draw a line at the minimum operating capability. We must look at the future developments. We must look at the staff requirement in the longer term as well.
Mr. Tony Favell: First, may I say on behalf of my many constituents who work at British Aerospace, Woodford, how much my hon. Friend's comment will be appreciated on the way in which British Aerospace, Woodford, has performed throughout the contract? Secondly, may I draw his attention to the fact that GEC has been negotiating for some time with Lockheed on a joint project for the installation of its aviation system in a Hercules aircraft? Will the nation reap any rewards if that is a success?
Mr. Lamont: If that sale goes ahead it will obviously be of benefit to the nation and to the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. We are conscious of the huge amount of taxpayers' money that has been invested in the project. We are well aware of the industrial issues at stake and that the prestige of the company is very much under examination as well. We wish to give British industry every possible opportunity to satisfy the requirement, but it is also important, given the

965
shortcomings of the programme and our important defence requirement, that we see what is on offer elsewhere in the world.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is important that he should strike the positive note that he has just done. I am sure that everyone will be grateful that he has. Surely there is a key element in the next six months, which is that one of the problems throughout the project has been that the management authorisation has rested in the Ministry of Defence. Can my hon. Friend assure us that that sort of weekly authorisation, which has been at fault to a large degree, will not go on over the next six months and that the company will be properly in control of the project?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right and it is implicit in what I have said that there will be a new contract as from next week, and GEC Avionics will be the prime contractor. That has been one of the main things wrong with the project in the past.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy rose—
Mr. Lamont: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but I hope that the House will understand if I do not treat this as though it were a private notice question.
Mr. Duffy: This is important and we are grateful to the Minister for not merely updating us on this sorry saga but for giving us this important statement, because that is what it amounts to. However, is it not fair to say that a changing staff requirement, in the light of Britian's defence needs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, quite properly because the development represents a quantum leap, as well as the wider ambit of defence procurement, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, and GEC Avionics, are all responsible for this unhappy state of affairs?
Mr. Lamont: It is certainly not my wish to ascribe blame to any party, nor indeed to seek to escape blame. I am sure that this is not a project of which anyone can be proud. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), when one talks about changing staff requirements, what has happened recently is that far from the staff requirement being changed or tightened up, we moved from ASR400—the staff requirement — down to a minimum operating capability which was somewhat less demanding. but which we thought would be a useful addition to the United Kingdom's defences.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: We are told by TASS that to complete the existing work would cost £250 million and on top of that will be the air staff requirement of a further £150 million. Are those figures accurate? Will my hon. Friend clarify the figure of £50 million that he has given us?
Mr. Lamont: The figure of £50 million was the sum that applies for the next six months. The cost of reaching the staff target will be discovered when we have the propositions from the company and others. That is precisely the problem. We are not sure what it will cost and we are not sure precisely what can be achieved. That is what we wish to find out and that is what we wish to give British industry the opportunity to demonstrate.
Having been in the frying pan of Nimrod, may I now turn to the subject of Westland? On that I would simply say that I am sure that all concerned for the wellbeing of
966
Westland will be pleased that final decisions have been made by the shareholders. The Government have already made it clear that if the Sikorsky-Fiat package was selected, we would continue to support the company in existing and future European collaborative projects. That choice has now been made and I am happy to restate the Government's commitment, and to say that we shall resist any attempt to discriminate against Westland.
On support helicopters, as I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, the defence staff needs to look again at the concept of air mobile operations and at the size and mix of support helicopters required to fulfil that concept. That thinking must cover the threat and technology. I well appreciate the impatience that several of my hon. Friends have, and I can assure them that I shall do everything possible to ensure that that rethink is completed as quickly as possible.
For the present the position must remain that one cannot say whether the NH 90 programme, in which we and Westland are participating at the feasibility study stage., or the Black Hawk, or any other light support helicopter, might meet our needs. The position remains the same in the medium support category, where the EH 101, which we already plan to procure for the Royal Navy, and the Chinook, might be contenders.
I should like to say a word about the recent shuttle disaster as, of course, the shuttle is extremely important for our own satellite programme. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that everyone was extremely distressed by the accident, and we extend our deepest sympathy to the families of the shuttle crew. We cannot assess fully the consequences of the accident on the United Kingdom Skynet IV programme until the investigations of the United States authorities have been completed. Clearly, we must await firm information before deciding the way forward.
We remain confident in the shuttle programme, which has been a great technological success, and there is at present no change in plans either for the first two Skynet IV satellites to be launched via the shuttle or for the two British payload specialists to fly with the shuttle, one on each of the first two Skynet missions.
Inevitably, a large portion of my remarks has been about equipment. But equipment, however excellent, is of no avail without dedicated personnel which make up a service such as the RAF. Morale is a key element in the effectiveness of the RAF, and the maintenance of morale is of fundamental importance in the management of personnel.
The major re-equipment programmes and the restoration of pay comparability have done much, but it is recognised as equally important that living and working conditions should be maintained at a level that will continue to attract recruits and retain skilled manpower. This is demonstrated by our plans to enhance the level of modernisation and development of service domestic accommodation.
In the case of recruitment, overall, officer and airman aircrew recruitment in 1984–85 was good, although there were shortfalls in certain areas. For the current year, ground airman recruitment is going extremely well, but recruitment of officers and airman aircrew has been rather lower than hoped for. It is currently forecast at 87 per cent. of the target.

967
The RAF, in common with the other two services, is also facing increasing competition from outside employers, particularly in areas such as engineering where there is a national shortage of specialised skills. But we are continually seeking to improve our recruitment and selection procedures to ensure that the RAF has the right number and calibre of candidates to undertake its operational commitments.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I understand that with a highly technological service such as the RAF there is now great difficulty in getting people who are properly trained to come in and do the job. This applies both to those who are in uniform and to civilians who support the service. Does not my hon. Friend think that the service itself must do something about training its own people in order to fill these gaps?
Mr. Lamont: I agree with the gist of my hon. Friend's remarks, but, as I have said, while there are problems in certain areas they are at present limited in scale and extent. We shall keep an eye on this because it is very worrying, but it is not a serious problem at present.
Retention is the key to the cost-effective use of manpower resources. Officer retention is being carefully monitored, especially in the aircrew categories. While the rate of premature voluntary retirement shows an increase, the figures are substantially less than in 1978 when there was a major exodus. The numbers applying in any one year remain comparatively small in relation to overall numbers. They are currently about only 3 per cent. of trained officer strength.
As regards airmen, retention and further service rates continue to be healthy, and we are confident of our ability to retain good, well-qualified air tradesmen both in the near future and the longer term.
The activity which, of course, brings together men and equipment and makes them into an efficient fighting service with high morale, adaptability and flexible thinking is training. We place great emphasis upon maximising the variation in training as well as the routine of practice.
I have described a service that is well-equipped, well-motivated and well-trained. Before I finish, I wish to mention briefly the role of the RAF in disaster relief. The RAF has deservedly earned the gratitude of the Governments and citizens of Mexico and Colombia, following the earthquake and volcano disasters in those countries. But perhaps the best known and major contribution to disaster relief was the continued presence in Ethiopia, carrying out "Operation Bushel". Until its withdrawal in December because of the improving transport situation, the RAF, ably supported by its Army colleagues from the Royal Corps of Transport, made a very successful and substantial contribution towards famine relief. With two Hercules aircraft based at Addis Ababa, the detachment delivered more than 32,000 tonnes of relief supplies in some 950 airdrops and 1,200 airland sorties. That is a considerable achievement, and during its stay in Ethiopia the detachment flew seven days a week for nearly 14 months. That is a remarkable achievement and a testament not only to the detachment's skills and its equipment, but also to the ground support provided in Ethiopia, Cyprus and the United Kingdom.
968
These and less publicised but no less arduous endeavours—such as those of the long-haul runs maintaining the supply link to the Falklands or the air defence crews always on standby alert to react to unauthorised penetrations of United Kingdom airspace—are all evidence of a service whose dedication, professionalism and skill, matched by fine equipment, may be counted one of this country's greatest assets.
4.56 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I begin by welcoming the Minister of State to his first major RAF debate. We hope that he has a longer tenure in office than is normal for Secretaries of State. This is the fourth Secretary of State for Defence that we have had —they all seem to spend about eight months in the job.
It is also welcome to have someone from the Department of Defence answering on defence matters. After its two defeats at the hand of the "Department of Trade and Deindustrialisation" on Westland and Vickers, we had come to the conclusion that the MOD was so cowed and beaten that it would never appear at the Dispatch Box again. We therefore welcome the presence of Defence Ministers.
I join the Minister in the compliments paid to the RAF for the service that it has performed during the past 14 to 16 months in Ethiopia. The Hercules crew, supported by the Army, showed tremendous effort and dedication of which we as a nation can be rightly proud. It made a significant contribution to solving some of the appalling problems that Ethiopia faced in that terrible famine. I also join the Minister in congratulating the aircrews who helped in the Mexico earthquake and Colombia volcano disasters.
We sometimes forget the work done by the helicopter crews at the time of the Indian air crash disaster. They worked hard then, and also during the recent oil rig disaster, and we should pay tribute to them.
We should also congratulate the RAF marine branch on its 68 years of service. During the Westland fiasco, it went almost unnoticed that part of the RAF had been privatised and that the marine branch is now in the hands of private industry. That was a sad day for a branch that had a distinguished and important history. It was privatised on 1 February and it would be nice to know who has taken over responsibility, how much the RAF is paying for it and whether it is beginning to work. The MOD slipped out the news at the beginning of January, and not many people seemed to notice. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about morale in the services and the retention of skilled personnel. Much as he tried to gloss over the problem, there has been a severe loss of skilled personnel during the past few years as a result of the Government's penny-wise, pound-foolish attitude.
Service chiefs refer to this exodus as the black hole. Between 1980 and 1981, 210 Royal Air Force officers left prematurely. Last year, 335 Royal Air Force officers left early and one Ministry of Defence official said:
"Indications for this year are bad"
and
"We expect continuous growth in the number of people leaving early."
The Sunday Times, in a pre-Wapping edition, says that this is a
"direct result of budget constraints that mean fewer people work longer hours for less time spent away from base."
The most disturbing figures for service men taking premature voluntary release are for Royal Air Force pilots

969
and navigators. It costs £2·87 million to train a fast jet pilot and £1 million to train a navigator, yet last year 147 pilots left the Royal Air Force before completion of their engagements and 89 have expressed a desire to leave prematurely. Sixty-nine navigators left last year and another 46 have asked to leave before completion of their engagements. That is 236 pilots and 115 navigators leaving prematurely in a year when only 161 pilots have graduated from flying training schools and only 53 have graduated as air navigators. That is a net loss of 75 pilots and 62 navigators in the year.
It cost nearly £1 billion to train those 115 navigators and 236 pilots, and it will cost another £1 billion to replace them provided that we can get the recruits. The Minister has already said that it is very difficult to replace them at this level. They are literally worth their weight in gold. Many of them are leaving to take up better paid jobs with civil airlines. We must therefore consider carefully how we pay our aircrews. We must also question whether civilian airlines, if they are taking aircrew who are retiring prematurely, should make some contribution to training the officers. British Airways did away with its pilot training school some time ago.
Other pilots are taking service in foreign air forces—some with the Saudis where they will in all probability fly Tornados before many of their Royal Air Force colleagues get their chance. The Government must do something to improve the conditions of service men, especially those serving in Germany, if they are to stem this flow.
We have not been given the figures for the trade groups and the non-pilot professions leaving the Royal Air Force but they seem to be in skills which are in great demand in civilian life. When the Minister talks about a severe engineering training shortage, he ought to talk to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the cuts that they have made in those areas.
Nevertheless, the Royal Air Force will face a severe manpower shortage when the massive re-equipment programme, with much more sophisticated equipment, such as Tornado and the EFA, takes place.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State can tell us what has happened to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force helicopter squadron project to support the Territorial Army. Is it true that it has been shelved? Is it true, as one Royal Air Force source suggested, that the project was
"never … anything more than a political gesture"
to pressure from Tory Back Benchers?
The Minister of State expressed the feelings of, I am sure, the whole House when he spoke of the sympathy that we felt for the Americans over their loss with the shuttle service. The Opposition share that sympathy. We also share his concern about the effectiveness of the shuttle for the Skynet programme. It is obviously right to await the outcome of the United States inquiry into the loss of the shuttle. The Skynet programme is fundamental to our defences and it ought to concern us. Have we considered whether it would be possible, should it prove necessary, to put Skynet into orbit using Ariane or some other system? Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State can tell us that when he winds up—it helps to make his speech for him.
We welcome the Department of Trade and Industry's decision to take to the proving of concept stage the HOTOL project, which obviously has important defence
970
implications in terms of putting satellites into orbit and getting people from London to Sydney in 45 minutes or troops out when in difficulty. That might be many years in the future, but the ideas in HOTOL are exciting in general and in defence terms. We want it to be encouraged. It is a quantum leap and we would hope that it would encourage British industry to participate in the relevant technology.
It is important that the RAF will receive more of the more powerful and definitive version of the Tornado air defence fighter. Earlier Tornados were criticised for lack of engine power, so the new and better aircraft are obviously to the advantage of the RAF. The decision will obviously make Tornado much more attractive to other countries, thus adding to its excellent export success. It will help to ensure the future of jobs of workers at Warton, who are vital to our air defence base.
We must consider the Saudi order carefully. It has delayed bringing our own aircraft into service, but selling them off the shelf has overcome an embarrassing gap for the Government in the work load at Warton and maintained work until the EFA comes on line. It also helped the Secretary of State, especially the previous Secretary of State, to postpone decisions that he would otherwise have had to make about cuts in his defence programme.
When will all of the proposed Tornados enter service? Do we know? Do we have a precise date? When will they all have adequate working Foxhunter radar?
Mr. Robert Atkins: The Minister told the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McNamara: With respect, if the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, I shall give way. If he does not, he should not tell me what the Minister said when he did not say it. The Minister has not given a precise date for Foxhunter. He said that he felt that the majority of the snags with it had been overcome, but he has not given any date when even the Tornados already in service and those going through the conversion squadrons will be equipped with it. The House has a right to know.
It is vital for the morale of pilots and ground crew that equipment is the best available. Ground crew do not enjoy maintaining and servicing obsolete aircraft such as we have in our air defence now. What is good for the morale of our service men must be good for the defence of the country. That is the essence of what is happening with the Tornado programme. It is one thing to provide the aircraft, but they must have the correct avionics—and they do not at the moment.
I join the Minister in congratulating the Tornado crew in the Curtis Le May bombing competition. It did extremely well.
The former Secretary of State worked hard on the EFA project. Now we are in the position that it can go ahead. The House and everyone concerned with that project will be happy to hear the firm words used by the Minister of State and that there will be no mucking about with the design and project originally decided upon at Turin. It is obvious from the Turin agreement and the final decision on sophisticated aircraft that there will be some changes. However, it is important that we maintain the original concept and take our European allies with us on the project. We have been warned that if the RAF was to

971
increase the weight of the aircraft—undertakings have been given that that is unlikely to happen—it would create tremendous problems with our German colleagues.
The Minister discussed collaboration on the project. The French may still collaborate on a subcontractual basis, because of their relationship with the companies and countries concerned, but they will not take a major lead in the programme. The suggestion made by the Americans that they might be prepared to come in on the effort is a matter of concern to companies in the avionics industry. As I understand the position, American involvement would be in the sphere of avionics. With the present state of the art and the timespan given for the project, American avionics would have the edge unless European Governments make firm and precise commitments that they will be prepared to extend the timespan, so that European avionics can be used in the aircraft. That is vital, because to use avionics from across the Atlantic in a project of that size would be a severe blow to the European avionics industry in general and especially the British avionics industry.
Are we satisfied that the project has been sufficiently defined, so that there will be no material alteration to what was agreed at Turin? Has it yet been decided who will be the firm project leader in the enterprise? One thing that we learned from the Minister about the Nimrod fiasco was that a firm lead was lacking from within the industry or the Ministry of Defence. I do not seek to ascribe blame at this point, but we have learned that there must be a clear definition, object and lead. When will we know who will be the project leader and what will be the date?
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is being naive. The Panavia team that built the Tornado did not do so on the basis of leadership, but on the basis of joint collaboration. Would it not be sensible to build on the admirable experience gained by the management of that project at an official and industrial level to make the EFA even better?
Mr. McNamara: I want to make the EFA even better. In the Tornado project we played a major part and we were project leaders, especially in terms of the airframe. It was a joint project, but somebody must take a lead, as the Prime Minister says when she says that she believes in Cabinet government.
A little matter that the Minister failed to mention when he congratulated British Aerospace on its contract for the Tornado and the Hawk was the third important element, the PC9, which is a joint venture between British Aerospace and Pilatus in Switzerland. Ministers in their wisdom decided that they did not want that aircraft as a basic trainer for the Royal Air Force.
Shorts and the Tucano were not acceptable to the Saudi royal air force. The Australians have cancelled their project for basic training and have not adopted the Tucano but have gone for the Pilatus PC9. In that case the majority of the avionics and work which would have gone to British Aerospace will not do so, because the Royal Air Force did not take that plane.
Ministers tended to minimise the slippage in the programme. However, there is major slippage, which is not explained by the strike at Shorts. Up to 27 Tucanos were to have been delivered to the Royal Air Force at the end of 1987. Under the original agreement, the first batch
972
of 12 was to have been supplied halfway through 1987. It now looks as though those figures will not be reached. It has been suggested that not only are the first two prototypes being built in Brazil but that possibly the next 10 will also be built in Brazil and not in Belfast. Will the Minister confirm or deny that? It has also been suggested that the programme will be lucky if it is not two years behind time, because of the problems that Shorts face. It is especially ironic that that should be the case when the PC9 will have already gone into service with the Saudi air force, and going from Switzerland for service in Australia.
Many of the delays first arose when the controversy with the contract was going on. One problem has arisen from the shoehorn effect of putting a larger engine into the Tucano framework to meet Royal Air Force specifications. Those problems remain. At SAC at Bristol more than 50 designer draughtsmen and about 18 at Borehamwood are still working on technical problems associated with Shorts. It is not unusual to contract out some designs to smaller companies. However, here we have 50 people employed on a job that cannot be done in the factory in Belfast. That is a major problem that must be faced.
Although the Minister boasts that it is a question of a fixed price contract and that Shorts will be tied to that figure and will receive nothing more from the Ministry of Defence, if Shorts is privatised, the Department of Commerce and Industry in Northern Ireland or the Department of Trade and Industry will have to find more money to cover Shorts' losses on the contract.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will know that I share his view on the aeroplane that should have been chosen for the Royal Air Force. Is he aware that Shorts have flown the Tucano with the Garrett engine on its maiden flight of 14 February, that it has done six hours and has already done extremely well?
Mr. McNamara: I am aware that the aeroplane eventually flew this month, but it is only one plane that has not yet been accepted. It still has considerable problems, especially at the junction between the engine and the air frame.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): The Government fully accept that the hon. Gentleman took a different view about the decision on the trainer, but now that the decision has been taken, what good does it do to the British aerospace industry and to Shorts especially to persist in denigrating the achievements of Shorts, the aircraft and our co-operative arrangements with Brazil?
Mr. McNamara: The Government made a bad decision with which they must live. The problems of that aeroplane will not go away, and it does no good to hide the fact that the Tucano has major problems. I hope that those problems can be overcome, for the sake of the RAF, but they will not be overcome by trying to minimise or hide them. I hope that the Government will realise that, like all Governments—even Labour ones—they have made a services mistake.
The Nimrod early warning system was a major mistake of many Governments. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement should learn that a little humility is sometimes of great advantage in politics. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Defence on taking the advice that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and

973
I gave to his predecessor more than a year ago—that urgent consideration should be given to providing a stopgap to fill the enormous hole in our defence capability in the north Atlantic and in our airspace, and that we should spend some time considering the alternatives.
It is easy, as some hon. Members have done, to talk about the large amount of money that has been spent on Nimrod, to throw up our hands in horror and to say that we should decide suddenly to cancel it. But the Minister of State went some way, fairly, to suggest some of the problems that would arise if so drastic a decision was taken immediately. It might help some hon. Members and the country as a whole if we talked about the problems.
If we cancelled the Nimrod system immediately, up to £1 billion would go down the drain, and we should add substantially to our defence budget at a time when it is under considerable strain. Such a cancellation would be a body blow to British avionics, and would seriously damage the reputation of GEC. It would have a deleterious effect on GEC's ability to produce future generations of such avionics. It would leave Britain terribly vulnerable to pressures from American suppliers for our requirements. It would directly affect the employment of 2,000 people. It would be a further attack upon the British manufacturing base, which has suffered enough during the past six years, and it would lead to a great loss of confidence in Britain's technological abilities.
Therefore, before anyone suggests that we could throw Nimrod overboard easily, he should not only think in defence terms, which are important, but he must consider what it would mean to our overall industrial performance and to our reputation as a nation at the frontiers of high technology. We shall consider carefully what the Minister of State said about the proposals. No doubt from the unattributable briefing on Nimrod that is taking place at the Ministry of Defence, further and better particulars will be supplied which, for reasons of time, the Minister could not give us today.
It would appear that the Secretary of State's decision has bought six months' breathing space for £50 million, which, in the context, is a reasonable price to pay. It gives much-needed time for some alternatives to be considered. However, we should remember some aspects of the contract. First, it has been badly managed. I do not wish to discuss in great detail the lessons to be learned, but we have heard about a lack of control by the Ministry of Defence and by the firm. There were budget restraints in 1980 and 1981. Even when it was thought that the project had been defined, problems occurred with the transmitter system and the computers. Although it was designed originally to perform 200 tasks, the system was built up quickly to perform 600 tasks.
We must learn all the lessons from the problems affecting that programme, because it shows us the problems of trying to supervise contracts that are at the frontiers of high technology and that are expensive. If we do not have a precise definition of our targets and we allow ourselves to alter them or to cut the flow of capital into the project, we may again experience the grievous difficulties that are occurring now.
When the Secretary of State evaluates the alternatives, he must give the House precise details of the differing costs. Some people are talking about buying six AWACs at £150 million each, which would cost £900 million. That depends on whether we can open the production line and get precisely what we want. We must remember that the
974
British definition is mainly sea-based whereas American AWACs are generally used for land surveillance. There are many alternative projects. During defence questions, the Minister of State flippantly threw aside the question whether it would be possible to put the GEC system into a different airframe, and refused to discuss the extent to which the airframe was a major difficulty in the system. The House must have sufficient information about those matters.
I do not wish to extend the agony over Westland., but simply to ask one question. If the six secret bidders are shown to have been nominees or friends of Sikorsky, will Sikorsky be forced under Stock Exchange rules to make a takeover bid for Westland? That matter was discussed by the Select Committee on Defence this morning. If that is the case, we shall no longer have a British helicopter industry.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State made an important speech on contracts and mentioned three matters that are important when we consider the restraints that must be placed on the defence budget. They were cost and competition, delivery and due date and proper performance. He said that they were the three criteria used in assessing contracts. He should consider a few other matters, the first of which is the effect upon United Kingdom companies if too much high technology work went to foreign competitors. By how much should the Government sponsor high technology work to maintain a British lead? Sometimes those criteria will be more important than the three simple criteria that he suggested.
The RAF is almost our most expensive force—the most expensive is the Navy because of Trident. What will emerge from the debate will be the anxiety of hon. Members about the quality and work of the RAF and the jobs of their constituents.
One of the things that the Secretary of State must face after he has properly laid down his criteria for new contracts—to which no one could take objection but to which I have added a rider—is the degree to which Trident will continue to squeeze the conventional defence programme.
The Opposition believe that the RAF's problems, its need for proper conventional defences and its need for support on the ground and in the air to maintain the defence of our country and to play a proper conventional role in NATO will never be achieved whilst the Secretary of State and his Ministers have Trident around their necks.
We should have welcomed President Reagan's statement about the zero option because it would have given the Government the opportunity to get away from Trident and we could have then had the proper air force that the country needs.
5.30 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I am delighted to have the opportunity to intervene in this wildly exciting debate. I have listened to service debates for many years and I have always thought that the quietness of the RAF debate contrasted with some of the other service matters that we discuss. That may be good because we can deal with a number of important matters in detail. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seems able to make the greatest triumph of our services, industry and nation into a matter of the deepest possible gloom. He would do better if he hired himself out as a preacher at funeral services. It is

975
depressing to hear some of the things that he has said this afternoon when we all know that we have an Air Force that is the finest in our history. It is better equipped and more powerful and has better officers and men that it has had for many a year. The Opposition should be prepared, occasionally, to give a little credit for that.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said some extremely welcome things about Westland. As the House is aware, there is a large factory belonging to that company in my constituency. I should like to address myself to the general problem of helicopters in the aftermath of what is known colloquially as the "Westland affair".
One of the causes of that affair was the failure of the services to appreciate the position of the helicopter in the battlefield scene as it exists today. The natural inclination of the service man, dealing as he does with superior officers who have their own opinions, endless committees and advice from all quarters, is, in general, merely to say, "Let us improve the last mark. Let us make mark 7 into mark 8, and if mark 8 can outshoot the equivalent mark 8 of the other side, that is all the equipment that we need." However, now and again there is a quantum leap in the existing technology.
It is not insignificant that when the steam turbine was introduced it was necessary for the inventor to turn up at the Spithead review, and to defy the existing patrol ships to prove that his ship was faster and more agile, in front of the assembled Navy and the world. Only at that moment did the Admiralty appreciate that there had been a quantum leap in steamship propulsion. Similarly, with the machine gun, the tank and the demise of the horse, it has been difficult to persuade the services that there must be a change.
There has been a change. In 1961 Mr. McNamara directed that the United States forces should make an appreciation of the helicopter. If it had not been for the helicopter, the defeat that the Americans suffered in Vietnam would have been swifter and more severe.
I ask that, with the new central staff, well placed and equipped to assess the problems, the helicopter in all its forms and in all services should be reassessed from scratch. There should be not merely an Army study on movement on the battlefield, but a complete appreciation of the helicopter's position as a weapon of war.
Let us evaluate what the helicopter can do. It permeates all areas and all tasks on the battlefield. It is a reconnaissance force able to operate at speed over a wide area. It can rapidly deploy troops with their weapons and vehicles to the right place and in time. It can apply firepower, using its own direct fire weapons or indirectly by moving artillery and other weapons. Helicopters can carry out urgent and accurate resupply directly to the user and often in critical circumstances. Helicopters can acquire information visually or electronically. They can improve communication and enable commanders to exert personal control over wide, fast-moving operations under conditions of radio silence.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. I thought that the reassessment had been made and that it was known as AST404.
Mr. Wiggin: Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and appreciate that he is seeking to be helpful, AST404 is but a small part of the assessment. I shall mention it later.
Helicopters add a new dimension to air defence, first by extending radar coverage and by providing anti-air fire power. They can play a major part in the all-important electronic warfare. Finally, and by no means least, they can evacuate casualties, not merely saving lives but giving combat units greater flexibility of action and improving morale. The helicopter is a vehicle with the potential, if used with imagination and in sufficient strength, to bring about the greatest change in air-land warfare since the motor replaced the horse.
Those points have been appreciated by the Royal Navy. We can be proud of the way in which the Navy has taken the helicopter and used it as an extension of its ships. The Navy has equipped its ships properly for rough weather use of helicopters. It has equipped its helicopters with the necessary electronics and weapons. The captain of a modern ship will say that the loss of his helicopter is a serious diminution of his fighting ability.
The Navy seems to have grasped the point. The Army must assess the problem. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an authoritative article by Mr. John Witherow in The Sunday Times of 19 January in which he claims that a dozen modern wars, from Korea to Afghanistan, have taught the Americans and Russians the value of the helicopter in modern warfare. He stated:
"When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, for example, Israeli helicopters destroyed 48 tanks for each helicopter lost. Each Syrian helicopter, in return, was knocking out 15 Israeli tanks."
Mr. Simpkin, the well-known military strategist,
"maintains that the Russians rate a combat force of 84 helicopters (requiring a total of 2,000 men) as the equivalent of a tank division of 10,000 men and 500 vehicles."
Ministers, ever watchful of the cost-effectiveness of the weapons that they procure, should bear in mind those extremely important figures. A ratio of 48 tanks to one helicopter is an extremely good attrition rate. If one bears in mind that that is only one use of the helicopter—in its anti-tank role—one sees that the Army possesses a most effective weapon.
The Americans and the Russians have grasped that point. With the exception of the Spaniards, our nation is the most poorly equipped with helicopters in Europe. One of the problems that we have is the control of helicopters. I hope that the central staff will take a firm view on that matter. There is a ridiculous division of responsibility whereby the Air Force flies only helicopters above a certain weight and the Army operates those below a certain weight. That is not cost-effective and leads to a lack of flexibility in command and control. It makes the helicopter the Cinderella of both services. That is not just my view; it is shared by all those who operate helicopters in both services and by all those who need the benefit of helicopters, particularly battalion and company commanders when they are in action. It seems that we are the only Army in NATO that operates on this basis. It leads to distrust and to a diminution in the use of helicopters, which I strongly deplore.
The AST404 was referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I should remind the House that the AST404 was held up originally in late 1984. It was then said that, as a result of the experience of one exercise,

977
the Army had decided to re-evaluate the AST404. Three helicopters are suitable for the AST404: the WG30, the Super Puma and the Black Hawk.
I do not understand why Ministers have allowed the Army to consider a proposition that will put no fewer than 35 men into one helicopter. We must bear in mind the disastrous effect of the loss of one Sea King helicopter during the Falklands war when 22 brave men were on board. As any battlefield commander will know, it is a matter of small packets and many of them. There is an ever-increasing need for the AST404, which is a medium sized helicopter. Whether it is the Black Hawk or the WG30, we in Somerset shall be very happy to make it for the Ministry.
The performance criteria of the NH90 are less than those for the existing Black Hawk. It would be extremely imaginative if a European-built Black Hawk could be made, thus saving research and development expense in Europe and achieving at the same time the almost impossible task—at least until now—of providing a standardised transport helicopter across the whole of the NATO front in Europe. That would make extraordinarily good sense.
In 1962 Mr. McNamara wrote:
"The Army needed to re-examine its aviation requirements with a bold, NEW-LOOK at land warfare mobility."
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that 25 years later it might be no bad thing if the British Army did the same.
I should explain that in the Weston-super-Mare factory of Westland the prime responsibility is for spare parts and product support. The House may know that the Ministry of Defence runs an organisation called the Naval Air Repair Organisation, with the Royal Navy air yard at Fleetlands and the Royal Navy air workshops at Perth. They employ about 1,400 people and compete directly in a dockyard type of operation with the factory at Weston-super-Mare. I do not deplore that. If, however, the philosophy and principles that the Minister has rightly applied to the dockyards were to be extended to the support of the 750 helicopters that the Ministry of Defence possesses, it might be better if rather more repair work came out of the Ministry of Defence and went into private industry—that is, into Westland, which makes the spare parts and therefore has an advantage over other companies. Although Westland would not be too keen to hear me say this, perhaps the existence of another repair contractor would add the necessary competition and edge that the Minister's Department rightly seeks. The principle could be extended. The numbers involved are not huge. There is an opportunity here for a substantial increase in efficiency.
May I remind the Minister that it costs about £2 million to train a Royal Air Force helicopter pilot but that it costs only £200,000 to train an Army helicopter pilot. The number of helicopters per 10,000 men is 17 in the United States Army and 2½ in the British Army. I hope that I have said enough to induce my hon. Friend the Minister of State to grasp this point and examine the issue, however he wishes to do it, as a matter of extreme urgency.
Many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, but I wish to say a word or two about the Meteorological Office. It is the responsibility of the Royal Air Force and it is a matter of intense public interest to every member of the population. They may not know that the Meteorological Office is now costing them nearly £1
978
million a week—£47·5 million a year. In addition, it takes receipts from repayment services of £20 million, of which £15·5 million comes from civil aviation. That adds about £100 to the cost of a flight from London to Glasgow in meteorological services alone and it costs about £40,000 a year for every registered aircraft in Britain. This is by no means efficient. It is amazingly inefficient.
I do not criticise the technical services of the Meteorological Office. It is accepted world wide that the ability of the Meteorological Office to collect, collate and usually to interpret data is at least as good as that of anybody else. However, within that bureaucratic organisation there has grown up such a hive of Civil Service red tape that my hon. Friend the Minister would be well advised to read with care the report of Sir Kenneth Sharp and Mr. John Hansford that he kindly agreed to put in the Library a day or two ago at my request. It is quite a long report and I have not had an opportunity to study it in detail. However, I draw the attention of the House to one or two of their many recommendations.
First, Sir Kenneth Sharp and Mr. John Hansford say:
"We recommend that the Meteorological Office should adopt a commercial approach to all its dealings and that its charges should be based where practical on market conditions, and where not practical by free negotiation between the parties concerned."
That is different from the existing, ancient practice of Government Departments, which simply work out what they think the cost is, add on a percentage and pretend that they are being commercial by making that charge. The Meteorological Office charges itself out of the wrong markets and manages to put off profitable private enterprise operations in which it has a public duty to get involved.
Sir Kenneth Sharp and Mr. John Hansford also say:
"We recommend the establishment of a Management Board, consisting of a Chairman, a Chief Executive, 3 Executive Directors and 2 non-Executive Directors".
My hon. Friend the Minister has had this report since last August. There is nothing difficult about this. The Government tackled all the difficulties when they dealt with the Ordnance Survey. As a matter of considerable urgency I ask my hon. Friend at least to establish a management board and to get the Meteorological office's accounting system on to a proper basis. Many of the complaints of private enterprise and of those who are involved in working with the Meteorological Office would then go away. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not wish to preside over a part of his Department where the accounting function is subject to considerable criticism.
The suggestion that the Royal Air Force and the Meteorological Office should have an arm's-length relationship seems to appeal to both the Meteorological Office and the RAF. The Meteorological Office could provide the required service at minimum cost and the Royal Air Force could require the most cost-effective way of satisfying its minimal operational requirements. Similar arrangements should be entered into between the Meteorological Office and the Civil Aviation Authority to stop the endless bickering that goes on between the airlines because of the huge costs they have incurred for what seems to them to be meteorological information that is provided on the most expensive basis. Nowhere else in the world does it appear to cost the same amount.
The question of how the Civil Aviation Authority is administered is not one for my hon. Friend the Minister

979
of State for Defence Procurement. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), said:
"Records are kept by Eurocontrol and the CAA respectively in respect of the bills which they issue."—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 430.]
When I asked how much British airlines were charged, I was told that the estimate was about 50 per cent. but that it would be too costly to obtain the details. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State is teasing some of his colleagues within the Government about Meteorological Office matters, which he will have to do to get this to work properly, he should have a go at that.
There have been many other complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) may have a letter in the post about some of the difficulties that are experienced by private weather services in getting information not only out of Bracknell but out of the European centre for medium range weather forecasts. It is cheaper for a British firm to get information from America and to bring it back, at a cost in dollars, than it is to pay a fee in sterling to our own Meteorological Office for exactly the same information which is transmitted on an international telecommunications network. That is idiotic.
I think that I stuck strictly to two points but I would conclude by repeating my opening remarks. I believe that the Royal Air Force is in a healthy state in numbers, the quality of its officers and men and its fighting ability. I hope that the Government will have sorted out the major problem of helicopters by this time next year, because, having raised the same subject this time, I shall hope not to have to make such a pressing speech next year and I shall be able to join in the praise which I hope will come from both sides of the House.
5.50 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I join in the tributes that have been paid to the Royal Air Force and to those serving in it. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about the work that was done by the Royal Air Force in the Indian jumbo jet disaster. I also want to mention, because it has some relevance to my own constituency, the work that the Royal Air Force has been doing in connection with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland in surveillance and fishery protection. That is to be put into private hands in the coming weeks and we shall be looking with interest to see whether it is carried out as efficiently as it has been by the Royal Air Force for some considerable time.
Another matter is the important work that the Royal Air Force does in air and sea rescue. That was brought home only last weekend with the unfortunate sinking of a French fishing vessel between Scotland and Iceland. The Royal Air Force played an important role in that rescue. In that connection, may I remind the Minister, although I am sure that he is aware, of the representations that have been made in the north of Scotland, particularly the north-west of Scotland, about the possibility of a helicopter air-sea rescue facility on the west coast of Scotland or in Stornoway to respond more readily to incidents that arise in those waters.
The Minister and other hon. Members have spoken about the re-equipping of the RAF which has taken place
980
in recent years. I join those who have welcomed the success of the Tornado project, in particular the export achievements that have followed from it. There are probably many lessons we can learn from the collaboration that took place at industrial, ministerial and Government level on the Tornado project which could be put to good use with the European fighter aircraft. I think that there will inevitably be problems because, although collaboration brings savings in costs, it also brings increases in costs as a result of the administration which goes with it. For as long as countries, quite naturally, try to secure some national advantage, even though they are collaborating, it will be impossible to iron out all the costs. I believe that there will be lessons to be learned from the Tornado project which perhaps will minimise these costs in the European fighter aircraft project.
We listened carefully to the Minister's announcement about the future of Nimrod advanced early warning system. I think that we shall wish to consider the small print and fine detail of what he has said. However, I welcome the fact that the possibility of that British high technology being put into operation in the future is still open. It is easy with hindsight to be critical and there has been a cosy arrangement between the two Front Benches saying that all Governments bear some responsibility. I am in the fortunate position of not having been a member of a party in government, although no doubt someone will quickly point out that my colleagues in the Social Democratic party had some part to play in the decision taken in the late 1970s.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's party did not object at the time it was first approved.
Mr. Wallace: I am sorry. I was not going to make any party political point. I think that we can all learn lessons from what has happened. From reading reports it would appear that on a number of occasions specifications or requirements have been made for which there has not been adequate funding or permission to go ahead to meet the targets that have been set.
In saying that we must learn lessons from what has taken place. If it ever comes to the stage, as I am sure it will during the next six months, when we are considering possible alternatives, it is important that we take notice of some of the lessons we have learned from, for example, the Trident project, if we are considering alternatives from across the Atlantic.
When considering AWACS it is important to bear in mind possible increasing costs. Those additional costs seem to creep up and up in the case of Trident. I think that there has been some levelling out over the past two years, but the cost is now much higher than it was originally. It is also important to consider the time factor if we are considering the possibility of buying AWACS as a possible replacement. For example, is it correct that AWACS is not in production and that it would require re-tooling? What time would it take for that and what time would it take to train our RAF pilots in the Boeing aircraft, of which, I understand, they do not have much experience? I think that those points should be borne in mind when comparisons are being made.
The matter of helicopters was raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I note and welcome the fact that the Minister has said that the Government will encourage any project involving

981
European collaboration in the light of the Sikorsky deal with Westland. I am sure that that further reassurance will be welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). The EH101 is still in the future. The great problem with the Government not going ahead with AST404 is that there is still a gap to be bridged until the EH101 is in production.
I heartily endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The matters he mentioned were raised during the debate on the Army. There is a divided responsibility for the use of helicopters between the RAF and the Army and, perhaps as a result of that, neither service gives them the importance which they ought to have. If one is working in a service with strategic aircraft and fighter aircraft, perhaps helicopters do not have a sufficiently macho image for anyone to give any weight to the important role they could play. I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to the tactical advantages which light helicopters can provide in battlefield positions. The United States and the Soviet Union both have strong fleets of helicopters for land battle.
Mr. Wilkinson: That has been said already.
Mr. Wallace: I have acknowledged the fact that it has been said already. It was said by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and it was said during the debate on the Army by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). My point was that, in spite of that, we did not have any response from the Minister who replied to the debate on the Army to the effect that those comments had been taken on board or that any consideration was being given in the Ministry of Defence to a unified command for helicopters and that one service would take responsibility for them. In the absence of that reassurance, or any acknowledgement that there was a problem, I do not think that there is any harm in repeating that fact in the hope that we might elicit some response from the Minister in this debate.
I want to deal with a constituency matter which I believe has more general application. I am sorry that the Minister has gone because I think that, with his Shetland origins, I could perhaps have appealed to him more directly. However, I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will pass my comments on to him. I want to deal with the policing of RAF Saxa Vord in Unst. Recently, five Ministry of Defence police were replaced by RAF personnel. On an island with a relatively small population, five families losing their main source of employment has a serious effect on the island and on the community. I understand that after representations were made, although they were mobile personnel and could legitimately have been asked to go elsewhere, the fact that they had long-standing roots within the community meant that the Ministry of Defence was prepared to consider redundancy for them. Perhaps the Minister could say whether they have been paid. The economic importance of the work that they did for the community was considerable.
If I were trying to make the case solely on the grounds of employment in my constituency, the Minister might say that there are wider strategic operational considerations, but the case for retaining the Ministry of Defence police in such places as RAF Saxa Vord is a good operational one. That case was generally supported by the committee that sat under Sir Ewen Broadbent to look into the future role of the Ministry of Defence police.
982
The Government's arguments for replacing the Ministry of Defence police by service personnel were that it was not thought desirable to have mixed civilian and service personnel, and there was no direct line of command. However, all these arguments were rejected by Sir Ewen Broadbent, who saw considerable advantages in having mixed personnel. He also believed that it was a waste of resources having trained personnel in what are essentially policing jobs; and that it was undesirable that there should be such a public interface between service men and the public, particularly as the absence of police powers could be disadvantageous for the service men.
That decision was taken essentially because of costs, like so many other service decisions. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said — penny-wise, pound-foolish. It was represented as much cheaper in the short term to use service personnel, particularly because of the overtime consideration. However, I suggest that in the longer term, the costs of the turnover that inevitably takes place with postings to remote places such as Saxa Vord, of removing furniture and returning people home for holidays, all mount up and, at the end of the day the costs are greater than the purported savings.
In all the service debates that we have had there has been continual talk about costs. Both sides of the House have welcomed the European fighter aircraft but in the last Defence Estimates we were not shown where the costings would come. Again, we believe that Trident is the cuckoo in the nest, the one squeezing out other defence expenditure, and something will have to give if the Government are to meet all their various targets and commitments.
To date, the Government have avoided trying to have an overall review of their commitments and instead have continued to penny-pinch, pruning a little here, paring back there. This has resulted in a number of service men leaving the services. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave the figures, which show not only the loss of money invested in training the men but that morale in the services should not be so low that so many people are leaving.
The House has heard much of the RAF's new equipment, but that will only be put to good use if there are sufficient service personnel eager and keen to use it. It is a matter of long-term concern to the House if continued penny-pinching and so-called salami slicing undermines the morale of our service men in the RAF.
6.3 pm
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke about the European fighter aircraft. What saddens me about the name is that it is not a European fighter aircraft. One of the largest aircraft producers in western Europe is outside the project. That does not limit the effectiveness of the project, but it makes one believe that Europe has still some distance to go before it has created a European concept in making and acquiring defence equipment. I hope that there may still be an opportunity to persuade the French to think again. I am a little concerned that Spain, which is one of the partners, is considering its membership of NATO. I do not know whether that is important, or whether the project is dependent upon Spain remaining in NATO. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will probe that point.

983
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about Nimrod and the clarification that he gave us of the existing position. It is high time that the aircraft was brought into service. It continues to amaze me that we have managed to get along so well with the aging Shackletons without a serious gap in our defence ability. That cannot go on indefinitely, and the sooner that the Nimrod problem is resolved, the better for us all. Naturally, I hope that GEC will be able to sort out the problems with the radar in such a way that the Ministry of Defence will be able to acquire the aircraft and that it will go into squadron service soon.
On a purely facetious note, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give some thought to renaming the Shorts Tucano. I think that tucano is the Portuguese for toucan, and an Anglicised Shorts Tucano — Shorts Toucan—would sound a bit better. However, as the aircraft is to be used for pilot training I am sure that we can devise an Anglicised word—
Mr. Robert Atkins: Guinness.
Mr. McNair-Wilson:—such as the Shorts Sky Student or something similar. I do not think that we should go south of the border.
Although the debate is primarily about the Royal Air Force, I shall concentrate my remarks on the safety and compensation aspect of the service and what is available to service men. Reference has already been made to the morale of the 86,000 men and women who serve in the RAF and I am sure that it remains, as it always has, at a high level. However, I make no apology for wondering how many of those service men have, in the past few months, if not the past few years, given some thought to their position under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for the campaign that he has so ably led, and I am sure that he will understand why I feel that I, too, want to make my contribution to the debate. This is a matter of great importance to all service men, and we have to think, and think again, to get the right resolution of what I consider to be something of a scandal.
As we all know, the Act effectively denies service personnel the right in peace time to sue for negligence when they have been injured, or for their next of kin to sue when they have been killed. All the service men can do is claim what is almost a nominal amount through the armed forces compensation board. No matter how dreadful the injury or how long-lasting the after effects, service men are prevented from using the due processes of our courts, although those processes are open to every other citizen.
I am aware that the Ministry of Defence claims that discipline would be endangered if the claims were allowed. In the past five years, there have been 13 representations. If there have been so few, I find it difficult to believe that discipline would be endangered if those 13 persons had been allowed to pursue their claims. I question whether the arguments put forward during the debate on the 1947 Act still hold good. The then Attorney-General told the House about section 10 that
"it is necessary in the course of Service training, in order to secure the efficiency of the Forces, to exercise them in the use of live ammunition, in flying in close formation and, in the Navy, in battle conditions, with, perhaps, destroyers dashing about with lights out, and so on. These operations are highly dangerous and, if done by private citizens, would, no doubt, be extremely
984
blameworthy, but it is impossible to apply the ordinary law of tort in regard to them, or make the Crown liable for any injury which, unhappily, results."—[Official Report, 4 July 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1681.]
The former Attorney-General had a point. However, it is not impossible to devise legislation that will exclude training in which battle conditions were simulated but which would allow service men, in the normal course of their duties, to sue for negligence.
It is difficult to argue that a service man who has suffered a broken back or brain damage in the ordinary course of his duties should be denied rights which apply to every other citizen in the country and which apply to policemen and firemen who, in the course of their duties, face special risks.
I have raised that point as I remember the coach crash which took place last February on the autobahn in West Germany. In that accident 21 people were killed, 13 of whom were Royal Air Force bandsmen and one of whom was a Royal Air force policeman. A further 18 people were injured. Presumably, under section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the next of kin of the dead bandsmen will be debarred from suing for negligence and the injured, by the same token, can do no more. All they can receive, as I said, is whatever the armed forces compensation board cares to give them, but they cannot sue as any passenger in a civilian coach crash could for the negligence which caused their injuries or, as in the case of next of kin, caused the deaths of their loved ones.
When that accident happened, the House paid tribute to the RAF bandsmen and a statement was made by a Minister. The press was full of the story and yet now that the story has left the newspapers we forget the human misery that was left behind. Although I know that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is looking into the matter, I say it is most urgent that we find an alternative solution to simply saying that the section, as it exists now, preserves military discipline. That case has not been made and it is because I believe that that I have made these points this evening.
I want now to refer to the issue of accidents within the service. First of all, I would like to mention the air accidents which took place in the last year for which figures are available in the Defence Estimates. The Estimates show that in 1984 five aircrew were killed and 14 were seriously injured and that 20 aircraft were lost or seriously damaged. From a parliamentary answer, I understand that the number of regular service personnel killed so far in 1985—these figures are not confined to Royal Air Force personnel—totalled 24. The figures underline the need for compensation for the next of kin and they lead me back to an old hobby horse of mine which I hope the House will forgive me if I ride again—the question of writing off the costs of loss and damage in the service.
In 1981 I made a speech about aircraft accidents in the Royal Air Force. I suggested at the time that a method might be considered for insuring aircraft in peacetime. The idea may at first sound rather far fetched but, as some other overseas air forces do that, I could not see why the Royal Air Force should not at least consider the matter. In June 1981, I was told that 24 aircraft had been lost. As I have said, 20 aircraft were lost in 1984. That figure does not vary very much from year to year, sometimes it is one or two more, and sometimes one or two less. When I put the

985
argument forward, I was told that it was a matter for the Treasury and the then Minister of State at the Treasury informed me:
"It is a long established Government policy not to pay a commercial insurance premium unless there is a statutory or contractual obligation or a particular advantage, such as specialist services, over and above the possible receipt of compensation for loss."
The 20 aircraft lost in 1984, which were worth well over £100 million, were simply written off and the taxpayer asked to pay for their replacement.
Mr. Robert Atkins: My hon. Friend's remarks have even more pertinence. When the RAF allows aircraft to be used at Farnborough and other air shows, it expects the companies to insure the aircraft at their expense at a very high insurance premium. If the RAF is prepared to ask that of commercial companies, why should it not be prepared to use the option itself?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to and considerably strengthening my argument, and I hope that the Minister heard what he said.
If I have not persuaded the Government to consider insurance for the Air Force, perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider insurance for the Air Force's fixed assets. A Royal Air Force base is not unlike a factory. It has many similar services—offices filled with furniture, typewriters and expensive equipment. There are carpets, windows, curtains, large stocks of fuel and engineering equipment for repairing aircraft and so on. There are stores filled with uniforms, boots, underclothing, hats, socks and great coats. I could go on, but I shall say only that all the services that one could find in a large factory can be found in a Royal Air Force establishment. In other words, there is a multiplicity of damageable items.
I suggest to the Minister that even if aircraft insurance seems a little far fetched—and having heard the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble I do not think that it is—perhaps it is time that the Government gave some thought to privatising the risk which is otherwise carried on the Consolidated Fund and is paid for by the taxpayer.
I recently asked the Secretary of State what losses have been experienced by the Ministry of Defence through fire damage in buildings and stores in the past five years. I was told:
"Fire damage to Ministry of Defence buildings and stores has resulted in losses of £166 million over the past five years. By far the largest proportion of these losses, estimated by the board of inquiry at £152 million, is attributable to the fire at the central ordnance depot, Donnington on 24 June 1983."—[Official Report, 11 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 778.]
I wonder whether that answer is absolutely accurate. I hesitate to say it, but I wonder whether the author of that answer which my hon. Friend gave to me had considered the loss of RAF Brampton, two thirds of which was destroyed by fire. I find it difficult to believe that the £14 million left from the sum of £166 million covers the loss of RAF Brampton and all other losses.
I thought I ought to find out how many RAF establishments there were and how much their stores and assets were worth. I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 19 February. He said:
"The number of establishments in which the Royal Air Force has the major interest is at present 128, comprising 57 RAF airfields in the United Kingdom and 10 overseas and 57 other
986
RAF stations in the United Kingdom and four overseas. These figures exclude RAF units operating from non-RAF locations and stations in which the RAF does not have the major interest. No estimate is readily available on the value of RAF buildings, facilities and stores and the assembly of this information would involve a disproportionate amount of effort in both the Ministry of Defence and the Property Services Agency."—[Official Report, 19 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 184.]
I do not know how those words strike you, Mr. Speaker, but they suggest to me that nobody in the Ministry of Defence knows the current value of RAF buildings, facilities and stores. If anyone knew, it would presumably have been put into the parliamentary answer. When it is said that finding out the value would require a disproportionate amount of effort I become rather worried. We know that the Ministry of Defence is one of the big spenders—perhaps among the top six. Yet it cannot say how much stock it is carrying, so presumably it does not know the value of its facilities or even of its stores. That is not satisfactory.
I have concentrated on fire damage, but I could spread the argument to other areas. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will tell us the other replacement costs faced by the RAF each year.
Mr. Wiggin: On fire prevention, my hon. Friend the Minister might also be encouraged to investigate the non-flying station fire brigades. The Navy abolished these some years ago and its total fire losses have been somewhat reduced. There was a fire brigade at the ordnance depot at which a very serious fire occurred, but it was unable to put out the fire. A substantial economy of several hundred men might be achieved if the non-flying station fire brigades were abolished.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: Yet another point has arisen of which I was unaware. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board. It is time that the Ministry of Defence could tell the House that a pilot study has been carried out on at least one aspect of MOD stores and facilities in terms of bringing the risk of fire and other damage to the insurance market. It would be useful to know whether the Ministry has considered the possibility that this opens up and the kind of premiums that might be paid.
Mr. Lee: Even setting aside the Treasury rules and the huge administrative and financial cost of preparing the type of insurance exercise to which my hon. Friend refers, the commercial market would be bound to look mathematically and actuarially at the occurrence of accidents and fires over a period and take that into account in assessing premiums. It would then add, understandably in the commercial world, its own profit. With the greatest respect, therefore, I fail to see the advantage in my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend has put forward the argument that I expected from him—the argument advanced by the Treasury—but the same argument applies to factory premises. Why should a factory owner bother to take out insurance cover? The RAF may hold certain assets on which the premiums would be so high that it would be better to leave things as they are with the Government carrying the insurance risk within the Consolidated Fund, but let us not misunderstand what that means. It means that if a huge loss of £166 million is made the taxpayer has to find the money.
At a time when we are thinking of privatising so many services, I suggest that there are aspects of the assets held

987
by the RAF and other armed services which might reasonably be regarded as ordinary commercial risks and which could at least be put out to tender in the insurance market. If the premiums are so much greater than the amounts currently written off in the Consolidated Fund, clearly my argument fails, but if we do not even have the information we cannot say whether there is strength in the argument. When I ask what assets are held by the RAF in terms of fixed facilities and stores and I am told that the Ministry of Defence does not know and that it would not be worth while to find out, I am left wondering whether the service is being run as well as it should be.
I know from conversations with people in the Ministry of Defence that when equipment breaks down or is seriously damaged no attempt is made to repair it. A replacement is simply acquired because there is no accountability of the kind that obtains in private industry. All the armed forces are a form of industry and there should be accountability. In case anyone thinks that I have any involvement, I should make it clear that I have no connection whatever with the insurance industry. Unless the Government can make a watertight case against my argument, we should at least expect a pilot scheme to be conducted on some aspect of RAF stores to see what figures are produced.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Twelve hon. Members who have been here since the beginning of the debate still wish to take part. If all confine their speeches to about 12 minutes they can all be called before the winding-up speeches begin.
6.25 pm
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall be grateful if you, Mr. Speaker, will catch my eye when my 12 minutes are up.
Mr. Speaker: I will do that.
Mr. Carter-Jones: It is a double pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). He has introduced a novel note and I hope that he will be successful. It is also gratifying to see a kidney patient taking part in activities in the House and making a strong case.
If you, Mr. Speaker, had intervened in the debate you would doubtless have mentioned my next point, as would the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) or my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). This is an RAF debate, but the Ministers do not realise that it is the 50th anniversary of the Spitfire. That was a real aircraft, not a paper one.
I hope that certain Members will take note of my next point as it concerns them. I quote from the Official Report:
"In my closing speech in the defence debate … I gave then, and I repeat now, an assurance to my hon. Friend … that there would be no unnecessary delay in announcing a decision on AST403 …
In accordance with our objective of seeking collaboration where the conditions are advantageous, we have for some time been investigating the possibility of a joint project with France and Germany to develop a new tactical — or European—combat aircraft to meet AST403."—[Official Report, 23 June 1980; Vol. 987, c. 44–45.]
That was a long time ago. The hon. Member to whom the assurance was given was the then hon. Member for
988
Preston, North-now the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). That quotation shows that there are sometimes unnecessary delays in vital decisions. In my 12 minutes, I intend to mention some of those delays.
In this context, I must pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). With the assistance of both Conservative and Opposition Members, he got a lot of kicks in the backside but he also got a great deal of support and I am glad that at the end of the day he succeeded in getting an aircraft available for the 1990s. It was a very close-run thing.
I wish to refer back to the Tucano trainer, for two reasons. The decision to buy was most peculiar. We had a very honest statement from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement at the start of the debate. I hope that the Minister in winding up will be equally honest and will tell us exactly how that decision was made and why it turned on a peculiar telephone call.
That is no way to run an air force. It is no way to take orders or come to decisions. The Minister said that there would be no extra charge because it was a fixed price contract. Will Short Brothers Ltd. pay the additional costs of running the Jet Provost in old age without the added modifications? Can the Minister when he replies give a firm assurance that there will be no additional costs of any form to the RAF as a result of the delay?
There is an absurd situation regarding the Nimrod return to work. The Minister is an accountant, as he showed when he replied to his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Accountants are frequently foolish fellows. To insist upon open tendering for the Nimrod return to work for Woodford is appalling. Nobody can possibly compete. Woodford is the obvious place to send these aircraft to enable the RAF to get them back into service, as all the plans and equipment are there. It is false for the Minister to pretend that it is possible to have competitive tendering for this work when there is nobody else to tender.
The Minister is merely going through the motions. He should really relieve the anxieties of the staff at Woodford by obtaining a fair fixed-price contract and give Woodford the full go ahead. To refurbish a Nimrod is a complicated, complex piece of work. The Minister should go and see it for himself, when he would realise that it is no job for some company to do for the first time. If he studies the situation he may come to a decision which is good for British industry.
We were given an honest statement by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, but there was one telling phrase that I was not happy with. The Minister talked of going for a minimum standard—a minimum qualification. I am an ex-Mosquito navigator. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."' That is lovely.
Sir Hector Monro: How did the hon. Gentleman ever get there?
Mr. Carter-Jones: I got there because the equipment was good. My abilities as a navigator were not great but the equipment was superb. The Minister must understand this. One cannot provide the RAF with lower standards in avionics.
When I was in the RAF I used the mark 4 air interceptor followed by the mark 8 AI and the mark 10 AI. It was without any doubt the best radar air interceptor in the world. The Minister must not stand at the Dispatch Box

989
and say that second rate will do. Second best is not good enough and if one pays peanuts one attracts monkeys. One has to pay the proper price to get the Nimrod AEW going. There is no alternative—and for Heaven's sake keep it British. The Ministry has gone so far down the line that I think the Minister on reflection will decide this is what he has to do.
The story of the Westland W30 was a saga. This time last year it filled our RAF debate. The Minister was warned by his right hon. and hon. Friends and by Opposition Members about the cash flow problems. We went to see the Minister for Defence Procurement and collaborated with the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to try to preserve Westland. At the end of the day Westland was misled by AST 404. It foolishly thought that the Ministry of Defence meant what it said. Westland thought that the AST 404 was sacrosanct. It is a good thing the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I do not have to play or referee rugby matches by changing the rules. But certainly the Ministry of Defence changed the rules—it put Westland on the spot. It caused severe difficulties for the company, and the Ministry must accept responsibility. The Minister said that it was the Army that had moved the targets, but one must agree that it was the Ministry which allowed it to move the targets. The Ministry must assert its authority.
I must be careful if I praise the current members of the RAF, because if I do, they will start swinging from lamp posts and all sorts of things. However, I believe the RAF has played a role which is well worth praising. Its work on famine relief was superb. That work helped morale and that is important. It has helped to establish a closer affinity between the military and civilian sectors. The air sea rescues by helicopters also warm the heart. The work of the Nimrods and Shackletons for rescues further out at sea are also vital. May I wave one small flag? Any humane activity by the RAF helps to boost its morale. There is a tendency in the forces to throw around too much bumf and I do not want to see that, but I would like to see the helicopter side of the RAF doing much more work with regard to getting pregnant women, when there are problems of perinatal care and mortality, to the appropriate special care baby units urgently.
That would also benefit the RAF for training purposes. The RAF should not need to ring up Air Command for permission to help in these matters. It should be a matter of routine. Let the RAF and the military sections demonstrate their abilities.
I would like hon. Members to consider a quote from a speech made by the new Secretary of State for Defence last year. He said:
"As I explained earlier, international collaboration, especially with our European allies, plays an increasingly large part in the way we see defence procurement developing."
Let that be the reality, and not just a sentence in a speech to a learned organisation.
As a peroration—it is my peroration—delays in firm positive ordering and changes in stated requirements seriously undermine the British aerospace and technology industry. It does not help morale in the RAF. It will be difficult, but I hope the Minister will be allowed to keep the promises he has made today.
6.37 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) because he speaks with authority on these issues. However, I was always under the impression that the Mosquito was a paper aeroplane, albeit flown very well. In view of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will try not to delay the House for too long.
I welcome, in their absence, the new Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. There are important issues to be faced, and I hope that they will deal with them with the same skill and professionalism as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and his colleague the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). There are three questions I wish to put to my hon. Friend the Minister, which he may answer tonight or at another time. The first concerns the hoary problem of the identification friend or foe system, now the NATO identification system. This has been a scandal over the years. However there have been some improvements in recent months relating to the decision as to which band will be used. I wonder whether the Minister can give me some information on where we stand on that.
My second point relates to what passes for air staff requirement 888 or UKADGE. Where do we stand on that? I understand that the work being done is going to schedule. Will the Minister say whether there are any problems? My third point relates to air staff requirement 1012 which involves the up-date of the Buccaneer, especially the up-date of the S2s. I understand that the programme for £150 million has fallen to about £50 million. Is the programme to be tailored to the Sea Eagles, because we may have lost the up-date of mission avionics which is crucial to this popular aeroplane?
As I am one of the hon. Members who represent the area where Tornado is made, it gives me enormous pleasure to welcome this massive order. I get fed up with the carping criticism of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about a project and contract which mean so much to my constituents and the workers, and to many companies in the British aerospace industry. Moreover, it grates to hear Liberal Members, who are specialists in sitting on the fence and keeping both ears to the ground, talking as they did about issues they chose to ignore before those issues came to fruition. Nevertheless, the contract is massive and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley for the enormous volume of work that he put in.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the attrition order on Tornado, and talked in glowing terms about nine aeroplanes. I find that astonishing because my friends in British Aerospace and the RAF expect an attrition order of 60 or 70 aeroplanes, and say that nine aeroplanes made no sense in relation to what the Germans are ordering, even allowing for their ECR connotation. We should pay more attention to that. Can the Minister tell me what progress is being made on the potential Turkish order? The Prime Minister of Turkey was in the United Kingdom on Monday, and progress must be made. I would appreciate any comments from my hon. Friend on that.
Many colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken about Nimrod. I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on the deal he has cobbled together. So far, so good. We have spent about £1,000 million on the

991
project, and it is already three years late. GEC maintains that the project meets 90 per cent. of the specifications, whereas the RAF maintains that it is nearer 25 per cent. of the set requirement. A figure of about £400 million has been bandied around regarding the up-date cost, and we have heard about the estimated time of delivery, which is June 1989, providing the project meets with the RAF's specifications.
The reasons for that date are plain to many hon. Members. The RAF changed the specifications. For example the operator function increased from 200 to 600, and caused many problems. In addition the defence moratorium of 1981 had a regrettable side effect on the Nimrod programme. The RAF are reputed to want AWACs. That line is closed, it will cost money and, moreover, Nimrod will provide the technological lead in radar that is necessary. The aeroplanes already exist. They have been reconstructed by British Aerospace, and the RAF would be working on aeroplanes in service in terms of spares and support. We can ill-afford to lose that. The write-off of development costs is not easily acceptable. I believe deeply in design teams, and the design team involved in the project is one of only three in the western world. If the project is lost, we shall lose that design team, which is a sad possibility. As it was a cost-plus contract, the authorities controlling the programme must bear a great deal of responsibility. Above all, we must consider the problem of the Shackletons, which are practically falling from the sky. They are unquestionably wonderful aeroplanes, and the work done by those who fly in them and maintain them is remarkable. However, we need an aeroplane in the short term, and we may have to lease it.
I can do no better than to quote from the editorial of Flight on 1 February 1986. Referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State it states:
"Achieving what is best for the country must be his aim, not what is deemed best in the short-term view for the Service, the Government or even for the contractor. The Secretary of State does not face an easy decision, but if he looks at the question in the right perspective, he may well decide that having progressed this far along the line towards what is acknowledged to be a difficult target, this is no time to lose heart and pull out of the project."
That sums up the position fairly well.
While on the subject of procurement, I noticed my right hon. Friend's remarks in a report in the Financial Times today regarding the cutting of advanced payments on contracts. During the moratorium, small companies involved in subcontracting work were considerably worried. British Aerospace, for example, pulled all its subcontract work back in-house, thereby affecting smaller companies. The Defence Manufacturers Association, which does a great deal of work for small companies, made it clear that the issue greatly worried it. I hope that what my right hon. Friend is reputed to have said about advance payments cuts will not affect small companies, and that he will pay particular attention to them. That is all the more important with the United States air force considering expenditure on emerging technologies, especially the advanced tactical fighter, because all those procurement factors will loom large and be vital on this and the other side of the Atlantic.
I cannot mention the European fighter aircraft without paying an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and my hon. Friend the Member for
992
Chertsey and Walton, and I hope that that will be echoed by many people. I hope that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State and the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will establish the same close links with their European counterparts as did their predecessors. Can the Minister ensure that my right hon. Friend knows that the roll-out of the first aircraft of the experimental aircraft programme will take place on 17 April 1986, and that my constituents and I want him to be present?
Mr. Lee: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will attend that roll-out.
Mr. Atkins: I shall see my right hon. Friend there with great pleasure.
Will the Minister prevail on our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to be present at Farnborough this year when the EAP flies in competition with the French aeroplane? It will not be competition as such because the EAP will be the better of the two. I should like her to witness that it is the better aeroplane. I hope that she will change her mind and attend.
There are some problems with the EFA which must be resolved. The European staff target formed in August 1985 was for an aeroplane with a weight of 9·75 tonnes, a wing area of 50 sq m and an engine thrust of 90 KNs. The European staff requirement is for a weight of 12·5 tonnes, a wing area of 55 sq m and an engine thrust of 111 KNs. That is basic mass empty. That problem must be resolved because it is almost out of control. The Germans are saying that the radar is too big. That is only one of the problems that springs to mind.
The spoiling tactics of the French relate entirely to their light combat aircraft called the Rafale, and underlie the threat to genuine commonality which is so important to Europe. That must not interfere with the project.
On 28 February there is to be a meeting with the United States on the advanced tactical aircraft and a possible involvement with the EFA in relation to inter-operability and other matters of manufacturing importance. I hope that consideration will be given to the importance of ensuring that the programme is not delayed.
It is vital to hold a meeting of Secretaries of State and Defence Ministers involved in the EFA project as soon as possible to get a grip of the potential problems that face the EFA in terms of weight, wing area and other matters. That is so important that it must be done urgently, and I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage our right hon. Friend to do that. The project is vital, and is the success story of the next decade and beyond. We have already achieved a success story with Panavia and Tornado, and it can be built on with this aeroplane. It, like many other aeroplanes, such as Spitfire and Mosquito, which excited us when we were young, should have a name to capture the imagination. If this project does as well as the Mosquito and the Spitfire, it will be of immense importance to the RAF, to the industry and to the British people.
6.50 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the past I have always had a great deal of courtesy from the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence and, invariably, courtesy from Ministry of Defence civil servants. I am not grousing too

993
much, but on the last services day I made a careful and well-prepared contribution to the naval debate on the subject of the logbook of the Conqueror. During and immediately after the debate. I asked just one thing: that I should get a letter pointing to any factual inaccuracies in what I had said. I repeated the request in a letter to the Secretary of State. In the absence of response, do I take it that my speech on that occasion was fully accurate?
I want to speak rather bluntly to hon. Members of all parties. There has been a devaluation of service debates. That may be because of the arrival of the Select Committee on Defence, but some of us are old-fashioned enough to think that questions asked in service debates still deserve answers. It is not only politicians who are at fault for that devaluation, because I remember the time when the late Charles Douglas-Home, who was the defence correspondent of The Times, used to sit in the Gallery during Army, Navy and Royal Air Force debates. Now that Gallery is largely unpeopled, so it is not just the politicians; it is journalists too. But it may be a chicken and egg situation.
It is also strange that one Minister is left to do what is seemingly regarded as a bit of a ministerial chore. One understands that his ministerial colleagues may be busy, but some of us remember the time, Mr. Speaker, when you and I were first in this House when three or four Defence Ministers were interested enough to want to hear what their parliamentary colleagues were saying. The service debates are important because they are reported outside and read in the services. The impression given is that Parliament is uninterested in the nuts and bolts of defence, and hon. Members turn up in numbers only when something like the Westland affair is being debated. That is unsatisfactory for political authority.
The issue about the GEC Nimrod was covered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The Minister said he was consulting NATO about Nimrod. Will we get objective advice from our NATO partners, because there is a heavy commercial pressure for AWACs and some of us would like to sup with a long spoon with the Americans about this. Whatever the teething troubles of Nimrod, we must remember that thousands of jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) has repeatedly said, are at stake. We should stick British. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised the matter of section 10. As the Ministry of Defence will know, I raised a case about that and sooner or later my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will have a question upon it. I hope there will be some resolution of the problem.
My interest in Westland preceded the so-called Westland affair. On 18 November 1985 I went to Westland and was taken round by Mr. Bill Gueterbock and a number of his trade union colleagues. That was long before there was any mention of a defence argument. I am genuinely interested in the future of Westland, and all of us ought to be interested in the future of the British helicopter industry. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that I am a little surprised that, after all that has happened in the last three months, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not attending this debate, because presumably he has views about helicopters. However, I will let that pass. The brief that the Ministry of Defence has from Westland refers to major changes in defence commitments and says:
994
"The ever-increasing cost of defence equipment and manpower set against a decreasing budget could force the Government to make some major decisions on how to meet our defence commitments. If resources prove insufficient, which looks to be the case, then some drastic changes will have to be faced; e.g. a reduction in the size of BAOR and/or in our surface fleet. If land forces are to be reduced in numbers but not in combat effectiveness, is there not an excellent case for a significant increase in helicopters to provide the essential air mobility by which inferior forces can outmanoeuvre larger armies?"
I invite the Government to comment on that Westland view.
I should like to speak about the effect of the SDI research on strategies for the RAF. Why is the memorandum of agreement being kept secret? Is it because the British have got such a good deal that to publish the memorandum would embarrass the United States Government by creating conditions for criticism from United States firms? The Minister smiles. That may be quite near the mark. Or is it the reverse, that Britain has got such a bad agreement that it would embarrass the British Government if it were made known precisely what they had agreed to?
What steps are being taken to extend the concessions or restrictions granted in the SDI memorandum of understanding to all other areas of military co-operation? If the Pentagon is prepared to grant favourable concessions for work on the SDI, why is it not prepared to grant similar concessions to British firms not engaged in star wars research? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that all British firms receive similar favourable treatment?
What price are the Americans paying for political support for the ill-conceived and, as some of us put it, amoral counter-productive militarisation of space? In a debate like this Parliament is surely entitled to know.
Is the SDI programme the pot of gold that Ministers have made out? I am informed by Mr. John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists that, so far, 2,000 contracts have been placed in the United States over the last three years to a total value of $5 billion. Of these only five contracts have had a value in excess of $100 million, and the largest contractor is General Motors, the organisation to which the Prime Minister would like to sell British Leyland. The remaining contracts have an average value of around $1 million spread over a number of years. What is the advantage in what many people see as something of a sell-out for British science?
On 24 February, I asked:
"Under what national authority United Kingdom companies involved in strategic defence initiative research will be regulated in respect of control of such research."
The Minister replied:
"Depending on the nature of the contractual arrangements applicable to each piece of work placed in the United Kingdom either US or UK law may apply."
I have put down a further question. It reads:
"if, pursuant to the answer of 24 February, concerning strategic defence initiative research, he will elucidate the nature of the contractual arrangements which may render the contracts subject to United Kingdom or United States law; and if he will give examples of contractual terms in each case."
I would like a full answer to that question because we had better know where we stand legally. I then asked:
"whether approval has been given to the visit of the team led by Paul Hopler from the Pentagon to survey British technology of potential value to the strategic defence initiative programme with a view to its classification."
The Minister of State replied:
"No request for such a visit has been made."

995
I then asked:
"what he is doing to safeguard intellectual property rights for British universities and firms involved in the strategic defence initiative programme."
The reply was:
"The memorandum of understanding and supporting documentation related to British participation in the SDI research programme provide satisfactory safeguards on intellectual property rights for universities, research institutions and firms who may participate in the programme."—[Official Report, 24 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 466-67.]
What safeguards?
If the Pentagon team, led by Paul Hopler, visiting the United Kingdom in March to compile a catalogue of military critical technologies achieves its goals, the critical technologies of expert systems, artificial intelligence, logic programming and parallel processing, deemed essential to the success of SDI, will be subject to retrospective classification and treatment under COCOM rules restricting dissemination to individuals or groups who might be in contact with eastern Europe. At present 16-bit microcomputers such as the IBM-pc are subject to COCOM regulations, and overseas researchers are becoming restricted in access to supercomputers. That is a matter that very much affects the Heriot Watt physics department, which has the contract.
What are the Government doing to monitor contractor and subcontractor negotiations and contractor and subcontractor agreements that are taking place outside the framework of the memorandum of understanding or inside the framework?
I asked about penalty clauses being contained in the memorandum of understanding on the SDI and I refer briefly to an article by Dr. Glyn Ford MEP in The Guardian last Saturday. He said:
"First, the memorandum makes a commitment on behalf of the UK Government to provide up to a third of the costs of research agreed on the basis of government to government contracts… Secondly, it contains penalty clauses for nonperformance that would match these figures in cancellation payments should the programme be abandoned. Thirdly, should technologies be deployed, in consequence of tearing up the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and building up the arms race, they would be deployed first in Europe."
When I asked about that I received the classic parliamentary answer revealing as little as possible, short and truthful in a literal sense, but then the truth has to be chiselled out of the Government.
Are there penalty clauses outwith the memorandum of understanding? For example, are they embedded elsewhere in General Abrahamson's general administrative agreement for implementation of the memorandum? Or do what most of the world would think of as penalty clauses masquerade under some disguised name? Specifically, was Glyn Ford's article in The Guardian a load of rubbish? I know Glyn Ford well as a serious marine scientist, a member of the distinguished science policy unit at the university of Manchester and a man who in the past has never, to my knowledge, written ill-informed rubbish. So I am asking whether there is any truth in what Ford was saying, because, if so, we had better know it.
I asked:
"what further implementing instructions were agreed on Monday 17 February by Professor Richard Norman and Lieutenant-General James Abrahamson regarding the strategic defence initiative."
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement replied:
996
"The document referred to covers administrative arrangements in support of the memorandum of understanding of 6 December 1985 for United Kingdom participation in the United States strategic defence initiative research."
Is the agreement open-ended or is it subject to further agreements?
I asked the Secretary of State:
"what is the basis of United Kingdom participation in the United States space shuttle; and what are the defence implications, including the defence research and development implications?"
The Minister referred to that in his opening speech, but it is not sufficient to say simply:
"We are a customer for the United States space shuttle as a launch vehicle for our military communications satellites Skynet 4A and 4B. The space shuttle itself is a US programme without United Kingdom Government involvement." — [Official Report, 24 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 466–8.]
Yes, but we are concerned, and, as the Minister said, there is a tag on to this.
The Teal Ruby experimental sensor satellite that is planned for launch by the space shuttle this year will conduct some experiments related to the SDI. Canadian and Australian scientists are participating in Teal Ruby, which involves tracking aircraft as well as missiles. Are scientists from the United Kingdom involved in Teal Ruby, and does their participation extend to missile tracking tests related to the SDI?
I asked the Secretary of State what information the Ministry of Defence has
"about the implications for the scope, nature and costs of strategic defence initiative-related research in United Kingdom institutions of proposals arising from the American strategic defence initiative programme for the development of optical sensors, tracking devices and advanced electronic systems".
The Minister's answer was again inadequate. He said simply:
"As for all technologies open to the United Kingdom for participation through the SDI research programmes there are opportunities for considerable advances. Those potentially involved will take into account such benefits and the resource implications of undertaking such work."
The question obviously follows: to what extent would the involvement of such United Kingdom technologies in SDI preclude their use in the European ESPRIT and EUREKA programmes for civil purposes?
Furthermore, who else is being brought into the SDI programme? There was a report that the Israelis were involved. I checked that up with the efficient member of the scientific staff from the Library, Dr. Poole, and received the answer that:
"Israel was one of the recipients of the Weinberger letter. It went to 13 NATO and four non-NATO countries".
Mr. Wilkinson: What has that to do with the RAF?
Mr. Dalyell: Of course it has to do with the RAF.
The star wars offer has been made to Israel. The article under the by-line of Ian Black in The Guardian is substantially correct. That raises all sorts of implications.
What is the Government's understanding of the obligations and limitations on bilateral and international co-operation on ballistic missile defence research on SDI research arising from the ABM treaty?
I realise that article 15 is less of a problem than the additional agreed statement, but are there any obligations on the part of the Government to assist in payment or part-payment of any cost or part costs of any activities arising out of SDI contracts? What information have we had about British companies that have already negotiated contracts related to SDI research? Ministers should be able to

997
provide a list at least of Government laboratories which are being considered for SDI contracts or to have entered into discussions. That raises real questions for the universities.
Near my constituency the Heriot Watt university is going ahead undertaking SDI-related research, while the university of Edinburgh has said that it will not. That is the official statement of Dr. John Burnett, the vice-chancellor and principal.
In December I asked that members of the department of artificial intelligence should meet Ministers and I gather that that has been done. Since it is precluded by its university from taking this any further a deep issue of university policy arises.
I asked the Secretary of State for Defence:
"when he expects the strategic defence initiative office to write to university vice-chancellors outlining areas of research of interest to strategic defence initiative planners; what form the letters will take; what discussions have already taken place with universities about an outline list of research projects; what will be the deadline for universities to submit proposals; and when he expects contracts to be awarded."
The answer was:
"Universities will be kept fully informed along with other interested parties of opportunities for participation in the SDI research programme by correspondence and by the activities of the Department of Education and Science representative working within the SDI participation office in the Ministry of Defence."
That has created — I have a question to the Prime Minister on it — a good deal of questions inside the DES. It may not be the business of DES civil servants to work inside the DES in order to facilitate what many people in the university world see as the militarisation of space. The answer continued:
"The award of contracts will be determined by such factors as the nature and strength of any interest that is shown by individual Universities and their capabilities in the relevant fields."
—[Official Report, 19 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 185.]
Each university will have to decide for itself precisely what kind of policy there is inside that academic body. It is a real hot potato for Edinburgh, Heriot Watt and many other universities.
Finally, I want to ask four questions about Fylingdales. When is work now scheduled to begin to upgrade the Fylingdales early warning station to phased array status due to begin? Will Britain or the United States be responsible for vetting researchers or firms either involved or bidding for SDI contracts, or at Fylingdales and other sensitive spots? Who will be responsible for the vetting?
Thirdly, what changes are to be made in the ratio of British to United States staff at Fylingdales in order to upgrade?
Will Britain still retain the ability to cut off information from Fylingdales to the United States, and will data from Fylingdales be made available to NATO as a whole, or will it remain confined to the United States and Britain as at present?
I apologise to colleagues for going on at some length and for gabbling to get my remarks on the record. But some of us—the Opposition Front Bench no less than others—are exceedingly concerned about the militarisation of space. It has been put that we are embarking on something as momentous as what happened in the 1940s in relation to the Manhattan project. Some of us are absolutely determined to monitor the detail and the nuts and bolts of what the SDI actually means. I am realistic, and do not expect the Minister to answer my questions
998
when he replies tonight, but I shall continue to nag and be bloody-minded until we at least in writing get ministerial answers to these very real questions.
7.11 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the Nimrod airborne early warning project. I have followed that project ever since I was elected to the House in 1983, because the airframes have been manufactured at Woodford — a plant at which many of my constituents are employed.
The whole House will welcome the six months trial period which my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced earlier, but thereafter the Secretary of State will have to decide whether to abandon nine years of work and commitments, estimated at approximately £1 billion at current prices, or whether to soldier on with the project, with the fear of throwing good money after bad. No hon. Member will envy that decision. In these days of rapid technological advance it is odd to find that the choice facing the Secretary of State still appears to lie between the Boeing AWACS system and the Nimrod airborne early warning system — the same choice that face Lord Mulley, the then Defence Secretary, nine long years ago.
In six months' time, we shall not be starting from the same position as the one from which the Labour Government started in 1977. At that time, Nimrod was little more than a twinkle in the Department's collective eye, and at that time the AWACS system was already working and on offer to NATO. Had we played our cards right in 1977, we would now have full AEW coverage for Britain for a mere £500 million at current prices.
With the benefit of hindsight, the original decision appears to many hon. Members to have been wrong. The RAF wanted AWACS then, and it seems as if it still wants it. Perhaps the Government should have backed the RAF's decision in 1977. I do not propose to go through the reasons why Nimrod was chosen — that is no longer relevant—but it is highly important for the Secretary of State to consider before making his final decision why it is not now operational. That is of vital importance.
I am glad that the Minister of State pointed out earlier that British Aerospace has fulfilled its part of the bargain in relation to the airframes, and that to all intents and purposes all 11 are complete. The work force at Woodford is to be congratulated on a difficult job well done. But what of GEC? Its system is still some way short of the operating standards that the RAF rightly requires, and is many years behind the schedule set in 1977.
Why should that be so? First, it must be recognised that the system that it is developing is the most complex electronics system ever developed in the United Kingdom. The system requirement specification was not finally agreed until October 1980, yet the original idea in 1977 was to complete the system within four years. Clearly, that was always pie in the sky. After all, it had taken 15 years to develop AWACS. How then, in 1977, could it have been considered that a completely new and different system would be completed in just four years?
Secondly, as the Minister of State pointed out, the contract was negotiated on a cost-plus basis. This involved the MOD vetting all items of expenditure, which inevitably led to long delays and left GEC short of lest rigs, spares and other test equipment. The Minister of State is to be congratulated on recognising past mistakes and for

999
stating that if the project proceeds after six months—I hope that it will—it will be on a fixed cost basis with GEC as prime contractor.
There have been other errors for which the MOD must take its share of the blame. First, the type of radar chosen has the advantage of detecting slow moving and crossing targets, but this has the disadvantage of not differentiating between moving land vehicles and, say, helicopters. This deficiency was pointed out to the MOD in 1977, but the MOD decided not to spend the extra £10 million on a design proposal aimed at removing the problem. This problem must now be faced.
Thirdly, the computer capacity is not large enough to monitor and disseminate information as fast as the RAF rightly demands, given today's conditions. Now the nettle will have to be grasped and a higher speed computer installed. This should not come as any great surprise to the MOD, as the operator functions required have increased from 200 to 600 during the period of development, and it has long been known that a higher speed computer was desirable and essential.
Where do we go from here? We should welcome the fact that the MOD is to seek tenders from other manufacturers. That is praiseworthy, but many of us feel that it will almost certainly be false economy to cancel the Nimrod project now. There are four very good reasons. First, the airframes are virtually complete. Secondly, it is estimated by GEC that only £200 million to £300 million is required to complete Nimrod. It is difficult to estimate the cost of buying AWACS, but it is significant that Saudi Arabia paid $1,700 million for five in 1981. Thirdly, GEC estimates that the continuation of the project would provide 8,000 man years of employment for its skilled work force and suppliers.
Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend will be aware that about 3,000 of my constituents are employed at GEC Avionics at Rochester. While not much work is taking place on the AEW system at Rochester, he will be aware that GEC's fortunes are very much bound up with that project and that my constituents would suffer substantially — even though they are not directly involved—if that project were cancelled.
Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I said that I would not venture into the reasons why it was decided to proceed with Nimrod in 1977. There were many bad reasons, but one of the good ones was that it would keep the technology within the United Kingdom. That still applies. It would be a tragedy to lose that technology now, having spent so much and taken so long on a project that is so near to completion.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, there is now a keen and growing interest in the AEW system throughout the world, and in spite of bad publicity on Nimrod in the last year, there is great interest in the GEC Avionics AEW mission system. Some hon. Members were at the Paris air show last year when interest by Lockheed was demonstrated, but interest has also been shown by Aer Italia of Italy, which has decided to select the GEC system as the one most likely to sell in combination with its aircraft.
Lockheed is already co-operating with GEC on a Hercules. AEW and a joint team is now visiting Australia in response to an invitation from the Australian
1000
Government. The export opportunities for a British early warning system appear good. The United Kingdom's share of the market could, according to GEC, amount to as much as £1 billion and provide 25,000 man years of employment in the United Kingdom. Perhaps, given our time over again, we would have taken a different course. It is now 1986. Nine years ago the Ministry of Defence and GEC walked down the aisle together—it would be madness to put them asunder now.
7.19 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: According to the Defence Estimates, spending for 1985–86 is projected at just over £18 billion. The RAF gets the biggest percentage increase, the Royal Navy's money is held almost constant, but nuclear spending is up sharply as outlays for the new Trident nuclear submarine begin to bite.
All of this will begin to change next year. The Defence Select Committee reported last year that, although defence expenditure in 1986–87 and 1987–88 will grow in cash terms by 2·8 per cent. and 1·8 per cent. respectively,
"the outlook in real terms is gloomy".
Should we not begin to consider intra-European co-operation and transatlantic co-operation? The Minister did not mention the intra-European procurement group, nor the possibilities now opened up on the other side of the Atlantic by the Nunn and Quayle amendments and the Weinberger memorandum.
Clearly, some things in the forces' forward plans will have to go. Which? The previous Defence Secretary ducked the issue. It is plain from his defence statement—the one before us is, after all, his—that he has studiously avoided firm schedules and timetables, thus concealing a deliberate slow-down in the introduction of new equipment into squadron service, as we shall note later. However, in the near future the new Defence Secretary will have to bite the bullet and make choices. Big new programmes in addition to Trident—a new fighter for the RAF, new tanks and artillery for the Army, new helicopters for both the Navy and the ground forces—are all clamouring for slices of a cake that will start to shrink a year from now. Thus, management of the defence budget into the 1990s will present major problems, as I am sure every hon. Member present today will be acutely aware.
The previous Defence Secretary hoped to meet part of the cost by improving the efficiency of his vast organisation, but trimming the tail will not make a very big dent in the planned spending. Trident begins this year to soak up big chunks of cash, and some time within the life of the Government it will become extremely difficult to cancel it. So if it does not go soon, the blows must fall somewhere on conventional forces. Perhaps, with Tornado F2, we see evidence that such blows are already falling in the form of slippage. According to the 1984 defence statement at paragraph 410:
"Later this year the Tornado F2 will join the RAF and crew training for the operational conversion unit at RAF Coningsby will begin."
What have we heard from the Minister today? That 14 aircraft have been delivered to Coningsby and that he hopes that the first squadron will form next year. How is that for slippage? It is only one illustration.

1001
The increasing cost of new defence equipment is leading to more modernisation of existing aircraft or mid-life updates, using the latest missiles, missile guidance systems, radar, aviation electronics and electronic converter measures. Why was the mention of such mid-life updates confined to Tornado? Why was there no mention, as the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) asked, of Buccaneer, which will be deployed in the maritime role into the next century? What of the two squadrons of air defence Phantoms which will be retained even after Tornado comes into service? They are two prime examples of mid-life updates.
Why are there no progress reports on advanced short-range and medium-range air-to-air missiles. There is a problem with potential overlapping. All of the information shows that the Americans are making faster progress with regard to AMRAAM. Does anyone suppose that the Americans will stop at AMRAAM when they can cope with ASRAAM as well? Why is there no mention of radiation suppression devices, given their growing importance, especially ALARM?
Mr. Norman Lamont: Because I spoke for 42 minutes and therefore deleted many points that are interesting.
Mr. Duffy: The Minister deceives none of his colleagues when he comes out with that nonsense. They recall what he said and that great chunks of his speech could have taken second place to these items. The Minister is smiling in agreement. He mentioned United Kingdom air defence ground environment and he appreciates its importance. He might have mentioned the joint tactical information distribution service, which is equally important. We want progress reports on these extremely important developments. We want to know more about airfield defence. How many Rapier squadrons are now operational? We want to hear something about airfield survivability, not only in terms of sustainability, but also security, given last autumn's Exercise Brave Defender. We want a progress report, and this was the occasion for it.
We have been told that we now have nine squadrons of the Tornado GR1. We had eight a year ago. Only one more squadron in a year? Is that another example of slippage? The Minister will recall, just as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will, the anxiety that I have expressed in the past two debates on the RAF about NATO's need to counter Warsaw pact air superiority in the central region. The Minister acknowledged the importance of that when he talked of the increasingly hostile air environment over the central region. The aim must therefore be to free NATO's TACAIR to provide sufficient leverage to offset the Warsaw pact's advantages in numbers.
In the event of an attack, there would be two urgent priorities—to counter air attack and to destroy about 100 key points in Soviet supply lines such as bridges. Soviet aircraft would be best destroyed on the ground. There is a growing consensus in the Alliance that such a mission should be performed with conventional means to raise the nuclear threshold. That is due in part to military considerations and in part to political ones. Militarily, there is a strong need to modernise and strengthen our conventional systems to implement flexible response as a credible deterrent strategy. Bearing in mind the current Soviet strategic and theatre nuclear superiority, we are obliged to consider such a development.
1002
From an industrial point of view, new technologies in guidance, target acquisition and miniaturisation are now expanding the number of missions that conventional weapons can accomplish. For the third successive year, I ask, as does the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, that the Government move beyond studies into air-launched systems or stand-off weapons for Tornado into the definition and then development of a design. In view of the increasingly hostile air environment of which the Minister spoke, Tornado will clearly experience growing difficulty getting over the target and must therefore have the capability to engage it from some distance. Ballistic missiles could be used on targets, for example. Airstrips could be destroyed by the use of terminally-guided systems releasing more than 100 earth-penetrating bombs which explode underneath the ground. The defence statement of 1983, paragraph 4, claimed that the studies were in hand to assess the conventional armed long-range stand-off missile or complementary systems to manned aircraft. There has been no mention of those studies since then, although I understand that a memorandum of understanding exists with the United States on two new programmes—the long-range stand-off missile and the short range anti-radiation missile. I ask the Minister once again to comment on progress. That is what the House wishes to hear.
In the light of the statement on the Nimrod AEW that the Minister slotted into his speech —I made the official statement to this House as Minister in 1977 on our policy on the Nimrod AEW and I believe that I have no grounds to blush—I wish to offer a different perspective from that which we have heard so far in the debate from both sides of the House. The RAF was encouraged to order Nimrod in preference to the Boeing E3A in 1977 when NATO hesitated to agree to buy the American system, which at that time did not offer the maritime capability that Britain believed to be necessary. At that time the Germans were just as resistant to the Boeing E3A and they went down a slightly different road through a joint venture with Dornier and Boeing.
The objectives were to meet an increasingly sophisticated threat, to co-ordinate tactical air forces and new weapons systems and to achieve inter-operability as well as to link up with tomorrow's systems. We were aware of those needs eight or nine years ago, but, as we have heard this afternoon, those developments have taken a quantum leap. They are vital requirements, because Soviet activity in low-level operations has already been observed to be on the increase. Inevitably there have been problems. How far were they compounded by the failure of the RAF fully to assess what was needed, the attitude of the Treasury, which wanted a system on the cheap—a type 42 Frigate muddle all over again — and the shortcomings of industry? How far has the Nimrod experience, like the Westland experience, called into question Britain's ability to go it alone on a project of that size and sophistication?
With the Royal Air Force constantly changing its requirements, the computer originally developed for Nimrod can no longer cope with the work load. I understand that there is also a heat problem because of the sophisticated radar, which in turn has seriously affected Nimrod's mission time. There is now so much equipment on board that they are running out of space. Yet there are extremely well placed authorities that have every confidence that Nimrod AEW will work in time.

1003
However, it must be out of the question to cancel the Nimrod programme. The ability of the nation to defend itself is directly related to the ability of industry and the scientific community to maintain a strong technology base needed to develop the systems and services used by the armed forces. Can we really believe that we would be able to carry on doing that if we cancelled the Nimrod AEW programme? It would also be an outrageous waste of money and a retrograde step to buy AWACS. The Nimrod radar, for example, is superior. Ministers must demonstrate more tenacity in their attitudes towards Nimrod.
If technological problems continue, collaboration should be sought with other NATO countries, especially in Western Europe and notably with Dornier in the Federal Republic of Germany. Let us recall the attitude of the Germans to the Boeing E3A. If we must go down that road, let us not hesitate to do so.
7.34 pm
Dr. Keith Hampson: The first point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) strike me as important. They repeated the slogans about Trident and the damage that Trident will do to the conventional budget, but at the same time they praised Tornado. Throughout its lifespan, the Tornado programme has taken a much higher proportion of the equipment budget than Trident will. If we can survive Tornado without distortion, I fail to see the strength of the argument about Trident.
I agree with the central point of the hon. Member for Attercliffe about not cancelling Nimrod. AWACS would cost much more on top of what we have already spent, and there are several other reasons. There are important lessons to be learned. Nimrod has shown that above all else we must move away from the cost-plus system as rapidly as possible. It is shot through with anomalies and deep problems.
My hon. Friend the Minister clarified the question of where we shall go during the next six months. However, project management by companies is important. The problems of the Nimrod programme arose from having to go back on a weekly basis to get authorisation from the Ministry of Defence. That is not the way in which to achieve effective management control. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) pointed out that the moratorium on expenditure in 1981 caused severe delays by stopping development and expenditure on the test rig, which set back progress to a considerable extent.
Another lesson has been closely to examine the operation of the procurement executive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) began the essential progress towards a more central organisation in the Ministry of Defence, which will make it more possible to achieve appropriate strategies, including the role of helicopters and early warning systems. The next step is to go further and examine the procurement executive. Mr. Levene has done a tremendous job and has had a good shot at getting a good Nimrod contract, but there is a procurement jungle which needs sorting out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport stressed that specifications are constantly changing. No clear specification was made at the beginning of the Nimrod
1004
programme. We were well into the programme before we had one, and even then it kept changing. As the Minister said, the Government had moved back the requirement —there is now a minimal operational requirement but requirements have been progressively added throughout the programme to beyond the AWACS requirements. We were expecting to achieve completion in half the time of AWACS and at a quarter of the cost.
Mr. Couchman: In December 1985, the chief of defence procurement sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) entitled "Summary of Compliance of Key Characteristics of Performance Required for Minimum Operational Capability". Some of the characteristics in the document had only been defined by the Ministry of Defence within the previous six months.
Dr. Hampson: That was minimum characteristics at the end of the programme, but many others were added. We were trying to achieve something quite exceptional. This is the most complicated electronics programme with which British industry has had to cope. It has had to cope with trying to meet the requirements of a maritime presence, with aircraft carriers being phased out, the northern NATO flank and battlefield requirements. To do all that with a small fuselage is a complicated and difficult task.
It is about time that we gave at least some recognition to the tremendous achievements in the programme. I do not defend the way in which the programme has been handled or the management control, but it is a phenomenal technical achievement. I believe that the programme will succeed.
Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and I examined the project. GEC readily admits that there are faults. One problem is with the shadow on the radar, since it is so precise that it picks up moving cars and trucks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, it was known in 1977 that this was a potential problem, yet the Ministry of Defence said that it did not matter. It was not prepared to pay £10 million to cope with that, and said that that sector of the radar scanner could be blanked out. Last year, the Ministry decided that it needed such a capability. We must examine the way in which the Ministry handles such major projects.
I hope that similar problems will not occur with the staff requirement 1238, which is the air-launched anti-armour rocket. It is another expensive programme, and the companies are saying that they must know where they stand. I hope that the Nimrod fiasco does not mean that the Ministry is becoming scared of launching into such projects. In the 1970s, when we took the decision on Nimrod, it was right to believe that Britain had the capability to carry out such high electronic and technology programmes. What will be the state of British industry if we believe that it is incapable of doing that now? Whatever the mistakes, we must try to sell the Nimrod system.
Last year Lockheed evaluated the programme and said that it was potentially a world winner. Lockheed is prepared to use it in the Hercules C130 and believes that it can be sold successfully throughout the world, with possible profits of between £1 billion and £3 billion, from which there will be some royalties to the Government to compensate them for their large investment. It is important to think positively about the programme. It has received

1005
much bad publicity, which damages morale in the company and in the skilled teams working on the project. It must also affect potential customers and Lockheed. We must try to continue Lockheed's involvement in the programme so that it provides more export possibilities.
Sir Antony Buck: My hon. Friend has made some important points, and I hope that in reply the Minister will give us an assurance that the Government will consider the way in which staff targets are arrived at. There have been some changes in climate in this area and in others, which are rather worrying. The House will be grateful that my hon. Friend demonstrated the export potential of the programme. I hope that we shall continue it and bring it to a successful conclusion.
Dr. Hampson: I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces my point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State should realise the strength of feeling on the matter. Britain must demonstrate that it can carry out such projects and that they can be successfully concluded. The company is confident that it can achieve success. It says that it is 85 per cent. of the way towards resolving the few problems that exist. We have always been too ready to accept the bad publicity on the project as though the entire Nimrod programme was faulty. But there are 200 separate elements in this highly sophisticated project, only a handful of which have not met the specified requirements. Of course, there is still quite a way to go on those elements, but there have been great achievements as well.
The RAF video shown to Ministers gives a completely false impression of how far the system fails to meet the specifications, because it ignores a large chunk of the capabilities and focuses only on the elements where problems remain. We must view the project positively.
The contract which Mr. Levene managed to achieve is good and satisfactory to all parties. It means that the company must have great confidence in what it is doing, because it will be spending £25 million of its money during the next six months. That is a sign of real commitment. If it does not deliver on time or up to performance, it will have to continue spending its own money. I pay credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley on taking the initiative last June and July in pressing for this type of contract with penalties on the company. Otherwise the cost-plus system would have continued almost indefinitely, to no one's advantage.
At the end of the six months, there must be no protracted analysis of the alternatives. The procurement executive has done that many times, most recently with helicopters. We have still not sorted out the Army's requirements. The Ministry has postponed reviews and revised specifications. It would be wretched, to say the least, if after six months evaluation of the alternatives was continued. There is only one alternative—AWACS. The Hawkeye is as ineffective now for our requirements as it was in the 1970s, when we decided not to have it. The P3C—the Lockheed Orion—is just a speck in the imagination. No money has been committed to it, and there are no contracts in sight for it. We should have to wait years for any such alternative.
I see no need for excessive delay or an appraisal of the alternatives, which only helps competitors. It is a choice between AWACS and continuing with what we have. Most of my colleagues will endorse my view that we should give GEC the chance to prove that Britain can produce something that will sell well round the world.
7.45 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: This is an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Air Force. We shall talk a great deal tonight about equipment, but we must never forget about the men and women who man and maintain that equipment, in the snows of the Falklands or wherever it may be, and who maintain the standards of this fine service of which every hon. Member is proud. We hear mostly of the exploits of the aircrews, but we should never forget the people behind them in the air bases in Britain, Germany and elsewhere. They show much skill and professionalism. Only occasionally does the service catch the public eye, with an especially daring and successful rescue by a helicopter from a storm-tossed ship, or with the great aid that the RAF provided in Ethiopia, with its low-level Hercules dropping relief supplies to those in distress.
Those of us who visit the United States see another side to the Air Force. At the enormous range at Nellis, in the desert outside Las Vegas, where the American air force holds its large Red Flag exercises and displays all its great technology, skill and resources, the Royal Air Force performs exceptionally well. During the past year, our most notable success in the States was for the Tornados to win some of the top prizes in the American air force annual bombing competition. The V bombers used to enter those competitions and also won some of the top prizes. Now the new Tornado squadrons have shown their capabilities on the Americans' home ground by winning some of the highest prizes competed for by the cream of the American air force. It was a very commendable performance.
I pay special tribute to the crews who took part so skillfully in the refuelling of the Hercules aircraft bound for the Falkland Islands day after day, long after the war had finished. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) had personal experience of their efforts and skill on his flight, as did other of my colleagues. It was a great feat of aviation to continue that air bridge in appalling conditions, thousands of miles out in the south Atlantic and with no easy alternative airport to direct to if things went wrong. Friends of mine said that one could not expect it to be done for a long period without something going wrong and it was a fine feat of airmanship to do it day after day without any serious problems or accidents. It speaks a great deal for the skill of the aircrews involved.
On flight refuelling, I am pleased that we are increasing our capacity with the new VC 10s and TriStars coming into service. It means the end of the Victor tankers, the last of the old V bombers, which have been with us for many years. However, it is interesting to reflect that the Olympus engine still leads the world in Concorde. even though the V bombers may have gone.
Flight refuelling is an essential part of our air power. It is a great force multiplier. It increases many times the capability of our fighters and attack aircraft, since they need not return to base to refuel. They can stay much longer on station and operate at much greater distances from their bases.
Whether we talk of the RAF strike aircraft or of its fighters, we are nowadays talking of the Tornado. Most of the strike variants are in service and the fighters are starting to enter into service. It is undoubtedly a great aircraft. Its greatest ability is, perhaps, its all-weather capability because we have a great deal of bad weather in

1007
Europe and long winter nights. In the Tornado we have an aircraft that can fight whether the weather is fine or foul and by day or night.
When I visited Nellis I was particularly impressed by the skill of our Buccaneer crews. In the middle of the American western desert, it was a day of torrential rain—not at all what one expected. I had just been seeing the latest in head-up displays and automation in the most modern of the American fighters. The Buccaneer crews came out of the hangars, and off they went, in that appalling weather when most of the aircraft belonging to their hosts were not flying.
When they returned, I asked whether I could see their head-up display and their automation. The group captain took me over. There was no automation. For a head-up display, there were two old-fashioned dials. One showed the height and the other the speed. They had been screwed on to the top of what I would call the dashboard. Those aircraft are elderly but they can operate in bad weather because of their skilled crews. The Tornado can do this much more easily day after day. It will be the RAF's backbone into the next generation.
There is no doubt that the biggest equipment problem facing us is the lack of an airborne early warning aircraft. It is not surprising that many hon. Members have commented on that fact. The old Shackleton mark 2 is a piston-engined aircraft which is considerably older than many of the people flying in it. It is not even the latest model of Shackleton. It was in service when I was in the Air Force many years ago. I seem to remember that in those days, 30 years ago, it was referred to as 60,000 rivets pulsating in unison. I do not know whether they are in unison these days.
The Shackleton was never a comfortable aircraft in which to serve. I pay great tribute to the crews who continue to do so day after day. Without saying too much about it, its radar is based on 1940s technology. Let us just say that it is of limited capability in this modern age.
The lack of a modern airborne early warning aircraft is a giant hole in our defences and it must be plugged. It is not merely a force multiplier enabling the fighter force to be controlled more effectively. One must bear very much in mind that ground radar stations are extremely vulnerable to attack. They would not last any time at all in a war. The people underneath in the hardened concrete defended control rooms would be all right, but the radar heads would go quickly. We shall be left without an effective radar system unless we have airborne early warning aircraft. They are absolutely vital to this country's defences.
I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who wishes the Nimrod other than well. We all want to see it succeed. The paramount point is that we cannot force the Royal Air Force to accept an aircraft that does not have the vital radar capability we need. That is not being unnecessarily pessimistic about the future of Nimrod. I earnestly hope that it can be made to do the job successfully. We are plainly correct to continue to attempt to achieve that.
If I remember the figures correctly, the Nimrod programme costs about half that of the current torpedo programme. We tend to see the figures as gigantic which, of course, they are, but if we remember that buying a new
1008
stock of torpedoes for the Royal Navy will cost twice as much as we have so far spent on the Nimrod, it puts the matter more into perspective.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am told that it cost £800 million to launch the Ford Sierra. That might put the point in perspective.
Mr. Trotter: That is another good figure with which to compare the programme.
We must persevere and ensure that the radar warning gap is successfully plugged. I am not too worried whether the Nimrod is capable of operating as a controller of battles in the middle of Europe because I do not think that that is what it will be used for. It will be needed for the air defence of this country and the waters around it.
We must ensure that our expensive new aircraft are matched by effective modern weapons. It is said that one aircraft with a modern "smart bomb" has the same effect as a squadron of 12 aircraft dropping 60 or more conventional unguided bombs. There is a huge advantage in having to send only one plane since only it and one crew are at risk in the hostile environment which has been referred to. These weapons are a multiplier of the inevitably limited forces that we shall have available and are quite essential.
There are some splendid modern weapons already in service, now coming into service and under development. Our industry has been highly successful in designing and producing these weapons. The JP 233 for cratering runways is well in service. The air-launched anti-radar missile is coming along well. Now, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, air staff requirement 1238 is for a new anti-armour weapon with terminally guided submunitions. Those weapons are all essential. They must be available in adequate numbers if we are to give the greatest advantage to the Tornado crews. Those crews must not be put into the unnecessary position of having to go into a heavily defended area to drop old unguided and inaccurate bombs if the job can be done at much less risk to them and their aeroplanes with smart weapons. That makes sense from the cost point of view apart from any other arguments.
The arguments about helicopters have been well put by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I find it hard to believe that we can wait until the late 1990s for the European tactical transport helicopter to replace our existing ageing machines. We must make a decision well before then. The dividing line between the Army and the Air Force needs studying. There are good arguments for the Air Force operating the helicopters that it does, but the matter does need studying. As an accountant—one of those cold, calculating types—I must say that the figures that my hon. Friend the Minister gave us on the comparative costs of helicopter training require some inquiry. The fact that the Army spends only £200,000 per pilot while the Air Force spends £2 million is something that should be looked at. I should like to know what the Navy spends on its training. That should be an interesting figure because its pilots are mostly helicopter pilots these days and they operate in difficult conditions at sea.
We perhaps hear most about aircrew, but without the support in the bases they would be unable to operate. Half the Royal Air Force is in Support Command. It is responsible for flying training, technical training, maintenance, the deep repairs of the aircraft and the supply

1009
of all the stores that keep the Air Force operating. Each year, 2 million stores are issued. That is a mighty and well-run organisation. The destruction of its headquarters by fire at Brampton must have been an appalling problem for those running the command. Tribute is due to all those who worked so hard to overcome the problems, the scale of which is hard to imagine, with all the records destroyed.
I caution my hon. Friend about the overstretch of manpower. There are signs that this is becoming a problem. We have seen a welcome increase in the front line aircraft strength of the Royal Air Force as a result of the Government's determination and the substantial increase in defence spending. These increases in aircraft strength have not been matched by corresponding increases in manpower. We shall have to watch the problem of this overstretch carefully. At times it has been aggravated by cuts in the number of civilians employed. It is all very well to reduce civilian strength if the job can be dispensed with, but it is not so good if someone in uniform has to do that job as well as his normal job.
In conclusion, I shall refer to the remarks of John Slessor, a famous head of the Royal Air Force 40 years ago. His remarks were in the context that the Royal Air Force, alone of the three services, operated in every environment: maritime, land battle and the defence of these islands. John Slessor said:
"Unless we command the air over these islands we are done for, even more certainly than we should have been last time; unless we have air superiority in the battle zone it does not matter how many TA or other sort of divisions we have, they will not avail; unless we can protect our convoys we shall starve … strength in the air … is absolutely vital to our existence as a nation."
That is as true now as it was when he said it 40 years ago.
8 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Royal Air Force. Later this year I shall have worn the blue uniform of the Royal Air Force for 40 years. As I am the only serving reserve officer in either House, I have a particular interest in the Royal Air Force, from both personal and direct experience.
On the day when the Spitfire is 50 years old I recollect that I served in the days of the piston-engined aeroplane. I was never fortunate enough to serve in a Spitfire squadron. However, that was rectified at a later stage in my career. The Spitfire symbolises for everybody what the Royal Air Force means to the country. It means more than just a beautiful aeroplane that did its job very effectively. In 1940 it meant the difference between survival and non-survival. Afterwards it gave us the air superiority that we required in so many battlefield theatres. No other flying machine of its type anywhere else in the world equalled it. It is fitting, therefore, that we should be holding this debate today.
I wish to make special mention of an old colleague and friend of mine. He is the commanding officer of the Royal Air Force Battle of Britain Flight. When I see Scott Anderson and his team at air shows my heart takes a leap. I am reminded again of the great victories of the Royal Air Force throughout the years. Long may the Royal Air Force continue to operate the Battle of Britain Flight and long may we continue to see them at all air displays.
I do not intend to refer to subjects that have been dealt with by other speakers, but I am pleased that the Tornado is coming into service. I am a little worried that it is not
1010
coming into service as fast as I should wish, but I am pleased that the F2 version of the fighter is coming into service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to tell me what stage the Hawk local air defence programme has reached. We need an effective air defence programme.
I am also pleased to note, that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has been given an increased role to play in air defence matters. I shall refer to other aspects relating to auxiliaries and reserves, but the experience that we have gained thus far with auxiliary units in air defence is good. People of high calibre are being recruited. I have always believed that the Royal Air Force could attract such people; now the evidence is there for everybody to see.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to overcome the objections to increasing the volunteer reserve and the auxiliary component of the Royal Air Force. The use of volunteers and reserves represents good value for money. They wild perform this role for what, in relative terms, are peanuts. They do it because they want to do it. That is what matters. Very expensive aeroplanes are being flown today and it is important that those who fly them should be properly motivated. It is not enough to have the skill and the ability to fly these aircraft. Experience shows that, unless people are properly motivated, their skills will not be used to the best advantage. Motivation is the most important aspect of flying. Unless one likes flying, one ought not to do it, particularly in the modern environment.
A great deal has been said about the Nimrod. I agree that the Nimrod AEW aircraft ought to go into service with the Royal Air Force. I was surprised to hear certain hon. Members say earlier that the Royal Air Force does not want it. That is not what the RAF has told me. It says that it wants an aircraft that will do the job properly.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that, after having spent a large part of my life in the air training environment, I want the trainer that is to come into service with the RAF to do the job that the RAF wants it to do. I should like to know whether the problems relating to the marrying of the engine to the airframe have been overcome.
I should like the Minister to comment in particular on the following matters. Have the difficulties relating to the variable rates of wind-up been resolved? Have the problems over the retraction of the nose wheel when the new engine is mounted been resolved, and also the problems relating to reverse thrust and the possibility of it being engaged in flight? Furthermore, has the very high rate of sink in the final stages of landing been properly dealt with? Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me at what time, and when, Boscombe Down will get its hands on the modified trainer so that its capabilities can be ascertained? My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that Boscombe Down is anxious to get its hands on it.
Unfortunately, one has to draw attention to the cost implications of this aircraft. I want to be absolutely certain that the Royal Air Force budget will not have to meet any additional costs that are incurred by purchasing this aeroplane. Reference has been made to the cost of the Jet Provost overrun. Whoever pays, it must not be the Royal Air Force. An aircraft was bought off the shelf at a certain price. There was an alternative that could also have been bought at a certain price. Until the Royal Air Force can get its hands on the Tucano and properly evaluate it—it

1011
is not called the Tucano at the moment but the PC4½ because it is only half as good as the PC9, which I do not like—it will not be possible to make it into a good trainer. It will eventually be a good trainer, but my concern is that the Royal Air Force budget should not be required to bear the cost. It means that other projects would suffer.
National Air Traffic Services has been causing me some concern. This body is run by the Royal Air Force and the Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that the Minister realises that a person with my background does not take kindly to having to say things that are less than complimentary about the Royal Air Force. I care deeply about it. My wife insists that that is the only real love that I have ever had. Regular serving officers who work within National Air Traffic Services should be reminded that Parliament is part of our democratic process. They may not like parliamentarians asking awkward questions and getting involved in difficult issues, but that is the price we pay for living in a democracy. It is a price that I am very happy to pay and I hope that they are happy to pay it, too. Their perceived attitudes towards consultation in the NAT-MAC forum are less than happy. It could be argued that this is because I speak on most occasions only on behalf of one body, the British Gliding Association. However, I have many other interests in both light aviation and private aviation. I am a director of a company that is involved in activities of that kind. NAT-MAC is not perceived to be pursuing the role that Parliament wants it to play. That is not good. It can introduce regulations without referring to Parliament. That is bad. Unless the consultations are meaningful, Parliament will have to introduce legislation that will allow it to have a greater say.
Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend may not know that I have received representations that express the grave concern of glider pilots. They will find that their area of operations is severely curtailed, particularly in Oxfordshire, because of restrictions that are widely thought to be unnecessary.
Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Upper Heyford, which is the airfield involved, is presently used and occupied by the United States air force. I have always found the United States air force helpful, constructive and willing to sit down and talk about matters, so anything I have to say must not be seen as any form of criticism of the United States air force—in fact quite the reverse. I have been to the United States embassy and I have had constructive discussions about the problems of Upper Heyford and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) will be pleased to hear that.
The real difficulty with regard to Upper Heyford is not that we have simply had an area of 200 square miles or more made effectively sterile. It has become an area where one has to ask permission to go in and do things and in the centre of England that is not very clever. If an airfield of that size was required for recovery patterns—for those who do not understand that, it means the aircraft getting back to the aerodrome and the Royal Air Force does not have recovery patterns that cover anything like that area—and if it was perceived that because the F111 has certain visual problems when flying—I accept that they are not the easiest aeroplanes to see out of—it was not terribly clever to put them in the centre of England in the
1012
first place. These are not large islands. Airfields were available 15 years ago, although some of them have since been given up by the Royal Air Force, but they were available and perhaps the F111 should have been put in an area which would have caused fewer problems.
The difficulty is that the evidence of the problem is not based on hard fact. If it were, I as an aviator would accept it. I believe that no aviator, regardless of where he comes from or whom he represents, wants to fly in conditions that are deemed to be less than safe. Anecdotal evidence is being used—anyone who has operated out of an operational airfield will know that the anecdotal evidence on any operational airfield is that things are never quite what the chaps want—but that is not a good enough reason to bring in legislation to change things.
I must place on record my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Support, who has been very helpful on that matter. We are continuing to have a constructive dialogue, so I am hopeful that we will find a sensible compromise answer.
I would like to say a few words about helicopters. I think that the one thing that clearly came out of the Westland saga was that throughout all of it Sikorsky behaved very properly. There is no question that it became involved in the many unfortunate publicity activities. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take it on board that, whatever happens now, we have to recognise that Westland is our only helicopter supplier. It is nonsense for anyone to suggest that it would not be considered for supplying any helicopter that would be operated and flown by our defence forces in whatever category. Of course Westland must be considered. If we are serious about the needs of the Army in battlefield conditions, Westland, in conjunction with the long, useful and constructive experience of Sikorsky, will, I am confident, be able to produce the helicopter to meet that task. I believe that one is already in existence.
I now turn to the Chipmunk. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will recognise that it is not a young aeroplane. It made its first flight in about 1948. It is a fine aeroplane but there is now a need to re-engine it and carry out various changes in the cockpit equipment. That being so, I strongly recommend that we look at some of the new British products which are available for that sort of role. That would be helpful to the British companies and, in addition, it would give the Royal Air Force a new generation of aeroplanes. If I mention Slingsby's Firefly I hope that no one will think that I am biased. It is a nice aeroplane. The Trago Mills is also a good aeroplane. I strongly recommend that both those aircraft are properly evaluated as a replacement for the Chipmunk. My colleagues in the reserve who fly Chipmunks will be pleased to fly whatever they get, but they would happily fly new aeroplanes rather than old ones refurbished.
I want to make some suggestions about the reserve forces and their structure. I want to say to the Ministry of Defence that the time has now come when there is an awakening in the recognition of the fundamental role that proper auxiliary and reserve units can carry out in the time of war. Some auxiliaries and reserves can go into operational squadrons at short notice, provided they are used in that role. I welcome the changes that are taking place so that there will now be opportunities for people to become involved. More importantly, we need a unified command structure of the kind we enjoyed when Home Command existed so that all those who are involved in the

1013
reserve and auxiliary activities have a structure through which their needs and requirements can be met. That would do a number of things. It would mean that one had an oversight of all that auxiliaries and reserves were doing and the problems of payment and expenses could be dealt with effectively. More importantly, it would give regular serving RAF officers career opportunities directly linked to auxiliary and reserves.
In some areas within the service there is still a feeling that a job connected with the auxiliaries or reserves is somehow not a good prospect for a career. For those in the service today who are concerned about that, may I say that one of my great friends is a serving air marshal? He largely owes his career to the great job he did many years ago in the early 1960s when he was a squadron leader working inside an auxiliary and reserve set-up. It was that, which was his first squadron leader appointment, which led to him now occupying one of the top posts in the Royal Air Force.
Therefore, working with the auxiliaries and reserves does not mean that one will not be considered for high rank in the Air Force. In fact, the reverse is true. It is also worth remembering that the auxiliaries and reserves are people like myself. One may just bump into the odd Member of Parliament—at the moment only one, but I hope there will be many more. One would certainly bump into the opinion formers and others who are influential throughout the country.
I am pleased to note that the service is initiating trials to test the augmentation of front line squadrons with RAFVR aircrew. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the air commodore of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment Squadron, will be pleased to note that it is also considering the deployment of RAFVR qualified flying instructors on university air squadrons and the deployment of a new Royal Auxiliary Air Force support force. I believe that they are all positive and good moves and good news.
There is an enormous source of untapped wealth, and I wish the Royal Air Force could make better use of it. If we do that, the money will be spent more wisely. It will benefit regular service employees who will have greater opportunities. That is the message that I wish to leave with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Let us have more of the auxiliaries and the reserves, because they are good for the regular service.
8.18 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall try to be brief; most subjects have been covered in the debate. However, there is one subject which has almost become a taboo which no one dares to mention but which I think merits serious consideration. That subject is the reintroduction of conscription. My hon. Friend the Member fix Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly expounded with great authority the merits of the reserve forces. I find it noteworthy that in our defence posture our reserves in the United Kingdom are so meagre. We spend £18,000 million on our defence, but the Army has only £360 million for its reserve, the Navy only £14 million and the Air Force only £30 million. This means that the sustainability of our armed forces in time of war would be greatly diminished.
I shall not weary the House too much now, but I have always argued that it would be much better for the defence
1014
of our country if our naval and air reserves were greatly strengthened. We have seen from the experience of the United States Air Force reserve and Air National Guard how effective these reservists can be. They fly supersonic aeroplanes, for example F15 and the F16. The Israelis also operate with their reserve air crews the very latest aircraft to the highest operational capability.
If we are not fully to develop that same potential, and we have not hitherto, we should at this time of high unemployment look at the benefit to the country as a whole of the reintroduction of conscription. It is interesting and singular that we, almost alone of the major western European countries, do not have national service. The other countries that do not are Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Iceland, Ireland, Andorra and San Marino. I do not think that, in view of the size of the Soviet threat and the continuing political commitment to the defence of the central front which we maintain, our posture can., on present financial projections, be very long sustained.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has courageously decided that he will re-examine the financial consequences of the current strategy and the consequences of the equipment programmes that he has inherited from his predecessor. He has also informed the House that there is to be no major defence review. The broad strategic objectives are to be sustained. That is, we are to maintain the independent nuclear deterrent, we are to have the Brussels treaty commitment of a standing force on the continent of Europe of no less than 55,000 men plus a tactical Air Force, a commitment to the defence of the eastern Atlantic and Channel Command areas with our fleet, the defence of the United Kingdom air defence region with our Air Force and a continuing capability to project power out of area. I presume that there will be for some time to come internal security operations too in Northern Ireland. All this is to be done on a defence budget that, from now on, will decline somewhat in real terms.
My hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly took credit for the fact that this Administration have reduced the proportion of the defence budget which is allocated to manpower and increased the proportion that is allocated to equipment. Some 46 per cent. of the budget is allocated to equipment as against 35 per cent. to pay, allowances and pensions. However, if we are to recruit men and women of the highest calibre in the highly competitive market place in which we have to seek the recruits that we need, it will be difficult unless we offer high salaries. Already, the services are beginning to feel the pinch, and in certain skill categories there are shortages. This problem will get worse.
We also rightly recognise the role that the armed forces can play in educating, in the broadest sense, our young people—giving them skills, training and experience of work away from home in an ordered and structured environment, having to defer to authority and learning social behaviour and patterns of social responsibility which will be of great value to them in later life. To their credit, some employers recognise this, but not enough as yet.
In the United States, employers are keen to employ members of the Air National Guard and United States air force reserve, because such people are twice the citizens. They are making a commitment to their country through their military services and to the economy through their

1015
ordinary civilian work. This broadening of experience could well merit serious examination here by our military planners.
Our strategy, which is so much beholden to the Brussels treaty commitment on the central front, is manpower intensive. The pillargrams in the Defence Estimates show that the longest single item for manpower is ground forces in central Europe. If this continues to be the central pillar of our defence strategy, and for political reasons it appears to be so, other commitments will have to go. I should have thought that such a strategy was more applicable to a nation with conscription and large forces than to one with relatively small, all-professional, all-regular forces such as ours.
Our pattern of manpower is applicable more to a country that relies primarily on sea power and air power and the projection of highly mobile, trained professionals out of area in a hurry than to a manpower-intensive strategy on the central front. If it is the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the central front should have priority, we may have to reconsider our manpower policies accordingly.
The armed services youth training scheme has been initiated. The take-up has not been good, but it is a step in the right direction. We also acknowledge the valued role played by the cadet forces in training our young people and broadening their experience. No one wants a return to the days of "The Virgin Soldiers" and the national service of pre-1960 that some of us knew.
The armed forces would be reluctant to revert to national service. They would say that a high proportion of their manpower would be absorbed by training units and the front-line formations would be denuded of the highly experienced and well trained personnel which they need to make them effective. However, as a consequence we would have more contact between the civil community and the military, the civil community would acquire for its young people a corpus of discipline and collective loyalty that might help to cure some of the violence in our big cities and the phenomena such as football hooliganism and so on. I do not know—I surmise, conjecture, and make no firm prognostications—but I feel that the idea merits examination.
Last but not least, it would be more in keeping with the sense of responsibility for national defence that all our other European NATO fellow members feel. They all believe that national service is a sacrifice, a duty to country which it is reasonable to ask their young people to make. I know that Canada and the United States are different—and they have all volunteer forces, as we do—but in Europe, both east and west of the iron curtain, national service predominates.
We used to rely on our independent nuclear deterrent as this country's main and primary contribution to the western defence effort. As a consequence we felt that it was not necessary to spend so much on manpower and on maintaining large reserves and big formations. That position could be changing.
I urge Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the high level of unemployment, the lawlessness in our cities and the sense of frustration among young people, to ask the planners in the Ministry of Defence to reconsider conscription and to ask whether the armed forces could fulfil such a social role. This role would be of great benefit
1016
to the country's defence, and the Royal Air Force, with its wide range of technical skills, could have a primary social role to play as its technical skills are easily translated into lucrative employment in the civil sector.
8.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has made a most informed and thoughtful intervention in the debate as he always does in aviation matters. I very much agree with his remarks about conscription. Conscription is a subject which many people consider to be taboo and which must not be discussed. I believe my hon. Friend has touched upon a most important point and I hope that he will find greater support for his argument not only in the House but among other defence forces.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in praising those people in the Royal Air Force who do not usually get credit, those who work in the background. Today I visited the London air traffic control centre with several colleagues and met some of the men and women who, day and night, man the air traffic control service with their civilian counterparts. They ensure that our skies are kept safe. It was pleasant to meet so many young ladies who serve as air traffic controllers. Those of us who occasionally fly will know how pleasant it is to hear their voices at the other end of the line because their voices tend to be much clearer than those of their male counterparts.
When we last debated the Royal Air Force a year ago, there were three main issues—the new basic trainer, the European fighter aircraft and Nimrod AEW. Two of those issues have been resolved and one remains outstanding. I would like to recap the arguments on those issues.
As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I entirely supported the choice of aircraft that he espoused as the new basic trainer for the RAF. That aircraft was the best available and just what the RAF wanted. However, the decision was taken —rightly or wrongly—that the Tucano should be adopted and I hope that the House will give every support to Short Brothers in its attempt to make that aircraft the best that the RAF can hope to obtain. I spoke to Short Brothers on the telephone this afternoon and was told that not only was the maiden flight successful but the plane has undertaken over six hours of flight and so far everything has gone according to plan, and no vices have appeared. I hope that the House will welcome that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) in their remarks about the implications for the Royal Air Force budget of any costs involved in the slippage in the Tucano programme. I hope that the Minister will be very severe with his supplier and ensure that any slippage is kept to a minimum. Every month that the Jet Provosts continue to fly they are draining resources away from valued areas of the Air Force.
I welcome the PC9. Even if it was not successful in Royal Air Force terms, it was successful as part of the Saudi deal, which was masterminded from the United Kingdom. I was absolutely delighted with that programme and that the enormously beneficial contract has been signed despite some unhelpful remarks in the press a few months ago. That programme is vital to aerospace industries in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy.

1017
That contract strengthens our ties with an old middle east ally and also means that we continue the connection between British Aerospace and Saudi Arabia which proved so successful with the earlier Lightning programme.
I would also like to pay a tribute to the Royal Air Force for the role that it is performing in training Saudi pilots. The Royal Air Force has adopted that role with enthusiasm, despite the inevitable impact that that will have on its own training requirements. I would particularly like to mention my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's role in securing the contract. My right hon. Friend brought the contract to fruition in the final stages. That contract is undoubtedly one of the biggest job creation programmes that has so far been undertaken and almost 50,000 jobs will be safeguarded through the winning of it.
The contract has also ensured that the production line at Warton, which had a lull between the ending of the Tornado programme and the beginning of the EFA programme, will continue at full steam. It is no accident that in the debate a year ago and in subsequent debates on the European fighter aircraft it was hon. Members NA, ho are present today who impressed on the Government the importance of proceeding with the EFA negotiations to bring them to a speedy conclusion. I congratulate all those who took part in that, but I feel that the matter could have been resolved sooner had we not spent so much time trying to get the French on board. Nevertheless, credit where credit is due—the programme has gone ahead and I was encouraged by the Minister of State's remarks about the programme.
I hope that the Minister of State will not use the Saudi order as an excuse for pushing back the EFA timing and will keep the EFA timing up to scratch to ensure an in-service date of 1995.
The EFA programme shows the benefit of collaboration. If collaboration can reduce costs and assist in the process of NATO harmonisation, that is desirable, but collaboration is not an end which must be pursued in itself. If the French are to come on board at some point in the programme, that must happen on terms that are wholly acceptable to the existing partners and not simply for the purposes of collaboration. It must be for the purposes of producing the right aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Hampson) said a year ago, collaborative programmes tend to slip but I hope this one will not.
When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, will he reassure us that we shall derive some benefit from the considerable expense placed in the Panavia and Namma programmes as the administrative arm of the Tornado operation? An enormous learning curve has been undertaken on that which would be of enormous benefit to the EFA programme if we can use the successful partnership arrived at in Panavia to reduce the costs of the EFA collaboration.
I will not weary the House with remarks about Westland. I hope that we can now move to discuss the European helicopter industry and that we will not again be placed in a position where the future of the European helicopter industry until the end of the century is decided at one meeting. That is not the right way to proceed. Now that the battle over Westland is out of the way, I hope that we can proceed rationally and remind ourselves that Westland is a British and not an American company and that it remains committed to the one collaborative programme in Europe which is going ahead—the
1018
EH101. I hope that we can build on that and ensure that Westland continues to participate in further collaboration in Europe should that come to fruition.
On AST404, I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) who made some very telling points. There is a clear need to sort out who runs these helicopter fleets. There is also a clear need for a tactical battlefield helicopter of the W30 or Black Hawk variety. I hope that neither will be ruled out as a result of the unhappy history of the past few months.
The Government's record in relation to the RAF is excellent, as is their commitment to the defence of our realm. Winding up last year's debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reported that in the current year £3,500 million was being spent on RAF equipment. On all headings—defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, total defence expenditure and per capita defence expenditure—we are second or third after the United States. That is the importance that the Government attach to the defence of our country.
It is important to point out the extent to which the United States provides part of our defence shield. Without the United States presence in Europe, in part so hotly disputed by the Greenham women and others, the British taxpayer would have to pay much more and there would be much less money for hospitals, schools and social services.
The Government's record on United Kingdom purchases is also excellent. In the past five years, 80 per cent. of requirements have been procured in the United Kingdom, 15 per cent. collaboratively and only 5 per cent. overseas. As a result of competitive tender, we have obtained the most cost effective value for money. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who speaks for the official Opposition today, should contrast that and Opposition statements on other matters in recent months with the Labour Government's decision when the TSR2 tactical strike reconnaissance available to the United Kingdom armed forces was cancelled in favour of a "buy American" policy. In fact, the F111 was cancelled and replaced by the Phantom, which has done sterling work. Nevertheless, that aspect must be borne in mind.
In conclusion, the reduced cost of the new basic trainer and lower oil prices mean that there is some latitude in the RAF budget. The importance of reserves to our defence capability has been mentioned. I look forward to the day when we have a parliamentary air wing in which I can participate with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other Members so that we can play our full part in doing our bit for the defence of the realm. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think seriously about the further developments that can be undertaken for the reserves.
8.42 pm
Mr. Keith Best: The pangs of hunger have driven many hon. Members from the Chamber. but those of us who remain have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I join him in his tribute to the Government's achievements for the RAF since they took office. I also echo what he said about AST404, to which I shall refer in a moment. I also endorse my hon. Friend's response to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who so often captures the mood of the House in these matters.

1019
I have always taken the view that one should never have military conscription for social reasons, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was right to suggest that more and more hon. Members—on both sides, I suspect—are considering more deeply whether there might not be a role for conscription, if only devoted entirely to the provision of forces on the central front in Europe where they would stand alongside conscripts from other NATO nations and against conscripts from the Warsaw pact countries. That may be yet forced upon us as a result of manpower shortages. I referred to the shortage in the Royal Navy in the recent debate on that service. Reference has been made today to shortages in the RAF and we know that there are shortages in the Army to the extent, unfortunately, that we cannot man all of our own tanks.
My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that in last year's debate we crossed swords in a friendly way about the RAF basic trainer. He will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to fight old battles. I shall not mention the Firecracker, nor even the Spitfire. A number of us were aware of the 50th anniversary of the Spitfire, but it was good of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) to mention it and to give the House the benefit of his valuable experience in these matters. I hope, however, that we shall not be reduced to redeploying the Spitfire.
I have the privilege to represent RAF Valley in my constituency where all the fast jet pilots go after completing their basic trainer course. At RAF Valley they go on to the Hawk jets. Only a month ago, I was privileged to be asked to present wings to two outgoing courses. I was particularly impressed by the quality of the young fliers there. All but two were graduates, many with degrees in aeronautical engineering or associated subjects. More in retrospect than in anticipation, I was also pleased that on the previous day I had been given the opportunity to go up in a Hawk aircraft. I am not sure that I should say this in the House, but I was allowed to take the controls for a while. It was a marvellous experience and demonstrated to me how responsive the aircraft is. My hon. Friend the Minister of State looks rather concerned. I should add that the aircraft was also flown by a qualified RAF pilot who has just spent three years with the Red Arrows and knew the aircraft extremely well. The Hawk is a super aircraft and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the arming of that aircraft and progress on airfield defence.
When one reaches forces of gravity up to 5G the pressures are very great, as I discovered. The way in which those young men perform their role with all that they have to learn in tactics and manoeuvrability and control of the aircraft with such additional pressure upon them is a remarkable tribute to the calibre of the young men now coming into the RAF.
I return briefly to a theme already raised in the debate—the use of helicopters. I make no apology for raising the matter again, although I do not believe in corroboration of the type that persuaded the white queen in "Alice in Wonderland." Nevertheless, the matter has been raised by a number of hon. Members and was discussed in depth by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
For about eight years I served in airborne forces under constant threat of being made redundant by the advent of
1020
the helicopter as a battlefield weapon for transporting troops rapidly from one place to another. One can now say with some justification that the demise of the importance of airborne forces largely coincided with the increased battlefield use of helicopters. My present job is to go on board NATO ships as a naval gunfire liaison officer, so most of my helicopter flying is now done with the Royal Navy. I shall say something later about the difference in attitude between the services in this respect.
It is important that we now conduct a serious investigation into the way in which helicopters are to be used by our forces and whether we have the right command structure for them. I noted with great interest what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said in the conclusion of the Army debate on 30 January. It was put to the Minister that one needed to overcome the problem of the split command between the RAF and the Army in the use of helicopters. He said:
"If we are talking about central Germany, we are talking about an air-land battle where there are problems between the services anyway in terms of command and control."—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1183.]
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but surely that cannot be used as a reason for continuing to have problems between the services concerning command and control. This problem can be remedied by following the practice of every NATO country with the exception of three. Those NATO countries have decided to have all battlefield helicopters, whether for the transport of troops, anti-tank or attack under Army control. The exceptions to this practice are Canada and Norway which have all their helicopters under the command of the air force and this country which has a unique structure within NATO with the RAF responsible for helicopters which transport troops and the Army responsible for reconnaisance, anti-tank or attack helicopters. This present policy needs to be reconsidered.
I know from experience of serving in divisional headquarters of the British Army of the Rhine that there are sometimes difficulties in co-ordinating services simply because of different coloured berets within a unified divisional headquarters.
I do not wish anyone to think that my remarks about the attitude of the RAF to flying helicopters are in any way derogatory. However, often an unfavourable comparison is drawn between the RAF's attitude to flying helicopters especially in foul weather or in risky combat conditions with the attitude of the Royal Navy. Indeed the Royal Navy has stickers plastered everywhere which state: "Fly Navy". The Navy will tell hoary tales of how it is prepared to fly in all weathers when the RAF is grounded for one reason or another. That is healthy inter-service rivalry, but I question whether we should have such inter-service rivalry on the battlefield. Surely we would have enough on our hands fighting the enemy without having rivalry within our own forces.
Anyone who has seen the way in which Royal Navy helicopter pilots can take a whole commando brigade ashore in the space of two hours with supporting weapons including artillery—I had the privilege of seeing this when I served with commando forces on HMS Bulwark—cannot fail to be impressed with the attitude of the Navy pilots and the way in which they fly those helicopters. That attitude is desperately needed in western Europe. I am not suggesting that we should import Royal Navy helicopter pilots to fight our battles there, but it is

1021
the type of attitude that one wants to see in the helicopter pilots who will be responsible for attack and transport on the battlefield.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned RAF crews flying in appalling weather conditions. I hope he remembers the signal achievements of the air crews at RAF Boulmer who go out on rescue missions not only over the sea but over mountainous land areas, often in the most atrocious weather conditions. They need a high level of skill to do
so.
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman need not persuade me. There is 22 Search and Rescue squadron stationed at RAF Valley. It is responsible for saving a large number of lives every year. In addition, its helicopters go out whatever the weather to save lives and rescue people from the mountains of Snowdonia. I speak of them with the highest respect, as I do the mountain rescue teams who often accompany them.
It is always difficult to raise matters without in some way being accused of trying to be derogatory of one service. I am not seeking to do that. I speak in the most laudatory terms of the way those RAF pilots operate.
In the Army debate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) raised the question of the division of command of helicopters on the battlefield. I shall not reiterate the points he made but effectively he was saying that there should be a unified command. But he went further and said that he would be prepared
"to support some transfer of funds from our tank improvement programme and our armoured personnel carrier replacement programme to make room for some extra helicopter procurement."
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of State what he said in that debate as it is important to emphasise it. He said:
"Recent exercise experience … and the greater emphasis on mobility as a result of the revised concept of operations for NORTHAG had led to a fundamental review of the requirements for helicopters which supports the land battle. Such a review needed to take account also of the wider requirements for support helicopters in out-of-area and amphibious roles. A new helicopter fleet is an expensive investment. We must plan on the basis of the best judgments that we can make. It has been made clear to the House before that the staff requirement has been put in abeyance and is being reconsidered."—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1155–83.]
I welcome that statement by my hon. Friend the Minister because I believe it is a realistic approach to the role of helicopters on the battlefield. I endorse every word. I hope that the staff requirement which has been put in abeyance is being reconsidered in a thoughtful way. Very often in these debates quite understandably hon. Members raise constituency points and discuss the flavour of the month, whether that be Westland or EH101. Sometimes we lose track of the long-term view of what the requirements will be, bearing in mind the way that technology has changed the face of warfare and the battlefield in general.
I believe we are now in the process of a revolution in the use of helicopters as fundamental as the advent of the tank or any other major advance in modern technology which has transformed the battlefield. If I am right, we should give the maximum possible consideration to the way in which we can best equip ourselves with those helicopters that are necessary both in the anti-tank role and especially in the mobility role—the transport of troops quickly from place to place. We have seen helicopters in
1022
the attack role in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. We have seen helicopters in the anti-tank role in the near east in Lebanon and in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In the Falklands we witnessed the need of their transport role.
We know that the current concept of mobility in the northern helicopter area group now requires that we should be able to move our troops as rapidly as possible. The case has been made out time and time again. To deal with the massed tank attacks such as we are likely to face in western Europe and to transport our troops rapidly from place to place there is an abiding role for the helicopter on the battlefield. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry will take on board these matters and that we shall have a thorough review so that we ensure that our priorities for the 1990s and the turn of the century are correct.
8.58 pm
Sir Hector Monro: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) who has a great knowledge of helicopters and other Air Force matters. He will not draw me into an argument on the relative skills of the RAF and Fleet Air Arm except to say that the Fleet Air Arm appears to have the better public relations officer.
The annual debate on the RAF is usually an opportunity for the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and me to indulge in some war-time nostalgia, and he has not let me down today with his stories of his days flying Mosquitoes. It is appropriate that this week is the 50th anniversary of the first flight of the Spitfire, and it is right that we should recall the great deeds that it achieved during the war.
My hon. Friend the Minister spoke, rightly, and at length about the efficiency and morale of the RAF which is of prime importance to us. Indeed, it is every bit as important as discussions about aircraft and technical equipment. If morale is not right, we shall get nowhere. It is good to know that the unrivalled airmanship of the RAF is as good as ever, and that it can achieve wonderful results, as shown on the Falklands air bridge, in the bombing competition in the United States, which was a remarkable achievement and deserved greater publicity than it got, in the famine relief operations in Africa, and in the exceptional work done in air, sea and mountain rescue by our helicopter squadrons.
All hon. Members who have been involved in flying realise that it requires a great deal of practice to achieve that standard of efficiency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that there are now no restrictions on flying hours in an effort to save fuel. Our front line pilots were getting insufficient hours per month to maintain the standards that they wished.
Talk of the Spitfire leads me to the main theme of my speech which is the Royal Auxiliary Air Force reserves. The RAux.AF played an important part in winning the Battle of Britain. The skills of the pilots and ground crew then showed that a highly trained and professional cadre of reservists was effective in wartime. Certainly the RAux.AF proved its mettle during the war, and, subsequently, in peacetime. It was sad that the squadrons were disbanded in the 1950s, except for the maritime headquarters units. I am glad that the RAux.AF has returned for aerodrome defence and aircraft handling under the present Government.

1023
A year ago the possibility of an RAux.AF flying squadron in the form of a helicopter squadron was mentioned, and I hope that it may come to fruition in the foreseeable future. I also hope that the foreseeable future is getting nearer. I find it hard to bear that the Territorial Army and Fleet Air Arm reserves have helicopters while the RAF, which is mainly responsible for flying, has none. It is time that that was corrected, and we created a helicopter squadron as soon as possible.
I am glad that there is now a chance for volunteer reservists to have an opportunity to fly with squadrons. That seems to be a step in the right direction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, other countries, especially the United States, train reservists to a higher standard than we do, and the civil air guard and naval reservists carry out valuable work. I do not see why we do not provide greater opportunities for our reservists.
I am glad that the RAux.AF regiment squadron, in which I am particularly involved, is working so well, and providing first-class aerodrome defence. The recruitment is good, which shows that there is scope for additional squadrons. They are extremely good value for money in terms of the duties that they are required to fulfil. They want leadership, and they are getting it. I am glad that an increasing number of auxiliary COs are commanding those squadrons. They want good food and pay, and I believe that they receive it.
I have with me a copy of the interesting House of Lords debate on 5 February. In that debate, the noble Lord Thurso spoke about the Territorial Army and, equivalently, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. He raised the issue of deductions for benefit from Territorial Army or auxiliary airmen's earnings if members of those forces were unemployed. I do not want to go into that tonight, but it is important because at the end of the day the Government did not produce an answer, except to say that there would be more consultations.
It is wrong that if an auxiliary or Territorial Army soldier is out on service for his country he should have his benefit docked because he is receiving income from the services. We have to look at this urgently again because we have been talking about it now for a couple of years. It is the sort of pinprick decision that could be resolved quickly by the stroke of a pen by the two Secretaries of State at the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me that these consultations are serious and that they will soon be concluded. The matter is a little sore that has been allowed to fester for far too long.
We want to see good equipment, because it is most important to keep up the enthusiasm of all reservists. Part of that comes from having good equipment with which to train. That means good, modern radio sets and Land Rovers, which are essential to the role those branches of the services play. Reservists also need rifles and plenty of ammunition to fire off on the ranges, because that is exciting and good training. Has my hon. Friend given any further consideration to whether the auxiliary squadrons will soon be able to use the Rapier? The auxiliaries have concluded successful trials with the regular Rapier squadrons and it seemed to be satisfactory. I remind my hon. Friend that it is essential for the squadrons to have an opportunity to go to camps that have good facilities and
1024
provide good training. Those camps should offer a good change of scenery, because a visit to such camps often takes the place of a soldier's one and only holiday during the year.
Mr. Wilkinson: On a parliamentary visit to Belize I was thrilled and delighted to see some auxiliary personnel working with their regular Royal Air Force Regiment counterparts. They were training in a highly interesting and educative environment. Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could try to make sure that auxiliaries train abroad whenever possible.
Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was in Belize a regular squadron from Lossiemouth was there and there was no training opportunity for any of the auxiliaries. However, the point by my hon. Friend is well made. Every few years—and I cannot expect better than that—a squadron should have the chance to go abroad, whether it is to Germany, or to Gibraltar, or to Cyprus, so that its members can get some overseas experience. In return for what I am asking of my hon. Friend, he is receiving from the Royal Air Force the service of first-class squadrons that are part of the line of battle.
I should like to put a tiny thought in the mind of my hon. Friend. I am interested in the new airfield damage repair units, but I have a word of warning. It is that, by bringing them into same area as auxiliary squadrons, we are using the same catchment area for roughly the same quality of men and women. That may make the achievement of establishment of the two units rather more difficult. We receive a great deal of help from the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Association for all the auxiliary squadrons. One of the Cinderellas of the Royal Air Force is the Air Training Corps and we ought to give it all the publicity, facilities, equipment and exciting opportunities at camp that we can.
The boys join the Air Training Corps because they want to fly and that opportunity must be given to them at least once a year, whether it be through glider courses or on ordinary visits to Royal Air Force stations. After all, those lads are enthusiastic enough to join the Air Training Corps because of their love of flying and from them come some of the fine young men that we heard about earlier who go to university and Cranwell.
I have been interested in the developments on the Nimrod today and the Government have probably taken the right step. After all, we have a fine aircraft in the Nimrod. It is a pity that the early warning aircraft should be scrapped when the radar and not the airframe was causing trouble. Surely in the technical age in which we pride ourselves on living in the United Kingdom we could get the radar right to put into an aircraft of first-class capabilities that have been operating so effectively all round our coast for a long time.
We have talked about the aging Shackletons and that is only too true, but they are maintained in first-class order and their crews have a great love for them, although they look forward to the day when they will transfer to the Nimrod. We should put every conceivable effort into putting the Nimrod right and not think of cancelling it because of the failure of the radar.
The Tucano has been mentioned. I shall be disappointed if it does not turn out to be the aircraft that we were promised a year or so ago. I was undoubtedly in

1025
favour of the PC9 and I was disappointed when it lost the competition. But, having accepted the Tucano, we must see it through at the right price, providing the right performance for the Royal Air Force. The sooner it goes through its paces the better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was right to mention the problems that face gliding in Britain. I have had a great deal of assistance from my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne in another place and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that there is an important place for gliding in Britain. It should not be unfairly restricted because operational aircraft are in the same area. There must always be room for a compromise and I hope that that will be achieved at Upper Heyford, an area that is popular for gliding in Britain.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will accept that many detailed questions have been forthcoming from the debate. It has been highlighted by the large numbers of hon. Members who have a genuine interest in the Royal Air Force. We are here to talk about it, not to criticise it, but to show our interest in it, to wish it well and to ensure that it retains its exceptionally high standard which all of us would agree is probably the highest in the world.
9.13 pm
Mr. McNamara: This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate, as is usual on such occasions. If the dramatis personae are the same, we can usually expect the same themes to emerge. The themes this year were similar to those of last year—Nimrod. the EFA and Tornado, with a sub plot made up of the Tucano, Westland and SDI. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that the speeches today were the same as last year and the year before. I speak not for myself but for my party. However, some of the points were still as relevant and important as those that were made last time.
Let me begin by referring to the gliding controversy at Upper Heyford. Lord Trefgarne sent me a letter about the matter today, and I shall not weary the House with the details. But in what he said there seemed to be an area for compromise and understanding, so that those who are interested in the sport could take the discussion a stage further. That is to be welcomed. There may indeed be a need for some sort of restrictions. It may be that the US air force is in the wrong place. Therefore, this must be dealt with at some time or another. However, from what has been said today, and from what Lord Trefgarne has said, it now seems that the first rash drawing of an enormous area on a map has now been somewhat restricted, and there appears to be room for compromise.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a moving speech when he gave us an account of the campaign over section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. He made a very powerful case indeed. We must cast our minds back to the passage of that Act, and realise what a revolutionary reform it was at the time. For the first time the Crown became liable for torts and other matters in respect of which it had previously been able to excuse itself on the ground of royal prerogative.
NHS hospitals were also placed in the same position, as were Government Departments that were exempt from planning restrictions. These were all necessary compromises that were made at the time, simply because we were entering new territory and developing a fundamental
1026
reform. We have now reached the stage where the whole matter must be carefully re-examined. The Opposition tried to raise the matter in relation to Army, Royal Air Force and Navy discipline when we debated the Armed Forces Bill, and we hoped to raise it in the Select Committee. Unfortunately, the advice of the Clerk was that, although it involved discipline, it did not come under the specific Acts that we were seeking to amend and, therefore, it could not be raised.
The hon. Member for Newbury paid a fine tribute to my right hon Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). However, the time that the Department has spent discussing this matter should be coming to an end, and it should be coming before the House with proposals, given that the subject is causing grave concern. The examples that have been cited today, and those that we have received in correspondence, also point to the fact that there is grave cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) spoke of Westland, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) filled in the bits that his hon. Friend omitted. The most interesting part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn was the fact that, he had been at the controls of the Hawk trainer. The Opposition did not know whether to welcome that or to shudder at it, because while we might welcome a by-election in that constituency, we would not be certain about whether that should be at the expense of a Hawk trainer—[Interruption.] I have just assassinated the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in his absence and I trust that he will forgive me.
As for Tucano, I take the point that, now the RAF has got it, we must make the best of it. But we must realise that there are formidable problems to be overcome. We believe that it was the wrong decision, and that is generally accepted on nearly all sides of the House, except the Treasury Bench. The decision has been made, but we want to see proper examination of the faults, if only to show the RAF that we have an interest in the safety of our pilots when they are being trained. I should have thought that that was pretty fundamental.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised several important matters concerning the strategic defence initiative. It is relevant and important to our industry and technologies. These are matters on which the Government are extremely vulnerable when refusing to answer legitimate questions. If we were on the other side of the Atlantic, such questions would be freely asked and answered before select committees of either House. It is quite surprising that, in about a year, when the Congressional hearings are published, we shall probably be able to get the answers to all of these questions. That has happened in the past regarding commitments about nuclear weaponry.
The Government have a great deal to gain by being frank with the House about what they agree with foreign countries and about the content of agreements and contracts. If the greatest capitalist country in the world—the United States—is not afraid of releasing its commercial secrets and saying how much it is paying and the circumstances in which it pays for its defence materials and weapons systems, I see no reason why we should be so secretive.
Nimrod has excited the House today. It was generally accepted that the Secretary of State has been prepared to grasp the nettle and come to conclusions. I hope that we

1027
have had an educative effect on elements of the press and other hon. Members who have not been present today about the importance to our industrial base and to the future of our defence and civil industries of this range of technology. What the Minister said about the agreement reached by the Secretary of State and the company contains the seeds of progress for a decision that will benefit the House, the firm, the country and the RAF. I wonder who are the people in the RAF who are going around saying that they do not, and never did, want Nimrod.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) gave us some of the history in which he played such a notable part and drew attention to the extent to which the technology has changed. It has been advanced and developed by the Nimrod system. Much of what we now take for granted was on the drawing board when my hon. Friend first made the decision and counselled our going ahead with the project. Much of the project had not been finalised by the air staff in its search for the required performance.
There has been general agreement about how we shall proceed with the European fighter aircraft. Because we now have various Tornado contracts, the time for fixing, arranging and ensuring that the EFA is flying should not be allowed to slip. That is of fundamental importance to the firm and to the project. Slippage means money, and it is an extremely expensive project, even when spread among the four principal countries and others with an input.
Because there is competition in the avionics industry here, it is sometimes felt that the industry does not get the support afforded to our foreign competitors. The United States has the present state-of-the-art and it is feared that, if it were to come in on the EFA's avionics, it would be a grave blow to our industry. The Secretary of State must take that into consideration when he advances his criteria for examining defence contracts.
On the matter of Tornado, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) seemed to think that I was carping in my criticism. I am delighted that the Saudis have purchased four Tornados and the PC9. I am glad that we are selling the Tornado to Oman. I hope that we can find other ways of selling it. But that matter is of no concern to me. I like to see our technology being appreciated throughout the world, but the point that we are making is that the decision of the Saudis could not have come at a better time to get the Government off the hook with their tremendous problems in financing their budget. Selling Tornado off the shelf to the Saudis meant that the money did not have to come from the Treasury to the company. Eventually, it will, but that has been postponed to a certain extent. The purchase came in a way that saved the Government's embarrassment about the problems they were facing then and are still facing. It met the lull at Warton by achieving a continuous supply of work there until EFA comes on stream. If that had not been the case, the Government and British Aerospace should have been establishing a new line for Tornado and taking more people on, but they did not do so because they realised that the hole had been plugged.
Mr. Robert Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair about the enormous amount of work done by the
1028
Government, the company and Panavia to ensure that the contract, which was budgeted for by Panavia, came to fruition. It was expected and was part of the line that is now continuing. It is less than fair to say that embarrassment was saved by the contract when it was anticipated.
Mr. McNamara: The degree of anticipation was tempered by who would be granted the communications contract—Ptarmigan or the French. We were helped along by the United States Government as compensation for not getting the battlefield communications contract. The hon. Gentleman must be careful. I do not deny the effort of the company and the Government to get the contract. One would assume that any Government would operate in the same way.
I wish to discuss the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), but not his general thesis that we should reintroduce conscription, which we do not accept. However, we should have strong reserves and we should encourage those who want to join the reserves to do so. I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the problems associated with members of the reserves who find themselves on social security and supplementary benefit.
In his speech the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood drew attention to the consequences of the Government's policy and to what the Secretary of State said in answers to questions. The Secretary of State said that he was considering our commitments in terms not of cancellation, but of the financial consequences of current strategy. He said that a defence review would not be carried out, although consideration of financial consequences appears to me to be a defence review anyway. He outlined our commitments: Trident, NATO, the Brussels treaty, the east Atlantic and the Channel, air defence of the United Kingdom and central front, out-of-area commitments and the counter-terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood believes that because of those commitments we need conscription. I am unsure as to how one can maintain those commitments with the present scale of the Secretary of State's dilemma. They are all strong commitments. They are all fundamental to the Government's strategy.
Although we should examine carefully our out-of-area commitments, there is no question but that the Opposition would support our commitment to NATO, air defence and our need to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland. But the Government cannot have our support on Trident. The Government cannot cover those seven major commitments on their present budget, and it will decrease in coming years. It is impossible for them to maintain the most sophisticated and expensive weapons systems.
No amount of small savings—of the Secretary of State introducing his new criteria for contracts, or introducing some of the business methods of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—will alter the Government's dilemma. They cannot maintain the services that they need—they cannot maintain the RAF that they need—while they maintain the commitment to Trident. One need only consider the expense of some RAF equipment, including the Tornado and the EFA, to know that the budget will not sustain all those demands.
We must get rid of Trident and the independent nuclear deterrent, not for any doctrinaire reason, but because we believe in the safety of Britain and in maintaining a proper

1029
conventional defence. If we do not, the weapon of last resort will become the weapon of first resort because we cannot afford to buy the weapons of first resort.
9.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): As is inevitable, the debate has focused on individual issues and aspects of the Royal Air Force programme. However, it is important not to lose sight of the total contribution which the Royal Air Force makes to the defence of the nation. I agree with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the lack of interest displayed by so many hon. Members in our separate service debates. I do not wish to be excessively partisan about the point, but, with some honourable exceptions, the attendance of Opposition Members in such separate service debates is not substantial. Nor is it from the alliance, although the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was much appreciated and put across in quieter form than the more Ramboesque performance that we normally get from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
Mr. McNamara: The Minister must mean "Chopper".
Mr. Lee: One cannot say that from the Dispatch Box, can one, Mr. Speaker?
It would also be appreciated if defence correspondents took more interest in our separate service debates.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State described the major equipment programmes that are coming to fruition. It would be useful for me to describe how the capabilities which the equipment represents are deployed. In the United Kingdom, our air defence forces of Phantom and Lightning aircraft will be progressively replaced by the air defence marks of Tornado—the F2 and F3—during the next few years. When the process is complete, we shall have seven operational F2 and F3 squadrons and two Phantom squadrons. In parallel with that substantial improvement in our fighter force, we have in progress a major programme of improvements to the chain of radars and command facilities known as the United Kingdom air defence ground equipment. I am happy to draw this to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), but I must emphasise that the programme is a rolling one and will continue for the rest of the decade and beyond. It is on target.
May I also deal with the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and Ynys Mô(Mr. Best) about Hawk. I am happy to confirm that the conversion of Hawk to an air defence role is complete. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that there are no restrictions on flying hours.
Our strike, ground attack and reconnaissance forces in the United Kingdom include three operational squadrons of the Tornado GR1 strike attack aircraft, and squadrons of Jaguars, Harriers and, in the maritime role, Buccaneer. The training units of all those aircraft are based in the United Kingdom. Most have wartime roles.
Our extensive Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft are based at Kinloss, Lossiemouth and St. Mawgan and the operational forces in the United Kingdom also include our tanker and transport forces —TriStar, VC10s, Victors and Hercules—as well as the Chinook, Sea King, Puma and Wessex helicopters in the support and rescue roles.
1030
Our strike attack force in RAF Germany now includes six Tornado GR1 squadrons. In Germany, the Tornado has replaced the Buccaneer and, more recently, the Jaguar. The Jaguar, however, will remain in the reconnaissance role in RAF Germany until it is replaced in due course by the Tornado reconnaissance aircraft.
In the ground attack role, there are two squadrons of Harriers with their unique capability for off-base deployments. That capability will be substantially enhanced when the new Harrier GR5 aircraft enters service later in the decade. I shall refer to that later. Our forces in Germany also include Phantom fighters and Chinook and Puma support helicopters.
In other parts of the world, RAF deployments include detachments of Phantoms in the Falklands, Harriers and helicopters in Belize, and other units in Ascension Island, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Hong Kong.
All told, that is an impressive list of deployments. Even so, it omits important elements of the RAF's capability, for example, the RAF Regiment and commmunications units. I hope that I have said enough, however, to convince the House that, despite the problems it faces, which we have discussed this evening, the RAF remains an effective fighting force with a remarkable range of capabilities and a professionalism to which my hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute in his opening speech.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked four specific questions about Fylingdales. Will the Minister say whether the control is to be by America or the United Kingdom? Who will be responsible for the vetting at Fylingdales from now on?
Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman asked some detailed questions. I was coming to his contribution a little later. I was coming to the subject of Fylingdales and the detailed points that he mentioned about the strategic defence initiative. I undertake carefully to consider what he said and return to him with a detailed reply. I acknowledge receipt of his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the points he made in the Navy debate.
I should like to pay tribute to the interesting speech made by hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about conscription. It has been commented upon by a number of hon. Members. We all heard what he said about conscription, but I must make it clear that the Government have no plans to introduce conscription.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Eccles, (Mr. Carter-Jones) arid my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) referred to the EFA project. It represents a major milestone in European defence industrial collaboration bringing tangible economic and military benefits. It should serve as an example for the collaborative procurement of equipment required for the armed forces of NATO member countries and continue the pattern of much greater standardisation and interoperability within the Alliance set by the Tornado programme.
There is a strong political will in Europe that EFA should succeed. We shall continue to play our full part in the process of striving for a cost-effective collaborative programme based on fair and equitable terms for all partners.
For the development phase it has been agreed that the United Kingdom will receive 33 per cent. of the work. For production, work shares will be based on the number of

1031
aircraft committed by each nation. To answer the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the project management will be Munich based.
British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are in the lead for the United Kingdom but the equipment companies would be involved to a great extent in a programme of such a scale and complexity as EFA.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is the view of the British aerospace industry that there is a need for an urgent meeting between the Defence Ministers of the participating countries to try to resolve some of the relatively small but none the less important difficulties in the development of the project?
Mr. Lee: That would make sense, and I shall bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Wilkinson: Could not the European fighter aircraft be another project for Panavia to manage—of course in this case plus Spain—so that we could develop a family of military aircraft in the way that the airbus consortium is successfully developing a family of civil aircraft?
Mr. Lee: That is one option. As for the French withdrawal from EFA, the United Kingdom and her partners tried very hard indeed to match their differing requirements in one aircraft design. It was a great pity when France decided that its requirement for a smaller, lighter aircraft made it impossible for it to join in the preparation for the project definition phase. The United Kingdom is, however, paying close attention to President Mitterrand's suggestion that reciprocal collaboration between EFA and the French national project—Rafale—be sought. The French Government and the EFA partners are currently discussing the possibilities.
The experimental aircraft programme will demonstrate the integration of technologies needed for any new, sophisticated combat aircraft; the lessons learned from it will have application to many aspects of modern combat aircraft such as EFA. Work is proceeding on schedule, as originally planned, towards the first flight at the end of May 1986.
I confirm once again that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to go to Warton to see the roll-out of the experimental aircraft programme and to view the other fine facilities there. If we were unaware of them, we should be continuously reminded of them by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble. Many hon. Members are looking forward to the first flight of the EAP, which we hope will take place at Farnborough in September 1986.
Almost every hon. Member has referred to the Nimrod AEW, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) came into the Chamber to listen to that part of the debate because of his substantial constituency interest in the Nimrod programme. However, Nimrod was mentioned by virtually every speaker.
As for the details of the arrangements that have been made with GEC Avionics, there is nothing that I can
1032
usefully add to the full account that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave the House when he opened the debate.
As for the other options that we shall be examining, whether from home or from other suppliers, we shall be making available a cardinal points specification request for tender documents to any United States or European company, or consortium of companies, that is interested in bidding. We shall also be consulting the NATO military authorities. I should explain to the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the reason for doing this is that the Nimrod AEW is our contribution, however theoretical at present, to the NATO AEW force. Our interest, in overseas terms, will obviously centre on the Boeing AWACS, the Grumann Hawkeye and the Lockheed Orion.
Some hon. Members are unhappy about the fact that the Government are contemplating American alternatives to the Nimrod AEW programme. They must not prejudge the decision that the Government will be taking later in the year. We shall have fully in mind the kind of considerations to which hon. Members have drawn attention. However, they must remember that we are talking about providing for vital national and NATO defence interests. We do not yet know whether the proposals to be put to us by GEC Avionics within the next six months will meet the needs of the Royal Air Force to an acceptable cost and time scale. It would be wrong if in the meantime we were not examining other means of securing, from either British or foreign suppliers, those vital interests.
Other hon. Members raised various issues connected with the history of the Nimrod project. I have said before in the House that this is a history of which neither we nor the industry can be proud. Today, however, I want to look forward rather than backwards. GEC Avionics has shown its commitment to, and its confidence in, its ability to complete the project satisfactorily. The Government are very anxious that GEC and its employees should have every chance to demonstrate that in the coming months.
Tornado was mentioned by a substantial number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that all nine Tornado GR1 squadrons in the strike attack role have now been formed. Deployment will be completed later this year. A further two squadrons equipped for the reconnaissance role will be formed over the next few years. In the air defence role, a total of seven squadrons will eventually be formed. Instructor training at the operational conversion unit at Coningsby has commenced. Eight Tornado GR1 squadrons will be based in Germany and three in the United Kingdom. All seven squadrons of the air defence variant will be based in the United Kingdom.
The Tornado GR1 is capable of the highest levels of performance in the counter-air, interdiction, offensive air support and reconnaissance roles. The aircraft can exceed 800 knots at sea level and twice the speed of sound at high level. Depending on mission, the GR1 can operate at ranges of up to 750 miles, although this can be extended by air-to-air refuelling. The GR1 is capable of operating at night and in all weathers with its ability to penetrate enemy air defence at low levels and at high speed combined with its highly accurate bombing potential, making it a major improvement in the RAF's offensive capability. Its extensive fit of armaments includes 27 mm cannons, Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, bombs and the JP233 cratering and area denial weapon. They will all be

1033
introduced. The Skyshadow electronic counter-measures pod enhances self-protection and it is also planned to fit air-launched, anti-radiation missiles—ALARM—for defence suppression in 1987.
Since the Tornado GR1 first entered service in RAF operational conversion units, seven aircraft have been lost, with, sadly, the loss of four lives. But I would ask the House to look at this record in its proper perspective. Accident rates for new aircraft during the early stages of their operational life tend to be higher than those which have been in service for some time. There is nothing unusual in the accident rate for the Tornado, which is similar to aircraft such as the Buccaneer and Jaguar at the same stage in their introduction into operational service.
We are procuring 165 Tornado ADV, including three prototypes. to equip seven front-line squadrons. The aircraft will initially carry four Skyflash medium-range air-to-air missiles and two Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles. It is now being modified to carry four Sidewinders. We plan to replace those missiles with advanced weapons in due course, and we are studying the feasibility of increasing the weapon load at the same time.
I can assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that all aircraft in operational squadrons will be fitted with Foxhunter when they are operational. [Interruption.] The clapping behind reminds me that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the attrition buy of Tornados. As he rightly said, we are negotiating for the purchase of nine additional GR1 aircraft. The House will be aware that we lose a certain number of aircraft on peacetime operations. Nine additional aircraft will help to offset those losses and maintain the strength of the Tornado GR1 force. The requirement for further aircraft will be considered as necessary and in the light of the resources available.
I now want to deal with our helicopter requirements. The Minister of State and I took particularly into account the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on the wider ranging use of helicopters. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) also talked about that, as did the hon. Member for Eccles, the hon. Member for Linlithgow, and my hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and for Ynys Môn. We were extremely interested in the feelings of the House about the wider role and increasing importance of helicopters.
In all the discussions surrounding the future of Westland, it is all too easy to lose sight of the military helicopter programmes with which we are concerned. I propose therefore to describe those programmes briefly, and the nature of the service requirements to which they relate.
In European collaboration, there are three major military helicopter programmes in which the United Kingdom is involved. The Anglo-Italian EH101 programme is now well into its full development stage, and the helicopter will enter service with the Royal Navy in the early 1990s. We expect to place the first production orders in about three years' time. Secondly, we have been negotiating on the light attack helicopter for some time with Italy and the Netherlands for the development of the existing Al29 helicopter. A feasibility study is planned to begin this year.
In parallel, the French and Germans have had their own collaborative programme for an attack helicopter, the PAH2. We remain willing to discuss the possibility of
1034
establishing a single combined European attack helicopter programme if the other nations are willing. The third collaborative programme is the NH90—a tactical transport and anti-submarine helicopter—for the mid to late 1990s. The United Kingdom is participating with France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in feasibility studies which we expect will be complete this year. None of the participating nations is yet committed to development or policy for future airmobile operations before firmly established requirements can be produced for future support helicopters.
I now turn to the military requirements to which those helicopters relate. There are firmly established Navy and Army requirements for EH101 and the light attack helicopter respectively. The position on the requirement for future support helicopters is, however, rather more complicated. The original staff target for a replacement for the Wessex and Puma, AST404, was placed in abeyance last year when the Army decided, in the light of experience in a number of trials and exercises, including Exercise Lionheart, that it needed to review its requirements for helicopter support. That review has been in progress for some time, and it has become apparent that the defence staff needs to reconsider its whole approach on light support helicopters and on the larger medium support helicopter, for which the procurement options would include EH101 or an additional purchase of Chinook helicopters.
This is a major task, and it is unlikely that we shall be in a position to announce decisions on the way forward until the early part of next year. In the meantime, it is not possible to say what form any future requirement might take, or whether it will prove to be of sufficient priority to find a place in our forward programme. It is already clear, however, that one of the major issues for consideration is the size of helicopter required. The defence staff will be considering possible requirements for the smaller light support helicopter, for which the NH90 and helicopters such as B1ack Hawk would be possible contenders.
These actual and potential new helicopter programmes and the support of existing types in service provide a clear sign that my Department will be a major customer of the United Kingdom helicopter industry for as far into the future as we can foresee. Support of our current helicopter, for example, is worth about £60 million per year. That business will of course continue. In addition, orders for Sea King and Lynx to the value of £40 million were placed last year. The Ministry of Defence and Westland have worked closely and successfully together for many years now, and I am sure that the close working relationship will continue.
Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point? If somebody produces an air staff target, is it not assumed that it is the considered opinion of the air staff that that is what it wants and requires? If a company then produces a model to fit that requirement, is it not reasonable for it to expect that it will get the orders?
Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is partly right. However, it was a target, not a requirement. I can only repeat that the services needed to reconsider their requirement after the experience of exercises, particularly Lionheart.
Mr. Best: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the only review necessary is a review of how much more is needed, because that is the only feasible way in which it can move? Secondly, is he telling the House that these matters have not been fully canvassed and there have not been reviews, discussions and submissions made as to the requirements? Are we really starting de novo?
Mr. Lee: I can understand the unhappiness of the House, but we are talking about an evolving threat and the wider role that my hon. Friend and many hon. Members were asking from us. That is the dilemma that the staffs are examining.
It is also worth mentioning that, throughout Westland's period of difficulties, the Government have continued to do everything possible to promote the sale of Westland products overseas. I was discussing a possible sale in Malaysia last week, and I was involved in discussions in Zimbabwe last year.
From the point of view of the services, as indeed of the country as a whole, our concern must now be to wish Westland well in its reconstruction. Westland remains the only British helicopter development and manufacturing company, and the principal supplier of helicopters to our Armed Forces. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, we shall be doing all that we can to ensure that Westland's position and capabilities continue to be recognised fully in the international market place.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member will recall that I spoke earlier about Westland and the six undisclosed shareholders. Can he now answer the question put in the Select Committee on Defence this morning? If the six undisclosed shareholders are revealed to be friends of Sikorsky, and were acting in collaboration with it, does Sikorsky then have to make a takeover bid?
Mr. Lee: With the greatest respect, that is a matter for the stock exchange, and detailed interpretation and examination of company law. My understanding is that the beneficial ownership that lies behind those six nominees has not been established.
Mr. Wallace: A number of hon. Members in this debate, and indeed in the debate on the Army, raised the question of helicopters and the divided service operation of helicopters. Can the Minister say whether his Department has considered that and whether it intends to review the position with a view to one service operating helicopters?
Mr. Lee: The whole area of the future requirements for helicopters is being examined at present; the hon. Gentleman's point is being taken into account.
The question of the trainer was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Eccles. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn for telling the House that he would not refer to Firecracker this evening. I hope that he will not take us through his points in favour of fluoride.
The decisive factor in our choice of the Tucano over the BAe PC9 was cost. Both aircraft were judged capable of meeting the RAF's requirements very satisfactorily, and both held out prospects of creating similar numbers of jobs in the United Kingdom. The offer from Shorts was cheaper
1036
by a clear margin than the BAe tender, and the Pratt and Whitney PT6A-62 engine was judged to be more expensive to operate than the Garrett engine which is to power the Tucano.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood said, the Tucano has completed six hours of test flying, involving a full evaluation of the basic flying and handling characteristics. The test pilots are delighted with the aircraft's performance. I hope to visit Brazil at the end of April and to visit Embraer to see the progress that is being made.
The delay in the programme is primarily due to Shorts experiencing difficulties in recruiting experienced staff and the company has only recently resolved an industrial dispute. We are satisfied that the delay does not imply any technical problems in the programme. The slippage will not lead to any additional costs to the Ministry of Defence. The delay is in fact to be for a few months duration. It will certainly not be anything like two years which, with the greatest respect, was a gross exaggeration by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
It was a pleasure to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I will inevitably deal with a number of his points later. However, in terms of the name, I must say that I am sorry to disappoint him—he does not deserve this after the speech that he made—but we intend that the trainer should be called the Tucano trainer.
In answer to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, I have been to see the Trago Mills trainer in action and it is very impressive. The Buccaneer has been eagerly awaited by certain hon. Members. In the maritime strike attack role, the Buccaneer's capability for low-level attack on enemy ships is being improved by the introduction into service later this year of the Sea Eagle anti-surface ship missile. The Buccaneer can also be armed with laser-guided bombs.
Buccaneers will be maintained in the maritime strike attack role well into the next decade. It is planned to run-on two squadrons of Buccaneer aircraft in the maritime strike attack role into the 1990s. The avionics update is currently taking place on no fewer than 42 Buccaneers.
All five of RAF Germany's Jaguar squadrons will be replaced by the more capable and advanced Tornado GR1. The aircraft withdrawn from Germany will be absorbed into the force that we intend to run-on in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North raised the question of identification friend or foe. I am happy to say that the protracted discussions in NATO on the new system have now resulted in agreement on a common standard following the recent agreement in NATO on the standard of future IFF equipment. We are taking steps to implement the next stage of our programme. We expect to be in a position to reach decisions on the way forward shortly.
The RAF Regiment was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and for Dumfries. The likelihood of an attack on our airfields in wartime is high and a wide variety of measures have been taken to ensure survivability and the continuance of air operations. These include the hardening of aircraft and personnel shelters and the base installations. Furthermore,

1037
a Royal Engineers squadron is provided for each RAF Germany airfield for rapid runway repair and the maintenance of essential services.
RAF Germany's four airfields are defended from air attack by Rapier surface-to-air missiles supported by Blindfire radar, and ground defence is provided by the 300 officers and 2,500 men of the RAF Regiment.
The regiment's main roles are ground defence and low-level air defence of RAF installations. Most bases have a small regiment staff to train their RAF personnel in the basic skills of ground defence. The more demanding defence tasks are carried out by six regular light armoured squadrons and six auxiliary field squadrons. The low-level air defence tasks are carried out by six regular Rapier-equipped squadrons and by one auxiliary squadron equipped with the Skyguard system captured during the Falklands campaign. There are plans to increase the auxiliary force to 21 squadrons over the next decade.
The regiment also provides three Rapier squadrons in the United Kingdom for the United States air force. This programme is funded by the United States. Current regiment detachments include a Rapier squadron in the Falklands, half a Rapier squadron in Belize and a light armoured squadron in Northern Ireland.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland)
10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.
The order consolidates the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the subsequent provisions amending that order. The principal amending provisions are contained in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Orders of 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1984.
The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which became law in August 1972, established five area education and library boards. Among other things, the boards provide primary and secondary schools, special schools for handicapped pupils requiring special educational treatment and institutions of further education. They make contributions towards the cost of maintaining voluntary schools, provide transport for pupils and enforce school attendance. In addition, they regulate the employment of children and young persons, and secure the provision of recreational and youth service facilities. Boards are also required to develop a comprehensive and efficient library service for persons living, working or undertaking courses of education in their areas.
The five boards are representative of locally elected district councillors, transferors of the school and maintained school authorities, teachers and other persons appointed by reason of their interest in or knowledge of the services for which the boards are responsible.
The 1972 order has been extensively amended by the other orders to which I referred and as a consequence has become difficult to read. This consolidation order brings the 1972 order and all the amendments together in one enactment.
A commitment to consolidate these orders was given in May 1984 by the then Secretary of State in his response to the Speaker of the Assembly about the Assembly's report on the proposal for a draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. Recommendation No. 22 of that report called for a commitment to publish a consolidation order early in 1986. We believe that the time is now right to introduce this consolidation measure as the whole of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 is now in operation. Its final provisions—relating to children with special educational needs—were brought into operation on 1 January this year.
The Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament enable Northern Ireland Consolidation orders to be referred automatically to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. The Joint Committee considered the draft order on 4 December 1985 and is of the opinion that it is a purely consolidation measure. It makes no changes of substance in the existing law but brings it together in one order. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
10.4 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: Within my short speech I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. I enjoy the success of other

1039
people and I enjoy the success of other hon. Members. It is with genuine pleasure that I make my remarks. The next general election is, fortunately, a long way from our thoughts tonight. I do hope that the Minister will not find himself on permanent night shift in this House on Northern Ireland business, notwithstanding talks on a higher altitude than those between us.
The order before the House is a consolidation measure, the family tree of which goes back to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The 1972 order was part consolidation and part new matter, that is, the establishment of education and library boards in place of the system that had existed until that date. The 1972 order was followed by a number of amending orders, to which the Minister has referred, concluding with the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. The Minister also mentioned the orders of 1976 and 1978.
The 1984 order made a number of miscellaneous amendments including amendments expressly designed to anticipate the consolidation now sought to be made. The whole of the 1984 order is now in operation, except for certain articles which came into force on 1 January of this year, pursuant to the commencement order.
As I understand it, on 1 January this year the whole of the 1984 order and the whole of the order preceding it, which goes back to 1972, is now in operation. The Minister referred briefly to special education needs. He also referred to the five boards of locally elected district councillors and to primary and secondary schools. The Opposition has a great deal to say about education in Northern Ireland but, given the rigid confines of this debate, this is not the time to embark upon them.
As a courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, I therefore do not tarry. We shall not divide the House — not with the serried ranks behind me. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Dr. Mawhinney: With the leave of the House I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and generous comments of a personal nature.
Question put and agreed.
Resolved,
That the draft Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 16th December 1983 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Members' Interests be amended, by leaving out Mr. Paddy Ashdown and Mr. Gregor MacKenzie and inserting Mr. Jim Craigen and Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.—[Mr. Neubert.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Motions 4 to 11 inclusive are on behalf of the Committee of Selection. With the agreement of the House, I shall put them together.
Ordered,

SELECT COMMITTEES
  WELSH AFFAIRS
  That Dr. John Marek and Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Geraint Howells and Mr. Ian Grist be added.
  EMPLOYMENT
  That Mr. Gordon Brown and Mr. Gerrard Neale be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Eric Forth be added.
  That Mr. Kevin Barron be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. William O'Brien be added.
  That Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. David Howell be added.
  That Sir John Stradling Thomas be added to the Trade and Industry Committee.
  That Mr. Roger Freeman be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Mr. John Watts be added.
  That Mr. Robin Corbett be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. David Clelland be added.
  ENVIRONMENT
  That Mr. Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Richard Holt be added.—[Sir Michael Shaw on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Employment (Nuneaton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10.7 pm
Mr. Lewis Stevens: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the unemployment level in my constituency which could be worsened by the proposed closure of an iron foundry at Sterling Metals, with the potential loss of 700 jobs. I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment is here to reply. This is my first opportunity to speak with him on the Front Bench.
The proposed closure of the iron foundry with the subsequent loss of 700 jobs raises several issues. I shall deal with the origins of the closure and the effects it will have in my area. The impact of the redundancies must be taken in the context of the travel to work area of Coventry and Hinckley and not just in my constituency. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) is in the Chamber, and I know that, if his office did not prevent him, he would share my concern and support me in the debate.
The unemployment rate is 15·7 per cent., and male unemployment is about 50 per cent. higher than female unemployment. That is similar to the west midlands average of 15 to 16 per cent. All 700 redundancies would not be in my constituency, but they would have a significant impact on an already high unemployment rate. Recently the general position has to some extent improved. In my constituency we had a 12 per cent. improvement between December 1984 and December 1985 which amounts to about 600 jobs. They will be virtually wiped out by the closure, if it occurs.
The foundry industry has obvious peculiarities. It is an old industry and mainly male dominated. Therefore, most of the redundancies would he among male workers with a skill which is not easily translated to other industries. Certainly, the retraining facilities available would help people to find new jobs, but as there will be so many of them, their needs must be considered specifically.
As the foundry industry has declined, those people cannot expect to find jobs within the industry either locally or further afield. That puts them in a special position. The magnitude of the disaster locally would be more than one might initially imagine. There are only a few companies of that size in the immediate area, and the company would be reduced to 400 people.
The foundry industry faces fierce competition from abroad. A few months ago we expected an investment of £5 million in the foundry which would have been welcome and given it a future. The bombshell out of the blue was to find that, instead of that substantial investment, we were to face closure. It has been put down to the fierce competition from abroad, including so-called subsidised competition from Spain, Brazil and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to investigate the matter again. It is not a new problem because it was raised with the Government in May 1983 by the Association of Major Casting Manufacturers, but no action appeared to come from that.
The company makes the decision on its commercial viability. The foundry lost £500,000 last year, and because of price difficulties it is not thought to be viable in future. That is extremely worrying. It bears out the association's
1042
point that many automotive foundries have been closed, but continuing contraction will result, not in the rationalisation of duplicated facilities, but in the elimination of specialised plants. The plant is largely concerned with the tractor industry. It is the last independent casting unit for selling blocks in the United Kingdom. There will inevitably be a transfer of more work abroad, which will raise our imports. The penetration of imports is considerable.
In answer to a parliamentary question recently my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade gave me figures which showed that between 1978 and 1984 the imports from Spain increased 5·5 times, and from West Germany 2·5 times. There are now imports from Brazil and that means another competitor.
The foundry faces fierce competition, but it is a high quality foundry and its customers are prepared to continue taking supplies from the company, admittedly at the correct price—a price that they think they can afford. As a consequence, we are not talking about a lack of work, skill or facilities. Although investment is needed we are dealing with the viability of the foundry.
I ask my hon. Friend to pass on to his colleagues and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry the hope that they will make every effort, and perhaps a special effort, to help the company to consider possible restructuring of the facilities. That could save, if not all, at least a lot of the jobs. It is also reported that there is a possibility of interest in a takeover for the foundry, and I ask the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to give serious and careful consideration to the possibility of help by way of advice and financial support to anyone who keep the foundry open.
A considerable amount of restructuring may be necessary and that may involve help over an interim period to restructure and try to make the foundry viable again. I am not asking for unlimited and indefinite resources for the industry, because it is largely for commercial interests to take a decision, but help from Government sources could avert the closure and give an opportunity for the foundry to be reorganised or restructured financially. That would save some of those jobs and leave a viable iron foundry in the area. It is a worthwhile cause because our foundry industry has gradually been eroded by foreign competition, and more and more of our foundry work goes overseas. The jobs lost are never replaced, although the work is still needed.
My request is for any possible help that the Government can give, especially from the Department of Trade and Industry, to save the foundry or at least to provide an opportunity to discuss the possibility of saving the jobs of the people at the foundry. If that does not happen, 700 jobs will go and in many cases it will be difficult for people to transfer to other work. That will put a serious load on the budgets for unemployment and possibly on the budgets for social security as well. That must be balanced against the money which could be used to support the foundry for a short time.
It is necessary in this case for the Department of Employment to consider giving some special attention to the needs of people affected by this sort of redundancy. The people who may be made redundant have good skills and are retrainable, but many of them have been in that type of manual industry for many years and there are few comparable industries in my area, in neighbouring areas or elsewhere in the west midlands. The benefits we have

1043
had in recent years have come from small companies setting up and taking advantage of Government schemes and local help. We have had some considerable success, but those are largely small companies who employ a few people and only gradually get bigger. The substantial effect of such numbers as these wipes out that advantage.
People need advice on what is available to them by way of retraining and new careers. It will be helpful if my hon. Friend can say that some special help will be available. Certainly my local department could not cope easily with that number of people coming to it so quickly.
We have an iron foundry which produces for the tractor industry. It is successful in the quality of its production and the satisfaction that it gives to customers. It has competed successfully in the market, particularly in West Germany, and so it must have some future, either by takeover or in some other way, perhaps restructured and losing some jobs.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friends at the Department of Trade and Industry will do everything that they possibly can to explore the possibilities that exist and to give the foundry any support that they can. If the foundry cannot be saved I ask that every effort will be made to give the best help and advice to those who would suffer from redundancy.
10.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) has described in great detail the problems which his constituency faces and how they will be exacerbated if Sterling Metals, one of Nuneaton's major employers, closes its iron foundry. I fully accept the seriousness of Nuneaton's unemployment problem and I sympathise with my hon. Friend's genuine concern. I have listened carefully to the points that he has made and I shall try to answer as many of them as possible. I, too, welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) in view of the close interest that he also has been taking in this matter.
My hon. Friends' concern about Sterling Metals is entirely understandable. The Sterling Metals iron foundry employs 700 of their constituents and near neighbours and is the only independent United Kingdom foundry producing cylinder blocks for high-speed diesel engines. I understand that Birmid Qualcast has re-appraised its operations and has decided that the market outlook does not justify the investment needed to enable the foundry to survive and meet the requirements of new diesel engine designs.
Demand for castings has fallen sharply over recent years and the diesel engine sector has been particularly hard hit. The downturn in demand for castings reflects the general downturn in the principal customers, especially automobiles and construction, and is being felt by other component producers such as the drop forging companies. I understand that Birmid Qualcast expects demand for the Sterling foundry's cylinder blocks to fall by 5,000 tonnes to 30,000 tonnes a year by the end of 1986.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nunneaton mentioned competition from Spain and Brazil. I do not dispute that imports from countries such as Spain and Brazil have had a detrimental effect on Sterling Metals, but they are not solely to blame. My hon. Friend will doubtless be aware
1044
that we cannot prevent the Brazilian Government from subsidising their foundry industry as they wish. However, foundries, like any other industrial sector, have recourse to the anti-dumping procedures, where imports from non-EC countries are concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can provide guidance on how complaints might be made to the Commission. My hon. Friend might like to raise that with him.
As far as Spain is concerned, it is now an EC member state and from 1 January 1986 became subject to new disciplines regarding state aids to industry. The state aids provisions of the Treaty of Rome give the Commission powers to investigate and, if appropriate, require the withdrawal of state aids which distort competition in intra-Community trade.
Spain has now altered her turnover tax system to remove the element of export subsidy. If there are other forms of subsidy involved the industry will need to present some evidence of them in order to give the Commission grounds to investigate. We have pressed the Commission to ensure that Spain complies with the state aid rules from the outset. If the United Kingdom foundry industry produces evidence of state aids being granted since 1 January 1986, we shall consider pursuing the question with the Commission. The loss of 700 jobs at Sterling Metals is very regrettable, but I have to say that that decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the company based on its view of the market outlook.
As I think my hon. Friend knows from his recent meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, we made an offer of £600,000 assistance under the Industrial Development Act towards the modernisation of the foundry. However, Birmid Qualcast decided not to proceed with the investment.
Further discussions could be held if a way could be found of maintaining the operation—for example, by way of a buy-out. Again, this is, of course, a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I understand that it would be willing to consider providing assistance for a buy-out providing a commercially viable plan were put forward.
If the management and/or the work force at Sterling Metals are considering a buy-out, I would urge them to consult the West Midlands regional office of DTI—which would be willing to help and advise—at the earliest opportunity.
I realise that in the event of redundancy, some of the work force may have difficulty in finding new jobs, and I can assure them through my hon. Friend that all the facilities of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to help them in their search for work or retraining. When I refer to work, I include self-employment.
But apart from the immediate effects on the work force, I acknowledge that the closure will represent a further reduction of job opportunities in Nuneaton, and I know the area already has high unemployment. I was in the West Midlands myself earlier this week. The problem of unemployment is one of the most serious facing not only this country, but the whole industrialised world. Unemployment in Britain has been rising for 20 years and the west midlands—our industrial heartland—has been especially hard hit by the recent recession and by market shifts.

1045
The historical reasons are well known. Our industries were overmanned, our work force was undertrained. We were slow to adapt to market changes and to new production methods. We became steadily less competitive, with the result that firms throughout the country which could not sell their goods had to close down or shed jobs. We have had to undergo a change from the old industrial pattern to new technologies and advanced manufacturing.
In the case of Nuneaton, the traditional manufacturing industries of textiles and metal bashing have declined, and the town has had to adapt to a more service-orientated economy. Nuneaton enjoys a good location at the centre of the Midlands motorway network, and its position has aready been exploited by several distribution companies. The M42 link road which has recently opened on the outskirts of Nuneaton could generate further interest.
I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend is overstating Nuneaton's problems. It is not easy to adjust to major changes in market conditions. However, we must not constantly look on the black side. Companies in Nuneaton are winning contracts and new jobs are being created there.
The Galliford group, a local construction company, won contracts worth £35 million throughout the country during the latter half of 1985. Sainsburys intends to replace its existing supermarket with a superstore next year. Creating 200 new jobs, and ASDA is also planning a superstore in Nuneaton which could bring over 300 jobs.
Despite the difficult times. People are finding work: 3,000 people have been placed in jobs through Nuneaton jobcentre alone since April last year, and many more will have found jobs by other means. Unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency fell between January 1985 and January 1986. These are welcome and encouraging signs which go some way to offset the bad news.
Clearly, much more needs to be done, and the Government have a role in encouraging positive change. One of the ways in which we can help is by providing incentives to attract investment to areas with severe economic problems. Nuneaton is part of the Coventry travel-to-work area which received assisted area status in November 1984. Since then, companies moving into Nuneaton or expanding their existing operations have received offers of over £1 million in regional aid. This money has helped to create some 200 new jobs and safeguard 500 existing ones.
This is a sizeable amount of Government assistance, which is focused directly on job creation. The review of regional policy in 1984 led to a new system of regional aid focused on job creation rather than encouraging capital-intensive investment, and some service sector activities became eligible for regional aid for the first time. We cannot create the jobs that are needed in Nuneaton. But through regional aid we can, and do, help those areas worst affected by unemployment to attract the investment that does.
I mentioned self-employment earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that we do all that we can to encourage people to think beyond "who will employ me?" We set up the enterprise allowance scheme to help unemployed people who wished to start their own businesses by providing a weekly allowance in the difficult initial period. The scheme has been expanded by 15,000 places nationally this year, and the qualifying period of unemployment is to be reduced from 13 to eight weeks.
1046
As a result of the expansion, the MSC will he able to provide support to nearly 1,000 people in Coventry and Warwickshire in 1985–86–8 per cent. more than last year. Some 70 people are currently receiving the allowance in Nuneaton, and ample funds are available to meet demand. One small engineering company in Nuneaton, which my hon. Friend might know, which began with help from the scheme now employs 17 people and has a £500,000 turnover. The Manpower Services Commission would welcome increased participation in the scheme throughout Coventry and Warwickshire.
We are deeply conscious of the potential of the small firms sector in creating employment opportunities, and we have done a great deal to encourage the growth of small firms by reducing the burden of form filling and simplifying planning procedures. We announced further measures to help small firms last November, including £2·5 million next year in support of local enterprise agencies. We run small firms centres, which provide the advice of experienced businessmen to potential and established small firms, and the centres have close links with local enterprise agencies and small business clubs.
I understand that Warwickshire county council is building starter units at the Hammond business centre in Nuneaton, and that some private sector firms are also building and refurbishing units for small businesses. These, and the presence of the Warwickshire enterprise agency, are encouraging signs of new initiatives in the local economy with significant job creation potential.
Enthusiasm and effort are essential if enterprise is to succeed, but advice and training are also vital. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise that. The Manpower Services Commission is funding a wide range of courses designed to meet the needs of small businesses through the training for enterprise programme.
The adult training strategy, on which we are spending £260 million this year, is intended to make training more widespread, more flexible, and more relevant to labour market needs. We are living in a time of change—indeed, another industrial revolution—and people at all levels need access to training and retraining. We are helping more than 3,000 people in Coventry and Warwickshire through our locally delivered training programmes this year, compared with under 2,000 last year.
Training is particularly important for young people. They, and the long-term unemployed, have been hard hit by the recession. Young people straight from school or college have no proven work skills or experience to help them find jobs and it is this problem which YTS—one of our most successful measures—addresses. The £835 million that we are spending on YTS this year represents a massive investment in young people's future.
The extension of YTS to two years from April is a major step towards ensuring that all young people under 18 are either in jobs, in full-time education, or receiving high-quality training. In other words, unemployment need not be an option for them. There is a good deal of enthusiasm for the two-year scheme, in Nuneaton and throughout the west midlands, and the MSC does not envisage any major difficulties in providing enough places.
Another of my Department's priorities is helping the long-term unemployed. The unemployment rate in the Coventry travel-to-work area is too high—although, as my hon. Friend knows, it is lower than the average for the

1047
west midlands region, and it will take time for it to come down. Steps need to be taken now to deal with the worrying problem of long-term unemployment, however.
The community programme, our major scheme to help the long-term unemployed, has been expanded by 100,000 places nationally this year, and the MSC is providing 3,400 places in Coventry and Warwickshire this year—over 1,000 more than last year. The Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council and North Warwickshire Projects (1985) Ltd. are only two of the managing agents providing quality places in Nuneaton and the surrounding area. My hon. Friend will recall that projects funded by the community programme benefit local communities as well as the people employed on them.
1048
Nuneaton, like many communities in the midlands and elsewhere, is indeed facing problems arising from the decline of its traditional industries. The Government have shown their concern in many practical ways, and I have talked briefly about regional aid and our employment and training measures. This all represents a significant commitment to the regeneration of this part of the country.
Adapting to change is never easy but, with the Government's support, the efforts of the people of Nuneaton are beginning to pay off. We have done a great deal to help Nuneaton, and we shall continue to do all that we can.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o' clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Poplars, Blunham
  Poplars, Blunham
  Farmers (Support System)
  Farmers (Support System)
  Animal Welfare (Report)
  Animal Welfare (Report)
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Plant Breeding
  Plant Breeding
  Sheep Farming (Damage by Dogs)
  Sheep Farming (Damage by Dogs)
  Agriculture Council
  Agriculture Council
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Lignite
  Lignite
  Down Development Plan
  Down Development Plan
  Plant Breeding
  Plant Breeding
  Colleges of Education (Students)
  Colleges of Education (Students)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Entrapment
  Entrapment
  Public Order Law (Reform)
  Public Order Law (Reform)
  Driving Offences
  Driving Offences
  Procurators Fiscal
  Procurators Fiscal
  Summary Cases (Trials)
  Summary Cases (Trials)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Bills (Standing Order No. 15)
  Bills (Standing Order No. 15)
  Government Bills
  Government Bills
ENVIRONMENT
  Disabled Council Tenants
  Disabled Council Tenants
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Local Authority Dwellings and Derelict Land
  Local Authority Dwellings and Derelict Land
  Southwark Law Project
  Southwark Law Project
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Reading (Urban Aid)
  Reading (Urban Aid)
  News International Planning Permission
  News International Planning Permission
  Local Government Act 1985
  Local Government Act 1985
  Watercourses (Mercury Contamination)
  Watercourses (Mercury Contamination)
PRIME MINISTER
  Education Policies
  Education Policies
WALES
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Forestry Commission Land
  Forestry Commission Land
ENERGY
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Higher and Further Education
  Higher and Further Education
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Job Start Scheme
  Job Start Scheme
  Community Industry
  Community Industry
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Clergy Marriages
  Clergy Marriages
DEFENCE
  Radiation Illness, Coulport
  Radiation Illness, Coulport
  Apprentices (Rosyth)
  Apprentices (Rosyth)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  IBA (Levies)
  IBA (Levies)
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
  Police Computers
  Police Computers
  Police Statistics (Reading)
  Police Statistics (Reading)
  Immigration Service, Heathrow
  Immigration Service, Heathrow
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Styal Prison
  Styal Prison
  Glen Parva Young Offenders Centre
  Glen Parva Young Offenders Centre
  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Interception of Communications Act 1985
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Assisted Places
  Assisted Places
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Governors
  Governors
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  EC (United States Manufacturing Clause)
  EC (United States Manufacturing Clause)
  United States Export Regulations
  United States Export Regulations
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Vehicles (Consumer Protection)
  Vehicles (Consumer Protection)
  Hall Russell Shipbuilders
  Hall Russell Shipbuilders
  Telephone Network (Pornography)
  Telephone Network (Pornography)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
SCOTLAND
  Lochaber
  Lochaber
  Rating (Single Householders)
  Rating (Single Householders)
  Teachers' Dispute
  Teachers' Dispute
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Economic Activity
  Economic Activity
  Whisky Industry
  Whisky Industry
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Health Boards (Houses)
  Health Boards (Houses)
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  "Paying for Local Government"
  "Paying for Local Government"
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Rural Aid Fund
  Rural Aid Fund
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Drunken Driving
  Drunken Driving
  Electronics and Computer Industry
  Electronics and Computer Industry
  Highlands and Islands (Employment)
  Highlands and Islands (Employment)
  Coats Patons Ltd.
  Coats Patons Ltd.
  National Union of Mineworkers
  National Union of Mineworkers
  Crofters (Fencing Grants)
  Crofters (Fencing Grants)
  Cancer Research (Damon Biotech)
  Cancer Research (Damon Biotech)
  Soil Research Stations
  Soil Research Stations
  White Fronted Geese
  White Fronted Geese
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Food Premises (Registration)
  Food Premises (Registration)
  Milk
  Milk
  Housing
  Housing
  Plant Breeding
  Plant Breeding
  ASH (Grant-in-Aid)
  ASH (Grant-in-Aid)
  Examinations (Markers)
  Examinations (Markers)
  Forth Road Bridge
  Forth Road Bridge
  Education (Standard and Higher Grades)
  Education (Standard and Higher Grades)
THE ARTS
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Export of Works of Art
  Export of Works of Art
CIVIL SERVICE
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Customs and Excise (Heathrow)
  Customs and Excise (Heathrow)
  Budget Documents
  Budget Documents
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Departmental Purchasing Policy
  Departmental Purchasing Policy
  Caraballeda Declaration
  Caraballeda Declaration
  Occupied Countries
  Occupied Countries
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
TRANSPORT
  Spare Wheels
  Spare Wheels
  DVLC
  DVLC
  Motorways (Lighting)
  Motorways (Lighting)
  M25 (Opening Dates)
  M25 (Opening Dates)
  Heathrow Airport (Passenger Statistics)
  Heathrow Airport (Passenger Statistics)
  Tyres
  Tyres
  M12 (Woodford-Brentwood)
  M12 (Woodford-Brentwood)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Flight DA 7045 (Radioactive Cargo)
  Flight DA 7045 (Radioactive Cargo)
  M25 (Resurfacing)
  M25 (Resurfacing)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs (Review)
  Drugs (Review)
  Life Expectancy
  Life Expectancy
  Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (Tests)
  Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (Tests)
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Hospital and Community Health Service
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Hospitals (Costs)
  Hospitals (Costs)
  RU 486 Abortive Drug
  RU 486 Abortive Drug
  Form F1D
  Form F1D
  Dental Estimates Board
  Dental Estimates Board
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  Oxford Regional Health Authority
  NHS (Managers)
  NHS (Managers)
  New Hospitals (Berkshire)
  New Hospitals (Berkshire)
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Drugs (Parallel Importers)
  Drugs (Parallel Importers)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dentists (Service Committee Hearings)
  Dentists (Service Committee Hearings)
  Teeth (Filling Materials)
  Teeth (Filling Materials)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Social Security Offices (Staff)
  Social Security Offices (Staff)
  NHS Spectacles
  NHS Spectacles
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Benefits (Indexation)
  Benefits (Indexation)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Oswestry Hospital (Casualty Department)
  Oswestry Hospital (Casualty Department)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Pregnancy and Abortion Referral Agencies
  Pregnancy and Abortion Referral Agencies
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Disabled People (Consultation Papers)
  Disabled People (Consultation Papers)
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Residential Care Homes
  Residential Care Homes
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Alzheimer's Disease

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

Civil Defence: Local Authority Plans
Lord Renton: 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 to what extent local authorities in England and Wales, and in Scotland, are carrying out their responsibilities under the Civil Defence Regulations 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we know that there is a wide variation in performance. An assessment is in hand of plans made under the 1983 regulations by local authorities in Great Britain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him what is going to be done about those local authorities which have not yet submitted plans under the statutory obligation that they should have observed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, officials have now written to those authorities which have failed to submit plans as requested, making it clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State now requires copies of their plans and that if they are not forthcoming we will consider withholding civil defence grant.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, what sanctions does my noble friend's right honourable friend have in the event that people do not respond?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I gave the answer to that just now to my noble friend when I said that my right honourable friend could require the withholding of civil defence grant. It is important that we have as full information as possible about the state of preparedness throughout the country. The Government are determined to ensure that all local authorities meet their obligations under the regulations and we shall take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the Government are so determined, is it not plain that some much more effective sanction than the mere withholding of the defence grant will be required? What more effective sanctions have the Government in mind?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is important to complete the assessment first. We will bear in mind the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does this apply to authorities that have declared themselves nuclear-free zones?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it applies to all authorities.

Sadler's Wells Theatre: Funding
2.40 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: 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 the latest developments are concerning the future of Sadler's Wells Theatre.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Arts Council are discussing with the theatre ways in which the Greater London Council's contribution to its funding can be replaced. The council has already agreed to increase its funding of the three main dance companies which use Sadler's Wells, in order that they can pay full economic rents to the theatre. My right honourable friend hopes and believes that this, together with the money that the theatre has raised, and is continuing to raise from other sources, will enable the theatre to remain open.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that encouraging reply and express appreciation of what is being done; but may I also be churlish enough to point out that this amount does not look like being enough? Would the Minister not agree that, for a theatre of such renown as Sadler's Wells, some more permanent, steady and stable funding is required than these comparatively makeshift manoeuvres?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether this was enough. This of course is a matter between the Arts Council and the theatre; but I think I ought to point out that the sum of £267,000, which I understand the theatre says that it is seeking for the next financial year, includes £50,000 for a new studio theatre which is not yet complete, and a further £53,000 which would be needed to replace the loss of a major sponsor. The GLC's grant to the theatre for this year is £150,000. So far as concerns the long-term future, this and ways in which the theatre can raise its finances is a matter for the Arts Council.
Lord Alport: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, whatever may be the funds that are becoming available from the Arts Council and from private sources, and whatever the theatre is able to raise for itself, the Government undertake that the Sadler's Wells theatre, which is a most important element in the theatre and artistic life of London, will remain open and active during the period ahead?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I made absolutely clear on the last occasion when we discussed this matter that if anything of that kind were to befall Sadler's Wells no one would be more dismayed than the Government. If

1043
I may say so, I think that we have made a generous allocation available to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding. It is clear from my original Answer that the Arts Council are now moving in the direction of making more funding available to the theatre and I think that the negotiations therefore are hopeful.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, even with the amount that has been given by the Arts Council, is it not true that Sadler's Wells will only be secure until 12th July of this year? Does the noble Lord also appreciate that if Sadler's Wells has to close down, the theatre will be liable to repay the residuary body which is replacing the GLC the sum of £502,000 which has already been spent on building the new studio, and that if this comes about it will bring Sadler's Wells to irretrievable ruin?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that we should talk about irretrievable ruin. The original Answer that I have given points in precisely the opposite direction. Regarding repayments to the London residuary body, I must confess that I am not in any way aware that that could be the position if the hypothetical situation which the noble Baroness puts to me were to occur. But I repeat that I think the situation is hopeful.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Islington Borough Council, which is the successor authority, has refused all help to Sadler's Wells; and, if this is so, whether the Government foresaw this as one of the consequences of abolition of the GLC?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I understand it, Islington Borough Council, which will have a grant of £11 million more than it has for the present financial year in order to cope with its post-abolition responsibilities, is maintaining a policy of masterly inactivity.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Sadler's Wells will still be available for the Chinese Dance Company when they come over in the autumn in connection with the state visit to the Republic of China?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, arrangements for that visit are proceeding.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the noble Lord has chosen to cast an aspersion on Islington local authority, will he not agree that one of the consequences of abolishing an all-London authority is to place upon borough authorities responsibilities which they are ill-fitted to assume? Is it not the case that if Islington were to fund to the extent which has been suggested it would probably be in trouble with the auditor, because it would be said that only a very small proportion of the audience at Sadler's Wells actually comes from Islington? So the Government hit it both ways: they are critical if it fails to fund and they shoot it down in flames if it does.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in addition to an additional £11 million which Islington Borough
1044
Council has in order to fulfil its post-abolition funding, it is of course relieved of precepts for arts matters in Greater London. Therefore Islington is benefiting in two ways financially from the abolition of the GLC. I can only repeat that so far as I can see the local authority is adopting a policy of masterly inactivity. As to whether that means it is fitted or ill-fitted to fulfil its responsibilities, I think the House had better judge.

Nuclear Weapons: Soviet Proposals
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have completed their study of Mr. Gorbachev's proposals to free the world of nuclear weapons within the next 15 years, and, if so, whether they consider that they provide an opportunity to rid humanity of the fear of nuclear disaster.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords. Mr. Gorbachev's proposals are still under examination. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be replying to him shortly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that it is somewhat urgent that the Prime Minister should now do so? Is the Minister aware that Mr. Gorbachev in his speech yesterday seemed to be deeply depressed by President Reagan's response in so far as there has been one, from his point of view? He said, as I understand from the press notices, that Western politicians will have to answer the question: are they prepared to part with nuclear weapons at all? Is it not the case that the suspicion is arising that so far as the West is concerned there are no circumstances in which they would be prepared to part with nuclear weapons? If that is the case, is it not understandable that Mr. Gorbachev is becoming a little depressed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not able to listen to all Mr. Gorbachev's speech yesterday but I understand that the Russians have indicated they would prefer a substantive rather than a quick reply to their recent communication. Of course we have to consult thoroughly with our allies, and I expect that my right honourable friend will be in a position to reply soon.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely this is a most reckless proposal by Mr. Gorbachev. It is the non-nuclear powers which have been practically continuously at war. The nuclear powers have enjoyed an interval free from nuclear conflict for 40 years. That is unprecedented. Surely this is not the stage to so recklessly down-price the cost of war.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is of course the case that our nuclear deterrent has kept the peace, in Europe at least, since the Second World War. That is the situation which is sometimes lost on those opposite.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Minister agree that that is just not the case—neither what he has

1045
said nor what the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has said? Tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese were slain during the Vietnam War, and America had the hydrogen bomb. Also, during the time when we supported the United Nations, when we lost something like 20,000 soldiers, we possessed nuclear weapons. It is quite wrong to say this sort of thing. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there are proposals made now by Mr. Gorbachev in which he has acknowledged that he can agree on many things with President Reagan and on many things with the West? Does not the noble Minister agree that we might be talking about the future of all mankind and that we ought not to dismiss with an absurd, so-called hilarious answer—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Molloy:—a speech made by the Leader of the Soviet Union? We should acknowledge that just as much as we would acknowledge a speech made by President Reagan.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do acknowledge that there are some new elements in Mr. Gorbachev's proposals, but there are also some ambiguities and inconsistencies and some familiar difficulties. They will all need careful study.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is it not the case that it is not Mr. Gorbachev who should be depressed but the people of the Soviet Union? After a five-hour speech from Mr. Gorbachev, no hope has been offered to them for alleviating the burdens under which they suffer, including self-imposed isolation from the rest of the world.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that was a thought which had occurred to me, but I suspect that it strays a little far from the Question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, given the importance of the British and French independent deterrents in the nuclear disarmament debate, what has been the nature of the participation by the British Government in the discussions between the super powers? Are we invited to comment, and what do we say?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the United States consults very closely with its Western allies in connection with the various bilateral discussions it is having with the Soviet Union. In regard to Mr. Gorbachev's letter to my right honourable friend, the noble Lord may have noticed that the demand for British and French weapons to be counted in compensation has been dropped, though there are some equally unacceptable no-transfer and no-build-up conditions which we shall have to consider as well.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that in fact the Soviet Union has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world and that if it wishes to talk about genuine disarmament all it has to do is to set the example? I think that if it were
1046
prepared to get rid of its atomic weapons completely and utterly, every other country in the world would be thrilled and delighted and would follow.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the British Government have always made it clear that we support the objective of general and complete disarmament, not just nuclear disarmament. But the noble Lord is quite right, particularly with regard to the balance of intermediate range weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord who has just spoken from this side of the House is entirely mistaken? Is he aware that the Soviet Union has imposed upon itself for several months a unilateral test ban which has not been followed in the West? Does he not agree that the best way of resolving this matter would be to ask the West to imitate the Soviet Union in this respect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that strays a little far, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, from the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord who has just spoken was referring to the numbers of nuclear weapons presently in place and I replied in the affirmative, particularly so far as intermediate range weapons are concerned.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, if the Government are serious in their desire to prevent a nuclear disaster and bring about peace, should they not seek the points of agreement when proposals of this kind are made and emphasise them, rather than seek the differences and difficulties which are involved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall continue to support balanced and verifiable proposals in respect of disarmament, but particularly where they contribute to rather than detract from our security.

HBMC: Financial Management
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Birk: 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 are satisfied with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission's management of public funds.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am satisfied that an effective framework exists within which the commission manages public funds and that these procedures will, and apparently have, detected some early signs of weakness in financial control. I am of course concerned about such weaknesses. The commission have been asked for a full report or their financial procedures. An interim report by the commission's chief executive to the Permanent Secretary of my department will, I understand, arrive later today. They will discuss what further action needs to be taken.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which indicates that some action is being taken. But has he seen the very disturbing reports in a national newspaper this week indicating that financial control in the commission is very weak indeed, and that this has led to inadequate control both of budget and of expenditure on what would appear, unfortunately, to be a very serious scale? Since the commission were set up because it was felt that if they were hived off from the DoE they would be able to preserve the heritage far better and would also give better value to the public for its money, this is surely a matter for great concern. Not only the public but—and perhaps in this case, even more important—the heritage will suffer unless there is very tight and strict control. The matter is, I submit, one of great urgency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at the time when the commission were set up to take this function out of central government there was great anxiety that they should be given flexibility and the noble Baroness made useful contributions in the debates on the National Heritage Bill to that effect. Nonetheless, when they were set up they inherited the same delegation of authority to incur expenditure as previously applied to this function within the department. The only modification of those control mechanisms was those minimum changes necessary to adapt them to a non-departmental public body. What I would emphasise to your Lordships is that we believe that this machinery has in fact exposed a weakness of proceedings about which I would not wish to comment until I have read the report which is being submitted.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when historical buildings and monuments were under the control of the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the old days it did a first-class job, nobody ever questioned what happened and the moneys were well and truly spent? We now have an outside commission, whoever they are, and all we read about is bungle and a complete mess-up. Would it not be better to hand them back to where they came from, to the Government, who did the job so much better?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has somewhat telescoped what would have been an interesting argument. I do not accept the conclusions of his argument, but not having heard it it is difficult to analyse at what point I would depart from his view. But I can tell the noble Lord that although I think the commission are doing a good job and they are getting more people involved in conservation and in the enjoyment of the monuments in their care, the Question relates to financial control. I repeat that the mechanisms set up are similar to those for central government. They have alerted us to what may be a weakness and that is being reported on.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that I am speaking as a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and that we work very closely with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, who have been very helpful in expert advice and constru-
1048
tion? We have also worked with them jointly in projects such as the Brighton West Pier and Caulke Abbey. We feel that they are a very estimable commission and they have been very helpful to us.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful intervention. The commission are a relatively new body. In less than two years they have attracted 40,000 members and secured the first £95,000 in business sponsorship. I think your Lordships should have a little more confidence in them than the tone of general questions has given rise to.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not with any pleasure that I raise this Question? It is with great concern. Is it not the case that, however good the commission are in many of their activities, with which I heartily agree, the basic point about an independent body, or quango, is that its financial control must be very strict and it must even bend over backwards. I would differ from the Minister in comparing their position now with when they were in the department, where, as he knows very well, the controls are very strict indeed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is perhaps not aware that the chief officer of the commission is an accounting officer, responsible on the same lines of answerability to the Houses of Parliament as is the Permanent Secretary of the Department of the Environment. So the controls are the same as those which existed before the commission were made independent; at the time, for instance, in 1976 when there was an inquiry into business at Audley End, which she will recall because she was standing at the Dispatch Box with my responsibilities at the time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that common sense would seem to dictate that it would be better to wait for the report which he said is on its way rather than try to examine it in this piecemeal fashion?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that common sense is something which it is essential to preserve on occasions at Question Time.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the situation in the Philippines.
Also with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name

1049
of the Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, that would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I know that the House would appreciate it if speakers were to keep to much the same time schedule, which would be in accordance with the spirit of these short debates.

Housing (Multiple Occupation) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to houses in multiple occupation by imposing a duty on local housing authorities to enforce certain standards; and to enable individuals to initiate proceedings in cases where the standards are not enforced. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a first time—(Baroness Vickers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

London Underground (Goodge Street) Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Mid Glamorgan County Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Crime in London: Preventive Measures
3.1 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the increase of serious crime in London, particularly the trafficking of narcotics, and to the case for the provision of additional resources to support local crime prevention schemes and for a significant increase in the establishment of the metropolitan police; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It deals with the dangerous situation in relation to serious crime that now exists in London, and it relates to London for two principal reasons—first, because it is in the Metropolitan Police District that the crime situation in this country is at its most severe; and secondly, because the Home Secretary is the police authority for London and is therefore directly accountable to Parliament for the work of the metropolitan police.
Let me say this at the outset. I assume that all serious-minded people are equally concerned about the problem of law and order. There is, as we all know, deep public disquiet about what is happening in our streets. I can think of no issue on which routine party
1050
point scoring is less appropriate. I do not propose, nor do my colleagues, to become involved in the childish pretence that the arrival of a new Government or the departure of another will have any significant effect on the level of serious crime. Crime has risen during the lifetime of Conservative Governments as it has under Labour Governments. By all means let us criticise Governments for mistaken policies—indeed, some of us will do so this afternoon—but on this issue there is I believe an overwhelming case for endeavouring to match the gravity of the situation with some attempt to create a spirit of national consensus.
Serious crime in London has risen in the past decade by more than 70 per cent. During the lifetime of this Government—until the end of 1984—it rose from 557,000 offences to rather more than 716,000. And it is not just the number but the character of offences that has increased in seriousness. The number of robberies has doubled in that period—up from 6,200 to 13,600. The number of street robberies of personal property doubled as well, with young hooligans often attacking elderly women waiting in bus queues. But the situation now confronting us is even more disturbing than this. For, as the House is aware, the country is now experiencing a most alarming increase in drug abuse.
Heroin has been pouring into the United Kingdom. Seizures by the Customs and Excise have increased from 43 kilograms in 1979 to 312 kilograms in 1984—an increase of more than 700 per cent. But even if we are as successful as the United States customs, we must assume that we are probably intercepting only somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. of the heroin that is entering the country. That means that in 1984 alone, and dealing with heroin alone, heroin with a street value of more than £350 million was introduced into this country. The effects of this are two-fold. First, we are experiencing the consequences of the success of these criminal entrepreneurs. In many parts of London, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, substantial numbers of young people have become hooked on heroin. Many, though not all, live in declining inner city areas. Again, many, though not all, are unemployed. And if they are not unemployed when they begin, they certainly are by the end, for heroin addiction makes any pattern of regular work quite out of the question.
However, to feed their addiction they probably need somewhere in the region of £150 a week. They can obtain that in only one way—that is, by criminal conduct, often by violent street crime. It is because of this relationship between addicts and criminal conduct that I think there is a real risk of an escalation in the number of robberies in our streets. In the United States, where the problem is a great deal more severe, a very high proportion of the entire prison population is there for drug-related offences. I remember going to a prison outside Boston, in Massachusetts, where the warden told me that in the prison probably more than 70 per cent. of the inmates were there for drug-related offences. In this country at the moment the proportion is a great deal smaller, but it is growing. In one Crown Court in London, where 10 years ago I doubt very much whether more than perhaps 1 per cent. of offenders coming before the court would have been

1051
there for drug-related offences, the presiding judge told me quite recently that the proportion is now 17 per cent., and that number is growing remorselessly.
I turn now to the second consequence of the operation of the drug entrepreneurs: that is, the development of a number of sophisticated criminal syndicates in this city, where, because of the very substantial sums of money now at their disposal, high quality criminals are now moving easily from one type of serious crime to another. Those involved in drugs move in and out of other forms of criminal activity such as armed robbery. We have to bear in mind that 75 per cent. of the armed robberies in the United Kingdom take place in the Metropolitan Police District. They move into sophisticated fraud; they move into counterfeit currency operations. Thus, it is quite impossible to discuss the problem of drugs in isolation. It is now essential to the functioning of the serious crime industry—and industry it is—in London.
Faced with this dangerous situation, we have to examine the resources that are available to deal with the threat posed by the escalation in serious crime. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he comes to reply at the end of this debate, will tell us that the strength of the metropolitan police has risen by more than 4,000 men and women during the lifetime of the present Government. That is indeed entirely true. It is also true that the overall strength of the British police service rose by more than 12,000 men and women during the period of the previous Labour Government. Nevertheless, there are now—I give this point entirely to the Government—these additional resources available in London. Without them the situation would, I believe, be desperate. But, unhappily, the net increase in the strength available to the metropolitan police is not even remotely approaching that figure of 4,000. Let me set out the stark figures so that the House is well aware of what we are debating this afternoon.
As a result of the overtime restrictions introduced by the Government as an economy measure, many police duties, such as giving evidence in court, now have to be included in the regular pattern of day to day police duties. No longer are they treated as overtime. As a result of that policy introduced by the Government there has been a sharp cut in the patrol strength available to police commanders.
I take just one example—the loss of the last worked rest-day was equivalent in itself to the loss of 1,200 police officers in London. That means that there are fewer policemen on the beat; fewer policemen to do extremely important work on crime prevention; and even 5 per cent. fewer policemen on the Fraud Squad compared with when the Government came into office. That is despite the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on the general fraud situation in this country, which is becoming a matter of increasing seriousness. It is because of an overall shortage of resources that many specialist units are having to be stripped so far as their numbers are concerned.
There has also been, for very understandable reasons, a need to supplement the strength of other units in the metropolitan police. There has been the
1052
creation of district support units introduced—rightly, in my view—after the disturbances in 1981 as an essential instant response measure. Those units take up 750 men on a permanent basis. The establishment of the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection Department—a most important unit, given the ever-present risk of terrorist offences in London—took another 700 men and women off normal patrol duties.
One has only to run through some of the figures to show that the supposed increase in the strength of the metropolitan police to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will be referring at the end of this debate is cancelled to a very substantial degree by cuts in the effective strength caused by overtime reductions and by other steps that have been taken in the same direction, and which by themselves total 3,250 officers net on the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force.
I will demonstrate the gravity of the problem by giving these figures. Fifty years ago there was on average one reported crime per police officer per year in London. Twenty years ago that figure was 11 crimes per officer. Ten years ago it was 17 crimes per officer, and last year it was 28 crimes per officer. The thin blue line is getting dangerously thinner.
I would not for a moment suggest that the police service should have unlimited resources. No part of the public service can possibly be immune from the need to accept cost limitations imposed by government. What I do argue is that there is now an urgent requirement for public expenditure priority to be given to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe that I have a powerful ally, because at the Conservative Party Conference last year the Prime Minister said (and I quote her directly):
"If they need more men,"—
and she was referring to the police service overall—
"more equipment, different equipment, they shall have them. We don't economise on protecting life and property".
The House will appreciate that that pledge was entirely unqualified. It was unconditional. I hope that as a result of it we will hear from the Government tonight that the Home Secretary proposes to live up to the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech and announce, following the review that is now taking place, that he will agree forthwith to a substantial increase in police manpower in London. I believe, as I have indicated, that the case for that increase is now overwhelming.
However, policing in London is about a great deal else besides simply numbers. It requires a climate of co-operation between police and public. The police are not an alien force imposed by government. They are members of the community in uniform. That climate of co-operation is essential if we are to maintain civil tranquility. It is vital if we are to meet the challenge posed by violent, dangerous men who prey on the weak and powerless.
Such collaboration requires two things. First, it requires professional conduct by the police themselves. They have an immensely difficult task. They are still, in the main, unarmed. They are doing, as we are all well aware, an increasingly dangerous job on behalf of the entire community. They deserve our full and unqualified support. However, their job is made a great deal harder by widely-publicised

1053
episodes such as that which took place in Holloway. A deplorable incident of that kind does immense damage to the many decent, honourable men and women who make up the metropolitan police.
Secondly, that climate of collaboration requires responsible conduct by public authorities in London. I do not propose to rehearse again this afternoon the evidence that we all know exists of the disgraceful campaign that has been waged against the police by the so-called police monitoring groups that have been established in many parts of London (all at public expense of course), by the production of that nasty anti-police video by Mr. Paul Boateng and his colleagues, and by the campaign in more than 20 schools in inner London that has led to the police being barred from speaking to children in schools on such vital issues as crime prevention and even road safety. All responsible people will deplore that campaign to harass the police.
There is surely one supreme national interest: to foster a sensible, rational and trusting relationship between police and public; and to ensure that at a time when there is increasing fear of crime in our streets, the police are given adequate resources to do their difficult and dangerous job. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this theme this afternoon and for giving the House so much information, which it is important to have and which we must consider. The noble Lord and I have worked at different times on different themes associated with the police. This afternoon, I do not want to go over the same ground but I shall try as far as I can to refer to other sides of what is such a vital question.
Most of us have probably not given as much attention to this subject as we might have done. We ought all to be grateful today that we have had this Motion on the Order Paper. It is very widely drawn but I shall devote most of my few minutes to the subject of crime prevention, which partners the figures about crime that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
The noble Lord and I have worked together not just in London and not just in the country. He has worked mainly in London. As far as this country is concerned, I have worked mainly with the police in other parts of Britain. For very strange reasons into which I will not go now, I have had probably more experience of the police abroad than I have in this country. Indeed, your Lordships may think it very strange that I wore German uniform for an appreciable length of time, including in the capital city of Berlin, where I encountered many of the same problems to which the noble Lord referred in respect of London.
One of the important features about crime prevention is that there is no clear measure of its success. That is something we can never really be sure about. Figures are reported to us about crime and policing, and as far as they go they are all right. However, we never have accurate figures about crime prevention, and success in that area can never be reported. It is difficult to judge any measure of success
1054
because, as I say, we do not have any figures to make a comparison with, perhaps, a previous period. Nonetheless, the more time that is given to considering the problems now before us, the more success we shall have in understanding those problems and in taking the correct action to solve them.
Inward thinking is a difficulty that we have to fight against. Until comparatively recently our police, who have so many good points, were inclined to fall back on inward thinking. What we really must do now is to improve the relationship between the police and the people. That is particularly difficult to do in a big city, especially a capital city, and it is even more difficult in a city such as London that contains a whole number of important ethnic minorities as well. But a lot has been happening for the better.
This afternoon we have had reference to the establishment of the metropolitan police and to the recent increases in men and money, but when will the next slice come? A week or two ago there was mention of £52 million extra and now again there has been an increase in the establishment. When we look back over the past years we see that whenever we run into trouble it is always suggested that we need more men and greater powers. We now have more men and more powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, yet we may need still further powers and further men. We have to look ahead and think about the future and not just accept the figures that we have now been given.
I prefer to talk about the theme of Neighbourhood Watch. In this great city of ours and in large parts of the country we have made a start with Neighbourhood Watch but we still have a long way to go. There is training for selected people; and we must appreciate that the claims on regular manpower for training are expensive. In fact, if we try to raise the whole standard of our Neighbourhood Watch schemes and train people for them, then we are taking a certain number of men from the limited numbers available and occupying their time on other duties.
However, we must bear in mind that members of the Neighbourhood Watch are not police. No matter how hard they work they are not police. They must not use violence or carry weapons, but they are very valuable in helping identification and surveillance—that is, the eyes and ears of the police. "Surveillance" is a curious expression to use though it is in common use among the police. Nevertheless, a large part of their time must be spent looking out for things and watching for those things which professionals may see even if nobody else notices. The activities of Neighbourhood Watch schemes must be kept within limits. One does not wish the keenest of members to spend so much time that they become bored. They could be just as successful as many regular policemen if they were given the chance, but then we have to be on guard against any professional jealousy. It is not peculiar to the police but occurs throughout the whole professional world where professionals and amateurs come into contact. Certain problems can arise and it must be admitted that this situation is to be found in the police as elsewhere.
Two days ago I received from the International Police Association a copy of their magazine through

1055
the post. Other noble Lords also may receive it. In it there is an extremely good article written by an English Chief Inspector of West Midlands Police who has just been in the United States and visiting Detroit, which is the sixth largest city in America. There they have easily the most advanced and successful Neighbourhood Watch scheme in operation. He says:
"It is stressed to volunteers that they are not Police Officers and they have no legal authority except that as an ordinary citizen. Observation and reporting are the two main objectives. Whilst on patrol they should leave their vehicle and they must not carry a weapon of any description".
He had said earlier:
"[The Chief Officer] was adamant that whilst he found Neighbourhood Watch programmes the finest way his Police have to combat crime, there had been a much larger success. The active involvement of citizens in Crime Prevention has had the effect of improving Police performance in serving the community".
We should pay rather more attention to that sort of thing. I do not think that we pay sufficient attention to what is being done in other great cities, particularly in countries in the western world where we should all learn from one another.
I spoke about our minds, which were half-closed until recently. We must keep open minds. We now have our minds open, I hope. We need the right sort of leadership when we have volunteers undertaking various jobs with the police. We must instil good leadership and enthusiasm if we are to see this problem which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, through successfully. We must take into consideration figures from those who have been trying to work with the police, and will be doing so over the next few years. We shall find that necessary support on a big scale must come from the civil population. We must work very hard at this—police and people together.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, first on his excellent speech and secondly for getting the Motion on the Order Paper. I had a Motion on crime prevention and the involvement of the community, which rested calmly for a year and nothing happened. Of course, we have constantly debated the plight of prisoners, about whom we are always very worried. We debate the plight of the prisons and why they are falling apart. We raise questions about these problems; but we do not pay enough attention to the questions of law and order, and certainly not to the question of crime prevention.
I say to some of my own noble colleagues who are absent at the moment that my daughter-in-law has recently been canvassing on behalf of the Labour Party in the borough of Fulham where a by-election will soon take place, and the prime question on everybody's lips is whether we can prevent crime. People are much more concerned about that than anything else. So if any politician really wants to consider the feeling of the people outside this House they must pay attention to this concern.
It is always boring to say, "I have said this before". It is supposed to be a sign of old age and ex-Prime Ministers. However, I should like to say that I have said all this before, over and over again. It is very
1056
depressing when it takes a terrible incident to bring this situation to the attention of the media. Only this week there was another example of one of the many violent acts that I have referred to before—violence against people at work. Twenty years ago the only worker who might have feared violence in his daily life was the police officer, and that did not happen every day. Now, we have violence against bus conductors, train drivers, social workers and teachers; and there is news of something which I have referred to before, which is violence in hospitals. It seems incredible that those who aim to do good are now subjected to violence and left defenceless—as they are—against such people.
A number of hospital doctors have written about this. I shall mention only one from Denmark Hill, who says in a letter which has been printed in The Times that the events that were recorded by the doctor who had previously spoken about this matter were typical of every day. What a scandal it is that the staff of our great hospitals in this great city are subjected to violence! On many occasions nurses, medical staff and students have all suffered personal assault. How disgraceful also is theft from our hospitals, which ranges from the loss of television sets to toys taken from children's wards.
What kind of society are we living in? The correspondent says that last year the financial implications of criminal acts were brought home sharply to them by the savage knife attack, which I think we all recall, on one of their local policemen, Police Constable George Hammond. He says that a conservative estimate of the cost to the health authority of the treatment of that brave patient was £100,000. That is what happens. One per cent. of the population puts 99 per cent. of the population in danger and discomfort, and then the 99 per cent. have to pay for the damage as well. While the money is being spent on the damage caused by such savage attacks it cannot be spent on other things in the health service.
Let us consider the Underground. Last year there were 1,500 assaults on staff, which is a 10 per cent. rise on the year before. There were 1,200 assaults on the buses, which is an 8 per cent. rise. Then there are the schools. We often talk about the teachers and their long holidays, but do we talk enough about their position, assaulted by parents and by children and surrounded by the most incredible vandalism? I recommend your Lordships to see some of the London schools, with their broken windows and smashed desks. Such acts are perpetrated by people in totally mindless violence.
Then we come to the shops. As many noble Lords will know, I am concerned in a crime prevention exercise on behalf of the retailers. I am proud that they have elected to take such action and to spend their money. They could easily have let the situation ride and done nothing about it. I commend such action to industry. It is difficult to know which cases to mention and which to leave out in a short speech. We have the situation of the small shopkeepers who are often Asians. One such shopkeeper was robbed four times in a fortnight by gangs of youths. The manager of a supermarket in the borough next to me three weeks ago was shot by three youths who have never been captured. The young manager of a West End shoe

1057
shop was killed by a customer in an argument over size. In an off-licence in the City Road the manager was knifed for a paltry £30. I could go on. Yesterday your Lordships rightly spent time discussing concern for shop assistants working on Sunday. I ask your Lordships also to exercise concern about the violence perpetrated against those people who are only trying to do their job.
Part of the solution is deterrence. The criminal must know, first, that he will be caught and then that he will be dealt with severely when he comes to court. When I was involved in publicity about the light sentences handed out many people wrote agreeing with what I said. Anyone who uses violence or intimidation must receive a custodial sentence if for no other reason than to protect the innocent who are being attacked. I congratulate the Government on putting crime prevention at the top of the agenda. I was at the seminar chaired by the Prime Minister and I am a member of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention. I hope that we shall underline what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. This is not a party matter. To prevent crime we must involve the whole community. Society gets the law and order that it deserves.
If we are to prevent crime in London we must bring in the community. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said. Let us have more of these excellent neighbourhood and business watches. The London boroughs that do not wish to initiate them must be made to do so. A young friend in a certain south London borough told me last week that a few of them were so disgusted that the borough would not set up a crime prevention panel that they called a meeting. On a bitterly cold night in a bitterly cold hall 100 people turned up, such was the feeling of the citizens about the need for a panel.
We must have a larger police force. People must see the police doing the job of preventing crime. I feel irritated when I see every morning two able young policemen outside my office watching cars to see whether people have paid for a road licence. That is important, but it is not as important as the possibility of people being attacked, robbed and violently treated in other ways in back streets. We must spend more money on that exercise. Every borough must have an active crime prevention panel. We must have much more publicity about crime prevention; and for that I appeal to the media. It is much better to prevent an incident than to indulge in even the most important inquiries that we often have after a terrible event. For years I campaigned for a crossing on a certain main road. One child was killed and then we got our crossing. Let us prevent crime before the terrible things happen to our great city that we have seen in other parts of the world.

The Philippines: President Aquino
3.36 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
1058
Affairs about the situation in the Philippines. The Statement is as follows:
"The House will be aware of the dramatic development yesterday in the Philippines which led to Mrs. Aquino taking up office as President. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in warmly welcoming this development, the more so because it has come about with the minimum of bloodshed and violence.
"The Government wish President Aquino and her colleagues well in the fulfillment of their new and heavy responsibilities. The task of restoring the Philippines to peace, stability and economic regeneration will indeed be a challenging one.
"We have been greatly impressed by the courage President Aquino, her colleagues and the Filipino people have shown in defence of democracy. This, and the evident wish of the Government and people of the Philippines for reconciliation, bodes well for the future.
"The Government look forward to a close and positive working relationship with Mrs. Aquino and her colleagues. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is sending the President a congratulatory message. I would also like to pay tribute to our Ambassador in Manila, Mr. Robin McLaren, and to his staff. The information and advice which they have provided and their protective role in relation to the British community have been an excellent example of our missions abroad at work.
"President Aquino said last night,
'a new life starts for our country tomorrow'.
"The House will, I know, wish to send her and the people of the Philippines its warmest good wishes on this new start".
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We warmly support the good wishes extended to President Aquino and the new Government and wish them all success in their formidable task. We have also noticed with admiration both her courage and that of the Filipino people who stood between the conflicting armed forces and whose will prevailed, thus avoiding significant loss of life or excessive violence. We have also admired the role of the Church as a calming influence throughout recent weeks. We further recognise the quick appreciation of a dangerous situation by the United States Government and the decisive way that they acted towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis during the past few days.
I have one short question to put to the Minister; namely, to ask him what positive steps Her Majesty's Government will take with our allies and through the United Nations to help the new Government to tackle their huge economic and social problems so that stability can be restored to the Philippines.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is most welcome and with which of course we all fully agree. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the international team of observers at the election. I was

1059
immensely impressed and moved by the courage of the Filipino people and of Mrs. Cory Aquino, who had already seen her husband murdered by a vile régime—
Lord Molloy: By Marcos.
Lord Mackie of Benshie:—as I was by the courage of the National Institute for Fair Elections, led by a business man in Manila whose life had been threatened, and by the courage of many people throughout the Philippines who were opposing—not like we are in this country merely by words, but by their lives—the régime that has just been ended. They deserve positive support.
I should like to echo the question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Labour Party, by asking what positive measures we can take. Can we, for instance, try to see that we do not produce any more sugar in the EC for export and so destroy the sugar markets of the world? This is a very serious matter. We have done more to destroy the living of many third world people by our exports of sugar than we have done good by assisting with money. Such a step is necessary. The difference in the standard of life between the extreme rich and the extreme poor in the Philippines is indeed startling. If the Philippines are to be any form of bulwark and safe haven for the West, these differences need to be ironed out. I trust that the Government will do their best to help.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. I should like to mention two ways in which we are helping and will help the Philippines. We have already a small technical co-operation programme worth about £225,000 in 1985. We stand ready to discuss our programme of assistance with the new Government of President Aquino. More important perhaps, we have fully supported the package of assistance amounting to some 615 million special drawing rights which the IMF is providing for the Philippines and we look forward to a continuing beneficial relationship between the international financial community and the Philippines Government.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord of the opinion which my wife and I found ourselves very strongly to hold after some six weeks on a remote Philippine island just before this election—that the Filipinos are possibly the best natural democrats seen anywhere in the world? Was this not made extremely clear by the extraordinary manner in which they conducted their recent troubles with remarkably little rioting and quite remarkably few deaths? In view of this, should we not be giving them all possible help in putting matters right, especially in view of the fact that Marcos and his family have managed to extract from the economy for themselves, or their purposes, an amount, so far as can now be made out, of some 3 billion dollars? Would the noble Lord therefore not agree that there is need for a great deal of help if the Filipinos are to get straight? Would the noble Lord find it difficult to agree with me that there are some definite advantages for a country in putting a lady in charge of it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would naturally agree with the last sentiment expressed by the noble Viscount. But he is right to say that it is a matter of considerable satisfaction that it was possible for the Filipino people to overcome the obvious shortcomings in their recent election with the minimum of violence and death, to which the Statement referred and which the noble Lord has underlined. These shortcomings were, I believe, very apparent to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and his colleagues when they were in the Philippines at the time of the election. I know that the noble Lord was good enough to express those misgivings to my honourable friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all heartened by the message that our Government have sent to the new President of the Philippines? That, I sincerely believe, will give encouragement, as it will fill the hearts of many British people with happiness. However, having said that, we must have the courage to acknowledge that a murdering, terrorist president who killed people by the hundreds of thousands over a number of years and who was one of the world's greatest terrorists, received the full backing of President Reagan and the United States of America. Would not President Reagan and the United States have been well advised if they had only listened to the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe? Will the noble Lord the Minister ask his colleagues at the Foreign Office to make sure that the United States does not compound the felony by offering assistance and help to a murderous president of the Philippines who ordered the murder of the husband of the present President, to whom we have sent congratulations? Can we have an assurance that he will not receive succour from the United States or any other freedom-loving country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, his points are not enforced by the loudness with which he mentions them. It is nonetheless the case that the United States had and still has important interests in the Philippines. I hope that the noble Lord will not lose sight of that fact.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, in view of the appalling economic situation that will confront the unfortunate new President of the Philippines, will the Government assist in any efforts that may be made to alleviate the debt repayments of the Philippines that now amount, I believe, to 25 billion dollars? Will they also assist in any efforts that may be made to recover any of the vast sums appropriated and exported by the late frightful president?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the Government have any role to play in the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. We are, however, making some assistance available and I referred to that in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, in talking about the international reaction to these events, can my noble friend say whether there has been any reaction from the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Soviet Union appears to have been the only country to congratulate Mr. Marcos on his co-called election victory. I dare say it must be wondering if it did the right thing.

Crime in London: Preventive Measures
3.46 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, if we may now return to this important debate, this is an issue that worries people in London and, I would guess, in the country, almost more than any other at present. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his constructive speech, drew attention rightly to the vicious circle that is insufficiently appreciated by the public and indeed by politicians generally—the vicious circle that exists in narcotic-related crime. It is widely believed that the prevalence of the use of narcotics is linked to idleness, either enforced idleness in the case of those who are unemployed, or idleness in some instances by choice, certainly in regard to those who use cocaine. Once people are using narcotics they tend to become addicted. And once they become addicted, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, they need money, a great deal of money. An average of £150 a week is often cited. Once they need money, the only way, very often, that they can get it is by resorting to crime. We then see the enormous increase in robbery, burglary and attacks on ticket collectors and that sort of thing. It is a vicious circle. It is no use thinking that one agency alone can tackle the problem.
I subscribe entirely to the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his speech. I should like, however, to broaden the consideration of the matter and to refer to the great need for international action to deal with the enormous question of narcotics. The increased use is most noticeable in the West. The producing areas are mostly the developing countries. There is need for much greater international co-operation. I recognise that we have achieved some, but draconian measures need to be taken against the growers of these materials in some developing countries. This can only be achieved by the West providing financial resources. It is therefore an area where more public resources should be spent.
However, my main reason for intervening in the debate is to underline a point touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I refer to the schools. The most effective safeguard, it seems to me, that we can have against increased use of narcotics is education in all its aspects. This includes education in schools, the use of films, as seen on both BBC and ITV, and the greater use of videos, advertising programmes and press publicity. Unfortunately, the publicity is often of the worst kind. There was a man called Thomas Comerford who was recently sent to a very long period of imprisonment in London. He was the main trafficker in drugs on Merseyside. When he was convicted and sentenced most of the media concentrated on the very desirable, luxurious lifestyle that he lived, all as a result of his trading in narcotics, whereas the true publicity ought to have been given to
1062
those many victims of his activities who had suffered great illness, a living death, and no doubt sometimes death itself.
It troubles me that, as has been pointed out, the police cannot go into certain schools. The police ought to be going into schools. There ought to be the utmost co-operation between the important profession of the police, and the equally important profession of the teacher. I am extremely disturbed at the fact that the teaching profession at the moment is in such a demoralised state. We ought to think in much broader terms than merely the question of the police attitude and support. The police equally need the support of the teaching profession; and the children and parents certainly need it. We cannot afford to allow a great profession like the teaching profession to remain in its present demoralised state if we are going to ask them for the utmost co-operation with the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has rendered a great public service in drawing our attention to this important matter and concentrating our minds upon it this afternoon. He is echoing a fear and concern that is felt throughout the land.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, once again this very important matter has been brought to your Lordships' House and I for one am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for doing so. However, the question that he has put before us this afternoon is couched in such broad terms that when I sat down to look at it my thoughts amounted almost to a five-hour speech, like that of our friend Mr. Gorbachev yesterday. But I felt that your Lordships would not want to hear more than the maximum of 10 minutes from me.
Everybody, not only in your Lordships' Chamber but outside, recognises that crime has unfortunately increased throughout the country. But in the middle of the Motion we are asked this afternoon to talk about trafficking in narcotics especially within the Metropolitan area. Trafficking is evil, and done in my view by evil men. It is difficult to catch traffickers. They are not always even based in this country. The money that they get from trafficking is very often rapidly salted abroad. We are not only worried about the traffickers but also about the end of the line: those people who take narcotics, the young people who can lose their lives, who can have brain damage, and who can lead an unhappy and squalid way of life. We do not have to look far in our great city to see some of those whom I have mentioned.
There is an excellent committee being chaired by the right honourable Member, Mr. David Mellor, which is a ministerial committee looking into this problem nationwide. We wish them luck. They want to reduce supplies from abroad, to strengthen deterrents, to have better preventive measures and especially to treat and rehabilitate those who have taken and become addicted to narcotics. They are also looking into the education of the young people, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has just said.
To that end, they have spent £3·4 million in Pakistan to try to eradicate the opium crops there. There is a national campaign which is costing the Government £8 million annually by posters,

1063
advertising and the media generally to try to warn people about the evil of narcotics. A further million pounds—above the amount already given—has been given this year by the Government to the health authorities, again to try and help those who are addicted. In the schools the teachers are encouraged to be more aware and to look out for the problems that some of their pupils might be suffering, by a video film which the Government have just made, and by another film and many measures which the Government are taking throughout schools.
In 1984 25,000 people were found guilty or cautioned by the courts for drug offences. Four thousand one hundred people were found guilty of trafficking offences. That was an increase of 25 per cent. over 1983. I had the honour of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he was chairman of the parole board. To me one of our major problems was what to do with those traffickers who had been caught and who were imprisoned. I, for one, and many of my colleagues also, took a very, very hard line. There was no way that they would come out of prison on one-third, or even two-thirds release. One wanted them to stay to the end of their time in prison because we all knew that directly they were out they would start trafficking again and would reopen the communications that they had throughout the world for trafficking in these dangerous and very harmful substances.
As I have said, serious crime has increased but to me it is horrifying when I see the statistics that the majority of crimes in this country are now committed by 15 year-old boys and 14 year-old girls. It is very difficult for anybody, certainly for me—I cannot speak for the Members of your Lordships' House—to realise that the youth of our country, who are not even yet, as we would have thought, adolescent, are committing more crimes than any other age group in our country.
I contacted Y-Division with whom I used to be a magistrate. They said that at holidays and half terms in the schools in Y-Division the police had to be more on the alert for the children and what they were doing than at any other time or for any other person in Y-Division because the youths were getting into trouble not only by vandalism but petty crimes as well. I would say that fear of detection is one of our best hopes for the future. I feel that that would do more to reduce crime than anything else we can do. The metropolitan police resources are greater than ever but crime goes up at a greater rate than ever.
In the 1986–87 budget the metropolitan police had £851·8 million; last year the sum was £771 million. It is now only 1·1 per cent. below establishment, whereas in 1977 it was 16 per cent. below establishment. However, in the division of which I have spoken, they say that the establishment is not enough to deal with that area. Perhaps when I tell your Lordships that the Broadwater Farm Estate is also within that area it will help you to understand that Y-Division has a very big and difficult area to cope with.
Since 1979 the strength of the police in the metropolitan area has risen by 4,500 and the number of civilian staff—the people who do not have to be trained, the shorthand typists, etc.—has risen by 1,250. So in that respect there has been an increase.
1064
The Government hope that full strength will be reached by this year—that is, the summer of 1986. Indeed, 50 extra officers have been trained specially to combat drug abuse. There is also the new intelligence unit at Scotland Yard. Therefore, I submit that no one can say that the Government are not doing anything; they are putting the best brains of the metropolitan police and of the Government to bear upon the problems facing us in this country. Therefore, a great deal is being done.
As one noble Lord has already said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said in public that the escalation of help to the police in this country will go on. However, it is up to us—not only you, me and the media, who I cannot stress enough, but also everyone else in this country—to turn this alarming tide of crime backwards.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as is his wont, my noble friend Lord Harris has raised a highly topical and wide-ranging subject for debate. I only wish to concentrate on crime prevention. When we debate law and order, whether regarding the police, the courts, the prisons or the probation service, what we are really discussing in each case is an aspect of crime prevention. Those of us who have consistently questioned the efficacy of long sentences; huge prison building schemes; short, sharp, shocks and so on, have often been labelled as "wets" or "do-gooders" by many members of the party opposite. However, I believe that there is now a very general recognition that that approach to crime is founded upon a hardheaded policy based on experience which emphasises crime prevention rather than the simplistic and blunt instrument (and I say this with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips) of crime punishment.
In London the attitude of the metropolitan police is all important on this topic. The central document in that regard, which I have in my hand, is the report for the last year of the Commissioner of Police to the Secretary of State. Speaking for myself, I find the report a remarkable piece of work. I find it radical and very encouraging. I should like to pay a tribute to Sir Kenneth Newman as regards its contents. His aim is to harness public co-operation, to lead a police force which he describes as "turning outwards towards the public". He wants community policing, neighbourhood policing, consultative committees and crime prevention panels. He approves of the lay-visitors scheme to police stations. He encourages victim support schemes and he even highlights in his report the community awareness workshop in the Borough of Newham and the New Addington befriending scheme in Croydon. He has issued a code of professional conduct for the officers of his force.
In praising the commissioner and applauding the manner in which he has so rapidly reacted to the Scarman Report, I must nonetheless say this to him: you will only succeed in your admirable aims if your officers win the admiration, the respect and the trust of the public, and that, in two vital areas of crime prevention in the metropolis—the young and the ethnic minorities—you have not, I would suggest, so far succeeded in doing.

1065
There are in my view two continuing obstacles to this success and we must face up to them. One of them is the question of corruption and the other is the question of behaviour. I fear that there is a tradition of corruption in some parts of the metropolitan police and if, as I have, you spend all your working life either appearing for the prosecution or for the defence of criminals and offenders in London, you meet hundreds of police officers, offenders and solicitors of all different types and kinds.
Your Lordships must appreciate that corruption persists—for example, the magical disappearance of objections to bail; the wife against whom charges are suddenly withdrawn; the absence from the note book of the alleged admission; the absence of one-third of the recovered stolen property; and, alas, the planting or the threat of planting of incriminating evidence.
Only in the last few months—and I know that this is only anecdotal evidence but it is the type of matter which keeps arising—I was contacted by the parents of a young man who had been in some establishment in the West End when the police entered it. A number of his friends had already left and he refused to give the names and addresses of the people who had been at the table he was at. He was taken into the passage and there it was said to him, "Hello, hello, what's that on the floor?" It was a piece of cannabis which he had allegedly dropped on the floor. He was taken off to the police station, kept there for five hours and ultimately charged with being in possession.
His parents contacted me and asked for advice. My advice was that if in the morning he pleaded guilty to possessing so small an amount of cannabis he would be fined a small sum and that would be the end of it. However, if it were true that it had been planted on him and his parents were satisfied that that was true, then, I said, "You must go to the very best possible legal representation and you must fight the case—and it will be extremely difficult to succeed". In fact, they took that advice and fought the case and in 10 minutes that young man was acquitted before a jury. At the moment the inspector in charge of the group of officers concerned is serving a term of imprisonment and five other cases have been dropped.
It is no good shutting one's eyes to that situation which, alas, apparently still persists. Sir Robert Mark, when he was commissioner, tried to root it out and, as your Lordships know, over 200 officers in the CID resigned, were prosecuted or left of their own accord. However, it made very little difference. Sir Kenneth says in his report:
"There is endless opportunity and temptation to blur the distinctions between ends and means—working in the twilight areas of criminality".
He cites that as a reason for his code of conduct to officers. However, I say to Sir Kenneth, "You must do more than a code of conduct. You must somehow instil into your new officers the dangers that lie ahead and publicise them and give these young men and women a clear, confidential path for lodging a complaint if they see corruption or are asked to participate in it". Because, my Lords, we must have whistle blowers in the metropolitan police just as we must have them in the Civil Service.
As regards behaviour, there is too much anecdotal evidence of simply bad, arrogant, or rude behaviour
1066
towards the public among a number of police officers in the force. Those of us who have children or grandchildren know very much about this. People do not mind being stopped. They do not mind having their cars or boots searched if the police are entirely polite about it and tell why it is being done. But harsh or arrogant behaviour towards a young person in those circumstances can make the police an enemy of that young person for the rest of his life.
The same applies to racism, which is a serious matter in the metropolitan police and is something that again one has to face up to. I am sitting on a committee at the moment which has that as one of the matters being looked into. We had a distinguished commander come and speak to us the other day who said, "You must remember that we reflect in the police force the widespread intolerance of the community at large". That surely is not the proper approach. The metropolitan police must be a force apart in that sense, they must have higher standards, and they must understand better than the ordinary person does about their own prejudices.
The last thing I wish to say is this. The commissioner is keen on helping crime prevention measures in the community. The outstanding example of that is the Crime Prevention Unit of NACRO, and I think that my noble friend Lord Donaldson will say more about that in a moment. What I should like to ask the Minister is, how is it that the Home Office find it impossible to fund crime prevention measures and units?
The money for NACRO's crime prevention unit—and I think over 40 local authorities now have these units of one sort or another—comes from the DoE and from the urban fund, but no money comes from the Home Office. I ask the Minister why the Government would not agree that crime prevention schemes really go to the grass roots of crime, and that it is there that you can deter the young criminal and build up confidence in the police among the public. So far as the battle against crime is concerned, it is at the crime prevention level that the battle might begin to be won.
4.13 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my speech is going to be rather short. Due to some mental aberration it was only when I arrived in your Lordships' House that I realised that the speech I had prepared was on the Sex Discrimination Bill, which is to be considered tomorrow. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich gave us some interesting facts and figures, which is just as well because for obvious reasons I do not have any facts or any figures. However, those like myself and other noble Lords here interested in the subject of drugs do not actually need to spend many hours sitting down trying to write a speech. You may not know the facts and figures, but you know basically what you want to say.
The last time we in your Lordships' House debated drugs was some while ago. It was when the television cameras were fairly new here, and as a result many noble Lords wanted to speak. We were therefore restricted to five minutes each, which is not long enough to cover such an important subject. In my

1067
speech I suggested that the drug barons, if found guilty, should suffer sequestration, and later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, also subscribed to the same view.
A short time ago the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in a speech on rape suggested that convicted rapists should be castrated. I am not sure whether she was really serious on that. It is rather permanent, is it not? But on that basis, and with exactly the same view, I would suggest that if you have a drug baron who is found guilty, why should the taxpayer support him in prison? Why not "mainline" him with heroin and give him a taste of the living death that he had been pushing, and then put him out on the street and let him die a degrading and filthy death? Because in the newspapers one reads the same story over and over again of young kids explaining how they got on to heroin. They say, "I know it is killing me, I know that I stand a good chance of catching Aids. But I cannot stop". That is the awful thing.
On some housing estates nearly every single child is on drugs of one kind or another; because once a sufficient number of young people are on drugs, then if any of them do not go on to drugs too they are out of it. They think, "Well, it is not really harmful. Everyone is doing it" Then they are caught, and they are addicts.
Previous speakers referred to the numbers of kilos of heroin intercepted. What they are really saying is that if we had more money for the Customs and Excise and police we could intercept more drugs and take them off the streets. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. At the moment, comparatively speaking, heroin is cheap because there is a plentiful supply. If you intercept a lot of heroin it will come to be in short supply, which means that the pushers will cut it down so that it will be weak. Therefore, the addicts will have to take more in order to get the same effects.
Then if a large consignment gets through it will become plentiful again, and therefore it will be cut less. But the addicts do not know this and become used to taking a large amount; they suddenly find they are taking a large amount of high concentration heroin, and they unknowingly kill themselves. This is not supposition. This is what we were told in the select sub-committee by the experts. It is not just a case of intercepting the drugs.
A previous speaker said that we have to get to those countries, mostly in the East, which are growing the drugs; those countries—and I believe that the Netherlands is one of the worst offenders—where they refine the drugs and where they are readily available, and we have to hit them. If we are going to stop heroin addiction—and I think we are basically talking about heroin addiction—then it is not just the growers who have to be stopped, but the refiners and everyone along the line. And we have to stop not 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the drug traffic; we have to stop as near as we can 100 per cent.
The last time I spoke in your Lordships' House on drugs I had never tried any drugs, apart from cigarettes. I admitted then that I smoked cigarettes. A few weeks ago on holiday with a convivial party someone passed round what I believe is called a joint.
1068
I suddenly realised that I was on what I think is called "a high". I hated this. I sat there and fought it. It is one thing having too much alcohol, but to go on hallucinatory drugs terrified me. I sat and fought it and beat it. I brought myself off that high, possibly because I said to myself, "Be stubborn". My wife considers me to be bloody-minded. I was not going to let that drug have its effect on me. But I might have enjoyed that sensation. Many young children do, so they try it again and after a bit someone says, "You get a far better high on something else". Before you know it, they are on heroin and on the road which only ends one way: in degradation and in the grave.
My noble friend Lord Hooson mentioned the police and police corruption. I agreed with much of what he said. I have a young friend who is a punk. He is a very gentle, nice boy but the police take one look at him, stop him and arrest him. He has been fitted up, just as many of his friends have been fitted up, not with drugs; but that could happen. It is no good the police having rules of conduct, because they just put them in their pockets and forget them. This boy's father told me yesterday that there are now books in schools where there is an item on contact with the police. The basic rule is. "Don't. Keep out of the way of the police. If you see them coming, turn round and go away. If you are stopped by the police you stand to attention and say 'Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full, sir'. But whatever they do, you stand to attention". These are recommendations to young children. This is not a book written by Left-Wing loonies, but a serious book. If we come to that in this country we must do something quickly; otherwise we shall alienate a whole generation from the police. However, we must consider that only a few of the police are bad apples.
I thought I wanted to make a short speech. I have spoken for 10 minutes. I shall sit down.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl did not go on a little longer to tell us who are the author and publisher of this remarkable book. Perhaps he will do so in private afterwards.
Everybody who has spoken up until now has had special knowledge or experience. I have neither, at least not recent knowledge or experience. I speak merely as a consumer of police services. Recently my neighbourhood formed a Neighbourhood Watch, rather different from that described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He described someone patrolling on watch. With ours, it is simply neighbours keeping a sharp eye for somebody behaving in a suspicious way. The other night there was a man prowling up and down the avenue looking up garden paths. Two people telephoned and within seconds the police arrived to question him. It proved to be my next-door neighbour, who had lost his dog. Happily, the dog was restored the next day from Battersea.
Nevertheless, before this Neighbourhood Watch a few months ago this would not have happened. People would not have been alerted to telephone the police. The Neighbourhood Watch, even in its modest minimum form as we have it, will be a good thing.
We see and hear much about the police nowadays. We see them on television, locked in struggle with

1069
pickets, coping with rioters or football hooligans. We read of them when they used firearms nervously or clumsily or when they have been engaged in some form of corruption. We read about their problems in coping with the young and especially the black young. But we read less often about the problems they have to face—an argument so well deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I am thankful to him for initiating this debate. He is right to have confined his debate to London. Some people in the provinces may wonder what on earth we are talking about because their experience of the police is entirely different from the experience in the metropolis. Policing problems are different in every town. I remember as a young reporter discovering police methods in Blackpool and entirely different police methods when I went to the dockside city of Salford, only 40 miles away.
Law and order are not the exclusive concern of the party of government, but of us all. The police are not there simply to protect the property-owning minority from the mob. We are all at risk from burglary, mugging and assault. This applies as much or even more to the old and poor living in our inner city districts. It applies to our children and grandchildren who face the same dangers from the drug peddlers, no matter to what social class they belong or in what district they live. Girls and women are afraid to go out at night alone and some coloured families live in terror.
A number of us must have watched "Panorama" on Monday. We saw what is happening in Islington, the problems the police have there in dealing with so many crimes. We saw, too, how in the neighbouring borough of Holloway the road to improvement in the quality of policing might be found by using modern organisational methods and by the use of computers to record and classify crime so that the force may be most efficiently deployed. The case for a vast improvement in the quality of police organisation and methods certainly exists. Although a great deal has been done in the reorganisation and creation of special forces, nevertheless there is a long way to go.
What about the quantity of the police? Is it enough even with the recent increases? As journalists, we were taught never to write about the "police" and "civilians"—not to have that type of dichotomy, for our English police are civilians. However, it is a convenient term. I notice that the police are using it and I now propose to employ it myself for convenience. As long as I can remember, it has been suggested that the police should be relieved of some of their functions which could be better and perhaps more cheaply performed or as well performed by civilians, or there could be a separate force dealing with road transport and the motor car.
Some progress has been made in the recruiting of non-police help, but not enough. I suppose chief constables want to control as large an organisation as the public are willing to provide, because in the last resort on the day when the revolution threatens every police filing clerk may have to open his drawer marked "T" and draw out his truncheon to defend the established order. But that of course is over-insuring. It may be that in the large cosmopolitan cities innovations are required which are not needed in rural districts and in small market towns. Surely, somebody
1070
should even now be looking at the range of the problems, not just at specific ones, but at the large range, because some of the new difficulties represent a change in the dimensions of the old problems of muggings, of drugs, drug pushers, hooligans, gangs, burglars and crimes due to racial tensions, to say nothing of the new danger of the terrorists.
Obviously, the problem of the prevention of crime, as well as its detection, should be under constant review. However, if I am mugged, if I have my house burgled and my sentimental possessions turned over, it would be just a bit of consolation if the offender were discovered and sent to prison. But, frankly, I should rather not be mugged or burgled at all. Prevention is the word. Surely the presence of police on the beat, police who are seen by the public regularly and frequently, is still the best deterrent. The police in the past year or two have begun to climb out of their cars and one sees them, but not very often. Surely, one item of public expenditure that nobody will begrudge is the money required for a larger police presence.
Let nobody say that this means a police state. The term has quite another meaning; it means a state where the police themselves operate outside the law. Finally, the reason that people no longer go about in London saying, "Our police are wonderful" is that they are not always so. But could it be that some, a proportion, perhaps even only a small fraction, of the reported cases of wrong behaviour have some connection with the frustration and fatigue of the police with more duties put upon them than they can possibly perform?
4.32 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I want to deal with one particular end, the distribution end, of the drug problem which is where ultimately the money comes from. This has not been dealt with very much today. The international side is very important and needs as many police as can be found. But quantities of police are not going to solve the problem of the distribution end. I want to support my noble friend Lord Harris in his request for a significant increase in the establishment of the metropolitan police and for the provision of additional resources to support local crime-prevention schemes. I wish to point out that it would not be much good to have the first lot if you did not first have the second lot. What is needed in these difficult inner city areas where drug pushing is particularly rife is for the police to be more effective and not necessarily more numerous.
Indeed, in very hostile communities too much police presence may be counter-productive. This does not apply to the importing side to which I have referred already. On this end of the business, I speak with some knowledge as president of Nacro whose reports I receive regularly and read with close attention. We have 60 crime prevention units now working within 40 local authority areas. The oldest was set up in 1976 in the Cunningham Road Estate at Widnes in Cheshire and it and its 50-odd successors have been carefully monitored. They have been extraordinarily successful as the following two examples show.
The Widnes unit, when it was first set up in 1976, revealed vandalism to one in every three houses. By

1071
the 1979 survey, this was reduced to one in every eight. In 1976, 70 per cent. of the residents reported a burglary against 8 per cent. in 1979. Police and survey workers both reported good progress in reducing crime. Later monitoring has confirmed these results. To take another example, this time in the London area, in the nine months to June 1985, compared with a similar period to June 1984, on a Lewisham estate burglaries had dropped by 54 per cent., car crime by 60 per cent. and street crime by 48 per cent. These are just two instances; but I am talking about something which is not difficult to do, not expensive to do, and is working.
The Home Office and Sir Kenneth Newman have both publicly acknowledged the value of this work. Last year in his Howard League address Sir Kenneth said:
"The resources provided by Narco are used to build effective multi-agency initiatives against crime, involving police, social services and housing departments. These initiatives are beginning to show results on some of the most difficult housing estates in London in reducing crime".
The system is worth describing in a few sentences. Nacro sends in a team of two or three experienced workers. They call on and arrange meetings with local authorities and other statutory and voluntary agencies concerned in the area. They bring together senior representatives from them to form a steering committee. A team is appointed which goes round and consults the residents to discuss problems and possible solutions; it reports back with a report of recommended improvements and with a draft action scheme on behalf of the residents to the steering committee which considers and perhaps amends it. The team then relays the agreed action plan back to the residents for endorsement.
The important thing now is that the steering committee then has the continuing task of overseeing progress, and in particular the involvement of the residents. We have found that success depends on first the involvement of the residents; and secondly in getting one or two of the recommendations quickly and visibly implemented to maintain everybody's morale. Obviously, this sort of thing can be well or badly done. We have had enough experience to see that it is well done.
Now I come to the question of narcotics. These under-privileged—indeed, disadvantaged—communities are specially vulnerable to criminal activity. The 1984 British Crime Survey showed that the poorest estates had burlgary rates five times as high as the national average. The young people, mostly unemployed, are obviously an easy target for the drug pushers who come in and push their drugs without much danger of being caught because their customers protect them. But the parents of the young are as horrified as any other parents at what is happening to their children and they want above all things more effective policing. If the system involving the residents that we have been talking about is thoroughly set up, these parents will be of the greatest possible assistance to the police in every possible way.
Community policing can never be successful until the community is wholly behind the police and regards them as friends and protectors. This cannot be
1072
achieved overnight and is inevitably easier in predominantly white areas than in mainly black areas. Particularly among the latter there is a fear and hatred of the police—based on past behaviour, alas! undeniable and inexcusable—but which Sir Kenneth Newman is making the most strenuous efforts to correct as is shown clearly in the paragraphs to which my noble friend referred in his recent report. I think he is making real progress. I also think we can help him. We have found, where our teams have commenced, that we can bring the police in with the residents in a way which is reassuring to both sides and which begins to change the attitude of suspicion into one which noble Lords in this House have naturally: that the police are on our side and will protect us.
The parents, whether black or white, need to be persuaded to ask the police to come in and help. If the police come in, as of course they are obliged to in pursuit of crime, without this familiarisation through discussion which we have been talking about, they may easily, by stopping or sometimes even arresting youngsters who are in fact innocent, add to the reputation they already have of picking on blacks and lose the confidence of the parents who should be their main supporters.
They have a real difficulty here in that it is hard to pick up the pushers without interfering with a good many youngsters, not all of whom are customers but most of whom will protect a colleague against the police. The only way to get round this is to persuade the community as a whole that their children's lives are being ruined and that the police must come in and help them. Thus, though I think that more police may well be needed to deal with the dreadful scourge of drugs I should like to see priority given to the forming of crime prevention units on every housing estate in the country, and particularly in the metropolitan area. This would enormously add to the effectiveness of policing.
If the system gives good results, as we in NACRO and others can demonstrate that it does, there should be no hesitation in multiplying the use of the method without the usual government delay in setting up pilot schemes, running them for three years and then waiting a year for a monitoring report. We can show people at least 60 pilot schemes, so let us get on with it. I hope at least that the Secretary of State will see that this is done, and done properly in each of his five trial inner-city areas.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we all start, I think, from the common ground that we are in the throes of a drug epidemic which is fuelled and spread by the ready availability of illegal narcotics and a vulnerable population. Both supply and demand factors are abundantly present. On the law enforcement side, the Government made some very foolish cuts in the Customs and Excise service prior to 1984, which may have been partly, but only partly, repaired. That is important because, although seizures by the police account for more than three-quarters of the total numbers of seizures, the Customs account for 90 per cent. of the volume seized, which is of course the more significant measurement.

1073
However, even with the recent improvements in the Customs success rate, SCODA (that is, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse), estimate that no more than 15 per cent. of the drugs destined for the United Kingdom are intercepted on entry into the country. I think that my noble friend Lord Harris gave a lower estimate of 10 per cent. so the scope for increased police effectiveness once the drugs are inside the country is very considerable. And of course this is particularly so in London, Despite the spread of the epidemic all over the country, London remains the drug capital of the United Kingdom. In 1984 there were 12,489 drug misusers known to the Home Office, but according to SCODA it is reasonable to estimate that the real figure is closer to 60,000 of whom as many as 20,000 may be found in the London area.
There are two questions I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, here. If, as my noble friend Lord Harris suggests, there is to be a further increase in the strength of the metropolitan police, will the Government ensure that it is sufficient to allow an increase in the staff of the Central Drug Squad from its present strength of 57 to its target strength of about 200? That does seem to be a very serious shortfall from the number the force believes it needs to combat the drug menace effectively.
Next, do the Government agree that there is a need for police officers to receive more training about drug use, and do they support the increased use of cautioning (which does of course involve a criminal record) for cases involving canabis, in order that more police time can be concentrated on suppliers and those committing the very serious offence of trafficking in class A drugs? It really does seem important that we should get our priorities right here.
I now want to switch briefly to the Government's media campaign against drug abuse, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. This has so far taken the form of leaflets for parents, public information from the Central Office of Information transmitted by the BBC, commercial TV advertisements, advertisements and articles in the youth and professional press and public posters. The total cost for the period from October 1984 to March 1986, but mostly incurred since May 1985, was, according to the Social Services Committee of another place, £1,792,000, of which £1,220,000 was specifically directed at young people.
Unfortunately, I understand that once the figures are finalised there is likely to have been a 25 per cent. increase in the notification of new addicts during 1985. This may of course be due to improved notification procedures or to factors unrelated to the campaign, and it is perhaps early days for any positive results. All the same, it seems to me that this interim, or provisional, result (if I may call it that) should give the Government food for thought.
It is the view of SCODA and of the citizens' advice bureaux that, though the take-up—however that is measured—has been encouraging, the campaign has been largely ineffective because it was targeted at a middle-class audience. Certainly the problem affects all income groups but there are obviously a larger number of abusers in the larger socio-economic groups. It therefore seems that this campaign has not been properly designed or targeted. Can the
1074
Government tell us what their plans are now in this respect? Will they drop this means of persuasion or attempt to refocus it?
I should add that before this idea was put into effect there were knowledgeable people who warned that it would be ineffective and even counter-productive. I accept that the sum of money involved is not large by today's standards, but it is considerable in relation to the Government's £10 million central fund, and I believe that the cost-effectiveness of this type of approach to the problem should be scrutinised very carefully indeed.
I want finally to turn to wider considerations. We are in the grip of an epidemic, but our response has been slow, fragmented and lacking in co-ordination. As I have already said, both the supply and demand sides are booming in a sinister symbiosis. The police and the Customs operate on the supply side, and must be enabled to do so more effectively, as my noble friend's Motion urges. The demand side is more complicated because it is stimulated by poor social conditions, by boredom and by despair.
Though one cannot prove a causal connection, there is a distinct correlation between drug abuse and unemployment. The annual level of drug offences and of registered addicts varied little between 1974 and 1978 when unemployment did not, at its maximum, rise much above 5 per cent.; but when unemployment took off between 1979 and 1984 drug offences doubled in that period, as did notifications. Common sense would seem to indicate a link between unemployment and drug abuse, and it certainly seems to be there.
Then again there is the question of the interrelation between alcohol and drugs. Does expensive legal alcohol enhance the appeal of illegal drugs? With stable or falling street prices, that may well be the case. We do not know because it is unusual to discuss alcohol and drug problems together; but the fact is that the real price of alcohol has gone up since 1979 while the street price of heroin has halved.
Next there is the question of the media campaign I have already referred to. Are such campaigns effective or are they counter-productive? There is also the international angle which has also been mentioned in this debate. More is being done to mobilise international action, and this appears to have had some effect on the amount of cocaine entering the country, but not on heroin.
There is also the question of education and of the approach adopted in schools. Only yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was telling us about video films being issued to schools, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, also referred to that. All these are aspects of the drug problem, without touching on treatment and the role of the GP, the community health team and social workers or on the pressing need for more research. I will not continue on this tack. My only purpose is to show that the drug problem is linked to other social factors, is multi-faceted and involves all sorts of bodies and agencies, some statutory and some not.
I am not saying that this pluralist approach is wrong; but the plain truth is that we do not have a national strategy, we do not have enough funds and it is my belief that it is high time we brought together the

1075
medical, scientific, social and criminal evidence and looked at the problem in the round. Because it is not going to go away and it will be with us, in greater or lesser volume, in the year 2000 and probably well beyond.
So how should we go about this? I want to ask the Government tonight to look at the idea of a standing royal commission. I know that these distinguished bodies have not been held in much esteem by the present Government, but there is one active and highly effective example still in business: the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, set up in 1970. It has produced no less than 11 effective and influential reports on all aspects of pollution, whether of rivers, the sea, the air or the city environment. As a result of its work we have built up an invaluable picture of the threats to our environment and of the possible remedies. Of course, royal commissions cannot make policy but they can provide the essential background against which decisions can be taken.
I think that a commission of this sort would be of great advantage to the drug scene. It could explore the role of the police, of doctors, of psychiatrists; the findings of research; the relationship with other addictions; the results of campaigns; the efforts of schools. All these strands could be brought together in the same clearing house. Everything of relevance could be sifted and evaluated by an objective body not tied to the interests or theories of any one profession or agency. Given the existing sense of national emergency, I am sure there are outstanding people who would be willing to serve.
I have, incidentally, checked on the cost. It would be tiny compared to the sums already pledged. The Supply Estimates for 1985–86 show the total budgeted cost of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution at £148,000—barely more than the sum spent last year by the Government on leaflets for their campaign. No objection can be raised on grounds of cost and I venture to suggest that the creation of such a body would be no more than the proper and explicit recognition of the scale of a problem that is almost certain to persist well into the next century, though one would hope on a diminishing scale if effective prevention and remedies can be devised.
I realise that the noble Lord cannot hand me a royal commission across the Dispatch Box this evening, but I want to get his undertaking to discuss the matter seriously within Government circles and possibly to write to me about it. This suggestion is aimed at a better appreciation of the drug scourge and more effective action in the medium- and long-term. It is in no way intended to detract from the urgency of my noble friend's case for an immediate increase in the strength of the metropolitan police. The front line response is the first priority. But we must have a strategy. Otherwise, we shall go on winning the occasional skirmish and making the occasional spectacular seizure; but we shall not be winning the war.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the opinions expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon have really been
1076
all one way, and that perhaps makes it easier than it might otherwise have been for me to wind-up this short debate on behalf of the Alliance. We look forward with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord the Minister will say in his reply. If the leak in the morning press was an authorised one—and it may well be that it was—he is going to indicate to us that the increased resources for which we are asking are in fact about to be provided. I resist the temptation to say—if he does indicate that—that that demonstrates the power of the Alliance. What I do say is that it certainly appears to indicate that there is a great deal of influence to be obtained by your Lordships' House in having a well-timed debate, because I strongly suspect, if this concession is made this afternoon by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government, that it is a statement that perhaps would not have been made had this debate not taken place today. It would have been postponed, no doubt, to some time in the future.
That the case has been made out for the increased resources for which we are asking is perfectly clear. We know that the Government have as one of their main platforms their belief in law and order. I think the record shows, certainly in the metropolitan police area—the one with which we are primarily concerned this afternoon—that the promise has not quite lived up to what was anticipated. I know that looking at the number of notifiable offences is not a very accurate indication of the amount of crime that is committed, but it is a reasonably accurate indication of the amount of crime that the police are called on to investigate.
The figures really are quite startling—an increase in notifiable offences of some 75 per cent. over the last 10 years, and an increase in the metropolitan police area alone from 1979 to 1984 of from 557,000 serious crimes to some 716,000. That is a very substantial increase and, during the time that that increase has been taking place, one is entitled to look to see what the Government have provided by way of increased forces to deal with it.
The facts, as your Lordships now know from what has been said by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, are that metropolitan police numbers have risen from some 22,800 in 1979 to some 26,800 in 1984—a total increase of 4,000 officers and a percentage increase of rather less than the amount by which crime has increased. But one then has to take into account the figures repeatedly stated by the commissioner and referred to by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Without repeating the figures in detail, it is clear, is it not?—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will agree with this—that when one looks at those officers who had to be diverted to the royalty and diplomatic protection corps, at those officers who had to be diverted to Heathrow airport, at those officers who had to be diverted to the district support units, and then when one takes into account also the reduction in the effective strength caused by the reduction in overtime, which, in turn, has been partly caused by a Government imposed reduction in the cash limits, one reaches an overall figure which shows for all practical purposes no increase whatever in the number of police officers in the metropolitan area

1077
available in the last five years to fight this great increase in crime.
Those officers are desperately needed. I do not need to repeat what has been said this afternoon by so many noble Lords about the crime figures in the metropolis, nor, in particular, about the figures for the increase in drugs traffic which was particularly referred to by my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Kilmarnock. Those increased numbers of officers are needed primarily to go on the beat, partly to deter the commission of offences, partly to catch offenders and partly because that is the only way by which community policing by consent can be made effective.
The desperate need for that has been made clear recently. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who mentioned the "Panorama" programme which showed that, certainly in one area of London, the number of young people who were willing to support and co-operate with the police was very small and the number of young black people was almost entirely negligible. That is a serious matter. The neighbourhood crime watch programmes, about which we have heard, can exist only with the active support of the public. From the "Panorama" programme it rather looked as though such members of the public as were willing to participate in those neighbourhood crime watch programmes were almost entirely elderly or middle-class and white. That is no way in which those programmes will be made effective, and there is therefore a desperate need to promote active co-operation between the police and the community.
This does not involve overlooking—of course it does not—the occasional misdemeanour by some member of the police force. It is quite right that that should not be glossed over. It is quite right for example, that the incident in Holloway should receive the treatment that it has done. I do not want to refer to that matter because it is, I suppose, so far as those who have been arrested are concerned sub judice. But I might mention one matter to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
He and I have crossed swords across this House on several occasions about Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which makes it an offence to withhold information. I ask him to consider whether, if police officers who are themselves innocent of any offence know perfectly well that an offence has been committed and agree together not to disclose it, they are not in fact committing a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I do not want to go on about that. I think one ought to take—as I hope one can take—the sort of balanced approach to the occasional case in which the police misbehave that was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, which I so much admired when he spoke a little earlier this afternoon.
There must be criticism where it is due but it must be balanced, it must be constructive, and it must recognise that those in the police force who do offend are a small minority. There must be no place in our society for the sort of criticism sometimes uttered, particularly, I am afraid, by local authorities and largely—inevitably perhaps—by Labour-controlled local authorities, in which every police misdemeanour is seized upon with glee as an opportunity to try to expand and exaggerate the differences that might appear between the police and the public.
1078
With a balanced approach, with an increased force which can be used constructively to cement relations with the public, it ought to be possible, given the increased resources about which I hope to hear in a few minutes' time, to provide a police force in the metropolitan area which at last will make a really successful attempt to tackle the problems of increasing crime.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking from these Benches the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for introducing this important subject, I would say, as I believe has been implied in this debate, that if the nation at this moment were asked what were the main issues worrying it, the reply would come from a very large majority: the unacceptable limits now to be endured of unemployment and the unacceptable limits, presumably now to be endured, of the increase in serious crime. If parents were asked to state their main worry these days in regard to their children, I should have said the answer would be the temptation of narcotics. We are dealing with a matter which is very important for the nation as a whole even though this debate is limited to our capital city.
One is tempted to ask, "What is the cause of this increase in narcotics"—the figures have been dealt with—"and in crime?"—the figures have been dealt with. Is it the figure of unemployment? It must play a serious part, especially when one is dealing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, did, with the age group which concerns us terribly as regards the serious increase in both cases—crime and drugs. I refer to young people. It must have some sort of influence.
The lack of discipline in the home and in schools must have some sort of influence. The dropping in the values of family life must have some sort of influence. Depriving youngsters of the roots that our generation had, whether it was in religious faith or whether it was in the security we felt we had and they do not have, must have some sort of influence. But whatever may be the causes—and obviously, in so far as we can remedy them, we would want to—there are matters that have to be looked at of a practical and immediate nature.
Narcotics have formed as they should do a very serious part of our debate this afternoon. The figures show that the biggest increase is in those under 21—again, a matter that was referred to obliquely, although she dealt mostly with crime, by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. Of course this is a matter with which we should love to deal by way of decisions reached this afternoon. What we can do is pose to the Minister some questions. The question of dealing with this problem internationally was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is of course a good deal of international co-operation. Perhaps I may pose this question, as it has been posed, I have noticed, in some journals that I have read.
The main source of the heroin that we are particularly worried about, apart from cocaine, is in the poppy fields of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The peasants who pick that crop get a very small sum for their labours. Ought international funding be put towards ensuring that there are alternative crops out of which those peasants can earn their livelihood?

1079
Bearing in mind this cancer which enters Western countries, Western populations and Western youngsters, is it just a fantastic idea or complete lunacy to think in terms of funds being employed (if there can be no alternative crops) to the purchase of the crops and their destruction before they ever reach the markets that we have been decrying this afternoon? It is worth a thought.
Again, when we deal with narcotics we are dealing with legislation. It is right that Parliament should do that. Our legislation has consisted of turning a previously fairly severe sentence into a maximum sentence of life imprisonment when the big dealers are caught, when the big people trafficking in this evil trade are apprehended. We are to consider soon in Parliament a Bill which will try to take the profits from those who have these ill-gotten gains. Before we ever reach that stage the big people have to be caught. I turn to the Minister and I ask him this question. Is it a fact that police efforts and resources—I shall deal with the question of further recruitment in a moment—are being taken away from the catching of the big people because of the worries that so many of us have in various areas towards the little supplier and the taker of the drugs?
I am not saying that there ought to be a decrease in vigilance in order to try to deal with those people; but I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there is Home Office guidance. The Home Office is, after all, the authority looking after the metropolitan police. Are there guidelines laid down for the police? Are there consultations with the police about the drive and the resources that must be employed in order to catch the big people? It is the big people who are responsible for this trade, not the people who for £1,000 or £2,000 carry these evil substances in aircraft or in ships or wherever it may be. The people we are talking about are making billions of pounds out of this wretched trade.
I turn quickly to the question of crime. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had listened more carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The noble Lord. Lord Harris, started off with his usual eloquence and said he regretted so much that anybody should try to make political capital out of a matter of this kind. The noble Lord decried the way in which, presumably, the two other parties were doing it. It is a little regrettable, as I said, that that guidance was not followed more closely, otherwise we would have been spared the lashes which were so undeserved in regard to certain political matters that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, he even tried to get for the benefit of the Alliance Party the fact that there was a headline in The Times this morning:
"Bigger police force for London urged by Home Office".
If the noble Lord had read that article with a little more precision, he would have seen that the review was started last October. What happened—and we are all very glad about it—was, so the press say, that there was a recommendation made in an internal Home Office inquiry. The report says that a substantial increase has been recommended. Furthermore, The Times states that an announcement is to be made of that increase. Here is an opportunity for the noble Lord the Minister. He has been pressed from these
1080
Benches and from the Alliance Benches—and now the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will see the generosity of treatment, politically, that we accord—and the Minister has a wonderful opportunity now to announce to the nation today that there has been that recommendation and that it will be implemented.
There is no point in recruiting a police force unless the quality of that police force is that which the metropolitan police has proudly held over many years. There must be quality as well as quantity. There must be a proper intake. I know that the views of the Minister are favourable, and those of the Secretary of State and the Government, are favourable in this respect; that we must see to it that there is a bigger intake into the police force of the ethnic minorities.
Steps are being taken in that direction in other parts of the United Kingdom. I was reading that there is funding of some £60,000 in one part of the kingdom, in order to see to it that there is a door-to-door approach in regard to areas that are occupied very largely by the ethnic minorities, to tell those minorities how much the police would like people from their communities to be recruited into the police force. One would like to see that being done very definitely in the Metropolitan Police Force.
There has been reference made to some of the sinister reports that have reached us, where police from the Metropolitan Police Force have been concerned. I want to say from these Benches on behalf of the Opposition—and it has been said by others wiser than I—that we hold the Metropolitan Police Force and the whole of the police forces of this kingdom in high regard. We look upon them as courageous people who are fighting the battle of justice, and not just of law and order, with honour, with distinction, and with integrity. The police forces lament as much as we do the miscreants in their midst, who are a minority. However, we must see to it that those miscreants are weeded out of the forces.
I pay my tribute—and it is not often in your Lordships' House that we do so—to the media, who were not content with an announcement that was made by the very worthy police complaints authority after much consultation with New Scotland Yard some little time ago that it was impossible to identify who the miscreants were. It appeared in that dreadful Holloway case—and the matter has not been tried yet—that it was impossible to find out who were the people concerned because the facts were being hidden. The media were responsible for seeing to it that the matter did not end there. Investigations have obviously continued, and rightly so, in order to protect the name of the police. I shall say no more because it would not be proper for me to say more.
As I said before this debate has been useful in dealing with a matter that is of such great concern to the citizens of London, and indeed to the nation at large.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we will all be grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having initiated a debate on such an important subject. The debate has been wide-ranging and interesting, and there have been many thoughtful contributions. I have

1081
a lot of ground to cover in winding up the debate. I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised but first I should like to say a word or two about how the Government see the way ahead on the three major issues to which the noble Lord has directed our attention: the rise in serious crime, especially drug trafficking; crime prevention; and the manpower needs of the Metropolitan Police Force.
There can be no doubt that there has been a rise in serious crime in London. The facts are stark and daunting. In 1984 the number of notifiable offences recorded in the metropolitan police district was 717,00. In 1974 it was 414,000. The rise in crimes of violence is particularly disturbing. The number of recorded offences involving firearms rose from just over 1,000 to more than 2,000 in 1984. The number involving knives and other sharp instruments increased from under 3,000 in 1975 to nearly 6,000 in 1984.
The number of recorded burglaries roughly doubled over the same period, although there have been some recent welcome improvements. The number of burglaries in dwellings recorded in the first nine months of 1985 was 13 per cent. lower than in the equivalent period the year before.
I ought to make two further points about those figures. First, and to expand upon a point made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, those figures relate to recorded crime. They exclude offences that were not reported to the police. There is some evidence from the British crime survey that people may be rather more inclined now than they used to be to report offences such as burglary; perhaps for insurance reasons, or perhaps even because more people have telephones today and can report such crimes more easily.
There is no dispute that the amount of crime has increased, but the rise may be rather less than the statistics of recorded offences suggest. Secondly, there is nothing new about that increase in the crime figures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, himself pointed to that fact. The national statistics for recorded crime show a steady rise since the 1950s. In making those points, I am not in any way trying to play down the problem; that would be foolish. I am simply underlining the point that the phenomenon of rising crime is both complex and long-standing.
Equally complex are the reasons for crime in the first place. It would be impossible to find any simple explanations for the increase in crime or to establish links between the rise in crime and changes in other factors in society. Unemployment levels, for example, have varied greatly throughout the century while the incidence of crime has steadily increased. Equally, while the crime rate is higher in relatively deprived areas, it is also high in some relatively affluent districts. There is no evidence to suggest that poor housing and other types of deprivation in themselves contribute to greater criminality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised some important points. I share her view of the serious matter of violence against staff in the workplace. The Government are well aware of the problems and are supporting a number of working groups to identify how best to tackle and disseminate advice. The Health
1082
and Safety Executive is examining, in a working group across the range of interested government departments, violence to staff generally. It is seeking to exchange experience gained by different departments in tackling their problems and will issue initial guidance by the summer. The Department of Transport has two working groups; one on attacks on bus staff that will be reporting very shortly with recommendations for future action, and another in prevention of violence on the London Underground that will report by mid-summer.
The Home Office is supporting a working group on violence associated with licensed premises. Violence caused by people who have, to differing extents, lost self-control because of too much drink is a very real problem for the police, and the group should produce helpful advice on the way forward.
I think that the noble Baroness will know from her own attendance at the No. 10 seminar that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commended the manual on security in hospitals produced by the National Association of Health Authorities; and the Home Office Crime Prevention Unit is supplementing that valuable and practical advice by a research study based on the experience of a provincial hospital on crime in hospitals.
As for sentencing and the question of violence being treated severely, of course sentencing is a matter for the courts but offences of grievous bodily harm carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries a sentence of five years.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has made some telling points about drug trafficking. Indeed, other noble Lords have also done so. In preparing for this debate I refreshed my memory of the debate on drug trafficking which the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Mayhew, initiated just over a year ago. It is with no small sense of progress since then that I now turn to the vigorous steps which the Government have taken over the last 12 months to tackle the growing menace of drug abuse.
My noble friend Lady Macleod drew attention to the work of my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Mellor, and his chairing of a ministerial group to consider this very serious matter. I think that to some extent the existence of that group is the answer for which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was looking when he suggested that perhaps a standing Royal Commission might be able to look at it as well. That group is a very important means of bringing together the different parts of the Government and different parts of public life which have an input to make toward dealing with the problem.
It is not of course on action aimed at the drug trafficker alone that the Government have based their strategy; action has to be aimed at all stages of the chain from production to supply to treatment of misusers. Nor is the problem confined to London. Nonetheless, given the terms of this Motion and the restrictions of time, I shall confine my comments to initiatives in respect of police and Customs action against traffickers in London. I shall return later to the establishment needs generally of the metropolitan police, which include that of resources to tackle drugs.

1083
But we must remember that in Heathrow we have a significant point of entry for drugs into London and that Customs too have a crucial role to play; indeed, it is there that they have had some of their most notable successes. In one week alone last year Customs seized 45kg. of heroin at Heathrow. I gather that to a major trafficker that has a street value of £1,125,000 or thereabouts.
Returning to the role of the police in drug matters, the commissioner is continuing to give priority to action against drug misuse. As in 1985, so in 1986; action against drug misuse continues to be one of the force's main goals. The central drug squad has been particularly active against drug traffickers. During 1985 it removed 40 major drug trafficking organisations in the London area which were dealing in heroin, cocaine and the production of amphetamines. Moreover, the squad has produced an information folder and a set of slides about drugs and methods for their use which have been given to every police community liaison officer in the force, in order that knowledge about drug misuse is disseminated as widely as possible.
Your Lordships will also recall that my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary announced in July last year a number of initiatives to enhance the police response to drugs. These initiatives relate to the country as a whole, and all forces, including the metropolitan police, will benefit greatly from the appointment of Mr. Colin Hewett, previously in charge of the metropolitan police anti-terrorist squad, as National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator, to head the enhanced National Drugs Intelligence Unit—to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred—and co-ordinate and develop police action and liaison with Customs to a high degree which fully takes into account the increasing sophistication of these criminals.
The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Mishcon, asked about international collaboration. At government level the United Kingdom is an active member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and is supporting fully the United Nations proposals for a new convention which will cover a range of practical means of enhancing collaboration arrangements. The United Kingdom is also in the chair of the European Co-operation Group on Drugs which is known as the Pompidou Group and is also supporting the involvement of the European Community in collaboration with the Pompidou Group.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I be permitted to ask the Minister a simple question, which is this: is there intended to be collaboration with foreign countries not just through the metropolitan police but through other forces in this country, or is it to be done through London?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot explain the mechanism to my noble friend in a moment or two, but I shall certainly let him know what it is.
I described the Pompidou Group and the importance of collaboration internationally, which of course we realise is a very important feature. One only
1084
has to recall the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last year at the Bonn economic summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the Bahamas. But collaboration is a practical exercise too by police and Customs—which in part may answer my noble friend. These two services are full participants in international organisations which provide channels of practical co-operation. Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council are the two well-known examples. Both services build bilateral links too and these direct links are being developed by our increasing international network of United Kingdom drug liaison officers.
As for the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about international funding of alternative crops (and I have to say that this is a valid point), through the United Nations fund for drug abuse control considerable funding is made available for crop substitution, but this is of benefit only provided that enforcement in those countries is able to secure that peasants do not revert to poppy cultivation. Through the United Nations we are therefore giving funding, training and support for the enforcement agencies in those countries.
Regarding the noble Lord's suggestion that the police might be diverted from dealing with the really big people in this sort of crime because of resources, I must say that that is not the case. The whole thrust of the commissioner's plans with drug trafficking as well as other types of major crime is to tackle organised crime; that is, he is aiming for the major criminals and not the small fry. This was made clear in the lead which the commissioner has given his force for the year ahead with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
But enforcement is not in itself sufficient. Your Lordships will also be aware of the Bill which was referred to earlier to deprive offenders of their drug trafficking assets, which was given its First Reading in your Lordships' House on 20th February. The Drug Trafficking Offences Bill provides wide-ranging new powers for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking. It will require the courts to impose on a convicted offender a confiscation order which is equal to the full proceeds of the offender's drug trafficking activities. It will introduce provision whereby any of the offender's assets will be liable to confiscation if he has salted his trafficking proceeds outside the jurisdiction or spent them; it provides important new offences directed at those who assist the trafficker by laundering proceeds or alerting him that his affairs are under investigation; and it provides the necessary powers to put these provisions into effect and for reciprocal arrangements for enforcement to be agreed with other countries.
These are stern measures, and intentionally so. They constitute an important element in the Government's strategy for combating the scourge of drug misuse to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred with some emotion. We are confident that this Bill, which your Lordships will shortly have the opportunity to consider in detail, will provide police, Customs and the courts with the strong and effective powers which are necessary to cope with the threat posed by this evil and sophisticated form of crime.

1085
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady Macleod referred to the question of education and prevention. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on 13th January, the initial evaluation results of our major £2 million national education and information campaign are encouraging. They suggest that the campaign has hardened young people's attitudes to heroin and other drugs, with increased awareness of their harmful effects without encouraging experimentation, and that is a particularly important point. He has therefore decided to make a further £2 million available for work on the campaign in 1986–87.
Again we talked earlier about the video training package for professionals released on 16th December. On 13th January we launched "Double Take", a two-part video for young people for use in schools and elsewhere. As announced on 30th December, all 96 English local education authorities have been allocated a share of the £2 million to be allocated next year through the education support grants programme. I could go on, but in the interests of time I shall have to cut down what I proposed to say.
As to the question of drugs and unemployment which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised, I do not doubt that young people who are bored seek relief through drugs, but I cannot accept a causal link. One has only to see press reports of young people in different walks of life who have been found in possession of cocaine, cannabis and heroin to realise that drug misuse is a menace that goes much more widely through our society than perhaps he suggested. I shall turn in a moment to the question of NACRO and funding for crime prevention units.
I come now to crime prevention and the Government's efforts to do all that they can and to encourage others also to do all that they can to reduce opportunities for crime. Much activity is now in hand, especially at local level, and those efforts were given fresh impetus by the seminar of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 8th January. The action points agreed at that seminar covered auto-crime, residential burglary, violent crime and crime in the workplace; and the different but complementary responsibilities of industry, the CBI, the TUC, voluntary organisations, nationalised industries and central and local government in carrying forward the agreed programme of work were recognised, as was the need to sustain momentum if results are to be achieved.
Activity on the ground includes Neighbourhood Watch schemes. There are now some 3,770 schemes in the Metropolitan Police District. There is also the crime prevention initiative under the expanded community programme through which useful crime prevention projects can be carried out by people currently unemployed. Your Lordships may also be aware of five local demonstration projects. The object here is for a local steering committee comprising a range of statutory and voluntary organisations to identify local projects designed to respond to local needs. The Home Office is funding a local co-ordinator for each of those projects, and we are also providing publicity and research back-up.
1086
The important point in all that activity is to convince the community by demonstration that it is not helpless in the face of crime and that by collective effort, organisation and determination it can be reduced significantly. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, had to say about that in the example that he gave. My noble friend Lord Inglewood mentioned the fact that the people who take part in Neighbourhood Watch schemes were not policemen and so had rather more constraints on them; but the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, made brought out the importance of the part that the public at large have to play.
As for the question of NACRO and the crime prevention projects, I am sure that my noble friend will realise that the Home Office funds NACRO under Section 51 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That section empowers the Secretary of State to fund NACRO for the purpose of rehabilitation of offenders but not for crime prevention, so it is not open to the Home Office to fund the NACRO crime prevention projects in the way that he and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, suggest, although we regard highly the projects to which he referred.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the point that I was trying to raise was why the Home Office does not fund crime prevention when it spends such a lot of money on dealing with crime.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, unfortunately in the time allowed I cannot cover that point as fully as I should like, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Concern about rising crime inevitably raises the question of police manpower. It is the duty of every government to form a judgment about the amount of manpower that the police need to deal with crime and then to see that they have it. Before outlining the way forward for metropolitan police manpower, as we see it. I should say a word or two about the present and about the immediate past, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, forecast that I would. He gave some numbers and I need not repeat them. He described how by the end of 1983 we had reached a figure about 4,500 more than in May 1979. That growth in size is roughly equivalent to the size of the Merseyside police force, which is one of the largest provincial forces. The strength of the civilian staff, most of whom work in direct support of police officers, has also grown. The force embarked upon a period of consolidation. Although there have been further increases in strength, the accent has been on making more effective use of existing resources. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is right.
The commissioner has been energetic in pursuing measures to secure the better use of manpower and other resources. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to accept that. The commissioner's recent report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary outlining his strategy for 1986 contains a full account of those measures. I could give much more information, but in the interests of time I fear that I shall have to cut out much of what I was going to say. I should like to have referred to the importance of special constables.

1087
But let me say this. As the force nears the establishment figure, we have been considering whether it should be increased. Some increases have already been given. An increase of 43 in civil staff from 1st April has been approved in order to help with further civilianisation. On 21st October my right honourable friend announced in another place that he had agreed in principle to an increase of 50 in the police establishment from the same date to strengthen the commissioner's efforts against drug trafficking.
Beyond that we set in hand urgent work last October to assess where there were specific needs for further increases in the establishment. A major review, as has been indicated, has been undertaken by the metropolitan police and the Home Office. The review, which looks ahead, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood hoped that it would, has been completed and its report is on the desk of my right honourable friend. He is giving it careful consideration. I expect that your Lordships will understand that, despite the desire of so many noble Lords for me to be in a position to say something today, I cannot do so. However, I agree with all that has been said by those who say that the police deserve our full support. I share their distaste for those who hinder them in their work.
In my haste to finish I have lost my place and I shall try to find it. We are determined to do all that we can to bring crime in the many ways that have been described to a sensible level. The debate has provided an opportunity for many useful views to be expressed and for me to demonstrate in rather too much haste but certainly without complacency the Government's commitment. The fact that the problem persists despite our efforts must not be allowed to dispirit us or to induce fatalism or despair; rather, it should fire us all with renewed determination to get to grips with it.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first I thank all who have participated in the debate. I hope that it has been useful; I believe that it has. I should have been mildly surprised had the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, announced the Home Secretary's decision on metropolitan police manpower in a debate such as this, and he was not in a position to do so. But he will realise from what has been said in this House the expectation on all sides that there must be a substantial increase in its manpower.
As he rightly said, the size of the force has gone up by over 4,000, but he did not deal with the point which I raised and which was repeated by others. The overtime restrictions imposed by the Government have led to a reduction in its effective strength by over 3,200 officers, which seems to be the central issue in the debate. We very much hope that as a result of the discussions which no doubt the Home Secretary will now have with the Chancellor, who is the central figure in the argument, we shall soon hear an announcement of a substantial increase in the size of the force.
I agree with what the Minister said in his last few words. There is a clear need to recreate a sense of national unity when we are talking about relations between the police and the public. As I said, and as my noble friend Lord Wigoder repeated, there has been a
1088
damaging growth of publicly financed, anti-police bodies in London and elsewhere. They have poisoned the atmosphere. Those concerned have a heavy burden of personal responsibility for what has happened. General support for the police is admirable. What would be even better would be if some of those who have greater political responsibility used occasions such as this to denounce those who have conducted themselves in such a fashion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Government, Parliament and the Civil Service
5.40 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson rose to call attention to the relationship of government and Parliament with the Civil Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put down this Motion I realised that, unlike a number of your Lordships who will be taking part in the debate, I have no experience of government. I have no detailed knowledge of the Civil Service. I shall be adopting very much the parliamentarians' view of the relationship of Government and Parliament with the Civil Service. I also wish to point out that I had in mind in putting down the Motion not only that it was timely, as I thought, in the light of recent events, but also to demonstrate my concern about the immediate relationship and the relationship in the fairly foreseeable future as opposed to the long-term relationship.
I say this because, on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, I have referred to the fact that there are forces, I believe, inexorably driving this country in the direction of what may be described as a new constitutional settlement. The reasons are most eloquently set out in that remarkable book The Dilemma of Democracy by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor—a book, as I have pointed out previously, that was written when he was in opposition and not when he was in government. The noble and learned Lord sets out there the forces that are at work in this country which will eventually drive us, I believe, into a state of affairs where we have a codified constitution.
I shall adopt virtually as the text for my opening remarks a quotation from an article by Mr. David Watt in The Times newspaper of Friday 7th February under the heading "Whitehall pact in need of repair". In it appear these words:
"For better or worse, we have to live with professional, full-time politicians who live and die by the media and cannot afford to accept formal responsibility for more mistakes than they have to. As a result, we are gradually learning to live with an identifiable, and to some extent separately accountable, Civil Service and we can expect to face a parliamentary system which becomes more and more fluid, unpredictable and inquisitorial".
I ask myself the question: is this view correct? I believe it to be so. The three characteristics of civil servants, the traditional ones of anonymity, secrecy and permanency, have probably at the very least been modified very much over the past decade. The theory of government in this country, on which the so-called pact depends, is that government exercises the will of

1089
Parliament through the authority of the Sovereign and that the civil servants are the administrative arm of the Government, the Government having behind them the full weight of the Sovereign acting in Parliament. So the duty of the civil servant has always been said, traditionally, to be the Crown in Parliament. But, in practice, things have become very different.
What are the factors responsible for the weakening and/or the potential breakdown of the constitutional pact? I shall mention some of them. First, the growth of the power of the media in a modern sophisticated society must be among the more important. Is Mr. David Watt correct in stating:
"Most inside information disobliging to governments does not come from the Tisdales and the Pontings but by way of discreet 'guidance' from senior Civil Servce colleagues who do not see why they should take all the flak for their ministerial masters".
The second reason is, I believe, this. The traditional arrangements presume a single party system—a single party in government and a single party in opposition. However, we have been witnessing the slow but sure breakdown, within this country of the rigid two-party system and the realisation by Parliament that its main role should be to make things difficult for Government and to be a stouter critic and check on the Executive. This was a view eloquently developed by my noble friend Lord Grimond in a debate in this House about a fortnight ago.
The growth of the Select Committees in the other place and the independence of government that some of them increasingly tend to show is simply a manifestation, I believe, of this longer term trend. My noble friend Lord Grimond expressed some doubt about the direction that the Select Committees were taking, saying that he had initially been one of their supporters but was worried about modern trends. It seems to me that the Select Committees were set up because of a realisation by Members of Parliament of how poor their resources were individually in comparison to the resources of Ministers. The power of the group is very much greater than the power of the individual. It is my belief that Question Time in the other place has become less formidable to the Government than it used to be. And, if I may venture a view, Question Time in your Lordships' House, with the greatest respect, I find of very little value at all.
The third factor is the considerable breakdown in consensus politics. There is a great deal of difference in the basic assumptions made, for example, by the Conservative Party in its modern guise and by the Labour Party in its modern guise. There have been clear signs that some civil servants have thought it their duty to try to thwart, for example, left-wing Ministers. There have been statements, for example, by Mr. Brian Sedgemore, about civil servants in relation to Mr. Tony Benn when he was a Minister. Others have thought it important to try to expose Right-wing tendencies in Ministers in the present Government. The present Government, and perhaps to a lesser extent, the Labour Party when in power, seem to have wanted civil servants to demonstrate conviction in implementing government policies. The phrase, "Is he one of us?" is not unknown in an attitude towards civil servants. There has been perhaps a general undermining of the impartiality not only in relation to civil servants but also in relation to
1090
quangos, the BBC, and so on. It is a general trend of our time. The result of this trend within the Civil Service is perhaps a tendency to want more politicised civil servants. The long-term implications of that are very important.
Fourthly, there is a tendency to delegate tasks to civil servants which make them more directly accountable particularly with regard to such matters as development of the Welfare State, the financial management initiative, and so on. Fifthly, there is the increased blurring of distinctions between policy, which is the province of politicians, and administration, which is the province of the civil servants, and also the emergence of the management role.
Sixthly, and perhaps more important, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility seems to have become increasingly a fiction behind which the Civil Service can hide its decisions and behind which Ministers can also now hide. In the debate to which I have previously referred that took place in your Lordships' House on 12th February on parliamentary and democratic systems of the United Kingdom, two distinguished parliamentarians, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, both spoke. I quote first the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who said at col. 241:
"In the light of recent events, I think I must now mention the Civil Service in its relationship to Parliament. I think we shall be getting into very deep water if we go on much longer as we have been recently in relation to our civil servants. I see no way of making civil servants answerable to Parliament for what they do in the performance of their duties".
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, after referring to his experience, said, at col. 260:
"I believe it is part of that assistance that it is given on a confidential basis to Ministers and, if it were not, I do not believe it would work. I am very jealous of that and very nervous—I agree with the noble Lord"—
that is, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—
"about some of the trends which have looked as if they might go in the opposite direction, because I do not believe that that would be in the interests of good government".
Therefore in the long-term interest of this country it is very important that we should now examine afresh the assumptions on which the so-called Whitehall pact has governed each side of the triangle on which constitutional government in this country rests. At the apex is the Crown; one side of the triangle is Parliament; the other side of the triangle is Government; and the base of the triangle is the Civil Service.
The theory on which the traditional duty of the civil servant is described as being the servant of the Crown in Parliament is easy to explain in theory but is surely somewhat outdated. In theory the executive powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers who are answerable to Parliament. However, this Government—like so many of their predecessors—have long abandoned adherence to the full theory of Ministerial responsibility. Not since the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale over the Crichel Down affair has a Minister faithfully discharged in the traditional manner the theory of ministerial responsibility. When there was a breakout in the Maze Prison (I think it was last year or the previous year) in Northern Ireland, Mr. James Prior felt no duty to resign—he explained that

1091
he knew nothing at all about the matter—for reasons which we perfectly understand. But the theory has really gone by the board.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, resigned over the Falkland issue?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I think that this is not quite dealing with the same point. When Mr. Leon Brittan, for example, resigned recently—which is perhaps a greater parallel—it was because of his own improper authorisation of the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter, and not because one of his civil servants had made a mistake or done something improper. It was his own act, and his own view. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was resigning over his own viewpoint, and not because of his responsibility within the department.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out, did not feel in any way obliged to resign or even take lesser responsibility for the mistakes which she impliedly admits were made by her senior officials, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham. Therefore given this climate, which is only indicative of a trend, the House of Commons has been bound to take steps which ultimately suggest that civil servants have an overriding obligation either to Parliament itself or to the electorate as represented by Parliament. Civil servants, who are increasingly known and named, are bound to wish to a degree to co-operate in this process if sometimes they are impliedly or specifically blamed by Ministers and are identified, because evidence before a parliamentary committee is a very good forum for defending oneself in public.
I believe that verdicts of juries over the past few centuries have been as important as Acts of Parliament themselves as landmarks in the changing constitutional balance within this country. Lord Devlin rightly observed that a jury is a parliamentary rather than a judicial body though it is called upon to discharge a judicial function. Throughout the history of recent centuries the jury in England and Wales has had a happy knack of laying down important markers to constitutional change through verdicts in specific cases.
Thus the Ponting case verdict proclaimed and published a clear reluctance, at the very least, to accept any longer the simplistic traditional view that a civil servant's exclusive duty in all circumstances was to the government of the day. A great deal more, and unjustifiably, has been claimed for the verdict in the Ponting case but I think that it is always dangerous and foolish to draw more than the obvious and minimum inference from a verdict in a specific case. But it is there to be drawn in that case.
The present situation is obviously potentially dangerous. If every civil servant is to be allowed to judge for himself what is the public good and then, having judged, to be allowed to put his so-called public interest duty above his loyalty to government, then one can ask the question: where does it end? On the
1092
other hand, we have been among the first people to criticise the German civil servants, the German military—when they were called upon to serve in the Bündestag when it was eventually taken over by the Nazi Party and Hitler—that they did not act in some way to try at least prevent him overthrowing the democratic safeguards in their constitution.
Can we really contemplate the view of Mr. Michael Elliott of the Economist, who has argued,
"one should extend the concept of civil servants having a duty to the public beyond the mere provision of state benefits to one of seeing that there is good government"?
He has argued more recently that it would be mad to constrain the Civil Service,
"from changing, probing and judging government in the public interest".
What are the immediate steps that should be taken to improve the situation? Perhaps I may say from these Alliance Benches that if we had an Alliance government the relationship of the Civil Service to that government would be very important. It is possible that if there was an Alliance government we would have a reduction in adversarial politics. There would be more of the problem-solving approach. The relationship—the present pact—between the Civil Service, the Government and Parliament depends to a very large extent on the background of adversarial politics.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble friend saying to the House that he has forgotten Lloyd George entirely?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, no. I never forget Lloyd George any more than the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, does. But, on the other hand, unlike him I do not end my life with Lloyd George. We have moved on a considerable period of time and in ideas since his day. But if the prime blame rests anywhere for the breakdown, or at least the modification, of the so-called Whitehall pact it rests with government and the refusal of Ministers to accept full accountability to Parliament.
I believe that a very important immediate step that should be taken is to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; and, more importantly, that a very broad freedom of information Act should be enacted. This should clearly set out the rights of Ministers, Parliament and the public through the media in the field of information, and what the duties of civil servants are towards them. For example, the factual and analytical background to major policy decisions should surely be published, as the Croham directive of 1977 suggested. If one casts one's mind back, the problems which have arisen with so-called leaks and so on have mainly or almost entirely been over factual information. What happened about the "Belgrano"? What happened in relation to the Westland affair? What were the true facts—not the advice on which the approach to the facts should be made but the facts?
If Ministers accept full accountability for their actions to Parliament, then I think that we could insist that civil servants owe their primary loyalty to Ministers. But the decision on that rests politically. For example, when in recent times Mr. Heseltine disagreed with the Prime Minister and advanced his particular

1093
views on the Westland affair he was, it is said, breaching the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and any Prime Minister would have been entitled to send for him and demand his resignation. But this is not what happened. What happened was that there was a leak of information through another Minister, and so on. There were internecine battles between Cabinet Ministers, which surely illustrated the breakdown of Cabinet responsibility.
The question arises: what are the duties, if any, of civil servants to Parliament? Do they owe any duty to Parliament if Ministers lie and a civil servant knows that it is a lie? Do they owe any duty to Parliament if the Minister refuses to be answerable to Parliament? In other words, what are the limits of a civil servant's duty to Government? Has the House of Commons, through its Select Committees, the right to question and cross-examine any civil servant on any matter? For example, recently the Defence Committee cross-examined Sir Robert Armstrong. Should the committee, in fact, have sent for the Prime Minister? Was she the correct person to question about these matters rather than the civil servants?
Guidance was laid down in February 1985 by Sir Robert Armstrong, after the Ponting case, and it is all right so far as it goes. But does it cover the difficult situations which in practice arise? The part played by civil servants in the recent disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter poses a dilemma. The guidance from Sir Robert Armstrong is:
"The duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost to the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Department in which he or she is serving."
How does that general rule help a civil servant to decide how to react to a particular ministerial request; for example, when a Minister for industry authorises disclosure of another Minister's letter—the Solicitor-General's letter—without the latter's agreement? The Prime Minister later agreed that it should,
"have been released into the public domain."
and urgently.
Is there not a need for a much more practical and particular code of ethics? Surely in the present situation there is need to publish the guidelines for Ministers which, we are told, are issued to Ministers which guide the corresponding responsibilities which Ministers have in relation to civil servants; and, indeed, guidelines for Ministers in their relationship with the media. Why should these guidelines be kept away from the general public? The public, and indeed the Civil Service, have a right to see them and to be informed.
Finally, Sir Robert Armstrong's guidelines lay down what seems to be perfectly acceptable. In the event of a civil servant being faced with a fundamental issue of conscience they state what the civil servant should do; eventually having to resort to the head of department as a last resort. But surely there must be some independent element here. I should have thought the Parliamentary Commissioner, or someone like him, could be involved so that eventually there could be an appeal from within the Civil Service to a Parliamentary Commissioner in the event of an unusual circumstance arising where there is a fundamental issue of conscience.
1094
I think I made it clear that my approach to this is a concern for a repairing operation, but not a long-term one. I believe that a long-term solution to this is bound up with all kinds of other issues which I feel, for reasons I advanced on another occasion, are slowly but surely coming about. I should like to end this introduction with one more quotation from the article by Mr. David Watt:
"The question is rather how we maintain or reacquire (since we seem to have lost them) the minimum requirements of good administration: considered, practical policies executed efficiently by people who believe in them for people persuaded to give them a try. How, in fact, do we reunite the constitutional parts of government?"
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, we each have rather longer than usual for a short debate but I hope not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. I must make a few comments about the speech of the noble Lord. After his opening remarks I have come to the view that the only thing I should do is thank him for introducing the debate, because I disagreed with so much of what he said.
The resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was, of course, an absolutely archetypal, typical resignation because he judged that there had been a failure on the part of his department and that it was a failure for which he was responsible. I personally greatly regret that resignation and I have always thought that one of the great losses resulting from the Falkland Islands war was that of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary. Quite a number of people—certainly I did—tried to persuade him not to go. However, it was a resignation.
The noble Lord's opening remarks did smack rather of what might be called an idiosyncratic Liberal point of view from members of a party which has not, sadly, actually participated in Government for a long time. It is worth noting that in this debate no less than four former Cabinet Ministers are taking part. We will, I am sure, seek to put views from our own experience and comment on some of the matters. Nonetheless, the noble Lord has raised an important issue. His concluding remarks were on how we should restore the situation—if it needs restoring—and whether it is restorable with a Government where, as he pointed out, there was a collapse of collective responsibility of a most notable kind. I find it inconceivable that Mr. Heseltine was allowed to go on for so long without being called to order. However, I do not propose to follow some of those points and nor do I think that the situation is as desperate as the noble Lord thinks.
I should like to start by referring to the debate we had on 5th December, just over a year ago, on a Motion on the Civil Service tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, stressing the importance of a dedicated, efficient Civil Service. That is something we all seek to have. On that occasion a number of noble Lords took part, notably the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and I certainly took part—who pointed to the grave disquiet in the Civil Service at what was happening. It is necessary to take that into account and to look at the evidence.
I do not propose to spend very long on this point, but it is worth reminding the House that the mistakes

1095
the Government made over GCHQ are acknowledged by most people, including members of the Government, as being very serious indeed. These included their treatment on pay, the abolition of the Priestley principle, the abolition of the Civil Service Department and a number of measures which have caused a great deal of disquiet to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, drew attention. I certainly said that morale could not be lower. I regret to say that it could be lower and that comes out in the evidence.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has taken the opportunity of reading the evidence that has been given to the Treasury and the Civil Service Committee's sub-committee, of which a great deal is immensely valuable. I see no greater or more valuable development from Mr. Crossman's ideas—it was Mr. Crossman who was the chief architect of setting up departmental committees—that reveals how clearly the Civil Service works and brings out the problems which confront it. One need only look at the evidence of the First Division Association of Civil Servants who, after all, are senior in the policy field of civil servants, to realize how much disquiet there is. They are concerned, in a number of directions, to have a better relationship with Government. They quote, and it has often been quoted, the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, that when praise is given it is given through clenched teeth. They quoted that, and I quote it again now.
I think that the Government—because they have made statements—are anxious to improve the morale in the Civil Service. However, I am bound to say that it is low and much of the responsibility rests on the present Government. There is anxiety about politicisation—a horrid word which I cannot properly pronounce—of Civil Service appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the fact that as regards a particular appointment there was a rumour that an individual was not promoted because a touch of Keynesianism was detected in his outlook. I do not know whether that is true. Nor, when it comes to the selection of permanent secretaries, do I entirely blame a Cabinet Minister for seeking the right person. Nonetheless, there is a danger if it goes too far.
As regards the appointments which have been made, there is no doubt that the senior civil servants at permanent secretary levels are entirely worthy and entirely able to fulfil their role and I have no doubt that they would fulfil the same role effectively with another government.
Those of us who have been in government before a general election will have observed with interest the devotion of our civil servants to the cause of the government which they are serving even if they are thinking there may be a change, and at the same time their wise preparation for a future government even to the extent of thinking out the type of issues that will be raised, having studied the manifestos. They used only have to consider two, now perhaps they will have to consider four—I do not know what the possible future governments will be. There is little doubt that they still stick very much to the old idea of a non-partisan Civil Service regardless of their personal views.
1096
I have quoted, and I quote again, the example with regard to my own private secretary. I did not know his politics; I assumed that he was probably a Conservative or (shall I say?) a Liberal—I do not know whether there were Social Democrats at that time. One day I went into the outer office and one of the girls said, "Roy won't like that". I said, "Why not?" In fact, my Lords, I have given his name away; I should not have mentioned his name—it is a non de plume. She said, "He is ever so red. He is much redder than you, Minister!"
I am sure that those of us who have been in government can confirm the total impartiality of the Civil Service. However, there is grave disquiet. There is no time to go into the whole of the FDA evidence but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned, they would like to have somebody like an ombudsman. Indeed, the previous permanent secretary—was it Sir Douglas Wass?—advocated that there should be an inspector general to whom matters could be referred. I have my own solution as to what I should like to see when I come to examine some of the issues that are concerned with the so-called "leak" or, as Sir Robert Armstrong prefers to call it (and I think correctly so), the "disclosure".
Sir Robert Armstrong could not have made clearer in his evidence to the Select Committee—the evidence has not yet been published and therefore I do not think I can quote him—that the whole episode was regrettable. I would say that it was deplorable and I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House thinks otherwise.
When the Prime Minister said that the facts are sometimes stranger than fiction perhaps I am unique in believing that what she said was so. It is the most extraordinary imbroglio that I have ever come across. Everyone I know who has been a Minister or senior civil servant is amazed at what happened.
I do not know whether the officials, who only had an hour in which to make up their minds—they had no opportunity to appeal to anyone—even knew that the Solicitor-General's memorandum had a particular secrecy of its own. I am bound to confess that when I was in the Cabinet I did not know that and I have talked to one or two other ex-Cabinet Ministers who also did not know that. Maybe we were very incompetent. What was objectionable—and it would be objectionable by any standards in any community and industry—was the leaking of a memorandum from a colleague without telling him and without admitting that that was being done.
The next question is: has the system failed? This particular issue has been well taken care of. However, I am bound to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that Sir Robert Armstrong's first memorandum on the subject was not entirely satisfactory. Let me say that I have the highest opinion of Sir Robert Armstrong. He has served successive governments. No one knows the system of government better than he does. My only criticism is that he carries too heavy a burden. However, in his first statement he said:
"when having been given all the relevant information and advice the Minister has taken a decision. It is the duty of civil servants loyally to carry out that decision with precisely the same energy and goodwill, whether they agree with it, or not".

1097
Earlier he had said:
"The civil servant has no constitutional ability or role distinct from that of Ministers".
Whether or not we use the word "constitutional", I believe that the Civil Service has a role. It may be that 99 per cent. of the time civil servants should serve their Ministers. However, when it comes to certain actions which are objectionable—not just contrary to policy—then in my view they have an obligation. I cannot believe that my permanent secretary would have allowed me to have done what Mr. Brittan did. I simply do not believe that he would have allowed me to do it any more than the chairman of my company would have allowed me to do it and to conceal the fact that I had done so. In the evidence given by Sir Robert Armstrong's department—and I commend the reports of the Select Committee chaired by Mr. Austin Mitchell because they are very thorough and interesting—he said—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in his most interesting speech, but will he explain why he used the word "allowed" which seems to me to be extremely important in this context?
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please repeat the word that I used?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "allowed"; he said that his permanent secretary "would not have allowed the Minister". It seems to me to be the crux of the matter.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I shall tell your Lordships exactly what I mean. One's relations with one's civil servants are personal. He would say, "Minister, you can't really do that", and I would listen to him. However, in certain circumstances he may feel obliged to take the matter further. I am using the word "allowed" in a general and not in a legal sense. He cannot stop me doing it but he can complain. If I may, I should like to follow this argument which is a rather careful one.
In the evidence of Sir Robert Armstrong's department to the Select Committee they go on to say:
"As advisers to Ministers, civil servants have a duty to give honest and impartial advice without fear and favour. But once a Minister takes a decision, civil servants have a duty to abide by his decision, subject to the law, and to give effect to government policies … If a civil servant has sincerely-held doubts about the propriety of a policy or action,"—
and I stress the word "action"—
"he does not need and should not try to carry the burden alone".
The two civil servants in the Department of Trade had to carry it alone and they sought some comfort by referring it to No. 10. We do not know what took place in that transaction, but they only had an hour and a difficult decision to make. A civil servant not only has an obligation to fulfil the law, but an obligation to uphold high standards of government; and it should be possible in certain circumstances for him to go to the Cabinet Secretary who would approach the Prime Minister. As to whether or not there should be a different code of ethics for Ministers (and of course new Ministers receive instructions on behaviour, instructions which I believe are never published and
1098
that was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was referring) there is nonetheless no doubt that the average permanent secretary would have been able to persuade anyone except a lunatic Minister that it was improper to do it.
However, we must look at the timing in this case because that is really the issue. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry himself—and I think it deplorable that he agreed to this—had to be telephoned and did not really give the matter proper consideration. The two civil servants then rang No. 10 and sought some kind of comfort. We should recognise that there is a role for civil servants. Indeed, the permanent secretary as the accounting officer has a role which is, if necessary, different from that of his Minister. Although I stand by the general description of what Sir Robert Armstrong said, I think that some amplification of this is necessary.
I shall not keep your Lordships for more than another minute or two. The question is: what do we do at this particular moment? First, I think that the Cabinet Secretary has too heavy a task. That is apparent. Although he is a remarkable man and discharges it with great brilliance, to be the principal Civil Servant adviser to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister, and to run the whole Civil Service, is too much.
Going back, let us face it, to Sir Horace Wilson, we have in the past seen senior civil servants with too much power. Indeed, there were criticisms of the head of the Treasury when Helsby was there. We need a third arm. One of the mistakes of the Government was to abolish the Civil Service Department and not to reappoint a permanent secretary who was head of the Civil Service, like the noble Lord who is likely to follow me. It was my fortune, as the first Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service Department, to have Sir WilliamArmstrong as my permanent secretary. That is the first thing I would say; that he would function alongside the permanent secretary to the Treasury and the head of the Foreign Office.
Next, should there be a code of conduct? They are terribly difficult to draw up. The First Division Association would like to see one. Perhaps we ought to have one. I should like to refer briefly to the Official Secrets Act. I am nervous about substituting a freedom of information Act. It is an easy thing to say. I always thought that one of the advantages of the Official Secrets Act was that it was almost impossible to understand what it meant. Now and again we had a situation such as where Mr. Ponting—and I do not take up any position to support him—gets acquitted. This may not have been a bad thing in terms of freedom, but someone who leaks information in future may still be convicted and go to prison.
What does a freedom of informatioin Act mean? If the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, had had the time he might have been able to explain it more fully. They have them in other countries such as Australia and Canada, and for all I know they work very well. But it is imperative that the working relationship between Ministers and civil servants, and the advice given, and what goes on in Cabinet, should remain confidential. I only regret, as a former member of the Radcliffe

1099
Committee looking at the publication of ministerial memoirs, that that confidentiality is breached so often by Ministers.
The Government should take a serious look at the situation. We do not want people's heads to roll on this question. I personally see little advantage in summoning more officials to appear before a Select Committee, but that is a matter for them and the last thing I dare to suggest is how a Select Committee carries out its activities. But there are certain things which I believe must in the public interest remain confidential.
I should like to see a more determined attempt by the Government to seek to restore the morale and understanding of officials. We know that recruiting is not going as well as it should, and this Government carry a heavy burden of responsibility for what I believe is a serious decline in the morale of the Civil Service. Secondly, we need—and this is one of the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, although I did not go far with him—a little more clarification as to the role of the civil servant. I have talked to permanent secretaries who believe they must carry out their duty if they have to deal with a situation where not only is something unlawful involved but something immoral. My sympathy is with these poor civil servants who are caught with only an hour. And the blame?—we know where it rests.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I rise following two notable speeches. The one of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, delivered with great lucidity, force and elegance, and with which I almost, but not totally, disagreed; and Lord Shackleton's speech, with which I almost, but not totally, agreed. I therefore stake out my position to begin with. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, implied that the system is beginning to break down; that a new constitutional settlement might be necessary; that the triangular pact is in danger of erosion, if not collapse. Now I would be a rich man if, every time someone had said to me, "The system is breaking down", or, "Things will never be the same again", they had given me a fiver. I should have been a very rich man indeed.
One has to look at the present position of the Civil Service, Parliament, and the Government in broad, historical terms. All I should like to say, following up Lord Shackleton's speech, is that I entirely agree with him, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that the Official Secrets Act has long been discredited, but I would not myself replace it with a freedom of information Act for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained.
I find myself in an invidious position on the question of whether or not one should have a head of the Civil Service and a separate Cabinet Secretary. All I would say is what I have already said in another place, that the two posts have one similarity in that they are both extraordinarily sensitive; otherwise they are totally different. The Cabinet Secretary necessarily must be the intimate adviser of the Prime Minister of the day, and must be at his or her beck and call, and rightly so.
1100
The head of the home Civil Service has a role as the head of a profession, and a representational function both to Ministers and to other constituencies as well.
Perhaps I had better put my cards on the table and confess that I am sufficiently old fashioned to believe that the pact, the system, the settlement, is under strain but is not actually breaking down. I believe that the desired relationship between Ministers and their officials should still be what I call the classical one; namely, civil servants, for their part, are recruited by open competition; are promoted on merit; are not required to behave with impropriety; enjoy a reasonable degree of security, and with adequate but modest rewards; Ministers, for their part, should refrain from the political preferment of officials, enjoy non-partisan support from them, and protect them as, effectively, agents of Ministers.
I am only too well aware, particularly in the light of Lord Hooson's notable speech, of the developments which are cited as impairing, if not perhaps exploding, this classical relationship. He has cited a number: the increasing power of the media; the increasing growth of the professional politician; the, as he sees it, erosion of the old concept of ministerial responsibility, on which I do not go all the way with him; and there are a number of other developments including, for example, the financial management initiative which increasing places open answerability on officials.
There is also—a point which has been mentioned—the appearance of officials before Select Committees of both Houses, nowadays virtually always in public. There it has been possible to strike a happy medium thanks to the common sense of both the parliamentarians, on the one hand, and the civil servants and their Ministers, on the other. I have seen it in a curious way from both sides of the table and it has been interesting. But the job of a civil servant when he appears before a Select Committee in my view is that he explains, he does not defend or justify. That is for the politician, the Minister.
I do not regard these developments—many of which I welcome—as striking at the root of the relationship as I have described it. In one form or another it is fair to say that they have been with us for a long time. I am thinking particularly of the Select Committee development, which is really an extension of what accounting officers have been doing to the Public Accounts Committee under successive chairmen since the year dot. I still regard as totally valid the limpid definition of the role of the civil servant in the 1853 Northcote-Trevelyan report:
"The great and increasing burden of public business … could not be carried on without an efficient body of permanent officers, occupying a post duly subordinate to that of Ministers … yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist and, to some extent, to influence those who are from time to time set above them".
Reference has been made by both noble Lords who have spoken to notes of guidance—I regard that quotation as a very good note of guidance—for both Ministers and officials which are revised and reissued from time to time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I wish they were published and publicised more. Sir Robert Armstrong's memorandum last year was, I thought, a good piece of work—if that does not sound patronising—and is a good example of what I have in mind of something that was published and publicised.

1101
There are others, as was noted, including guidance for Ministers. I, too, should like to see more of those published. It should be part of explaining what I call the classical position.
Reference has been made to the Westland episode. There is a tendency, not in this House but elsewhere, to regard it as again calling into question the fundamental relationship between Ministers and officials. It was a decidedly rum affair. It has been left with two ministerial casualties on the uneasy basis that their resignations were unnecessary and that it all turned on misunderstandings between four unfortunate civil servants individually named. One must have sympathy for them. The episode also included citing named civil servants as witnesses to the veracity of the Secretary of State. In each case that is role reversal with a vengeance. Apart from the tragedy of the ministerial resignations it is deeply sad that on ministerial instructions the Civil Service should have been sucked into involvement in political intrigue which can only bring discredit on the whole process of government and on Ministers and civil servants.
Ministers should not require civil servants to do things which are unlawful. If, short of that, a Minister should instruct an official to do that which is improper, the official should take the action open to him or her under the Armstrong memorandum, in particular bringing into play the department Permanent Secretary. It is always possible for officials to note the file in the event of their being requested to take unprofessional action. But it is not open to them to adopt the unprofessional course of reaching for a brown paper envelope, the copying machine and the address of a newspaper or of a Member of Parliament. In the last and desperate resort there is resignation. You might say that that is easy advice from an elderly buffer who has retired. Your Lordships would be quite right.
I am similarly old-fashioned in my view of the relationship between Parliament and the Civil Service. It is right that officials should appear before Select Committees with clear guidance as to their role, just as, as I have said, Permanent Secretaries have been appearing before the Public Accounts Committee. But I must confess to an impatience with civil servants who profess a quite other-worldly rectitude and chastity. Their admonishing hands are apparently unstained by the abrading influences of Whitehall and Westminster. They profess a higher answerability above and beyond the elected Government of the day direct to Parliament itself.
I hope that what I shall say will not shock your Lordships, but all of us know that in practice the parliamentary process involves both the Government and opposition parties in presenting their policies in as fetching a light as possible. Inevitably this involves a degree of suppression and misrepresentation in which—let us be robust about this—the official on occasion cannot help but get involved. But almost without exception the degree is kept well within bounds by conscience, by common sense and by the heavy sanctions (of which we have seen recent evidence) which Parliament brings to bear against Ministers and other members who might be regarded as misbehaving. It is this aspect of reality which has
1102
moved me to say that officials should not wear their necessary virtue on too prudish a sleeve.
In conclusion I should like to say two things: one I should like to address to the Opposition Benches and the other to the Government Benches. To the former—this follows something that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said—I say that, in my view, claims are wholly misplaced which have been made (not in this House but elsewhere) that the Civil Service is being politicised by appointing as Permanent Secretaries career officials who are political sympathisers. I do not believe that to be true of any of the Permanent Secretary appointments which have taken place from within Whitehall during the four years or more since I retired. There is never a single god-given candidate for a particular post. There is always a field of two or three possibles. In no case, in my view, has an appointment been made from candidates falling outside such a field. Politicisation is a more insidious and subtle process than that.
To the Government Benches I say that it has taken a century and a quarter to build a permanent, non-political Civil Service, trusted, on the whole, by government, opposition and public. Its efficiency can and should be kept under close constant scrutiny. It can be treated as a mildly or perhaps even wildly funny institution. In the late Lord Bridge's memorable phrase, it is in the same galère as mothers-in-law and Wigan pier; nowadays I suppose it is Mr. Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby. But it can also be destroyed in a decade by ministerial hostility, misuse and indifference, and that I fear may be what is happening. I use one illustration only; there are many others. The Government, to their great credit, have at last proposed to the Civil Service a move towards the reintroduction of a pay system which was abandoned in 1981. Under their proposals they even edge nervously back to the notion of comparability. I can claim consistency here because, as some noble Lords may recall, I praised the Government for their courage in accepting the findings of the report of the Top Salaries Review Board last year which included a degree of one element of comparability.
The proposed new system entails the Civil Service putting its trust in the Government's good faith. This proposal was recommended to their members by a number of staff association leaders. It was something, however deficient, on which to build for the future. In the event, I understand that the proposal was decisively and heavily rejected by all but two of the associations. One of those which rejected it was the First Division Association, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, represents the senior members of the service.
This saddens me beyond measure. The only hypothesis to explain it is that this Government have even forfeited the trust of many of their senior staff. They do not, alas! believe in the Government's good faith. Let me say in parenthesis here that I am not talking about personal relations between Ministers and their official advisers, which I am sure in many cases—in most cases—are excellent. But I have to repeat that this Government's record as employers in relation to their employees, all but a handful of whom are gifted, devoted and loyal public servants, is seen by

1103
most of them as one of—and I choose my phrase carefully—callous opportunism. It is that relationship of trust which needs urgent repair.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him a question purely for my own clarification. He referred to the guidelines given to Ministers in their relationships with their civil servants and the guidelines of civil servants in relation to Ministers and Parliament. May I ask him—and I am not asking for the names, of course—whether the Civil Service drafts those guidelines, both of them or one of them?
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I can answer in relation to the guidelines which are given to officials appearing before Select Committees. The original draft, of course, was done by civil servants in my day and it was then approved by Ministers. The same I have no doubt is true of the memorandum which Sir Robert Armstrong issued last year. I think that to ask me to be drawn into who drafts the guidelines for Ministers would be asking me to go too far—and 25 years too early.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who speaks on the subject of this debate with a knowledge, experience and authority which must be unrivalled in your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will understand if among such a distinguished list of speakers I deal only with the relationship between the Government and the civil servants in the relatively narrow field of industrial relations in which I feel qualified to speak. That will involve reference in particular to the controversial matter which has been touched upon already of whether civil servants employed at GCHQ should enjoy the right to belong to a trade union.
On this occasion I have given notice of what I am going to say only in the most general terms (and I seem to have heard that phrase before) to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. That is because delicate issues are involved and I do not wish to tempt the Government into striking an inflexible attitude in their response. My purpose is rather to sound a warning note as to where my noble friends—for I think I may speak for them, too—and I now stand in this matter.
In my view the Government, in declining two years ago to engage with the unions involved at GCHQ in negotiations which might have resulted in a "no strike" agreement, missed a glorious oportunity to establish a precedent which might have been of inestimable value to us all. I say that because the case now seems to me to be as strong as ever for introducing as a quid pro quo in such an arrangement some form of independent arbitration as a last resort in disputes involving the pay and working conditions more particularly of those public servants who are employed in key occupations that are vital to the support of life or to the security of the state.
Instead, the Government offered to pay £1,000 to every member of GCHQ staff in compensation for their withdrawal of individual rights and threatened
1104
with dismissal those who declined to exercise either of the two options extended to them or to accept a suitable alternative posting. At the time, I said in this House that there was something about that arbitrarily fixed financial inducement which stuck in my gullet. Whatever it might be called by the Government, in my view the purchase for money of the individual liberty involved was unsavoury. I did not believe that a price could be set on such a loss and the Government's offer to enter into such individual contracts left a bad taste in my mouth.
I further expressed the fear that if the Government remained unwilling to reach some accommodation with the unions that safeguarded both the defence capability of this country and the freedom to belong to a trade union, the morale of civil servants would be damaged, the standing of responsible union leaders diminished and the security of the state thus placed more, not less, at risk. The Government might then come to regret their action but it would be too late for they would have achieved precisely what they set out to prevent. I have seen no reason to change the views that I expressed at that time.
But since then there have been a number of developments. Six months ago the head of the Home Civil Service wrote to the Council of Civil Service Unions saying that any member of GCHQ staff who had signed an undertaking accepting the changed conditions of service offered him at the beginning of 1984 and who had joined or rejoined a national Civil Service trade union after a specified date and remained in membership had either to resign from the union or face disciplinary action for breach of conditions of service.
That ultimatum was issued despite the fact that the European Commission of Human Rights had still—and, indeed, it still has—to consider the legality of the Government's union ban. It is fair to say that the people facing disciplinary action are as yet confined to those who rejoined the union after having received their £1,000. That money, was, however, given in compensation for loss, not of trade union memberships, but of employment protection rights. Moreover, I understand that a number of those who rejoined their union offered to repay the £1,000 but had no response from management.
All the Civil Service unions have committed themselves to demonstrate their strength of feeling by taking industrial action should any member of GCHQ staff be dismissed because he or she is a trade union member. More than that, leaders of unions in the crucial field of electricity supply, noted for their responsible attitude in such matters, have promised to ballot their members concerning possible action should any GCHQ member be sacked.
The Labour and Alliance Parties are, I believe, united in their opposition to the action taken by the Government in this matter, and in the interests of the test the Government themselves applied, namely, national security, I take this opportunity to urge the Government to stay their hand.
There is one other matter concerning trade unions which is relevant to the relationship between the Government and the Civil Service, on which I will touch only lightly, again because I do not wish to exacerbate a situation which is already somewhat

1105
highly charged. It concerns the desire of a number of Civil Service unions to hold ballots on the possible establishment of political funds under the provisions of the Employment Act 1984. I think I am right in saying that the members of all unions which already have such funds have voted in favour of retaining them. Some unions which have not previously had them, including a number of non-industrial civil service unions, have decided to hold a similar ballot.
Recently, the Government sought to discourage them on the grounds that in their case political funds were unnecessary because Civil Service unions are free, like others, to spend money from their general funds in support of their members' interests. Additionally, in the Government's view the establishment of political funds in Civil Service unions would not be in keeping with the need for the service to remain politically neutral.
I do not propose to rehearse in any detail the various counter-arguments which have been advanced by the unions. Suffice it to say that in their view it is no less appropriate that, for example, cleaners or messengers in non-industrial branches of the service should contribute to a political fund than that their counter-parts in the Ministry of Defence should do so, and that the establishment of a political fund is not the same thing as affiliation to a particular political party.
Of course there is much more than that which could be said on both sides of the argument. My purpose, however, in referring to these matters is not to come down heavily on one side or the other. One of the things that most disconcerted me—and here I come near, I think, to agreeing in a rather different context with something the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said—is the way in which in politics everything has to be presented in terms that are either black or white whereas, as we all know, they are very often grey. My hope is that in this delicate area the Government will not over-react, for I fear that if they do it could prove counter-productive.
In matters concerning pay and employment conditions generally, the difference between employer and employees in the Civil Service is already great enough. Morale, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is low. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, went further and talked of trust having been forfeited. In my view it would be prudent for the Government to think long and hard before making any further moves on this particular point concerning political funds. In short, I hope the Government will find it possible to handle as coolly and as passively as they can both the matters I have taken the liberty of putting before your Lordships this evening.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken with much expertness about a very important aspect of the question in this debate initiated so arrestingly by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I agree with so much that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, and he speaks with an authority I do not possess because he has been Minister for the Civil Service Department. That was an appointment that was awarded to a Leader of the House of Lords after my time.
1106
I agree with so much that he said that I would only emphasise one thing in particular. He insisted in quite a controversial way—and I agree with him—that civil servants have a duty beyond that of simply carrying out the instructions of their masters. They have a duty to uphold high moral standards. I do not think that this is something one can ever put into black and white: it is either done or it is not done. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put it very well and I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, if I may say so, challenged him on the point because it enabled us all to be clear on what he was saying. He said that his Permanent Secretary would not have allowed him to do a certain thing and I think he then explained exactly what he meant. It would have been impossible to do it in his relationship with the Permanent Secretary.
I am an admirer of former President Nixon; in fact, I wrote a small book about him. One of the things I have always said about Nixon is that Watergate could not have happened here. I still believe that, in spite of anything that has been said since. It could not have happened here because the top civil servants—Sir Robert Armstrong, or whoever was there—would simply have said, "Prime Minister, you cannot do that". I still believe that to be true of our system. Of course if it ceased to be true the whole thing would go to pot and one might as well go and live somewhere else. That was, I think, a terribly important point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, speaks with enormous authority. I am glad that I am not the Minister who is to reply tonight, because the noble Lord could hardly have been more severe in his final remarks about the attitude of the Government to the Civil Service; and no words of mine could add to the severity of that criticism. Other speakers will have their own qualifications. I suppose mine are really more of a Rip Van Winkle, perhaps, than anybody else. It is over 60 years since I first began to study British political institutions, well over 50 years since I began to teach them as a don at Oxford, and over 40 years since, in a humble way, I tried to apply what I knew as a Lord in Waiting here in the Government. So I speak just as a kind of Nestor in this debate, in relation to relatively young men.
I personally agree with what I think was one of the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft: that our system is still, in a sense, as pure as we have claimed it to be. In that sense it seems to me it is the same system that I studied as an undergraduate over 60 years ago. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be fatal to the standards of our life if it ever became politicised, although there are always going to be dangers of that and you can never quite say where the line is to be drawn. We expect a lot of our civil servants. In fact, we expect such a peculiar mentality or psychology among them that I am amazed that such people have ever come into existence at all. We expect them to have this dispassionate quality, this readiness to serve whoever happens to be their master, along with this independence of moral judgment. We expect those qualities.
I remember, when I was helping the then Leader of the House to carry the nationalisation of iron and steel, being sent over to that Box in the corner over there because I had been asked to obtain a reply to

1107
points—no doubt tiresome ones—that were being raised by the Conservative Opposition. I saw in front of this high official two piles of notes and I asked, "Why have you got two piles?" He said, "These are the notes enabling me to equip you to reply to the Opposition". I said to him, "what are the others?" He replied, "Those are the notes I have got ready to help the Opposition to reply to you when they come into the government and they want to denationalise steel". That is actually true, and it is a very good example of the neutrality.
Somebody might say, "No one but a eunuch could have that point of view"; but in a curious way that is the quality we expect of civil servants, always remembering that at a certain point the civil servant says, "No, Minister; you cannot do that". We have a picture of the civil servant which remains what it has been and how all my life I have seen it. I think it remains the same today.
There are these many developments which have been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said with so much conviction that no attempt has been made to choose Permanent Secretaries who were suited to the special point of view of the Government that I have to go and think again. All the evidence supplied in the press is against that conviction. Again and again, we have been given names of people at great length. It has all been spelt out. I do not know whether I hope he is right or I hope he is wrong. But, quite honestly, I do not quite believe him. That is the long and the short of it. I am sure that he believes it himself, but it is not generally believed that the Thatcherite approach is considered quite irrelevant when appointing top civil servants. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, put it in such a careful way that I need to read it in Hansard. He said that no one is chosen outside the small circle of people qualified, which is not quite the same as saying that the best person on other grounds is always chosen. But, as I said, I must read that carefully in Hansard.
We have the Select Committees. It has been the role of the civil servants to appear before Select Committees. I welcome these Select Committees. They enable Parliament—the House of Commons, at any rate—to play a creative role and they are good for civil servants in keeping them on their toes. One of my sons is in the Foreign Office. He has appeared several times before the Defence Committee and thoroughly enjoyed it. So a good time can be had by all. But in theory it is a very difficult line to draw and we realise that at some point the civil servant has to say, "I am afraid that is policy and I cannot deal with it". So it raises problems and there may be, in times to come, clearer guidelines laid down.
In passing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the separation of the head of the Civil Service from the Secretary to the Cabinet. I know that in theory the Secretary to the Cabinet is the servant of the whole Cabinet. In my time the noble Lord, Lord Trend, went out of his way to be kind to all Cabinet Ministers, but he was basically the Prime Minister's closest adviser. Nothing can stop that and to have him in charge of the Civil Service is bound to put too much power in the hands of any Prime Minister,
1108
whether this one or any other one. That is the conclusion which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reached, and I agree with him.
Another point of my own that I want to make—I do not know whether it will ever come about—is that more responsibilities ought to be placed on junior Ministers. If we could only hand over some of the responsibilities to junior Ministers, the extraordinary dichotomy between them and the top Minister, with thousands of officials underneath, would not be so severe and officials would be in a better position to interpret policy. I say that in passing.
There is one other development I must mention: that is, the coming of these information officers. Information officers sound all right. It sounds as if they are a sort of extension of the Daily Telegraph information service, just giving facts to help people form their opinions. But in practice they are propaganda officers, just as the Ministry of Information was a propaganda Ministry during the war. This is a development that would certainly have horrified my dear old chief Lord Attlee. It would have nearly killed him to have all these information officers about the place putting up the Government's case.
I have nothing whatever against Mr. Bernard Ingham, who has become very famous these days. We are told, quite authoritatively, that after the Prime Minister he is probably the most powerful man in the country—if not, he is very close to it. So that tremendous power is passing into the hands of these information officers. How can we see that in relation to the idea that civil servants are neutral? How can these passionately committed propaganda officers be regarded as neutral in the old sense? I do not have time to provide the answer. I will just leave it there.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he interrupted me to point to the example of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I was on my feet at the time but I have now given it mature reflection. I think that was right. It was a genuine example of the acceptance of ministerial responsibility in its fullest sense.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am immensely grateful. In all my 40 years in this House, the noble Lord is the first one who has ever said that I was right when I interrupted him.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, this debate has been conducted with great objectivity and good humour. It is a very important debate and we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend for having introduced it. He introduced it by saying that he was going to look at these matters mainly from the point of view of a parliamentarian. It is fitting therefore that I, as the other half of the Alliance, should look at it mainly from the point of view of an ex-Minister. Indeed, that is the way in which I do look upon it in the context, and exclusively in the context, of how to achieve good government—a very difficult task for which the nation, Parliament and, in particular, Ministers need every possible assistance.
The first assistance which they need is the total reliability and perfection, so far as it can be achieved,

1109
of their closest advisers in their ministerial office. I was very glad that in this connection my noble friend quoted with approval the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who said that civil servants owe their primary responsibility to their Minister. I cannot see any other method by which a Minister is better equipped in his difficult task of good government than by having the best possible advisers, objectively chosen for their professional skill, offering him their total loyalty and he, in return, doing everything possible to merit, achieve and keep warm that loyalty and mutual trust.
I think therefore that the memorandum of Sir Robert Armstrong, which has been referred to, is entirely to be respected and read with the greatest care in the various ways in which it sets out how a civil servant should behave. It starts on the principle, which I can accept completely, that for all practical purposes—I am not sufficiently equipped to discuss the theory of the matter, but I am to discuss the practical purposes—civil servants are answerable to their Ministers, because they are the servants of the Crown in Parliament and the Crown acts through Ministers.
I know of no organisation, whether business or Parliament—they are very different things, but they both need to work efficiently—which can work efficiently if the lines of authority and the lines of communication are confused, as they will be confused unless there is a clear understanding of who is responsible to whom. The civil servant is responsible to his Minister and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. The Minister is reponsible to Parliament for policy. The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the administration of his department as well. Of course, it is his Permanent Secretary who carries out that responsibility, but the Minister is in charge and has to answer questions, and it follows that the civil servant does not have to answer questions. It follows from that that a civil servant should not be put in the position of having to answer questions, except at the request of his Minister, and to the extent that his Minister wishes information to be given or policy to be explained.
I do not draw the difference that has been drawn hitherto between policy and facts. Policy can be explained by the civil servant; it cannot be justified, as has been said, by the civil servant. It is appropriate that a Minister should assist Parliament, to which he is responsible, by seeing that his civil servants are there to provide all the facts, to explain policy and to give it whether it is given to Parliament in the form of sitting as a full House or sitting as a committee, in particular as a Select Committee. That I feel is the only way in which a Minister—and therefore a Government—is best equipped to carry out his most difficult task.
On that assumption, is everything well at the present time? It clearly is not, and I therefore have to offer a suggestion or two as to what remains to be done to improve the situation and, if I may say so, to restore the situation. I am not relying on hearsay; I am relying on my own knowledge. I am relying in particular on an occasion—I shall not date it and therefore it will not be possible to say which government were in power at the time—when having addressed a meeting of senior to very senior civil servants at the Civil Service College it
1110
was then question time and I was cross-questioned about a great variety of the things I was saying. I was putting forward what has been well called a classical view of the relationship between the civil servant and his Minister and between the civil servant and Parliament.
They asked me how on earth I could propose such a simple view having regard to the situations in which from time to time they themselves had been put. They explained what they were and my hair stood on end at the thought that they should have been put in such very difficult positions by Ministers departing totally from the accepted view of the relationship between a Minister and Parliament. Therefore, I am bound to say that all is not well and much needs to be done. Perhaps I may divide it into two parts and say, first, what I think ought to be done on the part of the civil servant; and secondly, what ought to be done on the part of the Government.
With regard to the civil servant, I have very little to add to what I have already indicated. Whatever his anxieties are, whatever his difficulties are, there exists machinery within the Civil Service to enable his difficulties to be ironed out and his anxieties to be dealt with, to be explained and, if necessary, brought to the highest possible quarters. Having that machinery, and because he is able to do all that, whatever his anxieties are—on whatever basis they are—it is not open to a civil servant to seek release from his difficulties by explaining them, by uncovering his conscience to the public at large through a leak to a particular newspaper. That is simply not open to him; nor is there need for it. Had there not been this machinery it would be totally different. If in the final analysis after all these processes have been gone through, a civil servant finds himself completely unable to carry out his responsibilities, it is obvious that he has chosen the wrong profession and must choose another. That is all I have to say about the Civil Service.
With regard to Ministers, there is far more to do in re-creating the morale which is undoubtedly at a lower ebb than it should be, and indeed in certain areas at a very low ebb indeed. I am concerned therefore with what re-creates morale. An obvious answer to that is recognition—recognition both by the public and more particularly by Parliament and by Ministers—of the work done by the Civil Service and enthusiastic defence of the civil servant when some of the things that the Government have done are blamed on to the civil servant. I say this to the noble Lord who is going to be good enough to reply to the debate and who has sat through and listened to every word.
I regret that during the 15 years I have been in your Lordships' House there have been several occasions—far too many—when civil servants, by category and not by name, have been referred to and criticised and there has been no defence whatsoever when it was the duty of Ministers sitting on that Front Bench immediately to get up and explain that it is not our practice to attack people who cannot defend themselves; that it is quite improper for us to do so; and that the explanation is whatever it is. That has not been forthcoming on a sufficient number of occasions for me to feel embarrassed and, I am sure, for civil servants to feel that they are not being properly protected. If what I have said is right the civil servant

1111
must be protected by anonymity; and if what has been done—whether or not it is on his advice nobody will know—by the Minister is to be laid at the door of a civil servant, in my view the Minister is there immediately to defend him.
A second area to restore morale is responsibility. A civil servant has an important profession. Every professional man enjoys exercising his responsibility and helping the public to the greatest extent he can. That is true, too, with civil servants. How can that happen? How can he exercise his responsibility unless a Minister listens carefully to the views put to him—listens, not accepts; listens carefully to the reasons given by the civil servant as to the possible practical difficulties of giving effect to the policy?
It is a familiar phrase that Ministers are confronted by civil servants who will always tell them the reason why something cannot be done. Those who have experienced government know that the one thing you must avoid is legislating for and giving effect to policies which do not work. You are far better off to have the annoyance and irritation of having all these pitfalls pointed out to you in advance than to take the alternative line and say, "I know better. I am going ahead with this", and then seeing your policy collapse in practice. So it is through both recognition and responsibility that morale will be raised.
As I am on the point of responsibility, perhaps I may also say that as it has become the practice for Ministers to bring into their private offices specialist advisers from outside the Civil Service it is very easy for a Minister to forget that his chief adviser is his permanent secretary and that his permanent secretary must have the fullest opportunity of expressing his advice and his views no matter what the perhaps more sympathetic views of the political adviser may be. The permanent secretary will of course feel that he has been denied the possibility of doing his job fully if he is not so consulted.
The third and most important way of raising morale is of course through pay. As that subject has been covered—in particular, the question of a no-strike agreement has been referred to so clearly by my noble friend—I have no need to take up more of your Lordships' time on that matter.
So far as concerns achieving the greatest possible efficiencies, I am glad that many speakers have referred to the need for purely objective criteria in choosing civil servants and in appointing them to important tasks. I would only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to this extent: he thought there might be circumstances in which subjectivity was justifiable. In my view, there are no such circumstances. The agreement that a sympathetic civil servant would carry out his tasks for and with a Minister better must rest on the assumption that he is sympathetic to the Minister politically and will therefore do better for him—and so do worse for the next Minister he has to serve, if he comes from an opposite political party holding a different political point of view. It is essential that there should be no sense of political commitment at all disclosed to a Minister, and that the Minister should be able to know that he has the fullest confidence of the civil servant in carrying out his duties.
1112
My Lords, something has gone wrong with the timing machinery in your Lordships' House because it is already indicating 17 minutes and I have spoken for only five minutes! However, I shall bring my remarks to an end by saying that I am sure this debate has been well chosen. I am sure that I have made my position clear, as complementary to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I am sure also that the Government have a lot of hard thinking to do if they want to return the Civil Service to the kind of service that I knew and which was the most helpful instrument possible in achieving good government.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has raised a subject that is both important and timely, and one that, to us as parliamentarians and politicians, is intensely interesting as well. The noble Lord's opening speech was a thoughtful introduction to our debate. I probably agree with most of what he said, excepting only the slight party political flavour he gave to his remarks at certain points.
All the speeches we have heard have been informed and authoritative. I listened to them with very great respect. We have lived through a period when the workload of the Civil Service has increased enormously and the numbers have grown in proportion. There were only 500 members in the administrative class in 1914. We also live at a time when certain well-established principles are being called in question.
When I entered the other place, those principles were regarded as immutable and, with others of my generation, I accepted them. They have been discussed by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in one of the authoritative speeches we have heard. Chief among those principles is that of ministerial responsibility. Another is the principle of neutrality.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned the case of Sir Thomas Dugdale. I recall still with what respect and sympathy I heard of his resignation as Minister of Agriculture over the Crichel Down affair. Sir Thomas Dugdale accepted responsibility for maladministration by some civil servants of which he had been unaware. In fact, he corrected the abuse but he resigned. I remember also asking myself at the time whether his resignation, although it did him very great credit, was really necessary.
As we know, the range of ministerial work has increased enormously, and the decision-making process has developed in complexity. There are thousands of administrative decisions that affect the individual citizen and which have to be taken by civil servants without a Minister's knowledge. Although the appointment of additional ministers of state and of parliamentary under-secretaries—especially in the time of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—increased ministerial control to some extent, it only touched the hem of the problem. Decisions—so many of them—still have to be taken by officials.
I suppose that the best method of control would be to define broad lines of policy within which officials

1113
must carry out their work. However, I do not believe that Sir Thomas Dugdale would have been required to resign his office today.
Many authorities have analysed and defined the principles under which our civil servants work. In Dr. William Plowden's important article in the winter issue of Public Administration, he writes:
"The boast of the British Civil Service is that its total neutrality enables it to serve ministers of any conceivable government with equal loyalty and effectiveness".
We have all said something similar at one time or another, and we have believed it. We believe that we have the best Civil Service in the world.
My own experience as a Minister confirmed me in that belief. Not all civil servants are perfect, any more than all politicians are perfect. There are of course some civil servants who want to have things all their own way, on the pattern of "Yes, Minister". However, it is up to the Minister concerned to ensure that, at the end of the day, he holds the final authority in his department. In my experience, civil servants understand and respect that situation and have a healthy appreciation of the party system and of Minister's political sensitivities. A Minister, for his part, should also have the instinct to detect any deviation from neutrality. If he cannot do that, then he should not be a Minister.
I agreed with my noble friend Lord Longford when he said—and I believe the same point was made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton—that it is the clear duty of a civil servant to advise a Minister if he believes that the Minister is about to say or do something stupid, impracticable, or against the broad public interest. It is in that respect that the importance of the Private Secretary and the Private Office within the departmental machinery cannot be over-estimated. That link between the Minister and his staff, and between other private offices in other departments, is of central importance.
With reference to the Ponting affair, I confess that I should have been appalled if anything that I had said at the end of a long, tiring day, when I always thought that I could let my hair down, would be leaked to the press the following day. A Minister must be able to rely upon the absolute loyalty and discretion of his civil servants. They in turn—as your Lordships have been reminded by a number of speakers—have procedures that they can follow if they disagree with their Minister. Ultimately, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, civil servants can resign. I have never understood why Ministers are always the people that have to resign. I was fortunate to have Private Secretaries who served me loyally; who became, and who remain, my friends; and who forgave my idiosyncrasies.
In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that Ministers tend to ask, "Is he one of us?" No doubt that passes through a Minister's mind occasionally, but I must say to the House that this never occured to me when I was considering major issues or problems. When I was chairman of the Rhodesia Committee in the middle 1960s when the Unilateral Declaration of Independence was made, and had to deal with the problems of Rhodesia; when I had to deal with the appalling and tragic problems of the Aberfan disaster; when as Minister of Agriculture
1114
I had to deal with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease or the rabies epidemic—I did not turn round and ask if civil servants were Conservative, Liberal, Labour or Flat-Earthers. I was concerned to see that they were able to give the best advice so that I could make the best judgment. We must keep a sense of proportion as to what we expect our civil servants to do and to be.
One or two noble Lords have made a comparison with the civil services in other countries. This is always interesting especially when one considers the problems of politicisation—and, if we can learn anything useful from them, all well and good. We know that the civil servants in other Western countries are not expected to observe the same traditions of political neutrality as are our own, but we should bear in mind that they do not enjoy the same security of tenure either. For example, we know about the large turnover of civil servants which takes place in the United States when a new administration takes office. We know that in France and West Germany top civil servants can be dismissed by Ministers, though in practice many of them keep their posts. The key point is that they are likely to lose their jobs if the Minister begins to suspect their politics.
But the systems of other countries may not be appropriate for us. Nowadays for some curious reason it is not regarded by some people as proper to praise our own traditions. However, it must be said plainly that, while change, modernisation and new blood are obviously desirable, change must make sense. It must not be change just for the sake of change. We must be careful not to damage the system which is well tried and which has resulted in a first-class Civil Service.
This has been a century of cataclysmic change: democratic governments have fallen and countries have been subjected to tyranny and the chaos of civil disorder. In this country we are fortunate to have avoided these grim excesses. Our parliamentary democracy, which is composed of Government, Parliament and the Civil Service, with its independent judiciary, has survived two great wars and has produced periods of great reform, notably in 1905 and 1945, without sacrificing stability. In my view we must avoid excitable or ideological change which would upset the balance. This is our clear duty to the people of this country.
It is true that we could have more open government without damage to the national interest. Perhaps there is a tendency to classify too much and to keep the lid down too tightly on matters which are not of the first importance. Nevertheless, we have seen some substantial modifications and on the whole I think they have been beneficial. There has been recruitment from a wider field and from more universities; a system of political advisers; the Policy Unit was set up following the recommendation of the Fulton Committee; another recommendation of Fulton led to the creation in 1968 of the Civil Service Department by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. In 1967, we had the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Ombudsman, which was a significant step.
Last but not least there is the extension of the number of Select Committees and their work, which has brought civil servants more frequently face to face

1115
with Members of another place. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred to the Estimates Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee. I served on those two committees for several years and we had close contact with senior officials there. As the noble Lord would agree, the system is now far more significant and extensive, as was very clearly demonstrated by the recent sittings of the all-party Select Committee on Defence about the Westland affair, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and several other noble Lords.
It is sad to have to say, but nevertheless it is true, that there has been a decline in standards in recent years and this has come out time and again in this debate. The conduct of political heads of department and the way in which civil servants were involved was one of the least attractive aspects of that unhappy Westland affair. I felt particularly sorry for Miss Colette Bowe, who was doing no more and no less than she was told by her superiors.
There now appear to be two schools of thought. One is represented by Sir Robert Armstrong in his note on Civil Service relations with Ministers following the Ponting case and of course in his evidence to the Select Committee recently. The other school has an able advocate in Dr. William Plowden, to whom I referred earlier. Sir Robert has stressed that the civil servant has no constitutional personality separate from the Minister and can be expected to be protected from publicity or responsibility. Sir Robert defends the old doctrine in its entirety. Dr. Plowden believes that the Civil Service is being politicised and he would like to see the traditional, rigid career patterns broken down.
I think it would be of interest to the House if I quote one paragraph of his article very briefly. Dr. Plowden writes:
"Civil servants would become, internally and externally, more accountable for their own decisions, for their success and failures. Some would become nationally known figures. Ministers (and Parliament) would have to accept this. Ministers reciprocally would be entitled to take a far closer interest in Civil Service postings and selectively to insist that certain posts be filled by people of their own choice, from inside or outside the service."
That is the view of Dr. William Plowden.
I see the gulf between these two viewpoints as very wide indeed. But let me say as clearly as possible that if major changes are to be made then they must be made by Parliament after due deliberation. We must listen with respect both to civil servants and to distinguished commentators, but the final decision rests with Government and ultimately with Parliament. The experience of the last few years shows that some further changes are needed. The Government, in their treatment of GCHQ, mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and in the way that they have involved civil servants and information officers in particular in politically controversial issues, have contributed to this uncertainty and the lowering of morale, which I believe to be very unfortunate indeed. I hope that the serious words of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, will be heeded by the Government.
Ideally, the problem should be resolved by all the political parties after a full parliamentary inquiry involving both Houses and after extensive debates. My
1116
noble friend Lord Diamond also made some valuable suggestions in his speech and I hope that account will be taken of these by the noble Lord who is to reply and that he will convey them to his right honourable friends.
The Civil Service of this country, with its superb reputation, must not become a party political football. In my judgment that would not serve the best interests of the people of this country. In Britain we have so far managed to find sensible and workable solutions to our constitutional problems, and there is no reason why we should not do so in the continuing development of our primary national institutions.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for putting down the Motion that we have been debating. The relationship between the Government and Parliament and the Civil Service is rightly seen as being of considerable importance, not just to the Government or to Parliament but, I suggest, also to the welfare of our country. The importance of the subject has attracted four former Cabinet Ministers and a former head of the Home Civil Service to speak.
Early in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke of the constitutional position—"the pact", as he referred to it—between the Civil Service and the Crown in Parliament. That brought this afternoon's debate immediately to Sir Robert Armstrong's note on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers. The note was issued in February of last year. It did not break new ground. It was a restatement of the principles on which the relations between Ministers and the Civil Service have traditionally been, and continue to be, based. In the Government's view those principles remain as valid as ever.
As Sir Robert has made clear, the note is not designed as an exhaustive document. It is impossible to prescribe for all circumstances in advance. It is designed as a yardstick against which civil servants should judge how to behave in particular situations. I must say that I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, say that he believed in the classical position of the Civil Service in the constitutional pact. That is a point of view which was repeated in other speeches in the debate.
The basic doctrine in the note is that civil servants are servants of the Crown. For all practical purposes the Crown in that context means, and is represented by, the government of the day, and the Civil Service has no constitutional responsibility separate from the duly elected government of the day. The duty of the civil servant is to his Minister. He must advise Ministers without fear or favour in the consideration of policies. Once a decision on policy has been taken, the duty of the civil servant is to carry that policy out loyally. Under our constitution it is the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the department's affairs and the management of its business. That, in essence, is the central theme of Sir Robert Armstrong's note. It is a theme which was most strongly endorsed by the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Cledwyn, towards the end of the debate.

1117
It is unlikely, but there may be occasions when a genuine difference of view arises about the legality or propriety of what a Minister asks his officials to do. That is a matter to which some noble Lords have devoted part of their speech. Alternatively, a civil servant may face a crisis of conscience about policies or actions that he has been asked to carry out. Internal procedures are laid down for such occasions, as your Lordships know very well. Those procedures involve consultation with senior officers, including, when appropriate, the permanent secretary of the department and the head of the Home Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was absolutely right to remind us that the internal procedures were not fully activated in the Westland affair because the timing was quite exceptional and, in effect, made it impossible for the consultations to take place which would have been very desirable, as it turned out.
As your Lordships will be aware, a sub-committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is currently taking evidence in another place on Sir Robert's note and intends, I understand, to publish a report shortly. The Government will be giving the report and its recommendations very careful attention. But without prejudice to the report, I should just like to make a few observations on points made during the debate and also to give an assurance to the House that the Government will certainly take your Lordships' views very seriously into account in considering the sub-committee's report. Among the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was a request that I draw my right honourable friend's attention to this debate, and that I intend to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the case for a code of ethics for civil servants. I understand that a draft code is still under consideration by the Civil Service unions. It is difficult to comment substantially without seeing specific proposals, but, as Sir Robert said in his evidence of 25th November to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the problem lies in drawing up a code to cover all eventualties. That is the reason why his note sets out the general principles, with provision for senior officers to be consulted on their application in particular circumstances.
Also during the debate your Lordships have questioned whether the existing guidance for civil servants is sufficient when an issue of conscience arises. Crises of conscience relating to work are always difficult for those involved, whatever their profession. As I have already said, Sir Robert's guidance is deliberately set out in terms of general principles, and he has indicated that it should not necessarily be regarded as the final word on this subject.
However, some noble Lords, and notably the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in his opening speech, have referred to the suggestion that there may be a need for an external, independent appeals procedure for civil servants, or that civil servants may owe a different loyalty other than that to Ministers. It is a matter on which some noble Lords who have long experience of ministerial office have expressed very strong views indeed, particularly towards the end of the debate. That again is an area in which I am sure the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will have views, and I must not pre-empt them.
1118
But I think that it is worth considering what would actually happen if civil servants had the right of appeal to an external authority, whatever format that authority might take. Even if the appeals procedure was used only rarely it would in effect mean that civil servants, who, after all, are neither elected nor accountable to Parliament, would be in a position, as it were, to bypass the Ministers to whom they work. Thus appeals to an external authority would destroy the basis of trust and loyalty which is currently the norm between Ministers and civil servants.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also spoke of the increasing polarisation of policies among political parties, although I think I am right in saying that he did not draw the conclusion that the time has come for senior Civil Service posts to be political appointments, or, alternatively, that Ministers should be served by cabinets in the continental style, as some people suggest these days. I think that it is fair to say that the Government are by no means persuaded by the polarisation argument. Let me follow some of your Lordships and venture an opinion which is in line with the views of the Government but which is also my own. I believe most deeply that almost anyone who has worked with the Civil Service must have a great respect for its integrity and loyalty and its ability to service successive administrations and to give objective advice. I am convinced that a non-political, career Civil Service is in the best interests of our country. That is not to say that difficulties do not arise or that there is not scope for change. For example, some Ministers are making more use of political advisers. But any difficulties surely should be dealt with in the context of a system of government service of which we have good reason to be proud.
In that general context the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, suggested that there has been a recent tendency to want senior civil servants to be "one of us". I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, from the Minister's point of view, said, as I understood him, that the test is whether the advice being given by the Civil Service is as good as the Minister could possibly expect and is given in as good a working relationship as possible, bearing in mind the alarms and excursions to which he made reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, speaking with the authority that he has as a former Minister for the Civil Service, testified to his experience of the impartiality of civil servants whatever their own private political views may be. And the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, as a former head of the Civil Service, spoke of the considerable competition that there is for senior posts in the Civil Service. This makes it quite inconceivable that, in some way, one particular individual can be placed in a particular position. At any rate, if that ever could happen, it would be in the teeth of fierce competition from very highly qualified people.
I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the evidence given by Mr. Callaghan to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in another place when the right honourable gentleman made clear that, in his view, this Government's policy for appointing senior civil servants was no different from that in his own period of office.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, then devoted part of his speech to ministerial responsibility. Until the noble

1119
Lord came back and intervened during one of the speeches, I confess that I did not share his views about ministerial resignations. If I may say so, I now share the view that I understood him to express. I also share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, over the naming of individual civil servants during recent events. The point has been made that if the Government are blaming civil servants for what has happened, or expecting them to take the flak as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, put it, then they should give those civil servants the power to defend themselves. If not, they should exonerate them. I wanted to, and your Lordships have allowed me to, steer clear of the Westland affair during the last few minutes. I would, however, like on this particular issue, because of its enormous importance for the relationship between Ministers and civil servants, to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the member for Richmond said in another place on 27th January:
"I therefore accept full responsibility for the fact and the form of that disclosure".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/86; col. 671.]
There is, as it were, a second half to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, then returned to the subject of the Official Secrets Act. Once again, the noble Lord has argued for the repeal of Section 2—a subject that was debated fully in your Lordships' House on 20th March last year. I would just say that the noble Lord is not alone in wishing to replace Section 2. In previous debates on this subject, the Government have recognised that Section 2 is indeed not ideal. Nor has this issue been set aside in the past. Your Lordships may remember that in 1979 the Government introduced a Protection of Official Information Bill into your Lordships' House based broadly on the recommendations of the Franks Report of 1971 and largely consistent with the Labour Government's White Paper of 1978. Although the Bill was given a Second Reading, it was clear that in a number of areas there was no agreement, and the Government, reluctantly concluding that there was no prospect of progress, withdrew the Bill. The questions of what information should be protected and who should decide what information deserved protection were the two issues on which the Bill foundered. But the noble Lord goes further today, as he has before, in suggesting that Section 2 should be replaced by a Freedom of Information Bill. With respect, I have to say that the Government do not agree with the noble Lord that this is the answer. Two main arguments have been habitually put forward in favour of greater access to government information. First, it is suggested that secrecy is too widespread within government and that this, in turn, encourages leaks which are generally deplored, and secondly that only a formal right of access to government information will properly protect the citizen against the actions of government.
Soon after taking office in 1979, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made absolutely clear that the Government's policy was to make as much information available as possible consistent with the confidentiality essential to the effective workings of government. Indeed, your Lordships only have to look at the reports of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, of its committees, and of another place, to see that there is a vast quantity of detailed and
1120
significant information available about government activities and policies, certainly as much as most people would be able to find in many other Western democracies.
A Freedom of Information Bill, I suggest, would run into very much the same problems as the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Even those in favour of such a Bill recognise that certain categories of information would have to be protected. After all, the Freedom of Information Bill introduced by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 would, had it been successful, have exempted various categories of information from disclosure. Those categories would have included information seriously impairing defence, security or foreign relations other than relations with the European Community, information assisting in the commission of crime or impeding law enforcement, information normally protected by lawyer-client privilege, information giving an unfair advantage to competitors of the party concerned, and information constituting an unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy. I have been rather tediously going through those because it is a formidable list of information which that Bill considered would still have to be protected. There was one other as well, the desirability of which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reminded us in his speech—the need to protect information that might otherwise reveal a civil servants' policy advice to Ministers.
Moreover, a general right of access to information would make a very fundamental change, I suggest, in the nature of the relationship between Ministers, Parliament and the public. That change would be as to who should take decisions on what information should and should not be released outside Parliament. Two proposals are generally mooted. Either there should be an appeal to the courts or there should be some sort of non-elected information commissioner, which was mentioned today. But in either case the judgment would rest with those bodies thus undermining ministerial accountability to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, questioned, I think, the reality of that accountability—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt. Before the noble Lord leaves the subject of freedom of information, this has, as he said, been considered by many governments. The reason, when I was responsible for an examination, was that all the evidence seemed to me to be that we would have a more restrictive situation than exists under the present Act.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an argument with which I am familiar. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me and the House of that point. I should like to stress, in reply to the doubt which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I think, expressed about the reality of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, the actual weight of information that has to be made available now. In 1979 the Conservative Government helped to set up the departmental Select Committee system of another place. The terms of reference, as your Lordships know very well, are very wide. It is generally agreed, I believe, that those

1121
committees are now examining an increased range of government activities in greater detail and drawing out a wider range of government information than ever before.
Thinking of the Ministry in which I happen to work, I find that we have been concerned in the past two-and-a-half years with inquiries with as wide subject matter as Spanish and Portuguese accession to the Community, Aujeszky's disease in pigs, the implementation of dairy quotas throughout the farming community in our country, lower input farming, the disposal and storage of cereal surpluses and the enormously interesting and important subject of the proper operation and effectiveness of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Once again that is a very formidable amount of information through that particular channel of communication—the Select Committee channel—to be providing to Parliament from the Ministry in which I work and from other departments. In addition to that the Government have promised that time will be found for debate should there be widespread disagreement between a Minister and a Select Committee on what should be revealed. The wide-ranging powers of these committees, together with this undertaking, mean that Ministers are, I believe, accountable to Parliament.
May I end by answering two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his speech mentioned inter alia the question of the political funds of Civil Service unions. The Government believe that these are needed only if unions are proposing to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates. For the Civil Service unions to establish such funds and for such a purpose would, we believe, be contrary to the long-standing tradition of neutrality in the Civil Service which has to work for Governments of any political persuasion.
The noble Lord counselled coolness in dealing with this matter. There is no question of the Government's trying to interfere in internal union affairs in this matter. The purpose of the statement of my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Treasury—a statement which was, incidentally, requested by the Opposition in another place—was to make known the Government's view that political funds are unnecessary for Civil Service unions conducting campaigns on the terms and conditions of employment of their members.
The other question I must answer is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He raised the question: why is Questions of Procedure for Ministers not in the public domain? This is a note of guidance from the Prime Minister of the day to all Ministers covering how Ministers should conduct themselves on a variety of matters; for example, in relation to business interests, speeches and other things. It is not how Ministers ought to behave in relation to the Civil Service. With regard to publication, the Questions of Procedure for Ministers is a Cabinet document and, as such, fall within a category of document which it has been the practice of successive Governments not to make public.
My Lords, I hope that I have set out the Governmment's position clearly on the various issues
1122
which have been raised during this wide-ranging debate. I repeat, we shall most certainly reflect with very great care on what your Lordships have said. If there are ways to improve our system we shall certainly consider them.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have found this debate fascinating. I am most grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much for his very full reply and for the courtesy of that reply. As the noble Lord pointed out, the debate attracted the contributions of four very distinguished ex-Cabinet Ministers and a previous head of the Civil Service. I put this Motion down because I thought the time was ripe for such a debate in the cooler atmosphere of this House in the light of events over the last couple of years. I regard this debate as a precursor to the wider debate which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, envisaged in a much wider-ranging sphere.
Perhaps I may make one or two comments. They are simply these. It seems to be generally agreed that the constitutional pact—the Whitehall pact, as I have called it—is at least under strain. I would have said that it is more than under strain. The scale of activities of the Civil Service, the introduction of such people (as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out) as information officers—really propaganda officers—changes the nature of the Civil Service to a certain extent and I suspect that we are going through the inevitable process of modification.
I believe very strongly that a freedom of information Act is necessary simply because I think most of the areas of dispute concern factual information which is held back. In response to the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may I say this. In my view, a freedom of information Act would protect from disclosure the advice given by civil servants; certainly that would not be a matter which would be disclosed. But there is no reason why the facts upon which the advice was based should not be disclosed publicly.
I am very grateful to everybody who has participated in and contributed to this debate. In the light of the advice, given in his notable speech, that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, gave to the Government—and I think the onus is upon the Government to restore trust between themselves and the civil servants—it is a pity that not a single Conservative Back-Bencher took part in this very important debate. Of the distinguished ex-Cabinet Ministers that adorn their Benches, not one took part. I must exempt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who apologised to me today because he could not be present and explained the reasons to me. But I think that one upshot of this debate is to disclose quite clearly that in all sections of this House who contributed to the debate it is believed that there is a heavy onus on the Government to restore the trust that is necessary between themselves and the Civil Service. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Settle/Carlisle Railway: Proposed Closure
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the existing procedures for public objection or support to be followed before a final decision is taken on the proposed closure of the Settle/Carlisle railway line will offer adequate opportunity for the social and environmental issues to be fully discussed.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the Unstarred Question in my name on the Order Paper I should like to thank all those who have put their name down to speak, and especially the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle who will be making his maiden speech. We all wish him well. We look forward to hearing his contribution tonight and to hearing speeches from him on many other subjects in the not too distant future.
For some time there has been a growing concern that railway closure procedures are not really understood by the general public and that they need updating. The local authorities have felt that they have insufficient opportunities to comment on the closure proposals. There is also a wider concern because local authorities and commercial and environmental organisations have no statutory right to be heard, and there is no opportunity for the wider range of issues, including the effect of closures on the local economy, on the pursuit of leisure, and on the tourist interest, to be examined in public.
I believe that the time has come to argue for changes in the statutory procedure. At present under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 the Transport Users' Consultative Committees are required to report to the Secretary of State on the "hardship" likely to result from the proposed closure of a passenger service; and the wider issues are not subject to any public discussion or independent report. However, they can be considered in private by the Minister and his advisers.
As I see it, in practice this means that the inquiry is limited to the representations of existing passengers using an existing service on the adequacy of alternative public transport provision. Effectively, therefore, any consideration of matters prior to the issue of the closure notice is precluded. These matters could cover the rundown of the frequency of the service leading to reduced passenger usage and a further reduction in services, and even a reduction in maintenance work leading to deterioration of track and buildings.
I accept that in his private discussions with his advisers it is possible for the Secretary of State to take account of these wider issues when making a decision after the consultative committee has reported to him on hardship. The problem is that the statutory procedures do not lay down exactly what the Secretary of State does or should take into consideration, or even what he should legitimately take account of. I believe that the time has come for all the relevant and appropriate grounds on which representations may be made to be clearly defined and specifically set out in the statutory procedures.
One has only to measure this procedure against the very thorough and wide-ranging examination which
1124
takes place under town planning legislation to realise that the divergence of approach between the two types of inquiry procedure really cannot be justified. Surely the removal of important public facilities and services is just as vital as the construction and implementation of new development and facilities, especially as such a withdrawal from public services may well substantially influence public and private future investment decisions.
Many local authorities have either a statutory responsibilty or a very strong interest in public transport. Many individuals and local organisations are increasingly concerned about the rail closure proposals. They feel that there ought to be a genuine opportunity for discussions on proposed closures, not only with British Rail but with all the interested bodies.
The future of freight lines and lines with only occasional passenger services is also part of the problem. They are not covered either by the general consultation or by the consultative committee procedure. If you are looking at proposals for closure the freight aspects are critical and they assume a greater importance because possible future passenger use may not be considered. Nor is any consideration given as to whether freight traffic using a line is relevant to the withdrawal of passenger train services.
I was prompted to table this Question because of the proposed closure of the Settle/Carlisle railway and I should like to use that as the example tonight. Noble Lords may well ask—indeed. I have been asked this evening—why is someone from the edge of the flat fens concerned about this particular proposal? It is because almost 50 years ago it was my introduction to the high fells of the Lake District. Many people still enjoy this unrivalled access to remote country over a superb scenic route.
For those who do not know the area, the line was opened in 1876 by the old Midland Railway as an express route to Scotland. I am told that Appleby church bells were rung when the Railway Bill was passed in another place. The countryside through which it passes led British Rail themselves to issue a leaflet calling it,
"England's greatest historical scenic route".
In 1969 there were 14 weekday passenger through trains. In 1984 the last intercity train from Glasgow to Nottingham was removed, reducing the use then to four weekday passenger through trains. In 1985 this was reduced to two trains a day in each direction. In recent summers since 1974 the Dales rail service runs at weekends, and this has been funded by the national parks, by the Countryside Commission and by the county councils. There have also been extra daily and Sunday excursions by British Rail and excursions have been organised on steam trains.
However, there will be hardship if the line is closed. The local commuters for whom this railway really is a lifeline will lose their mobility, especially in the harsh winter conditions in the area. Those who know the area will know that it can be extremely severe on those fells. Alternative employment opportunities are scarce, if not altogether unobtainable, so there will be job losses. While these may be small, they are very

1125
important in a sparsely populated area. There will also be a knock-on effect from the economic problems which affect the more remote rural areas everywhere.
As a diversionary route for both east and west coast main lines, there is no other acceptable alternative either for emergencies or for planned closures. This line has a strategic role in linking the industrial centres of Strathclyde with Yorkshire and the East Midlands. On the very day that British Rail published the intended closure of the line it was used as an emergency diversionary route. Indeed, between January and December 1984 over 200 diverted passenger trains used the line during the engineering operations on the west coast line.
Then, too, this is really a part of our national heritage with the Ribblehead viaduct and all the other structures. The Ribblehead station building was at one time also used for church services and as a weather station. The station approach road was used as a sheep market. Dent station further along the line is the highest on any English main line. The highest water troughs in the days of steam were found at Garsdale. This marked the end of Victorian railway engineering. It was constructed through some of the most remote and hostile, yet most beautiful, scenery in our countryside.
The navvies and their families lived in hutted camps on site. There were some 350 families who lived in a local shanty town, 1,300 feet up the fells. They were connected to the Garsdale road by a tramway. More than 100 of those workers are buried in the little graveyard of the small church of St. Leonard's at Chapel le Dale. Those navvies moved one quarter of a million cubic yards of earth to make the embankment above Settle alone, and in all the length of the track there is only half a mile which is level, and that is between Settle and Blea Moor. Many of the viaducts, tunnels, bridges and stations on that line are now ancient monuments or listed buildings. I see them as a testimony to the work of those navvies over 100 years ago.
Our citizens today have more leisure and there is an increasing concern for an appreciation of our national heritage. As part of that heritage, this railway can only really be appreciated and understood if it is a working railway. A Cabinet Office Enterprise Unit document on tourism urged British Rail to take measures to preserve their historic heritage and British Rail, I believe, could do a lot more to exploit its tourist potential. The Countryside Commission is also interested in this area. It wants to expand the Dales rail service which it, the national parks and the county councils finance. It wants to provide interlinked bus services. It wants to arrange guided walks with special events and publications. If we updated the procedure for closure all those points could be considered, and surely as we enter a new era of leisure and recreation this is not the time to close this line but to preserve it in working order.
The procedures are outdated, as I have said. The Transport Users Consultative Committee is only required to consider hardship, not the matters I have raised today. There really should be an opportunity for public debate and the chance to cross-examine British Rail. The case for maintaining the investment in this
1126
line and developing its real potential is overwhelming. I have not developed British Rail's financial case for closure but I urge the Minister to consider the PEIDA report by independent consultants and their cost-benefit appraisal. PEIDA's analysis and suggestions ought to be fully considered by the Secretary of State and by British Rail.
One of the weaknesses of the existing procedure is that British Rail do not have to make their case in public as they would have to do at a public inquiry. Nor can they be subjected to cross-examination. While the TUCC chairman may allow questions to be put to British Rail, through the chair, he cannot insist on replies being given. I understand that at the former Yorkshire TUCC hearings into the Derby Dale closure proposals British Rail declined to comment on, or answer, any of the criticisms made of them. British Rail in effect are quite free to play a very limited role in the hearings in the knowledge that they will make their case in private to the Minister and his advisers.
I believe that these procedures must be widened. There ought to be an opportunity for public discussion not only on hardship, as the Transport Users Consultative Committee does at present, but consideration ought also to be given to freight as well as passenger and to recent financial performance, including the revenue which the line may generate on other parts of the rail network, and to what scope there could be for improving the financial performance by operating economies, by developing the service and even by more forceful marketing.
There should be a wider consideration of the role of the railway in the local community and economy. The elected members of an affected area should be able to make public representations and not leave the advice to the Secretary of State to come from an unelected consumer watchdog—the TUCC. We ought to be able to take a wider view of the general economic, social and environmental consequences of closure decisions and to appreciate the interdependence of lines within networks, both regional and national.
I understand that the consultative committees in the Carlisle/Settle area are considering the matter in late March and April. Is it too much to hope that something may be done before then to enable real public discussion to take place on the lines indicated? There is a need to take an overall view so as to evaluate the total costs of policies—social and economic—prior to their implementation. There is a need to retain basic facilities and a basic service structure in all these rural communities.
We know that certain individual parts of rural infrastructure are not of themselves economically viable. However, we must look further than this year's balance sheet, because any future costs of re-provision of such a service will be far in excess of the cost of retaining the existing services now.
8.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind welcome and her kind remarks. I noticed that the Standing Order of your Lordships' House concerning maiden speeches states that they should be unprovocative. That makes yet more difficult the task of a maiden

1127
speaker, for many of the subjects considered by this House are subjects of controversy. Not surprisingly, the subject under discussion this evening is a cause of acute controversy in the area through which runs this stretch of railway. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to steer clear of the shoals of controversy, at least in tone and manner and intention, in the following three points.
The first point flows from the reason why I wish to contribute to this discussion. At first sight, I may seem to be trespassing on the particular interests and concerns of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Carlisle. However, the diocese of Newcastle covers that part of the county of Cumbria which contains, I believe, the highest A-road in the country; the highest parish church, at Nenthead; and the highest market town, Alston, itself but 14 miles from the railway which is under discussion this evening. Further, the diocese of Newcastle also includes wide, sparsely populated areas of border country. All of us who live in those parts are aware of the extent to which life there has been affected by cuts in public transport.
It is commonly held that British Railways should have pruned their network more purposefully long before the Beeching reforms. Had they done so, the cuts would probably not have been so extensive. Now, with hindsight, there is a very general view that these cuts were excessive. In particular, the Waverley line from Carlisle over Whitrope summit through the border towns of Galashiels and Hawick to Edinburgh, should never have gone. The result is that a great swathe of northern England and southern Scotland, from the Tyne to Edinburgh, has no railway at all apart from the east and west cost main lines. People in rural Northumberland and in the eastern tip of Cumbria have spoken to me about the difficulties caused to them by cuts in the railway network and by the withdrawal and cost of rural bus services.
It is sometimes alleged that the services in question—both rail and road—are little used. The truth is that any diminution in public services of this kind counts for a great deal in small and remote communities. Families move to more populous parts; they are not replaced. The population of the rural parts of Northumberland is still declining. Younger people move into the towns and move south, partly for the sake of employment and partly for public amenities. Any cut in the railway network is bound to have adverse social consequences.
The second point can be put more graphically. Over the past 35 years or so I have walked frequently—indeed, very frequently—near the Settle/Carlisle railway by Dent and Garsdale, by Ribblehead and Horton in Ribblesdale. The passenger trains on that line were never numerous unless the west coast main line had been blocked. However, one has a vivid memory of freight traffic, of heavy freight trains toiling and struggling up to Aisgill. Where has all this freight traffic gone? The noble Baroness came close to this point when she asked her Question. Some indeed has gone up and down the west coast main line which is now being electrified, but some has just disappeared. Where has it gone? We all know that much of it has gone to road transport, and that adversely affects the environment.
1128
In the press recently there have been reports of yet more of the newspaper and mail contracts being given to road haulage. I do not doubt that there are formidable difficulties in the way of retaining, let alone of attracting, freight traffic for the railways, but certain routes have managed to do so. Indeed, 20 years ago few people would have believed that the West Highland line to Fort William would have such flourishing and profitable freight traffic. It is said that the freight traffic pays for the line and keeps it in being for passenger use.
As regards the Settle/Carlisle line, one may ask: is the traffic from quarrying stone, slate and gypsum really being exploited as much as possible? Further, the closure of any railway obviously precludes the possibility of regaining some freight traffic from road to rail.
The third consideration which I would advance is neither more nor less than a plea that the educational opportunities afforded by this line and by the country which it traverses should be investigated and used. I have touched on one social and on one environmental factor; now for an educational one.
A headmaster friend recently wrote to me saying that he would dearly love to exploit this line as a resource around which to plan an integrated curriculum. What a variety of subjects lie ready to hand for inclusion, ranging from Roman roads to Anglian field settlements, to the development of country towns. Even geology could become a subject of some vivid interest if one could actually see and touch Dent marble, limestone pavements between Ingleborough and Ribblehead. The entire Great Pennine Fault is to be found in the Birkett tunnel north of Aisgill. Industrial archaeology, social history, railway architecture, botany, too—all and more besides could easily form part of such a course. The Countryside Commission has drawn attention to even wider opportunities for recreation and adult education afforded by this line. Would not the restoration of the Ribblehead viaduct be a piece of modern technological education in its own way as remarkable as the raising of the "Mary Rose"?
I have tried your Lordships' patience and courtesy for long enough, if not for too long. It would be easy to go on at length about the scenic beauty of this line, about the problems which attended its construction and about the heroism of those who have served it in foul weather. But this Question concentrates on social and environmental factors. Those factors change over the years. No longer is it necessary to have a social club for farmers under the water tank at Garsdale, or to have a room set aside for the divine service at Ribblehead station. There are other social and environmental factors which need to be borne in mind today. Does the procedure for public inquiry allow for sufficient consideration to be given to them?
Social and environmental factors were clearly in the mind of William Wordsworth when in 1844 he composed his sonnet, "On the Projected Kendal and Windermere Railway", a line which runs not so far from the line which is the subject of this Question. The poet referred to a "false utilitarian lure" which had led to the planning of the railway. One cannot help thinking that precisely a false utilitarian lure underlies

1129
the proposal to close the line, and that there are powerful social and environmental forces which more than outweigh this false utilitarian lure's attractiveness.
8.32 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may first say what a great honour it is to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, and how much I enjoyed his speech on a subject which obviously is very much to his heart in an area which is very close to his heart. Try as I could, I suppose in view of the nature of the speech, I found it impossible to establish which of the various categories of bishop he belongs to as described by Sir Humphrey the other day in "Yes, Minister".
I must also say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for having put down this Question, for we are undoubtedly discussing this evening a question which evokes much feeling, particularly for those of us who live and work in the North of England, and to the many visitors who come to that part of the world and have had the honour of travelling on the Carlisle to Settle line.
It strikes me as ironic that we find ourselves in this position where the local planning authorities and the public at large are arguing for the retention of a railway and its dominant viaducts, when the very idea of constructing anything similar today would provoke every possible objection from those same planners and public. But it is not surprising that there is this strong public support for retention of this line when one considers that we are dealing with a railway which winds its way through some of the most beautiful and remotest parts of England's countryside combined with those stark, magnificent viaducts which have now blended themselves into the countryside so that they have become part of the countryside. They act as a memorial to the opulent development of the Victorian age.
It is apparently obvious that the reasons for the proposed closure are based on purely economic grounds, and so far as they go I do not think that one can blame British Rail for this. But it would appear that the on-going costs, excluding the viaduct repairs, are no greater than many other provincial lines. In fact I believe they are considerably less.
The noble Baroness made reference earlier to the independent consultants, PIEDA, who were invited to carry out this survey on behalf of the various planning local authorities. They, I believe, have estimated that even including the cost of structural repairs to the viaducts, the Settle to Carlisle line still compares favourably well. It therefore has to be questioned whether all commercial avenues have genuinely been explored, and certainly the preliminary reports would indicate otherwise.
The noble Baroness also made reference to the Dales Rail Service. This initiative was set up by the Yorkshire Dales Committee in conjunction with the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. If I may, I should like to give your Lordships some figures relating to the 1985 year. In 1985 £26,000 was spent on chartering trains for seven weekends. That included various other costs on top of the purely chartering costs. That included £3,000 spent on promoting the
1130
project; 5,000 people used the service; and an income of £24½ thousand was raised. This demonstrates, from a relatively modest input, exactly what can be produced for this particular line.
In addition to that, and as an offshoot, over 2,000 people participated in guided walks, and obviously helped from the point of view of local industry. It is perhaps interesting to note that the North York Moors Railway now runs with 350,000 passenger journeys, and it is nice to see that they are re-scheduling their lines in order to try to fit in with, and help, the local community.
It would appear that the very substantial cost of maintaining the viaducts is the main stumbling block; but I believe they are listed buildings and presumably the commitment to their upkeep would have to be discounted against any cost of keeping the line open. But if in the event of this section of line being closed, and British Rail then failing in their obligation to maintain the structure of the viaducts to a satisfactory standard, the national park authority may well find itself in a position, having served a repair notice on British Rail which they then chose to ignore, of having to acquire it compulsorily.
Therefore I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether he could give me some assurance as to whether the Government, presumably through the Department of the Environment, would be prepared to take on the responsibility of maintaining the viaducts so that at least they still stand and the quality of them will be retained for public enjoyment.
Leaving the financial arguments to one side, I believe that in the Settle to Carlisle rail link we have a national asset which has implications from a heritage, environment, social, and tourist point of view. They must be considered when coming to any conclusion. The Government have, quite rightly, over recent years given considerable support both morally and financially to conservation and tourism. The opportunity for expanding the latter, I believe, could be considerable and would have great benefit to remote villages like Garsdale (which has already been referred to), which has now become a deprived area and is looking very much for any support that could possibly come to its aid.
The rub-on effects from this service could well produce a much-needed boost to the local economy. As we know, tourism is growing apace but we are still at the stage of identifying the new leisure demands. It would be sad indeed if British Rail and the local community were to miss out by any premature decision that might be made on the closure of this line.
The standard procedures—which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has already referred to—when dealing with such closures are not adequate, and certainly not in this special case. I cannot believe that it is beyond the initiative of British Rail, central and local government, and all the various statutory bodies involved in the countryside, to come to some satisfactory conclusion as to how to retain this particular line.
It may indeed be opportunistic in the future for private investment, and I hope that the Government will look towards that avenue as well. But I ask at the very least that all these arguments are considered, and

1131
that the decision is not based purely in terms of the narrow procedures which apply to the assessment for closure of normal lines. If the only satisfactory way of doing this is through a public inquiry, then I would certainly endorse that viewpoint. We are not talking about a normal line: in fact we are dealing with—and I quote from a British Rail publicity brochure—"the most spectacular line in England".
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his maiden speech and to congratulate him on his very apposite remarks relating to the northern end of the area we are considering and on the thoughtful suggestions and comments he made on the educational aspects.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for opening this debate and for drawing attention to the whole question of inquiry procedures and relating it to the Settle-Carlisle railway. Unlike the noble Baroness, I speak as a native of Yorkshire and with considerable pride in the unique character and beauty of the Yorkshire Dales. I speak as one who knows the area very well indeed by rail, by car and on foot. I also speak with some pride about the technical achievements of the last century which can be seen most dramatically in this line, with its 21 viaducts and 14 tunnels stretching over 72 miles of very difficult, though magnificent terrain.
However, I want to concentrate my remarks on this subject largely upon the point of view of the inhabitants of West Yorkshire. Together with the county councils of North Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has been very concerned about the proposed closure of this line from the point of view of the economic and social repercussions upon the inhabitants of West Yorkshire. Their concerns fall into four main categories: first, the hardship that the closure of the line will cause primarily for those areas surrounding the line but also for people in West Yorkshire and in the conurbations. Secondly, there will be a considerable loss of opportunities for leisure and recreational travel by West Yorkshire residents, especially bearing in mind the Dales Rail Service, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Thirdly, the closure will continue the erosion of the good main line connections between West Yorkshire, Cumbria and the West of Scotland. Fourthly, there are the possible long-term effects on the costs of supporting local rail services in West Yorkshire—those between Leeds, Bradford and Ilkley, which I use regularly, and those between Leeds and Keighley, which share the route of the Leeds-Carlisle trains and which consequently also share part of the expenses.
I consider first the hardship. The majority of journeys made by the residents of the rural areas surrounding the Settle-Carlisle line are probably to destinations in West Yorkshire—trips to Leeds and Bradford for purposes such as work, further education, shopping and cultural and recreational activities which are not available in the rural areas. All these journeys will be made much more difficult, and some may be impossible, if the line is closed. For example,
1132
early morning commuters from Settle will have to make their way to Giggleswick station to catch their train to Leeds. Saturday shoppers from the remoter Dales area will be deprived of the benefit of the Dales rail service to the cities. If the line is closed, these journeys will probably either be made by car—imposing a further strain on some of the busiest roads in the area, and putting a further strain on the limited parking facilities in West Yorkshire—or, for those who do not have cars, will not be made at all. In either event it means that the hardship which will be felt by the people in the Dales communities will also be shared by those in the urban communities because of the lack of business and contact between the new communities.
Secondly, I shall consider leisure and recreational travel. One of the advantages of living in the West Yorkshire conurbation, and one which I am continually telling my friends in the South about, is its close proximity to the extensive areas of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the North Yorkshire Moors National Park and, in particular, to the Dales National Park. The Yorkshire Dales have been called the lungs for the cities of Leeds and Bradford. This is due in no small part to the ease with which the railway services have enabled people to reach the heart of the Dales. In saying this I am conscious of the fact that West Yorkshire has one of the lowest percentages of cars per family in the country. Consequently, the inhabitants of West Yorkshire are used to relying on public transport.
Therefore it would be a very shortsighted policy from many points of view if the recreational services which have been introduced in recent years were to be withdrawn. These services, as has already been said, have the support of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county as well as other areas. For the West Yorkshire residents, closure of the Settle-Carlisle line will mean the loss of the convenient access to this very important recreational environment. It is not easily possible for this access to be replaced by bus services because of the limited road network and, in any case, road transport does not provide the same remarkable vistas that rail transport does. If there were to be an increase in road transport as a consequence of closing the line, that would mean further congestion on the already busy Dales roads and also further congestion in the limited parking facilities.
The Dales rail service has over the last 12 years been expanded. It consists of four separate services: the West Yorkshire service operating on Saturdays from Leeds to Carlisle and back; the Lancashire services—the Lancashire urban areas are also involved—operating on Saturdays from Preston via Clitheroe to join with the West Yorkshire services at Hellifield, the Cumbria services operating on Saturdays from Carlisle to Leeds, Bradford or Blackpool, again via Preston and Clitheroe, and the Sunday service operating from Leeds to Appleby and back. Feeder bus connections have linked with the train services, so there has been access to the heart of the Dales.
The fares charged have always been kept as low as possible, but matching income with expenditure. For the local authorities concerned the services have generally achieved an overall break-even point.

1133
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to the service provided for the fans of steam railways. This has been a great success. She also referred to British Rail themslves having attempted to market the line as "England's greatest historical scenic route". This, too, has been successful. So that there is an enormous tourist potential in this line which is largely unexploited.
My third point is concerned with the loss of mainline connections. These have been continuing over the years. The route has been allowed to decline and services have progressively been diverted from it. If this particular line is closed, British Rail propose to re-route services from Leeds via Carnforth and Lancaster, and this will add to the journey time. But that is not the important point. The important point is that some of the connecting services are so bad that the line is really not going to be a viable proposition at all. It really is very hard to avoid the conclusion that British Rail are not serious about retaining the traffic between West Yorkshire, Cumbria and the West of Scotland.
Reference has been made in the debate to the PIEDA Report. I am not being at all critical here about alternative modes of transport. I think that both are essential. But the estimate of PIEDA is that the cost of the retention of the line would be under £10 million over a 20-year period. By contrast, the by-passes proposed for Gargrave and Settle, both of which I think are essential, on the A.65 route in North Yorkshire are expected to cost £11.5 million and the recent runway extension at Yeadon Airport cost over £20 million and caters for about 400,000 passengers a year. So it can be seen that in contrast to these and with an increasing level of traffic that could be generated, the line could be a very viable proposition.
Finally, I should like to comment on the effects on local services, because, apart from the loss of revenue from the tourist lines, there are financial implications for West Yorkshire. The local rail services between Leeds and Ilkley and between Leeds, Bradford and Keighley are supported by the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive under a Section 20 agreement under the Transport Act 1968. The costs are therefore shared, and British Rail's proposals at the moment are to retain all the existing services so that the cost can continue to be shared but to re-route them via Carnforth. However, at an earlier stage, British Rail also proposed to close the Leeds-Lancaster line and, if this were so, it would mean that the full cost of the line between Leeds and Keighley and the intervening stations would have to be borne by the local transport executive. One can see that, at a time when there are constraints on finances for local services, this could be a very severe burden on West Yorkshire.
It is for all these reasons that the county councils involved feel that a full public inquiry would be much more appropriate so that the wider problems could be fully examined and brought to public attention. In the light of that, I believe that the debate that we are holding this evening is all the more important.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just sat down has spoken very largely about the southern end of this great line. I propose to talk a little about the more northerly end. Before doing so, I should like to express my own great pleasure and, I am sure, the pleasure of the House as a whole at having listened to the most notable, sympathetic and knowledgeable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I thought that he probably knew the area better than all of us who live in the North West know it ourselves. I should like to say that I hope that he will come to the House many times, indeed as frequently as Bishop Nicolson who was Bishop of Carlisle in the early 18th century and whose presence in this Chamber was so frequent and whose influence was so great. If he can follow in his footsteps, he will be very welcome indeed.
Perhaps before leaving the Lords Spiritual, I should like to say how very well represented they have been in the House today, by not only the Bishop of Newcastle but the Bishop of Carlisle and until recently, for the first half of the debate, the Bishop of Derby. I should like also to recollect the great service rendered to this very line by the late Bishop of Wakefield. So distinguished was his service that a plaque was put up to his memory in Appleby Station, and I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who is here tonight was present at the unveiling of that plaque.
We are very grateful to he noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for introducing this Unstarred Question today. It could hardly have been more timely. Whether this was by accident or design, I know not. But here we are debating this only a few weeks before theTUCCs are going to be consulted at the end of March and the following weeks and months. This is, as everyone who has spoken so far has said, a matter of more than local interest and I shall attempt to show that as well. There are of course social and environmental aspects connected with this line but I should like first to talk about social hardships, local social hardships, that are already being suffered by those who live along the line which it was built to serve and whose deprivation will be all the greater if British Rail's closure proposal is allowed to proceed.
Perhaps I may illustrate this by the local area that I happen to know well—that is, the head of the Eden Valley which used to be served also, I must mention with nostalgia and regret, by that superb link between Darlington and Kirkby Stephen which alas! was axed by Beeching. It must be realised that in a remote area, mainly dependent upon agriculture and also on quarrying, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, agriculture is a job-loss industry and quarrying cannot be expected to flourish if there is no rail to take out the gain from the quarry. So where you have job-loss industries like agriculture on which the community depend, it is vital for employment or for the relief of unemployment—whichever way you care to look at it—that there should be access to the towns. And not everyone by any means has a car—for goodness sake!—and even if people do have cars there are times of the year, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, as, for instance, just now, when it is dangerous to travel by

1135
road for long periods in the winter. A rail commuter service would promote employment in the area: there is no question about that.
Unfortunately the familiar pattern of the centralisation of hospital services has of course applied to the North West of England as it has everywhere else, but it is more of a hardship in this area than in most other places for let me say that if you happen to live in Kirkby Stephen you live 45 miles from Carlisle and there is simply no bus service. So if you do not have a rail service and there is no bus service you are effectively cut off from your friends and relations if you go into hospital, unless you are fortunate enough to have a car or can beg a lift from friends.
Those two points alone—the very important points of employment and the inaccessibility of Carlisle to so great a portion of the residents of Eden Valley—mean that this is a vital railway link from Kirkby Stephen to Carlisle. But of course, there are many other reasons for access to towns. There are shopping, communication with friends and relatives all over the North of England and not just in the immediate area served by this line but, for instance, via the connections at Leeds to Hull and connections via Carlisle to Newcastle. So there are important links which ought to be reopened for the sake of local communities all over the North of England.
The House, I think, will be interested to hear how one local area has this very day taken an important step towards providing expanded local rail services; namely, between Skipton and Carlisle. I believe this is one of the initiatives of the Eden District Council and of course they were interested to get the line going—a regular commuter line—between Kirkby Stephen and Carlisle. This is an improved version of the original proposal and it could now provide two trains in each direction, using car diesel units carrying 120 passengers: that is on every weekday, Monday to Saturday. On three of the four journeys, connections at Skipton would provide a Carlisle to Leeds service. That is a very impressive thing which has gone to the transport sub-committee of the Cumbria County Council today. It was on a joint report by the director of engineering and the county planning officer.
This is only happening because of the initiative of the Eden District Council, and now the Cumbria County Council—I am happy to say that it is on an all-party basis: this cuts across the whole spectrum of political parties—have agreed that this should be a viable project. I believe that if the cost which they are having to fund themselves at the rate of £155,000 per annum can be shared, say, between three authorities then it can go ahead this very summer.
Let me list some of the advantages of this service and let me say, incidentally, that British Rail would not do this of their own volition: this has to be done on a contract basis. The county councils will have to contract with British Rail and guarantee the sum of £155,000 a year. Of course they may very well get back a very large amount of that capital expenditure in revenue. Some of the advantages are that this doubles the basic service on the Settle/Carlisle line. It allows the reopening of all the Dales rail stations on a daily basis except Sunday. That in turn will allow a greatly
1136
improved service, particularly in Cumbria. For instance, it will allow daily commuting by rail into Carlisle from Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Langwathby, Lazonby and Armathwaite; it will allow for shopping trips on a daily basis from all British Rail and Dales rail stations either into Carlisle or into Leeds.
It will give rail access into the Eden valley and the Yorkshire Dales via any Dales rail station, and it would permit day trips on any day of the week, except Sundays, or longer overnight stays. Even the 9 o'clock service out of Carlisle would allow longer shopping time in Leeds for visitors from Carlisle and other Cumbrian stations, using the Settle/Carlisle line. So it should appeal to locals and to visitors—though of course I am talking particularly about locals—for work, for education, shopping, leisure and recreational purposes, or merely for a run on the Settle/Carlisle line which is so popular among tourists to the area.
There was all-party support this morning when this was agreed in the Cumbria County Council subcommittee and I have no doubt that this imaginative plan, which they are prepared to fund with neighbouring county councils and perhaps the Countryside Commission, will lead to a viable commuter service running this very summer. If you superimpose this new service on top of the British Rail services, which can be done, your Lordships will see how dramatically new opportunities are opened up in the way that I have described. It is clear that such an imaginative approach must be allowed not just for one season's trial but for several seasons to test its viability.
It hardly needs saying that this, which is for the benefit of local people, will have immense importance not just for the tourist industry—which of course it will have—but nationally. We have heard about the strategic importance from the noble Baroness who opened the debate, but there are many other projects of national significance which I can think of and, if you like, they can be combined with the significance to tourists.
If you just take the enormous numbers of visitors to this country who come to London and then want to go on to Edinburgh—there must be many thousands who want to do that—how very exciting it would be for them to go up to Edinburgh via Leeds on the Settle to Carlisle line and then, when they have visited Edinburgh, to come back down the East coast, looking at all those wonderful cathedrals on the way—not least, and most special of all, Durham. What a very exciting journey it would be for the Americans and others who come to see London and Edinburgh! I should have thought that that would bring in a huge amount of foreign currency, just from foreign visitors alone, which means that the line is of national and not merely local importance.
It is absolutely inconceivable that any closure could be contemplated before the next general election. I say that because, though this is not a party matter, I cannot believe that elected representatives in the North-West would allow any political party to be a party to this rail closure. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said from the Opposition Front Bench at the beginning of this Session that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, "knows a banana skin when he sees one". I would say that this is a banana skin if

1137
ever there was one, and he knows that he would not wish to tread on it. I believe that we, and all those of us who live in the North-West and who wish this line to prosper, must be glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, lives in the North-West and will point out that this is a very slippery skin on which to fall.
I do not believe for that one reason alone that this line will close before the next election. I believe that British Rail will be so impressed by this latest initiative, and by everything that has been said in this House about the wider significance of this rail link, that they will be very well advised to withdraw their notice of closure and not persist with it. One thing is absolutely clear. If this scheme, which has had the stamp of approval of Cumbria County Council, is to be viable, it will be viable only if it is properly marketed. There should be a very vigorous form of marketing, such as did exist, started by British Rail. There was an abortive attempt to market this line in 1984 and very creditable it was. I have some of the literature here—"England's greatest historical scenic route." That was British Rail itself in 1984. Just suppose that that was spread all over the country and to the tourist offices abroad. What a huge revenue this line would bring in. For that reason alone, I would say that British Rail will be much better advised to realise that they are already defeated and to withdraw their notice of closure now.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Clitheroe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for allowing me the opportunity of listening to this very interesting debate and for the excellent way in which she marshalled the whole subject. I should particularly like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his very splendid maiden speech.
I have listened with great interest to the very full debate of your Lordships, and am afraid that I have very little to add that has not been said already. I might say that it was 140 or 145 years ago that my great-great-grandfather was busily engaged in battling with the navvies. Every night he would go out with his chaps and dig up the railway line that went close to our home, and every day the navvies would lay it again. He delayed that railway by about 30 years. It was not the railway which we are discussing, but an adjacent one. Anyway, as you may gather, he was not a great railway enthusiast. But my father and my grandfather both were. They saw the light and were very keen on railways. The Settle/Carlisle one was a particular favourite of my grandfather, who was a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
In view of this I have the temerity to emphasise just two points which have already been touched on. The first is that the Settle/Carlisle line is undoubtedly the most beautiful stretch of railway line in this country. It is possible that people in Wales or in Scotland may have their arguments but I have no doubts. It is a super scenic trip and a marvellous experience and example of engineering. It would be a great shame on all concerned if it were closed without taking these considerations very seriously. The Ribblehead viaduct itself and I think other parts of the line are listed or scheduled and ought to be treated with respect. I have taken American visitors to look with astonishment at
1138
the achievements, and they have taken super photographs. It should not be left to decay. It must not be allowed to happen.
My second point is that so much of the industry of the country, including tourism, is gravitating south. It seems that with time everything gravitates south—one's own waistline moves south. But, anyway, tourism needs to be generated, particularly in the north of England. If the line was promoted effectively, I believe it could draw considerable revenue from this source for a relatively small outlay. One has only to think of some of the tremendous investments that people contemplate to bring tourism into a country. How about building Disney World? You do not need to build it; you have the best line in the world, 72 miles of it, there. Develop it. Forgive me, my Lords, but I have become slightly carried away.
I am particularly concerned that the closure of this important line would herald the creeping closure of the adjacent Hellifield/Blackburn line. It may seem somewhat ironic and very disloyal to my great-great-grandfather but I rather like that railway line. It is particularly useful and I think it would be a very great sorrow if that was closed. It is an essential artery for the north of England.
Finally, it seems to me to be very regrettable that the present procedures for dealing with railway closure cases do not apparently ensure that all these issues are dealt with in public. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to assure us that he will be thinking about this in due course.
9.16 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on introducing a subject which is not only of great local importance but I think of great national importance. More particularly I should like to congratulate her because it gives me the opportunity to speak on a subject very dear to my heart. I mean of course the Settle/Carlisle railway and not the prospect of its closure.
I must of course add my very sincere congratulations to the right reverend Prelate. Perhaps I may say here how delightful it is to have a Bishop speaking about railways, because the link between railways and the Church has always been very powerful. I see the right reverend Prelate nodding his head. He did not say that he was a railway lover but he implied so in his speech. There are examples of a great many distinguished prelates who have also been very fine railwaymen. As a railwayman and a church man, I am very happy to welcome him to your Lordships' House and hope we may hear him speak on many subjects.
I do not want to overlap on what other speakers have said, but I should like to say very briefly from a purely personal point of view that this line has always struck me as more than a railway. It is in fact an uplifting experience. Anyone who has travelled along it by service train, by enthusiasts' special; anyone who has walked along it or over the tunnels; anyone who has even looked at it from the road—I have done all four—cannot fail to be moved by the magnificence of the great structures and the superb grandeur of the rugged upland scenery.

1139
I should like to say a very few words about the history of the line. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has told us that it was built in 1876. It might perhaps be of interest to know that it cost something like £3½ million to construct; that it greatly exceeded the budget of £2¼ million—a large sum in those days; that it cost far more than the Midland Railway was prepared to spend; and that it took six and a half years to construct—again very much longer than was envisaged. At one time more than 5,000 workers were involved and many hundreds—perhaps 500 or 600—died.
One detail that might be of interest to your Lordships illustrates the appalling terrain—and here I speak particularly of the boulder clay, which, when wet, becomes like Yorkshire pudding. I say that with no disrespect to the noble Baroness and others of your Lordships who come from Yorkshire. On one particular viaduct, over a period of two years more than one-quarter of a million tons of material were poured into the site of an embankment. After all that effort the embankment had to be abandoned and a viaduct was built instead.
Another example of the difficulties posed by the terrain is the Ribble valley. At one point the Ribble had to be diverted and the railway line was built along its course. Other speakers have mentioned the ferocious climate. Those of your Lordships who come from that part of the world do not need me to remind them that the rainfall there is sometimes as much as 70 to 100 inches a year, and the winds are so severe that it is impossible to walk against them.
I should like to speak particularly about the Ribblehead viaduct, which is really the key to the problem we are discussing this evening. British Rail has said that it might keep the line open if the Ribblehead viaduct could be restored. The news of the viaduct's impending collapse first came to the notice of the public in 1981, and it was then given a three-year life. Like a patient who has lingered on despite the doctor's prognosis, the viaduct remains standing today. However, it is deteriorating very rapidly and the extremely severe winter has, I am sure, accelerated that process. It is not only the Ribblehead viaduct that is in need of repair, because there are many other large viaducts, such as Arten Gill, which also are deteriorating.
What is the solution? British Rail estimate that it would cost £4½ million to rebuild the viaduct. An alternative might be to undertake a major repair work of grouting with concrete. That work would cost in the region of £3 million and the repair would last for some 10 or 15 years. I must say straight away—and I believe all noble Lords would agree—that to rebuild the Ribblehead viaduct as a ghastly modern concrete structure would be quite unthinkable. As some of your Lordships have said, the viaduct is a listed structure, and so it must remain.
From where is the money to come? It looks as though British Rail will be unwilling to advance any money, but there are other possibilities. One is a grant from the National Heritage Fund. Another is a grant from the EC's regional development fund. However, I believe that neither would be very likely and perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply will give me his thoughts on that likelihood.
1140
The problem of funding is particularly sad when one considers that the Department of Transport's budget is measured in billions of pounds. The sum now required of £10 million would pay not only to repair the Ribblehead viaduct itself but also to restore the other structures in need of attention, restore the track, and carry out other essential repairs and maintenance. All of that would cost about £10 million.
A sum of £10 million is chickenfeed. What would it do in terms of roads? I am informed that £10 million would pay for one-half mile of rural motorway or about 100 yards of the West London relief road. So we are talking about chickenfeed. If somehow or another the money required were to be found then I feel, as your Lordships have expressed this evening, that this great line could pay its way. Noble Lords have indicated various ways in which that could be achieved.
I would say from the point of view of the railwaymen, that first of all we must think in sensible terms. The line must be reduced from double track to single track. It is quite unnecessary to have two lines of rail. In fact there is one line over the Ribblehead viaduct now; it should be single track the whole way. Then the signal boxes and the signals could be removed and one could operate the line by radio signalling. That is a plan which British Rail are now considering and they hope to introduce that system of radio signalling on the central Wales line running from Shrewsbury down to South Wales. That of course would greatly reduce overheads.
I do not want to talk much about tourist potential and so on, as it has been dealt with by other noble Lords. Perhaps I could say just a few words in that context about other ideas which I do not think have been mentioned. The three mountain stations of Ribblehead, Dent and Garsdale (and my noble friend Lord Henderson assures me it is pronounced "Gahsdull") could surely be used as youth hostels. One could be a museum—and I think it has been proposed that Garsdale itself should be set up as a museum to which children could be brought—and indeed there are all sorts of ways in which the stations could be used.
Then, of course, we must not forget the enthusiasts' specials. Several noble Lords have mentioned the Dales Rail Service. I shall not repeat what has been said about that, but I think that somehow or other we must try to preserve those magnificant enthusiasts' specials. I myself have been on those enthusiasts' trains; and what a wonderful experience it is to travel up the so-called Long Drag, one in a hundred gradient, 15 miles from Settle junction, up to Ribblehead behind an old steam engine, a train of 13 or 14 coaches packed with enthusiasts, heads leaning out of the windows, listening to every blast of the engine. The pleasure which these enthusiasts' specials and the Dales Rail Service give, and the enormous potential for tourism and educational facilities and so on are immensely important factors, I think.
Sooner or later we must grasp the Settle nettle. I hope that what has been said this evening will enable the noble Earl the Minister and his colleagues to do so without stinging their hands too severely. At all costs we must preserve this great railway line.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for taking us on a tour of the Dales. It has been a very nice occasion listening to her going along there. I think it could be bettered a little only perhaps by Brian Redhead, who lives in the area, or Russell Harty, who also lives there. Both those personalities could do this tour for us and probably get it over to more people than we can this evening.
At this time of 9.28 in the evening I do not want to repeat everything that has been said already. I had prepared quite a number of points. I was going to mention the procedures, which have been mentioned several times; leisure, which has been mentioned several times; tourism, which has been mentioned several times; the lung of the north-west of England, which has been mentioned once; education, which has been mentioned once or twice; the social problems that could occur if the railway were closed; and of course National Heritage.
At this point I regret to say that I omitted to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on his enlightened maiden speech, and to thank him. I look forward to other speeches that I am sure he will make from time to time.
The points I have enumerated have been made by several speakers far more eloquent than I am, and therefore I have no intention of repeating what has already been said. However, I wish to correct the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the suggestion that tourists coming from afar would travel via London and Leeds to Edinburgh. Surely it would be via London, Crewe and Preston to Edinburgh and not through Yorkshire. It would be through Lancashire, and that way round.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if I may say so, it is not a correction but a preference that the noble Lord is expressing.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I shall argue the point with my noble friend on some other occasion. I ask only that we should try to get the matter in order. I know that the financial argument is that we cannot retain the railway, but there is far more to a railway than finance. Please let us keep the line open.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I concur in the universal gratitude expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I was delighted to be here when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle in making his maiden speech reminded us of the link between church and railway which, as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has just said, is an ongoing one and one which is not subject to either consultation or closure procedures. I too share tonight's universal affection for the Settle/Carlisle line. I wish that I could share most of the other sentiments expressed.
1142
As has been hinted at, it is a main line that has fallen on hard times. The ambitions of its builders were never really met; it was never particularly viable. Nowadays it is sadly and definitely not viable. It is not those who use the two trains each way each day and who patronise the two stations that are open who are paying for the line. It is we who are doing so through the PSO grant. We must always remember that we are British Rail's principal customers by virtue of our subscription to the grant, even if we never buy a ticket. The PSO grant comes with strings, not least that the railway shall be as efficient as possible and that the taxpayer shall get the best possible deal for the over-£800 million that he is contributing this year. I feel that British Rail's decision to put forward a proposal to close the line is sensible and it is one that I support on economic grounds.
I have mentioned the two trains and the two stations. There is admittedly the commuter train that goes to Leeds in the morning. I can only say that the good workers of Leeds must work extremely short days, because if they go in on that train and come back on the afternoon train they will be in Leeds for only seven and a quarter hours.
Figures have been bandied around. My noble friend Lord Buckmaster and I have a common source in the most recent issue of the Railway Magazine. One fact that he did not use in the article to which he referred is that there are infrastructure costs variously between £3 million and £13 million that would be required to preserve the railway just perhaps for another 10 years. British Rail can do an awful lot of things elsewhere in the country with such money. If one takes £13 million, it is not far short of the cost of electrifying the 35-odd miles of railway between Bournemouth and Weymouth which the Government have recently sanctioned.
The grant is falling. British Rail are becoming more efficient and productive. There have been closure proposals—and we have this one which is behind the debate tonight—but we must bear in mind that the major directive given to British Rail away back in 1974, and which governs their PSO grant, is that they must maintain a network generally comparable with that which was operated at the time. I cannot believe that closing 72 miles of line will go against that directive, particularly since, as I say, I cannot find an economic case to keep the line open.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and several noble Lords felt that the closure procedure was too concentrated and did not take account of all interests. I made my maiden speech on the point that the closure procedure, far from being too concentrated, was far too long nowadays. It can take 18 months to close two miles of railway in south London—two miles of railway where one is never more than one and a half miles from another station among the 24 that I argued about in making my maiden speech. That does not seem to me to be the right way of spending the taxpayers' money.
Several noble Lords have said that the consultation procedure is too short. I would remind your Lordships that the consultation procedure begins when

1143
customers stop buying their tickets, when they vote with their feet. That is when it begins. It may not be enshrined in statute. But when the customer takes away his custom, he has already begun to consult, not least with himself, and he has decided that there are alternatives that he finds preferable. I would remind those who have implied that one must wait for a closure notice to be posted before embarking on consultation of a not dissimilar case in Wales in recent years—the case of the Barmouth viaduct.
The Barmouth viaduct, an enchanting wooden structure against the Barmouth estuary, was attacked by some form of ocean-going woodworm. This attack implied a threat that the railway could be closed. The local authorities in mid-Wales did not wait for the closure proposal to be nailed to the billboards. They started consulting and researching straightaway. They established that perhaps 40 per cent. of the tourism—many of your Lordships have mentioned tourism—in that area of the Cardigan Bay coastline was rail-related and would be vulnerable if the railway closed down. They established the other social and economic pluses and minuses that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, would like to see established through the present consultative machinery. But they did it before the consultative procedure started. And no closure notice was ever posted in respect of that railway.
In the fulness of time they persuaded British Rail that it was worth spending £1.4 million on restoring the Barmouth bridge. Not only that, but the county council, Gwynedd county council, took the lead, and, with the district councils and the mid-Wales Development Corporation and, of course with British Rail putting in a fair amount of money, agreed to spend £4.6 million on installing the radio signalling, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, on contributing to the cost of the new trains, on bringing the permanent way of the route up to scratch and recovering from years of deferred maintenance, and on automatic level crossings. So it can be done. It does not need a closure notice to provoke these things.
I feel that perhaps the councils here have missed the boat. They are, quite simply, too late out. The Settle/Carlisle line is enchanting. I do not dispute that. But it is not the line about which I would choose to become very emotional in terms of fighting a closure proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, hinted, it is when the metropolitan councils go, when the present PTE structure goes, that we shall find ourselves with much more essential routes to defend.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I take two minutes or less, if that is allowed? As president of the tourist board in Cumbria, I find it sad to see how far the railways have been run down with over-enthusiasm shown by those at the head of the railways. They forget some of the interests upon which we place a higher priority. There has been mention of the Eden Valley line. No encouragement of any kind was extended to that line. However, when the traffic had left it, they announced that too few people were travelling on it and that it was not viable.
1144
Exactly the same is happening now. I have in my hand an ABC timetable guide. On not one of its pages is there recorded what might be termed inter-city services, through trains from St. Pancras, London to St. Enoch, Glasgow. They are shown nowhere in today's ABC. One can find a train that zigzags from Carlisle to Sheffield or Nottingham. There is nothing to show that it goes any further. Again, for those travelling from St. Pancras, it will not be possible to find details of any through trains in this ABC. That I think is barely honest.
I must not say any more, although my mind is also directed from time to time to Austria and Switzerland. There is terrain which is more difficult than our Pennines. The Swiss and the Austrians have managed to continue to run trains without these great difficulties, combining trains and post buses. I should hope that we can look at it before there is a final decision about this line. I have taken two minutes, as I promised.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for raising this very important matter. I think that it gives us an opportunity to go perhaps slightly wider than merely the line which she was discussing and to consider what the right reverend Prelate referred to in his—as he said—non-controversial speech. He was quite persuasive enough without being controversial. He said that we should look a little more closely at the whole idea of closing this line.
What impressed me was when the right reverend Prelate referred to Beeching, saying that perhaps we had been too hasty then. I think that many people who are interested and concerned about railways are now only too aware that we got involved in Beeching and decided the fate of our whole transport system to a large extent at the period when the motor mania was at its height and the demand for motorways was very great. I think that his phrase about the false utilitarian view could apply to a great many of the things we have done in the past. In some ways perhaps we have a chance to pull some of it back by looking at a line such as the Settle/Carlisle line.
I am only too aware of the great knowledge and intimate detail which most of the people who have spoken about this line were able to furnish us with tonight. Although I believe I have been over the line twice, it is over a long period, once when I was very young, and once a few years ago. I cannot claim anything like the intimacy with which many people have spoken tonight.
I must say that I do not treat the idea of railway closures as something which must be opposed. I believe that that is unrealistic. I can accept the part of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, which related to the PSO grant, but to some extent the noble Lord is taking the false utilitarian view referred to by the right reverend Prelate. That must always be considered, because there are other ways of spending money, and the railways have other ways of spending money than keeping going something which is quite uneconomic, but there are also other ways of looking at certain services and lines.

1145
However, some services are not viable under any circumstances. I myself was involved in the agreement to close quite a number of them. I must say that I cannot feel ashamed of most of the decisions that I made, or was a party to, in the days when I had to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport of the period.
I do not believe that all lines should be saved willy-nilly. We cannot keep such a railway network as was bequeathed to us by the Victorians when one has 20 million vehicles on the road compared with about 3 million before the war and when there are no longer 200 million tonnes of coal and 50 million tonnes of steel moving around the country. That was the backbone of the railways, and one cannot pretend that it was otherwise.
In fact, one of the tragedies of the railways was that in the pre-war era passengers were to a large extent supernumerary and we perhaps did not build up railway finances and infrastructure as well as we might have done. Therefore—and I do not suggest anyone has been like that tonight—there is an element of over-enthusiasm about railways from some people. As a railway buff said to me, one of the worst things about some railway people is that they keep playing trains whereas it is a serious business. Charming, wonderful and lovely as trains are, one cannot play with them. They have a purpose and they are expensive things to run.
I believe that the line we are now discussing—the Carlisle/Settle line—is one of the rather special cases. I am not suggesting that it ought therefore to be saved. What I suggest is that a much deeper examination should be made of the line, including all the points raised tonight, before a final decision is made as to whether or not it should be closed.
Although I realise the form these debates take, it would perhaps have been helpful if the Minister had spoken first and given us more information about the economics of the line before we started the debate. Unfortunately, that could not be the case, but the Minister will no doubt be giving information which we shall be able to look at at our leisure. On the basis of that and the debate we have had tonight, perhaps we can look more deeply at the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for a much wider list of factors to be taken into consideration before the railway is given permission to close a line.
From all that I have heard tonight, from what I have read about it, and from my little experience of it, I see this line as much like the two lines I do know rather well, which are of the same nature. I refer to the West Highland line to Fort William and Mallaig and the line from Inverness to Kyle. In strict terms none of those lines is a paying proposition, although railway accountancy has always been something which baffles me. It has been raised once or twice, but I hope there is no question of these lines being closed now. Why do I say that? These lines are particularly fine examples of Victorian engineering. They have a very large potential. They have a very large existing use and the marginal cost necesssary to keep these lines going, in terms of our national heritage, is not, I suggest, so much as to strain the coffers of a nation such as ours. I refer, of course, to all three lines—the Settle/Carlisle, the Inverness/Kyle and the West Highlands.
1146
I believe the PSO is around £950 million, and the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. The extra required to keep one or two lines like these running is very small. I can assure the Minister that members of my party will be very selective on the lines which we are, so to speak, willing to go out on a limb and try to retain. The Settle/Carlisle line is certainly one of them.
I should like to put a number of points to the Minister. From the figures I have I calculate that including all the excursions and special attractions about 130,000 passengers a year use this line. That is a PIEDA estimate. That seems to be a very large figure. I might be out perhaps by a factor of 10, but I doubt it. I should like the Minister to tell me, if he does not agree with that figure, what his estimate is. I include all the additional possibilities that have been discussed tonight, and not just the straight railway running with all the existing special excursions and trips on this line. Has any estimate been made as to what could come from the additional attractions suggested tonight? I am sure that they have already been put forward to the railway and to the department from people who are opposed to the closure in order to try to persuade the Minister to encourage the railways to withdraw the closure notice.
I now come to my final point, because I do not want to repeat what has been said by other noble Lords. How long does the Minister think it will take before a decision is made? Is there any intention of allowing a much wider investigation and analysis of this closure before the Minister gives his consent? In other words, will we, in Parliament, be allowed to speak to the Minister before he makes a final decision after the TUCC has issued its report?
I have been told that there are a very large number of registered objectors to the closure. I have been told that they number as many as 20,000. That number may have changed. It may have increased or it may have decreased by people withdrawing their objections or feeling that the matter was too complicated for them to make an objection. I understand that there are about 28,000 objections. I also understand that the TUCC will need to examine all those objections and somehow or other sift them to make a reasonable report to the Minister.
I have been told that it is estimated that it will take at least a year before the preliminary assessment can be made. It is also suggested that altogether it will be about five years before the Minister could definitely give a date for the closure of the line. I hope he realises that that would be considered slightly unfair because we all expect there to be a general election before that time. If it were merely a question of giving enough go-ahead to enable it to last until after the general election, I am sure that the Minister's attention has been drawn to the electoral volatility of that part of the country and that it would be considered not quite playing the game if five years were given in order to get over a very difficult period.
In my view this is a special case. Most of those who have spoken tonight have shown by their expertise and knowledge that this is a particular line just like the other lines which I have mentioned tonight. I hope that the Minister will give it great consideration and

1147
will realise that when the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, gave us the opportunity to discuss this matter tonight she was giving an opportunity to many, many more people than are here in this House: she was giving an opportunity to the whole country to realise that perhaps we have had enough rail closures, particularly rail closures of the very important and special nature of the Settle/Carlisle line.
9.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have heard many tributes tonight about the Settle/Carlisle line. The line passes through glorious mountain countryside whose challenges were courageously and skillfully met by the Victorian railway engineers by the construction of 325 bridges, 21 viaducts and 14 tunnels. As has already been said, British Rail have referred to the line as England's greatest historical scenic route. However, I would tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Peel when he said that it would not stand a chance of getting planning permission today. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Clitheroe recounted his ancestors' feelings towards the railway. They and many others felt that the countryside was more beautiful without the railway and its imposing viaducts, and battled to resist it at the time.
Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the present Government fully recognise the deep concern about the line's future. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to whom we are grateful for giving us the opportunity of discussing this matter this evening, has asked whether the Government are satisfied that the existing procedures offer adequate opportunity for all the social and environmental issues to be fully discussed. The noble Baroness said that the procedures are misunderstood.
Therefore, I think it may be helpful if I describe the procedures which apply. I hope that in doing so I shall be able to reassure your Lordships that the existing statutory arrangements offer the flexibility to ensure that all the relevant issues are fully considered.
The Railways Board cannot withdraw rail passenger services from a railway line or close any rail passenger station without going through the procedures set out in the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968. Indeed, the 1968 Act has survived the test of time well, and it is one that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will know well because he was a Minister in the Department of Transport at that time.
Where there are objections from users the closure cannot take place unless the Secretary of State for Transport gives his consent. British Rail must publish a formal public notice of any proposal. This gives any user of any service affected by the proposed closure an opportunity to object, and such objections are considered by a Transport Users' Consultative Committee, known as a TUCC.
The TUCCs are independent bodies, and one of their functions is to consider objections from users to closure proposals, and to report to the Secretary of State for Transport on hardship aspects. The TUCC may hold public hearings to hear oral evidence from
1148
objectors and representations from British Rail. Their report identifies any hardship to users, and may also include recommendations on measures to alleviate that hardship. In reaching his decision the Secretary of State considers all factors which appear to him to be relevant, including, in addition to the hardship aspects reported by the TUCC, social and economic considerations.
That briefly is the general procedure. In this particular case British Rail have proposed the withdrawal of the passenger services on the Settle/Carlisle line and the line between Blackburn and Hellifield. British Rail have incorporated the latter into their proposal as it is used by services chartered by West Yorkshire County Council which also run over the Settle/Carlisle line.
British Rail have explained that they have proposed the closure of the Settle/Carlisle line because they do not consider that the expenditure needed to maintain passenger services would be justified. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the TUCCs plan to hold their hearings in March and April of this year. Indeed there are to be hearings by the North Western TUCC in Appleby and Carlisle, and by the North Eastern TUCC in Settle, Skipton, and Leeds.
In addition to objections sent to the TUCCs, a great many representations have been sent direct to the Department of Transport covering issues such as the effect of closure on tourism, employment, rural population change, and heritage aspects. In any closure proposals the Secretary of State has, in the end, to weigh the Board's case against the arguments forwarded for retaining the line. I think there is agreement that the hardship issues, some of which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, can be fully discussed within the existing procedure.
As for the wider non-hardship issues, I cannot offer an exhaustive list of what in this case those issues are. Fresh representations continue to arrive, and the relevant considerations are clearly not the same for every closure case. Indeed, I can inform the House that we in the department have received over 850 representations, including a petition. The Secretary of State is required by statute to take into account all relevant factors. This he has been able to do in considering other closure proposals without having recourse to the public inquiry system.
My right honourable friend has already carefully considered the suggestion that in this instance the non-hardship issues need to be debated in a public forum in just the same way as the hardship issues are. There is provision under the Transport Act 1962 for the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry, and he has considered whether it would be appropriate to apply that provision. Nothing that has been put to him so far has persuaded him that this case is so substantially different from previous closure cases that the existing procedures should be supplemented by a public inquiry.
If anybody feels aggrieved that the Secretary of State has not taken account of all the relevant evidence and that he has acted otherwise, he is of course open to challenge through the judicial review procedure. Ministers fully recognise that local authorities are in a

1149
good position to comment on the wider issues, and this was a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, made to us. We shall also be ready to listen to views on any individual closure proposals. Some meetings have already taken place with representatives from local authorities and I have no doubt that more will follow. Ministers will also take account of all relevant information passed on to them by such bodies as local business groups, chambers of commerce and environmental groups. I also confirm that we shall consider any material which the TUCCs pass on on non-hardship issues.
Because of the quasi-judicial position it would be wrong of me to express any view on the merits of the closure proposal, and the House will understand why I must remain silent on the particular arguments put forward by so many noble Lords tonight. But I can assure the House that all the points made during the debate will also be thoroughly examined and taken into account.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two points in a general way. The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman and Lady Lockwood, said that the route was an invaluable diversionary route. This is something that my right honourable friend will wish to take into account in considering the proposal. Many noble Lords spoke about the effects on local economy, tourism, bus services and other such matters. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a very rural area and some people up there, when the local line was closed, felt, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that they would prefer to be where they were rather than in a relative centre of civilisation, such as Kirkby Stephen when compared with the Highlands of Scotland. These points on local economy, tourism and bus services will be fully considered. Points made by noble Lords tonight will only ensure that my right honourable friend takes them into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that it was difficult to have access to British Rail figures and an opportunity to make representations against them. I am sure that the board recognises this and that if it brings forward a closure proposal it has to be prepared to make a case for it. I can appreciate that objectors may wish to make representations to the Secretary of State which bear on the financial aspects, but in such circumstances it would be for objectors to approach the board direct for such information. I shall ensure that the views expressed in the House tonight about financial disclosure are drawn to the board's attention.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle made a good speech. I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed. I hope he continues to be non-controversial in the future for our sake. On his interesting point about the educational aspect and its great potential, I wonder whether the headmaster to whom he referred has been in touch with British Rail. I hope he has, because I am sure that this is something BR would like to consider. If he has not, perhaps the right reverend Prelate would pass this on.
My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the PIEDA report. This was a report commissioned in 1984 by the local authorities and the tourist boards to study the line, the cost of maintaining it and the scope for retaining it with external funds or for private
1150
operation. The consultants reported in early 1985. It was a long report which reflected the thorough examination of the issues and it is certainly a report which my right honourable friend will wish to take into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that British Rail had let the line run down in the past. I know that the railways board would reject that claim. It considers that the line has been maintained to an adequate standard to carry local traffic. It is true that the board did not consider it was necessary to maintain this line as a high-speed intercity link, because in its view there are suitable alternative services available on the east coast and west coast main lines. The noble Baroness mentioned that there probably had been insufficient marketing of the line, but I understand that special efforts have been made recently to promote travel on the line. The board has done quite a lot to try to mitigate the situation.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, will the noble Earl note the point I made of no through trains being shown in the ABC? Therefore, they are not marketing much.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords; I am very happy to note my noble friend's point on that, and to pass it on.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the Barmouth Viaduct and the contribution that the local authorities are making toward upgrading and modernising the Cambrian coastline. The noble Lord was quite right to point out that the local authorities can and do support local lines in this way. For that reason, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, had to say on this subject. I hope that the local authority has been in touch with BR on this matter, because again I am sure that this is something that BR would wish to know about.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I say that, of course, they have; because the whole of the programme which they are considering is one of contract and you can only have a contract with the knowledge of British Rail. They certainly have been in close consultation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I think that the point of local authority and other support for local lines, takes me on to the question of the heritage and the maintenance of the line, a point made particularly by my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Clitheroe. If there are parties or bodies interested in making some financial contribution towards the retention of the historic structures on the line, we should be very pleased to know about it. This, again, would be taken into account by my right honourable friend when he comes to make a decision on this matter.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that if British Rail are not prepared to commit themselves to maintaining the structures of the viaduct, and the Government themselves are not prepared to do so, they will actually allow them to crumble?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that my right honourable friend will take all these matters into account. It is too soon to judge the situation. What I was saying is that in such instances as the Cambrian coastline mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, the local authorities are making a contribution. All I was suggesting to my noble friends was that if they knew of local authorities or other bodies who would wish to contribute, we should be delighted to hear about it.
The noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Carmichael, mentioned the public service obligation grant. This grant, which currently stands at over £2 million a day, recognises the social value of railways by enabling BR to provide a level of service throughout the subsidised network which would not be justified on commercial grounds alone. This grant, as Lord Carmichael well knows from his previous experience in the Ministry, is not paid in respect of individual lines or services. It is a grant paid to BR. They allocate it as they see fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me about various figures. I can tell them that BR estimate that 250,000 journeys were made in 1985, which represent an average of about 700 a day. We are expecting some updated estimates in the near future on that.
If I may recapitulate on the existing procedures which are of long standing, they were fully considered and enacted by Parliament and they have served well enough in the past in handling other major stretches of route which BR have proposed for closure. One was mentioned: and that was the Waverly closure. Discussions and meetings will certainly continue to take place on this closure proposal. This debate is one example of such opportunities. We have made clear that we should be happy to receive representations at any time before my right honourable friend makes his decision. We have recognised the role that we think local authorities have in commenting on the wider issues. My right honourable friend will consult colleagues in other government departments and may seek whatever expert advice on particular aspects of the proposal or representations made about it that he thinks would be helpful.
I stress that the existing procedure is flexible enough to allow all this to happen and, I believe, to admit the fullest and fairest consideration of all the issues involved, even in a proposal of this size and complexity. Under the existing procedure my right honourable friend will have to take account of all the material points which your Lordships have raised this evening; and we are grateful for them.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.

  SDI: X-RAY LASERS
  SDI: X-RAY LASERS
  SDI RESEARCH AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  SDI RESEARCH AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  US MARITIME STRATEGY
  US MARITIME STRATEGY
  NATO INTEGRATED DEFENCE PLANNING
  NATO INTEGRATED DEFENCE PLANNING
  WAGES COUNCILS: MEMBERSHIP
  WAGES COUNCILS: MEMBERSHIP
  UNIT LABOUR COSTS 1982–85
  UNIT LABOUR COSTS 1982–85
  EAST SUSSEX STRUCTURE PLAN AND THE CHANNEL TUNNEL
  EAST SUSSEX STRUCTURE PLAN AND THE CHANNEL TUNNEL
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS
  CHANNEL FIXED LINK: GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS
  POLICE STATIONS: DESIGN
  POLICE STATIONS: DESIGN
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME
  COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS: BRUSSELS MEETING
  COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS: BRUSSELS MEETING