Sitting of 30 January 1986

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

  LLOYDS BANK (MERGER) (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Speaker: I have considered the content of the Bill with the greatest care. I am of the opinion that it is so drafted as to conflict with all recent industrial relations legislation. The considerations involved are so much a matter of public policy that the Bill cannot properly proceed as a private Bill and accordingly, I cannot propose to the House the Question for its Second Reading.
  Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SWANSEA CITY COUNCIL (TAWE BARRAGE) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL (By Order)
  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)
  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

  SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 6 February.

  LOTHIAN REGION (EDINBURGH WESTERN RELIEF ROAD) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  The House, according to order, resumed the adjourned debate on the Question proposed on 21 January.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order 243 (Joint committees on petitions) be applied to the Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on the Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order 243 (Joint committees on petitions) be applied to the Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Lords as the Joint Committee on the Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Bill. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 6 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from the majority community about the acceptability of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I have received a number of representations from members of the majority community in letters and in a wide range of meetings. I remain ready to meet representatives of the majority political parties to discuss their concerns about the agreement and their views on matters arising from it.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Government had believed that the agreement would be deeply opposed by the minority community in Northern Ireland they would never have entered into the agreement, and will he explain why he thinks it right to proceed with the agreement when the Government know that it is opposed deeply by the majority?
    Mr. King: I am certainly aware, and I have never concealed the fact, that there is concern among the majority community, some of whom are instinctively opposed to any closer co-operation with the Government of the Republic and others who are deeply concerned about possible implications or misunderstanding about the agreement. We are determined to ensure that there is a better understanding of the benefits of the agreement. The House will be aware of one recent illustration of the benefit that can come from closer co-operation—cross-border co-operation in security—which I know the House will welcome. The House will also notice the significant changes in the nationalist vote in the recent by- elections.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: If, despite the attempts of the Government, and in the light of the election results, which were geared to the November agreement, the majority of the people in Ulster—not the United Kingdom—were determined to go for independence, what would the Government do?
    Mr. King: I hope that no such counsels will prevail. I think the House will recognise what an unfortunate course that would be. I have made clear our belief in the merits of the agreement, but we remain ready, willing and anxious to talk to representatives of the majority community as well. I have to say that one cannot complain, as some leaders of the majority community do, about lack of consultation when they refuse to enter into any dialogue whatsoever.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree, now that the dust is beginning to settle after the by-elections, that this is the time for quiet reflection and discussions, taking into account some of the political realities? Is he not encouraged by the opinion polls, which seem to show that the majority of people in the Province do not accept that the way forward is non-co-operation, either actively or passively?
    Mr. King: Non-co-operation will only be damaging to the economy and future of the Province. I think that,
    1078
    increasingly, sensible opinion among the majority community recognises the necessity for talks and discussions to see whether a way out of their present concerns can be found. In the present situation, the refusal even to talk would be inexcusable.
    Mr. Alton: Given the reluctance of the majority community to speak directly to the Secretary of State, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has considered inviting the four constitutional parties to Downing street for discussions?
    Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always made clear her willingness to meet leaders of any party in the House. If there are points that they wish to put to her, she will always be willing to listen to them.
    Mr. Baldry: When considering the wishes of the majority, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Members of the House, who supported the Anglo-Irish agreement in the belief that, if it were approached positively by all people in Northern Ireland, it could do much more than anything else to produce stability in the Province and combat the cancer of terrorism?
    Mr. King: The agreement creates a new situation, in which the responsibilities fall on the leaders of both the majority and minority communities. I say in the presence of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that he knows that the Government look to the SDLP to make a positive response in the new situation.
    Mr. Flannery: Do not the antics of the Unionists in coming in and walking out of the Chamber, and acting in the way that they are doing, reveal that they have had their way for so long that, when it comes to arguing the case, they refuse to discuss it with us? Is that not a sign that they feel that they are in a defensive and weak position and that events are now overtaking them?
    Mr. King: I do not underestimate the strength of genuine feeling in the Province and the genuine concern of a considerable number of Unionists about the Anglo-Irish agreement. That is all the more reason why everybody in the House who is a democrat recognises the importance of discussion and talking now about the situation. Nothing will be achieved by abstention. Parliament is here. That is a role for Parliament. I hope that within this Parliament sensible discussions can take place.

    Cross-border Terrorism
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in his discussions with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland stemming from the Anglo-Irish agreement in curbing cross-border terrorist activities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The conference has discussed ways in which the co-ordination of security force activities on both sides of the border might be improved. As a first step, the Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner are discussing a programme of work aimed at ensuring that security co-operation is as close and effective as possible. They will report progress to the next meeting of the conference. That work can only benefit the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Taylor: Are not the recent discoveries of arms that would have been used for killing in Northern Ireland a most encouraging development? On the basis of the private security information available to him, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is now comprehensive cooperation with the representatives of the Irish Republic in the effort to defeat terrorism?
    Mr. Scott: The House will not expect me to go into details about the successful operation in Roscommon and Sligo, but I echo the congratulations sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Minister for Justice and the Garda Commissioner on the part that they played in that. We have always had good, close co-operation at the border, but the work that is now in hand should, over months and years, improve the strategic approach of both the police forces in the island of Ireland in the battle against terrorism.
    Sir Adam Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the keys to popular acceptance of the Anglo-Irish agreement is successful co-operation between the security forces North and South? Therefore, will he ensure that, as far a possible, the maximum publicity is given to cooperation and to its achievements, within our security interests?
    Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a balance must be drawn in these matters. Many security matters, including cross-border security co-operation, are not suitable for public discussion. When there are such successes — and I believe that they will become increasingly apparent—credit should be given to those who bring them about.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: During the course of discussions, will the Minister raise the question of the purchase of arms by the IRA and the sources of its funding? Will he now answer the question that I have raised on two previous occasions in the House and about which I have tabled written questions: did Associated British Foods give, directly or indirectly, £1·5 million to the IRA?
    Mr. Scott: I have no evidence that it did.
    Mr. Silvester: Does my hon. Friend agree that top level security force discussions are welcome, but that if there is to be a real effect on security, co-operation must go down through all ranks of those forces? What progress is being made on that?
    Mr. Scott: Relationships and co-operation at border level have always been good. The Garda Siochana has deployed extra resources on the border. Its task force has been redeployed on the border, and that can only help cooperation and the battle against terrorism.
    Mr. Archer: Since, after the Government's statement, no one knows any more what is a leak and what is a slip of the tongue, can the Minister tell the House anything further about the legal subgroup announced after the 10 January meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference? When will it meet? What matters will it discuss first? Will it invite submissions from outside bodies? Will its report be made public?
    Mr. Scott: I hope that there will be an early meeting of that subgroup. It will be for the subgroup to determine
    1080
    its programme of work. By its very nature, that work will be complicated and is bound to take some time to come to fruition.

    Security
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 12 December three members of the security forces have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province.
    The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results. During 1985 a total of 522 people were charged with serious offences, including 24 with murder; and 234 weapons, 13,700 rounds of ammunition, and 7,300 lb of explosives were recovered.
    The present level of security force activity is high and I am in regular contact with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding to ensure that they have the necessary resources.
    Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that sombre statement. In view of the concessions to the SDLP in the Anglo-Irish agreement, will he use his good offices to try to ensure that the SDLP fully and unequivocally supports the RUC, without political strings?
    Mr. King: It is vital that all members of the community support the RUC and the security forces at this testing time. I look to the SDLP to support the RUC without equivocation and to encourage all its supporters to do likewise.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) to my words in the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement on the subject that he mentioned, and my words in reply to an intervention on an earlier occasion by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), which were unequivocal?
    Does the Secretary of State agree that in Great Britain, whenever a police officer or a member of the security forces is engaged in a shooting incident in doubtful circumstances, it is normal practice for that officer to be suspended while an investigation takes place? Why has that practice not obtained in the serious shooting incident at Kildress a few nights ago, which involved members of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in all shooting incidents involving the security forces, such as the one he mentioned, the facts are investigated by the RUC, whose findings must be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. I understand that, in accordance with normal practice, the persons involved are not at present on operational duties.
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Scott: The Assembly is not at present carrying out its scrutinising and consultative functions. If this were to continue, it would clearly put a question mark over its future. In the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that normal activities will now be resumed.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, in the light of the interesting by-election results, those who have done well should respond positively and make a go of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
    Mr. Scott: I have no doubt that the most desirable way forward for Northern Ireland is to return to devolved government on a basis acceptable to both sections of the community there so that the political leaders of Northern Ireland have a real say in the Province's political development.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Minister noticed that during Question Time today many references have been made to the fact that the Government want Ministers and their officials to do a lot of talking to all the various groups in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the Government could be accused of double standards, in that they want talking in Northern Ireland—they encourage their officials to talk a donkey's hind leg off on that subject—but, in the Select Committee, they tell the Department of Trade and Industry not to talk and they gag Miss Colette Bowe? The Government will talk about Northern Ireland, but they are not prepared to talk about the truth.
    Mr. Bellingham: What does the Assembly cost? Does my hon. Friend agree that, at this time of uncertainty, it is far better to have a forum in which views can be expressed than to have no forum at all?
    Mr. Scott: The Assembly's running costs for the last financial year were just under —3 million. The Assembly was established with two functions. The first was to make progress towards devolved government, and the second, which it was carrying out until early December, was to scrutinise the work of Northern Ireland Departments. I hope that we shall get back to both those functions as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister believe that the SDLP leadership has any interest in or intention of returning to the Assembly?
    Mr. Scott: My understanding of statements made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is that he is willing to sit down with representatives of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the basis for devolved government. It is up to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to clarify that with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), if he wishes to do so.

    Tourism
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many United Kingdom and overseas tourists visited Northern Ireland in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The most recent figures are for 1984, when Northern Ireland was visited by 405,000 tourists from Britain and by 503,000 from elsewhere, including the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Could any further steps be taken to encourage tourists to go to Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: The increase in the number of tourists visiting Northern Ireland from 588,000 in 1981 to 908,000
    1082
    in 1984 shows the attractions of the Province. If right hon. and hon. Members and others in Britain realise how nice the Province is, and how hospitable ordinary people in both communities are, there would be even more visitors.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why people do not visit Northern Ireland—or, indeed, the Republic—is the high cost of travel? Does he have in mind the possibility of holding discussions with carriers and the Government of the Republic, through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, on ways to reduce the costs of travel?
    Dr. Boyson: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board considers that matter regularly. I am quite prepared to have further discussions with the board. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a letter saying whether anything can be done to help to increase tourism in Northern Ireland in that way.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that there is a serious shortage of hotel bedrooms in many parts of Northern Ireland? When will the Government reintroduce grants to help build hotels in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: When the grant system was available, so many requests were made that there was a waiting list. That waiting list has now more or less come to an end. I hope that within days we can announce a new scheme, bearing in mind that bookings of hotel rooms have increased by one third in three years. The recent long-range meteorological report for Northern Ireland is that we can expect good weather this summer. I hope that hon. Members will book their holidays there.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Hanleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total of inward investment in Northern Ireland in the latest period of 12 months for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Boyson: In 1985 there was a total inward investment of £120 million and the Industrial Development Board promoted over 2,000 new jobs in companies with parentage outside Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hanley: While recognising the skill, energy, dedication, and productivity of the vast majority of the people of Ulster, and regretting the absence of the Ulster Unionists from the Chamber, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the best way to increase inward investment is for the politicians of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to get together to plan a stable and productive atmosphere in which further investment might be attracted?
    Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Northern Ireland's image of extremism in speeches and of terrorism means that we do not get investment and that the number of tourists is reduced. We hope that the Anglo-Irish agreement will help to bring together the two communities and the two Governments to aid investment and tourism.
    Mr. Foulkes: I congratulate the Minister on vigorously rejecting the representations from the Department of Trade and Industry to drop the prosecution against Lotus Cars for its involvement in the De Lorean affair. Will he tell the House what the nature of the representations was and whether the Prime Minister was involved?
    Dr. Boyson: The action that is being taken against Lotus Cars was the decision of the official receivers, who believe that that is the right decision.
    Mr. Couchman: Has my hon. Friend had any evidence, since the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, of any fresh initiatives from the other side of the Atlantic, which were much vaunted when the agreement was signed?
    Dr. Boyson: There are two factors involved. First, if we get the climate right, ordinary investment and risk capital should come to Northern Ireland and to the Republic.
    The second factor is specifically American — the statement by the President of the United States and the resolutions that went through the House of Representatives and the Senate in favour of financial help for Northern Ireland and the Republic. Officials from the British and Irish Governments have recently been discussing those matters in Washington DC with officials of the American Government.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Minister agree that there is little point in encouraging inward investment and at the same time permitting existing enterprises to collapse? Is he aware of the prediction of the Ulster Farmers Union that farmers' incomes are likely to be 70 per cent. down on last year and that his Department's decision not to continue the weather aid support may lead to bankruptcy? Will he make one more attempt to persuade the Treasury that the cost would be more than it is trying to save?
    Dr. Boyson: I accept that it is no good bringing in new investment if the existing investment collapses. Last year was a difficult year for agriculture, but considerable help has been given to farmers by the British Government, especially with livestock. Negotiations on the continuance of those measures, or any other means to keep agriculture viable in Northern Ireland, will continue.

    Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the work of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
    Mr. Tom King: The Intergovernmental Conference has met three times since the Anglo-Irish agreement came into force. The joint statements issued after each meeting give an account of our work in the conference. I have placed them in the Library. I am particularly encouraged by the commitment of both sides to making cross-border co-operation on security as close and effective as possible.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has the European convention on the suppression of terrorism come up? Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that yesterday in Strasbourg the Irish Foreign Minister could give me no hope that at an early date the intention of Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald that the Irish Republic should adhere to that agreement would be fulfilled?
    Mr. King: I noted the exchange between my hon. Friend and the Irish Foreign Minister. To be fair to him,
    1084
    he did not so much offer no hope as give no exact date for when that could be done. I share my hon. Friend's determination that the intention, confirmed in the communiqué by the Taoiseach, should be implemented as early as possible, and I am confident that the good faith of the Irish Government will mean that their intention to accede to the convention will be implemented as early as possible.
    Mr. Stanbrook: As the main purpose of the conference is to enable the Government of the Irish Republic to represent the interests of the minority in Northern Ireland, and as the United Kingdom Government can hardly represent any sectional interests, what provision is being made for the representation of the majority in Northern Ireland at the conference?
    Mr. King: The purpose of the agreement is much more than my hon. Friend suggests. It is, first, to establish clearly, and to have it confirmed by the Irish Government, that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority. That is a most important safeguard and should never be ignored.
    The second purpose is to further cross-border cooperation on security, and the whole House will understand the importance of that. My hon. Friend rightly said that another purpose of the agreement is to represent the views of the minority. If the majority of people believe that there are no adequate channels for their views to be conveyed, I am anxious to know how they think those channels could be improved. I am anxious to talk to them about that. Only by discussion will we learn what their anxieties are and the ways in which they might be met.
    Mr. Home Robertson: How can the Secretary of State hope to have a dialogue with representatives of the majority when they are hanging about in the Members' Lobby instead of entering the Chamber? Does he agree that the most significant verdict on the Anglo-Irish agreement came last week from the electors of Newry and Armagh?
    Mr. King: It came not only from the voters of Newry and Armagh, but from all the seats that were contested, in which there was a remarkably uniform swing from those who support terrorism to those who support constitutional nationalism. The whole House will welcome that. I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I very much hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that we can have a sensible discussion about how their worries can best be met.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not true that last week's by-elections did not change the political position in Northern Ireland, except in the instance mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)? Would it not be wise for the Unionists, instead of staging walkouts, to recognise that the Anglo-Irish agreement will be maintained? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to demonstrate that that will be the position?
    Mr. King: I wish to accord to the Unionist Members of Parliament the respect due to Members of this House, but if they are not here it is difficult to do so. I cannot understand the policy of standing for election to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and then declining to play a part in it.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the effective working of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, in conjunction with the Anglo-Irish agreement, has led, in the elections, to a significant decline in the Sinn Fein vote and that, therefore, all the people of Northern Ireland have an opportunity for peace and security in the future?
    Mr. King: There is a new and encouraging trend. One anxiety expressed by many unionist critics of the agreement was that it would make no difference to cross-border co-operation on security and that it would not make the slightest difference to the attitude of nationalists and how they voted. In both respects those fears have proved to be not fully justified. I hope that those members of the majority who are prepared to consider the issues fairly will take those points on board.
    Ms. Clare Short: Has there been any discussion about the involvement of the Official Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party with paramilitaries during their long march through Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on whether we should continue to consider them as constitutional parties?
    Mr. King: I have no comment to make on those matters, questions on which should be directed elsewhere. However, the House will wish us to pursue matters in Northern Ireland through constitutional means. The only parties, from whichever community they come, to which we shall listen with any respect are those that pursue constitutional approaches and eschew completely any paramilitary associations.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Apart from placing communiqués in the Library after meetings of the conference, how else will my right hon. Friend inform and consult the House democratically, without regard to party, about the effectiveness of the Anglo-Irish treaty?
    Mr. King: I shall be anxious to respond to the House in any way in which the House thinks is helpful. Considering the number of parliamentary answers that I have already given to my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of them are already effectively using one of the most obvious and immediate channels of parliamentary accountability.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the work of the intergovernmental conference would be assisted by the establishment of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier? Is he aware that more than 40 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion asking that it be established? What are the Government doing to expedite that?
    Mr. King: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time, that is a matter for the Parliaments concerned. Therefore, it is not directly a matter for me, although the agreement makes it clear that if such a body were established the Government would support it.
    Mr. Gow: Has my right hon. Friend read The Irish Times of 16 December, in which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is reported as having said that the Government of the Irish Republic would not accede to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism unless there were changes in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland? Does my right hon. Friend
    1086
    understand that it is of the utmost importance that the Irish Government should accede, in accordance with the terms of the communiqué, at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. King: I did not see that comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I endorse my hon. Friend's comments absolutely. It is of the greatest importance and of considerable urgency that the Irish Government should accede to the convention. I certainly look to them to honour their undertaking given in the communiqué.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the day-to-day workings of the Intergovernmental Conference provide for the exchange of information on criminal activity? In the light of the reply that I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the contribution of £1·5 million, either directly or indirectly, from Associated British Foods to the IRA, will the Secretary of State raise this question within the confines of the conference with a view to making a report to Parliament in future?
    Mr. King: It would be improper use of the conference to pass such evidence backwards and forwards. There are proper channels for that, and normal policing methods, and that is how that should be done.

    Police Stations (Damage)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current repair programme for police stations damaged by terrorist activity.
    Mr. Scott: The Provisional IRA's bombing campaign on police stations, and the intimidation of building contractors involved in security works, will not diminish the RUC's commitment to discharging its essential talks. The Government and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland are firmly resolved that police stations which have been damaged or need to be replaced will be repaired or rebuilt as a matter of top priority.
    Mr. Bruinvels: While I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that police stations are being properly repaired as speedily as possible after outrageous attacks on them by terrorists, may I ask him to join me in applauding the protection given to the workers repairing the police stations by the Royal Anglian Regiment and, in particular, by the 150 noble men from the county of Leicestershire?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly pay the warmest tribute to the Royal Anglians, the additional Royal Engineers who have come to assist in the task of rebuilding and preparing the police stations, and to all the security forces in Northern Ireland for their work.

    Lignite Deposits
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he makes of the prospective benefits of lignite deposits for the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Boyson: The major benefit of lignite in Northern Ireland will be derived from its use in the generation of electricity. It offers the possibility of transforming electricity generation costs in Northern Ireland from their present high level to among the lowest in the United Kingdom and in Europe.
    Mr. Leigh: Bearing in mind the high energy costs in the Province, may I ask what progress is being made and what savings are hoped to be made by using lignite for the generation of electricity?
    Dr. Boyson: On my hon. Friend's second point, I have seen estimates that the electricity costs in Northern Ireland could be reduced to 40 per cent. of existing costs, if lignite were used for some years. On his first point, early this summer there should be a report from the Northern Ireland Electricity Service about the possibility of building a minemouth lignite generation station at Crumlin, so that lignite will not have to be processed and can be used immediately, whereupon the Government must make a decision with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service about the speed at which we can proceed to build that station.

    Foreign Industrial Investment
    Mr. Roweasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Labour Relations Agency report on the experience of foreign industrial investors in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Boyson: I welcome the Labour Relations Agency's report, which confirms that ouside investors in Northern Ireland consider that the labour force is co-operative, productive, of a high quality and compares favourably with that in other locations.
    Mr. Rowe: Given that admirable result, will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to make the maximum use of this information to boost the economy of Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: That report, which came out in December, was basically in answer to the MORI report of 1982, which said that outside investors considered Northern Ireland unproductive and dangerous. The December report indicates quite clearly that all the 29 outside firms that invested in Northern Ireland consider that their plants there are at least as viable and productive as plants anywhere in the world. I trust that all the people from the IDB who are selling Northern Ireland around the world will have their cases full of that report and will deposit copies on the seats of every tube train on which they travel.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a cut of £500,000 in the cleaning bill for Belfast schools, colleges, hospitals and libraries, and that that cut will result in a substantial number of redundancies in the Province? Will he further confirm that there is to be another cut of £1 million in the same services, and that that will again add to the number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: I do not have with me the details of the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall write to him about them. If he looks at the overall budget, he will see that the capital budget in Northern Ireland is up. In education, it is up on the minor works side from £36 million to £40 million. That should mean employment in the construction industry.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to explain the Anglo-Irish agreement to the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: The Government have taken and will continue to take every appropriate opportunity, in the House, in the media and elsewhere, to correct misunderstandings about the Anglo-Irish agreement and to explain the advantages that it offers to all sections of the community in the Province.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that one of the tragedies of Northern Ireland is that the unionist leadership has opposed every constitutional proposal since 1972? Does he also agree that it is deeply disturbing that so-called constitutional unionist politicians should parade on the streets of Northern Ireland in the company of masked paramilitaries, and that the real challenge is to say to moderate unionist opinion, "Do not follow your leaders because they are misleading you and acting against your interests"?
    Mr. Scott: There are substantial misunderstandings about the Anglo-Irish agreement. The statement issued by the unionist parties, which described the agreement as a joint authority, is manifestly wide of the mark. The arrangements to enshrine the principle of consent, to provide tighter security and cross-border co-operation, and to respect the rights of both traditions in Northern Ireland are all positive points for the future of the Province.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the measures taken over the last three years to combat unemployment in the Province together with the cost; and if he will state the number of new jobs created.
    Dr. Boyson: In the three-year period to March 1985. £310 million was spent in Northern Ireland on job creation through industrial development agencies, community employment schemes and other measures. With the help of the development agencies and other measures, the private sector provided, or agreed to provide, almost 42,000 new jobs, while the community schemes created some 10,700 temporary jobs.
    Mr. Pawsey: While thanking my hon. Friend for that typically helpful and complete reply, may I ask what action his Department is taking to encourage investment in Northern Ireland from the United States and Japan? Is he able to say approximately how many jobs have developed in the Province as a result of investment from those two countries?
    Dr. Boyson: The first investment by Japan in Northern Ireland for employment purposes came last year. From America we had a Du Pont investment last year of £45 million for plant that will create about 330 new jobs in a high-tech industry.

    Cross-border Co-operation
    Mr. Lyellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the state of cross-border co-operation on matters of security since the Anglo-Irish agreement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) earlier today.
    Mr. Lyell: I greatly welcome the better news on cross-border security in Sligo and Roscommon and on strategic

    1089
    aspects. Does my hon. Friend agree that we who believe in the Union Parliament, of which we are Members, and who voted for the agreement, also regard highly the constitutional guarantees which are given to the majority in the Province by that agreement?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly support every word that my hon. and learned Friend has just said.
    Mr. Dubs: Can the Minister tell the House the origin of the arms in the recent finds in the Republic?
    Mr. Scott: Certainly not at the moment.

    Short Bros. plc
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of Short Bros.; and what subjects were discussed.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend met representatives of Short Brothers plc on 4 November last year. I also meet company representatives frequently. A variety of company matters were discussed at all these meetings, including order prospects, levels of employment and financial performance.
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he not think that it is a tribute to Short Bros. that it released the report of the Fair Employment Agency indicating that, despite rumours to the contrary in the United States, equal and fair consideration was being given to the employment of both Roman Catholics and Protestants in that very successful company? Therefore, will he encourage the Americans to exercise their option to take more Sherpas for the United States air force?
    Dr. Boyson: I would welcome the American Government taking up more of their option on those planes. I also commend the fact that Short Bros., working with the Fair Employment Agency, has shown a vast improvement in the recruitment into its works of people from the minority community.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the digital clocks are wrong. I shall go by the clock at the end of the Chamber and give one minute injury time.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend utterly condemn the futile and illegal attempts by the Trades Union Congress to stop publication of Mr. Murdoch's newspapers? Does she not think it odd that the Leader of the Opposition should wish to stop talking only to some journalists?
    The Prime Minister: I wish those newspapers well in their efforts to print on the latest equipment. Management and everyone else, including trade unions, are entitled to take full advantage of the law.
    Mr. Kinnock: Today unemployment reached 3·4 million, the highest ever. When unemployment was 1·1 million in 1979 the Prime Minister confidently promised that she would reduce it. Will she give the same promise now?
    The Prime Minister: I am the first to admit that, following several months of falling unemployment, the unemployment figures published today are deeply disappointing. Just as we did not claim that last year's figures meant a reverse of the trend when they were better, so it is too early to say that two months' poor figures indicate that unemployment is rising. The fact remains that the number of people in work has increased by over 700,000 since March 1984.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister must know that that claim about 700,000 is not valid. Even the Bank of England's system of calculation demonstrates that the number of jobs in terms of full-time equivalents has fallen. Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister does not know how to get unemployment down and does not care about it? If she did, she would not let it go on increasing all the time.
    The Prime Minister: On the two points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, we create more wealth and, therefore, more jobs, only by creating more goods which will sell competitively in world markets. That is the only way. With regard to what he said about the growth of jobs, the best indication of that is provided by the Department of Employment's official count every three months. He mentioned the Bank of England's adjustment, which referred to full-time equivalents. [Interruption.] Yes, many of the jobs have been part-time, but what is wrong with that? May I point out that the bank's adjustment, based on the assumption of a full-time employee equivalence, is inevitably uncertain. More important, it relates solely to employees and so completely ignores the net increase of over 400,000 in the number of self-employed since March 1983.
    Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour leader's boycott of all journalists employed by News International is an outrageous attack on the principle of free speech, which strikes at the very root of democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that, like unemployment, the view of the country about the credibility of the Prime Minister has today reached an all-time high, with 56 per cent. of people not believing her explanation of Monday, can she give us a full, honest and careful answer to this question? Was she or her Office consulted about the decision to prohibit three senior officials of the Department of Trade and Industry from giving evidence to the Select Committee on Defence? If she authorised that prohibition, does she intend to make sure that no civil servants speak to Officers and Members of the House? Is she going to cover up for what she has done or is she going to let her civil servants tell the truth, even if she cannot?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the two parts of the hon. Gentleman's question, I set out in my speech on Monday the full circumstances of the Solicitor-General's letter, its disclosure and the establishment of the inquiry, and I pointed out that the accuracy of the statement was checked with all concerned. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not like and cannot get over.
    With regard to Select Committees, the Government want to co-operate with them. Those officials who advise on policy and who are, therefore, in a position to help the work of the Select Committee on Defence on the defence implications of the Westland affair have co-operated fully and will continue to do so. I am bound to say that the Committee's request for private secretaries and personal staff to give evidence has major implications for the conduct of the Government and for relations between Ministers and their Private Offices, which will need to be thought about very carefully.
    We shall be in touch with the Committee and shall give any requests proper consideration. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition will remember the time when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under their Government refused to appear before a Select Committee.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the GATT, the world's trading nations are effectively engaged in an intensive trade war, in which competition is increasingly exercised by means of the competitive devaluation of currencies and that, in an era of floating exchange rates, to believe in free trade is to believe in pure fantasy? Will she urge our colleagues in the International Monetary Fund to agree that it would be better for world trade and growth if we were to move not towards something like the European monetary system, which is merely a bunch of floating currencies, but towards the restitution of a fixed exchange rate regime?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, competitive devaluation is no long-term substitute for each factory and firm becoming competitive in the sale of its own product. As to fixed exchange rates, unless the underlying economies are also run very similarly to one another, fixed exchange rates do not last long and lead to devaluation.
    Mr. Rogers: In view of the actions of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before the Select Committee this morning, does the Prime Minister agree that it smells rather like the American practice of pleading the fifth amendment?
    The Prime Minister: I gave the House a very full account. The particulars were checked and endorsed by a majority of 160 votes.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: With regard to Select Committees, does my right hon. Friend agree that any sanction that may be imposed belongs to the Chamber of the House and not to a Select Committee? Secondly, when she is seeking to avoid a clash between the Select Committee and Whitehall, will she bear in mind that there is a power in Select Committees to receive evidence and to treat it on a confidential basis, and that this might provide a way out of the dilemma?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated in the previous reply, I shall, of course, be in touch with the Committee and shall, of course, give any requests proper consideration.
    Mr. Steel: The answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has very serious implications for the conduct of business in this House. She will recall that in her own two statements on this whole matter she laid great stress on future inquiries by our Select Committees. She has absolutely no right now to place any fetter on anyone they may wish to call.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at what I said. Of course the Government want to co-operate with Select Committees. Those officials who advise on policy and are therefore in a position to help the Defence Select Committee's work on the defence implications of the Westland affair have cooperated fully and will continue to do so. Civil servants are responsible either to their Ministers for policy or to the head of the Civil Service.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend today make arrangements to transport the Leader of the Opposition and his entire Front Bench to join the picket line at Wapping, thereby ensuring that every worker crosses it?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend's point was contained in his most excellent question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flannery: Was it not the Prime Minister herself who asked for the Westland saga to go to a Select Committee of the House? Why is she now openly obstructing the work of that Select Committee by preventing, by diktat almost, Miss Colette Bowe and Mr. Charles Powell, Mr. Ingham possibly and Mr. John Mogg from giving evidence? Does she not realise that one cover-up begets another cover-up and another cover-up ad infinitum? When will she come clean and admit that there is a lot more to come out in that Select Committee and that on Monday she did not give a full report of what happened?
    The Prime Minister: I gave a very full account and it was meticulously checked for accuracy, by, among others, the head of the Civil Service, to take into account the report which I had made to the House. I gave that account. It was accurate.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When my right hon. Friend is looking into the precedents concerning Select Committees and Ministers and public officials, will she refresh her memory of the circumstances in which the then Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, refused to appear before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when it was looking into the recovery operation following the crash of Chrysler? That is quite an interesting precedent, which might do with refreshment.
    The Prime Minister: I do not have details of that one. I have details of the reply, which I recall on Monday 19 January 1976, when the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had received an invitation from the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee — [Interruption.] Yes, the reply. He had received an invitation to attend and give evidence on public expenditure on Chrysler. He went on to say:
    "My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who has direct ministerial responsibility for this, was to give evidence on behalf of the whole Government."—[Official Report, 19 January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 287.]
    He went on to say that evidence had been given on behalf of the Government and that he was declining to give evidence to the Select Committee.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Lady aware that on this day, when the highest levels of unemployment ever known have been recorded, due to the Government's policies, it will not go unnoticed by the people that, when the printers'
    1094
    unions have taken a stand to protect jobs—6,000 more jobs are at stake—the Tory Benches cheered to the echo the mention of Murdoch, and, of course, the anti-trade union legislation that makes it more—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member come to a conclusion?
    Mr. Heffer: I repeat: it will not go unnoticed that the anti-trade union legislation has been fully brought into operation and supported by the Prime Minister and others to create more unemployment, not less. That is the truth of the situation.
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. If industry had not been able to become thoroughly competitive under the policies of this Government we should have lost whole industries, and the unemployment position would have been infinitely worse. Restrictive practices and overmanning do not save jobs. They lead to the loss of more jobs in the end.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion to approve the Special Supplementary Estimate 1985–86: budget of the European Communities, Class II, Vote 9. Details of relevant EC documents will be given in the Official Report.
Second Reading of the Australia Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Museum of London Bill.
TUESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill.
There will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC Document No. 8805/85, a proposal for a directive on the disposal of non-radioactive waste at sea.
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (6th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Conduct and Supervision of the City."
There will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC Document No. 9316/85 relating to new Community rules for state aids to the coal industry.
THURSDAY 6 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I0 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Australia Bill [Lords].
Debate on Monday 3 February (Debate on Supplementary Estimate)

Relevant Documents:

(a) 10773/85 to 10778/85

Draft budget (1986) with amendments and proposed modifications

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 2I-vii (1985–86) paragraph 9.
Debate on Tuesday 4 February

Relevant Documents:

(b) 8805/85

Draft directive on dumping of waste at sea

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee
(b) HC 5-xxx (1984–85) paragraph 14.
Debate on Wednesday 5 February

Relevant Documents:

(c) 9316/85

State aids to coal industry

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee
(c) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85) paragraph 3.
Mr. Kinnock: When will the House have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made early next week on the current position of the teachers' pay dispute?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is an urgent need for a full debate on the Green Paper on the poll tax. When is that likely to take place?
1096
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Monday's debate on the White Paper on the Channel fixed link is to begin at 7 pm when that is clearly a matter of public interest and public controversy?
Mr. Biffen: It has changed.
Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry; I was not entirely attuned to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I hope that he has good news for me. I shall listen to him the second time round.
Today's unemployment figures, which are the highest on record, warrant a full debate in Government time well before the Budget. We know that the Secretary of State for Employment cannot speak in such a debate because he is in the other place. Will a debate take place, and, if so, will the Prime Minister speak in it?
Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points in reverse order. There is no prospect of a debate on unemployment being held in Government time. The right hon. Gentleman might like to consider that as a topic for an Opposition day debate.
I am anxious that there should be total mutual understanding on the Channel tunnel. I have announced for Monday 10 February business in respect of private Members' motions and the remaining stages of the Australia Bill. If this raises difficulties, perhaps we can consider the matter further through the usual channels.
The Green Paper on the range of proposals to replace our current rating system has only just been presented to the House and, clearly, it will have to be debated by the House. Doubtless this matter can be pursued in due course through the usual channels.
I take account of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the desirability of a statement being made on the current dispute in education. I very much hope that that can be made early next week.
We shall again consider through the usual channels the question of having a debate on the public expenditure White paper.
Mr. Terence Higgins: The Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service hopes to take evidence on the public expenditure White Paper and complete that next Monday at 4.15 pm with evidence from the Chief Secretary. My right hon. Friend has put down for business on Monday a matter that is also of great interest to the Select Committee—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: And concern.
Mr. Higgins: —and concern. The Select Committee took evidence on that matter this morning. Because that debate is on Monday, it effectively means that the Select Committee has been told that it must approve by midnight an ex gratia payment to help towards financing an illegal EEC budget for which the Government themselves admit there is no underlying legislative justification. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the timing of this business, as members of the Select Committee will obviously wish to ensure that they are present during the debate and are also able to proceed with the White Paper inquiry?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend raised an important point of deep concern to himself and, I am sure, to all members of his Committee—
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: And the House.
Mr. Biffen: —and the House and many outside the House. That was merely going to be the preliminary to an emollient comment. Of course I shall ascertain whether anything can be done. Perhaps I could get in touch with my right hon. Friend. I do not want to encourage optimism on this matter.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10 minutes next week for the Attorney-General to answer questions is totally inadequate, bearing in mind that, to a large extent, his Department, together with 10 Downing street and the Department of Trade and Industry, is at the centre of what has happened over Westland? Will he accept that he has some responsibility to ensure that witnesses required by the Select Committee on Defence should be in a position to appear before that Committee? Therefore, will he give a promise that he will ensure that officials who have been called by the Select Committee will appear next week?
Mr. Biffen: The summoning of witnesses is a matter for the Select Committee concerned. The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat contentious series of observations about the amount of time allotted for Attorney-General questions. The time allotted is determined by a roster agreed each Session through the usual channels, and I have received no official representations that it should be altered.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that before the House is required to make an illegal payment to the EEC a Government spokesman will explain to the House why it is not necessary to introduce primary legislation before the illegal payment is made?
Mr. Biffen: In general terms, I do not think that I can go beyond the answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I shall draw the specific point raised to the attention of the Minister who will be taking part in the debate.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House have regard to early-day motion 208?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to give further consideration to the establishment of an Anglo-Irish Parliamentary body, Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; That the Committee shall consist of 16 members; that no motion shall be made for the nomination of members of the Committee or their discharge unless: (a) notice of the motion has been given sat least two sitting days previously and (b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or another member of the Committee; that five be the quorum of the Committee; that the Committee have power: (a) to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time; and (b) to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference; and that this be a Standing Order of the House.]
It has received support from all parts of the House. It calls for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the establishment of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary body in accordance with article 12 of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Is the right hon. Gentleman likely to take any initiative with regard to that?
While I am sure that this House echoes the deep regret and shock at what has happened to the American space
1098
shuttle, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the lessons we are tragically learning from that is the difficulties which are involved in any strategic defence initiative? It is time that the House had a debate to discuss all the implications of that and the United Kingdom participation in it.
Mr. Biffen: On the subject of the early-day motion, I appreciate the pertinence of the question put by the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to refer him to the answer I gave to the same question on Monday. I have nothing to add to that.
I take account of what the hon. Gentleman said in his second point. I think that the debates we are now having on the various service Estimates would provide some accommodation for a speech he might like to make in that direction.
Sir William Clark: Many I press the Leader of the House, following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)? Surely there must be something wrong if an illegal budget means that the British taxpayer is asked to make an exgratia payment to the EEC and that, if the motion is not passed on Monday, interest is added to the amount by the EEC. There must be something wrong with our control of public expenditure if such things are allowed to happen.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made a good and powerful trailer of the speech which I have no doubt he will make on Monday when it will be answered with customary authority by the Treasury spokesman.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, since the tabling of a motion last week in my name on Sadler's Wells theatre, yesterday my worst fears were realised? In view of the pressure on the right hon. Gentleman in arranging parliamentary time and priorities, and his own well-known concern about the cultural heritage of the nation, will he have conversations with the various Ministers concerned to ensure that that famous theatre is not closed?
Mr. Biffen: I truthfully believe that I am the most philistine Member ever to disfigure the Treasury Bench. Notwithstanding that, of course I will undertake the consultations the hon. Gentleman requests.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend think again and scrap Monday's debate on the illegal budget? Would it not be better if we sent in the district auditor and surcharged the European Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: That is the sort of robust contribution that can be made in the debate. I note what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great disruption which took place at the end of the debate on Tuesday on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order? We now have one and a half hours a year to discuss the affairs of London transport. When it was previously run by the Greater London council, it was under continual appraisal by democratically elected councillors. In view of the unhappy and unfortunate impending demise of the GLC on 31 March, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the House, London Members in particular, to have ample

1099
opportunity to discuss London affairs which have been taken away from a democratically elected GLC and handed over to a collection of unaccountable quangos?
Mr. Biffen: In no sense could I accept the premise of that question, but if the hon. Gentleman is seeking some reorganisation in government so that, in a parliamentary sense, there is a London presence, that is a campaign that he must pursue. At the moment, I am happy to say, I do not have to deal with that problem.
Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the motion on short speeches was blocked by those who are more longwinded, and who have Privy Council status, giving them priority in debates. Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing the matter to a head so that Back-Bench Members have a chance of speaking in debates?
Mr. Biffen: I noted those who blocked the motion. I thought how happy it was that anonymity was cast by Hansard over their voices. I believe that there is a widespread desire that the matter should be resolved, and I hope that that can be done, perhaps in a debate a little later on.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Leader of the House aware that everyone in the country will greet with disbelief his statement that it is not the duty of the Government to provide time for a debate on unemployment when it has reached the record figure of 14 per cent. nationally — and that figure masks regional and sub-regional differences which mean that in some areas, unemployment is as high as 50 or even 60 per cent. Does he not realise that the Government should provide time to debate the unemployment that they have created, especially in the light of the massive youth unemployment in areas such as Merseyside? Unemployment means that young teenagers are easy prey to drug pushers; and the number of young unemployed who are taking heroin has now reached epidemic proportions.
Mr. Biffen: I strongly contest the partisan way in which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to attribute unemployment to the Government and intimating that the Government are indifferent to it. There is no provision for a debate in Government time in the immediate future. That is hardly surprising as shortly we shall move into a period dominated by the debates on the Budget and the Finance Bill. However, if the matter is of such urgency, I should have thought that the Opposition might use some of their time.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House find time on Monday for a debate on the apparent scandalous injustice of the Government's policies towards the Socialist councillors of Camden, in that when they pass an illegal budget they are surcharged, and threatened with bankruptcy and having their assets sold, but when the European Assembly passes an illegal budget the Government seek to rush through an emergency Supplementary Estimate?
Mr. Biffen: That compelling argument and analogy can be contained within the terms of the motion that is already set down for debate on Monday.
Mr. Hugh Brown: The Leader of the House said that he would consider a debate on the Green Paper on rates. I know that the debate will not be
1100
next week, but will the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the time scale or in which month he will be able to provide time for a debate? Will he make sure that any request to discuss the Scottish or Welsh aspects in the Grand Committees will not be used as an argument for cutting down the time in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the Grand Committee's consideration of the Green Paper. However, I think it would be fairest to the House if I left my answer general rather than specific when I am not sure whether I could deliver any promise that I might make.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Last week, when I asked my right hon. Friend about the illegal European budget, he said that he was loth to bracket the European Community with Liverpool. Why are the Government now prepared to bracket themselves with Liverpool by not only condoning but facilitating the illegal budget? Could my right hon. Friend tell the House why he has changed his mind, whether he has consulted the Law Officers, in which case what advice he received, and what would happen if we did not pass the wretched budget on Monday?
Mr. Biffen: Clearly, Monday promises to be a connoisseur's day. In a more general consideration of Monday's debate, I cannot go beyond the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
Mr. Budgen: He has become communautaire.
Mr. Biffen: I so enjoy the interventions of my hon. Friend as they give me breathing space just when I need it.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Can the Leader of the House say whether either of the two Cabinet Ministers who have recently resigned have been able to retain their ministerial cars and drivers? If that has happened, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister reponsible to make a statement to the House next week showing in what circumstances that is taking place and who is paying for it?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is implying in good faith that a certain situation exists. If he would like to write to me setting out the situation, I will have the matter investigated.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the freedom of the press, particularly taking account of current threats to it from the Labour party and the TUC? Could the motion be drawn wide enough to embrace debates on the vicious efforts made by Labour and Lib-Lab Govermnents between 1974 and 1979 to gag the press by the imposition of a closed shop? It should be borne in mind that those efforts were pursued strenuously by that so-called great lover of freedom, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend sets out an attractive proposition for the use of Government time, but, as I have explained to the House, the problem at the moment is that little Government time is available for these debates. I shall continue to bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In view of the financial crisis that threatens to close the

1101
Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra, Croxteth hall and the Empire theatre in Liverpool and many other arts facilities not only in Merseyside but in the other metropolitan counties and London which are victims of the Tory Government's political bigotry, may we have an urgent debate in the House before those places close?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has put forward the facts with complete dispassion, but I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts to the hon. Gentleman's argument so that my right hon. Friend can consider his request.
Mr. Willian Cash: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection about the appearance or non-appearance of certain officials before the Select Committee on Defence? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, irrespective of whether or not the officials appear, they cannot under the conventions and practice of the House, as established by the Liaison Committee and by other statements that have been made, be required to give evidence relating to advice that they gave to Ministers while acting in their official capacity?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful contribution which does not, strictly speaking, come within the ambit of next week's business. I cannot reaonably add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on that topic.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House will already have heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my other hon. Friends express their concern about unemployment and the need for an urgent debate. Is he aware that a job start scheme was put on trial at Billingham only a month ago? When that scheme was introduced, I asked the Minister responsible in another place to debate the matter publicly so that people might know how he thought the scheme would operate. The noble Lord refused to do that. The first month's operation of the scheme has resulted in only one inquiry. If we cannot have a debate in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his noble Friend in another place at least to come to Billingham and explain the circumstances surrounding the scheme?
Mr. Biffen: It is always touching to have such responsibilities or would-be responsibilities thrust upon one. I do not think, however, that I am in the business of requiring anybody up the road to go anywhere. Of course, I will draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment to the point the hon. Gentleman raised about the scheme. I cannot go beyond what I said to the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on unemployment.
Mr. Peter Lilley (St. Albans): Earlier today, Mr. Speaker you properly reaffirmed the ruling that questions to Minister must relate to their responsibilities and not to those of the Opposition. Democracy and constitutional Government depend upon a reasoned choice between alternatives. Will my right hon. Friend open negotiations with the Opposition parties to see whether one day every so often could be made available for Opposition Question Time, because there is a great desire to know the consequences of their unrealistic policies? I extend that to
1102
the SDP and the Liberal parties, although they have as yet no policies, because that might afford the House a magical mystery tour.
Mr. Biffen: The question roster is the product of delicate balance and raw horse trading. I should not want to disturb that for the objective that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that there are thousands of men and women working in the textile and clothing industries who are worried that they may be thrown on the record-long dole queues if the multi-fibre arrangement is not negotiated with Britian's best interests in mind? Has he seen early-day motion 332 which is supported by more than 70 members calling for an urgent debate on that subject?
[That this House, recognising the vital importance of the textile and clothing industry for the United Kingdom's balance of trade and as the employer of one in 10 of all those working in manufacturing industry, emphasises the damage that would be done to the industry by any failure to secure an effective renewal of the Multi Fibre Arrangement; views with alarm the terms of the European Economic Community's draft negotiating mandate which would inevitably permit an increase in imports, including a diversion of imports from better-protected markets to the United Kingdom; urges Her Majesty's Government to insist on a European Economic Community mandate which fully protects the interests of the British industry; and demands that no final decision is reached in Brussels until the matter has been further debated in the House.]
Will the Leader of the House have urgent discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not just to ask for early agreement on a debate but for him to take an interest in the renegotiation of the MFA and not give the responsibility to a new Minister who possibly knows less about the industry than the Secretary of State?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take a close interest in Britain's contribution to the MFA negotiations. I recognise that there is wide interest in the House that a debate should take place. I am considering that matter now to see when might be a convenient time.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: As it is a great convenience to hon. Members on both sides of the House to be told what the business for the Monday thereafter is when being given the business for next week, will my right hon. Friend make it his practice never to change the business planned for the Monday as we all have to plan busy schedules and make arrangements? Does he accept that some of us are extremely displeased to find that the Second Reading of the Housing and Planning Bill has been shifted from Monday to Tuesday? May we know why it has been shifted?
Mr. Biffen: I understand the interest that there is in the inviolate nature of Monday's business, although I seem to have spent half this afternoon listening to those who claim that next Monday's business should be altered. Of course, one tries to announce business that will be maintained as far as possible, but the more that one announces ahead, the more uncertain becomes the final day or so of business. I believe that there was a time when Monday week's business was not announced.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When will we have a debate on the Select Committee on Privilege's report about the confidentiality of information and material in the possession of Select Committees? Is the Leader of the House aware that a crisis is developing over the operation of Select Committees? Has he noted the dilemma faced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the problem of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and does he not think that if Select Committees produce reports the House is entitled to debate them? May we now have time for a debate—for the fourth time of asking over the past five months?
Mr. Biffen: It may be the fourth time of asking, but it is also the fourth time of replying, broadly in the same sense as on the three previous occasions. At the moment there is no immediate opportunity for a debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may shout as though he were on the terraces of Workington football club—if I have pitched that rather low I apologise. I have to balance all the claims made upon the time of the House, and at the moment there is not exactly a clamour for this topic to be debated.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in my constituency at the proposed closure of an iron foundry at Sterling Metals, with the loss of 700 jobs? This is a major blow to the area when in the past 12 months the unemployment position had improved by about 12 per cent. Can my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity to discuss the matter in the House?
Mr. Biffen: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he may wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment and underline his already considerable reputation as an active constituency Member? I will, of course, mention the point that he makes to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the request made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and to other of my hon. Friends who asked for an urgent debate, in Government time, on the question of unemployment? Will it not be amazing to the people of Britain to hear the Leader of the House say that it cannot be helped, not because of pressure of business next week, but because it is a matter for the Opposition and not for the Government? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment is a matter for the Government? It is the Government's responsibility. Are they afraid of having such a debate because they have no suggestions for dealing with unemployment? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply so that we may hear what the Government propose to do to bring down unemployment —the highest level we have ever known in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has already been made several times by the Opposition. I have nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time next week to the right hon.
1104
Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) to explain why the Labour party wishes to ban contact with The Times and The Sun? Does not this action suggest what life would be like under any future Labour Government, with the state as master and not as servant — a state of increasing restrictions, regulations and controls—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not as ingenious as his hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley). The question must be related to business for which the Leader of the House is responsible.
Mr. Biffen: I quite understand my hon. Friend's interest in this topic. He has asked for time to be made available, but time is already available. There is an Opposition day next week and we will judge how they wish to use it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the collapse of the Tin Council and the 500 jobs that are at stake in the west country? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate? Is he aware that yesterday there was a great opportunity presented to the Liberals and Social Democrats to use half of their day's debate to discuss this important question. Five hundred miners came from the west country to lobby Parliament and wanted to get Members to listen to their plight. When I came into the Chamber, however, I found the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) rabbiting on in his usual fashion—
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Wabbiting on.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, wabbiting.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Skinner: I am coming round to it. The right hon. Gentleman was rabbiting on about our joining the European monetary system when he should have been debating the important matter of the dole queues. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to get rid of next Monday's debate and arrange a debate on the tin Council and unemployment, thus killing three birds with one stone?
Mr. Biffen: It has often been my privilege to listen to the recondite, fastidious arguments of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). I have not hitherto thought of characterising them as rabbiting — and "rabbiting", as those from the west country know, is pronounced with a good, full-throated "r". It is a sad day when the spirit of Trelawny and all that Cornwall has stood for is taken over by social democracies from Glasgow.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the debate on Monday on the Special Supplementary Estimate is likely to highlight two points? The first is the deep feeling held by many of us in Great Britain who are genuinely pro-Europe but are increasingly concerned about the methods of financing, the lack of financial discipline in the Community and the system of European justice to which this country is subject. Secondly, it will also highlight the fact that sovereignty has been, and is being, taken from under the nose of this House, usually in the small hours of the morning. Before such important EEC legislation is introduced, will my right hon. Friend agree to give it much more prime debating time?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says in his most intriguing contribution, which shows the significant movement of opinion in the general debate of these matters. My hon. Friend has as good prime time on Monday as he will ever get for these Community matters. However, I have promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing to consider whether any alternative arrangements can be made.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the breakdown of law and order and the sickening attacks, both in London and in Leicester, on our defenceless old? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many people have been mugged in their own homes or robbed on the streets? The public are not receiving adequate protection from the police. Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the need for appointing additional police, a review of the judicial system, the need for tougher and stiffer sentences in our courts and the need for protection of all citizens in Britain? The Leicester Mercury recently described the situation as "a real crisis".
Mr. Biffen: I know that my hon. Friend and the Leicester Mercury have been conducting a campaign for a greater police presence in Leicester, and I should like to think that it might be partnered by a full day's debate in the House of Commons. But time is at a great premium, and all I can offer is to refer his points to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that they may be noted.

Foreign Affairs Council
4.9 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which took place in Brussels on 27 January. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry represented the United Kingdom. A statement of forthcoming business in the European Community has been deposited in the Vote Office.
Ministers had a further preliminary discussion of the Commission's proposals for a negotiating mandate on renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. They reviewed progress in negotiations to adapt the European Community agreements to take account of enlargement. In response to the imposition by the United States of quotas on imports of EC semi-finished steel, the Council decided to introduce quotas on United States exports of fertiliser, coated paper and bovine fats. These restrictions will not be introduced until 15 February, allowing time for further efforts to achieve an agreed outcome. The President of the Commission reported on his discussion with the Japanese Government on EC-Japan trade relations during his recent visit to Tokyo. I emphasised the importance that we attach to the achievement of a better balance in trade between the European Community and Japan.
In political co-operation, the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed and issued a statement on international terrorism. They announced further measures to strengthen defences against terrorism within the Community and to discourage support from other Governments for terrorist attacks. They agreed to set up a new group within political co-operation to ensure effective follow-up in the areas covered by the statement. They agreed not to undercut measures taken by others against Governments which support terrorism. The Foreign Ministers reviewed briefly the implementation of the measures vis-à-vis South Africa which were agreed at Luxembourg on 10 September.
In the Intergovernmental Conference member states finalised the text of the amendments to the EC treaties and treaty provisions on European political co-operation. On the question of the working environment, we secured inclusion in the treaty text of provisions protecting the position of small and medium-sized undertakings, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the European Council in Luxembourg last December. This enabled the only outstanding United Kingdom reserve to be lifted. All member states have accepted the agreed text. The Netherlands Presidency hope that the new Act will be signed by all member states on 17 February. If the Danish Government cannot sign on that date, they will aim to do so after the referendum in Denmark.
Mr. George Robertson: We all congratulate the hon. Lady on her apparent promotion. I wish her well in her translation from motorway lighting to runaway surpluses and from flyovers to carryovers. She will have a rough time, as she has seen for herself this afternoon from both sides of the House. We wish her well.
The hon. Lady's statement smoothly skates over the shambles to which the European Community has reduced itself in the past few weeks with regard to reform of the treaty of Rome. The Community has spent nine months

1107
and more on a futile exercise of institutional change, and it has produced a mouse which, thanks to the Danish Parliament, cannot now even squeak.
Is there not something bizarre about this great Community, now 12 nations strong, squirming around, pretending for the benefit of Danish Members of Parliament that their great efforts were of absolutely no consequence? Today, however, Britain has announced record unemployment, a phenomenon that is mirrored throughout the EC. Falling oil prices, rising interest rates and shaky currencies threaten even more job losses all over Europe.
In July, the Prime Minister told the House that all the institutional reforms agreed at the Luxembourg summit could be implemented without treaty changes, so why has the Danish veto meant so much chaos? The Minister referred to discussions about retaliation against American steel import restrictions. She has our complete support for that reaction to unwarranted protectionism, although I wonder what effect it will have on the airbus project, which only two weeks ago was of such paramount importance. Will the hon. Lady explain the effect that the retaliation will have on British Steel's exports and on the contract between BSC and Tuscaloosa Steel of Alabama?
We welcome the British climbdown on resisting better Europe-wide protection legislation for employees, but does that mean that the Government will now allow majority voting on the directives on part-time working and on employee consultation, which they have blocked for the past two years?
On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary will be in Lusaka with a team of Community Foreign Ministers meeting the Front Line states. They will reiterate their call to South Africa to recognise the African National Congress.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Certainly not.
Mr. Robertson: Community Foreign Ministers have already called on South Africa to recognise the ANC. Will the Foreign Secretary meet the ANC when he is in Lusaka? Will he join Community Foreign Ministers if they choose to meet the ANC?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I think that I shall need more than his congratulations with such a list of questions, but I shall do my best.
The Intergovernmental Conference's reform is not a mouse but a decision of the 12 to bring matters completely up to date. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought that changes could be made without a treaty change, as did we. However, not all the other nations were content with that. We therefore worked towards, and reached in December, subject to one reserve, a treaty change that we are now prepared to sign. We have achieved a successful declaration about small and medium-sized enterprises.
The hon. Gentleman asked about steel support. I thank him for what he said. United Kingdom support for the aggressive EC move, which could threaten the Tuscaloosa agreement, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We fully support the EC retaliation. We have argued that no precipitate action should be taken while Community/United States contracts on semi-finished products are still in progress. That is why the implementation date has been deferred to see whether we can make further progress. I do not see,
1108
from my knowledge at present, that the joint venture will be threatened. There is no suggestion of that. We shall go on working to prevent it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about our climbing down and thought that there was no need for the Intergovernmental Conference to make treaty reform. As the Community has enlarged, it is far more sensible to agree reforms and have them clearly established. That is exactly what happened in regard to the work concluded on 17 December, which was finally amended with the reserve on small and medium-sized enterprises on Monday.
The hon. Gentleman asked about employment. It is no bad thing to have realism in the Community. Lowering barriers will provide new opportunities for jobs and for better trade.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, finally, the question of the European Community Meeting with the Front Line states in Lusaka next week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will indeed be in Lusaka next week. He will be having discussions with those who wish to have discussions with him and will try to set out the dialogue as fairly and as clearly as possible, as we have always stated, that we have no part in apartheid and that we intend to do all we can to ensure that peace is brought to South Africa.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: I too congratulate my hon. Friend on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box for the Foreign Office. Will she not be deterred by the scorn that is routinely poured on these statements by both sides of the House with equal vehemence on what the EC has done and on what it has not done? Is she aware that, although the progress might be modest, it adds up to something quite important? It is good for the country that there are negotiations and steady progress.
Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that I am rarely deterred, but I might be a little more tentative when speaking about European matters than when speaking about road lighting. The most important element of the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday was the political co-operation there. A statement against terrorism by all 12 members is a substantial achievement—and it was not a foregone conclusion. It contains a warning to Governments that support terrorism, an agreement not to undercut measures against Governments—which clearly covers United States measures against Libya—and an agreement not to sell arms to Governments that behave like Libya; and it strengthens the Twelve's security against terrorism and contains machinery to ensure follow-up action. We have never before had such a statement from 12 nations. If on no other count, the meeting was a great advance because of that.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I join in congratulating the Minister on her appointment. My hon. Friends and I will miss her courteous and personal response to our questions in her previous capacity, whether on constituency or policy matters. Those qualities will stand her in good stead in her present position, however difficult it may be.
Did any consensus emerge from discussions on the MFA, especially with a view to the question whether this should be the last renegotiation of the MFA? Will she tell the House whether, during the discussions on South Africa, there was a discussion about strengthening the

1109
sanctions against South Africa, as the meagre sanctions that currently exist are wholly inadequate to express our disgust at what is happening and our anxiety at the worsening position? Is it not the case that the United Kingdom has dragged its feet? Will she now give some thought to increasing the strength of sanctions?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments at the start of his remarks. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present at the discussion on the MFA. We followed exactly the line set out in the statement of the then Minister for Trade on 9 May. We did not make much progress, but discussions are now clearly seen as part of the further GATT round which is coming. Any renewed MFA will clearly be a transitional measure.
We did not have an extensive discussion about South Africa in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. However, we agreed that no EC partner would export crude oil to South Africa. The United Kingdom has never sold crude oil to South Africa. No further United Kingdom action is necessary and any action will take place within individual countries.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend, whose brief now includes one of the most complex and controversial political areas in the world—South Africa. I welcome the universality of the declaration that was made in Brussels against terrorism, but will the declaration not be shown to be the most appalling sham if an exception should be made for the ANC? Before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State sets off for Lusaka, will my hon. Friend make sure that he has in his handbag—(Interruption.]—the full transcripts of the broadcasts from Addis Ababa by the ANC, which are the most vicious incitement to terrorism that anyone could wish to read?
Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall bring his remarks to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend must be, that wherever terrorism occurs it must be condemned, whether it comes from the ANC or terrorists in any other part of the world. Terrorism is terrorism from whomsoever it comes.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Lady accept that, whatever her attitude to the issues, the attitude to her usual high quality answers will be the reverse of scorn?
My hon. Friend referred to the signing of the draft treaty on 17 February, but not by Denmark. Will she confirm that the treaty will be a draft treaty? Will she outline the timing of the treaty's presentation and the method by which it will be presented for endorsement?
In view of the difficulties of next Monday's business, arising from the present powers of the European Assembly, do the Government intend to show further appreciation of the enhanced powers that will be contained in the treaty? Will these powers cause even more difficulties?
Mrs. Chalker: I will answer the hon. Gentleman as well as I can. If I am in error, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall tell him what I believe he was asking for. The treaty is the precursor to a Bill that will
1110
come before the House at the earliest practicable opportunity. I am not in a position to say when that will be, but it will be at the earliest possible date. As usual, legislation is required in this country to enforce the agreement. That will be entirely in accordance with normal practice. The House will have a full opportunity to debate the legislation during Second Reading and all its stages.
The debate on Monday takes place following a procedure recommended by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1982. That is the reason for the procedure in advance of any further debate.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members representing textile areas will be worried that she took with her only the statement of the Minister of State for Trade last May on the subject of the multi-fibre arrangement? Is she aware that some of us hope for a much stronger attitude from the British Government and that we are concerned about rumours about the British negotiating committee?
Mrs. Chalker: As a Member from the north-west, I am well aware of the sensitivities surrounding the multi-fibre arrangement. Today, I read an article in the Financial Times about the matter that must worry some of my hon. Friends. It was only about a week ago that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House that we believed that the long-term future of the MFA must be decided in the context of the proposed GATT round of international trading talks. The debates and the discussions that we are to have in Europe and in Britain will help us to thrash out a difficult problem, but we must achieve a balance between the home countries and the Third world countries.
Mr. Max Madden: When does the Minister expect the negotiating mandate for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement to be decided? Will she give a firm assurance that there is no question of controls on the dominant suppliers being relaxed to give preference to low-cost suppliers?
Does she agree that there is an urgent need for a full debate on the industry, which is the fourth largest manufacturing industry in Britain, employing tens of thousands of people in high unemployment areas? Will she add her support to the calls to which the Leader of the House is responding favourably for an urgent debate so that the Government can be advised by hon. Members who have a key concern about the future of that important industry?
Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the matter. I know that the Leader of the House heard all that the hon. Gentleman said during business questions and I shall draw his comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me from answering his questions in detail, because I was not present for the multi-fibre arrangement discussion. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and I shall place a copy in the Library so that he receives a full and accurate response.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that a major part of her statement was directed to the MFA and to trade arrangements with Japan? Does she accept that the current huge imbalance of trade with Japan is unacceptable? The MFA, which is so critical

1111
to Britain, is already too liberal. Liberalising it further, as will happen unless the Government take a stand, will mean tens of thousands more unemployed people in sensitive areas with already high unemployment. Will she press the Leader of the House for a debate, not only on the MFA, but on the broader principles of trade and the United Kingdom national interest so that the House, rather than Europe, can express a view as to the best interests of the people of our country?
Mrs. Chalker: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course we are worried about the mounting trade surplus with Japan, which still imposes a serious strain on an open trading system. My hon. Friend knows that we are at the beginning of a further round of MFA negotiations I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: During the lengthy discussions that took place on a series of subjects, could not sufficient time be found to discuss the most important matter of peace in Europe and the proposals that have been made by Mr. Gorbachev on nuclear disarmament? Is that subject likely to be discussed in the future? If not, why not?
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the EC spends much time discussing not only peace, but how we can best work together to prevent terrorism. The wider issues are not a matter for the Foreign Affairs Council or, indeed, for political co-operation. Although Ministers have those matters at the back of their minds and sometimes discuss them privately, they are more a matter for summit discussions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every offer and every move to create peace in the world will be taken up by the Government and pursued relentlessly.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In congratulating my hon. Friend on impressively and successfully representing the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council, and welcoming her statement that international co-operation is the only way forward to combat terrorism by individual groups and terrorism sponsored and fostered by Governments, may I ask whether in future Foreign Affairs Councils she will bring a similar spirit to international co-operation in trying to counter other evils, such as the growing distribution of hard drugs?
Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure that that is a matter for the Foreign Affairs Council, but whenever the subject is placed on the agenda for a Council meeting, I and my right hon. Friends will do all we can to ensure that the EC makes every move, individually and collectively, to combat the trading in drugs.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did the Minister hear business questions earlier today, when many senior Tory Back-Bench Members said that the Common Market was operating on an illegal budget? If that is the case, did she have any pangs of conscience as she and her officials were gallivanting round the Continent spending money which the Common Market legally does not possess? Does she accept that, although she was one of those in the Government who were active in encouraging the surcharging of 80 Lambeth and Liverpool councillors for
1112
producing deficit budgets of about £250,000, the Common Market needs £6 million on Monday night and, according to Tory Members, is acting illegally?
Mrs. Chalker: I should have expected that question. To answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, 1 heard some of business questions. The European Parliament has voted on a budget that is illegal. When that happens, there is a procedure for dealing with it. In the case of Liverpool, there is similarly a procedure for dealing with an illegal budget, and that procedure has been carried out. We shall follow through the legal procedures to deal with the EC matter as we would with any other.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As an honest and objective Minister in an honest and objective Government, would my hon. Friend help the House by laying down the ground rules as to what is and what is not terrorism and what is and what is not state terrorism? Does she agree with me that the raid on Tunis was an act of terrorism carried out by a state, whereas the raids on the airports in Vienna and Rome were definitely acts of terrorism, but that there is as yet no direct connection with any state?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that there will still be a veto available to the United Kingdom on such things as the fifth directive, Vredeling and the draft directive on parental leave?
Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the answer to my hon. Friend's last question is yes, but if I am wrong I will write to him.
My hon. Friend asked for a definition of terrorism. In today's world, we would also classify as terrorism the means to deliver terrorism. This is not the time to answer his question, but I shall send him a note later.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the four hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask them to make their questions brief.
Mr. Eric Forth: In joining others in welcoming my hon. Friend to her new responsibilities, may I assure her that she will find the Europe enthusiasists here a tight-lipped and supportive bunch of people when she comes to the Chamber? Did she take the opportunity in the Council to explore the differences of opinion that became apparent among our fellow members of the Community between their enthusiasm for sanctions against South Africa and their reluctance to join calls for sanctions against Libya? Did she get to the bottom of that difference?
Mrs. Chalker: The simple answer is that we did not have time to probe in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. I am sure that many people will not shift from the ground that they presently hold.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that in article 6 of the text that has been presented to the House the expression "European Assembly" will be changed, by treaty, to "European Parliament" for the first time, and that the words
"in co-operation with the European Parliament"
are used rather than the present words
"after consulting the European Assembly".
What will the words
"in co-operation with the European Parliament"
mean in practice?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nothing, just like the European Parliament.
Mrs. Chalker: The change in title happened as a result of normal usage in the Community and the practice of successive Governments to use the term "European Parliament", except in legal texts. The texts which were agreed at Luxembourg reflect that exectly. When the agreed changes have been ratified, "European Parliament" will become the correct legal description, too. Unless we are prepared to work in co-operation with the European Parliament and with other European Governments, the whole business of Europe will become nonsense. Cooperation must be a key word in any of the documents that we discuss.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In the quest to stop international terrorism, what decisions were taken to stop the Libyans pursuing attacks at airports not just in Britain but throughout Europe? Those attacks were extremely offensive, and we must prevent terrorists from entering the country. Will she advise the Foreign Secretary that the African National Congress has announced that two of its representatives plan to come to Leicester to rededicate Nelson Mandela park? Should not all terrorists —especially Libyans—be stopped from entering Britain—or, indeed, Europe?
Mrs. Chalker: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), I set out the five main points of the action that will be taken by the 12 members of the EC against terrorism. I assure my hon. Friend that we are extremely anxious to ensure that the machinery to follow up the decisions that were made at the Foreign Affairs Council is set up. Although Libya was not mentioned directly in the text, it was clear at which country the comments were directed. But since Libya is not the only country that has purveyed terrorism, it was as well to produce a statement that encompassed other countries. Wherever terrorism and violence occur, they must be deterred, and that is what the Twelve are determined to do.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I wish my hon. Friend success in her new job. Does she agree that decisions taken in Brussels will help to create jobs in Britain, not least because of the recognition of the underlying need for a free internal market?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Until we can achieve a free internal market and we can break down the quota system, we shall prevent jobs from being created. Therefore, we shall do our best to ensure that jobs and businesses are created by the Common Market.

Press Conference
4.39 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee to call a press conference next Tuesday when he has been ordered not to speak to journalists by the party that likes to try to stop the clock?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the Chairmen of Select Committees. I know nothing about the press conference, but I am sure that it is perfectly in order.

BILL PRESENTED
  WAGES
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon and Mr. David Trippier, presented a Bill to make fresh provision with respect to the protection of workers in relation to the payment of wages; to make further provision with respect to wages councils; to restrict redundancy rebates to employers with less than ten employees and to abolish certain similar payments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 70.].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) Scheme 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 57) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

The Army
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
4.40 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The past year has been one of sustained progress and achievement for the Army both at home and overseas.
In addition to the Army's normal deployments, 1985 saw continuing and effective operations against terrorists in Northern Ireland, the largest home defence exercise we have ever conducted, significant progress in the modernisation of the Army's equipment, the provision of military training to over 70 foreign countries, important contributions to international peacekeeping in Cyprus and the Sinai, and a rapid and highly valued response to the natural disasters in Mexico and Colombia.
Nineteen eighty five also saw no fewer than 12 regiments of the British Army celebrating 300 years of continuous service to the Crown — a record that we believe is unmatched by that of any other army in the world.
I shall start with the main areas of actual or potential Army operations. During the past year, there has been no let-up in the modernisation of the Warsaw pact nuclear and conventional forces facing us on the central front. The Warsaw pact has continued to deploy new self-propelled artillery in eastern Europe, both conventional and nuclear capable. There has been significant additional deployment of its latest main battle tank, the T80, which has a gas turbine engine and a laser range-finder system, and which can fire an anti-tank guided missile as well as normal tank ammunition through its main gun barrel.
The deployment in eastern Europe of Frogfoot aircraft which are designed to provide close air support for Warsaw pact ground forces, and which has been used extensively by the Russians in Afghanistan, has continued. The aircraft has now made its first appearance with Soviet forces in the forward areas of East Germany. The formidable Hind anti-tank helicopter is still being added to the Warsaw pact front line at a fast rate.
The Warsaw pact's logistic support for its forces will shortly be further improved with the deployment of its new heavy lift helicopter, designated, somewhat improbably, by NATO as the Halo. We saw for ourselves in the Falklands what a force multiplier helicopters in the logistic role can be.
The Soviet chemical threat remains as significant as ever. To counter the Warsaw pact threat, important improvements to the Army's equipment programme have been made in the past year. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will refer to these when he comes to reply.
From the operational standpoint, I am glad to say that these improvements will give 1st British Corps larger numbers of modern main battle tanks, much improved protected mobility with new wheeled and tracked armoured personnel carriers, new small arms, improved air defence, an improved targeting capability for the artillery and a quantum jump improvement in its communications and data processing facilities. These all represent very important contributions to NATO's plans for strengthening the Alliance's conventional defences right down the central front.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Regrettably, I must go north tonight to my constituency to face the problem of the redundancies at the royal ordnance factories in my constituency and elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the regrettable redundancies at ROF Chorley result from Ministry of Defence war stocks being returned to their requisite high level following the Falklands conflict? Will he further confirm that the contract for 105 mm shells, which will go some way towards alleviating the obvious distress caused by those job losses, has been awarded as a direct result of ROF's improved competitive edge and the sheer quality of product compared with foreign alternatives?
Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is again forcefully representing the interests of his constituents. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in correspondence with him about the detailed background to those particular redundancies. I know that my hon. Friend wishes to refer to them when he replies.
Mr. John McWilliam: If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in detailed correspondence with his hon. Friend, why has he not yet been in correspondence with me? I have not received a letter.
Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Minister advises me from a sedentary position that he has.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has kindly been in correspondence with me. He has made it clear that although orders will be placed with royal ordnance factories, and they will go some way towards reducing the size of the announced redundancies, the reduction will be by less than 10 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that?
Mr. Stanley: As I have already said, my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that specific issue when he replies, and in view of the interest shown by three hon. Members I am sure that he will do so.
The past year has also been notable for the adoption of an improved concept of operations by northern army group (NORTHAG) of which C-in-C BAOR is the Army Group commander, and of which 1st British Corps comprises one of the four NORTHAG army corps.
The adoption of this new concept of operatons marks no change in NATO's wholly defensive posture, and no change in NATO's fundamental strategy of forward defence and flexible response. It has been adopted in response to the continuing improvements in Soviet firepower, the Russians' tactic of concentrating their forces so as to achieve local superiority, and their creation of operational manoeuvre groups of divisional size or larger, which are intended to exploit initial breakthroughs and penetrate rapidly into NATO's rear areas. In the light of those developments, NORTHAG needed a less static: defence, more defence in depth and strong armoured reserves. The new concept of operations provides all of these.
The House will wish to he aware of the major contribution to the formulation of this new concept of operations, and to getting it agreed by the Alliance as a whole, played by General Sir Nigel Bagnall, then the commander of NORTHAG and now chief of the general staff.

1117
In a letter to The Times on 3 July last year, General Chalupa, commander-in-chief allied forces central Europe, said:
"I would also wish to acknowledge General Bagnall's significant contribution towards the successful accomplishment of our primary task, which is the prevention of war by maintaining a credible defence posture. I appreciate in particular his untiring efforts in developing and refining further the defence concepts and plans evolved by his predecessors."
I am sure the House was gratified to see General Chalupa's generous tribute to General Bagnall.
Turning to northern Norway, although the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have major roles in protecting this key area of NATO territory, the Army also makes a significant contribution, and trains accordingly. We deploy to northern Norway, not merely 3 Commando Brigade, but the battalion with logistic support that the Army contributes to the ACE mobile force (land) AMF(L). These units undertake the same arctic warfare training as the Royal Marines, and have recently been equipped with the new BV206 over-snow tracked vehicle. The AMF(L) role is currently being discharged by the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.
In terms of operations outside the NATO area, the House will recall that in November 1983 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced, in the light of our Falklands experience, an important range of enhancements for 5 Brigade. That brigade has been renamed 5 Airborne Brigade to reflect its new ability to mount a parachute assault with a minimum of one parachute battalion and its supporting air defence, artillery, signals, engineer and medical elements, all of which can now be parachute dropped.
The House will be glad to know that all the enhancements announced in November 1983 have now been implemented, as has the programme of fitting station-keeping radars to a number of Hercules aircraft so that the whole of the leading parachute battalion group can be delivered in a single parachute drop. In view of the importance we attach to our out-of-area capability, we announced last month that a major strategic exercise would be held in Oman later this year involving British forces and those of the Sultanate of Oman. The exercise is to be called Saif Sareea, which I am advised is Arabic for Swift Sword.
The aim of the exercise will be to practise our ability to respond rapidly to a crisis outside the NATO area. The exercise will involve some 5,000 service men from all three services. The units taking part will include elements of 5 Airborne Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. It will also involve ships from the Royal Navy task group, which will be on its way back from its planned deployment to the Pacific. In addition, the RAF will make a major contribution in the form of a detachment of Tornado aircraft and substantial air transport resources. Exercise Saif Sareea will be the largest out-of-area exercise we have undertaken for many years and should prove to be of great value.
The one operation in which the Army is involved every day of the year is supporting the police against terrorism in Northern Ireland. In recent years, and indeed over the centuries, terrorism has taken many forms. Today, terrorism is increasingly assuming an international dimension, and in Northern Ireland takes one of the most
1118
sophisticated forms of any in the world. Fortunately, the British Army has unique experience and unique expertise in combating this menace.
The Army's assistance to the police in dealing with terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland. It also assists the police, who have the primary counter-terrorist responsibility in the rest of the United Kingdom. It does so through the provision of specialist skills such as Royal Engineers explosive search teams, Royal Army Ordnance Corps bomb disposal teams, and through specialist training and equipment. In June last year it was an RAOC team that rendered safe and cleared the large quantity of terrorist bomb-making equipment found by the Strathclyde police in Glasgow.
However, it is of course in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC that the Army's counter-terrorist effort is overwhelmingly concentrated. Last year saw some significant successes. As a result of the security forces' efforts, 522 charges were brought relating to terrorist offences and 237 weapons were seized and nearly seven tonnes of explosives were recovered. One cannot speak too highly of the skill and bravery of all those elements of the armed forces and the RUC who secured these results.
The work of the Army's bomb disposal and search teams in Northern Ireland in saving lives, property and jobs from destruction by terrorist bombs continues to be outstanding. These teams dealt with some 200 explosive devices last year, one of which contained 1,600 lbs of explosive. For the bomb disposal teams, the smallest device represents as great a personal danger as the largest. The way those teams combine outstanding technical skill with selfless personal bravery commands our highest admiration.
The achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland in 1985 were not obtained without cost. Twenty nine police officers and soldiers lost their lives last year, and a further 340 were injured. Of the 29 killed, 27 were members of the RUC or the UDR. As the House recognises, the men and women of the RUC and the UDR, knowingly and willingly, accept the particular risks that service with either force or its reserves automatically confers. These men and women are at risk on duty, at home, and, if part-timers, at their place of work as well. They are at risk both when they are serving and when they retire. One man killed last year had finished his service with the UDR seven years previously. They are at risk at any place and at any time. The commitment and the courage of the men and women of the RUC and the UDR are of the highest order.
That commitment and that courage have been recognised in the award to service personnel last year of a further 73 decorations for gallantry in Northern Ireland. Those decorations included one George medal, one military cross, 12 Queen's gallantry medals and six military medals, one of which, sadly, was posthumous. In addition, 102 service men and service women were mentioned in dispatches. We salute those who were honoured in this way. My only regret is that for security reasons the citations cannot be made public. They make remarkable reading.
Over the years the terrorist threat in the province has moved through various phases, and the security forces have had to adapt their response to meet each phase. Currently, the terrorists are making particular use of homemade mortars against police stations. This has been coupled with the attempted intimidation of building

1119
contractors doing work for the security forces. The Government are firmly determined to ensure that such tactics do not succeed.
An additional battalion, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, was moved at short notice to Northern Ireland at the beginning of this month and became operational there with commendable speed. Additional Royal Engineers have also been deployed in the province and, as I saw for myself recently, they are doing a first-class job in providing the security forces with additional protection. The House will be glad to know that the work of rebuilding the first of the RUC stations that was severely hit before Christmas has already started.
The events of the last few weeks have underlined once again the importance of security co-operation across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are in no doubt that the Anglo-Irish agreement marks a crucial step forward in this area which is equally vital to the Republic and to ourselves. I should mention that the terrorist weapon find — about which we were all delighted to hear—made by the Garda last weekend just south of the border was one of the largest ever such finds in the Republic.
It is to the immense credit of the security forces that we have come a long way from the peak of violence in the early 1970s. The RUC has increasingly been able to resume policing on the streets, and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland are able to live normal lives. I know that the whole House will wish me to express our gratitude to all the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland for the dangerous and essential work that they do.
Last year reminded us, to an unusual degree, of the Army's value in being able to respond quickly and effectively to civilian needs. In the last 12 months, the British Army has helped in three major natural disasters outside the United Kingdom. Successive teams of Army air dispatchers from the Royal Corps of Transport, including three Territorial Army members, served continuously in Ethiopia from February to December last year air-dropping desperately needed grain to areas inaccessible by vehicle.
With the RAF, the air dispatchers air-dropped over 14,000 tonnes of grain in a huge total of 954 separate sorties. Almost all these airdrops were made at extremely low level from RAF Hercules aircraft flying at about 50 ft from the ground. This reflected both flying and air-dropping skills of the highest order. Following the Mexico earthquake disaster, a Royal Engineer troop was on the scene within 48 hours of our being asked to help. It was given the key job of trying to save the partially collapsed building that was the hub of a high proportion of Mexico's telephone network and therefore represented a vital communications link for the whole country. The building was unstable, and contained a number of rapidly decomposing bodies. The Royal Engineers worked round the clock on that building for nearly three weeks in physically hazardous and most unpleasant conditions. They rightly earned the high regard and very warm appreciation of the Mexican authorities.
Only a few weeks after that, the Army was again on hand with the service team that was deployed to Colombia to help evacuate and get relief supplies to civilians in the Armero district who survived the devastating volcanic eruption there.
1120
In case anyone should think that the Army is only likely to play that sort of a role outside the United Kingdom, the House will recall that when over a quarter of a million people in Leeds suddenly found themselves without a water supply just before Christmas, the situation was saved by all three services sending water bowsers to Leeds with most impressive speed, following a no-notice emergency call-out in the middle of the night. The speed and proficiency of the responses made by the Army and of course by the other two services to these major crises for civilian communities has been extremely creditable.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has talked about the admirable service given by the armed services here and overseas. I endorse everything that he has said. Can he tell us whether he will deal with the crisis in the services brought about by so many young, skilled, qualified officers, NCOs and other ranks leaving the services because they are deeply upset and concerned about the level of pay and the dramatic reduction in allowances when they are serving in not very popular parts of the world, including the British Army of the Rhine?
Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is anticipating a later section of my speech.
I now want to turn to the other main commitments that the Army has. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that we shall continue to be responsible for the defence and internal security of Hong Kong up to 1997, and that we shall maintain the forces needed for that purpose. He also made it clear that we intend that there will be a continuing role for the Gurkhas after 1997 with the British Army, though not of course in Hong Kong. We shall be giving continuous consideration to the Army's force level in Hong Kong up to 1997.
There is no change at present in the Army's commitments in Brunei, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Belize, or to our contingent in Sinai with the multinational force and observers on the border between Egypt and Israel.
As far as the Falklands are concerned, our policy is to maintain the forces at the minimum size necessary to defend the islands and the dependencies. The opening of Mount Pleasant airport has greatly improved our rapid reinforcement capability. Once the airport and garrison facilities are complete, we should be able to reduce still further the level of forces permanently stationed on the islands.
Given the events of the last few days, the House will wish to know the situation of our small training team in Uganda. The value of the British Army presence to foreign expatriates in Uganda, of which British expatriates are still the largest component, was shown immediately after the coup against President Obote last July. A considerable number of expatriates wanted to leave at that point. An evacuation convoy from Kampala to the Kenyan border was, therefore, jointly planned and administered by the British high commission and the British Army training team in Uganda. That action won widespread praise and gratitude from all involved. During the events of last weekend we did, of course, keep in the closest touch with our team in Uganda. We will now be considering its future in the light of the new situation in that country.
The House will also be interested to know that, building on the success of British training teams in Zimbabwe since

1121
independence, it has been agreed by the Governments of Zimbabwe and Mozambique and ourselves that the British army training team in Zimbabwe should provide some training for Mozambican officers and NCOs at the Battalion battle school at Nyanga in Zimbabwe. The first course is due to begin in February.
The contribution we make to providing military advice and training to foreign countries all over the world through the loan service personnel of all three services receives less prominence than I believe it merits. The Army contributes some 450 personnel in 20 countries. Those teams maintain an excellent standard of training, are highly regarded by their host countries and are an asset to Britain, and to the West, out of all proportion to their size and their cost.
I have spoken so far about the operations and commitments of the Army's full-time professionals. I now turn to the Regular and volunteer reserves. The critical importance of the reserves is shown by the fact that, in a period of tension and after full mobilisation, the size of the Army as a whole would increase by some 175,000 through the addition of the reserves, and the size of the Army in Germany would almost treble. From that it can be seen that the Army would be in no position to discharge its wartime commitments without our reserve forces. Moreover, the reserves are strikingly cost-effective. The TA, for example, generates over 30 per cent. of the Army's order of battle for only some 5 per cent. of its budget.
As for the regular reserves, we are carrying out more detailed planning for fitting them to their wartime tasks. We also started a new training scheme last year to give regular reservists a week's refresher training in their third year out of the Army, and we gave some 2,000 of them the opportunity to take part in exercise Brave Defender last year. We shall continue to look for cost-effective ways in which we can make greater use of our regular reserves.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's words on the Territorial Army and the volunteer regular reserves are welcome in many quarters of the House but particularly on these Benches. Can he say whether progress has yet been made with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security to try to help those members of the TA who are unemployed and who find that their supplementary benefit or dole is cut immediately whereas it can take several weeks for the pay office to go through the administration of payment? That is causing great hardship in areas of high unemployment. Progress would be very much welcomed by the TA.
Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred. I assure him that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Support is pursuing the matter personally with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS.
Mr. John Browne: We greatly applaud my right hon. Friend's remarks about the TA, its reliance and its cost-effectiveness. None the less, can he assure the House that cost-effectiveness will not be taken to the point of penny-pinching? I am thinking particularly of the recent successful recruiting drive which is bringing in many young people who are enthusiastic and are excellent material. However, they have to train in drill halls that
1122
were built for the 1930s and have been virtually unmaintained, giving an uncared for impression that can be discouraging to young recruits.
Reference has been made to people leaving the services. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is aware of the serious drain at the level of lieutenant-colonel or of regimental and battalion commanders, a rank that is crucial?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly, please.
Mr. Browne: It is a matter not just of pay but of career opportunities.
Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he has made. I have not yet completed what I wish to say on the TA but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are encouraged by the levels of recruitment which we have been achieving. I am about to come to that. I take his point that if we could provide a training base in reasonably attractive conditions that would be a plus for recruiting.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about the cadet force because that is the nursery for recruiting. I understand that the cadet force is now much better equipped. On page 45 of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" a good deal of space is rightly given to the cadet force. If young people are properly trained, not only does it do them good for civilian life but a very high proportion join the regular forces or the TA.
Mr. Stanley: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One meets a large number of people who have come into all three services, but particularly the Army, from the ranks of the cadets and the junior leaders. As he will see in the second volume of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", we have been maintaining a high level of entry into the cadet force and we hope that will continue.
The expansion of the Territorial Army is making steady progress towards our target of 86,000. The strength of the TA was only some 59,000 when we came into office in 1979. It is over 76,000 now, having increased by some 4,000 in the past year.
The House will be interested to know that we are having good results from our trial scheme to raise TA units from the many British people living on the continent. Many of these are ex-service men, and they invariably have language skills and good local knowledge as well. These continental TA units look like proving a very valuable addition to our reserve forces.
Equally successful has been the expansion of the home service force. The enthusiasm of the force can be judged from the fact that 92 per cent. of the force's strength participated in exercise Brave Defender.
The HSF has already grown to 2,800 — in other words, over halfway to our initial target strength of nearly 5,000. We shall be considering whether we can go beyond that figure.
As I have made clear, the Army's Regular and volunteer Reserves are an indispensable element of the British Army. We are very grateful indeed to employers who are generous and sympathetic towards the release of their staff with TA commitments, recognising that it is in the national interest that those commitments should be fulfilled. In this context, I am very pleased to be able to announce the formation of a national employer liaison

1123
committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Tommy Macpherson. I know that Mr. Macpherson and his committee will make a most valuable contribution to maintaining and increasing the essential support that the TA receives from employers. Mr. Macpherson has the two essential qualifications: substantial experience as an employer in industry and substantial experience in the services as well.
We are very grateful to all those in the Regular and volunteer Reserves for giving their time, their skills and their enthusiasm to the British Army.
Mr. Keith Best: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that his remarks and the emphasis that the Government place on the Territorial Army are widely welcomed. Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient man training days for the Territorial Army to carry out its task adequately? Will he say something about the history of the expansion of man training days?
Mr. Stanley: It is obviously a matter of judgment as to what level of training days will meet the particular requirements of the TA. We make that judgment as accurately as possible. There is a trade-off: the more the training days are expanded, the more difficult it is for some individuals to get the necessary degree of release, which makes it that much more difficult for units to carry out their exercises as formed units. So there is a balance to be struck. The recent major exercises, both Lionheart and Brave Defender, have shown that the Territorial Army units, the Volunteer Reserve, and the Regular Reserve are now achieving a good level of training and have done very well in both exercises.
The calibre of the British Army rests ultimately on the calibre of its people. I am glad to say that recruitment overall goes well, with both officer and soldier entries being close to target. The Army's view is that the quality of entrants has been rising. Amongst officers the proportion of graduate entrants is now about 45 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. as recently as 1978–79.
Rates of retention are as important as rates of entry. Though the rate of premature voluntary retirement has risen from its historic low point in 1981–82, it is still well below the record high in the last year of the previous Government. Pay and conditions of service clearly bear on rates of retention. Although we are fully aware of the concern over the reductions in local overseas allowance that have taken place in Germany, our view is that there is nothing basically wrong with the LOA system, which provides absolutely essential financial compensation for those service men who have to serve in overseas countries where the cost of living is substantially higher than in the United Kingdom.
As far as pay is concerned, this Government, unlike our predecessors, have accepted the service pay recommendations in seven successive reports of the armed forces pay review body, with the one exception of part of the 1984 award being made subject to seven months' phasing.
We have also made a number of important improvements to conditions of service. We have introduced a scheme to sell surplus married quarters to service personnel at 30 per cent. discount. We have allowed time in service accommodation to count for discount purposes in the local authority and new town "right to buy" scheme. We have improved the free travel entitlement for married personnel serving in Northern
1124
Ireland and the Scottish islands and we have abolished the contribution that parents serving overseas had to make towards their first child's visit to them for the third school holiday each year, which saved many parents several hundred pounds. There is no question that the record of the present Government on service pay and conditions is very much better than that of our predecessors.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend said that he was going to raise the matter later in his speech, but would he admit to the House that it is not only graduate officers and others who are very important to the armed services, it is the qualities of motivation and leadership, which do not always accompany a university degree? Would he indicate that in the future the position of non-graduate officers will be given a higher priority by the Government than has perhaps been the case in the immediate past? The position of graduate officers is very much better moneywise than that of non-graduate officers. Will my right hon. Friend attend to this point in future?
Mr. Stanley: I understand fully the point that my hon. Friend makes. I would not want him to think from what I have said about statistics in relation to graduate entry that the Army is reluctant to have non-graduate officers. There are very many of them and they are of the highest calibre. When people are considering the Army and, perhaps even more important, once they are in the Army, it is good to know that all officers are treated exactly the same, whether they have degrees or not, and that they are treated entirely on their merit. I can assure my hon. Friend that that will continue.
Mr. John Browne rose—
Mr. Stanley: I think that this will have to be the last intervention because many of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I want to draw my remarks to a close.
Mr. Browne: Would my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that retention is a matter not just of pay—1 agree with much of what he has said —but of career prospects?
Mr. Stanley: Yes, I agree. It is a question of career prospects and a multitude of other factors. There is the degree of stretch on the force. career prospects, pay, conditions of service, it is the total of all the elements that go towards to job satisfaction.
In the last Army debate I announced the Government's scheme to make it possible for war widows, for the very first time, to visit their husbands' graves overseas, almost entirely at public expense. I can tell the House that the scheme has been an unqualified success, as I know at first hand. It was a privilege to meet a number of widows taking part in the scheme at the El Alamein commemoration service last October. The letters I have had from widows taking part in these pilgrimages have been as appreciative and as moving as any I have received.
In the first year of the scheme, some 350 widows, often accompanied at their own expense by other members of their families, visited cemeteries in a total of 11 countries, stretching from Europe to the far east. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the scheme has been run by the Royal British Legion, both at the legion's headquarters and at its newly created pilgrimages department at Aylesford which, as it happens, is in my own constituency.

1125
The British Legion's organisation and sensitivity, both in the preparations and on the actual pilgrimages, has been superb, as the war widows themselves have been the first to say. I should like to express our very warm appreciation to the president of the Royal British Legion, General Sir Patrick Howard Dobson, and his pilgrimages team for the outstanding way in which the Royal British Legion is running this scheme.
The Army today is a well balanced and highly trained fighting force. It has amply demonstrated its superb professionalism in NATO reinforcement and home defence exercises, in supporting the police against terrorism, in international peacekeeping, in providing military training for many other countries, and in responding with speed and great effectiveness to a large variety of civil emergencies. The Army, like the other two services, does our country the greatest credit.
5.19 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I add my congratulations to the Royal British Legion, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in closing his speech, in the work it has done in assisting war widows to go abroad in the manner he suggested.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave us the usual tour of the world that he does with that boyish enthusiasm of his for his job, which we appreciate—from carrying water in Leeds to ferrying convoys out to Uganda. However, he skated over the real problems which the Department faces. Indeed, listening to him, I thought perhaps he was not aware that there is a defence budget, let alone that it is out of control. Perhaps the Minister of State will deal with that and with all the problems of procurement when he winds up.
Debates on the three services seem to be coming later and later in the year. The last debate on the Army took place in October 1984. At least we have the advantage on this occasion that the debate comes after the publication of the White Paper on public expenditure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard of it and has read it. The picture given by that White Paper is not quite as rosy as the one which the right hon. Gentleman tried to set out early in his speech but which he left pretty quickly.
The picture in the future will not look so good, not only for the armed forces in general in terms of conventional weapons, but also for the Army in particular. One reason, I think, is that so many large projects are now being undertaken which do not form part of the Army's expenditure and commitment. I refer to Trident and to the European fighter aircraft, two projects to which the Government are totally committed and which no doubt will not bear any reductions. I mention also the problems with Nimrod and the costs of Nimrod. This too could affect the Army's budget. I mention the apparent commitment to maintain a 50-warship Navy, but to maintain three-figure orders a year, although I understand that, according to Mr. Desmond Wettern, even that is running into some difficulties. Then there is the need to replace the Navy's amphibious vessels. With all those major commitments, some of the reductions in expenditure it seems to us are bound to fall on the Army.
Referring again to the White Paper on public expenditure—it is never easy to work these matters out, because the Government try to conceal as much as they can
1126
—even on the most favourable estimate, and taking into account the fact that there will be some decline from now on in Falklands expenditure because the replacement of equipment lost is coming to an end, if one considers this from the point of view of general inflation, it has been calculated that over the next three years, which is the period of the public expenditure White Paper, there is likely to be a decline of about 5 per cent. in the total defence budget.
That decline, if it continued, could mean that by the end of the three-year period defence spending would be down from about 5·4 per cent. of gross national product to possibly 4·9 per cent. of GNP. But that, of courser is on the basis of general inflation only. There is apparently something called defence inflation, although I am not absolutely clear what it is. Defence equipment, it seems, tends to increase in cost faster than the retail price index or any other indicator of general inflation in the economy. On that basis alone, there will be some decline, but within that decline there will be a massive increase in expenditure on Trident. I guess that in the next few years the expenditure will rise to almost £1,000 million a year. Therefore, with a slightly declining budget and an escalating cost in respect of one of those items and, indeed, the European fighter aircraft, there is great danger that the cuts will start to fall, and many of them will fall on the British Army.
The Government can and might well get themselves into the ridiculous position of cutting front line defence and expenditure on weapons of first resort and spending vast amounts of money on Trident, which, I understand, is still being described as a weapon of last resort. It makes no sense to cut spending on weapons intended to deter and prevent us from ever having to use a horrific weapon of last resort like Trident.
Where will the cuts fall? Will they fall on equipment, on pay or on the British Army of the Rhine? Will it be the Challenger programmes? What programme will have to be pruned back and cut as a result of what we see as an inevitable decline in the total defence budget?
Sir Antony Buck: In dealing with the legitimate point which the right hon. Gentleman is putting to the Government, can he give the policy of the Labour party in this regard? While we know that it wishes to reduce our defence expenditure to the lowest common denominator of NATO, and says that it will abolish Trident, it cannot finance everything that it wants just by abolishing Trident. What would Opposition Members do to deal with the problems and to reduce expenditure?
Mr. Davies: We have made it clear that we will abolish Trident. We have also made it clear that, without Trident, it will be possible to maintain conventional defence spending at present levels. That is perfectly possible if we get rid of the Trident missile system.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman is very careful to reply that the Labour party would maintain conventional defence spending. We want to know whether it would abolish Trident and maintain defence spending overall — in other words, use the money from Trident — all of it, if necessary — to strengthen conventional forces?
Mr. Davies: I made the point clear. We have a nonnuclear defence policy, and that means conventional

1127
defence spending. I said that, by cancelling Trident, we can maintain present levels of conventional defence spending.
I hope that the Minister of State can deal with one aspect of equipment mentioned recently in Jane's Defence Weekly on the SP70, the self-propelled howitzer. This is, so Jane's Defence Weekly tells us, in great trouble. It is a programme which affects our ordnance factories and in which we have a 25 per cent. stake. After a considerable time, it appears that there are great problems with this self-propelled howitzer.
Mr. James Couchman: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Jane's Defence Weekly. Is this the same journal which Opposition Members were so scathing about when they mentioned the special forces which infiltrated Greenham Common?
Mr. Davies: Indeed it is; the hon. Gentleman is right.
I deal next with the problems facing the armed forces. The danger is that orders will start to be postponed and to fall off. We have seen the effect of that on the royal ordnance factories at Birtley and Chorley today with 131 jobs being lost—this on a day when there has been an announcement of record unemployment.
There will be problems over training. The services are now also being affected by a cut of 10,000 civilian jobs which is putting heavy burdens upon the armed services. Last year's 7·5 per cent. pay increase has been whittled away by rent and other increases. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the local overseas allowance, although he said nothing about the inquiry which, I understand, he has set up or is setting up. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us, if there is an inquiry, whether it is proceeding. The cuts wiped out totally, especially in Germany, any increases in pay under the 7·5 per cent. increase last year.
Experienced officers, especially in West Germany, are leaving the service and going into industry, for all sorts of reasons. Morale in the services is not as high as the picture the Minister tried to paint when he opened the debate.
We do not envy the task of the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). I do not think he is likely to be any more successful with the defence budget than he was with the Scottish rating system. We feel sorry for him because he has to clean up after the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who went through the Ministry of Defence—towards the end of his 10 years in the Cabinet—like one of those self-propelled howitzers, out of control.
The Minister rightly told us of the number of roles the Army plays. It plays a major role in Germany, the Falklands, Belize, Hong Kong and Gibraltar. It carries out training exercises in other parts of the world. It also has a role in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It performs those duties with skill, diligence and considerable tact.
The Army's role will be extended with the creation of a kind of rapid deployment force. The Minister clearly said that this was to perform a role out of area, outside NATO. We have deep misgivings about this, partly on grounds of cost, but partly because it means that Britain will again be drawn into conflict in various parts of the world. I believe that our main task and duty should be to play our role in NATO and western Europe.
The main out-of-area role still concerns the Falklands. That commitment not only costs money, but means that
1128
hardware and equipment, which should be available to our forces to perform our NATO role, have to be diverted to the Falklands.
The Government can be condemned because they have failed even to try to reach some kind of honourable settlement and achieve a solution to the Falklands problem. It will not be easy to come to an agreement that protects the lives and livelihood of the Falkland islanders and enables us to reduce our military presence. No one pretends that that will be easy, but the Government stand condemned for not even trying, especially now, when Argentina has, instead of a Fascist dictatorship, President Alfonsin, who is courageous in his domestic policy and is trying to reduce the influence of the armed forces in Argentina. I think we should have given him some opportunity to negotiate and reach an honourable settlement.
In the debate on the Army on 17 November 1983, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
"Despite our preoccupation with events outside the European theatre, the Army's most important operational commitment remains, and will remain, in Germany."—[Official Report, 17 November 1983; Vol. 48. c. 1017.]
I do not know how far that commitment will be affected as a result of the problems of the budget and the cost of Trident and the European fighter aircraft, but the Government should address themselves to this matter.
The Labour party will fully observe and maintain our obligations under the treaty of Brussels and retain the BAOR at its current level. We made that commitment last year, and I repeat it. The Minister touched on the new strategy of follow-on force attack, or whatever it is called.
Mr. Stanley: I should like to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the new concept of operations of the northern army group, which has nothing to do with follow-on forces attack.
Mr. Davies: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. The House tends to forget what a radical step it is, and was, for Britain to commit a large section of its standing army so far east in Europe to a strategy which riot only has been agreed by a number of other nations but which we increasingly believe owes far more to the political considerations of the host country than to sensible military requirements. I refer to the strategy of forward defence.
In the 1983 debate on the Army, the Minister of State said:
"The forward defence of West Germany is the forward defence of the United Kingdom." — [Official Report, 17 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 1018.]
I do not know whether he was using the phrase "forward defence" in a precise sense. I do not criticise him for that. I think that the House well knows that forward defence is a precise and inflexible form of strategy.
The underlying hypothesis of NATO strategy is that Russia will suddenly unleash a massive blitzkrieg, frontal attack across the central plains of Europe. I do not think many hon. Members or people outside the House, even those in the Federal Republic of Germany, give much credibility or credence to that hypothesis, but that is the scenario with which we have to deal. It is on that basis that the NATO strategy has been created and on that basis that we have to look at the concept of forward defence.
Forward defence means theoretically that not one square kilometre of territory of the federal republic is to

1129
be avoidably given up. Territory is not to be relinquished even temporarily for space, despite the obvious difficulty of holding territory in the early stages of mass attack.
It seems to me, and to many senior officers to whom I have spoken, that that is not a sensible military strategy when it is determined by political considerations and not by military considerations. The consequences of that strategy are considerable. If war broke out, it would lead directly to the call for an early use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
Mr. Robert AtkinsThe right hon. Gentleman and I have been to Germany and other places together and drawn differing conclusions about a similar problem. Is it not more likely that the Warsaw pact countries might use chemical shells, or the threat of chemical warfare, which would be more devastating? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on his party's view that there is no need for a chemical offensive?
Mr. Davies: I am not avoiding the hon. Gentleman's question, but very senior officers in the British Army in Germany now privately admit that, on a worst case analysis, it is possible that the call for battlefield nuclear weapons will come within seven or eight days of the start of the kind of conflict we are supposing.
The corollary of conventional forward defence is early nuclear response. The two go together. The strategy might have made some sense a long time ago when the United States had a nuclear monopoly and massive nuclear superiority, but it makes no sense today when there is nuclear parity between the super powers. It makes no sense in a world of nuclear shells, nuclear land mines, and even nuclear backpacks. It makes no sense from a military point of view.
To try to escape from this dilemma, General Rogers and NATO have come up with the concept of attack on follow-on forces. I am sorry that I misunderstood the Minister. The idea sounds like a reasonable and sensible strategy. It is a type of sub-strategy to forward defence, to postpone the time when battlefield nuclear weapons have to be used. This follow-on force attack strategy means, in effect, a deep strike into eastern Europe, presumably using up to 10,000 missiles with conventional warheads, I do not know how the other side is supposed to distinguish between the different types of warheads. I am not suggesting that this is a nuclear strategy. As I understand it, the strategy is to try to postpone the early use of nuclear weapons by going down the road of follow-on force attack.
We seldom debate these matters, and that is a condemnation of us all. This important issue should be debated—not to enable us to disagree but so that the British public can understand how, where and in what circumstances our forces are committed.
The strategy of follow-on force attack involves considerable difficulties financially, diplomatically, politically and militarily. It will cost a lot of money. It will influence how the other side sees NATO as a defensive alliance. Many people say that, militarily, it makes no sense and that, in any case, it would postpone the early use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
We have called on the Government to conduct a defence review. NATO has a duty to conduct a review. Difficulties arise because many nations are involved. There are difficulties especially in view of the deep
1130
attachment of the Federal Republic of Germany to forward defence. The Government have a duty to initiate a fundamental strategic review in NATO. Flexible response and forward defence are old doctrines. The Government have not taken into account the nuclear developments of the past 10 to 15 years.
It was reported that in October 1984, NATO Defence Ministers agreed a plan to withdraw 1,400 nuclear warheads from Europe. We welcome that plan. We approve of it and endorse it, because it is a step in the right direction. I understand that, at a previous meeting in Montebello in Canada, a kind of twin-track decision was made—to reduce by 1,400 the number of warheads and to call for the modernisation of other weapons. As we know, in the awful jargon of this awful business, "modernisation" really means "bigger, more lethal and more dangerous".
In October 1985, in Brussels, it was reported that General Rogers would consult the different nations that have battlefield nuclear weapons, including Britain, about modernisation. What is happening? I am talking not about secret military operations but about what is happening and its effects on our forces. Has a request been made for the modernisation of what used to be called tactical nuclear weapons? What is the Government's view on that call for modernisation? What about the nuclear warhead, the W82, about which there were some problems some time ago in the House?
At that time, statements made to the American Congress differed from statements made by Ministers in the House. I exonerate Ministers, because I think that the excessive zeal of Pentagon officials who were seeking large appropriations from Congress was the reason for those statements in America. We should be told about these matters, or there will be misunderstanding. Information would enable the House to make up its mind on how it sees this difficult issue of modernising nuclear weapons.
The Labour party takes the same view on chemical weapons as the Government. This is the one aspect in which the Government have at least tried to play a constructive role in the talks. Various statements have been made—they have not been absolutely clear—that the Government have no intention of basing chemical weapons in Britain or of equipping the BAOR with American chemical weapons. It is understandable that military men want a weapon that they believe the other side possesses—therein lies the real problem of the arms race. If one tries to match, weapon for weapon, the whole business gets out of hand, as it has done.
The Government have tried to be constructive with respect to chemical weapons. We applaud their actions at the talks. The omens have improved. As a result of the Geneva summit, there have been certain initiatives. The real problem is not just the stocks of Russian chemical weapons. No one seems to know how much the Russians have — the German intelligence service says 30,000 tonnes, the Americans say 700,000 tonnes, and the British Government say 300,000 tonnes. The Americans are said to have about 40,000 tonnes of chemical weapons. The real problem is the development of binary weapons by the United States.
Mr. Robert Atkins: What about Russia?
Mr Davies: I do not know whether Russia is developing binary weapons. The development of these

1131
weapons poses an important problem, which is why it is important to have an agreement. The plant at Pine Bluff in Alabama will soon start working, and pressure will be put on the Governments of Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany to station some of those weapons on their soil. I hope that we shall hear a clear commitment that that is not the intention. A proliferation of chemical weapons in Europe would cause considerable damage to NATO's image.
I turn to procurement and first to the royal ordnance factories. Not only are they in the news these days, but the Government have embarked upon a privatisation scheme. We opposed privatisation. We said that it would not do the royal ordnance factories any good. They operated well as a trading fund, making good profits and achieving an excellent return on capital. The ROFs are in a state of turmoil, partly because of privatisation and partly because of the drop in orders. We are concerned that a thriving commercial organisation is gradually being destroyed by the Government's plans.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the royal ordnance factory in Nottingham has a bigger order book and a higher turnover, and employs more staff, than at the time of privatisation?
Mr. Davies: That may be the case in Nottingham, but it is certainly not the case generally. How much do the Government expect to get from selling the ROFs? I think that £400 million was mentioned in Committee, and one newspaper said that the amount was £200 million. When is the flotation likely to take place?
A number of issues affecting the ROFs were brought out in a press release issued by Royal Ordnance plc and sent to hon. Members. On the defence budget, the chairman of Royal Ordnance plc states:
"Royal Ordnance is concerned about possible substantial reductions in Front line defence capability as a result of cuts in the MOD budget … This is linked with concern about the cost of the Trident, Tornado and European fighter programmes".
Later he says:
"Royal Ordnance awaits an order for the 7th Challenger Regiment by MOD. Without new orders it is likely that there will need to be substantial rationalisation"—
we know what that means—
"of Royal Ordnance tank manufacturing capability."
There are problems also with ammunition procurement and strategic capacity support for explosives and propellants.
Worst of all is Ministry of Defence procurement policy. The press release states:
"Whilst RO accepts MOD pursuit of value for money and competition within UK it does not believe that overseas companies should be invited to compete for UK requirements for unique UK equipment."
This is a problem for not only the royal ordnance factories but the whole competition policy instigated by the former Secretary of State for Defence. It is all very well to have competition in the United Kingdom, but, if the market were thrown open to companies in other countries—many of them in Europe—which are supported by their Governments, this would lead to the destruction of our defence manufacturing base which the Government have inflicted on our civilian manufacturing base. There are real difficulties and I hope that we can be told something by the Minister of State about the ordnance factories.
Finally, no debate would be complete without a reference to helicopters, and I certainly will not disappoint the House in that. It is my view that there are two reasons
1132
for the Westland problem. Firstly, the Ministry of Defence —or perhaps it is the Army—did not show much haste in deciding what helicopters they wanted for the Army and other services. There was something called air staff target 404. Where is it? I think it has escaped or got lost in the Ministry of Defence, like the budget which it is trying to lose.
I think we would like to know what has supplanted AST404, if that is the case, and what is happening about helicopters. Is the matter being studied at all? I understand that the Army will and does need two or three different kinds of helicopters—some to blow up tanks and others to carry troops and heavy equipment. Therefore, the first problem for Westland has been the fact that the Government have failed to have a proper policy in relation to the kind of helicopters needed by the armed forces.
The second reason was that the Government do not have an industry policy and they do not know whether they want an industry policy. If the Government had behaved like the Governments of most other civilised countries and had a decent industry policy, I do not believe that the Westland problem would have arisen in the way in which it did.
When the problem arose, we expressed our support for the British and European package. That was not out of any rabid anti-Americanism or romantic pan-Europeanism. I think that there is a real problem, as the House knows, for Britain's defence industries. It is not necessary to go over the problem but it lies, especially with the more sophisticated equipment, in trying to join European countries, again not because of any romantic Europeanism but to protect our own defence-industrial base. I think that we can do that better by having some form of collaborative projects with European countries rather than risk the problem of being gobbled up by the United States of America.
In our opinion, the defence budget is now getting out of control. We are concerned that the effect will be a reduction not only generally in our conventional defences but substantially in equipment and possibly in pay for the Army and the armed forces. One of these days, the Government will have to decide how they can perform all those different roles. The only logical way of doing so is to cancel Trident and concentrate on our conventional defence. The Government will have to face up to that one day, and if they do not the next Government will.
5.53 pm
Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful for being called, especially so early, in the debate on the Army for a variety of reasons. I should like to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the new Secretary of State for Defence, to the Front Bench. I should like to pay tribute to what he has done in the past. He and I were Ministers together in what I tend to call the good old days. His hands are very sure, and he has had long experience in the Ministry of Defence and as a soldier before that.
We are of course extremely sorry to lose, especially in such circumstances, the former Secretary of State for Defence. I think that it is appropriate to pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) achieved in the Ministry of Defence. What he achieved involved the whole Ministry becoming cost conscious in a way that it had never been before. I can see that in the attitude adopted in my own constituency, a large

1133
part of which constitutes a garrison town. It would be churlish not to say that we regret the departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and the circumstances of it and we commend his achievements in the Ministry of Defence.
What is now needed, in the sure hands of the new Secretary of State, is a period of quietude. That is needed for the Conservative party and the Ministry of Defence and that is self-evident in political terms. Much has been achieved in the Ministry of Defence not only by the former Secretary of State but by earlier Conservative Secretaries of State who have brought about much greater efficiency in the Ministry.
We are now in a difficult period because we are at the end of the period of automatic increase that is the NATO commitment of a 3 per cent. increase in defence expenditure in real terms, which the Government have honoured to the full. The fact that that is now drawing to a close means that old tensions will inevitably arise within the Ministry. There will be a fight for limited resources. We look to the sure hands of the new Secretary of State to see that that is kept within reasonable bounds. We are confident that he will do that, but it will not be an easy time and those of us in the Conservative party who are devoted to defence should recognise that there will be internal difficulties in the Ministry of Defence and between the services.
I want to utter one word of slight scepticism about the reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence. I was dubious about the appropriateness of abolishing the single service Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), like me, was a single service Minister in his time and we have an interest and a nostalgia about it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I are fearful of the consequences if a service does not have a spokesman whose duty it is to put forward his own service's cause, not, of course, whether it is right or wrong.
The basis on which I worked as the Minister responsible for the Navy was that I gave, as it were, a 5 per cent. loading to the Navy from time to time. When I found there was a dispute, perhaps with the Royal Air Force, on several occasions I found that the RAF was right. One or two of the admirals have never forgiven me for saying that that was indeed the case. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, I am a little concerned about the reorganisation in the Ministry of Defence and I will be glad to have my hon. Friend the Minister of State's views on that. If we do not have a Minister responsible for a particular service, senior officers in all the forces could be looking for what might be described as parliamentary moles to espouse the cause for which they wish to fight.
Having said that, I should like to say how pleasant it is to have the opportunity to speak from the point of view of my constituency. My constituency is a garrison town. I share Colchester with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and we have the garrison, as it were, between us. I should like to commend the fact that in Colchester there is a splendid relationship between the armed forces and the local population. When I said that once before, there was a headline in the local press which read:
"Member commends relationship with garrison town".
In the adjoining column it said:
"Jocks do over Bull and Bush—15 fined".
1134
That sort of trouble seldom happens. There is seldom any disruption.
Colchester has just lost the 2nd Royal Anglians who have now embarked upon a tour in Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them and all our services in Northern Ireland the best of good fortune.
The Anglians' place has been taken by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would get a loud "Hear, hear," particularly from my right hon. and hon. Friends, because our distinguished Secretary of State served in that regiment. I hope that, while the battalion is in Colchester, we can prevail upon him to visit Colchester to see it.
The Anglians have gone to Northern Ireland, and it is of them that one thinks at the moment. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with Northern Ireland. It is there that for so long our armed forces have been sustaining a burden with a professionalism and moderation that no other forces in the world could sustain. The Army has been achieving great things there. It has shown enormous professionalism over so many years, as well as extraordinary restraint.
I have been to Northern Ireland about 15 times over the past 10 years. Every time I have returned with an enhanced admiration for the professionalism of our forces there and for the restraint that they show under great provocation. It is remarkable that more mistakes are not made. Occasionally a mistake is made by a young soldier, but the whole country should be tolerant of that, which I think it is. It is remarkable that so few things go wrong there. The provocation that our forces have to endure has to be seen to be understood. Many of us have seen it on several occasions. When one goes through parts of Belfast in an armoured personnel vehicle being stoned all the way, one sees at first hand what our armed forces have to put up with.
I am glad that the pattern of service in Northern Ireland has been largely altered. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would mention it when he sums up the debate. There has been a move away from what were known as the Rumor tours of duty which involved a battalion being in Northern Ireland for an unaccompanied tour of just over four months. There are a few short tour battalions there now, and the accompanied tour is relied upon, when the battalion is there for a substantial period. That has the advantage of causing less turbulence for the men's families, and a substantial advantage from the point of view of military intelligence in establishing rapport with those who live in the area. That change in the pattern of service in Northern Ireland puts less strain on the armed forces and makes them militarily even more effective.
I now move from the United Kingdom to the most far-flung of our commitments—the Falkland Islands. I had the privilege of leading the first parliamentary delegation out there after the war. It was a remarkable experience. I was most grateful for the co-operation of Opposition Members when we embarked on that tour. I think that Opposition Members will agree that, when one is out there, one is amazed by the vast distances involved. As far as Ascension, one is in moderate comfort. It is a long flight, but it is in an ordinary aeroplane. Although it is "dry", it is like a commercial flight. From Ascension, as one spends hour after hour in a semi-pressurised Hercules aircraft, the magnitude of the task that we undertook some

1135
years back becomes apparent. I must not talk about flying too much because this is an Army debate, but the Army's supplies are going in Hercules aircraft. It is a tri-service achievement.
The Falklands was a great achievement and has a continuing effect on our armed forces. The Falklands factor has been talked of in terms of its political impact. I would not deny that there is a considerable impact on the domestic scene, but I believe that the Falklands factor has a greater effect in giving credibility to the whole Western defence posture. One of the tough men in the Politburo probably thought, "Will the decadent democracies ever do anything?" For the right of a relatively small number of people to live in freedom, our Army, Navy and Air Force, and the whole country united politically as well as in every other way. We took action to ensure that the 1,800 Falkland islanders kept that right.
I refer to the future of the Falklands. The second airport is now open, and the original airport runway has been lengthened. It seems to me that stability there is well assured. I should be glad to hear from the Minister about the level of the necessary forces remaining out there. I do not believe that the cost of maintaining the Falklands is prohibitive. It depends on how one does one's costing. A battalion costs quite a lot of money, even in Colchester. It costs £X more in the Falklands. There are military advantages from our forces being in the Falklands. No doubt a battalion is sharp and good when it goes out there, but it comes back a crack battalion, because of the amazing training opportunities in the Falklands. I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would refer to that. The costing is difficult. Other than the Army involvement, it is necessary to have one nuclear hunter-killer submarine on station to ensure that no successor Galtieri chances his arm. We have 17 of those submarines, and they have to be somewhere. Again, it is a case of how one does one's costing.
At home, our services are in very good heart. Their professionalism is tremendous.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with some other smaller matters. In Colchester, we have a military corrective training centre. It works admirably, and its new premises will be completed over the next few months. I pay tribute to the work of the Army and the staff there who, for years, have been working in ghastly nissen huts. They are now looking forward to moving into the admirable new premises. It is one of the most impressive military establishments. It has the advantage of having a high ratio of soldiers under sentence to staff. All are young, and can be dealt with robustly—they can get rid of their surplus energy in a way that could not be done in civil prisons.
I am grateful that we are having the debate. When the system was reorganised, we received an assurance that we would continue to have single-service days so that we could home in on some of the matters that are relatively small in global terms but important for each of the services. I am glad that the Government have honoured that pledge to the full. We look forward to the other single-service days and to the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he deals with many of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and, I hope, some of the points that I have raised.
6.18 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). He and I have discussed these matters on many occasions. I hope that he will forgive me if, in a short speech, I do not go along the lines of his thinking, interesting though it was.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to know that I wish to refer to helicopters. It was my intention to raise the general question of helicopter procurement and then talk about Westland. Indeed, I wanted to touch on the fact that it has been calculated that we have 100 helicopters fewer than we need for the central plain of Europe. Our helicopter procurement has been and remains in a mess. Our battlefield helicopter force, in terms of procurement and operation, command and control, lies not with one service, which would be sensible, and is the case in every other army, but is split between the Army and the Royal Air Force. That is ludicrous and confuses ourselves as much as it must confuse the enemy. However, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I refer solely to Westland.
I return to the subject of Westland because of today's events. After the events of today and last night the position of Westland may alter. Westland has made and still makes important contributions to the British forces and British defence. It has an important role to play in the supply and procurement of helicopters, especially for the Army. They were magnificently used and operated and made a significant contribution in the Falkland Islands. That capacity is now being seriously inhibited because there is considerable uncertainty over Westland's survival.
Although we seem to have had wall-to-wall Westland debates in the House for the past three weeks, those debates were not about Westland but about the Government's probity and the honesty of this or that Minister. My constituents are somewhat confused about the Westland debates since the last thing we discussed was jobs and the company's future.
I want to consider the Westland situation as a result of the European consortium's new bid. I should have called that the ex-Secretary of State for Defence's consortium. The clear object of that bid, as explained today by the consortium's chief banker, is to block the opposition's bid. The potential danger of that is that it will drag Westland down and place the company in greater danger of passing into the hands of the receiver. Furthermore, now that British Aerospace and GEC have withdrawn or at least refused financial participation in the latest bid, any semblance of British leadership in what the former Secretary of State for Defence called the Anglo-European bid, and perhaps even British partnership in the European bid, has gone.
As we long suspected, BA and GEC have no real interest in Westland. They were only reluctant partners to the bid because of pressure from the MOD under the former Secretary of State's leadership. The so-called Anglo-European consortium of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has proved—as we all feared it would and as many of us predicted — to be as ill-founded and cobbled together as many hon. Members believed. It seems that the European consortium —backed by nationalised European companies which are presumably funded by European Governments—is now

1137
stumping up the money to take advantage of what I can only describe as the Government's neglect and ineptitude and thereby grab a slice of Westland.
We cannot be sure of the European motives but we can be most suspicious of them. Those people expressed a preference to see Westland go to the wall only a few months ago. A key bidder and part of that general group has already revealed that he sees no need to retain a design and development capacity at Westland and would rather see the company converted into a spare parts operation. That would certainly solve the problem of overcapacity in Europe and in particular the shortage of work for Aerospatiale.
Meanwhile, the European firms, in particular the French and Italians, are falling out amongst themselves even as we have been conducting the series of Westland debates. They have been falling out over the consortium and orders. The only thing that is keeping that consortium together is the prospect of rich pickings from the Westland corpse. The consortium's banker, Mr. David Horne, said today that Westland could either accept its bid or face the receiver.
What is the situation? The Europeans know that they cannot win. They can only block and so threaten Westland with the danger of both bids failing and the company falling into the hands of the receiver. One or two members of the European consortium have said privately that they would not mind that happening.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to hear that what he said about Westland is a travesty of the facts. I must state that a number of my constituents work at Westland. The hon. Gentleman said that British Aerospace and GEC have withdrawn. That is incorrect, as the British-European consortium is very much in place. It is because of the attitude taken by the Westland board that the offer being made to the minority shareholders has to be a blocking and defensive gesture. As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, the prospects for Westland shareholders and employees as a result of the Government's activities in the face of criticism are much better and sounder today. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, coming from a party that is supposed to believe in Europe and be interested in small shareholders, should attack small shareholders and their interests in an attractive bid which the consortium is offering. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has backed the Sikorsky bid. That is an astonishing reversal by a member of a party which is supposed to believe in Europe.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman tempts me slightly off my track. I shall answer him.
I did not say that GEC and British Aerospace had withdrawn from participation. I said that they had refused to participate in the funding of the latest bid. That means, as one newspaper said today, that there can be no semblance left of an British-led Anglo-European consortium
The work force, the Westland board and the small shareholders are opposed almost to a man to the European deal. It is not true to say that I have always supported the Sikorsky deal. Indeed, many Conservative Members have accused me of being equivocal about the matter. I kept an open mind until I saw what the final deals were and then
1138
chose what I believed to be the best for the workers. I believe in Europe, but I am not about to sell to a key part of British industry, the British defence industry or the workers I represent a pig in a poke simply because it has Europe stamped on the outside.
What exactly does the European consortiun think it will be hold of if it wins? It will get a firm whose board is unanimously opposed to the takeover, whose work force is almost totally opposed to the deal, as are the small shareholders and the communities which depend on that firm for prosperity. The consortium is trying now by financial muscle to ram down Westland's throat a deal which the company, the shareholders and the communities do not want.
An irresponsible bid has been brought out of the shadows today. It endangers many jobs and the future of a key part of Britain's defence industry which has served the Army so well. That bid has been allowed to happen because of the impulsive and inadequately thought-out actions of the former Secretary of State for Defence and because of the Government's incompetence and neglect of the Westland problem.
It is scandalous that European Governments, who are the primary backers and owners of the European firms that are making the bid, should play fast and loose with Westland. Those Governments are prepared to invest in Westland when ours are not. If the bid succeeds, we shall have what is essentially the foreign nationalisation of Westland. If the European consortium succeeds in its attempt and gets 51 per cent. of the shares, it will go for an all-out bid for Westland. That will mean the foreign nationalisation of Westland.
Will the Minister tell me now whether there is any action that he can take to stop that? If he will not tell me now because he has to consider the answer, I hope he will give a clear response in his reply. Are the Government prepared to do anything to stop the foreign nationalisation of Westland? What is at stake now is the company's survival—
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of Sikorsky.
Mr. Ashdown: I am not in favour of nationalisation for Westland. I believe that the foreign nationalisation of Westland will happen as a result of the European bid.
Mr. Baker: I apologise for my intervention from a sedentary position but the Sikorsky bid, on which the hon. Gentleman is so keen, will lead to a foreign takeover. The American helicopter industry is financed by the American taxpayer through the close collaboration of the Pentagon and the American defence industries, and is, in effect, what the hon. Gentleman would call foreign nationalisation.
Mr. Ashdown: That is more substantial rubbish than I have ever previously heard the hon. Gentleman speak. I normaly regard the hon. Gentleman as a man of considerable sense. He knows perfectly well that the Sikorsky deal, which may take up 20 per cent., not 51 per cent., will not require Sikorsky to go for ownership of Westland. The hon. Gentleman also knows that that is a deal between two private companies, not between a nationalised and a private company. He knows that the proposals that he supports and those supported by his former boss, the right hon. Member for Henley, will mean

1139
placing three foreign Government representatives on Westland's board. That will not happen under the Sikorsky deal.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the firms in the consortium that will have representation on the board are Westland's primary competitors in foreign markets. He knows that Westland is currently competing for orders in India. What does the hon. Gentleman think the job of the French director, who is a French Government representative, on Westland's board will be if such a competitive position were to arise again? It is not difficult to divine.
The company's survival is now at stake. The Government, who are responsible for the position, must act now to ensure that Westland is not threatened further through their neglect. If they do not act, the threat will be imminent and real. No one can predict the outcome of the problem. A finn that has served the British Army and our defence forces exceptionally in the past now faces a threat to its survival.
I ask the Government to make their intentions clear, if not now, when the Minister replies.
6.20 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I apologise to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but I shall not discuss the matter which he probed because I think that the debate is a more general one about the Army. As hon. Members will be aware, I come from a garrison town. Only half of it is garrison because the other half is waiting to be rebuilt.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State for Defence. He was a soldier in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and I am sure that he will look after our interests. I should also like to pay tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who did a great deal for the Army and who was always accessible whenever one wanted to ask him for help or guidance.
In Windsor, there is a good relationship between the military and the civilian population, similar to the one that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) has in his constituency. It has always been the tradition that there should be a close link between the civil authorities, the Army and the Member of Parliament.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said, this has been a record year for the Army. It has been called upon to carry out an extraordinary variety of duties—aid to a civil power, evacuation of civilians, famine relief, and it has attracted our deep admiration and sympathy for its work in Northern Ireland.
There have been two exercises—Lionheart and Brave Defender— both of which I attended. One realises the high degree of professionalism that exists in the Army. We have a small Army, but it is highly trained and efficient and compares favourably with that of any of our NATO allies. The soldiers are dedicated to their tasks and fully trained to carry out their missions.
Now that there is no conscription, we must rely, whether we like it or not, on the Territorial Army and our reserve forces. They must be watched continuously because they need succour and help. The soldiers are, after all, civilians. I was pleased to hear that the cadet forces will be given better equipment.
I am worried about the use of chemical weapons. I should like an assurance that all the members of BAOR are
1140
properly equipped to defend themselves against that terrible threat. Our policy, which is correct, is to have no chemical weapons, but if the other side has them there is nothing to prevent it from using them. We must prepare for that. Our professional Army—the regular soldiers—and our territorials, who have to reinforce the Army, must have the same equipment. I hope that my hon. Friend will pay attention to that important matter.
I want to mention the subject of helicopters. My hon. Friend said that the T80 was available and could be used. We must pay more attention to the use of helicopters, especially in their anti-tank role.
Lessons have been learnt from the two exercises that I mentioned. One of the lessons that I learnt was about our system of calling up men. They must know in advance where they have to report. Getting them to the right place is difficult. I remember as a staff officer having to move an Army from one place to another. There were always tremendous difficulties at crossroads and goodness knows what. When crossing Europe, one must prepare in advance. Troop movements were well done in the exercises, but they must be perfected.
Men did not complain, but they were kept in buses for a long time. They were not always sure of the routes that they should take. That will happen in an experiment. The exercises must be regarded as experiments, but it is important that we should learn from them and ensure that the problems are overcome. They can be overcome easily with a little patience and attention to detail.
Moving a body of territorials from this country is not easy. Our allies in the United States will find it even more difficult to move their forces with the speed that may be necessary to back up our forces in BAOR should there ever be a crisis.
I wish to say a few words about the cadet corps. When I was a cadet all we had was a wooden rifle and a wooden rattle. I am glad to say that they have been replaced and that all cadets will have Enfield rifles. They will feel more like proper soldiers than toy soldiers, and that is to be commended.
We have a good basis. There is a reasonable age limit at which to join these schemes. Page 45 of the Defence Estimates sets out some of the advantages of the training scheme. Apprentices are trained in skills that they may use in the Army or outside. The country needs this type of person. The Army is playing its part in training people in skills which are attuned to today.
I notice that one is allowed to join the cadet force between the ages of 12 and 18—I was not allowed to join before I was 13. The year that these boys spend in the cadet force will help to mature them and give them a sense of discipline and pride and of belonging to a force which is dedicated to the defence of our country. I am glad to see that these schemes are being encouraged. It would be worth re-employing officers who have prematurely left the Army to help train these young men. I am not talking about officers who are hopelessly out of date but those who have just left the services and perhaps cannot find a job.
I am glad to see that the various schemes are extremely well laid out on pages 44 and 45 of the Defence Estimates. A large section of this document is devoted to young people, and this is a reflection of the Government's attitude to youth. We have to consider what the younger generation are doing. I think that the Minister and the Army are going about this the right way.

1141
My only hope is that, however professional our Army may be or however good our forces may be, we never let our guard down. We must remember that the Warsaw pact countries have a vast superiority of manpower and an enormous capability for moving men and equipment from the Urals to the Western front. It is a fact of life and we as a nation must face it. The Government must not drop their guard or in any way forget that there is a danger of biological, chemical and other weapons being used. We must face that possibility and make sure that our men are properly equipped and properly defended against chemical and biological warfare. If such an awful event occurred, we must not find ourselves short of means of defence.
6.35 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: First, may I thank the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for providing me so promptly with the letter for which I asked in my earlier intervention. It is clearly addressed to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover)—
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): May I thank the hon. Member for honouring his promise not to mention it?
Mr. McWilliam: I am grateful to the Minister. I said I would not mention the contents. I was trying to say something nice about him. For the rest of my speech I will not be nice. Indeed I am angry.
This afternoon the royal ordnance factories announced 831 redundancies—446 in my constituency at the royal ordnance factory at Birtley and 385 at the royal ordnance factory at Chorley in the constituency of the hon. Member. There is a degree of complacency displayed by Conservative Members tonight. Everyone has spoken about how nice everything is and how marvellous everything is. I accept entirely what is said about the quality of individual members of the British Army. I accept the praise that has been given to the standard of training but I am worried about the complacency over the level of equipment and back-up the Army will get. These redundancies are entirely in the ammunition division. If 831 people are made redundant from the ordnance factories, that must mean that the Royal Artillery in particular will be short of ammunition in certain strategic areas. The degree of complacency expressed tonight has not taken on board what is behind the announcement today.
These redundancies are a result of a decline in ammunition orders from the Ministry of Defence. Ammunition orders have already been reduced. They were reduced from previous levels to the 1985 level of £150 million and in 1986 the likely level will be down to about £90 million. Is this reduction a direct result of the Ministry of Defence's policy of competitive tendering? Is this the total value of ammunition orders from the Ministry of Defence? Are the royal ordnance factories maintaining their share of Ministry of Defence orders?
The ammunition division is not the only part of the royal ordnance factories in trouble. I do not wish to be accused of being parochial and I shall point to all the problems in the royal ordnance factories before returning to the ammunition division.
The small arms division at Radway Green will have completed all MOD orders by March 1986. There are no
1142
orders forthcoming. Are we on the edge of a precipice? Will the Minister tell us that there are further orders forthcoming? The weapon and fighting vehicles division at Leeds has no more orders. When will the Minister announce his order for the 6th regiment of Challenger tanks? Without that order, Leeds will be in serious trouble. The explosive divisions at Bishopton and Bridgwater are in further trouble. Are these problems the direct result of the decision of the MOD to go to competitive tendering?
The royal ordnance factories have to bear the expense of design and development and then have to make that design available to competitors without cost. I think this competitive policy is unfair. It is resulting in severe difficulties. In Birtley we have lost the high explosive mortar shell order to Dennis-Ferranti in Wales. Dennis-Ferranti may well have put in a competitive order but it did not develop the shell — it got that free. Dennis-Ferranti decided to build the equipment but it must have been given some kind of commitment of continued orders before it ordered the machinery to make the shell. There is a small benefit because Dennis-Ferranti ordered the machinery from T. I. Churchill in my constituency. We did not lose all—we got some of the jobs, but not a lot.
We are still waiting to discover whether the 30,000-odd 105 mm FD shell order is to be placed with the ROFs. I have a written question down for tomorrow, but I hope that we shall get some assurance from the Minister that it will be placed. It would not make a great deal of difference to the number of redundancies, but it would help. Is the multi-rocket launch system order to be brought forward to its original date? If it is, ROF Birtley hopes to make mortars. It would certainly tender effectively for them. If the order were brought forward to the original date, that would eat into the number of redundancies.
We also want to know about the SP70 order. From reading the European press, it appears that our German friends who are involved in the tripartite deal are going a little cold on the 5P70. They seem to be suggesting that it is over-specified. Vickers, which owns a factory just across the river from my constituency, is happy to tender for work on self-propelled guns if the Minister agrees that the SP70 is over-specified. I hope that he will tell us that this little bit of European collaboration will work and that the SP7Os will come to fruition. If it does, that too will help to reduce the number of redundancies. Other factories such as Patricroft are working seven days a week and contracting work out. Why cannot the Minister for Defence Procurement get some of that contracted-out work up to Birtley?
We have another problem which arose some 12 months ago when, as a result of the memorandum of understanding on the FH70, the Minister decided that he would give the order to the Germans. Indeed, he decided to transfer the entire FH70 order to Rheinmetall of Dusseldorf. That firm got the chunk of the order to which it was entitled and the order for two years previously. Rheinmetall has not been able to make the shell. It has not been delivered.
Worse than that, I read in the press—there was an Associated Press article of 13 January on it—that Herr Dieter Koehler, the executive secretary, Herr Dietrich Falke, the business manager who has now retired from Rheinmetall, Herr Hans Voss, a high ranking department chief in the company and Herr Frederich Wilhelm Striepke, the company's shipping department manager, are in court. They have been charged with illegal arms exports between 1977 and 1980. They have apparently

1143
been sending machine guns to Saudi Arabia, ammunition production equipment to South Africa and, much more serious, heavy calibre guns to Argentina without Government approval. Indeed, it is understood that the end user certificates were made out to Spain, Italy and Paraguay. If that is true, it is almost certain that those heavy calibre guns were used against British troops. The Minister transferred 300 jobs from my constituency, where we have 23 per cent. unemployment, to the Ruhr and a company that was selling arms to people who were at war with us.
I am angry. There is no reason for the redundancies at Birtley. If the Minister chose, he could prevent all of them, but he does not choose. I am sure that there is some get-out in the memorandum of understanding which enables the Minister to say to Rheinmetall, "You have been selling arms to people who are at war with us, so the memorandum of understanding is negated."
There is another problem. Germany did not get its fair share of the order in the past three years, but we must take Tornado into account. Doing that, even if Germany never made an FH70 shell in its life and bought them all from Birtley for the next 50 years, we would still not make up the shortfall on our side of the memorandum of understanding.
I am angry. The Ministry of Defence has shifted 300 jobs from Birtley, which has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom, to the Ruhr, which has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the whole of Europe. The Minister has done that deliberately. It is a smack in the teeth for the north and it does nothing to help our strategic ability.
6.45 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I am pleased to have been called to speak in this important debate. I hoped to speak not because I can claim great knowledge of soldiers or of their weapons, although I have an important constituency connection in the form of the Royal School of Military Engineering, known as the Depot Regiment of Sappers, in my constituency. We have heard much good sense from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), and I strongly agree with what he said about the Falkland Islands and our garrison there.
With five other hon. Members and three noble Lords, I was fortunate indeed to be chosen to go to the Falkland Islands just before Christmas, under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence. I should like my speech to be a public expression of my gratitude for that opportunity. I should like to say something about what we saw there and to thank those who were responsible for our trip.
May I start by thanking the commander, British forces, Air Vice Marshal Kemball, the chief of staff, Brigadier Brownson, the assistant chiefs of staff and all the unit commanders with whom we came into contact for the warmth of their welcome and for the breadth of interest and variety which they introduced into our tour. I should especially like to thank Captain Sturdie of the RAOC, who was assigned the daunting task of guiding us through a busy trip with much tight timing for our various journeys, many of which were made by helicopter. I shall not go into that matter as we have heard quite a lot about it already. Should Captain Sturdie ever fancy a career in this House, his persuasiveness and natural good humour would make him an ideal candidate for the Whips Office.
1144
Although ours was primarily a Ministry of Defence trip and was overwhelmingly spent seeing soldiers, sailors and airmen at work, rest and play, we had several opportunities to meet His Excellency the Governor, Mr. Gordon Jewkes —recently arrived and with a difficult act to follow—and the Chief Executive and their staffs. We were able to see at first hand many of the problems and the opportunities presented by the situation in these large and very sparsely populated islands. If I say little more about the civilian side of the trip, that is no slight on those responsible for it. Rather it is because this is a debate on the Army and I must not stretch your tolerance, Mr. Speaker. We are nonetheless grateful to the civil administration for its kindness and help.
Perhaps the most significant impression with which I have been left is the co-operation and co-ordination between the three services. One would expect that of a tri-service operation, which is the designation of our military involvement in the Falklands, but the three branches of our forces are not renowned for setting aside their individual service jealousies. It may or may not have been coincidental that four out of nine members of the party had strong Kent connections. I have constituency and residential ties to the county and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the noble Lords Pender and Boston of Faversham also have strong affiliations to Kent. It was thus an especial pleasure that we should find that the 2nd Battalion the Queen's Regiment — our county regiment — was the resident battalion while we were there. Moreover, the 69th Gurkha Independent Field Squadron of Royal Engineers, whose home base is Kitchener barracks, Chatham — a few yards outside my constituency and but a few yards from my constituency home—was the unit of sappers looking after Port Stanley airfield.
As I said at the outset, we saw soldiers, sailors and airmen at work, rest and play. However, there is precious little of the latter in the Falklands. The men are worked hard throughout their four-month tour. That is just as well, because their quarters, either on board one of the coastels or in one of the ubiquitous Portakabins, are functional rather than commodious or comfortable. We were allowed to sample a night in a Portakabin and in a cabin shared with seven others. In such circs, one rapidly learns whether one's colleagues snore. Indeed, if property prices around Westminster continue to rise at their present rate, we could be urging the Leader of the House to permit a Portakabin village in New Palace yard. However, blundering around in the small hours looking for the ablutions block could quickly lose its novelty value.
I jest a little, because I am sure that our forces presently stationed in the Falkland Islands view their lot as a great deal more comfortable than the tents that their predecessors occupied, and infinitely preferable to the misery suffered by those forces that fought their way from San Carlos to Stanley. The accommodation problem will shortly be resolved by the transfer of the garrison to the new Mount Pleasant complex.
We were impressed by the scale and quality of the construction of the new airfield, garrison barracks and harbour that have been developed out of the wilderness at Mount Pleasant, which is 30 miles from Stanley. We had every reason to be grateful for the new airstrip, because its excellent surface and considerable length meant that we

1145
could enjoy the comfort of a Royal Air Force Tristar, unlike earlier travellers who braved more spartan conditions and the mid-air refuelling of the Hercules.
We were all surprised h^ the scale of the construction at Mount Pleasant. We understood and acknowledged the need for the new airstrip — to allow for the possible rapid reinforcement of a smaller garrison than is presently stationed on the islands. Perhaps we had not appreciated fully the ramifications of the many complex and interrelated tasks for which the Mount Pleasant complex was designed. During our debriefing, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reassured us about the need for the various facilities under construction. The completion of the complex at Mount Pleasant—about four years after the Government's initial decision in June 1982—will stand as one of the finest achievements of British civil engineering and as its finest hour for many years to come. The fact that that splendid complex has been constructed 8,000 miles from the United Kingdom, with materials brought from the United Kingdom, in three years is a testimony to the civilian construction workers involved, especially as the conditions that they have endured have been extremely hard. I am not an unequivocal fan of the PSA, but in the case of Mount Pleasant, I have much admiration.
I wish to refer again to our troops and the conditions in which they work. The posting to the Falklands is not popular among the men. The posting means four months away from home on islands 8,000 miles from Britain. They are unaccompanied and there are few facilities for the off-duty hours. Perhaps it is because they are worked so hard that morale is high and nowhere more so than at the remote and lonely signals outpost at Bombilla or the radar installation on Mount Kent that we visited.
Officers spoke to us of the considerable training opportunities that exist in those under-populated islands, where one is 400 times as likely to upset a sheep as a shepherd. I fully agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North who mentioned that.
Providing recreation facilities for the men is a problem. There are few fleshpots in Stanley and fewer still in the so-called Camp, which is the area outside Stanley. Locally, the commanders try to allow everyone a two or three-day rest and recreation break during a tour. That could consist of an arduous training hike in the wilds, or perhaps a relaxed weekend on one of the islander's farms. To that end, travel by helicopter is essential, because there is no alternative. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to read the answer given by Lord Trefgarne yesterday in another place to Lord Pender. I urge him also to continue to allow a reasonable allocation of admittedly expensive helicopter hours to achieve some recreational opportunities.
Even when the move to more commodious facilities at Mount Pleasant takes place, the need for recreation facilities will not be removed. Those of us who visited the Falklands urge the Minister to consider providing facilities beyond those that are normally provided at such posts.
A growing problem is that of people skilled in short specialties being posted and reposted to the Falklands. Already there are those who are on their fourth and even fifth tour since the conflict.
A more insidious problem is provided by those who go on one tour in three. Those unlucky enough to be there
1146
during our summer, which is the Falklands winter, could be living through 12 months of winter until that process is broken. That is an arduous task for anyone to undertake.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has joined us and I know that he would like to be associated with my comments. I could say much more, but time will not allow and there are many who wish to speak. I do not want to be a messenger for the men's understandable grouses, because that would sell short their generally stoical attitude to their tour.
None of our party will forget the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands. It is no coincidence that I am wearing the tie of the Uplands Goose hotel in Stanley. It is a happy reminder of a memorable visit. Above all, we who visited the Falklands in December will remember for the rest of our days the poignant solemnity of standing on a windswept hillside by San Carlos water in the cemetary at Blue beach for our brief service of dedication. Standing beside the graves of Lieutenant-Colonel H. Jones VC and the brave men who died with him, I did not doubt that our action in 1982 was entirely right. I am sure that if any of our people, from however small a community, were ever threatened in a similar way, our forces would respond just as magnificently.
We were greatly privileged to be able to make the visit and I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence for making it possible.
6.56 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: In his opening remarks the Minister mentioned co-operation between the Army and the police in various functions and at times of stress. All of us applaud the role of the bomb disposal experts in the Army, who have a most hazardous duty to perform. Their bravery must be commended by all of us in the House.
One aspect of co-operation between the Army and the police is the deployment of armed troops at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. During recent years, there have been several security exercises, but that number has been increasing. In a written answer to me on 13 January the Prime Minister identified that security exercises involving deployment of troops at Heathrow numbered three in 1981, four in 1982, five at Heathrow and one at Gatwick in 1983, six in 1984 and seven in 1985. Clearly, the numbers are increasing.
Naturally, I accept the need to combat international terrorism, whether it is on the part of an organisation or by Governments. No one in the House would condone the killing of unarmed civilians in airports and on aircraft. Such actions of cowardice and brutality must be condemned.
I am interested in two aspects arising from the deployment of armed troops at Heathrow and Gatwick. I am open to correction, but I believe that there has never been a debate in Parliament about the use of such troops. There have not been many parliamentary questions about the matter. I could trace only questions asked by myself and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris).
In her reply to me of 23 January, the Prime Minister said that those exercises are held at the request of the police. At Heathrow airport, that would involve the Metropolitan police. I wish to ask the Minister a series of questions; if he cannot answer them when he replies to the debate, perhaps he will write to me.

1147
First, what is the mechanism whereby the police can request the Army to hold exercises at Heathrow airport? Who decides? Can the police request the presence of the Army at a picket line or a demonstration, or could the Army be called in to deal with a civil commotion in inner London? When the police request the presence of troops at Heathrow, are the Secretaries of State for Defence and the Home Department consulted about the deployment of such troops? Does the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom we are primarily concerned tonight, give his permission for troops to be used at Heathrow, or is he merely informed? There is a clear distinction. In her reply of 23 January the Prime Minister did not make it clear whether permission was required from the Secretary of State for Defence or whether he was merely informed.
Must the police give reasons for the request for the Army to be deployed at Heathrow? Is it a matter of routine, or do they act on advice from intelligence sources?
Were either of the exercises held on 14 October 1985 and between 1 and 9 January 1986 at Heathrow airport carried out under the terms of the joint tactical doctrine? I do not believe that we have discussed the joint tactical doctrine; indeed, I do not know whether it exists. I am going by a report in The Sunday Times of 8 September 1985, which stated:
"Under a secret agreement"—
it cannot be that secret if The Sunday Times knows about it—
"called the Joint Tactical Doctrine, the army will have complete control over the police in areas considered militarily sensitive."
Was the exercise between 1 and 9 January — it was much longer than previous exercises—held under the joint tactical doctrine? Are Heathrow and Gatwick airports areas considered to be militarily sensitive at a time of escalating crisis?
In her answer of 23 January, the Prime Minister said that troops were deployed at airports for deterrent purposes. That is difficult to understand. I do not pretend to be an expert on military matters, but I believe that I can ask a reasonably intelligent question and understand a reasonably intelligent answer to it. I do not understand how a potential attacker will be put off because a tank or an armoured personnel carrier is stationed at the approach tunnel to Heathrow airport. What purpose does such military hardware serve? I assume that the tanks are armed, and we know that the personnel are armed. They will have a fairly formidable array of weapons. Is it seriously considered that such weaponry would be deployed? What sort of crisis are we talking about? I cannot see the function of the troops at Heathrow airport as deterrence.
The presence of armed forces and, indeed, of armed police did not stop the outrages at Rome and Vienna. The Minister should be aware of the fact that the presence of troops is unsettling to the travelling public. Troops are not a welcome sight around Heathrow airport, because it makes passengers think that something awful is about to happen. If some passengers are as nervous as I am about boarding aircraft, it will do nothing for their confidence. I have received complaints at the GLC from some American tourists, who said that troops were not a welcome sight on arrival in the United Kingdom.
In the event of an exchange of fire in a terminal building between the police or the Army and terrorists, there is a great danger that passengers will become caught in the
1148
crossfire. The Minister and the Home Secretary must share this major concern. It was interesting to note that the chairman of the Police Federation, who opposes the use of armed police at Heathrow, suggested that the Army should take over the job of providing armed security at Heathrow airport. That would make more sense, although the presence of armed personnel at airports has not proved a great deterrent and would not be effective during a crisis in a terminal building. My view is that airports would be much better secured with greater scrutiny of passengers' luggage and their clothing on entry into terminals and before entry into departure lounges.
If anyone was seriously considering attacking London airport, he could do it by secreting himself in the surrounding countryside. That must be where the greatest danger lies, because some incoming aircraft on their final approach paths are sitting targets. Perhaps the Minister cannot answer this, for security reasons, but I would feel much more confident if I knew that special patrols operate in the countryside around airports instead of standing at the approach tunnels or outside the terminals.
There is no valid counter-terrorist reason for the deployment of armed troops at Heathrow, Gatwick or Manchester airports. I believe that there are more sinister reasons for their deployment. It is all part of the general softening-up of the civilian population, getting them used to seeing armed troops on the streets. The threat of a terrorist attack is being used as an excuse for putting armed troops and tanks on the streets of London.
Mr. Conway: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making more of this than need be, whatever his motive. However, this Government have not deployed the armed forces to break a strike; a Labour Government did that. Yet Labour Members did not read sinister motives into it. I do not believe for one moment that the civilian population regards the Army as a threat. Indeed, they welcome their reassuring presence. Although the hon. Gentleman is trying to stir up fears, he will find an unreceptive audience in the British public.
Mr. Banks: Only if my audience is as unattentive as the hon. Gentleman is. That is not what I said. Had the hon. Gentleman listened more closely, he would have realised that I was not suggesting that the British people have no confidence in the Army. I said only that I believed that it was part of a general softening-up process by the Government so that there will he less alarm at the thought of troops being used at times of civil unrest.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The intervention of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) was wholly inaccurate. There is a long history of civilian Government in the United Kingdom using military forces to deal with civil disturbances and unrest. He is a buffoon.
Mr. Banks: Whether the hon. Gentleman is a buffoon or not, I shall pass quickly over the aspect of his qualifications.
I would condemn the use of troops for strike-breaking whether it was done by a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. I am entirely consistent—
Mr. Conway: It was a Labour Government.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman would hear the same words if it was a Labour Government. However, if it was a Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman might not be

1149
here to hear my words. I am not sure how safe his seat is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my word that I would condemn in equally round terms the use of troops by a Labour Government.
Strike-breaking is only one aspect of the softening-up process. Some elements in the Conservative party and in the high command of the armed forces would not hesitate, in defence of the ruling class that they represent — [Laughter]—to call out the troops if they believed that capitalism was under threat from civilian unrest or even from the
policies of a democratically elected Labour Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they should read more carefully some of the statements of senior figures in the Conservative party and the military to various bodies and associations.
The Conservative party exists to serve the interests of the ruling class. Whether in or out of government, it would not hesitate to put troops on the streets if it thought that the capitalist system was under threat, even if that threat came from a democratically elected Labour Government. The major reason why the troops are present at Heathrow is as part of a softening-up process to get the civilian population of London used to seeing them on the streets. I can see no valid security reason for their deployment at Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
7.10 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). My mind goes back to the last time when we followed each other. He will not remember it, but it was on a platform in Peckham in south London and we were discussing something peaceful, such as the Housing (Finance) Bill. He was all for whipping up fury and violence. He wanted people to charge down the street, and he sought to arouse disorder of the highest magnitude. When he started speaking today, I thought that he had at last mellowed, the years had wearied him, and age was condemning him to pleasantness and democratic, peaceful attitudes. But his final remarks reassured me that he still has his old fire, but perhaps with even less sense than he had previously.
The hon. Gentleman said that tourists and others may be unsettled at the sight of a tank at London airport. I cannot believe that anyone wishes to deploy tanks or armoured weapons unless there is a serious threat. The sight on television of terrorists throughout the world destroying civilian lives, often because those lives have been inadequately protected, is unsettling. The hon. Gentleman should think about that and not make such frivolous, scandalous suggestions to the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me for making some personal remarks, but this is the first time that I have been able to speak in a debate on the Army. It is a slightly sad occasion because, on 9 January, four years of quiet soldiering behind the parapet came to an end. One of my local newspapers telephoned me and asked politely whether my financial position would suffer as a result of this serious loss of post, and I could reassure it that my financial position would be materially improved. Nevertheless, I shall miss the duty of sitting behind the Front Bench checking the ministerial haircuts and whether
1150
the shoes of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) are in need of repair. I see that they are in good shape, and I wish him many years in them.
Mr. Denzil Davies: That is more than can be said for the Minister's shoes.
Mr. Baker: I shall have to wait until I sit on the other side before I can know that.
I saw service with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). I thank them for their patience and kindness to me, and for the privilege of admiring their skills and dedication, above all during the Falklands campaign. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) talk about the Falklands today, particularly as there is a town in my constituency of the same name.
I also wish to pay tribute to the extraordinarily high standard of civil servants at the Ministry of Defence who receive scant appreciation in the House. It was a privilege to help my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He is a man of brilliant initiative, unwavering courage and determination, unerring instinct for the heart of the matter, and, above all, boundless ambition for our country. In his time he encompassed the defeat of the protest groups, the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence and the policy of competition in procurement, which now gives us the chance of avoiding what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has called disarmament by inflation. I was particularly delighted to join him in paying tribute to those who fought and fell in the far east.
I add my welcome and good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Much of the boot and ranch work has been carried out before him, but he has my best wishes for continuing it, as does his ministerial team.
I do not wish to say much about Westland. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) conveniently ignores the fact that the original Sikorsky proposal, which I understood he supported, was to take over the company. A 20 per cent. offer, which has now been made, amounts in most cases, and certainly in this case, to control of a public company. The work force is worried about the uncertainty and the time involved, and I understand why it follows the board now, although it did not take that position at the start. In those circumstances, that is perfectly natural. However, that is not the final measure of what is best for the future of the company and the workers.
I understand the pressures on the hon. Gentleman. A high percentage of the Westland work force knocks on his door, and, bearing in mind the proper need to obtain votes, he would be in considerable difficulty if he did not listen to the voice of the work force.
Mr. Ashdown: Mr. Alan Bristow, who, in terms of his support for the European consortium, is one of the hon. Gentleman's friends, who provides most of the European financial muscle, and who is well known everywhere for seeking to become the board's new chairman and chief executive under the European consortium, if it should succeed, is on public record as having said that he believes that Westland should be converted into a spare parts operation, and has no further need of design or research

1151
facilities. Laying aside the needs of our constituents, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is right for Britain's defence?
Mr. Baker: That is certainly not the view of the European consortium. I do not know whether those are the words of Alan Bristow, so I do not propose to comment on them. The proposals of the British-European consortium are available for the company to consider, and are extremely favourable to the small shareholders.
Thanks to the Government's activities, however political or subject to criticism they may have been—I regret that, and especially the loss of two extremely distinguished Ministers — the future of Westland, its workers, shareholders and bankers—the whole family of the company — is more secure today. They all have better terms than they did when Sikorsky first made a bid.
There is a need for European collaboration to continue. The European fighter aircraft project was about to disintegrate when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley took it on. It took him about two years to produce what in European collaborative terms was a coup and in order to do that deep suspicions and years of mutual hostility between European partners and European companies had to be overcome.
France has behaved badly in the past and I understand the fears of Westland on account of that, but Britain and British companies have also behaved in ways that have given rise to deep suspicions by our European neighbours and collaborators. Anyone in doubt about the rightness of the EFA deal should note how quickly the French came back and said that they would like to play a part in it, and how quickly the Americans suggested they should be brought in to co-operate on the project.
I commend the EFA deal as a model for increased collaboration in Europe on military equipment. The lesson is that such collaboration must be Government led. Personal relationships between Defence Ministers of European countries are important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr will continue in that way and will quickly reassure our European friends that we are committed to a policy of collaboration on projects in Europe. The rewards for such collaboration are cheaper defence equipment and tougher competition for the United States, and those rewards are in the interests of taxpayers, not just in Europe but in the United States as well.
I see an increased need in future for an out-of-area contribution by our armed forces and especially a need for our conventional weapons. The thrust of our defence effort is bound to continue to be in Europe. We cannot allow the British Army of the Rhine to weaken. We will face increasing demands from outside the NATO area and we must be able to respond to those demands. I was recently in the far east and I was besieged by Ministers of countries with which we are friendly urging Britain to help them in more complicated skilled management and military ways. Friendly nations will increasingly look to us and to our NATO allies for help, although I am not suggesting that we should get sucked into other people's wars.
I speak for no one in the armed forces or in the military establishment when I say that we ought to have a form of national community service with a military option. We need, and will need, more men and women in the armed forces, and the binding social effects of a form of community service would be advantageous to Britain. Our armed forces ought to play a part in that.
1152
It is dangerous to extrapolate from personal experience, but I recall living in a village from which the young men of the time went away as boys and returned as citizens. I should declare my personal interest because I was one of the last to do national service. One of my two most dangerous moments was guarding Government house in what was then Tanganyika and Zanzibar against suspected riots of the kind we were debating earlier, but, because Julius Nyerere is a wonderful man of peace, no riots ensued. My second dangerous moment arose from the risk I encountered by eating snails at 3 am in the morning.
Mr. Tony Banks: You cruel swine!
Mr. Baker: I do not recommend it, even to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West because I do not wish him that kind of harm. A period of community service should be part of growing up. I am pleased that the armed forces are playing a part in the youth training scheme, and I should like to see that develop into a voluntary limb of a form of national community service. I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed services at home and overseas, and to the ministerial team that supports them. That team has, and will continue to have, my full support.
7.27 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I take issue with a couple of things said by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I was a national service man and I would not recommend it to anyone. My major emotion at the time was that of boredom, perhaps closely followed by a feeling of anxiety because I was in the military police. I also disagree with his panegyric to his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
The right hon. Member for Henley committed grievous bodily harm on my constituency when, shortly before his departure, he ordered three submarines from Cammell-Laird. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not quit six months earlier, because his successor might have ordered one of those submarines from Scott Lithgow. I do not say that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) Is biased, but if one of the submarines had been ordered from Scott Lithgow the Royal Navy would have benefited from that decision.
I promise to make a brief contribution. It has to be brief because I am meeting my wife soon. My contribution consists largely of a melange of questions that, inter alia, were brought to me by constituents and largely relate to the provision of welfare services to members of the Army. The British Army is a highly competent professional force that performs the most difficult tasks, particularly in Northern Ireland, with admirable efficiency.
Questions have been put to me by the families of service men, and I would be grateful to the Minister if he could answer them. If he cannot answer them today, perhaps he could let me have replies within a few days. First, have the Government any plans to change the minimum age at which soldiers can be sent to Northern Ireland? When opening the debate the Minister said that recruitment is going well, although he conceded a minute later that the rate of premature voluntary retirement is high. Considerable dissatisfaction generates the decisions to quit the Army. Has any examination been carried out of the premature retirements? Given the sharp contrast between Army and civilian life, is the Minister satisfied

1153
with the provision of pre-retirement guidance and training for Army personnel? I have heard complaints about that. It is an important subject. Those who have given first-class service to the nation should be offered excellent training prior to leaving the Army.
What of those who have to be dismissed from the Army on medical grounds? Are they treated compassionately by the Army at a most distressing time for them? Are they too given guidance and help to come to terms with their involuntary withdrawal from the Army?
Is the Minister satisfied with the welfare provisions available to soldiers and their families when they are serving overseas? The families of soldiers are no different from other families and they may encounter all kinds of emotional, marital and domestic problems. Has the Army the resources to deal with the distressful events within the families of soldiers? The Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association employs professionally trained, competent social workers, who do a first-class job. Nevertheless, we must ask about the welfare provisions for service men and their families, particularly when they are serving overseas. Often the wives of such soldiers are young and they are taken away from their natural family environment in the United Kingdom. It is essential that resources are available to guide them when they may be suffering medical, social, economic or marital problems.
There are a couple of other questions that are not related directly to the welfare of Army personnel. Have the Government plans to reduce the garrison on Gibraltar? I have been asked about that recently. I promised a brief intervention because my sergeant major is coming down from Scotland. She has just ordered me to get my hair cut.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement well knows that the royal ordnance factory at Bishopton is wholly contained within the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). He also knows that several hundred of my constituents work at Bishopton. There are widespread anxieties about the lack of orders from the Ministry of Defence. If the German firm is unable to honour its obligations for the supply of FH70s, production should be redirected to Birtley and Bishopton.
The difficult circumstances surrounding ROF plc are a direct result of the reduction in MOD orders. The position is made much worse by the Government's confusing policy of competitive tendering. It is confusing and confounding in the sense that the ROF has to shoulder design and development costs; I think that I am right in saying that it has to make those designs available to competitors. Is that sensible?
My questions have largely concerned the welfare of Army personnel and their families, and I should be grateful for answers to them.
7.36 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: In his interesting, compassionate and brief speech the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised, amongst other questions, the issue of pre-retirement courses for long serving soldiers and officers. I would not presume to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but in the past 20 years I have heard nothing but praise for the quality of the pre-retirement courses that are available to long serving soldiers, NCOs and officers.
1154
In his interesting survey of some of the accomplishments of the Army during the last year my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces omitted to draw attention to the fact that 1985 marked, temporarily I hope, the end of a nine-year era in which the black button mafia has largely dominated the affairs of the Army. In 1976 General, now Field Marshal, Sir Roland Gibbs became chief of the general staff. He was succeeded three years later by General, now Field Marshal, Sir Edwin Bramall, who retired a few months ago as chief of the defence staff. He began his immensely distinguished career some 44 years ago when he tried to train me.
During the past nine years an exceptional number of former members of the Green Jackets have served as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. No fewer than three of them—Lord Trenchard, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie)—have been responsible for defence procurement. As one would expect, the Army has done well during the black button era. Our soldiers are now better equipped, better trained and much better paid than they were before the black button takeover.
But surprisingly—particularly surprisingly when one considers the regiment's reputation for swift and unorthodox movement—we have never during the past nine years had a sensible helicopter policy. Our failure to produce a sensible helicopter policy has led directly to the Westland crisis through which we have all been living. The general public has been riveted by cries of scandal, but, to my mind, the real scandal is that Westland ever got into a state of collapse at all. There can be no doubt that Westland's management problems have been greatly intensified by the prolonged state of indecision about helicopter operational requirements. Many of the helicopter questions that were discussed in my room at the Ministry of Defence more than four years ago have still not been answered.
There are three main reasons why the Army has got its helicopter policy wrong in recent years. The most important is the division of responsibility for helicopters between the Army and the Royal Air Force: big helicopters, such as the Chinook, are the responsibility of the Royal Air Force, and smaller helicopters, such as the admirable Lynx, are the responsibility of the Army. The result is that both services have been tempted to treat helicopter policy as a fringe issue. Meanwhile, it surely does not make much sense to have two separate helicopter headquarters in Germany.
It will take some years before the helicopter systems provided both by the RAF and the Army can be brought together, but the command structure can be unified quickly. I note that the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence staff structure that was carried through so energetically by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will make a unified command structure for our helicopters much easier to introduce. It would be ironic and wholly appropriate if one of the first positive results of the Heseltine reorganisation at the Ministry of Defence were to be a sensible, unified helicopter command structure.
The second reason why we have neglected our helicopter policy in recent years flows from some misunderstanding about the war in Vietnam. It is certainly true that the Americans used a very large number of

1155
helicopters in Vietnam. A semi-popular, semiprofessional mythology has grown up which suggests that the Americans were defeated because they were buzzing about in the air while the Vietcong were taking over on the ground. I spent some time in Vietnam during the conflict, and I believe that this popular myth, which is widely believed in the British Army, is inaccurate.
It is perhaps ironic that the American experience in Vietnam has overshadowed our own successful use of helicopters during the confrontation in Indonesia.
General Wake Walker noted at the end of the Borneo campaign that one British battalion equipped with six Wessex helicopters was worth one British brigade without helicopters. Borneo and the Falklands campaign remind us that helicopters have a dual use and that, useful as they may be on the central front, they are even more useful in an out-of-area role.
The third reason why the Army and the other services have neglected their helicopter policy stems from the sad fact that those who are interested in helicopter policy tend to be looked upon as outsiders who are not to be taken too seriously. An RAF officer who wishes to become an air marshal would be well advised to disguise any enthusiasm that he may have for flying a Chinook and instead devote his energies to flying the latest strike aircraft upside down at twice the speed of sound and a couple of hundred feet above the ground. An Army staff officer who aspires to a seat on the Army Board will sensibly be backing our tank programme, our armoured personnel carrier programme or our various artillery programmes; officers who seriously think about a field marshal's baton in their knapsack will be pressing for merits of the Core weapons systems. By way of contrast, those officers who show a strong interest in helicopters too often tend to be regarded as fringe people who are not quite serious about their careers.
Is it realistic, then, to think that there can be a significant increase in our helicopter strength in the next few years? I would certainly 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. But I recognise that the scope for transfer is limited, and that all programmes are under pressure from budgetary considerations.
There is, however, one way in which we could enormously enhance our helicopter capacity at very small cost to the defence budget. I note that there are in this country 550 civilian helicopters and that about 350 of them are civilian versions of military types. There are, for example, 50 Sea King helicopters in civilian ownership at the moment, some, I believe, in the hands of Mr. Alan Bristow. There are, I understand, 30 civilian Super Pumas operating from Dyce airport in Scotland. Many, if not most, of these 550 civilian helicopters are operated by pilots with some service training.
Four and a half years ago I suggested to the then chief of the air staff that we should make plans for taking over civilian helicopters if war broke out. I think that the time has now come to implement this suggestion as a matter of some urgency. In such an eventuality, some helicopters would have to continue in their normal role, but I believe that at least 250 civilian helicopters could become part of a territorial army of the air. It would cost money. Some modifications to the earmarked helicopters would be needed. Extra wireless sets might have to be provided. Some extra training would have to be given to pilots and
1156
ground crew, and special rates of pay would have to be worked out for those who were then associated with this territorial army of the air.
Of course, it would be unrealistic to think that civilian helicopters, even those earmarked and trained in advance, could be pitchforked into fighting on the central front, but the existence of this large reserve, which would be as large as the Army's entire helicopter fleet at present, would mean that every service helicopter now stationed in this country could be assigned to an overseas role. A few million pounds wisely spent could thus buy an enormous increase in our helicopter capacity.
I turn to the still vexed question whether the Army should look to a European consortium for the future supply of helicopters and other items of equipment. In the past 20 years there have been some European collaborative projects that have worked well. Until the recent controversy over the SP70, the gunners seemed to get on particularly well with European collaborative projects, but I note that in the past 20 years all talk about the production of a European or an Anglo-German tank have produced almost nothing. By all means let us have European cooperation in producing military equipment, but let it flow naturally if it is going to flow at all. Let us also remember that international European co-operation means that one loses a substantial element of flexibility in changing or, indeed, in postponing collaborative projects.
There has been comment today about the new European fighter. I suspect that in the course of the next few years a number of people will believe that it is wise—indeed, essential—to postpone the development of this aircraft, but the fact is that a European-wide project will make that a great deal more difficult. At the same time, I do not share the general feeling that it is undesirable that we in this country, or, indeed, our European allies, should not buy American equipment.
On the tapes earlier today, I noted that the American trade deficit for the past year had just reached record levels, some 140 billion dollars plus, and no doubt in the course of the next few months we shall have meetings of Finance Ministers once again to see how we can improve American export performance, yet at the same time we have European Defence Ministers meeting to see how one can cut off American exports in the one field in which they have substantial predominance.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if such a European project did not go ahead, the alternative, given that all the European countries, including ourselves, believe that the development of a fighter aircraft is necessary to our defences, is that it would cost us £1 billion on a national basis to go ahead?
Sir Philip Goodhart: That I accept wholly is the present view. As the years pass, and as the budgetary pressures increase, I rather suspect that this aircraft will turn out to be rather less necessary for our defences than is believed at the moment.
To turn back to the question of helicopter supply, in all the Westland furore there has to my mind been astonishingly little comment about the decision of the national armaments directors of Britain, France, Germany and Italy deliberately to cut themselves off from helicopter design collaboration with the Americans, who have so much more experience than all the rest of us put together.

1157
It seemed to me to be a monumentally stupid decision —one of the worst taken in defence in the past decade —and I am glad that it has now been aborted.
I am sure that it will be to the advantage of the Army, and, indeed, to the advantage of the services as a whole, if the link with Sikorsky is confirmed by the Westland shareholders. If eleventh hour manoeuvrings on the stock exchange manage to stop the confirmation of the Sikorsky-Fiat link, I hope that the Government will step in to back the board, the management and the work force. I hope even more wholeheartedly that the whole Westland argument will bring forward the moment when we can say that the Army has chosen a helicopter policy which is sensible and sustainable.
7.57 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). In his pertinent remarks about the contribution that helicopters can make, he expanded on the point made briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) with regard to the lack of a unified command structure, which has had some of the consequences that were mentioned.
The whole problem that Westland has faced can be attributed in no small way, I think, to the lack of clarity, not only in the Ministry of Defence but, one suspects, also in the services following the Army's decision to reassess its helicopter requirements, having decided that the AST404 was not what it wanted.
I endorse the tributes already made in the debate to the service given by the armed forces, in particular by the Army. My first contact with the Army as spokesman for the Liberal party was during exercise Brave Defender when I went to Catterick to witness two exercises in the course of that major exercise. I was impressed by what I saw on that occasion. The Minister, in opening, emphasised the important role the home service force played in exercise Brave Defender. Although the opportunity was taken by the exercise to boost the visibility of the home service force, I think that it is important not to forget the important contribution made also by the Territorial Army.
Figures have been cited on recruitment into the Territorial Army to respond to the need for manpower in the services. Because of the decreasing birth rate in the 1960s, the number of possible recruits is declining.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who advocated conscription. That is not an option. It would be interesting to hear what the Government's thinking is on future manpower levels and what they hope to do to stimulate recruitment at a time when fewer people will be available.
As to the Gurkhas, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) visited the regimental headquarters of the Gurkhas in Nepal. He was concerned about the apparent lack of morale, due to uncertainty about the regiment's future, especially in light of the Hong Kong agreement. In view of the visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Nepal in the next four weeks, I think that a clear indication of the future size of the Gurkha regiments would be much appreciated.
Another matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill has raised on a number of occasions relates
1158
to our duty to service men of a former age, especially those involved in the early testing of nuclear weapons in Australia at Maralinga and Christmas Island. There is evidence that men suffered long-term medical effects because they were close to the explosions. A memo in the 1950s to the chief of staff's committee shows that the Army at that time was interested in the detailed effects of various explosions.
It is regrettable that we have arrived at this point without a proper assessment being made. I urge the Minister not only to look at the work of the National Radiological Protection Board in examining the medical records but to study the veterans themselves and their families to ascertain whether there have been any longer-term genetic effects as a result of their exposure to radioactivity. Those Australian service men who served alongside our forces have been given the opportunity to press their cases in the Australian courts, and have been successful on a number of occasions. However, in the United Kingdom because of the operation of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 that is not possible, and that is something that we would wish to see reviewed.
In relation to the Army, our main obligation is to maintain some 55,000 troops on the mainland of western Europe. We accept that to be the proper recognition of our commitment to its defence. I have not heard it mentioned that the period during which the annual increase in real spending on defence was to be 3 per cent. is now coming to an end. I suggest that we did not get enough credit from some of our NATO partners during the years when we were increasing that, but obviously that is now coming to an end, and this is an appropriate time to examine the position and future role of our armed forces, particularly in western Europe.
It is increasingly being said that NATO should lessen its dependence on nuclear weapons, particularly battlefield nuclear weapons. Battlefield nuclear weapons, particularly those situated close to the frontier, are the ones most likely to be used and carry us over the dangerous nuclear threshold. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) already has pointed out there has been a decision taken to reduce the numbers, and modernise those that are left. He put a question to the Minister, which we hope will be answered in the wind-up, as to what the United Kingdom view is on this, and whether we are participating in that modernisation programme.
There is fear of a perceived inability to resist a conventional attack by Warsaw pact forces which could lead to an early resort to nuclear weapons and subsequent escalation, which in turn could lead to the use of strategic nuclear weapons. We would wish to see adopted the proposals put forward in the Palme commission to create a battlefield nuclear-free zone in central Europe. It is something that we would hope could be negotiated bilaterally with the Warsaw pact countries, but if that was not the case, we believe that we should withdraw our battlefield nuclear weapons 150 km—95 miles—from the central zone frontier.
Mr. Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before he turned to his party's policies with regard to nuclear weapons he paid tribute to the British forces and to the state of the British Army of the Rhine. If the express desire of the alliance to have this nuclear-free zone were to come about, and it is one that we would all wish to see, what security could we offer to those of our service men

1159
who are based in BAOR? If an opposing force were to resort to a chemical weapon attack— and, as he well knows, this country gave up the stockpiling of chemical weapons—what protection would he offer those troops in our name?
Mr. Wallace: I would wish to negotiate a bilateral agreement on chemical weapons, and I understand that initiatives have been forthcoming in recent months from East Germany. That is something that our Government would be able to look at. In parallel with the withdrawal of battlefield nuclear weapons I believe that it should be the object of NATO strategy not to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons. That must mean that there is even greater importance to be attached to the effectiveness of our conventional forces, in terms not only of equipment and training, but to the increasing appropriateness of some of the emerging technologies.
This is a view that is beginning to come through more in discussions. The communiqué issued after the meeting of Ministers in Brussels in May last year said:
"The current disparity between NATO's conventional forces and those of the Warsaw Pact risks undue reliance on the early use of nuclear weapons. This would be an unacceptable situation which we are determined to avoid."
I very much hope that the Government will play their full part in ensuring that we are capable of resisting attack by non-nuclear means.
That leads us on to examine the question of our commitment to conventional weapons, and highlights the crisis in the defence budget that has already been referred to. The Economist in a report last year stated:
"The British Army is already the most poorly equipped of all the main armies on NATO's Central Front. It has less heavy artillery than the Dutch; fewer tanks than the French, the West Germans or the Americans (in Europe); and a lop-sided antiaircraft system based entirely on missiles—no guns at all. It needs more equipment than is now in its long-term plans, not less."
I think that that view has been echoed in other publications.
There are fears that the Ministry, particularly under the former Secretary of State, has tried to balance its budget by cutting back projects and by spinning out the purchase of equipment. We have already heard this evening the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) who spoke about this with reference to ammunition. There are fears, not only because of the shortage of ammunition but because of the cost of ammunition, that a number of exercises are curtailed or restrained.
That, inevitably, has an effect on the morale of serving men and officers. That, too, is being reflected by the number of people who have been leaving or retiring early from the armed forces. It is said that a tank regiment in Germany lost twice as many men in 1985 as it did in 1984. The forces feel that they are using old equipment which is less sophisticated than the new versions. Inevitably this will have an impact on the morale of those serving. It is a problem that is likely to get worse rather than better.
The cost of replacement and maintenance is generally reckoned to be in excess of the cost of inflation. If, as the recent public expenditure White Paper indicated, the amount of spending in real terms is to decrease — I accept that there will be a lessening amount committed to the Falklands—then if we have regard to the increases in costs that would seem to amount to a significant decrease in the purchasing capacity for conventional weapons.
1160
We believe that there is a need for a review of our options and our priorities. We would urge strongly from this alliance Bench that there is a need to take steps towards a more common procurement policy in liaison with out NATO allies. This is not only important because of the economic benefits but in terms of strategy. One suspects that the Warsaw pact manages to have its ammunition, weapons and transport fairly well coordinated, and I believe that we could be at a strategic disadvantage through a lack of matching up of the contributions from the various nation states of NATO. We would strongly urge that the Trident project should be scrapped because an even greater part of the defence equipment budget will be used up on that project in coming years. This will crowd out expenditure on conventional weapons, which we believe is necessary.
In answering an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, the right hon. Member for Llanelli said that the Labour party would maintain conventional spending if Trident were scrapped. The alliance would use the sums of money released through the scrapping of Trident to improve our conventional capabilities. That would give us the opportunity to raise the nuclear threshold. We believe that there should be that reallocation of funds.
We want initiatives to be taken to try to reduce our commitment of resources to the Falkland Islands. My alliance colleagues supported the Government in sending the task force to the Falkland Islands. They were right to do so. However, if we have won the war, we have lost the peace. Not only did we defeat Argentina on the Falklands issue but General Galtieri was defeated in his country, in the sense that democratic government was subsequently brought to Argentina. The position today differs fundamentally from the position when the task force was sent in. We shall miss a great opportunity if we do riot support the democratic Government in Argentina by entering in alks with them. Next month the visit to Britain by arliamentary group from Argentina through the offices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will provide us with a good opportunity. I hope that senior Ministers are prepared to meet that group so that we can begin a dialogue which can, in good time, lead to a smaller amount of resources being devoted to the Falklands.
It would be easy to say, especially in relation to Trident, that, if we scrap one thing, we can spend the money on building schools, hospitals and sporting facilities and providing pensions and social services-all essential and worthy items. I hope that I have made it clear that we advocate a policy of considerably increasing spending on conventional weapons. We shall not fall into the trap of promising all sorts of things. The need to improve our conventional capability is of the utmost importance, and we strongly urge the Government to address their minds to it.
8.12 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I listened carefully to the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. In such a wide-ranging debate, it is tempting to raise several important matters that concern the British Army, but I reassure the House that I shall restrain myself and limit my remarks to one such subject—the procurement of small arms ammunition. In this I have an interest, in that the one United Kingdom supplier of small arms

1161
ammunition to the Ministry of Defence is located at Radway Green in my constituency, which employs just under 2,500 people.
The factory was set up by the Ministry of Defence solely to supply its requirements. When the initial capital and manpower investment was made, there was no question of competitive tendering or, indeed, of privatisation. At present, production at Radway Green runs at 200 million rounds per year, with 98 per cent. of that production devoted to Ministry of Defence contracts and the remainder being work completed for other factories in the Royal Ordnance group.
In the past couple of years, output at the factory has doubled due to orders placed in response to the Falklands conflict, after which the national store cupboard for small arms ammunition was seriously depleted. In the words of the old nursery rhyme, the cupboard was bare. The factory is operating on a high plateau, having taken on additional personnel to ensure deliveries of the orders placed.
What is the future of Radway Green? I ask that question in the light of today's announcement of 831 redundancies at two other royal ordnance factories in the north of England. The Royal Ordnance company as a whole is in the middle of privatisation plans and is due to be floated in July this year. Potential investors are looking hard at the order books to see what sort of investment it will be. They will be horrified to see that, after 1 April 1986, there are no definite orders for the small arms division, except for the promise of one year's supply of the new 5.56 mm NATO ammunition, although, of course, negotiations with the Ministry are continuing.
I am confident that Radway Green will be successful and that other orders will follow to maintain production and employment at the factory; but the level of both in the future causes me and many others great anxiety. For example, I understand that the order for 9 mm ammunition has been lost to this country and will definitely be placed abroad—possibly with Portugal where labour rates are a quarter of ours, or with Greece or India, both of which could supply ammunition cheaply. But at what cost to our small arms manufacturing capacity will this ammunition be supplied? At what overall cost will it be to the taxpayer picking up the bill for those thrown out of work here as a result?
It may interest the House to know that foreign competition is invited to tender here for Ministry of Defence contracts, but the same facility is not available to our manufacturers. Our manufacturers have no opportunity to tender for similar contracts abroad. Therefore, the competitive tendering that is taking place is completely one-sided and puts our people at a grave disadvantage. The policy ensures that part of the home market, which is necessary for continued viability, is removed completely. Our competitors can supply cheaply, and they do, because they have a stable home market arms industry supplying their national needs. It is therefore easy for them to offer any surplus production at a ridiculously low price to win orders here, at our expense.
Is it a wise policy to open our market to competitors, to place orders abroad, the result of which will be to reduce the level of production in this country to uneconomic proportions? What of the saving to the taxpayer then? Surely the more sensible and pragmatic option is to place orders for our requirements for the British Army in the
1162
United Kingdom, enabling factories such as Radway Green to have a stable future and to continue to reorganise and become more efficient by reducing overheads and unit costs. To achieve that, a certain stable level of production is vital. The excuse, or the reason, for competitive tendering is that the taxpayer has an interest in getting good value for money. Every hon. Member and every person in Britain would agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. The cheapest is not necessarily the best value, as any housewife worth her salt will say. In the short term, it might be extremely appealing but, in the long term, it is often a disaster and usually costs much more.
It is, of course, strategically vital to maintain and to encourage our small arms manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. It has proved itself in the past to be reliable. It produces a quality product which the Army has come to expect and have confidence in. Deliveries can be made daily, if necessary, to top up supplies if an emergency occurs. Unlike what would happen with a foreign supplier from whom even larger supplies would be necessary to keep the store cupboard full if there are delivery difficulties, there are no difficulties in shipping, no dock strikes and no military equipment being impounded. Our home-based industry has so much more to offer. Radway Green, for example, is in a prime position, being linked into the rail network for ease of delivery to and from Longtown, near Annan, and to Kineton, the main Ministry of Defence store in Warwickshire.
What policy should be followed by the Government to ensure that our manufacturing capacity is retained and kept at a level that would ensure optimum value for the taxpayer in this price-conscious age? I have no hesitation in proposing that all orders should be placed in this country to enable unit costs to be brought down. Fewer orders and less work mean that unit costs rise. The worst of both worlds results because, at the end of the day, the only winners will be our foreign competitors and the losers will be the people of this country, once again.
I urge the Minister, with all the strength I can muster, to think long and hard before confirming so foolish a course, the results of which will not serve the best longterm interests of this nation. The best way that hon. Members and the Government can pay tribute to the service of our most excellent Army is to supply it with the best in arms and equipment produced, in the case of small arms ammunition, in this country by its fellow countrymen.
8.20 pm
Mr. Derek Conway: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in his intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State, made clear the concern about the standard of morale in our Regular forces. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the damage which can be done to morale when we mess around with the overseas allowances at short notice.
In answer to a question about that during Question Time towards the end of last year, my right hon. Friend covered the concern that is felt in many parts of our armed forces and the steps that the Government are taking to try to alleviate it. However, it still remains a factor, particularly for those in the armoured regiments which are perpetually posted overseas, particularly in the British Army of the Rhine.

1163
Those of us who have friends and relatives serving in the Regular forces appreciate the changes that are taking place in attitude particularly of those who reach the rank of senior NCO and hold commissions in our forces because those who find their bi-annual moves, along with their families and wives, a perpetual strain throughout their service career find that it becomes increasingly difficult if they have wives who wish to follow a career. Many of their wives have achieved a high standard of further education and find that the sacrifices in being married to a senior NCO or officer are very great when it comes to giving up the training they received before they married. I believe that that is becoming an issue in the Regular Army and is one to which the House and those who represent the House in the Ministry of Defence must address themselves.
I should particularly like to refer to the pensions problem because that is a matter of anxiety in many areas, particularly for those who have since retired from regular service. I believe that the Officers Pension Society performs a useful service for both sides of the House in campaigning for a better deal for those who have retired from our armed forces. Indeed, the disparities in the retired pay codes still exist and, although the position of widows has improved, the equality that I think we all wish to see in the retired pay codes and widows' pensions is not yet on the horizon. I very much hope that eventually it will be a Conservative Government who will introduce the equity which we all seek.
Normally, these debates provide an opportunity to refer to the Territorial Army with which I have been and remain involved. I am glad to see that during the short time that I have been a Member of the House the proportion of time spent by the House on the Territorial Army has improved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State devoted part of his opening speech to the expansion of the Territorial Army and its conditions, which it appreciates. I regret that that has not always been the case. I have suggested before in the Chamber that the attention given to the 30 per cent. staffing of our deployed force and the 50 per cent. proportion of the 1 (BR) Corps has not been sufficient.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's presence at the Ministry of Defence because he holds a territorial decoration. Therefore, we very much hope that we have a strong friend at court because of his experience in the Territorial Army. I hope that he will continue the expansion started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). It is an expansion which I believe will make increasingly good sense as we move towards the problems of diminishing population, particularly the young population. The expansion of the Territorial Anny from 59,000 when the Government came to power to the 86,000 planned by the turn of the decade will make a great difference to its deployment and ability to train. It will also put considerable pressures on the system, and I think that that is recognised in the Ministry of Defence.
My own battalion, the 5th battalion of the Light Infantry, is being split from its northern company to form the new 8th battalion. The good will that such a split requires on the part of those in the command structure and those who will soon be taking over is considerable, and I wish that all of my colleagues in the Government and other hon. Members could see the enthusiasm which is brought to that task. The enthusiasm does not come simply from those who were employed to carry out that task, but there is a positive enthusiasm from those of our Regular Army
1164
personnel on attachment to Territorial Army units. They all work to achieve the best possible organisation in the shortest possible time.
Certainly the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve Associations have played a valuable role in helping to smooth the difficulty of creating new units from existing units and new units in areas where perhaps there has not been a strong TA presence for many years.
Those of us who have served in the Territorial Army, or still do, and other reserve branches of the armed forces find the support of our wives a particularly important part of being allowed to continue to serve. The support of our employers is equally important and I am glad to say that the Whips Office is often helpful in ensuring that I can take part in my annual TA commitment. The appointment of Tommy Macpherson, who has served and commanded a Territorial Army unit and has a good record in business, is to be welcomed because the industrial community needs to be assured of the value of its personnel receiving some sort of military training. Often one sees advertisements by major national companies seeking the employment of young men who have served in the forces on a regular basis. That must say something for the training people receive in the armed forces, and that is equally true of the Territorial Army.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be aware that morale is high, not least because the standard of bounty and pay is good, but also because the support from the Regular forces to the TA is excellent and the training facilities improve weekly. That does not mean that the House can forget the public warning we received towards the end of 1985 when the director of the Territorial Army warned of the pressures being placed on the Regular Army with the expansion plan, particularly in the case of secondment of regular officers to TA units and the provision of senior NCOs and warrant officers to act as the SPSIs of Territorial Army battalions.
The most encouraging thing I have seen during my time with the Territorial Army is that we often have people posted to our battalions who have a long way to go in their Army career. Therefore, it is not a case of appointing Regular soldiers to TA units who are just filling out time towards the end of their career. That is an important policy which the Government are continuing, and I am sure it must pay dividends in ensuring that the expensive equipment that the Territorial Army has at its disposal is used to its maximum advantage.
In the past, debates on the Army have not been terribly acrimonious and I find that many Opposition Members strongly support the Territorial Army. When I had the privilege of serving with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the presence of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) was very welcome and he has been a great supporter of the Territorial Army. Therefore, I particularly regretted the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I intervened when he was speaking. I do not think that the British public see the armed forces of this country in a sinister light. There is a warning in his remarks and those of people of his ilk for members of my party and those on the Treasury Bench.
Unless we ensure that the armed forces maintain a community involvement and a strong presence in their county areas, the danger of such scaremongering can increase. It is important that we maintain local training areas, locally based garrisons and battalion bases so that

1165
they are not concentrated into one or two small parts of the United Kingdom, where the unjustified sinister attitude could develop, that, whenever we see the armed forces, a military coup is about to sweep aside our democracy.
The Army should continue to be very much a part of our civilian life. In Shropshire, we are fortunate in having not only the headquarters of Western District but several Territorial Army units, which will keep going the presence of our armed forces when we lose the services of the Light Division depot, which closes this year. I believe that Her Majesty the Queen Mother is to attend the closing ceremony.
The one Army concept is growing among Regular personnel, but it is also catching on in political quarters at the Ministry of Defence. I am glad to see that.
I should like to press a constituency interest. One of my constant themes is the need to get TA battalions committed to the British Army of the Rhine into armoured personnel carriers rather than the soft-skin vehicles allocated to them. My battalion is committed to BAOR, and that will be good for its protection. The wheeled protection could be the Saxon carrier which, by coincidence, is made in Shropshire. We see not only the attraction for the armed forces but, more important, the employment and economic attractions of developing an armoured protection policy for TA units based in NATO countries.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his assurance when I intervened. He said that our noble Friend Lord Trefgarne, the Minister of State for Defence Support in another place, is actively pursuing the problems of unemployed reserve force personnel whose pay is immediately stopped by the Department of Health and Social Security, although it can take some weeks before their TA pay catches up. I hope that those who serve under the Paymaster General do not believe that we are niggling at them. The system itself must take some time, while the pay sheets are handled at company battalion level and then passed on to the pay office for attention. There is an inevitable delay, but it is not a matter of efficiency or inefficiency. The system must simply come to terms. When our noble Friend examines that problem, perhaps he will have discussions with the Home Office. If firemen, who play a valuable role, become unemployed, they are exempt from the Department of Health and Social Security penalties that now apply to TA personnel. Some of my hon. Friends have raised that issue several times. I am delighted to hear that the Government are now pursuing the problem actively.
In the debate, the House has heard the suggestion that we could have a return to a form of national service in the TA. That view finds support in many quarters. I am not personally convinced that this country will ever be prepared to accept again a form of national conscription on a two-year basis, which we had until the early 1960s. However, some sort of military service is extremely valuable.
We might do well to look at the example of the Swiss nation, which has a form of conscription based on the TA concept. The Swiss undergo a 14-day consecutive training period and then go on a minimum number of weekends a year, when they can exercise and practise their military skills. The spin-off from such a system in this country would be welcomed by many young people. Central television allowed me to make a documentary for one of
1166
its programmes about serving in the TA on a conscription basis. A group of young people in Shrewsbury were chosen at random, and they were asked for their views. Because I was not personally involved in vetting those young people, to my great regret, I was expecting to find a pretty negative response to the thought that they might be whipped into an Army unit for 14 days' training. To my surprise, there was a positive reaction. In fact, most of those interviewed felt that they would welcome the opportunity for a short period of military training and believed that it would not be unreasonable for the country to ask them to be prepared to defend it and train for that purpose. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House with military experience will appreciate that it is not just military discipline but self-discipline that is so important for military training.
The one constant theme in my experience with the TA and the meetings that we have with the Regular personnel seconded to us is not only their determination, which I would expect from those who have chosen such a calling, but their ability and variety. They are not automatons by any stretch of the imagination, but have a great variety of attitudes to life.
It has been a privilege for me to serve in the 5th battalion of the Light Infantry. I wish that more hon. Members would take the opportunity to visit exercises such as Brave Defender to see the value to the community and the taxpayer of maintaining an active, well-trained and well-equipped TA. In that respect, the Government's record is superb, and I wish them well in continuing along that path.
8.37 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) speak with such force and effect about the value of a Territorial Army. I am sure that the House will endorse the view that he expressed.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the success of his scheme, administered by the Royal British Legion, for taking widows to visit the graves of their husbands. I know from a case in the Twickenham constituency that was handled by the Royal British Legion how greatly that scheme is appreciated by widows and by the Royal British Legion. I hope that it will continue, and will go from strength to strength. I am sure that it is the right, decent and honourable thing for us as a country to do for the widows of those who laid down their lives in the cause of freedom and peace.
I am glad to see on the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is to wind up the debate for the Opposition. I remind him that 20 years ago precisely this week the Hull, North by-election took place, when he won a famous victory against me, as the defeated Conservative candidate. At the time I minded about it very much, but, with hindsight, I am much relieved because that defeat gave me the opportunity to seek the privilege of representing the Twickenham constituency, and consequently the opportunity to speak tonight in support of the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall. On that I hope that the hon. Gentleman as well as the Minister will support me.
The training of British Army bands is important for our country. The high standard of excellence of British Army bands is the envy of the world. They lift the spirits of our nation. They add splendour to our royal and state

1167
occasions. They are one of our finest traditions. They enhance morale in the Army. With the bands in the other services, they promote recruiting. As part of the traditional British scene, they help to attract to our shores visitors whose spending helps the tourist trade and thus promotes employment. It is not easy to measure the financial and fiscal effects. There are fiscal effects, because there is a tax return to the Government. Those financial effects
undoubtedly exist, and should not be left out of consideration.
The tremendously high standard of British Army bands is linked inextricably to the famous and prestigious name of Kneller hall, the Royal Military School of Music at Whitton in the Twickenham constituency. As a centre of excellence, it is world-renowned. Indeed, 15 to 20 per cent. of its pupils and trainee band masters pay to come from Commonwealth and other overseas countries. They come not only because the school is in Britain but because it is Kneller hall, with its special name.
All that was put at risk by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for Defence to set up a tri-service music school at Deal. Even when that decision was made, Deal was not the cheapest option, and the cost has since shot up dramatically.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was kind enough to see me about Kneller hall on Tuesday 21 January 1986. I told her how that institution is greatly cherished in my constituency; how up to 5,000 people attend each of the summer concerts; how the Kneller hall bands play locally to schools and groups of old people and at civic occasions. I told my right hon. Friend how the bands play carols to Christmas shopping crowds and how Kneller hall stands on the only hill in the district with its Union Jack flying. I also told her that a total of 18,679 people had signed two petitions run by the Kneller hall action group and the Whitton Conservative association.
Of the two petitions sent to the Prime Minister in an attempt to save the school of music at Kneller hall, one read:
"We the undersigned, being residents of the area surrounding Kneller hall, Twickenham, and supporting the persistent efforts of the Member of Parliament Mr. Toby Jessel and the Whitton ward Conservative councillors to save the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall request the Prime Minister to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to reconsider his decision to merge training of Army, Air Force and Royal Marine bands, and in view of the enormous contribution the Royal Military School of Music makes in this area, to leave it at Kneller hall."
I mentioned to the Prime Minister the support I had on this issue from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and lsleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). Kneller hall is on the edge of my right hon. Friend's constituency and he, as a Minister, has made his views and the views of his constituents well known behind the scenes. I also told my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I had the support of other colleagues, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr.
Hanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Royal Air Force bands are trained in his constituency. He has therefore become very familiar with this matter.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for mentioning to the House my interest in this matter and in particular the Royal Air Force
1168
school of music at Uxbridge. I confirm what my hon. Friend says about the great anxiety which the Public Accounts Committee has about the escalating cost of providing an alternative to the three existing schools of music and the proposal to combine them into a single defence school of music. I hope that my hon. Friend will elaborate on that in the course of his remarks.
Mr. Jessel: I know that my hon. hon. Friend took an active part in the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday 4 December 1985 which I attended. As I am not a member of the Committee, I do not know what the draft of the Committee's report, due to be published next month, contains. However, I was present on 4 December when, for an hour, the Committee questioned Sir Clive Whitmore, the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence. The Committee also questioned an official from the Treasury for a short time. I heard the questions and replies given in respect of the memorandum by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the subject of defence schools of music. If what took place on 4 December is anything to go by, it seems likely that the Public Accounts Committee may criticise the decision by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley to move the school to Deal, now that there is no significant financial advantage in that.
I would like to quote a reply given by Sir Clive Whitmore in paragraph 507 of the Public Accounts Committee report:
"Table 3 brings out quite clearly that there is not really very much difference between the costs of continuing with the present system"—
that is, with the RAF training at Uxbridge, the Royal Marines at Deal and the Army at Twickenham—
"and the cost of going to Deal."
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report shows that the capital cost of works at Deal has increased from £5·8 million to £10·6 million. That broadly offsets any saving on revenue account from merging the three together. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report show that, in respect of the 15 years from 1985 to the year 2000, on the present system the cost of capital and revenue taken together would be £32·8 million and the cost of going to Deal would be £31·8 million. That would amount to a saving of approximately £1 million spread over 15 years which would be about £60,000 a year—the total cost of employing two colonels. That is a small amount in relation to the amount of destruction the move would cause. That amount is, as Sir Clive confirmed when questioned, well within the margin of error.
The costs of making changes to Victorian buildings, which would happen at Deal, could rise higher than the present figure. It is like writing a blank cheque. I hope that the new figures will cause the Government to take a fresh look at the situation in the spirit of trying to see what can be done to save Kneller hall rather than look for reasons why it cannot be saved. I regret that that does not seem to be the approach adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The noble Lord gives the impression, whenever I discuss the issue with him, that he prefers to press on regardless of the new figures and the strong feeling on the matter in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. The noble Lord wants to try to cut the figure from £10·6 million on capital works at Deal back to the £5·8 million, which was the previous figure, although until 4 December 1985 that figure had never been published.

1169
I believe that that cannot be done without an unacceptable cut in standards. This is a key point of my argument. High standards are absolutely essential in military music. One cannot let the standards of military music slip. The music of a military band must be crisp, precise, strong and clear. Its value depends on those qualities. Without them, a military band is virtually useless. A blurred and ragged sound of music coming from a military band would be a pointless exercise.
I should like to quote from a letter which I sent to the Public Accounts Committee and which I believe will appear as an appendix to the report to be published next month:
"On 1 August I asked the Secretary of State for Defence 'what is the main purpose of providing a tri-service defence school in a single location'? Mr. Lee replied `the defence school of music will be cheaper to run than the present system of separate service schools. It will provide better musical facilities than those currently available, thus enhancing the services' high standards of musicianship'."
In his letter my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) continued:
"I assure my hon. Friend that no decision about service musical training will be taken that puts at risk the standards or quality of any of the service bands. We wish to maintain those standards. Indeed, we wish to ensure that the facilities provided for that training are improved, not the reverse."
I believe that the standards of musical training cannot be upheld, let alone improved, if there is a move to Deal. Kneller hall's high standards would be impaired and there are at least three main reasons for that.
First, the standard of training in performance on musical instruments at Kneller hall derives benefit from the presence of London-based instructors, either professors from music academies in London or expert players from London symphony orchestras who go to Kneller hall on a part-time basis. They have the highest standards. Some of them might go the 80 miles to Deal, but not as many as would go the 12 miles from central London to Kneller hall. It surely cannot be argued that the professors already at Deal for Marine band training could cope with the influx of all the Army band training. There are four or five times as many army bands as Marine bands. There would be a drop in tuition standards.
It is no good saying, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement did, that there would be "suitable" instruction. We do not need what is "suitable" for the training of our military bands, but what is the best.
Secondly, recruits are partly attracted to military bands by the prospect of being taught by the Kneller hall instructors, because they want training that they can use, not just in the service but later when they become civilians again. They are also attracted to Kneller hall because it is world-renowned. It has a splendid bandstand where students perform before audiences of up to 5,000 people. That is a testing experience and a stimulus. It is made possible because 3 million people live within about 10 miles of Kneller hall, whereas only about a 20th or 30th of that number live within 10 miles of Deal. Students would not then have the stimulus of large audiences.
Deal has no bandstand and no concert hall. I believe that the figure of £10·6 million for capital works includes the construction of a bandstand or a concert hall. If that
1170
figure is to be reduced, what will be left out? Will it be the bandstand, the concert hall or, what are just as important, practice rooms?
The proposed site at Deal is a barracks. It consists largely of barrack rooms. People learning to play a musical instrument must have an individual practice room. They cannot learn in a barrack room with six other soldiers playing different musical instruments and different pieces. A trainee must listen to his own playing to improve his standard. That cannot be done properly in a barrack room. If standards are not to be lowered, there must be a great deal of construction at Deal. A joint defence school of music at Deal, or anywhere else, would need a great deal of capital expenditure on practice rooms.
When the report of the Publics Accounts Committee is published next month, I hope that the Government will consider its contents with an open mind. Unless it can be shown that there will be a substantial and certain saving and a guarantee that standards will be upheld, it would be wrong to put at risk the first-class standards of the internationally famous institution which is Kneller hall.
8.53 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I seek the indulgence of the House for entering the Chamber late this evening. I have been in Committee on the Gas Bill for many hours. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will forgive my late intervention.
I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) about the importance of military music and Kneller hall with its tradition of excellence. I have known Kneller hall for many years. Recently in my constituency the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association held a celebration concert and Kneller hall's standard of music was exceptional.
Many of us blow trumpets in favour of the campaign that my hon. Friend has taken to his heart. I have never played a trumpet, but when I was in the combined cadet force I played a tuba and rose to the dizzy rank of company sergeant-major. That, apart from a short period as a pilot officer in the Cambridge university air squadron, is the sum of my military experience.
I have the honour to represent a heavily militarised constituency. I pay tribute to the civilian back-up of our military operations. That is often forgotten. Not least, of course, there is the headquarters of the United Kingdom land forces at Wilton, upon which we depend heavily. There are other establishments such as the Arms and Armaments Experimental establishment at Boscombe Down, the Larkhill ranges and Porton Down establishment which provide not just a great deal of employment but an enormous reserve of loyalty whenever it is needed. The people who work there are unsung heroes with what they achieve.
I am sorry that I missed the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I should have liked to have heard their comments about the Falklands and conscription. I caught the end of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and I endorse what he said about the Territorial Army.
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the options available for Great Britain's military strategy. There was an article in The Sunday Times presenting various options for economy, in particular. There was one important mistake and a misconception in that article

1171
which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham. They related to the Falkland Islands. The new force levels for the Falkland Islands which no doubt will be announced soon will be welcome in a number of places. It will mean that the expense of the Falkland Islands garrison will be considerably reduced.
I understand that Mount Pleasant airport will pay for itself within a couple of years because we shall need to keep fewer troops on the islands. That will, however, be a mixed blessing. Important training opportunities on the Falkland Islands will be lost for many people. We must appreciate the huge success of the tri-service nature of the military operation on the Falkland Islands which is making a real contribution to our defence experience, as I saw there just before Christmas.
This country needs to rethink its position on military conscription. We are in danger of being overtaken by events in the form of the popular television programme "Yes, Prime Minister" with its characterisation of conscription. However, as we have heard recently, fact is often stranger than fiction. Conscription is the most radical option which is often forgotten when we discuss the future of defence. There are many social benefits which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends. We should remember that every other European Community country, except Ireland, recognises the benefit of military conscription. I believe it would be far more beneficial than a costly bureaucratic extension of community service which has been outlined by one of the opposition parties. That proposal received a frosty welcome in the press, including a leader in The Times.
The voluntary sector in Britain is almost unique among the European countries. It is advanced, it is popular, well subscribed and well supported. To suggest national service of a community service nature would crowd out that sector. I do not wish to be misunderstood, but the remarkable success of community service orders issued by the courts would, I suspect, be jeopardised if we confused the issues and suggested that some form of national service or conscription was similar to the penal option which is now available for young people.
There is much serious thought on the question of financing the defence of Britain. Senior and middle ranking service officers, through their own experience of recruiting for their regiments and their own training experience, believe that we cannot leave out the idea of military conscription. There are regiments, the Parachute Regiment in particular, which reckon that they can turn tough recruits of comparatively tender age into competent soldiers within a few months. It is hard reality and hard experience. It is certainly not blimpish dogma wishing to go back to the era of square bashing and the spit and polish of toe caps.
Why is it that many of us, myself included, have only recently become converts to this idea? I suspect that it is because politicians have swallowed the quite understandable line of the military establishment that it would be a retrograde step, not to mention sheer hard work, to go back to a system which was abandoned in the 1960s. There is a great deal of institutional inertia in the military establishments. How long will it be before politicians are forced to reconsider military conscription? If one extrapolates the figures of pay and pensions in the services, one finds that pay and pensions are consuming a growing and, I believe, insupportable proportion of the defence budget.
1172
A more professional military establishment would develop if a highly trained group of professional soldiers could rely upon a wider group of conscripts. Only last weekend one commanding officer told me that the rate of coming and going of private soldiers in his regiment was so great that he would not notice if there were conscripts.
If this country chose to pursue a non-nuclear strategy, which, in my view, is militarily unrealistic, it would force a return to conscription even sooner than we could plan for. That would lead to a massive increase in the defence budget much earlier than we could deal with.
I do not think that this is an outrageous suggestion, arid anyone who suggests that it is is ignorant of the role of national service men in our military history over the past 40 years. Undoubtedly the expansion of the Territorial Army is a stride in the right direction. Why not take a radical leap down that road? Conscription is a harsh reality with a proven record in European countries of all political persuasions. I merely ask the House to start thinking about it as a proper option for the future.
9.3 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: As is usual on these occasions, we have had a very wide-ranging debate. May I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for his kind words of congratulations to mark my 20 years in the House. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the date when I first took my seat [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is very kind. I am thinking of how different parties reward their members. In my party I got the Humber bridge but the hon. Member for Twickenham has lost Kneller hall.
Mr. Jessel: Not yet.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman appears to be losing Kneller hall. The hon. Gentleman only spent a brief time in Yorkshire but when he was up there he learnt that great Yorkshire characteristic of doggedness. The way the hon. Gentleman has pursued this matter—he has challenged and taken on the establishment and his right hon. and hon. Friends—shows how a good constituency Member can work for the interests of his constituents on an issue about which he feels passionately. We have a degree of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and think that he has made a sound case but we have restrained ourselves from supporting him because that would immediately damn any chance he has of succeeding in changing the mind of his right hon. and hon. Friends. However, we hope that he will be successful.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is not here as it was good to hear him taking part in a defence debate rather than sitting directly opposite me and muttering under his breath such things as, "You are going over the top again, Kevin." It was good to hear about his experiences. He paid a moving tribute to his former political chief. We would not endorse all, if any, of what he said, but he had a colourful Secretary of State who obviously gave him great opportunities as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. It is always good to have such a relationship.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about the Australians and the effect of atomic tests at Maralinga. An Australian senator has been over here in connection with those tests, on behalf of the Australian Government. Although we do not accept any

1173
commitment to a set figure of compensation, the Opposition believe that the Government should co-operate positively with the Australian Government in those inquiries rather than stand at the sidelines tendering occasional advice, because Australia is a fellow Commonwealth country and because we were involved in those tests. They were our tests and we cannot wash our hands of their ramifications. British service men were involved and there is a moral obligation to co-operate.
I found the Minister's speech somewhat disconcerting. He properly paid tribute to the role of our forces and to the Territorial Army. The whole House agrees with that, but the picture of morale that he painted had even his Back Benchers shaking their heads in disagreement. Morale in the British Army is not high and people are leaving in considerable numbers. The Minister might say that the problem is not as bad as when Labour was in government. That might be so but, by the Government's own criteria, the problem was bad then, and they are fast approaching similar circumstances.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) talked of a commanding officer saying that soldiers are in and out of the regiment so quickly that he would not notice if they were conscripts. That demonstrates the Army's problems. A Ministry of Defence source was quoted in the newspapers recently as saying:
"There has been continuous growth in the number of people leaving early".
That exodus is a direct result of budgetary constraints imposed by Trident and the Government's overall defence policy in which there are too many commitments, too many expensive projects and not enough money. There are fewer people in the armed forces to do more work and they spend more time on base. Budgetary constraints have meant that pilots, tank drivers and members of the armed forces generally are unable to exercise properly or to use their equipment correctly. In the first place, most service men join to see action.
Budgetary constraints cannot help the army's morale. According to The Sunday Times of 19 January, more than twice as many service men left a regiment in Germany in 1985 as in the previous year. Those figures mirror the problem in the other services. The men and women who are leaving the Army are highly trained. Normally, they would be expected to be highly motivated. They are difficult to replace. At the same time, in a surprisingly penny-pinching way, the Government cut the local overseas allowance in Germany by £17 million. Only six jet pilots need to be lost before that saving has disappeared. In terms of the highly skilled personnel in electronics and computers, who are now leaving the services, that saving has been lost to the nation. That is no way to run the armed services.
The Government say that they are doing what we have done in the past. However, Labour Members believe that we can learn from our mistakes. The Government are perpetuating our mistakes. I received a letter from a member of the 17th/21st Lancers. Many hon. Members have received similar letters. I have never received so many letters from members of the armed forces on an issue as I have complaining about the cut in the local overseas allowance. The letter states:
1174
"As a volunteer single soldier the wage cuts announced on April 11 have the effect of cutting my annual take-home pay by one month's worth. The annual loss calculated at today's fixed forces rate of exchange will be approximately"
£350 a year for a trooper or lance-corporal and £440 for a corporal. He continues by saying that they joined the Army for three reasons: quality of life, the leave, and the pay. He further states:
"It is only when all three get out of balance that I begin to wonder about my future as a professional soldier. The quality of life is difficult to assess: certainly we are busier than ever before. The accommodation is, in my case, a thirty year old 'temporary' bungalow hut and I pay for this and my food. As the pace of life increases it has become increasingly difficult for me to take my leave. Certainly I can't always take it when I would prefer it. This latest cut in my pay gives me no incentive to carry on. Certainly it removes any recompense for soldiering in Germany."
It is no excuse for the Government to say that they are bringing matters into line or that service men should have known that those are the regulations. Those are real cuts for a single soldier buying a motor bike or a car or for a married man hoping to save up for a house. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out, any wage increase received by soldiers last year was cut as a direct result of the removal of the local overseas allowance.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the Gurkhas. They have had an outstanding history in our Army during the past 170 years. During the second world war the Gurkhas lost 45,000 men. We have an obligation to the Nepalese to make our position clear about the future of the Gurkha regiments. We have been told that they will have a continuing role after we leave Hong Kong, but the number of battalions required has not been revealed. Discussions are going on with the Nepalese Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has said in the past, we have a debt of honour to that country. The money that goes to that improverished Himalayan kingdom in the form of remittances, pay and pensions is one third of the country's foreign exchange and an important element in the budget of that Himalayan country. We should be very worried about it.
At present, Westland is the only subject of our conversations, but two months ago there was another debacle that rivalled Westland for bungling and incompetence. That was the aftermath of the Cyprus spy trial. The trial left the taxpayer with a bill for £5 million and left the careers of at least eight men in ruins—eight men who were acquitted on all charges.
The atmosphere surrounding the trial left many questions that remain to be answered, and not only questions about the security of the defence installation at 9 Signals Regiment. It has raised questions about the way in which we treat our service men and their rights. It raises the question of the attitude of the services towards homosexual conduct and the way in which homosexuals are treated. Secondly, it raises a question about the manner in which the Army treats service men who are under suspicion. Thirdly, it raises questions about the way in which service men's rights are represented in general. Fourthly, it raises questions about the way in which they are represented in court and the decision as to the court in which they should face trial. Fifthly, it raises the question of the way in which service men are treated after they have been tried.
Of course, the Calcutt inquiry will consider some of those matters and the Select Committee on Defence will examine the composition of courts-martial and the way in which they are run, but some other matters still worry us.

1175
Since the trial, a number of service men and ex-service men—some from 9 Signals Regiment and some from other units—have contacted me with stories of equally harsh treatment to that meted out to the eight men who were acquitted at the Old Bailey. From replies to written questions to the Ministry of Defence I have learnt that since the inquiry began into the alleged breaches of security at 9 Signals Regiment, 121 men have been discharged from the regiment, 83 of them prematurely. I have similar figures for other regiments in that sensitive area.
It is possible that some of those service men found other jobs; some may have been discharged on medical grounds; and some may have had enough of service life. Even so, those numbers are rather excessive—121 men represents about one third of the strength of the unit. That is a guess, because, although I asked for the number of men in the unit, I was told that for security reasons it could not be revealed. My information is that it represents about one third. The Ministry of Defence will not specify how many have been discharged for administrative or medical reasons. It says that it would cost too much to provide those figures; yet in the aftermath of the costly Cyprus spy trial we must have that information.
Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: I have not yet finished my argument on this aspect. I am not talking about the jury in that trial, but about the facts and figures that have been given to me.
The service men who wrote to me alleged that they were asked to leave the Army and that there has been a general purge of the regiment, as well as similar units, following the Cyprus trial. No one can deny the importance of security at sensitive military establishments, and one recognises the need for the Ministry of Defence to get rid of people who are not right for the tasks to which they have been assigned. But the Ministry has a duty to come clean about why it is doing it, and should remember that those soldiers also have human rights.
Some of the service men have been asked to leave after years of service with exemplary records. They are dismissed under Queen's Regulations 1975, paragraph 9.414, which is headed, "Services no longer required". It deals with the discharge of a soldier,
"who cannot or should no be transferred to the Reserve, or discharged, under any other paragraph. It will not normally be used for compassionate reasons, loss of efficiency, indebtedness, indiscipline, misconduct or medical unfitness."
It is the catch-all paragraph which says, "We do not want you here." Soldiers are asked to sign a document which states:
"I, Number, Rank, Name, Initial, Regiment Corps, understand that my discharge under 1975 para. 9.414 is being sought".
Paragraph b. states
"I do not intend to represent against discharge under the above paragraph either now or in the future."
Soldiers are being asked to go, not told the reason why, and told not to kick in the future. Some soldiers have refused to sign that document. Obviously, that is no way to treat volunteers. It is no right to deny them their human rights in a way that would not be acceptable to any public or private employer in civilian life.
A serving soldier who contacted me said that he and other service men had lost their security certification with no reason being given, and had been transferred from highly trained jobs to mundane support jobs. That may be
1176
in an attempt to ease them from the service. Another service man who has been discharged said that he had been harassed by plain clothes police after leaving the service, and that his passport had been confiscated. Yet at no time were charges brought against him. Other service men were accused of being homosexual and subjected to interrogation, and ridicule from colleagues, although they were heterosexual.
The spy trial has clearly had an adverse effect on many men besides the eight who were acquitted. None of those men could clear his name.
Mr. Jessel rose—
Mr. McNamara: I have every respect for a British jury, and that answers the hon. Gentleman's likely intervention.
The men are not permitted under Queen's Regulations to contact the press, and they must seek the permission of the services to do so, even after they have left. Even if one assumes that homosexuality was the cause, it raises questions. There was a sad case in the King's Regiment of a man murdering another man who said that his homosexuality was going to be revealed. The men in the spy trial have been acquitted and the evidence of their having been present at various homosexual orgies thrown aside. Even if that charge will lead to a murder verdict, or make someone who otherwise has a splendid character in the forces liable to blackmail and to pass secrets, we have reason to consider how homosexuals are treated in the armed force. However, that does not deal with various points that arise from the Cyprus spy trial, in which many of the people involved were not homosexuals.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was not accurate when he said that Britain was the only country with a division between the services on responsibility for battlefield helicopters. Australia and Greece have the same sort of division. However, he was right to point out the consequences of that division. It is impossible for both services to present a united front in deciding what to demand. If we did not have a conflict between the services, much of the Westland affair would never have arisen because there would have been a clearly defined target. Obviously, there will be confusion if the money for the helicopters is to come from the RAF Vote, while they are operated by the Army. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that it is time to end the conflict. The logical and sensible way to proceed is for all battlefield helicopters to be the responsibility of the Anny Air Corps.
Will the Minister assure us that, despite the Westland debacle, the collaboration on the NH90 and future light attack helicopters will still proceed? We have been told to listen to arguments from two large private organisations seeking to gain control of Westland's helicopter company. In part of what it is doing Westland is at the forefront of technology. Had we been in Government, we would have taken a large share in that company, sufficient to give us time to work out a solution to the problem. We have done that successfully in the past. We took over Ferranti, cured its problems and got it going to such an extent that it became a jewel to be sold off by the present Government. That is what we would have done in this case, but that is not an option the Government are prepared even to consider.
If we want to be allies of the United States and not satellites, either in military or in technological terms, it

1177
would be far better to go ahead positively with the European alternative. That holds out hope for our industry and would create a degree of competition that the Government should like. It would be better to have two rival suppliers of helicopters rather than one American supplier—even though there are a number of companies in America—and a European option would prevent us losing important technology in the United Kingdom. That was the theory behind the European option agreement made in 1978 by my right hon. Friend Lord Mulley, the former Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Ashdown: I will skate lightly over the fact that by his remarks the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has put the Labour party on the same side as the large financial institutions and against the work force. That is a strange paradox. He mentioned a short-term intervention, and I welcome that because it coincides with our view. Will he repudiate the view put forward by some Members of his party for full-scale nationalisation of Westland? That was rejected by the Labour party when it was in power and considered these matters.
Mr. McNamara: The wholesale nationalisation of Westland has never been put forward by the Opposition. If it was necessary for us to take a commanding share of that company to protect it and build it up and maintain the technology, we would do that. On occasions, even large financial institutions may be right. We want to control them because when we do that they will always be right.
It is not anti-American to support the European option. It springs from our desire to see that European countries continue to play a full and proper role in the Alliance and are not seen as satellites of the United States. That more than anything would brown off the American taxpayers, who would not then want to play a great part with us.
In the last White Paper we were told we were to have a sixth regiment equipped with Challenger tanks. Everybody was delighted, not least the workers at Leeds. Then by a sleight of hand the tank order was suddenly dropped from 70 to about 55, and the order that eventually went to Leeds was for less than 20 tanks rather than the number the work force had reasonably expected. The Minister of State said "I will leave all these procurement if s to my right hon. Friend and he will deal with them when he is winding up." He was talking about half a dozen regiments equipped with Challenger tanks, jobs in Radway Green, and orders for munitions. If there is not a continuation of orders at Leeds the production line for those tanks and jobs will be put at risk. We have lost 800 jobs in the royal ordnance factories. If we do not get the order for tanks we shall probably lose more jobs in Leeds.
At Radway Green jobs are at risk; at Birtley jobs have gone; at Leeds jobs are threatened. The explosives factories at Bridgwater and elsewhere are threatened. Yet this is the Government who said that they would make the royal ordnance factories an attractive proposition in which people could invest. The job losses and the orders that are not going to the preferred places are considerably weakening the royal ordnance factories. The Government seem to be almost deliberately bent on getting rid of as many jobs as possible. They want, through competition, to drive out many of the jobs available in those factories so that when the company goes public it will have a
1178
considerably reduced labour force. That is what we warned against and we can see it happening to the detriment of our armed forces. That is why we are particularly concerned.
When the design drawings are sent by the Ministry of Defence to the competitors of the royal ordnance factories, they also show the methods of production. Under the legislation the Ministry of Defence has kept a proprietary interest in the drawings and the problem arises when it sends all the information to other companies.
I am told that at one time it was intended to put in the turrets of the Challenger and Chieftain tanks an automatic sprinkler system in case of fire. But to save a paltry amount of a few thousand pounds—candle ends—the Ministry of Defence decided against that. So the men in the turrets will be left with hand-held fire extinguishers. When one compares the shortness of time available to get out of the tanks with the value of human life, that decision should be reconsidered by the Department.
We have had a wide-ranging debate. It has come out very clearly that hon. Members on all sides want a complete re-examination of the Government's priorities and commitments. They are seeking to do too much. They have not got the money or the ability to carry out many of their commitments. They will not be in a position to do so while they continue with their foolish, pro-nuclear, Trident policy. The money will not be available and we shall end up with the weapon of last resort being the weapon of first resort because our conventional forces, including the Army, will be sadly at a loss to carry out the important role that we seek for them.
9.33 pm
The Minster of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): I have to confess that this is the first time I have attended an Army debate. Indeed, when I was thinking about today's debate I remembered reading that Lord Haldane, when he became Secretary of State for War, sent out a memorandum in his Ministry asking, "What is the Army for?" That was how I felt this morning. Having listened to so many speeches, I am much better informed, although I am alarmed at the number of my hon. Friends who seem to have been Gunners, Green Jackets and Territorials. I feel as though I am a new sort of Bateman cartoon — a Conservative Member of Parliament who has never been in the Army.
There was a certain amount of enthusiasm for the reorganisation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) initiated within the Ministry of Defence. Hon. Members felt it was a good thing to end some of the inter-service rivalry, but not of course when it came to our debates. That was a tradition that had to continue. Of course, not having been a participant in these debates, I could not immediately see the logic, but I accept what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) said. He spoke adamantly on this point, so it must be right.
I should like to deal with a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I am sorry that I missed his speech. It is the question, far removed from most of the ground covered by the debate, of the nuclear weapons test programme carried out by the United Kingdom in Australia and the south Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps I can repeat what we have said before:

1179
we remain confident that the tests were properly carried out with due regard to the safety of all participants. We do not believe that the health of those people was harmed. We recognise, however, that there is a general concern about this issue, and that is why we have commissioned the survey by the National Radiological Protection Board. The hon. Gentleman said that we should not walk away from this and that we had a responsibility in it. He may know that we have begun discussions with the Australian Government. Last week I met Senator Evans, the Australian Minister for Resources and Energy. I am glad to say that our initial discussions with the Australians were constructive and amicable.
There are differences. We do not accept that we have a responsibility for further clean-up work on the test sites, following earlier agreements with the Australian Government; but the Australian Government have decided that the first step should be to set up a technical assessment group to advise on a wide range of options to clean up the test sites. The United Kingdom fully accepts its obligation to provide advice on such matters, and the Australian Government intends to visit British experts to join its technical assessment group.
I turn now to some of the more central themes of the debate, and in particular to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) when he opened the debate. He got himself into a very strange position on defence spending. He started off by telling us that spending on the conventional part of defence was inadequate because of Trident and because of "defence inflation", as he put it. He seemed to have forgotten some of the things said by some of his own Front Bench colleagues, including the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who on 2 July 1985 remarked:
"The Opposition have made it clear that we would not have increased defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms for the past six years."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 208.]
In other words, he is prepared to say that there is not enough now but they would never have voted for the increases that we made We all know that only a small part of that increase in defence spending is actually going on nuclear weapons.
The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would not increase spending on conventional weapons. He would just hold it where it was. At the same time, he wanted to talk about the deterrent effect of conventional weapons. On the one hand, he was going to give up the best value-for-money deterrent that we can get—Trident—and,on the other, simply maintain conventional spending at the same level.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to follow-on forces attack—FOFA. As I understand it, this is not a new issue. NATO has long had the capability of interdicting second echelon forces, and that was the position when the Labour party was in power. The longterm planning guidelines approved by the Alliance over a year ago reflect NATO's objective of improving its conventional capability to strike follow-on forces.
The right hon. Gentleman was also probably getting it wrong when he linked this issue with the nuclear threshold. The whole point, as I understand it, of the follow-on forces attack doctrine is to prevent an aggressor from using his second echelon forces and thus to prevent
1180
ourselves from being drawn into a position where we had to use tactical nuclear weapons. I think the premise of what was said was wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman asked also about the modernisation of battlefield nuclear weapons. My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State made the position on this quite clear on 22 November last year. SACEUR has made a number of recommendations to Ministers about the future size and composition of NATO's nuclear stockpile including those weapon systems in service with the British Army in Germany. These will be pursued by SACEUR, in co-ordination with the nations concerned. No decisions have been made affecting the modernisation of weapon systems in service with British forces, but we expect to begin discussions with SACEUR in the spring about their longer term survivability and effectiveness.
Quite a large part of the debate has been taken up by the royal ordnance factories. The royal ordnance factories have an excellent record of providing the Army and the other services with equipment of the highest quality. I have no doubt that, as Royal Ordnance plc, it will not only continue but will improve on this record. As it increasingly learns to operate in a commercial environment, I am sure that the company will offer the armed forces better value for money, as well as high quality. It is the Goverment's hope that the company can move to the private sector in mid-1986, subject to the usual caveats of trading performance and stock market conditions.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for the fact that he did not receive the letter which I thought he had received about the redundancies. I want to reply directly to the points he has raised in the debate. As he knows, a number of redundancies have been announced today at Birtley and Chorley. The total number is 831, consisting of 446 at Birtley and 385 at Chorley. I understand that this number is a maximum; the actual number is likely to be rather less. Naturally, we regret that this has been necessary, but I have to stress that employment prospects at any factory have always depended on the order book and the profitability of the individual factory.
The Ministry of Defence's responsibility must be to provide sufficient equipment and ammunition to meet the requirements of the armed services and at prices which represent good value to the taxpayer. It cannot he the Ministry of Defence's responsibility simply to sustain employment in Royal Ordnance plc or in any other company. It is up to the company to create its own success.
Another point which I have to make to the hon. Member for Blaydon and to other hon. Members interested is that ammunition orders in recent years have been at an unusually high level. This reflects a number of factors—the Falklands, enhancements, particularly of the Territorial Army, and a number of export orders. That is the main reason why the output of the royal ordnance factories is declining after a very high peak.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have referred to competition policy, and wondered what part that has played. It is our intention that we should increase—I think absolutely rightly — the extent to which ammunition is going to be subject to competition, but we are introducing this policy gradually. There are many areas where competition is simply not practical. This year, for example, we are going to competition for only about 10 per cent. of the requirement which the royal ordnance

1181
factories would otherwise have met under the preferred source arrangement. Next year,this will rise to about one quarter. I assure the House that we purchase from overseas only when it is in our long-term interest to do so.
Of course, the point which hon. Members will immediately make is: what about strategic capacity? We do take that into account—we are looking at the issue of strategic capacity. In the run-up to flotation, this is one of the things which we are discussing and negotiating with the company. There is a level of capacity which we have to maintain for strategic reasons.
Despite having my thunder stolen—I think my hon Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) managed to make the announcement for me from the Back Benches —I am pleased to announce that we have awarded a contract to royal ordnance Chorley to supply 105 mm field gun ammunition. This will create some work for royal ordnance Birtley in the manufacture of the shell bodies. This will enable Royal Ordnance plc to make some reduction in the number of redundancies that would otherwise be made. The contract is for 23,000 rounds, which is what we need to order now to maintain supply to the Army. We are considering the suitability of an alternative manufacturer of shells.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) referred to a number of other specific points with reference to RO Birtley. I think he knows that our orders for the 155 mm ammunition for the FH70 are governed by an agreement with Germany and Italy, which ensures that each country receives its fair share of work. To meet this requirement, our recent order was placed in Germany, and production deliveries are expected to start shortly.
It is true that there has been some delay in the start of full production of this order. Deliveries were due to start in October last year. United Kingdom and West German ammunition experts are now completing their evaluation of the pilot production lots,and we expect full production to get under way.
There is no question of default by West Germany. We are bound by the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Although the hon. Member for Blaydon sees jobs moving from this country to Germany, equally, when our part of the contract was working to our advantage, the Germans could have made the same complaint about us. We are absolutely bound in that way.
Mr. McWilliam: What about the Tornado?
Mr. Lamont: The Tornado is unrelated to it. The SP70 is still under development, and ammunition production will not need to begin before the end of the decade. It is too early to discuss to whom contracts might be awarded. It would be foolish to start production of ammunition now, because the life of the shells would be partly used before the gun entered service.
The hon. Member for Blaydon asked about the multi-launch rocket system. We expect a production contract for MLRS1 to be placed by the middle of this year. Royal Ordnance plc has started to establish production facilities in advance of the contract being awarded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) asked about the future of royal ordnance Radway Green. I met my hon. Friend yesterday and we discussed the prospects for the factory. Radway Green has not been affected by these announcements, but I know that
1182
she has some anxieties. We are currently discussing with Royal Ordnance plc our requirements for small arms over the next few years. We are in negotiation now. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the discussions, but I am sure they will satisfactorily resolve the question.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the order for 9 mm ammunition has actually gone abroad? Does he realise that the fact that it has done so will have robbed a company in my constituency of the chance to fulfil that order? That cannot be in the best national interest at the end of the day. The taxpayer will have to pick up the bills for those who may be put out of work by this decision.
Mr. Lamont: As I explained to my hon. Friend, we have placed some ammunition orders abroad, but they are —one is talking about 10 per cent.—for only small amounts. If that gets us better value for money in the defence budget—we have been hearing a lot about inflation and about the cost of the equipment required by the forces rising faster than inflation in general—we must pursue that course.
We have to get more output out of the defence budget. We have to buy the cheapest equipment and supplies if we are to meet the problems that everyone tells us exist—a shortage of resources which are no longer growing by 3 per cent. a year.
It would not have been a defence debate if we had not had comments about helicopters and Westland. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) raised a number of questions about Westland coming under foreign control. He will understand that the question of Westland coming under foreign control in a formal sense is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. We have no information to suggest that a takeover bid is under consideration. Any bid to take more than a 30 per cent. shareholding by a foreign company or consortium would require the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the case. He might then recommend to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.
Mr. Ashdown rose—
Mr. Lamont: I do not want to expand on that. I shall answer the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Questions were raised about the AST404. There was some criticism of the delay to the Wessex Puma replacement. I think that greater criticism would almost certainly have been made if the Ministry of Defence had pressed ahead with an expensive replacement programme without taking account of evolving tactical thinking.
Recent exercise experience, including Lionheart in 1984, the advantages of being able to transport formed units and their equipment by use of the heavier Chinook and the greater emphasis on mobility as a result of the revised concept of operations for NORTHAG have led to a fundamental review of the requirement for helicopters which support 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 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.

1183
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) made an extremely interesting speech about helicopters. He made the same point that was made by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Yeovil about the split in the use of helicopters between different services. In deciding on future purchases of helicopters, one would very much hope that the new organisation within the Ministry of Defence would enable us at least to take a unified defence view.
I should like to refer to the operational problems that arise from what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham 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. I was certainly interested in what my hon. Friend said.
I remind the House of some of the ways in which, through our procurement policy, we are responding to the threat which was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise for not taking part in the debate. Did my hon. Friend hear Mr. Horne this morning on the radio talking about the European consortium's proposal to block the Sikorsky business? He said that, if the deal did not go through, Westland would be faced with either accepting the European consortium's proposal or going into receivership? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Westland went into receivership, that would be an extremely serious matter for the Ministry of Defence, because it would deprive the armed forces of the support that those 800 helicopters require?
Mr. Lamont: Of course receivership would be an extremely serious matter. I obviously could not disagree with that. I did not hear what Mr. Horne said on the radio, so it would be extremely unwise to comment on it, especially in this situation.
I was hoping, as Minister of State for Defence Procurement, that I might just say a little about the procurement policies we are pursuing. In the past few years, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of the defence budget devoted to defence equipment. In 1979–80 40 per cent. of the defence budget was spent on equipment. In 1985–86 that figure had risen to 46 per cent. That is for defence overall. However, the same is true for the Army. In that case the percentage has risen from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent. Therefore, although the Army is a more labour-intensive service, the proportion of expenditure voted to equipment has increased markedly.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli referred to the problem of what he called defence inflation — the relative price effect whereby defence equipment costs are rising more quickly than prices in general. Because of that it is not enough just to spend more money on defence. We have to increase productivity to get more output for a given input. That is why we have been pursuing the policy of increasing competition in defence procurement.I know that that policy can cause anxiety in constituencies, but from a national point of view it must be right.
We have dramatically increased the proportion of work placed on a competitive basis. In 1983–84 it was 38 per cent. of contracts, in 1984–85 it had increased to 46 per
1184
cent. and for the first nine months of 1985–86 the figure was well over 60 per cent. We are also increasing competition at sub-contract level. That produces benefits for the services and the taxpayer. We can illustrate that from the Army's experience. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley was able to announce that the competition for the production of the MCV 80 had produced savings of 12 per cent., or about £100 million. I could give many other examples of where, because we have vigorously pursued competition in defence procurement, we are producing savings all the time.
Competition produces more than simply resource benefits. It also enables us to make use of the industry's ability to innovate. When it came to the Army's remotely piloted vehicle, Phoenix, we asked the companies to submit tenders. Two companies were further invited to carry out engineering studies and make competition proposals for a development programme. Both firms invested a significant amount of their own resources as well as getting money from the Ministry of Defence. The result was that we signed a contract with the winning company for full development and production of equipment which was well defined and which could be judged by the yardstick of a competing product. There again competition brings other benefits.
We are also seeking to tighten the terms of contracts which have necessarily been let without competition, particularly in research and development. We are making much better use of fixed price and other incentive type contracts to ensure that those who obtain business from the Ministry of Defence share the associated risks.
Another policy that we have to pursue in procurement is international collaboration because the costs of development are so huge and also because within NATO there is an operational reason for wanting more collaboration. We must have equipment which is compatible with that of other countries. That is a problem which the Warsaw pact countries do not have. If the Warsaw pact had as many varied and incompatible pieces of equipment as we have in NATO, perhaps we would be able to relax a little more.
I emphasise that the policy of looking towards international collaboration when making procurement decisions is an area where my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley did a tremendous job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) said, the EFA would not have come into existence if it had not been for the tremendous effort of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley. He pushed the concept of collaboration in equipment much further than any other Secretary of State and further than any other Secretary of State in Europe. It was he who revitalised the equipment group within Europe.
In the past year we have spent more than £1·5 billion on equipment for the Army, which has produced real improvements in the Army's capability. A large amount of new equipment has entered service. The programme for the introduction of Challenger is continuing, and a second regiment has now completed deployment. The Saxon armoured personnel carrier is now in service with one battalion. Eventually there will be 10. The new SA80 family of small arms is coming into service.
I resolutely and adamantly deny any suggestion that the British Army is anything other than extremely well equipped. Many resources are devoted to modernising the Army's equipment. I believe that my right hon. Friend the

1185
Minister of State and I have demonstrated in the debate that both the Regular and reserve elements of the British Army enter 1986 in very good shape. Our continued commitment and capability to contribute to NATO's collective defences is clear. Our contribution to the central region is of major significance. Over the past year, it has again been demonstrated at all levels that we have the flexibility and skills to adapt to changing circumstances,
and we can look forward with confidence to the future—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 20th March 1984 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Procedure be amended, by leaving out Mr.Gregor MacKenzie and inserting Mr. Stan Crowther —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Poverty (Barnsley)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Roy Mason: Rapidly increasing poverty in Barnsley over the past five years has had a dramatic and depressing impact on my town. I have represented Barnsley for nearly 33 years, and I have never known such misery on such a large scale as today. I lived through the 1930s and the pre-war depression years, but have never witnessed so many personal pictures of soul-destroying unhappiness through being penniless and pleading for help as are evident in Barnsley today.
That awful and worrying rise in poverty in Barnsley over the past five years of Tory administration has shattered individuals, many families, our small communities and our local economy. The crucial poverty indicators, such as the local level of unemployment, the number of social security claims and the increasing demand on social services section 1 moneys all reveal a sharp decline in personal and household incomes against a background of increasing job losses, redundancies and pit closures. That scale of poverty is placing intolerable pressure on our local services and resources, both statutory and voluntary, especially the social services, the advice services and housing.
Although Barnsley metropolitan district council has responded with various practical initiatives, trying to stave off the harshness of personal distress, Government cuts in the rate support grant, and the further cuts proposed in the so-called reform of social security will only exacerbate the serious poverty levels and the social security problems in Barnsley.
One might ask, where is the evidence? I believe it to be the frightening catalogue of social concern, which is the most distressing that I have ever come across in my time. One in five people in Barnsley is now without a job. In January this year 16,897 people were on the dole, and there was a 20 per cent. rate of unemployment, approximately 6 per cent. higher than the national average and 9·2 per cent. higher than in 1981.
The mass of poverty is startling. The social services, working on Department of Health and Social Security criteria, establish Barnsley's poverty line as being a family of four on supplementary benefit receiving £69 weekly income. In Barnsley, there are 7,875 people on the poverty line and, below the poverty line, 3,375 unemployed and 1,500 in work—a total of 12,750 poverty-striken people in the town of Barnsley. Is it any wonder that I decided to bring that to Parliament's attention?
In November, 16,739 people were claiming unemployment benefit in the Barnsley travel-to-work area. Most disturbing was the rise in the number of long-term unemployed. Although most people believe them to be in the older age brackets, that is just not true in my town. Of the registered claimants between 19 and 24 years of age, there were 1,087 people unemployed over the year. That is 45·4 per cent. of all the registered unemployed in that age category. What a damning indictment of the Government it is that so many young people in one small town in Britain should be condemned to the dole for so long with no hope on the horizon. What, then, of their poverty?

1187
Since the beginning of 1981, 11,420 redundancies in Barnsley have been notified to the Department of Employment. Barnsley council is on a fast-moving treadmill, struggling to fight this surge of job losses. The Regional Manpower Intelligence Unit in January 1985 compared the vacancy levels in travel-to-work areas throughout England. Barnsley was ranked as having the second highest number of unemployed per vacancy in England, with 128 registered unemployed for every vacancy.
That is an appalling picture of misery thrust upon my town and constituency by a Government who have used monetarist controls, who have squeezed the economy, slashed regional aid, ruthlessly closed steelworks and coal mines, cut social services and caused massive job losses in coal mining towns like Barnsley. Yet the Government cannot provide any answer to the problems in such areas.
Barnsley council has made strenuous efforts to stem the tide. It has established an employment strategy, built an enterprise centre, small factories, seedbed workshops, and an information technology centre. The council has 35 staff working in teams to help new firms to set up, to help existing firms to survive and expand and to attract new industry and training. I have led teams to Brussels to obtain European regional development grants for the development of a business and innovation centre. This worked has saved and created 1,000 jobs in 1985.
Barnsley council launched the coal field communities campaign, which now involves more than 60 local authorities representing 16 million people, in an attempt to draw attention to the social, economic and environmental problems facing coal field areas like Barnsley. The community campaign was also intended to advocate policies to alleviate poverty, misery and unemployment in the declining economies of the coal fields.
As everyone can see, Barnsley council has not sat on its backside. It is fighting the problem. Government policies will have to be radically changed if there is to be any hope of a solution to these problems. National Coal Board Enterprise Ltd. is not the answer. Even if it is creating 500 jobs a month, that is for Great Britain as a whole. Barnsley alone needs that figure every month this year just to stem the tide and avoid being swamped.
Some 50 per cent. of all Barnsley households are in receipt of housing benefit. Earlier this year the housing department undertook a review of the waiting list. The review revealed that there are now more than 4,700 people on the council's waiting list. That means that over the past two years the waiting list has grown by 16 per cent. and in some cases in the borough the list has grown by more than 20 per cent. Of particular concern is the increased number of old-age pensioners on the list and the increasing demand for single person accommodation, which has increased by 22 per cent. over the past two years. During that time the number of single persons sharing households has increased from 200 to 286, an increase of 43 per cent. That is another tragic story of social distress for which the Government must accept responsibility.
The ratio of new house building has declined markedly in the council sector due almost entirely to Government restrictions. The rate of council house building has declined from an average of 330 units per annum in the mid-1970s to 128 in 1981–82; 15 units in 1982–83; 19 units in 1983–84; and 33 units in 1984–85.
1188
With regard to housing benefits, I quote the case study of a miner's widow on a widow's pension of £38·38 and an NCB pension of £8·43. She receives a total housing benefit of £11·53. Under the new scheme her total housing benefit will be £9·01, a weekly loss of £2·52. That sum will be taken away from a miner's widow. Bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of all Barnsley householders are in receipt of housing benefit, thousands more people will be driven into deeper poverty because of the effects of the Social Security Bill now going through the House.
It is estimated that 29,000 people in Barnsley could lose some or all of their benefits. In Barnsley, more than 19,000 people are dependent upon supplementary benefit for the whole or part of their income. Local DHSS officers are so overstretched that they are taking up to six weeks to process the many claims for single payments for exceptional need. According to their statistics, the Barnsley, east office has 10,893 supplementary benefit recipients and the Barnsley, west office has 8,155. That amounts to 19,048, which is a considerable work load for an overworked staff.
Also noticeable is the number of supplementary benefit and family income supplement appeals listed for Barnsley. Between January and December 1985 there were 699. The abolition of the right of appeal and the review which has been mentioned are not satisfactory. They represent a major erosion of the legal right of Barnsley claimants. A significant number win their case on appeal. If the appeals procedure is abolished, a claimant's only recourse will be to the local DHSS manager. I doubt whether many decisions will be overturned under that system.
Many more claimants will approach the local authority's social service departments for financial assistance. It is inevitable that the demand on the limited section 1 moneys will be intolerable. How much more poverty will result?
In Barnsley, the most significant area of increased demand on statutory and voluntary services arising from increasing poverty is on the welfare rights officers. Within the social services department, referrals to the welfare rights officers have increased by 100 per cent. in the past two years. All staff record a dramatic rise in the number of cases with a primarily financial content. There has been an alarming increase in the volume of debt-related problems. Council staff have recently attended a training course on debt counselling. A special leaflet has been produced to help people to cope with enormous debts owed to building societies, fuel boards and hire purchase firms.
The emergence of loan sharks during the recent miners'
strike was a new and worrying social phenomenon. Mrs.Catherine Allan, the Barnsley citizens advice bureau organiser, wrote to me and said:
"During 1984–85 the bureau dealt with 1,751 social security inquiries —a 63 per cent. increase in one year…In December 1985 the Barnsley CAB dealt with 731 inquiries compared with 569 in December 1984 …Indicators of the increasing poverty of clients are the large numbers of debt problems."
I received a letter from the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. Mr. J. R. Foster. secretary of the Barnsley division, said:
"1985 saw an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of applicants, a 33 per cent. increase in the Funds disbursed, and of the total number of cases, 41 per cent. were for assistance with. fuel, light, water rates and funeral expenses … I have one case of a pensioner whose gas supply was cut off two years ago, one of a pensioner who has had no water supply since October 85 and some others who are or have been subject of court orders. Some

1189
of these are elderly ladies and the thought of court action frightens them a great deal so they cut out other things to pay these bills. I may add that being the widow of ex servicemen or the men themselves, they are very uptight at having suffered the privations of wartime service they have to call on SSAFA and like organisations in their last years."
Fiona Moss, the secretary of Age Concern in Barnsley, wrote to me saying:
"I am perturbed by the increasing number of enquiries related to the standard of living of this area. In fact some are individuals who through pride have deliberately avoided what they believe to be the acceptance of charity. Many tears have been shed in my office. We have miners widows with approximately £7 a week extra pension. Their claim for housing benefits are reduced by the same amount."
She goes on to say:
"Can we afford to die? The £30 state grant is soon to be abolished. What will replace it? Our local paper states that elderly people worry about a 'Pauper's Grave', and figures show that a Barnsley family paid almost £600 for a funeral in 1985 compared to £90 in 1972. I should know—it was my own mother's funeral. In the past with fuller employment many elderly people were cared for by their own families. These families are also now in the poverty trap. I get many more of these families coming for advice about their parents' problems —they themselves are at their wits end struggling to survive on low incomes."
What a tale of woe and distress and more and more poverty.
The Barnsley Council's co-ordinated welfare rights group, Barnsley's anti-poverty team, has mounted several successful benefit take-up campaigns which have injected substantial amounts of cash to vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, the sick and the physically disabled. A team of dedicated civil servants and volunteers led by Roy Wardell, the director, and Councillor Judith Watts work well beyond their wage-related hours to alleviate stress and worry in the town.
Unfortunately, the council's anti-poverty measures have to be seen against a background of appeals by central Government for restraint in spending and of targets set by the Government and block grant penalties. At present, Barnsley is penalised at the highest level. Existing spending plus allowances for inflation and current commitments will result in the target which has been set by the Government by 1985–86 being significantly exceeded.
Education officers in Barnsley have estimated that the percentage of schoolchildren on free school meals will be reduced from 26 per cent. to 18 per cent. under the proposed changes. This almost certainly will have an effect on the number of school meals staff employed by the council and increased poverty in many families.
The financial and housing restraints on the under-25 age group, forcing young people to stay in sometimes intolerable family situations, will lead to increased family stress and breakdown in Barnsley. I received a report from one welfare rights worker at the Barnsley centre against unemployment, which says:
"One of the most serious problems faced by the young unemployed is their inability to find accommodation. Shortage of rented property has forced up rents and many landlords refuse to let their property to unemployed people. Consequently, many young unemployed people find themselves having to move into board and lodging accommodation, the disadvantages of which have recently been exacerbated by the new board and lodging regulations, resulting mainly from landlords charging exorbitant rates for their accommodation in the knowledge of DHSS payments. Although landlords have been largely to blame for the abuse of the system it is the young unemployed who have been
1190
penalised by reduction in benefits and time limits on their receipt of payment. Within two days of each other two young men, aged 16 and 17, attempted suicide, one by an overdose of valium and the other by slashing his wrists with broken glass. They were both lodgers in the same boarding house and both faced penalisation under the four week rule. In the same week, the week beginning 13 January, an 18 year old girl also overdosed. It is a nonsense to say that the under 25s should, if they have no employment, remain at home. The girl mentioned desperately needed her own accommodation due to her father's violence towards her. Also unemployed families have their benefits reduced by having adult children at home leading often to domestic tension and violence."
It is all so sickening to me and I hope that it is to the Minister.
Barnsley council and I believe that there is a direct link between economic decline, Government policies and the resulting fall in individual and household incomes —poverty. The local economy has suffered more than most from the effects of disputes in the coal industry. Punitive and inequitable legislation in social security reform and local government finance will serve only to increase rather than decrease the scale of the problem of poverty in Barnsley.
This is the story of poverty in Barnsley brought about by heartless and ruthless Tory Government policies. The town refuses to be dejected. We shall fight on, but we deplore being neglected. That is why the Minister has had to listen to this case today.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): It is never a hardship to listen to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) representing his constituency. Yet again, he has spoken movingly about the problems that he sees in Barnsley, and I am pleased to be able to respond. I will try to pick up as many of the issues that he raised as possible in the time remaining to me. I am pleased to see that the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) are in their places.
I am aware that social security provision is an emotive matter, which arouses considerable controversy. I also understand that the present Bill, which I strongly support, which proposes fundamental changes in the social security structure, is a matter of high political dispute. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends accept that, whatever might be the political disagreement between us, the Government share their deep concern for the effects of poverty. We believe that many of the proposals in our Bill, as with many of our other policy proposals, are geared to alleviate precisely the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems that apply to Barnsley at the moment. I appreciate, and would not deny, the special difficulties that have been caused to that area by pit closures and the resultant high unemployment. The latest unemployment figures for Barnsley are depressing and dispiriting. I cannot deny that and would not wish to.
I share with Opposition Members the hope that unemployment will soon begin to fall, but I can understand their frustration at the fact that the present high levels appear to be remaining for so long. Despite the difficult circumstances, people in Barnsley are finding jobs. Between April 1985 and January this year, the employment service placed more than 2,300 people in

1191
permanent employment in Barnsley—an increase of 23 per cent. on the same period in the previous year. I am sure that we all hope that that trend will continue.
It is not true that the Government are unconcerned and harsh about the problems in Barnsley and elsewhere. I might draw attention to the substantial funds that are made available to Barnsley in the urban programme. In recognition of its economic problems, the need to help the area and the need to broaden its industrial base, Barnsley qualifies for help under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The council, to which the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute, has responded by establishing industrial and commercial improvement areas in Barnsley and in the outlying mining town of Goldthorpe. There is also a conservation workshop at Hoyle Mill, which is funded in conjunction with the Manpower Services Commission. It places 80 trainees, who are engaged in restoring sites of historic interest in and around Barnsley. There are other interesting and innovative projects in the area.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about housing and some of the related problems. To help Barnsley overcome its difficulties, some £6·7 million has been allocated under the housing investment programme, and there is a further allocation of up to £1 million to meet obligations under the Housing Defects Act 1984. Despite those and other initiatives with which I shall not bore the House, Barnsley faces great problems, many of which spill over into social security requirements.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of current board and lodging regulations. We have monitored their effect carefully. On the basis of preliminary information, there is no evidence that they are causing nomadism on the scale that many people feared. The time limits to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are subject to many exemptions. For one reason or another, large numbers of young people will find that they are exempt from the time limits, even if they are in circumstances in which they would otherwise be applied. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the limits do not apply to people who were in their accommodation some time ago.
I am not familiar with the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this evening, but I strongly suspect, although I cannot guarantee it, that those young people may have been entitled to some form of exemption. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to let me have the details of the cases, I shall carefully consider them and respond to them.
In his remarks the right hon. Gentleman spoke of social security provision. At present. spending on social security is running at more than £40 billion a year. That is a pretty substantial amount by any standards. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that that money is well spent, and primarily that is what we seek to do through the proposed changes in the Social Security Bill, which will go into Committee early next week. In many quarters, the review that preceded the Bill has been represented as a cost-cutting exercise. That is simply not so. I understand that that is the type of representation that often occurs in political debate. We believe that the proposals that underpin the Bill are principled and worthwhile. They are a part of the reform that we believe will simplify a social security system that is far too complex. They will direct resources far more effectively than at present to the people of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke, who are in the greatest need.
1192
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about the living standards of those families in his constituency on low incomes. We, too, are worried about people on low incomes. Under the Bill those families are likely to be eligible for income support, if unemployed, or family credit if in work. The right hon. Gentleman said that many of his constituents would be worse off if the White Paper proposals were enacted. On the basis of the illustrative figures published with the White Paper we shall be spending £200 million a year more on family credit than we spend at present on family income supplement. The income support scheme is likely to cost more than we spend now on the main structure of the supplementary benefit scheme.
One aim of the social security reforms is to ensure that help goes to the people who need it most. Our reforms will direct that help to families with children. That applies to low-income working families and to those where the parents are unemployed. Today, those families are often in the greatest need, in Barnsley and sadly, in other areas too.
Our proposals will substantially reduce the unemployment trap, in which people are better off out of work than they are in work. They will eliminate the worse effects of the poverty trap, where a rise in earnings can be more or less wiped out as benefits are withdrawn.
The new family credit scheme will cost substantially more than family income supplement—about twice as much. It should reach more than 400,000 families—double the present number on family income supplement. Almost all those families will be better off than they are with family income supplement. On the basis of the illustrative rates in the technical annex to the White Paper, a couple with two children on gross earnings of £100 could receive £27·40 in family credit compared with £5·50 on family income supplement.
The right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about people who are not in work. Our proposals will get more help to families who are not working. Income support will replace supplementary benefit and in our judgment that will be a significant improvement. A noticeable feature will be its simplicity. At present, to determine the amount of weekly benefit, staff may need to make intrusive and detailed inquiries, such as the number of baths taken by a claimant or what his special laundry needs are if someone in the family is incontinent. However tactfully those inquiries are handled, they are plainly embarrassing and often insulting to the people to whom the inquiries are directed. Yorkshire men and women especially would find those inquiries deeply offensive.
We must find a better way of getting help to people who are in need, and with the system that we propose—one of premia based on easily identifiable criteria—it will be entirely possible to remove many of those intrusive inquiries. That simplicity—that certainty of entitlement —will be a great improvement, and will be generally welcomed in the House when the proposals are more fully understood.
I would have wished to have been able to say much more this evening, but only a short time remains. On the transitional protection for claimants, no one receiving supplementary benefit at the point of change to income support will have his weekly income reduced by the change. Anyone on family income supplement whose FIS award is higher than his family credit will keep the FIS award—the higher award—for the remainder of the

1193
12-month award period. We made that clear in the illustrative figures published with the White Paper, and I emphasise it again this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned single payments. I deeply regret the fact that time does not permit me to deal in detail with the points that he raised, but if he wishes to discuss that matter later, I shall be happy to meet him and his hon. Friends at any time, when we can discuss the anxieties that he expressed this evening.
The reforms that we shall make will be seen in due course as a positive advantage to people on low incomes, whether in or out of work. That is part of the intention of
1194
the reforms, and we shall seek to persuade the House and the country that they are compelling and worthwhile reforms. In the meantime, may I conclude by telling the right hon. Gentleman that I understand the difficulties which he faces in Barnsley and which he has expressed this evening in such compelling fashion. I hope that he will accept from me that our reforms are aimed at helping people in special difficulty, wherever they live. We believe that they will, and we hope that they will generally be seen to do so when they are more fully understood.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Low-income Households
  Low-income Households
  Nuclear Safety (Member's Questions)
  Nuclear Safety (Member's Questions)
WALES
  Roads and Transport Expenditure
  Roads and Transport Expenditure
  Higher Education (Advisory Body)
  Higher Education (Advisory Body)
  Senior Management (Housing)
  Senior Management (Housing)
  Circulars (Consultation)
  Circulars (Consultation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Cambridge Science Park
  Cambridge Science Park
  ILEA Schools (Admission of Police)
  ILEA Schools (Admission of Police)
  Mendocino Book Company
  Mendocino Book Company
  Postgraduate Certificate of Education Courses
  Postgraduate Certificate of Education Courses
  Higher Education (Staff-student Ratios)
  Higher Education (Staff-student Ratios)
  University of London
  University of London
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Student Numbers (Scotland)
  Student Numbers (Scotland)
PRIME MINISTER
  Lewisham
  Lewisham
  Rail Travel
  Rail Travel
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Ministers (Appointments)
  Ministers (Appointments)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  NHS (Resources)
  NHS (Resources)
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Private Office
  Private Office
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings
  Schoolchildren (Dietary Survey)
  Schoolchildren (Dietary Survey)
  Staff
  Staff
  Voluntary Bodies
  Voluntary Bodies
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
  Airports
  Airports
  Police Houses
  Police Houses
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  West Midlands Police
  West Midlands Police
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Passports
  Passports
  Vandal Patrols
  Vandal Patrols
  Burglaries (Wolverhampton)
  Burglaries (Wolverhampton)
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Immigration Procedures (Disclosure of Information)
  Immigration Procedures (Disclosure of Information)
  Rape
  Rape
  Libyan Nationals
  Libyan Nationals
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Pub Bombings (Birmingham)
  Pub Bombings (Birmingham)
  Paul Hill
  Paul Hill
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Foreign Visitors (Non-admission)
  Foreign Visitors (Non-admission)
  Horse Racing
  Horse Racing
  Prevention of Terrorism
  Prevention of Terrorism
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid (Publications)
  Legal Aid (Publications)
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Seed Peas (Cultivar Belinda)
  Seed Peas (Cultivar Belinda)
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Untreated Milk Sales
  Untreated Milk Sales
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Warsaw Pact Countries (Ministerial Visits)
  Warsaw Pact Countries (Ministerial Visits)
  Palinauris Investment Ltd.
  Palinauris Investment Ltd.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Channel Fixed Link
  Channel Fixed Link
  Printing
  Printing
  Police Officers (Travel Warrants)
  Police Officers (Travel Warrants)
  Whitbread Poacher Bitter
  Whitbread Poacher Bitter
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Assembly
  Assembly
  Security
  Security
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Cross-border Co-operation
  Cross-border Co-operation
  Foreign Industrial Investment
  Foreign Industrial Investment
  Divis Flats
  Divis Flats
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Body
  Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Body
  Baker Report
  Baker Report
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Belfast Rally
  Belfast Rally
  Paramilitary Organisations
  Paramilitary Organisations
  Employment Opportunities
  Employment Opportunities
  Pasture Reseeding
  Pasture Reseeding
  Wet Weather Compensation
  Wet Weather Compensation
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Mackies plc
  Mackies plc
  Aid
  Aid
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meeting)
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meeting)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
SCOTLAND
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Rates
  Rates
  Tranent Bypass
  Tranent Bypass
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
EMPLOYMENT
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Musselburgh Bypass
  Musselburgh Bypass
  Housing Action Area, Glasgow
  Housing Action Area, Glasgow
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Enterprise Agencies
  Enterprise Agencies
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Staff Training
  Staff Training
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trade Balance
  Trade Balance
  Distillers (Bid)
  Distillers (Bid)
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  Urban Housing Renewal Unit
  Housing Defects (Expenditure)
  Housing Defects (Expenditure)
  Asbestos (Faslane)
  Asbestos (Faslane)
  GLC Property Disposals
  GLC Property Disposals
  Local Authority Flats (Defects)
  Local Authority Flats (Defects)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Campaign for Fair Play
  Campaign for Fair Play
  Sporting Organisations (Grants)
  Sporting Organisations (Grants)
  Housing and Planning Bill
  Housing and Planning Bill
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
TRANSPORT
  Grain Exports
  Grain Exports
  Fishermen (Deaths and Injuries)
  Fishermen (Deaths and Injuries)
  Addington Square, SE5 (Access)
  Addington Square, SE5 (Access)
  Radioactive Materials
  Radioactive Materials
  Motor Cycle Test
  Motor Cycle Test
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sick Dependent Relatives (Allowances)
  Sick Dependent Relatives (Allowances)
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  Young People (Housing)
  Young People (Housing)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Tranquillisers
  Tranquillisers
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Legionnaire's Disease
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Benefits (Draught-proofing)
  Benefits (Draught-proofing)
  NHS (Computer-related Posts)
  NHS (Computer-related Posts)
  NHS (Computer Services)
  NHS (Computer Services)
  Primary Care
  Primary Care
  Piroxicam (Member's Questions)
  Piroxicam (Member's Questions)
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Arthritis Drugs
  Arthritis Drugs
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Fraud Investigators
  Fraud Investigators
  Medicines (Adverse Reactions)
  Medicines (Adverse Reactions)
  Health Bodies (Funding)
  Health Bodies (Funding)
  NHS Employees
  NHS Employees
  Complaints Procedure
  Complaints Procedure
DEFENCE
  Jet Provost Trainer
  Jet Provost Trainer
  Defence Review
  Defence Review
  United States Air Force
  United States Air Force
  Type 23 Frigate
  Type 23 Frigate
  Equipment Contracts
  Equipment Contracts
  Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards
  Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards
  FH-70 (155mm Shells)
  FH-70 (155mm Shells)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  SP-70 Shell
  SP-70 Shell
  Multi-launch Rocket Systems
  Multi-launch Rocket Systems

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

BBC and ITV: Anti-Competitive Practices
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, in elaboration of their reply to her Written Question of 12th December last (col. 454), they will give details of the further information which has been
received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, following the receipt of comments from Independent Television Publications Ltd. and from the BBC, I wrote to the noble Baroness on 27th January summarising the views of those two organisations, and a copy of my letter was placed in the Library.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, inadvertently, and through no fault of the Minister, I have been placed in a very difficult position about this, as I received the information only on Tuesday. The Question was tabled some four weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that possibly the proximity of his Answer today hastened procedures at the other end? Secondly, may I ask the Minister this. As there is considerable parliamentary and public interest in the publication of the Radio Times and the TV Times, if I table a Written Question will the Minister feel able to provide the House with a Written Answer in Hansard giving the details of what he said to me?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Answer.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Baroness so far as the first part of her supplementary question is concerned, No. I can tell her that we received one of the comments only a matter of two or three days before I wrote to the noble Baroness. If the noble Baroness would like to ask a Written Question, then I shall certainly provide all the information in the form of a Written Answer.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sorry to have risen a little early. I was rather agitated because it is not possible to find out, either from the text of the Question or from the Answer, what all this is about.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I refer the noble Lord to the exchange which took place on 28th November about anti-competitive practices and the publishing of
788
information, which concerned the question of whether or not broadcasting companies could publish information about their programmes for more than two days at a time, I hope that may help the noble Lord. I can certainly let him have details.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if we could achieve a single weekly publication in which we could have the ITV, the BBC and radio programmes in a single magazine, it would perform a service which would be appreciated by all noble Lords in this House and, I think, by people outside it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a question which goes wide of that on the Order Paper.

NATO and Warsaw Pact Countries: Discussions
3.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 discussions between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries are envisaged following the recent Geneva Summit.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, discussions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact as such have not taken place in the past, and none is envisaged. The search for a constructive dialogue between individual Western allies and the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe is, however, an integral part of the efforts of NATO to bring about an improved East/West relationship.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I think that even she will agree that it is a pretty awful and sterile Answer: that we cannot even get some idea of unity among NATO to talk with the Warsaw Pact people. Is she not aware of the fact and can she give verification of it, that it was Mr. Gorbachev who advocated verification on site between Russia and America, and that Senator Thomas O'Neill's visit and that of the congressmen to the USSR also supported some idea of ongoing talks between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries? Will she, as many American senators have done, support Senator Thomas O'Neill; and can she say whether the British Government do so, as well?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, asked about five questions within that supplementary question. To establish a basis of fact for answering them, it might be better if I welcomed the interest that Mr. Gorbachev expressed in Paris in October 1985 in finding "a common language on international problems". His suggestion of contacts between the Warsaw Pact and NATO was, however, couched in vague and hypothetical terms and not something which has either been pursued by the Russians or seriously considered by NATO. It is

789
difficult to see in present circumstances what purpose it would serve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, Mr. Gorbachev made certain proposals just before the Geneva Summit and, since then, the moratorium on testing has been extended by a further three months. Will the noble Baroness say whether these matters are on the agenda for the US- European talks; and can she say whether those proposals could possibly be of assistance towards establishing a comprehensive test-ban treaty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can best answer that supplementary question by saying that we are in close touch with our American allies over a wide number of issues, and we talk to them very regularly. The particular point that the noble Lord raises about a comprehensive test-ban treaty is, I think, outside the terms of the Question. But if he is good enough to put down a Question on that subject I shall of course be happy to answer it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have down a Question on that subject and that I shall not expect her to answer it now? In reply to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, will she be a little more specific about what precisely is intended to be happening in Geneva in the resumed talks which, I believe, are taking place just now?
Baroness Young: My Lords, once again, if the noble Lord were to put down a Question on that particular point I should be happy to try to answer it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness very briefly to appreciate that, in so far as it is now visible for all to see, under Mr. Gorbachev's leadership there seems to be a much more realistic appreciation of valuable talks between the United States of America, our foremost ally, and the Soviet Union? Does she not agree that perhaps NATO could make some mighty effort, and have representatives as well joining in, to try to secure that the 21st century should become the first century of life without fear of universal death?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we and our American allies and our partners in NATO want to see a genuine reduction in armaments; but they must be both balanced and verifiable. As far as the outcome of the Geneva Summit is concerned, we believe that it was a success and that it had a number of specific results. It contributed a measure of confidence and greater understanding between two world leaders. President Reagan received the full support of the alliance and will continue to do so in the run-up to the next summit, which will be held in the United States.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, will the noble Minister accept that the supplementary question posed by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn about a comprehensive test-ban treaty was, in fact, well within the terms of the Question on the Order Paper; because one of the subjects which it was envisaged that it might
790
be possible to carry forward following the Geneva talks was this particular matter? Can she say to what extent it is now proposed to try to carry those matters further forward; that is to say, to seek to obtain a corn prehensive test-ban treaty?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should much regret if it were reported that I was in any way discourteous either to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, or to the noble Lord, Lord Boston. But it is a very wide Question on the Order Paper and these are very serious and complex subjects. I answered a question on the comprehensive test-ban treaty, giving the Government's views on that matter. I feel that I should not be prepared to go further than what I said in answer to that question today.

Intergovernmental Conference: Reports
3.16 p.m.
Lord Stallard: 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 steps are being taken to make available to Parliament full reports of meetings between members of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland under the terms of reference set out in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, the British and Irish Governments have issued joint statements after each meeting describing the work of the conference. These are in the Library and available to your Lordships. The Government wish to be as open as possible about meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference, and to this end we intend to make such statements as a general practice.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Minister for that reply. I have looked at the documents to which he has referred and the fairly puny reports of very important meetings. Can the Minister consider to what extent he would agree with me that the most recent political developments in Northern Ireland are attributable to the near secrecy which has surrounded the Anglo-Irish Agreement since its inception? Can he tell us at what stage his right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to come forward with a progress report that can be debated by both Houses of Parliament? To that extent, when can we expect fuller and more detailed reports of the meetings that take place so that we may come to reasoned judgments about progress or lack of it?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, any question as to debates will be a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that my noble friend will have taken on board the noble Lord's point. I am sure that the House and the noble Lord would accept that there are limits as to what could be made public in this particular field especially in one particular aspect that concerns the conference—that is, security. But I stress to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that we intend to be as

791
open as we can in these matters. The noble Lord will be aware that there have been three communiques and they are all available in your Lordships' Library. I am sure that he will glean a great deal of detail from these communiques.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, from these Benches we have strongly recommended that both agendas and reports of the meetings should be made available. Will the noble Lord pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has said: that one of the ways that the distress of the Unionists, which seems to many of us to be unreasonable, can be somewhat eased is by a fuller report? Will he please give attention to that matter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I can say yes to the noble Lord in answer to his third and second questions. To answer the noble Lord's first supplementary question, perhaps I may say that it has not been our practice—and I am sure that he will accept this—to release in advance the agenda for any of the three meetings of the conference. But the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will be aware that after the joint statement issued after the last meeting, it was made clear—and the noble Lord will see it in paragraph 4—that the next meeting would consider a progress report from the chief constable and the Garda Commissioner on enhancing security co-operation. I think that was one detail which the noble Lord would find both interesting and relevant.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that it is of the utmost importance that the fullest information should be given so as to allay some of the fears that now exist particularly in the majority community? Although he has said that the joint statements are issued, is he aware that following the three meetings that have already taken place there have been leaks and counter-leaks both from the Irish side and from the British side, each one of them more explosive and potentially more dangerous than anything we have seen in relation to the leaks concerning the Westland affair? Is he aware that this morning in a local newspaper in Belfast there is an alleged leak from the Intergovernmental Council saying that internment is to be introduced in Northern Ireland, that it is to be done on a selective basis and on a religious head count? Would the Minister not agree that the whole future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement lies in the fact that people are able to understand it—both the Unionists and the Nationalists in Northern Ireland—and if they are not able to understand it and not able to believe the Government, then both sides will bring it down?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, of course we shall do our very best to see that statements are as full as possible. As to the leaks referred to by the noble Lord, the noble Lord and those who read the press in Northern Ireland are most interested to see what is fact, what is fiction and what is leaked. The noble Lord also asked what the Government would do as regards giving the fullest information to all sections of the community. Certainly we wish to be as informative as we can; but
792
the noble Lord, of all people, will appreciate that there are some areas where we have to tread very carefully, particularly in the area of security, and also in other areas like commercial confidentiality, for instance. However, we intend to be as open as we can in the circumstances.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we appreciate that reports and communiques are made available in the Library. We also appreciate that there may be areas where the Government would not wish to go public. Nevertheless, would the Government agree that an opportunity should be given to the House periodically to discuss the progress made by the conference, so that we do not have to rely on the debates on the appropriation orders?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's comments will have been listened to with great interest by my noble friend and the usual channels. Should the noble Lord wish to put down a Motion. I hope that I shall be available to answer it.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Lord appreciate that the intervention made by my noble friend Lord Fitt is in fact very profound and also very disturbing? It really cannot be dismissed on the basis that "confidentiality must ride above everything." For example, if what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, says is right and there has been a suggestion in the press of internment, would not the noble Lord agree that this should be denied by the Government on the same day or on the following day? It should not be allowed to wait until some confidential report is issued, because the situation in Ireland is so delicate and so dangerous that I would have thought a little more was needed than the kinds of replies that we have just had.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe I am aware of the report in, I think, the newspaper the noble Lord is referring to. So far as I am aware, this was a comment made by an individual. Certainly I do not think it is the duty of the Government to reply to every thought of every individual in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the Government listen to the views of your Lordships' House, and of course they listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, would the Minister assure the House that nothing that has happened since the signing of the agreement, including the results of the recent by-elections, has in any way weakened the determination of the Government to maintain and strengthen the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I would certainly give him that assurance. We believe the agreement is of great importance and we would wish to do everything we can to strengthen it.
Lord Blease: My Lords, will the Minister accept that from this side of the House it will be appreciated that there is a considerable difference in what is stated between the reporting of security matters and consultations dealing with economic, social and cultural matters arising from the Anglo-Irish

793
Agreement? Would he not agree that the proposed procedural arrangements for the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement now require the promotion by the Government of informed public awareness and interest, and that it should not be left to every Tom, Dick or Harry to form his own conclusions?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's thoughts on economic, social and cultural arenas in Northern Ireland and indeed in Ireland as a whole. I have said, and I shall repeat, it is our wish to be as open as we can. But I have also stated to your Lordships that it is not our practice, nor is it the practice of the Irish Government, to release in advance the agenda for meetings of the conference. However, I shall certainly convey the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend, and see whether there is any further improvement that can be made in that field.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement is intended to operate symmetrically? In other words, are Her Majesty's Government free to complain to the Government of the Irish Republic if it appears to them that certain laws, institutions and practices south of the Border are acting to the disadvantage of some groups or individuals in the Republic?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the matters which will be raised at the conference will be discussed to the widest possible degree and that all matters of the type described by the noble Lord will be eligible for debate. I am sure that if they came to the notice of my right honourable friend, or of other participants, they would be discussed.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that his replies to the questions seem to make the situation worse? There have been questions here today from noble Lords who were seeking information, but there is not enough information available to Members of this House. The noble Lord himself recommended that we should read the Northern Ireland press. We do so avidly; and I am sure that he will also have read the recent very comprehensive survey which was carried out by the Belfast Telegraph, which proved that over half the people in Northern Ireland do not understand the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In my view, that lack of understanding can be counterproductive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said, one cannot hide behind the security point for every evasive answer. Other things as well as security are being discussed. Why can we not have information about them?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly the Government are not evading the giving of information and I have not sought to evade it this afternoon. I am very sorry that the noble Lord should think that; but I am sure he would accept that in matters of security—and that was just one of the many items which have been discussed at the conference—we should go very carefully. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in regard to economic, social and cultural matters and other matters which might be covered at the conference, we would wish to be as open as we can. Certainly I hope
794
that the information which has been given so tar is as comprehensive as this Government and the Irish Government would feel to be possible.
Lord Moyola: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the biggest problem as regards Northern Ireland at the moment concerns the rumours, lies, and so on, which are prevalent on all sides? In the light of that, would he say whether anything can be done to improve the Government's information service so that these lies and rumours are countered at the time?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comments on what is and what is not said in Northern Ireland. I shall certainly take his points on board and see whether there is anything we can do about it. I am sure that my right honourable friend will be most grateful for the points raised by my noble friend.

Swan Deaths: Anglers' Lead Weights
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards reducing the number of swan deaths caused by the use of lead shot by anglers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have already declared our firm intention to take effective action to protect swans from poisoning by anglers' lead weights. We will ban the sale of most lead weights for angling from 1st January 1987 if the voluntary approach supported by angling organisations has not proved successful by the end of the current fishing season. In addition, my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales have issued a model by-law to water authorities, so they can, if they wish, ban the use of lead weights for fishing in their areas. The use of lead weights in royal parks will also have been fully phased out by the start of the next fishing season.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is slightly encouraging. But is he aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are, in principle, both against the suggested by-law of the Anglian Water Authority, which is considerably less stringent than the MAFF by-law, and that even the MAFF by-law does not come up to the standards which they require? Does the Minister agree that this problem has gone on long enough and that action should now be taken to go ahead and bring in legislation, especially since one has been told that very good non-toxic substitutes have been successfully used in competition?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will remember that we made very firm commitments when this subject was under discussion in your Lordships' House last year and the Government are sticking

795
absolutely to their word. As regards the noble Baroness's reference to the comments of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to the Anglian Water Authority, I have a copy of their letter. I would point out, although I am well aware of the concern expressed therein, that individual by-laws, even if based on model clauses, have to be confirmed by the Government. Before doing so, we will consider all objections. This includes the points made in that letter and by the noble Baroness this afternoon.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord's commitment to legislate is very welcome, but it is conditional on the voluntary system not working. Will the noble Lord confirm that the voluntary restraint is not working and that the introduction of model bylaws seems likely to confuse matters rather than simplify them, because different water authorities are taking a different approach? In those circumstances, would it not be better for the Government to get on and legislate as quickly as possible?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. We have said quite clearly that we will give the anglers and the angling organisations time to put their own house in order. I have given a date for this, which is 15th March this year. If this does not come about, we will legislate.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, may I have an assurance that there is no lead poisoning occasioned by the activities of certain brave men pursuing such savage creatures as pheasants and grouse by the discharge of shotguns which contain lead pellets?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the objective of a shotgun pellet is to kill. The objective of a lead weight is to sink.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, is not the manufacture and sale of split lead shots the real yardstick by which to measure what progress is being made and can my noble friend say whether the trade is co-operating here?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, obviously the manufacture and sale of lead-free substitutes is a very important point. But there will be old stocks and we must make certain that we can ban the sale of lead shots in the circumstances that I have already described to the House.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, in view of the Government's firm commitment to legislate can the noble Lord assure the House that the Government have seen a way forward for doing that which will not give rise to legal or other difficulties should they decide to do so?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have had constant discussions over the last year on the right way ahead and we are certain that we have come to the right solution. I say again that should we need to legislate we will bring the matter forward for consultation and, of course, we will discuss it in your Lordships' House.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, am I to understand that the Minister is telling this Chamber that the lead contained in shotgun pellets has different properties as regards sinking from those of lead used by anglers?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. It is a totally different question and I did not say that in the first place.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that discussions have taken place. My understanding is that when MAFF produced its bylaw it did so with little or no discussion, and indeed that one of the difficulties both for anglers and for the others concerned was that MAFF apparently produced its by-law out of the blue without any discussion. Can he comment on that?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I cannot comment on that. But when I spoke of discussion I was referring to inter-departmental discussion about where we might go on legislation, which is a rather different point.

Foreign Affairs Council
3.36 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will arrange for a Statement that is being made in another place this afternoon on the Foreign Affairs Council, on 27th January, to be printed in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which took place in Brussels on 27th January. I and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry represented the United Kingdom. A statement of forthcoming business in the European Community has been deposited in the Vote Office.
"Ministers had a further preliminary discussion of the Commission's proposals for a negotiating mandate on renewal of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement.
"They reviewed progress in negotiations to adapt the European Community/EFTA agreements to take account of enlargement.
"In response to the imposition by the United States of quotas on imports of EC semi-finished steel, the Council decided to introduce quotas on US exports of fertilisers, coated paper and bovine fats. These restrictions will not be introduced until 15th February, allowing time for further efforts to achieve an agreed outcome.
"The President of the Commission reported on his discussion with the Japanese Government on EC/Japan trade relations during his recent visit to Tokyo. I emphasised the importance we attach to the achievement of a better balance in trade between the European Community and Japan.
"In Political Co-operation the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed and issued a statement on

797
international terrorism. They announced further measures to strengthen defences against terrorism within the Community and to discourage support from other Governments for terrorist attacks. They agreed to set up a new group within Political Cooperation to ensure effective follow-up in the areas covered by the statement. They agreed not to undercut measures taken by others against governments which support terrorism.
"The Foreign Ministers reviewed briefly the implementation of the measures vis-à-vis South Africa which we agreed at Luxembourg on 10th September.
"In the Inter-govermental Conference member states finalised the text of the amendments to the EC Treaties and treaty provisions on European Political Co-operation. On the question of the working environment, we secured inclusion in the treaty text of provisions protecting the position of small and medium sized undertakings, as proposed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the European Council in Luxembourg. This enabled the only outstanding United Kingdom reserve to be lifted. All member states have accepted the agreed text. The Netherlands Presidency hope that the new Act will be signed by all member states on 17th February. If the Danish Government cannot sign on that date they will aim to do so after the referendum in Denmark".

Unemployment: The Monthly Figures
3.37 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure the House will allow me to refer to a grave development; namely, the very sharp rise in unemployment announced by the Department of Employment today. There are, of course, complicated figures, but the short point is that the unadjusted figures show that there are 135,000 more unemployed than there were a month ago. The position now is that there are over 3.4 million unemployed—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the responsible Minister is the Secretary of State for Employment, who is a Member of this House, and I think the House would wish to know whether he proposes to make a Statement on this new and serious development.
Lord Denham: My Lords, so far as I have been able to find out, it has never been the practice in either House for an oral Statement to be made on the occasion of the publication of the monthly unemployment figures.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the other place is, of course, different from this House and there are all sorts of opportunities there, by means of points of order, by means of Questions to the Prime Minister, by means of questions on next week's business and by means of Standing Order No. 10, to raise the issue. In this House no such opportunities are available. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State is the boss of the
798
department concerned and he sits in this House. Bearing in mind that the figures are the worst on record, represent 14.1 per cent. of the population as unemployed and show a crisis in unemployment, we believe—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I just finish this point? I hope that the noble Lord—
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course we will always be prepared to discuss anything that may be suggested like this through the usual channels. I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that one of the ways that are not open to discuss this matter in this House this afternoon is the way that he has just tried.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Chief Whip suggesting that, because there is no precedent, the publication of figures showing a record number of unemployed in this country should not be the subject of a Statement? If he is saying that, and that there are no means for making such a Statement in this House, is that not further proof that the Secretary of State for Employment should be not in this House but in another place where he can be questioned?
Lord Denham: No, my Lords. That is not at all what I have been saying. I think that many Members of this House are very glad of the fact that my noble friend the Secretary of State sits in this House. This is the sort of thing we can discuss through the usual channels. Whether or not it would be right for a Statement to be made on the occasion of the monthly publication of figures is one thing. To try to discuss those figures merely on the suggestion that such a thing should be done is, I think, out of order.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether before this matter was raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition any request was made for a Private Notice Question?
Lord Denham: No, my Lords; but I think that would be a little difficult because, in fairness to the noble Lord opposite, the figures were only published at 12 o'clock. That would make it difficult to ask for a Private Notice Question. I also must say that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was kind enough to arrange for notice to be given that he was going to raise this matter. Whether it is a good thing to have a statement made on the publication of the employment figures in either House, wherever the Minister concerned may be, whichever Government might be in office at the time, and whether the figures go up or down, is something which I think we should discuss through the usual channels.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the availability of opportunity to raise this matter in the House has been discussed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. But may I say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about the possibility of discussion on this matter through the usual channels and possibly in the Procedure Committee as well?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the discussion but this is I think a record figure. I should like to urge as a matter of urgency that we discuss through the usual channels how we might deal with it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will agree that I have already said that we can discuss it through the usual channels. What I think we would be totally out of order in doing, in regard to whether this matter should be discussed, is actually to discuss it now.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as to the procedure in the other place and his suggestion that that puts this House at a disadvantage, does my noble friend appreciate that the first three of the four possible methods canvassed by the noble Lord seem on the face of it to be inappropriate, and the fourth could be applied only by leave of Mr. Speaker, and that only very sparingly and on rare occasions?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for filling in with information that I myself had not the knowledge to supply.

British Railways Bill
3.42 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been put down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Salmon Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Permitted methods of fishing for salmon.)
. In section 2 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (methods of fishing)—
(a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) No person shall fish for or take salmon in any waters in a salmon fishery district other than inland waters, except by rod and line, net and coble or bag net, fly net or other stake net.";
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(2A) After consulting such persons as he considers appropriate, the Secretary of State may, for the purposes of this section, by regulations define fishing for or taking salmon by—

(a) net and coble;

(b) bag net, fly net or other stake net,

whether by reference to anything used for the purpose, or to the circumstances in which or method by which it is so used, or to any combination thereof; and, in relation to net and coble, may make different provision as respects inland waters from that made as respects other waters.
(2B) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to amend or repeal section 62 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1857 and sections 12 and 13 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859.
(2C) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if along with Amendment No. 62 we consider Amendments Nos. 68, 82, 83, 87, 88 and 91.
Amendment No. 68: After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of use of gill nets.
. If any person—

(a) fishes for or takes salmon by means of a gill net; or

(b) uses a gill net as a leader net in the course of fishing for or taking salmon;

he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine and, in either case, to the forfeiture of any fish illegally taken by him or in his possession at the time of the offence and of any net by which the offence is committed.").
Amendment No. 82: Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Lawful means of fishing for salmon.
. It shall be the duty of every district fishery board in relation to their board and every water authority in relation to their area to specify the instruments and methods which may lawfully be used in their districts and areas respectively in fishing for salmon.").
Amendment No. 83: Clause 28, page 25, line 24, at end insert—

(" "gill net" means any length of net which when used as a leader net or otherwise in the course of fishing for or the taking of salmon may be expected to catch salmon by enmeshing them;

"leader net" means any length of netting set for the purpose of turning fish and leading them towards the entrance to a fish trap;").

Amendment No. 87: Clause 31, page 26, line 29, after ("shall") insert (", with the exception of the provision mentioned in subsection (1A) below).
Amendment No. 88: Clause 31, page 26, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) Section [Permitted methods of fishing for salmon] of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and such an order may include such transitional or saving provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provision brought into force by the order.").
Amendment No. 91: Clause 31, page 26, line 40, after ("sections") insert ("(Prohibition of use of gill nets)").
This amendment makes additional provision for the listing of the present lawful methods of salmon fishing in Scottish waters and allows the Secretary of State to define these methods by order. Under existing legislation the methods allowed in inland waters are net and coble and rod and line and are specified in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, but the term "net and coble" is not defined except by judicial decision.
The methods that are lawful in the sea are not specified at all and are not defined except where specific prohibitions have been enacted. The amendment does not change the methods of fishing presently lawful in practice, but it would enable detailed definition of these methods and thus create in the legislation a clear statement of the established policy of successive Governments that new methods of fishing for salmon should not be allowed to develop in the seas around Scotland.
The drift net ban of the early 1960s, with which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was concerned when Secretary of State for Scotland, and its extension to other methods in 1972 and 1975 were expressions of that policy. Specifying the methods and defining them would also have a significant effect in making enforcement easier and letting fishermen know more clearly what was allowed.
At Second Reading several noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, argued strongly for the precise listing of the permitted methods. In the context of this and other points I suggested that if amendments were put down I might be persuaded. In this case, given that I am already persuaded of the merit of the proposal, I am glad to offer this amendment myself. I think that it will have widespread support and I should perhaps not take up time by saying very much more. There are however one or two important details which I would mention.
No doubt it will be pointed out that the regulation-making power would offer scope for changing the way in which the nets were operated. This is entirely as it should be as in this field detailed definitions should not be fixed in primary legislation. The power could, for example, be used to regulate the use of adjacent nets so they would not entirely block a river in the way described by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne at Second Reading. It should be noted that the relevant orders could be made only after consultation with appropriate interests and would be subject to parliamentary procedure. Those are necessary and adequate safeguards.
The amendment is achieved by inserting new subsections in Section 2 of the 1951 Act and I should perhaps explain the provision at (2B) of the proposed insertion. This is an example of interaction with other statutes and is merely to allow the Secretary of State to amend or repeal those parts of the Tweed Acts which already regulate the use of the method and which could be inconsistent with regulations made under the new power. The new provisions would of course automatically apply to the whole of the Tweed because the 1951 Act applies to that river.
I believe that this amendment provides what your Lordships and many others outside this place have
802
carefully argued for and strikes the right balance—a statement of the principle in the primary legislation and an enabling power for detailed regulation by order subject of course to parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for having anticipated some of the information that was wanted in the primary legislation. I have no objection to this being done. It may well be that others wanted other aspects of fishing included which they want properly defined and declared illegal. While that may be helpful in relation to some of the other amendments, I do not believe that it will satisfy everyone. From my point of view, and as a way of handling the matter, I think that the clause is admirable. Certainly I have no objection to it.
The Earl of Perth: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, can help the Committee. I was not able to make a note of the other amendments that are being considered at the same time as Amendment No. 62. I now realise that there is a list of the groupings, and so I no longer need to bother the Committee.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Nonetheless, arising from that point, I made a note of the amendments that are now being discussed, and I want to make sure that my noble friend does not propose that Amendment No. 81, dealing with the prohibition of drift nets, should be discussed now. I believe I am correct in thinking that.
Lord Gray of Contin: My noble friend is absolutely correct. It may be helpful to the Committee if I read out again the amendments to be considered with Amendment No. 62. They are Amendments Nos. 68, 82, 83, 87, 88 and 91.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Having clarified that point, does my noble friend intend that discussion of all those amendments will embrace consideration of the type of nets that are to be used, but not in the open sea? I am sure that my noble friend, like me, would prefer to have one discussion and not have to enter further debate when we reach those other amendments. Am I right in thinking that the amendments to be discussed now cover forms of nets—besides the rod and line provisions in my noble friend's own amendment—to be used in the firths and the mouths of rivers but not at open sea, in salt water? If so, that would be a convenient way of governing our debate. I just wanted to make sure that that is what my noble friend intends.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can help my noble friend. If he looks at the amendments that have been grouped with Amendment No. 62, he will find that they all relate to the new clause that has been tabled. That is why they have been grouped in that way.
Lord Grimond: I should like on behalf of my noble friend Lord Thurso and these Benches to thank the Minister very much for this new clause, which my noble friend Lord Thurso suggested in his Second

803
Reading speech. My noble friend is very sorry not to be here today but he has been called away to the north. We all sympathise; no doubt it is to attend to his salmon.
I have two elementary questions to ask. First, may I take it that the new clause will apply to the whole coast of Scotland, including the islands? Secondly, may I assume that this amendment will apply to sea trout as well as to salmon?
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord is correct in thinking that such is the case. I may add that his noble friend Lord Thurso has apologised to me for not being present today, and I quite understand the reasons for his absence.
The Earl of Onslow: I thank my noble friend Lord Gray very much indeed for this amendment. It may be less clear than my amendment but that is because I am not a lawyer. I am sure that it is much more effective than mine, so I thank my noble friend for that. I have only one caveat. I hope that many of the decision-making powers can be put away from the Minister; in other words, down the line to the river boards and water authorities concerned. I hope also that we may extend the provisions of this Bill to England and Wales.
I should not like this Committee or another place to be involved in questions of where somebody's stake should be or what type of net can be used. Such matters are surely for local decision by local boards and authorities who know what are the local needs, bearing in mind all the conservation and fisheries considerations that exist. Certainly I shall not be moving my Amendment No. 82. I would not have put it down had I realised that Amendment No. 62 was being tabled. Everything happened in a rush. Nevertheless, I congratulate my noble friend on his amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: As the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill has mentioned my name, I must add my thanks to him. This is an immensely helpful amendment and I am very glad that he has put it forward. In saying that, I wish to make it clear that I shall not be able to go on thanking the noble Lord for the rest of the afternoon for what he suggests.
Lord Kimball: As I should not want to move Amendment No. 68, I seek confirmation from my noble friend that he will, as a result of Amendment No. 62, be making regulations to deal with the problem of the leader of the stake net being set as a gill net, and a gill net being set from the shore. Those are two major problems but I hope that Amendment No. 62 will allow my noble friend to deal with them.
Baroness White: I am sorry to intervene in this debate, especially as the expressions of satisfaction must be particularly gratifying to the Minister. Such expressions make it all the more distressing to those of us who are concerned with the comparable problems in Wales—and no doubt the same applies to anyone from England concerned with the English estuaries—that we are not being dealt with under this
804
legislation. We shall have to wait until some unspecified time in the future, presumably, before the very serious problems that exist in the Welsh estuaries can be dealt with.
For some 20 years in another place I was the Member for East Flintshire, now subsumed in the county of Clwyd, and was concerned with the problems of the Welsh river Dee. I know that there is a river Dee in Scotland as well. That is one of our major salmon rivers. Similar problems arise in other estuaries particularly in South Wales, in the estuary of the Usk. We are not to be given any help in a situation that has been serious for a number of years and has been growing more serious in recent times.
I shall not weary the Committee with too many details, but I have consulted officers and certain very experienced members of the Welsh Water Authority about this matter and have received, for example, a letter from the principal fishing officer in which he states:
"The quantities of salmon taken illegally in some of our Welsh estuaries make a mockery of any inriver improvements that a water authority can deploy".
In other words, in an estuary such as the Dee it is impossible to distinguish between those people who are fishing for white fish such as bass, pollocks and the like, and those who are taking salmon, whether or not they are authorised to do so.
There are two ways of trying to deal with the extremely serious problem in the estuaries. One is to regulate the method by which fish are taken. The other is to regulate the location or area in which fishing is permitted. We in Wales are not included in the Bill except in two rather irritating clauses, Clauses 26 and 27, as I mentioned the other day. Yet our needs are every bit as great. It is greatly to be regretted that in promoting this legislation for Scotland, which in that respect at least is causing general satisfaction, there has been no consultation with the Welsh Water Authority and very little consultation, if any, with the Water Authorities Association of England. It is only right that I should express to the Committee the situation as it seems to us in Wales. We are happy if the Scots are happy, but we feel distinctly aggrieved.
Lord Moran: I heartily agree with everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I have tried to address one of the problems that she mentioned—the question of the estuaries—in Amendment No. 71, which we shall be debating later.
Lord Burton: I wish to put three questions to my noble friend. First, his amendment refers to a "salmon fishery district". I wonder what will happen in the very large part of Scotland that is not covered by a salmon fishery district and whether restrictions on the methods of fishing will apply there also.
Secondly, I have a point concerning fishing for white fish, which was raised for Wales by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Nets which would be illegal for salmon can be set round Scottish waters allegedly for catching white fish. Is there any method by which that can be restricted? My third point is a very minor one. New subsection (2A) states that,
"the Secretary of State may … by regulations define".

805
As it is most essential to have "net and coble" defined as well as "bag net", should this not be changed from "may" to "shall"?
4 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may first deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White. Of course I have sympathy with her in the problem she outlined, but this is not a Scottish Office matter. However, I have no doubt that my noble friends will have taken note of the point she made. I think it is significant, although she is not entirely happy with the wording of Clause 26, that the new offence will apply in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. On her second point, I think her noble friend Lord Moran has dealt with that. There will be an opportunity to discuss it a little later in the Bill.
I was asked about the regulation-making power, and I can confirm that the new clause I have tabled will cover the leaders to bag nets. It is our firm intention that the leaders should not be used as gill nets. That was the point raised by my noble friend. As to the gill nets themselves, set from the shore, I am in full agreement with the aims of my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Margadale. I have today laid orders before both Houses banning the use of gill nets, however set, to fish for salmon within half a mile of the low water mark and banning the carriage of monofilament gill nets in British fishing boats while in Scottish inshore waters. I believe that those orders, with the existing ban on the use of drift or other gill nets from a boat, will achieve what the amendment seeks to achieve.
As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow a little earlier, I should explain that on consultation this is in itself an enabling power. The Secretary of State will in due course lay orders. Before such orders are laid we will ensure that as much consultation takes place as is possible.
My noble friend Lord Burton asked about areas not being covered by fishery districts. Not all districts have a district board but the clause relates to the districts and the whole of Scotland; and in that sense that is what is intended. To change "may" to "shall" is not necessary as this is a discretionary power. With those comments, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to agree to this amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Before my noble friend sits down, may I put one point to him? He referred to monofilament nets. I am very nervous about this expression because so far as I know monofilament nets have not been made for a long time. The trade does not deal in monofilament nets. It deals in multifilament fine-ply nets. If we use the expression "monofilament nets" there is a very grave risk that what my noble friend is trying to achieve will be got round. I should like the order to be changed to refer to "monofilament and multifilament fine-ply nets". I am advised that monofilament nets are hardly used and that nets are now multifilament.
Lord Gray of Contin: I should not like to argue too much with my noble friend on the technicalities of this point. The order has been laid as "monofilament net". My information is that despite what my noble friend
806
says a considerable quantity of monofilament net is still used, and we are trying to ensure that it is not used for the catching of salmon: indeed, that it is not even carried by boats in Scottish waters.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: What happens when the multifilament nets are used?
Viscount Trenchard: Before my noble friend answers that point, may I observe that in so far as there may be an advantage in using only one transparent filament the advantage is almost the same as if one is using two. That would be the easiest thing in the world to construct. Therefore I suggest that the point raised by my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne should be taken on board and a more comprehensive definition used.
Lord Grimond: I am most grateful to the Minister, as I understand he is giving way. I should like to confirm what he kindly said in answer to my question arising from the further question of the noble Lord. Lord Burton. It is quite clear that this new clause will apply to the whole coast of Scotland—to sea trout, salmon, and every other form of fishing in the islands and whether or not there is a board.
Lord Burton: I asked about the setting of nets for white fish. I am sorry to ask awkward questions when we all welcome this amendment, but I should like an answer.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I thank the Minister of State for the information on what he has done. We should be grateful for that and not cloud the issue with what we should have done. The Government are using powers under, I believe, the 1984 Act. That is a Scottish Act. If English lairds with interests in Scotland had come to this Chamber and to debates on Scottish Bills the point now raised could have been mentioned. If they had, the regulation might well have covered it. However, it is a regulation and I am perfectly sure that the Minister of State will have listened with interest and will discuss that point. If the order requires amending it does not take much parliamentary time and it will be done.
I thank the Minister of State for having listened to what we said in 1984 as to the desirability of taking that power to deal with nets. It may well cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as to the power already available in respect of other matters, which may not be, as I read the new clause, just what he would like.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to sound a tiny bit ungracious, because we are grateful for what my noble friend has done, but I do not think that he has answered the noble Baroness, Lady White. If these powers are necessary in Scotland—and we all say that they are—they must therefore be twice as necessary in Wales where there is much less salmon fishing. I believe one noble Lord said that the Welsh Water Authority estimates that half the salmon caught in Welsh rivers are not recorded. It certainly must apply to English waters as well. It seems to me odd that we can take this enormous amount of care and time, which is absolutely justified and right, as to what

807
happens to a salmon with a tartan on it, but ignore the salmon with a leek or a rose on it. We should regard them all as salmon with nothing on them at all and in need of protection.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: We had this discussion on Tuesday during a long debate. It was I who pointed out that the Welsh Water Authority said that half the salmon caught in Welsh rivers were illegally caught. I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has told us. However, while we are on this subject of nets we have not heard anything about trammel nets. Locally I have seen a few trammel nets which had been tied to the shore at right angles, which I understand is illegal. A trammel net is a deadly thing because it has nets of various meshes to catch salmon, sea trout, lobsters, cod, or anything you like. I do not really know what is the legal position. I do not want my noble friend to answer me now because he has not had notice of this question, but perhaps this matter ought to be looked into.
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I take the point from my noble friend Lord Massereene and I shall certainly find out the position for him and write to him in due course, because I do not have the information myself.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about sea trout and salmon and I can confirm that both are included in the order.
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Ross of Marnock, for his generous remarks. Of course, he is absolutely right that if there were the necessity to have an amendment made to an order, then it would be possible to do this. I am advised that there are certain difficulties so far as sea fishing is concerned and multifilament nets, which was a point raised by my noble friend. I have taken note of the point which he has made and I shall look into it. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and his concern about white fish, that is something that I shall also have to look into further and perhaps I may communicate with him in due course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Power to license and regulate salmon dealing in England and Wales
. In England and Wales the Secretary of State shall draw up a scheme for licensing and regulating of salmon-dealing and the scheme shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: May I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 72, 74, 77, 80, 81 and 90C, which all deal with the same point and indeed demonstrate the interest there is in it because these amendments come from every part of the Committee. I am not one who usually does good by stealth but I can assure—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way for one moment. The list of groupings which I have for this amendment covers Amendments Nos. 63, 63A, 72, 74, 80, First 81—because there are two amendments down numbered 81–85, 90C and 92.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That may well be. I was reading from the list which I have. I know that there must be a more up-to-date list because there are single amendments which probably are not included in this list.
As an amendment to Amendment No. 63, Amendment No. 63A: Line 2, after ("Wales") insert (", in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man").
Amendment No. 72: Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Granting of licences for dealing in game, to include salmon
. For the purposes of the provisions of the Game Act 1831 and statutory modifications thereof, insofar as any such provisions apply or relate to the requirement and granting of licences to persons to deal in game, the expression 'game' shall be deemed to include salmon; and insofar as any such provisions require a game certificate for the sale of game to any person, the expression 'game certificate' shall in relation to the sale of salmon mean a 'fishing licence' as defined in section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975; and the provisions of the Acts listed in Schedule (Acts governing game in England and Wales) to this Act shall have effect accordingly.").
Amendment No. 74: Clause 26, page 23, line 6, after ("if") insert ("he is in possession of any salmon, without a record of the name and address of the person from whom he received it, as shown on his fishing licence issued under section 25 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, and the provisions of the Acts listed in Schedule (Acts governing game in England and Wales) to this Act; or if").
Amendment No. 80: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Sale and purchase etc. of salmon
.—(1) If any person not being a licensed game dealer at any time sells or offers or exposes for sale any salmon otherwise than to a licensed game dealer, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(2) If any person sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale, or purchases or offers to purchase or receives, any salmon—

(a) which has been taken or killed in circumstances which constitute an offence; and

(b) which he knows or has reason to believe to have been so taken or killed,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.
(3) In this section and section (Licensed game dealers to keep records) below—
"licensed game dealer" means a person licensed to deal in game under the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860, and includes a servant of such a person;
"sale" includes barter and exchange and "sell" and "purchase" shall be construed accordingly.").
Amendment First 81: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Licensed game dealers to keep records
.—(1) Every licensed game dealer who sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any salmon shall keep or cause to be kept a book containing records in such form as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe and shall enter or cause to be entered in that book forthwith full particulars of all his purchases and receipts of salmon.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) Where a licensed game dealer has purchased or received salmon from another licensed game dealer he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this section if he has recorded in his record book—

(a) that the salmon was so purchased or received;

(b) the name and address of the other licensed game dealer; and

(c) the date when the salmon was so purchased or received.

(4) Any authorised officer, on producing, if so required, his written authority, and any constable, may inspect—

(a) the record book of a licensed game dealer;

(b) any salmon in the licensed game dealer's possession or under his control, or on premises or in vehicles under his control; and

809

(c) any invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents which relate to entries in the record book (including copies where the originals are not available);

and may take copies of, or extracts from, the record book and any such documents.
(5) A record book shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the last entry was made in the book and any such documents as are mentioned in subsection (4)(c) above shall be kept until the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the entry to which they relate.
(6) If any licensed game dealer without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) If any person wilfully obstructs any authorised officer or constable making an inspection under this section, or knowingly or recklessly makes or causes to be made in a record book any entry which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(9) In this section—
"authorised officer" means any officer of the council of a district or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London, who is authorised by them in writing to exercise the powers conferred by this section;
"record book" means a book kept in pursuance of subsection (1) above.").
Amendment No. 85: After Schedule 4. Insert the following new Schedule—
("ACTS GOVERNING GAME IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Game Licences Act 1860 (c. 90)

Revenue (No. 2) Act 1861 (c. 91)

Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (c. 114)

Ground Game Act 1880 (c. 47)

Local Government Act 1888 (c. 41)

Customs and Excise Act 1952 (c. 44)

Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 (c. 36)

Finance Act 1961 (c. 36)

London Government Act 1963 (c. 33)

Local Government Act 1966 (c.42)

Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48)

Game Act 1970 (c. 13)

Local Government Act 1972 (c.70) ")

Clause 31,
Amendment No. 90 C: Page 26, line 37, after second ("27") insert ("Sale and purchase etc. of salmon) and (Licensed game dealers to keep records)")
Amendment No. 92: In the Title, line 3, leave out ("Scotland") and insert ("Great Britain').
I was saying that this goes way beyond what we have been dealing with hitherto where we have been limited entirely to Scotland. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about Wales, because thanks to her I had the opportunity of reading a very valuable report by the Welsh Water Authority about salmon fishing interests in Wales. It may be a pity, but this is not a Scottish Bill. If this had been a Scottish Bill the word "Scotland" would have been in the title. So it is open to those who are interested to use what legislative ingenuity they possess to get their points across, and some of your Lordships have already done so.
The last thing we did on Tuesday night was to pass, without amendment, and probably with too little discussion, what may be the most important new venture in coping with the problem of salmon poaching. That was in Clause 19 where we introduced powers for the Secretary of State under the Civic Government Act to make it necessary for those dealing in salmon to have a licence. I suggest in this clause that the same powers should be given to the Minister in England to introduce licensing of salmon in England and Wales. I am not doing this as a dog in
810
the manger, saying "If you are doing this in Scotland, you can do it in England and Wales as well". It is not that at all. The provision was welcomed by everybody here, but if that provision is to be effective then one cannot stop at the border.
4.15 p.m.
Today poachers are very professional indeed and they are mobile. We heard the noble Lord the Minister, in reply to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, telling us how good the roads were between Inverness and Aberdeen and how Edinburgh was not remote from the Highlands. I can assure you that the salmon rivers of the Tweed are not all that far away from England. The roads are better than ever now and they are being used. I read of a case where three people were stopped by the police in relation to the possession of illegal salmon somewhere in Kent and I understand that the 29 salmon which they had came from Wales.
If we are to make desirable anti-poaching laws for Scotland, then we must be realistic about it. All the salmon that are poached in Scotland are not delivered in Scotland to those who want to buy. They may well be delivered to people in London. We shall have to widen very considerably the licensing in relation to dealing in salmon. I have just made a simple suggestion. I have taken the principle and said "Let this be done also in England and Wales".
I have looked at the suggestions of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who are both much more knowledgeable than I am about the laws of England. I think it is very clever to hang this point on the Game Acts of 1831 and to redefine "salmon" as "game" or to include salmon with the definition of game. If it comes to that, when I hear the arguments I may be prepared to defer my suggested new clause to one of those.
I think that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has gone beyond what I have done in defining the requirements. She has put a lot of work into this—more than I have done; it took me just five minutes to write out this simple principle. But that is the purpose of this amendment. If we think it desirable to have this law in Scotland, then in order to make it effective in Scotland we must apply something which is equally necessary in England and we should have this new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: May I at this stage say first of all that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who has just spoken. Much of the poaching, particularly in the Outer Hebrides, is done by very seaworthy ships which sweep up large quantities of salmon in the night. They may be the same ships which are used to go inland and shoot deer at night and have them sold as well. But having taken their salmon, if Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man are open to them where England and perhaps Scotland are not, then it is a very short distance for them to go over there to sell their fish. Even if Ireland and the Isle of Man are included in some way in this provision, probably the Scots would still go over and sell the fish. I believe that it would be at least a deterrent because most people do not wish to break the law if they can avoid doing so.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I shall not repeat the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, with all of which I agree, and I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to this amendment or something very like it. The Government can have no objection in principle after all because they have proposed licensing in Scotland.
I was told at one time that there were difficulties concerning the practicality of operating a scheme in England as opposed to operating one in Scotland. I would agree with that if it was proposed that the English water boards should invent a new system of licensing and administer it, too. That would be to put an impossible burden upon them; but that, I think, is not proposed. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard has got round that difficulty. It uses the local authority system of licensing—the Game Acts—and applies it to salmon, as I understand it. No doubt he will tell us later.
I say to the Minister that if he adopts those proposals, or if he will look at them seriously, salmon licensing in England and Wales can, so to speak, be had without tears. I hope that he will examine all the amendments, be sympathetic to them and produce something at Report stage to meet the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has in mind.
Lord Grimond: I rise briefly simply to support the principle behind the amendment. Whether it is preferable to have further amendments, I do not know. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said. It is the principle in which he is interested and it may be more convenient in England to deal with it through the Game Acts. But if we are to stop organised poaching—and it is organised poaching that we are worried about—it is surely sensible to prevent the poachers driving over the border to Carlisle, York or wherever else to sell their ill-gotten gains. If it is good for Scotland, it must be good for England.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I have heard that there may be difficulties in England, but I cannot believe that. The Game Acts are enforced in England. If it is possible to enforce the legislation in Scotland, it must be possible in England to prevent dealing in poached salmon.
I hope that the Government will accept the principle of one of the amendments. It would at any rate do something to meet the troubles of Wales. The proposal no doubt would not meet them entirely but, as has already been mentioned, we have all, I think, read of the huge amount of Welsh salmon apparently consigned to London and found in the boot of a car or in a lorry; so the idea that all poached salmon is sold locally is clearly untrue. By extending the provision to England, we should not only make it effective in Scotland but do something to meet the needs of Wales, and indeed of England itself.
Viscount Trenchard: I wonder whether I could speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 which are in my name and to Amendment No. 85 which follows on Amendment No. 72. I fully supported at Second Reading the unanimous view that licensing should apply to England and Wales. Because of the in-position water authorities, it would be slightly easier in
812
England and Wales, and individual fishing licences are already issued.
I thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for allowing me the benefit of consultation with his officials to try to get my head a little bit clearer and to cut out wrong paths to a degree. He will later tell me whether I have cut out enough wrong paths. I am sure that the amendment is still deficient or defective in more ways than one. But the point of it is as follows.
If one looks at the exact position in which I have put the amendment (immediately before Clause 26 on page 23 under the heading: "Provisions relating to England and Wales"), one sees that it does two things. It suggests that the definition of game under the 1831 Act and about eight or nine other Acts listed in the appendix (which is called Amendment No. 85) which derive from it shall include salmon. I am afraid that here I must apologise for a technical typing error which occurred, but the other thing that the amendment is intended to say is that where the term "game licence" rather than "game certificate" appears in the Game Acts the term "fishing licence" shall be substituted or added to it.
Many noble Lords know that a game licence is required by anyone who goes out to kill game. Similarly, in England and Wales a water authority fishing licence is required. That is important, because the Game Acts, if I may turn to them for a moment and try perhaps to over-simply them—I do so with trepidation in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—set up a chain of licences. The individual has to have a game licence to shoot game, the retailer or the like has to have a local authority licence, and the game dealer has to have both a local licence and an excise licence. That sets up a chain so that anybody handling game has to be licensed. By covering salmon in the legislation and substituting "fishing licence" for "game licence", we set up a similar chain in relation to salmon.
That will make very much more easy the onus clauses which we need to discuss either in the grouping of clauses that we have now or in the next grouping. If the possession of a salmon or the offering of it for sale may be done only by someone who is licensed, who must have obtained it from someone who is licensed, we are three parts down the way of saying that anybody who has bought a salmon has to know that he has bought it from an authorised source. He has to inspect the licence. In Amendment No. 74 I take that a stage further and suggest that the name and address of the person on the licence should be recorded by the purchaser. I shall leave Amendment No. 75 for a moment, if I may.
Your Lordships may wonder how it has happened that England and Wales have so little in the Bill and almost nothing on conservation. I suggest that the story has been as follows. The Englishmen and the Welshmen thought that they were to get tagging through the years 1984 to 1985. The Scotsmen resisted that because they did not want individual or net licences, both of which we have in England under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Scotsmen got their licensing and the Englishmen and Welshmen have realised too late that that has left them with nothing. I have to accept, whatever its merits, that the tagging scheme is, for the time being anyway, dead.

813
It must be that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we have gone licensing and rejected tagging, the very minimum that we must have in England and Wales is a good licensing scheme as a basis for the onus-of-proof clause.
We shall come later to Amendment No. 74 and the onus question. It was said by my noble friend Lord Gray at Second Reading that we had an onus-of-proof clause anyway, so licensing did not matter. I shall not go through the motion of saying, if that is so, why have it in Scotland; but for the reasons that I have given, a chain of licences can make the situation very much easier.
I understand that the onus clauses in the Bill have been based (though altered) on the Theft Act, and that Act deals with any property that one may own; one's handkerchief, tie, shoes, car, radio and so on. Obviously in this country it would be quite offensive for the possessor of a handkerchief or a tie to have to prove where he got it from; it would be utterly ridiculous. But when one moves from that to a situation where one is dealing with a commodity in which there is a lot of poaching and the stock is severely threatened, and one which can be handled only by certain licensed people, without being offensive one can be a lot more specific. Indeed the Government have been much more specific in Section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 which controls the question of
"any person who buys, sells or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any salmon between 31st August and the following 1st February".
That is the close season for nets although not of course for rods. Throughout the whole of September, and in the case of many rivers for longer than that, it is still the fishing season. In that period, the present law, contained in Section 22(4) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, says:
"The burden of proving that any salmon or trout bought, sold, exposed for sale or in the possession of any person — shall lie on the person buying, selling or exposing it for sale, or having it in his possession for sale".
4.30 p.m.
So a specific onus of proof about possession is written into our existing salmon fisheries legislation for what it called the off season but which actually overlaps with the fishing season to quite a high degree. I would suggest strongly that my Amendments Nos. 74 and 75, which are based very much on Amendment No. 72, would become perfectly easy to administer, and easier if the chain of licensing that I have suggested was to be adopted.
My noble friend Lord Home says that he would have been against licensing in England and Wales if the overpressed water authorities had had to administer the scheme. I understand that very well. The purpose of my route is not to add any further administration to the water authorities, who already have to issue the licences for the individual rodsmen and, I believe, for the netsmen. So that is done in any event. Just as in Scotland, although the Scottish route must be a different one under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, so in England, the route for licences under the Game Act is by application either to the Post Office or to local authorities. You fill in a form, giving your name and address. If you are a
814
reputable dealer, a reputable retailer or a fisherman, you get a licence without trouble. But your name and address is recorded upon it, and the place where you bought the licence is recorded.
As to checking by local authorities—and indeed any degree of extra work—note should be taken that in a great many cases salmon follow the same routes of distribution as do game. Both modern retailers and more old fashioned retailers in other parts of the country are already licensed in many cases under the Game Act. They would already have proved their bona fide trading situation in relation to game. I believe that the overlap could be as high as 90 per cent. So there would not only be little or no administration for the water authorities but I cannot see that there would be any excess administration for anyone else either. The only effect upon the water authorities would be to make the catching of poachers and the proving of their guilt that much easier.
Most water authorities have far too few bailiffs. On the River Tamar, as I have mentioned previously, there is only one working full-time in the main poaching area. And even he is not in fact full-time. One of the greatest frustrations for him and for the private bailiffs has been the inability to bring poachers successfully to court when it is actually known who has been poaching and where the salmon have gone. I should like to say that the poachers in our part of the world do not sell at half-price. Nor do they travel furtively at night and wear gum boots. They drive up in Jaguar motorcars and stay at hotels. They might give a 10 per cent. cheaper deal on the grounds of having had a good fortnight's fishing. But they look highly respectable. The onus clause in the Bill would not catch them for one moment because the hotelier would say that they had been very nice gentlemen.
I fear that I have spoken for a slightly long time but three of my amendments effectively come under this grouping. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that if the amendment is not yet right, he will at least offer detailed discussions on how to get a specific licensing scheme into this Bill for England and Wales where salmon stocks are depleted by far more than the 50 per cent. that has been mentioned in respect of catches for all the reasons that I gave on Second Reading. The matter is extremely urgent. I hope therefore that the Minister can give an assurance that he will set about producing something to bring in this kind of proposal by the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Denning: As a lawyer, I should like to see the law of England, Scotland and Wales uniform on this matter. If licensing, with penalties for unlawful dealing and the like, is desirable for Scotland, then the same should apply in England and Wales. The problem is the same. The rivers and estuaries are the same in all respects that matter. The poachers take masses of salmon and bring them to Glasgow or London. The problem is the same; therefore the law should be the same for dealing with it. The only question that arises is whether we should follow the system already proposed in Clause 19, already passed, or pursue the ingenious suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that we should adopt the game laws for England. It seems to me that this proposal would work very well. It works with the game laws. You need a

815
licence to sell or to buy the game. You should have your certificate and the like. Why should not those laws equally apply to salmon? That is the ingenious suggestion made by the noble Viscount.
The overriding argument, I suggest, is that whatever system is adopted, it should be the same for Scotland, England and Wales. The water bailiffs, the police, or whoever is investigating, have to take the offenders before the courts—the magistrates' court, the sheriff court or whatever it may be—and those courts should apply the same principles in each case. There should be the same burden of proof, and so on. So, while heartily supporting licensing, I should like to see the law the same in England, Scotland and Wales in this important matter.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It might be appropriate if I were to say a word or two about Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 90C. This is another offering somewhat similar to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I must in all honesty entirely disclaim the credit for having designed this amendment. It was not designed by me but by a very experienced parliamentary agent. It is to him that the credit goes. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has explained his amendments at some length and, thanks to that, I shall be able to speak to these amendments very briefly.
The principal difference between these amendments and those of the noble Viscount is that in these we are seeking to do the same thing in exactly the same manner as for deer under the 1980 Deer Act. That Act extended and expanded the licensing system for game dealers in England under the Game Act of 1831 to cover venison too.
Amendment No. 80 relates to the sale and purchase of salmon. Amendment No. 81 lays down the requirements for a licensed game dealer to keep full records of his salmon and dealing transactions. The two amendments follow almost word for word Sections 2 and 3 respectively of the Deer Act 1980 with the obvious substitution of salmon for venison. The new clauses thus have an admirable parliamentary precedent and can readily be adapted to meet the needs to license salmon dealers in England and Wales.
I realise that a deficiency of this amendment is that, as licensed salmon dealers in Scotland under clause 19 will not in all cases be licensed game dealers, some additional wording will be required to enable the salmon dealers in England and Wales to do business with their counterparts in Scotland.
As I say, this is just another kind of pudding I am offering. I do not care which pudding we have, whether it is my pudding, or that of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, or whether we have a completely different pudding belonging to the Government. But I heartily endorse everything that has been said so far about these related amendments. I hope that the Minister will give us some kind of undertaking that we shall achieve something today.
Viscount Ridley: May I add my support to the theory behind these amendments. As I said at Second Reading, I think it is a nonsense if we have licensed dealers in Scotland but not in England. I would bring forward an argument not so far deployed. That is, I
816
believe that the English dealers would themselves welcome a licence for the obvious reason that that puts them in the clear.
If my noble friend cannot agree to this series of amendments, whichever one he chooses, would he not agree with me that in future we shall have to paraphrase Dr. Johnson and say that the noblest prospect a salmon poacher ever sees is the high road leading from Scotland into England.
4.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): Soon after the noble Lord, Lord Ross, moved Amendment No. 63 my noble friend Lord Home asked that the Government should give very serious consideration either to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, or to something like it. I should like first to say, having listened to this short debate, that I shall certainly agree that the Government need to do that. In a moment perhaps I could add a word or two to that assurance.
Second, may I say to your Lordships that I think it is fair for the Government to claim, having considered dealer licensing carefully in the past, because we did, and having consulted the water authorities on it, which we also did, that we concluded that the burden on traders and on licensing authorities would not be justified in England and Wales. That is the reason why we did not come forward with an amendment similar to Clause 19, which is in the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home for recognising that there are quite serious implications for the water authorities who would be the natural licensing authorities because they are statutorily responsible, as your Lordships know, for the management of salmon fisheries in England and Wales if there were to be a full blown licensing system. By "full blown" I refer to arguments in favour of licensing salmon dealers resting on the assumption that everyone concerned throughout the whole of Great Britain from the rod fishermen to the fishmonger would be required to have a licence. I think that that would be quite a massive administrative exercise so far as enforcement is concerned. Even then, as my noble friend Lord Kimball pointed out in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, illegally caught fish pass through netting stations now and so many illegally caught fish could still find their way into the trade by that route.
Having said that, of course it would be possible to operate a more limited licensing system embracing those firms who buy direct from netsmen and anglers, importers and wholesalers. This would make it possible to require the takers of salmon to sell to licensed dealers only. I recognise that such a scheme would require enforcement officers to inspect the records of dealers. However, I am simply saying that these advantages—as I think your Lordships would see them—have to be weighed against the extra effort and cost imposed on the trade, and indeed on the licensing authorities, when considering a scheme of licensing.
May I, in literally a couple of sentences or so, refer to the remarks made by some of your Lordships (the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was one) about the cross border trade. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to

817
the dangers of cross border trade. I recognise that both noble Lords have a point here—of course I do. But do not let us overplay it. I noticed that, except for my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who does not believe that Clauses 20 and 26 go far enough, none of your Lordships talked very much about the onus of proof. The big difference between the situation when this Bill reaches the statute book and the present time is that the new offences in Clauses 20 and 26 will be in force. That will make it harder for the poacher to hawk his salmon around and find a buyer in England, Wales or Scotland. The longer he is on the road the more exposed he will be to detection and prosecution for possessing or handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. I do not make too much of that; nonetheless, I do make that point.
May I therefore say in reply to the main amendment we are dealing with—Amendment No. 63—that I am going to repeat the assurance which I gave at the very beginning and see how your Lordships take that assurance. But in looking at this amendment I do not think—if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will forgive my saying so—that as worded this would quite do. The noble Lord expressed quite a lot of concern the other evening that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin did not have enough information packed into Clause 19 for dealer licensing in Scotland. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, himself would probably have wanted to see his Amendment No. 63 become slightly more detailed if it was to be accepted by the Committee.
The second amendment to which we are talking is Amendment No. 63A. My noble friend Lord Gisborough I am sure, will forgive me if I say that I do not think this is a road we need to do down in one case, or ought to go down in the other. The reason for my first assertion is that I understand that salmon dealers are already licensed by the Northern Ireland Fisheries Conservancy Board. So far as the Isle of Man is concerned, that is an island which has its own government and own administration and it has to fall outside the scope of the Bill.
I now come to Amendment No. 72, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, together with the related Amendment No. 74 which attracted a great deal of interest from your Lordships and from the Government when my noble friend came and talked about it informally before debating it here today. Despite my noble friend's ingenuity, the amendment raises the question of whether you can apply lock, stock and barrel a scheme which is designed for one purpose—namely, game licensing—to another purpose which in this case is the licensing of salmon. I know that my noble friend knows very well that the approach to salmon dealer-licensing in Scotland is somewhat different. I think that my noble friend is also very much aware that when the extension of licensing arrangements to dealers in venison came about, new powers were taken.
I should like to raise one difficulty as regards my noble friend's amendment although I think that when we come to look at it in detail there will perhaps be some others. The difficulty which I wish to raise is this. My noble friend Lord Trenchard has made clear that he does not intend to apply the game Acts through his amendments to salmon in Scotland, because if he did so it would mean removing Clause 19 of the Bill.
818
However, in the absence of the provision for licensing the takers of salmon in Scotland—whether they be anglers, netsmen or fish farmers—the effect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 72 would be to make it impossible for dealers in England and Wales to buy direct from Scottish netsmen and fish farmers. Down this side of the Border we would have to buy from Scottish licensed dealers who themselves, as I understand it, would be free to buy where they chose. I only set that out as being a problem, and it is a problem which we would have to overcome if we went down my noble friend's road of applying the game law, and not down one of the other roads.
However, there is another road which has been offered, and I am referring now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 and the related amendments moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and also my noble friends Lord Chelwood and Lord Onslow. Under those amendments it would be an offence for someone not licensed to deal in game to sell any salmon other than to a licensed game dealer. Licensed game dealers would need to keep records of their purchases of salmon. The amendments also empower district council officers and officers of the London boroughs to inspect those records, but they do not offer those powers to water authority officers. The line of thought is very similar to that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, but it is that hit different; it is also an interesting way forward.
I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am nit-picking, but the amendments suffer from the fact that the noble Lady and my noble friends have chosen the local authorities to have the statutory responsibiliity for licensing, whereas, as I made clear earlier, the water authorities have the statutory responsibility for managing salmon fisheries in England and Wales and preventing illegal fishing. This is a matter that we would have to face up to very seriously indeed if we are to go down that particular route.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having deployed some of the problems which I see as regards the three amendments. I have done so deliberately because, if the Committee agree that we ought to consult, I think it would be wrong for me not to have at least set out some of the problems as I see them because in my view some of them are very formidable. As I said, if they had not been formidable we would have endeavoured to have tried to have put something into the Bill because we are all on the same side in this matter; we all want in one way or another to prevent poaching.
The one conclusion that I reach on behalf of the Government is that the arguments which have been put forward on these amendments must be carefully considered. As a result of this debate, I shall undertake that the Government will re-examine the case as a matter of urgency. I would be ready on behalf of the Government to do that in consultation with those who have spoken today and I would be ready to try to report the Government's conclusions at the next stage of the Bill. I ask the Committee to consider seriously the problems which I have attempted to deploy. However, if Members of the Committee are prepared to withdraw the amendments on the undertaking which I have given to reconsider and to consult, we

819
would be able to go through both the problems and the possibilities together. I very much hope that that is what the Committee will agree to do.
Baroness White: I should like to suggest to the Minister that Amendment No. 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock may perhaps be amended at the next stage to be permissive. In other words, it can be amended to contain "may" and not "shall". It seems to me that so far as England and Wales are concerned the deliberations may take quite a considerable time and we would not wish in any way to hold up this desirable legislation for Scotland. If by making such an alteration we could give a permissible power to the English and Welsh authorities, whichever they may be, that would allow adequate consultation to take place. It would not be mandatory, but if we found a suitable way of doing it in England and Wales, then at least the enabling power to bring forward the appropriate orders would be in the Bill. I suggest that as a possible way of dealing with the strictly England and Wales aspect.
I am not making any comment on the method as regards Scotland or what might turn out to be appropriate. My own view is that the English and Welsh water authorities have not addressed their minds in sufficient detail to this matter partly because they were in favour originally of tagging and have only relatively recently become conscious of these other possible means of dealing with the matter.
The Earl of Perth: Before the movers of the amendments give their replies to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I should like to point out that I noticed that he said that various matters would take a great deal of extra effort and cost. I only hope that extra effort and cost will not stand in the way of achieving something. There may be many technical difficulties; however, I have no doubt that, not only for Scotland but also for England and Wales, the desire is to stop salmon poaching and, if necessary, in some way or another money should be forthcoming. However, the excuse of extra effort and cost should not be allowed to be one of the factors which are taken into account.
Lord Moran: I notice that in the grouping of amendments which we have been given there is included Amendment No. 92 which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady White. That amendment is to the Title of the Bill and it proposes that in line 3 we should leave out "Scotland" and insert the words "Great Britain". That amendment reflects what I considered was the overwhelming view of noble Lords at Second Reading; namely, that any arrangements which are brought in to deal with the sale and distribution of salmon should extend throughout Great Britain, and that view has been reaffirmed from all quarters of the Committee today. Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will be prepared to accept that amendment.
I shall say only a very few words on the substance of what we have been discussing. I want to point out that the water authorities' association say that they are anxious that the Government should not now be
820
pushed hastily into a dealer-licensing arrangement without detailed consideration of the alternatives.
I was very grateful for the assurance from the Minister that this matter would be carefully considered; but I wonder whether it may be a solution for the Government to bring forward at the Report stage an enabling clause allowing them to bring forward later (subject to an affirmative resolution) a considered plan for the control of salmon sales and distribution throughout Great Britain. Officials of the three departments involved, working closely with the water authorities and others concerned, could then go into the matter thoroughly and decide what would be the most effective mechanism—tagging or dealer licensing, or both, or something else. That might be a useful way forward and it would save further discussion.
5 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: Before my noble friend Lord Belstead replies, I wonder whether he would consider whether it is possible in the consultations, which are most welcome, to include discussions with the district councils? They issue licences for game, and I should have thought that they would not be against helping in this matter. It might be better that they should be involved rather than water authorities. I put it forward because I believe it to be helpful, and I hope that my noble friend will not ignore it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: May I say a word in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said about the increased cost of doing this? A licensed game dealer requires two licences, each of which needs to be applied for annually and is valid for a period of 12 months. The first licence costs only 25p and is issued by the local district council. The second, issued by the Post Office, costs only £4. In these days, 25p and £4 are peanuts. Surely it should be possible to increase the cost of the licences to cover the cost of implementing the scheme.
Viscount Trenchard: Before any amendment is pressed or withdrawn let me say that I shall be happy, when it comes to my turn, to withdraw my amendments in view of what my noble friend has said. Let me say two things. First, I share the view of the noble learned Lord, Lord Denning, that it would be nice if the laws of England and Scotland were the same, but he must know considerably better than I do that they are not. The proposal in the Bill follows the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. There are differences even within the fishery field in that individual netsmen and rodsmen in Scotland do not have licences and in England they do. We are not going to put that right in this Bill.
We have to live in the confederate world in which we live, or whatever one likes to call it. As has been said several times today, if there are certain advantages in Scotland which enable them to do one thing, and if there are certain advantages in English law and in the position of water authorities (because they are all there and licences exist) in doing another, let them do it. But, yes, there has obviously got to be consultation between the two departments.

821
To my noble friend I would say one thing, and I shall argue the toss at the consultations he so kindly promised on all other points. I believe that I can argue the toss on the other points. The one thing I want to say is that the water authorities rooted for tagging. They were all for tagging. Without any doubt whatever the burden that they would have taken on, if tagging had been agreed, would have been enormously greater than the route I propose.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I, too, shall not move Amendments No. 80, 81 and 90C in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said and again in anticipation of our consultations.
Lord Burton: I am sure we all welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, certainly that part at the end of what he has just told us. There was one point which concerned me. He said that anyone sending fish from Scotland to England would have to be a licensed dealer. This would mean that a great many netting stations in Scotland would have to be licensed because a lot of fish goes straight to Billingsgate and probably to other dealers in England. Anyone who had any quantity of fish and wanted to sell it south of the border would then have to get a licence.
Viscount Trenchard: I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to intervene on this? I deliberately did not answer the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on this question, but in fact a legal Scottish netsman has a title to be netting. It is the easiest thing in the world to amend my amendment, if it comes forward at Report stage, to say that a legal Scottish netsman, who can prove his legality, can sell to a dealer in Billingsgate.
Lord Burton: I was not questioning the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I was questioning what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had said, that any salmon going south of the border would have to come from a licensed dealer. It would markedly reduce the number of outlets for Scottish salmon fishermen if this were the case. This should not be the case. A venison dealer's licence at the present time, certainly from our district council, costs £50 and not the 25p which some of the other licences apparently cost. It is quite a substantial amount for a venison dealer's licence. Consequently, we would not want every salmon fisherman who wanted to sell salmon south of the border to have to pay a £50 licence.
Lord Belstead: Before my noble friend Lord Onslow deals with Amendment No. 80, to which he also has his name, and before your Lordships decide, perhaps I ought to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The question of administration and cost, in my own words, was linked to the concern that you have the situation in England Wales—particularly in England—where the water authorities, particularly so far as enforcement would be concerned, would be operating in the great conurbations of Greater London, Manchester, Birmingham and so on.
It was not altogether a surprise to the Government when we found that they were reluctant to face up to that sort of thing when we discussed the possibilities of
822
dealer licensing with them, although I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said so far as their expectations over dealer licensing were concerned. That really was my point. It would of course be necessary, if there was to be any question of a change of tack, to look towards the local authorities, and of course I have taken on board the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ridley.
Then again, there would be the whole question of exactly the cost of administration and the feasibility of administration. We would have to face head on the fact that it is the water authorities in England and Wales who are the responsible statutory authorities. I thought that I ought to say that to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, although I think he knows the points as well as I do.
The only other point I ought to make, before we end this debate and your Lordships decide what to do, is to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who said much the same thing, on the question of putting in an enabling power, because it would enable the Government then to see how to go. I think that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, however, would be the first to say to me that if the Government were to come back at a subsequent stage of the Bill and say that they were prepared to put some form of dealer licensing into the Bill, the Government would have to be genuine in that.
Indeed, Clause 19 is in a permissive form at the present time. It says "may" rather than "shall" because it is an enabling clause, but nonetheless the Government would have to come back at a subsequent stage of the Bill, not using enabling powers just to drag their feet. I know that the noble Baroness would expect us to come back with a genuine answer to the question which is being put to us from all sides of the Committee. In a way, I am digging a hole for myself in saying that, but I felt I had to face that point head on and reply to the noble Baroness in the way that I have just done.
Baroness White: I was delighted to hear the noble Lord say that I was offering him an insurance policy.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to raise one point. We have heard a lot about the amount of poaching which goes on and the amount of illegal salmon trading that goes on. We have heard no hard evidence of how much there really is. If we address our minds to that particular problem we then get back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said. If we can definitely show that there is a major amount of illegal salmon fishing, then it is obviously essential that dealer licensing should happen in Scotland.
If we do not have it in England, it weakens it in Scotland; it ruins it in Scotland, and it does not work. I realise that I am being slightly a devil's advocate here, but I have not heard how great is the evidence of illegal fishing. It really ought to be proved that there is a major amount of it before we introduce dealer licensing in Scotland at all. That is arguing it totally the other way round, but I do not think the two questions are anything other than totally linked.
Lord Kimball: May I suggest that the noble Earl who has just sat down goes to Billingsgate Market in July. He is quite likely to find there, on any one morning about 3 a.m., when the fish boxes are opened, that two-thirds of the fish in the market have been illegally caught.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to come back to my noble friend Lord Kimball. I do not doubt him. However, how does he know that two-thirds of the salmon in Billingsgate Market have been illegally caught? That seems to me a very odd statement to make. Somebody must be committing a crime if that is the case. If two-thirds of the fish have been poached, somebody has committed a crime.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I must intervene here. I am speaking now as a past prime warden of the Fishmongers' Company. As Members of the Committee know, the Fishmongers' Company has a fish meter operating in Billingsgate Market, a superintendent of fishery. He is a man of great experience and he inspects the boxes of fish. He knows an enormous amount about fish, and I can assure the noble Lord that the statement he has made is very far from the truth. I hope he will withdraw it.
Lord Kimball: I am sorry. May I make it absolutely clear that two-thirds of the fish in the market were hung fish? The inspector was there on the morning I went. We went round, we saw the boxes open and they were fish that had been caught in gill nets. It was proved because of the marks at the back of the head and around the gills. Two-thirds of the fish in the market in salmon boxes were hung fish.
Viscount Trenchard: My noble friend should read a report which has been mentioned many times in this debate—the report of the Welsh Water Authority on illegal fishing in Wales.
Lord Ross of Marnock: What has gone before has been fascinating, especially the latter part where we were being re-educated. I am only sorry that we stopped so early on Tuesday evening, because we were dealing with the actual clause that is based upon poaching. The noble Earl was there and he never said a word when we were discussing the Question that the clause stand part. That is the clause which deals with licensing and regulation of salmon dealing in Scotland, to catch the poachers. If he felt there was no need at all for the Bill he should have voted against that. When my helpful, rather harmless amendment is brought up he delays us with the belated suggestion that there is little or no poaching to worry about.
The Earl of Onslow: I did not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not want to do the noble Earl an injustice.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord give way for one tiny moment? I love the sound of my own voice but it must be rationed. I did not say that I did not think there was poaching. I just said that I have heard a great many assertions that there is poaching and vast quantities of illegally caught fish, but no
824
evidence that that is the case. All I am suggesting is that we might have a little evidence before we make sure that something is right for England, is right for Scotland, and before we enact it in legislation. That is all I am suggesting. If the noble Lord wants me to speak to every clause, I shall change my name to Lord Ross of Marnock.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am afraid the noble Earl would be quite out of order. He would not be allowed to do that. He has no idea of the difficulties I had in getting "Lord Ross of Marnock". We will leave that medieval roundabout alone for the moment and come back to this suggested new clause.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his appreciation of the importance of the subject. He began by saying that the reason there is nothing about this in the Bill is that the hope was to get tagging. However, after much argument, much discussion, tagging is out. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggest that we have something or other to enable us to re-start discussions about tagging, I am afraid I thought that really that was an invitation to delay and do nothing at all. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think it is implicit. It is implicit in what the Minister himself said about the hope to introduce tagging in England, and that that is what the water authorities and everybody else want, but it could not be done.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am in no sense suggesting that there should be an unnecessary delay. I am simply reflecting what I believe to be the view of the water authorities in England and Wales, which is that they should have more time to consider what is really the best method of achieving what we all want.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That may be so, but I thought that they had had consultation over a period of years and had come to the conclusion that they could not have what was wanted, which was tagging itself.
I am very grateful indeed for the debate we have had because it must surely have impressed the Minister that practically everyone who spoke said that it must be done in some way or another. He suggested to me that my new clause was rather bare. He chided me because I had suggested that we could have a little more information and discussion on the enabling clause of the Government, Clause 19, which was the one part of the debate he heard yesterday. I ask Members of the Committee to consider the discussion we have had today and the quality of it. I want to say this. That clause on Scotland went through with about 20 minutes' discussion, and if the Chief Whip had had his way it would have gone through on the nod. That is not and never has been my way of getting good legislation. I have always felt that if the Minister does not know a Bill when it starts, by the time it has been through Committee stage and Report stage then he should know it by virtue of the kind of debates and discussions that take place.

825
5.15 p.m.
The noble Lord also talked about the differences between Scotland and England. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I was greatly pleased with his clause, but he showed a woeful ignorance of the law of Scotland. He said, "Let us have the same law". Does he want a revolution? The Act of Union laid it down that the law of Scotland should remain. The mere question of definition very often means that in respect of the same problems we have a different Bill—not necessarily a different solution but a different Bill. The ends of the law are the same. The law itself is not the same but the aims and ends are. However, I think I got the drift of what the noble and learned Lord meant. He was supporting the suggestions that were made, not necessarily any individual one but suggesting that one of them or something like them should be introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should appreciate that in Scotland the power to license is based upon the Civic Government (Scotland) Act which the House passed. I am sure all noble Lords will remember it. There were long discussions between myself and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I believe it was, on the subject. There was nobody else present. It was not a debate; it was a dialogue. The local authorities license all kinds of things. I think we actually decided that they would not license chimney-sweeps any longer, but just in case we missed something we put in that they would have powers to add to those things that perhaps they should license.
Indeed, on a Private Member's Bill on salmon fishing from that side of the Committee the question of licensing arose and I put forward the suggestion to him personally that we could use the Civic Government (Scotland) Act to do it. Members of the Committee have no idea how delighted and bucked I was when I read Clause 19 and discovered that we were actually using the Civic Government (Scotland) Act to do it. I should not presume, in respect of England and Wales, to lay down the law as to how it should be done. Thus I just put it into a principle: let us have a scheme, let the Government draw up that scheme and let them come with it.
I take the point make by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I put in the word "shall", and it may well be that I should have put in the word "may", especially because after what we heard last night it really means "shall". We could argue for a few hours on that point, but that is the answer that was given to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, last night.
I am quite prepared to come back to this at another time if the Government do not find suitable words. I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said. However, when one bears in mind the problem, irrespective of what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, as to his not being satisfied that it is at all needed for Scotland, he wants the figures. He wants the facts; he wants the figures. He would like to hear the facts; he would like to hear the figures. Well, I can assure him that I have had to act as Secretary of State for Scotland when we could not get the exact figures about drift netting off the East Coast of Scotland. But I can assure him that it had to be done, and that it was to the benefit of the salmon fishing industry in Scotland when it was done.
826
But if I had waited until we had had a long commission on the exact number of fish that had been caught, I do not know what destruction would have been caused or what apoplexy there would have been among noble Lords in your Lordships' House that no action had been taken. Let us not ride away on the business of difficulties. If the Government want to do a thing, they will find a way to do it. Let us not ride away on the subject of expense. I do not think that there is any expense. The figures quoted by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in respect of two particular licences bears that out.
On the question of enforcement, does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, think that all the poached salmon in Scotland are sold in Achiltibuie rather than in Aberdeen, or in some isolated village in the North of Scotland rather than Glasgow or Edinburgh? Let me tell him that more of the salmon that is poached finds its way to this city, probably, than is sold in Scotland—to the back door of some wee hotel. Let him face the facts about that. And who does the enforcement of anything now? It is the police You are putting in new clauses and telling us that these are wonderful new clauses. Who has to enforce them? It is the police. I suggest that the licensing can be done quite well by the local authorities and that the enforcement can be done by the usual enforcement authorities when we leave the actual water areas.
The noble Lord has given us a serious offer, I think, in that he is going to look at it carefully. I made that kind of offer in my days when speaking from the Front Bench. Sometimes I meant it, sometimes I hoped I would get a solution. Sometimes I knew that I would not get a solution. I trust that he is not going to go hack and give us the indication that he knows he will not get a solution. If he wants difficulties, if he wants objections, he will get them. He will get them by the dozen from his department. What he will do, I hope, is to take the sense of the Committee today: and the Committee want something done. What he brings forward may be imperfect, but I think that we would be grateful for that, that he has made the effort. He asked to be allowed to consider it carefully. I am not going to deny him that opportunity, and I shall certainly withdraw Amendment No. 63.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): Amendment No. 63A, in the name of Lord Gisborough, as an amendment to Amendment No. 63, is before the Committee. I do not know what course the noble Lord wishes to take. It is not moved.
[Amendment No. 63A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 63 should be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Offence of possessing salmon which have been illegally taken, killed or landed]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 19, line 7, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 10, and insert (", in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully, has in his possession any salmon, or receives, or undertakes or assists in the

827
retention, removal or disposal of any salmon, for or on behalf of himself or another, or arranges to do so, where the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I speak also to Amendment No. 67 and to Amendments Nos. 73 and 76.
Amendment No. 67: Page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) above to show that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully; the onus of showing that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully shall be on the defendant.").
Amendment No. 73: Clause 26, page 23, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence, in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully, if he has in his possession any salmon, or receives, or undertakes or assists in the retention, removal or disposal of any salmon, for or on behalf of himself or another, or arranges to do so, where the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully.
(1A) It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) above to show that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully; the onus of showing that the salmon was taken, killed or landed lawfully shall be on the defendant.").
Amendment No. 76: Page 23, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
These amendments are designed to clarify Parliament's intentions to provide the enforcement agencies with what they need, which has been defined by the Water Authorities Association as "robust and effective legal powers to pursue organised poaching". I recognise and applaud the Government's objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, kindly wrote a letter to me in which he said that Clauses 20 and 26 provide for a shift in the burden of proof in a way which should improve the prospects of convicting those in possession of illegally-caught salmon. I said at Second Reading that some of the water authorities doubted whether Clause 26, as at present drafted, would help them. The water authorities are the bodies which would have to enforce this provision in England and Wales. I am a little surprised that they do not appear to have been consulted by the Government over the wording of Clause 26.
Since Second Reading I have talked to representatives of the Water Authorities Association and of the Welsh Water Authority. As a result, I am convinced that these clauses are of crucial importance. The water authorities often know who are the poaching gangs, and how they operate. What they need is a better weapon to enable them to prosecute the gangs and get them convicted. The water authorities say:
"The Association, acting on behalf of the water authorities in England and Wales, has been advised by its National Fisheries Committee that the clauses in the Salmon Bill in respect of England and Wales (26 and 27) are seriously deficient and that the objectives of the Bill are unlikely to be met without substantial changes".
They go on:
"The consensus of opinion is that Clause 26 does not provide an adequate basis to prosecute persons handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. Despite the intricate wording, the onus of proof of intent will fall on the prosecution, as now. Our view is that persons handling salmon in these circumstances must be obliged to explain themselves to the satisfaction of the courts".
They say:
"Furthermore, Clause 26 is deficient as presently drafted in so far as it does not extend to the poacher himself in 'possession'."
The Welsh Water Authority says:
"The proposed new offence of handling of salmon in suspicious circumstances will not be enforceable in practice unless the person apprehended is required to demonstrate the source of the fish."
That is what is said by the authorities who will actually have to operate these provisions. So I think that something needs to be done. The trouble with the present wording is, firstly, that it is not clear. On the contrary, it seems to me obscure and confusing. It has been interpreted in different ways. Some think the onus of proof has been reversed: others are sure that it has not. If it is not clear to us, it will not be clear to magistrates and the poaching gangs will not be convicted. Secondly, the present wording seems to be weak and to require, as I understand it, the prosecution first to understand and then to prove what the defendant believes. I personally do not see how you can do that.
I said at Second Reading that the wording ought to be clear and unambiguous. These four amendments suggest some wording which I hope is abundantly clear but also fair. The amendments would require the prosecution to have reasonable cause to suspect an offence—for example, if they found men loading salmon into a van near a river at 2 o'clock in the morning, or something of that sort. But, thereafter, the onus would be squarely on the defendant to show that he had come by the fish legally. I believe that these amendments would work, and I am very glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has given me his support. I am very grateful for that. He will explain to your Lordships far more lucidly and authoritatively than I could begin to do why we need this revised wording. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: Clauses 20 and 26 introduce new offences into the law of England and Scotland. May I say that I am glad to see that they are there in exactly the same terms. As I said a little while ago, it is very desirable that the law of Scotland and that of England should be uniform in these matters, especially when you are creating new offences. These clauses are of special importance in view of the discussion we have had about licensing, and the uncertainties of its scope and the like. If these clauses were properly drafted so as to put the burden on the person who is in possession of the illegally-caught salmon, they would do a great deal to remedy the whole position. But at the moment, as I read them, they do not put the burden on the person who has the illegally-caught salmon.
5.30 p.m.
Let me tell your Lordships first that salmon and other fish are not within the Theft Act. If you take a salmon you are not guilty of theft. It is not stolen goods. If you hand it on or it is handled you cannot be charged with handling stolen goods dishonestly, because it is not stolen goods. It is outside our law of theft and receiving. Therefore it seems to me that these clauses are intended to catch what I may call the receiver, the knowing receiver or handler of illegally-taken fish.
The law of Scotland—and this is supposed to be an amendment of it—is contained in Section 7 of the Salmon Act 1951. That starts off quite well:
"If any person is found in possession of any salmon or trout … in circumstances which afford reasonable ground for suspecting that he had obtained possession of such salmon or trout … as a result or for the purpose of his committing [the offence of taking it] … that persons may be charged with unlawful possession".

829
So if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting him he can be charged. But the next subsection says that when he is so charged and if it is proved that it was as a result of his committing an offence or the like, then he can be convicted. So that puts the burden on the prosecution of proving the illegal taking.
Equally, so far as England is concerned, the Theft Act 1968 deals with it in Schedule 1:
"a person who unlawfully takes or destroys … any fish in water which is private property",
and so on, is guilty of an offence. Those provisions do not deal with the handler, and the objective of Clauses 20 and 26 is to deal with the handler of fish which was illegally taken.
In framing this new offence, it is quite plain that the draftsman has followed the provisions of our Theft Act as to handling; and the Theft Act says as to handling that if a person handles stolen goods, knowing or believing that they are stolen, then he can be convicted. It has to be proved that they are stolen goods and that he handled them knowing or believing they were stolen. That has been interpreted recently in your Lordships' House in the case of Anderton v. Ryan, which is in the Weekly Law Reports, 1985, page 968.
Let me tell your Lordships that a lady was charged with handling property—a recorder, I think—knowing or believing it to have been stolen. What happened was that in her house was found a video recorder. The detective asked, "Where did you get this and how much did you pay for it?" She said, "I paid £100". She went on to say, "I might as well be honest: it was stolen when I bought it". She was held not to be convicted because there was no proof that it was stolen at all and there was only her own statement, which was not sufficient. She had not confirmed it herself: she had not said who told her. The House of Lords held that her acquittal was right, and that shows the extent to which the law goes in cases such as this. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Let me take this Clause 20 that we are dealing with now, as it reads at the moment. I will read Clause 20, but both clauses are in the same form. It says:
"A person who is in possession of salmon and believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has at any time been committed in relation to the salmon shall be guilty of an offence and liable",
and so on. The important words are those which refer to a person who believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting. You have to prove that that person believed or had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the salmon had been illegally taken.
An officer may go up to a person, as in the case of a man who was stopped in Trafalgar Square. He asked the way to Billingsgate. The car was heavily loaded and right down on its wheels. The man asked the way to Billingsgate and the policeman asked him, "What have you got in there?" "I've got a lot of salmon here and I am taking it to Billingsgate". Is there any proof in such a case that he believed the salmon was stolen?
Suppose a man in a Jaguar goes with a load of fish to a hotel in Gloucester, or wherever it may be, and a police officer asks him, "Where did you get these?" He says, "I'm not going to tell you: you prove against me what I know". In other words, in many of these cases you will not be able to prove the state of mind of the
830
man who is handling the goods, and under this clause as it is at present drafted you have to show that he believes or has reasonable grounds for suspecting; but you have to prove his state of mind, and you will not be able to prove it. That is the burden on the prosecution, whereas by the amendment the burden is the other way. According to Amendment No. 64, if the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting they were unlawfully taken, then it is up to him to explain it.
In the case I illustrated of the man who stopped in Trafalgar Square and who had masses of salmon in the boot of his car there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they had been unlawfully obtained. In the case of the Jaguar car which was being driven to the hotel, you do not have to look at the man's state of mind. But under the amendment you have to look to see whether there are reasonable grounds in the circumstances for suspecting that they have been illegally taken. You do not have to prove a person's state of mind; you have to prove that the circumstances themselves in which they were found or discovered give reasonable cause for suspecting that they have been illegally obtained. Once you have done that, of course, you can charge him and then it is up to him. He can say, "They were not illegally obtained at all; they were bought from people up in Scotland". In other words, the amendment clearly puts the burden of proof on the accused, whereas, as at present drafted as I read it, the burden of proof here is on the prosecution.
It seems to me to be the objective of the Government that, in order to stop this massive illegal traffic in salmon, once you find suspicious circumstances the burden of proof should be on the defendant that he came by them lawfully and that they were not unlawfully taken. As I read the clause as at present drafted, it still puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. But the amendment which we put forward puts the burden, as it ought to be, on the defence when there are circumstances that give reasonable cause for suspicion. So I support the amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): I understood it was intended that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, would move only the amendment which relates to Clause 20 and that he would deal with Clause 26 later. I make it clear that in what I say in reply I deal only with the Scottish provision, although it may contain some general remarks which assist so far as Clause 26 is concerned. But I make clear at the outset that, while the two clauses are intended to produce a similar effect, they proceed with regard to different systems of law and different statutes.
However, I express my thanks at the outset to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for having tabled the amendment, to allow an opportunity to make clear the line of reasoning behind these two clauses and in particular Clause 20. I should say, however, that I cannot accept this amendment in so far as it relates to Clause 20, and I know that my noble friend Lord Belstead cannot do so regarding Amendment No. 26. I hope that I can at least attempt a brief explanation of the thinking behind Clause 20.

831
We appreciate the difficulties that are involved in obtaining sufficient direct evidence to satisfy a court that salmon has been caught, killed or landed illegally, unless the perpetrator is caught in the illegal act. It is no easy task for enforcement officers to apprehend a person when he is actually fishing and it was a concession to this difficulty that brought about the creation of a limited offence of unlawful possession where there are suspicious circumstances, which is to be found in Section 7 of the Scottish Act of 1951.
The offence of unlawful possession created in that section—and it is an Act which applies only to Scotland and, I understand, does not have any similar statutory analogy in English legislation—is limited, in that it operates only where the person accused of illegal possession caught the salmon himself. An accused could therefore escape conviction, if he put it forward that he had not himself caught the fish and if that was enough to convince the court that there was reasonable doubt: or it may be that it was able to accept his own evidence. The result was that there could be a trade in illegally caught salmon which was able to continue as a legal activity, and it is clear from the discussion that has already taken place in Committee that your Lordships are opposed to this trade continuing, however great or small it may be.
We have in Scotland sought to build on what has already been achieved in Section 7, by creating in the 1951 Act an additional possession offence which is not limited to the situation where the accused is also the person by whom the fish was caught. Recognising that difficulties similar to those I have already mentioned would exist, if it were necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the fish in the accused's possession had been illegally taken, we have worded the clause so that such proof is not required. Instead, the prosecution would have to show, first, that the accused was in possession of salmon: and, secondly, that he believed, or had reasonable grounds for suspecting, that that salmon had been illegally taken, killed or landed.
5.45 p.m.
That bears a similarity to the position that arises out of Section 7(1) as it presently stands in Scotland. Your Lordships will remember from the description of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that there are two relevant sections; the first which gives rise to the charge, and the second which gives rise to a conviction when an accused is found in possession of salmon in circumstances such as to afford reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had obtained such possession by poaching, by illegal methods of fishing and the like.
What the judge said in the case of Aitchison v. Bartlett was:
"The charge proceeds upon suspicious circumstances. The conviction follows if the suspicion is not explained away but is confirmed by the evidence."
The Committee will note that that indicates quite clearly that, if the Crown establishes in evidence a suspicion, it is for the defence to clear the suspicion away. So there is an onus that passes to the accused once the Crown has established a suspicion. That is precisely the kind of basis upon which, in the case
832
where it is not the accused himself who has taken the fish, we wish to proceed.
The situation that we have in mind is where, for instance, the fish show marks of a gill net; where they are delivered surreptitiously to the back door of a hotel late at night, or—taking up something that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock said—a carrier is intending to take a substantial load of fish south of the border. Obviously, in those cases there will be ground for suspicion that the fish had been illegally taken. Of course, every case will require to be judged on its own facts and merits.
It is appreciated that it would be unreasonable to allow the possibility of a conviction where an individual accused could not, for example, through lack of knowledge of fish and fishing, have had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the salmon in his possession had been illegally taken. But if it was reasonable for the individual accused to have suspected that the salmon had been illegally taken, there seems to be no reason why he should escape conviction. The clause has therefore been carefully drafted with the intention of allowing an objective interpretation of the words "reasonable grounds for suspecting", and the corresponding English clause proceeds on the same basis.
Unlike the formula proposed in the amendment tabled by noble Lords, it does not seek to put the innocent at risk. For example, it is not intended that a court should be capable of convicting an ordinary housewife in possession of salmon showing gill marks, since it would be unreasonable to expect her to suspect on that basis that the salmon had been illegally taken. But if your Lordships consider the terms of the amendment, you will see that that is precisely the kind of situation which could arise. On the other hand, if one found a hotelier who had taken in something like 14 or 15 salmon through the back door for a nominal cost, and had been told "Don't ask where they came from", that could give rise to a conviction.
It is also necessary to include the reference to belief in order to allow evidence of admissions by an accused in relation to his or her knowledge of where the fish came from. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the case of Anderton v. Ryan was known and is taken account of in the formulation for both Clause 26 and Clause 20. It will of course be a defence if the accused can show that the salmon had not in fact been illegally taken, killed or landed. The onus of proof to establish this defence will, however, be on the accused. In my submission, the terms of 7A(2) are sufficient for that purpose. Accordingly, the second amendment which has been tabled is unnecessary.
With regard to Scotland there are of course other difficulties in the wording of these amendments. The first amendment seeks to import the wording of the English Theft Act into Scotland. This wording is clearly appropriate for the corresponding English Clause 26 but it is not right that it should be included in the Scottish part; nor that the Scottish courts should be constrained in their interpretation of the new offence by English case law on the Theft Act provisions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will know more about this than I do but I understand that that Act has given cause for difficulty.

833
For Scotland "possession" is all that is needed. That word is already used in the existing provisions of the 1951 Act. It is familiar to Scottish courts and they are well able to deal with it. I should also say that within the amendment there is a reference, as I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to the words,
"is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully",
which, as I understand it, is intended to deal with the case where a person is found in suspicious circumstances which give rise to the suspicion that he himself has been party to the unlawful taking, killing or landing. As I have explained to the Committee, that is taken account of already in Scottish legislation.
I should perhaps also say as a matter of comment that I find it difficult to understand how these words appear in the amendment. They do not sit easily with the opening words of the amendment which are,
"in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully".
It also seems to me—but perhaps I am misreading the amendment—that it casts upon the prosecution the requirement to do something which we have tried to avoid—namely, to prove that the salmon has been or is being taken, killed or landed unlawfully. That is precisely what we seek to avoid doing in regard to Clauses 20 and 26 for the very reason that it is impossible to do and that has been recognised before.
For all these reasons I cannot suggest to the Committee that the amendments to Clause 20 can be accepted. I would also suggest with a certain degree of hesitation that the noble Lords might wish to reconsider their position even as regards Clause 26, although as I hope I made clear I am really not in a position to deal with that matter because it is one for which my noble friend Lord Belstead takes responsibility.
Viscount Trenchard: While noble Lords are thinking of their response to that suggestion, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether this new clause will overrule Clause 22(4) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act? This effectively says in regard to any salmon, including in the season—that is after 31st August—but also out of season:
"The burden of proving that any salmon or trout bought, sold, exposed for sale or in the possession of any person for sale between the dates mentioned … shall lie on the person buying, selling or exposing it for sale, having it in his possession for sale".
If the new clause is going to weaken that it could do us harm from 31st August onwards every year.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No, my understanding is quite clear. I can assure my noble friend that it is not intended that this clause should in any way bear upon the section to which he refers. That will remain untouched.
Viscount Trenchard: In which case I must ask my noble and learned friend why at some stage we cannot have something similar to the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for the whole season rather than for part of it.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: All I can say is that we are seeking perhaps to deal with a slightly different
834
matter in Clauses 20 and 26—namely, not the question of selling or buying but the question of possession.
Viscount Trenchard: With respect, the words "in possession" I read out and they are in that provision.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I am not quite sure if I have understood what my noble and learned friend has said. Has he in effect said that salmon in the back of a car is a sufficient reason for suspicion; that on that suspicion a prosecution can be brought but from that moment the onus of proof is on the defendant? I have no doubt that I have over-simplified everything, but is that roughly so?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: What I tried to say—I obviously did not put it clearly and for that I apologise to noble Lords—is, first, that the Crown would have to prove that the accused was in possession of the salmon; and secondly, that the surrounding circumstances were such that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the fish were illegally taken. That could come from a whole variety of circumstances. I have made reference to one or two of them already. From that point, if that evidence is led it throws upon the accused the onus of establishing that the fish were not illegally taken—he has to overcome suspicion. That is why I thought it might be helpful to noble Lords to have the particular passage in the judgment because that puts it in a way which I think makes very much clearer the effect of suspicion. Obviously at the end of the day it must be for the court to be satisfied that there is ground for suspicion. That is the way in which we have framed this clause and that in the same way is the basis upon which the English clause proceeds, albeit it has taken its derivation from the English Theft Act.
Lord Moran: Perhaps I may ask whether the Government would be prepared at this stage to give their views on Amendments Nos. 73 and 76? It might be convenient to the Committee if they would do so while we are discussing this question because they are very similar.
In preparing these amendments I must confess that I concentrated on Clause 26 which deals with England and Wales. I live South of the Border and I was conscious, as I explained in my opening remarks on these amendments, that the water authorities in England and Wales were very far from satisfied with the wording of the clauses proposed by the Government and thought they would not work and would not help to put down illegal fishing. I attempted therefore to make the wording of Clause 20 similar to that of Clause 26. But I am very conscious, first, that I am not a lawyer and, secondly, that I am not a Scottish attorney. I realise that as I know nothing of Scottish law the amendment to Clause 20 may well be very defective.
I am very grateful for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but I am disappointed that on the main principle he is not prepared to move at all. The object of my amendments is to cover exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Home. His question really

835
paraphrased the substance of my amendments. I shall be grateful if the Government will give their view on the clauses relating to England and Wales.
6 p.m.
Lord Denning: I really spoke on both Clauses 20 and 26, which are in precisely the same words. It is wrong to suggest that the law of Scotland and the law of England should be different in interpreting the selfsame words. Therefore I suggest that I was right in dealing with them together. We are dealing with the interpretation of a few English words—not Scottish words—in both clauses. I can understand the background of the Scottish law that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned. On the other hand, the clause does not make mention of reasonable grounds for suspecting. One has to prove that the person in possession has acted unlawfully. That is where the burden of proof lies, and that is the burden of my argument. I can understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but it does not convince me. Still, we shall return to Clause 26 later.
Lord Belstead: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, makes my task a little easier in trying to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in respect of Amendments Nos. 73 and 76. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, while the wording of Clause 26 differs in some respects from that of Clause 20, any differences merely reflect the differing legal frameworks in Scotland and England. The effects of the two clauses are supposed to be, and indeed are, essentially the same.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the arguments against the amendments proposed are also essentially the same. If I may briefly follow my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, I feel from the point of view of the English and Welsh clauses that the changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 would not strengthen the effectiveness of the provision in Clause 26. I submit to the Committee that there would be a less satisfactory criterion for judging guilt in the phrase chosen for the amendment,
"in circumstances where it could reasonably be expected".
rather than suspecting or believing that the salmon has been legally taken.
Indeed, I am at something of a loss as to why the element of belief has been removed from the provision in the amendments that have been put forward. The Government feel that the burden of proof on the prosecution would be greatly increased by making it necessary to prove that the salmon held by the defendant had in fact been illegally taken. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, may point out to me that the onus of proof is reversed in the amendments. I am not a lawyer, but, as I understood my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to say, nonetheless there is still the element in the amendments that the taking, killing or unlawful landing of salmon must be part of the finding of guilt.
I am also mystified about the proposal to remove the present subsection (3), which is only to be found in
836
Clause 26. If that were to come about then we would lose a valuable provision in making it plain that grounds for suspicion do not have to relate to any particular offence. That would simply be ripped out of the text by the amendments. It is on those grounds, and on English and Welsh grounds, that I must resist the amendments.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: If a licensed salmon dealer receives some salmon from a poacher and he then sells those salmon to a third party, will his licence protect him from his criminal act? I imagine that such an offence would be very difficult to prove. A well-known licensed salmon dealer might sometimes kick over the traces for a friend and take a few of his salmon. I presume that the dealer would get away with that.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I recognise that there are difficulties in bringing to book a person who apparently has a bona fide reason for having possession of salmon when in fact they are stolen. I would not shrink from that. It would depend very much on the circumstances. I can envisage circumstances in which even a person in possession of a dealer's licence may act in such a way that a transaction reeks of suspicion, and that one could at the end of the day convict him under the new Clause 20. As I said earlier, it is all a matter of individual facts and circumstances, and they are infinitely variable. I cannot give a better answer than that to my noble friend.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I do not want to get involved in a detailed argument about English law, but what worries me about this particular clause is the strong new powers that are being given. I accept that there is only one law, but nevertheless there is a suspicion that this particular power would have been looked at much more closely, and been the subject of more resistance in Scotland generally, had the Bill not been pushed forward on the basis of the large-scale, damaging, gang-type poaching that is in progress.
A number of people have spoken about enormous amounts of illegal fishing and about a massive illegal traffic in salmon, and have used other such phrases. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked for the figures. We all accept that it is largely hearsay and suspicion. However, it is on that basis that this very large-scale power has been given in the Bill. As I have said, there is only one law, but when we started on this Bill many people—particularly those people who own or are familiar with salmon rivers—said with a nudge and a wink, "Of course, we are not really talking about Sandy, who takes one salmon for the pot". I have never believed in that philosophy. I have always believed that one should be just as tough on old Sandy as on anyone else—except that this new menace is much more material than the menace of the individual who takes one for the pot.
It is important to realise that powers such as this have only been given because of what might end up as hysteria. I myself do not know the figures. I suppose that the figures of massive illegal poaching that people have told me about are true. I suppose too that such poaching is dangerous. I am not so worried about the

837
illegality of the poaching as I am about the danger it poses to conservation and to people who come across poachers. It is important to remember that that is the reason for this Bill going through; it is not because more people have been picking off a few extra salmon in the Highlands.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: In fairness to the noble Lord opposite, I accept that the reason for advancing provisions of the kind that one finds in Clauses 20 and 26 is not to deal with the individual poacher who takes one salmon on the odd occasion; indeed, I believe that such an offender is impossible to catch. The provisions are meant instead to catch those who embark upon poaching very much more as a trade and those who assist them in that trade by continuing to accept salmon that they know to have been illegally taken.
Lord Moran: I am in some difficulty about this because, as I have said, I know nothing about Scottish law and I would not want to press the matter on the Scottish amendments. However, I mind very much about the ones in England and Wales. It has always seemed to me, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning very eloquently pointed out, that we ought to have the same provisions throughout Great Britain.
In their replies the Government have not said anything about two of the points I raised. The first concerns the obscurity of the wording of the present clauses; the fact that it has been interpreted by knowledgeable people in a number of different ways. This seems to me to defeat the purpose of the Government's objectives. I do not see how the clause will work if it is not understood. The second point is that, as I said in England and Wales. the water authorities who have a statutory obligation to enforce this type of measure do not believe that it will work.
These are technical legal questions which it is difficult to discuss on the Floor of the Committee. Would it be possible, therefore, for us to have a discussion with the Government before Report stage and with representatives from the water authorities? We could then see whether the objectives could be met which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I have described. If that were possible, it would be a very great help.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am perfectly happy on behalf of my noble friend and myself to say that we are prepared to meet the noble Lord to discuss this matter. I accept that it is a technical matter which is perhaps not easy to explain fully in Committee, although I have endeavoured to put the Scottish situation, as has my noble friend so far as Clause 26 is concerned for England and Wales. Certainly we shall be happy to meet with the noble Lord and others who wish to join with him.
Lord Moran: In the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert—
("(i) in the case of a person licensed to deal in salmon under section 19 above, the loss of that licence;").
The noble Lady said: The object of this amendment is to add to the penalty in Clause 20(1), on conviction on indictment, the penalty of loss of licence in the case of a dealer who buys illegally-caught fish. I believe that the threat of the loss of a licence to deal in salmon would, to a dealer, be almost as powerful a deterrent as the threat of a prison sentence. In some cases it might be a more powerful threat. Much would depend on how much of the dealer's business rested upon dealing in game and game fish.
I think it would also be a penalty that is more likely to be imposed by the courts. Courts might take the view that a prison sentence is going too far but that the taking away of a dealer's licence is a punishment fitting the crime. It has the additional merit of not increasing the overcrowding in our prisons. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I congratulate the noble Lady on bringing forward this amendment. There is one slight point arising from it which I think should be considered. Licences issued by the district council will be confiscated by the court, but I believe that on past occasions there has been a slip up between the courts and the district council. I do not know whether there is a requirement upon the courts to inform the district councils, but apparently licences have continued to be issued. I merely ask that this matter be considered; otherwise, I wholly support the noble Lady.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I thank the noble Lady for her explanation but I must tell your Lordships that the Government cannot consider it appropriate to include provision for the removal of a licence as an additional penalty on conviction for the offence of illegal possession.
Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 already makes provision for a licence to be suspended by the licensing authority. The circumstances which are relevant to their consideration of suspension include any misconduct by the licence holder which has a bearing on his fitness to hold a licence. The licence may also be revoked under Section 7(6)(a) on conviction for an offence under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act.
The powers under that Act for the regulation of dealing in salmon are wide enough to allow application of these provisions in the case of salmon dealing. Therefore, it would not be appropriate or necessary to give additional powers to the courts.
There are certain technical defects in the amendment, but I do not think it is suitable to raise them at this stage because I take issue on the matter of principle, as I have set out. I regret, therefore, that I cannot invite the Committee to accept this amendment. I hope that with the explanation I have given the noble Lady will be prepared to withdraw it.
I should like to say in response to my noble friend Lord Burton that I have taken note of what he said, and if he will speak to me about this matter at another

839
time I shall endeavour to see whether there is anything that can be done, and will consider any particular instance he has in mind.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As I understand from what the noble and learned Lord has said that my amendment is totally unnecessary, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert—
("(ii) in the case of a holder of a licence under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, the loss of that licence.").
The noble Lady said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendment No. 77 at the same time.
Amendment No. 77: Clause 26, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a person licensed under the Licensing Act 1964, the loss of that licence.").
Amendment No. 77 seeks to do for England, in Clause 26, what Amendment No. 66 seeks to do in Scotland, under Clause 20.
The main buyers of salmon which has been poached, apart from fishmongers, are hoteliers, who can often buy cheaply from poachers and so make bigger profits. I believe that the threat of the loss of their licences would be a greater deterrent than most, and possibly, in their cases, greater than a prison sentence, since one might be able to continue in business despite being in prison, but the loss of a licence would put most hoteliers who buy salmon and serve it to their customers out of business.
While the loss of a licence to sell liquor may seem inappropriate as a penalty for the crime of buying poached salmon, it is, as far as I have been able to discover, the ultimate sanction against an hotelier who is found by the environmental health inspector to have cockroaches in the kitchen and fails to do anything about it. Perhaps, therefore, it is not as inappropriate as it may seem on the face of it. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: In a sense my response to these two amendments must be along the lines similar to that which I have already given in answer to the noble Lady's previous amendment. The licensing boards in Scotland have similar powers under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to those of licensing authorities under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act; that is to say, they can suspend liquor licences for misconduct on the part of the holder of the licence. Therefore, again I suggest that it might be inappropriate to give the courts additional powers in this respect. I think it may be said also that the connection between liquor licensing and illegal possession of salmon is perhaps less than immediately direct and that any penalty of this nature therefore would be more appropriate in the licensing legislation.
So far as the English provisions are concerned, as I understand the situation it is very similar under the 1964 licensing Act so far as it relates to licensing the sale of alcohol. With that explanation perhaps the noble Lady might be prepared to withdraw these two amendments.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: May I raise just one question. At the end of the clause there is the reference to Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act which gives a water bailiff powers to search a vehicle on any private land adjoining any water. With the current mobility of poachers, one gets into difficulty about what is private and what is public, and it seems to me that, if the vehicle is sitting on a public road, then the water bailiff has no power to search that vehicle and would have to wait until a policeman turned up. Accordingly I suggest that what might be considered is that the wording "on any private land" be changed to "in the vicinity of any water".
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am very grateful to my noble friend for making that point. I shall look at it, and if it appears that perhaps the words which he suggested would be better, then obviously we can consider it at Report stage.
Earl Haig: Before the question is put, may I put my Amendment No. 68A?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): We shall be coming to that very soon.
Clause 20 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Earl Haig Earl Haig moved Amendment No. 68A:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Further amendment of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.
. In section 19(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, after the words "on indictment" the words "or summarily" shall be inserted.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment concerns stronger penalties for poachers. As many of your Lordships know, there have been frequent occasions when steps could have been taken by sheriffs to punish poachers by stronger penalties had they been given powers to confiscate boats and vehicles. Because the word "indictment" is used in the 1951 Act, the power to confiscate is denied to sheriffs. A charge of salmon poaching is unlikely to lead to an indictment case in a jury court, so the possibility of confiscating cars and boats is virtually ruled out.
I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister is aware of the problem and I believe that he or my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom will be moving amendments to deal with it. Their solution appears to be slightly different from what had been suggested to the Tweed commissioners by their lawyers.
Perhaps I may explain that my proposal is that we add the words "or summarily" to Section 19(2) of the 1951 Act. This would give to sheriffs the necessary powers to confiscate while retaining powers concern-

841
ing jury courts. As things stand, there are enormous advantages to a poacher if he can return to the water fairly quickly after a court case. This opportunity would be denied if a man had lost his boat, or his vehicle. It is for that purpose that I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: This amendment has the same effect as my Amendment No. 84B except that it is in reverse, but I am pleased to say that my noble friend on the Front Bench has improved on my amendment because he has added the word "on", without which I think my amendment would have been wrong. I shall not attempt to move my amendment because my noble friend is right, and what is more he has managed to be right in two places where I, like my noble friend Lord Haig, only managed to deal with one place.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I should very much like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Haig. What he has said about a poacher being able to get going immediately after having committed an offence is something of which I have experience as chairman of the Tay River Fishery Board. If a poacher's gear is confiscated, of course, his wings are clipped, but very often his gear is not confiscated, so off he goes and commits another crime.
I hope very much that "summarily" will be accepted, because if the word "indictment" is retained, as I understand it the case would have to be tried by jury, so there would be much delay and meanwhile our poacher would retain his gear and commit another crime. I have had experience of this very thing. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Haig.
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept the principle of the issues raised by amendments Nos. 68A and 84B in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, respectively, that forfeiture of vehicles and boats under Part I or Section 13 of the 1951 Act could take place at the discretion of the court, whether cases are taken on indictment or by summary procedure. This would remove the present limitation to cases on indictment in the 1951 Act and would bring that Act into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 where the general power of forfeiture is not restricted to solemn procedure. The amendments tabled by the noble Lords are not entirely appropriate in drafting terms and I therefore felt it better to bring forward my own amendment to cover the point. In view of that, perhaps noble Lords would agree to withdraw their amendments.
Earl Haig: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Power of court in trial of one offence to convict of another]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 20, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that the intention of the clause is met fully by providing that its provisions should
842
operate in a trial for any one of the five offences specified. The use of "and" did not achieve this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Grimond: Before we part from this clause I should like briefly to raise a doubt about it. It seems to me to be a simpler clause than many we have had to deal with in recent Bills, and I hope I have understood it rightly. If I have, what it says is that someone may be charged under these Acts or a general rule of law and may be acquitted under the Act on which he is tried; nevertheless, in spite of being acquitted, he may then be found guilty under one of the other Acts specified in the clause. There are, of course, many examples in law of somebody being charged with an offence who may be found guilty of a lesser offence on the same evidence. In Scottish law, if a person is charged with stealing he may on the same evidence be convicted of reset, which for the benefit of those who know even less Scottish law than I do (which is saying something!) is receiving stolen goods—is it not? The Lord advocate nods his head, so I take it that that is good enough. Even if there are numerous precedents, as I have no doubt there are, I feel that that is something which the Committee should examine with extreme care.
6.30 p.m.
In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that it was a very convenient clause. My goodness, it is an exceedingly convenient, catch-all clause for the prosecution. It seems to me that if a man is charged specifically under Section 10 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act, if he produces, for instance, an alibi and he is acquitted, it is a little hard that without any chance, as I see it, to call fresh evidence or to rebut further charges he may be convicted under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of Clause 21.
Therefore, even if there are precedents, I do not think that we should encourage that method of carrying on our legal affairs. I am slightly encouraged in that by consulting an ex-Lord Advocate who admitted that it appeared to him to be of a slightly doubtful nature. There must be some right for a defendant to call evidence or to deal with the other Acts. It is somewhat different from murder and manslaughter or stealing and reset. I wait with great interest to hear the numerous precedents that no doubt will be called and the powerful arguments that no doubt will be advanced but I must confess that it appears to me not only doubtful legally but certainly illiberal.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I understand the concept that the noble Lord has expressed. Perhaps I should make clear that the main purpose of this clause is to cover persons who are charged under Section 7A which it is proposed will come into the 1951 Act—for instance, with reset—who might escape conviction by explaining away the suspicious circumstances by attributing them to a different unlawful act. I think, as

843
I explained, that one of the problems in regard to Section 7(1) of the 1951 Act is that a person may say that he knew perfectly well that the salmon were taken unlawfully but, as he had not himself taken part in the poaching expedition, he would be free from this offence if that explanation was believed. Accordingly, the intention of this clause is to prevent an escape by founding upon a different unlawful act. The references to Section 10 of the Tweed Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1859 and to Section 21 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 are included for completeness as they are other possession offences.
Perhaps I may just explain how this would work, because I think that an example might be helpful. I hasten to add that it is one which is conjured from nowhere and is not a natural example. But let us say that a person is charged under new Section 7A mentioned in Clause 20, the circumstances being that he was found in possession of salmon and was trying to sell them at a very cheap price at the back door of a hotel in, shall we say, Achiltibuie late at night. In court he comes forward and shows that the fish had in fact been stolen from a fish farm. That would mean that the fish had not been unlawfully taken within the terms of Section 7A; they would not have been taken by way of a relevant offence.
That being so, on the other hand, what he would have admitted to would be that they had been taken from the possession of another; that they were stolen goods because they had been taken from the possession of the fish farm. If that be so, the court, if it was satisfied that all the necessary elements to allow it to convict of a charge of reset were present, and that of course there was corroborated evidence (because that would be a common law offence) on the basis of Clause 21 could convict of reset and punish accordingly.
I should have thought that it would be singularly inappropriate that a person could found upon what was an unlawful act in order to excuse himself from a charge under Section 7A and not at the same time at least give the court the basis for convicting him of that other offence.
Lord Grimond: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but surely the example that he quotes is one on which the charged person virtually pleads guilty to another offence. Had the clause said that or anything equivalent to it, I should certainly not have raised the question; but it simply says that if the court is satisfied, whatever the accused says, that he is guilty of another offence, it is entitled to convict him. That seems to me to be a very different thing.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think it is right to say that that is something which is to be found in other legislation. I think there is statutory provision for it. Where a person is charged with theft, if at the end of the day it turns out that the lesser offence of reset is made out the court may convict of reset, although the original charge against him is that of theft. This is in a sense analogous to that.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exemption from certain offences in respect of certain acts]:
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 21, line 11, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Duke said: So far as I can make out (and I may well be in error) the object of this clause is to enable the Secretary of State to make legal certain events which would otherwise be illegal under this Bill, and it is likely that that will apply particularly to salmon farming and that sort of thing. That seems to me to be eminently fair, and in order to do that the person concerned has to get an exemption from the Secretary of State in writing; but before the Secretary of State can exempt any act or omission under this clause, he has to be satisfied that the proprietor of every affected salmon fishery in the salmon fishery district in which the act or omission is to take place has previously consented to it.
It would appear to me that the Secretary of State will have a very difficult job in satisfying himself that 100 per cent. of the proprietors in that district are quite happy with the act or omission that he is going to make legal. Therefore I am moving that subsections (2) and (3) of this clause should be left out. That would mean that the Secretary of State would not have to satisfy himself that anyone agrees. I think that this has probably gone too far and that some compromise or in-between solution might be the right answer. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept fully that the burden of satisfying my right honourable friend that the consent has been obtained of all proprietors of salmon fisheries likely to be affected in a district might, and probably will, be an onerous one. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that any act or omission in contravention of any enactment should be exempted only if such consent is demonstrated. It would not be right to exempt unlawful acts or omissions without such consent if individual proprietors' fisheries were likely to be adversely affected. This, if a quantifiable loss could be shown to have resulted, might give rise to claims for damages or for compensation. I can understand what my noble friend seeks to do, but I cannot accept his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. I wonder whether he will consider withdrawing it.
The Duke of Atholl: I have indicated that I am not entirely happy with my amendment. I believe that it goes too far the opposite way. I shall be delighted to withdraw it, but I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister of State that if we can come to some halfway arrangement this might be a good idea. I believe that in the larger fishery board districts like the Tay the Secretary of State will have an impossible job in satisfying himself that every proprietor is in favour of what act he is going to exempt.
Lord Gray of Contin: I cannot give my noble friend an assurance that I shall be able to bring back something which will wholly satisfy him. I am however, prepared to take this matter away and to have another look at it without commitment if my noble friend would consider withdrawing the amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: With that, I am more than pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Estuaries and tidal waters
. Sea fishery committees, as established by the Sea Fisheries Regulations Act 1966, in consultation with the appropriate district salmon fishery board or water authority, may make orders to prohibit fishing in specified areas, in order to prevent illicit fishing for salmon in estuaries and other tidal waters.").
The noble Lord said: The objective of this amendment is to deal with the serious, continuing problem of illegal fishing for salmon in estuaries and tidal waters under the pretence of fishing for white fish to which I referred in my speech on Second Reading and which was mentioned earlier this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady White. If you take, for example, the Usk estuary in Wales, there are eight licensed salmon nets but 30 to 50 unlicensed "sea fishing" nets. However, the Usk estuary contains, I understand, negligible stocks of sea fish.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has kindly informed me that a good deal of progress has been made in the control of fixed nets by agreement between the water authorities and the sea fishery committees. But these arrangements do not I think include nets which are not fixed. My amendment is designed to cover these. The amendment would give powers to create protected boxes in areas used by migrating salmon in estuaries but where there are negligible commercially exploitable stocks of white fish. There are various ways in which this problem can be tackled. It can be tackled by controlling and regulating methods of fishing. Or it can be tackled by controlling areas in which fishing is allowed. I have suggested that the latter method might be used, although I am not absolutely wedded to it.
It is important to have a provision of this sort. At present, large numbers of salmon—in Wales, at any rate—are being caught illegally in coastal waters and in estuaries by persons pretending to fish for sea fish. At present, this cannot, as I explained on Second Reading, be effectively controlled. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard: I should like strongly to support the amendment. The Tamar estuary, which flows out through Plymouth Sound, is a case in point. There are virtually no white fish in the estuary, but there are large numbers of theoretically sea-fishing nets working regularly. The South West Water Authority has, by agreement, managed to effect a degree of control. I am absolutely sure, however, that legal backing for its efforts to cover all forms of nets, in the kind of conditions that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggests, would be very much welcomed by the authority and would reduce what has been a major source of illegal taking of salmon.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like very much to support the amendment. All of us, I hope, bear in mind the worldwide fall in the amount of Atlantic salmon caught. This is such a valuable crop, not only
846
from a nutritional point of view, but also from an employment and sporting point of view, that it must be carefully controlled. If we allow large amounts of illegal and unlicensed taking in the estuaries of England, it is pretty pointless going on and trying to regulate it elsewhere. We must do it properly. I strongly recommend the amendment to your Lordships.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Despite the three speeches that have been made on this amendment, I must say that the Government are not persuaded. In our 1981 consultation paper on the review of inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales, we considered whether the arrangements for the control of salmon fisheries in tidal waters should be changed to include the sea fisheries committee—in other words, exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is raising on Amendment No. 71.
On 1st March 1984, the Government announced that they had concluded that no change should be made to the existing arrangements. In case I seem to be simply standing pat on something that we have said, may I expand on this a little. There has been a substantial improvement in co-operation between the sea fisheries committees and water authorities over the last two or three years. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has, I think, recognised this, to judge by the words that he used in moving the amendment.
For example, a number of sea fisheries committees' officers have been appointed honorary water bailiffs by water authorities. Agreements have been reached on areas where fixed nets should not be set to catch sea fish. I realise that the noble Lord, as he made clear in moving the amendment, and both my noble friends, are talking about more than fixed nets. I come, however, to what I consider the essence of the amendment. It is the question of enforcement. The noble Lord's amendment talks about illicit fishing for salmon. All concerned, in Government, in the water authorities and in the sea fisheries committees, are well aware of the need for a common approach.
I honestly do not believe that dividing responsibility would help, bearing in mind that the water authorities are the responsible statutory authorities for the management of salmon. Certain authorities—indeed, maybe all—have means of doing this at sea as well as in the rivers. For those reasons, I would be very reluctant to give any commitment on this amendment.
Baroness White: Naturally, we listen with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, says. But some of us have made inquiries about the extent and, if one might say, the quality of the co-operation in certain areas. I do not say that this applies everywhere, but such inquiries as I have been able to make convince me that there is a significant proportion of illegal fishing going on in areas where agreement has been reached between the sea fisheries committees and the water authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, says, these agreements apply only to fixed nets and there is no adequate control by means of the method of fishing.
We have discussed this matter on an earlier amendment. The alternative, proposed by the noble

847
Lord, Lord Moran, of some method—not necessarily the box method—of control by area or by zone, taking into account the degree of risk to the salmon, should at least be considered. There was a certain complacency, if I might suggest this, in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What he says is not borne out in all areas.
The difficulty is that one has two autonomous authorities side by side in these estuaries and tidal waters with different functions. In some places they may be able to reach satisfactory and effective (I stress the word "effective") methods of co-operation, but it is by no means universally true.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his explanation. I may say that I was very well aware of the consultation paper of 1981. Indeed, I referred to it explicitly in my speech at Second Reading. What I said then was that there appeared to be a loophole in the present legislation in that the sea fishery committees appeared to find themselves unable, under present legislation, to deal with salmon and sea trout, whereas the water authorities were unable to operate in the reverse direction.
I quoted the very powerful passage in the report of the special committee of the Welsh water authority which explained that there was this loophole, that they were very worried about it, and that it was causing great damage to salmon stocks. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to have a look at what I said on Second Reading, and specifically at that section dealing with the problem in the Welsh water authority's report, and then to discuss it both with the Welsh Office and with the Welsh water authority, to see whether anything can be done to close that loophole. That is all I am asking.
Lord Belstead: I am certainly prepared to look again at what the noble Lord said on Second Reading in the way that he has suggested.
Lord Moran: In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Handling salmon in suspicious circumstances]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is an Amendment No. 73, and I am informed that if this is agreed to we cannot call Amendment No. 74.
[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved amendment No. 75:
Page 23, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The burden of proving that any salmon in his possession was not acquired from a person who was unauthorised to fish for salmon shall rest on the person having possession of a salmon.")
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this amendment briefly before withdrawing it. I have asked two or three times why we cannot be simple, as the Government have previously been in the Salmon and
848
Freshwater Fisheries Act. I have quoted Section 22(4) of that Act on numerous occasions.
My noble and learned friend, when referring earlier to my remarks on this provision in Amendment No. 75, read this and noticed that it was a short and probably incomplete requirement. In all probability, in the second line I should have taken more words out of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, and it should read:
"… from a person who was unauthorised to fish for or have in his possession salmon shall rest on the person having possession of a salmon."
But I am sure that it is technically wrong. I read the major part of the the provision earlier.
I am not a lawyer, and I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on this question of burden of proof. I wondered how many enforcement officers up and down the country would be able to follow the detailed argument between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend. It seems to me as a layman (may I humbly say) that perhaps the lawyers are thinking of the general provisions about possession covering all manner of personal possessions whereas the authors of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 were thinking of the specific problem of people having salmon in their possession out of the normal season. However, they covered, as I mentioned before, a large period of the fishing season as well. If we are dealing with one commodity which certain people only are authorised to kill, sell or possess, surely we can be simpler in reversing this burden of proof along the lines of the section I have mentioned in the 1975 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act.
If I could have an answer of some kind, if not now then in writing within a few days, so that one knows the position before the next stage of this Bill, I should be very happy. But I should like an answer as to why we cannot approach this in a simpler way and be less concerned with all the provisions and safeguards about the laws of possession covering all the goods that every citizen is permitted to have.
Lord Denning: I would support the suggestion that we have simple words which everyone can understand, and the burden of proof clearly expressed, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard has said. But in view of the discussions which we are to have before long it would be helpful to consider the wording of this clause to make sure that we have the burden of proof properly placed upon the defence. However, that can be dealt with, I hope, in the discussions which we are due to have on the earlier part of the clause.
Lord Belstead: I think that we are almost bound to get into the question of onus of proof in talking about the earlier part of the clause. But I have taken on board the fact that my noble friend Lord Trenchard is expecting a letter in answer to his question as to why my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has said that it would not be possible to go down the same road that legislation has gone down in that part of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 which my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate deployed some of the reasons in reply. But I think it would be for the

849
convenience of my noble friend if a letter came either from my noble and learned friend or myself setting out on paper why we are resistant to that. If I may, I shall leave that point there.
There is one point I should like to put to your Lordships before we part company with this amendment. I speak entirely as a layman, but on the other hand I speak from this Box, and in both capacities I am worried about the effect of this amendment as it stands.
As I understand it, this amendment would make the mere act of possessing salmon an offence unless there was evidence that it had come from a legitimate source. On the face if it, that seems to me a pretty drastic attack on the liberty of the ordinary citizen. My noble friend will correct me if I have put this incorrectly but, as I understand it, this would mean that a housewife buying a piece of salmon from her local fishmonger would have to keep evidence of the purchase. For anyone buying salmon in a supermarket that, I should have thought, would be almost impossibly difficult. If I have understood that incorrectly, or if I am twisting it in any way, I hope that my noble friend will put me right. But if that is the way that this amendment is moving then it does not have my support.
Viscount Trenchard: I am sure that my noble friend would never twist anything. He is probably absolutely correct technically. However, I hope that he has taken on board that for certain purposes with certain exceptions, including the kind of situation he mentioned—that of housewives buying salmon—this provision, rather more draconian than the one I have suggested, is in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. There are exceptions to it, and I am quite sure that my amendment as put forward would not be technically sound without listing all the amendments made by this Bill.
However, would the noble Lord please look at the clause I have mentioned in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act? The noble Lord will find that these words exist with certain reasonable limitations which cover the possession of salmon from 31st August of each year until February the following year. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at that and write to me.
7 p.m.
Lord Moran: Perhaps I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said. I entirely accept and agree with him that clearly we must not have a clause that puts the onus of proof on housewives. It was precisely for that reason that we inserted in our own Amendment No. 73 the words:
"in circumstances where it could reasonably be suspected that the salmon was taken, killed or landed unlawfully".
We included those words to indicate that the prosecution would have to have reason to believe or to suspect that a salmon was taken unlawfully. Therefore, they could not proceed against a housewife or someone of that nature.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I should like to reinforce that point and to ask my noble friend the Minister to look at the words of the existing Act which has been quoted by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. That
850
might influence his point of view when he comes to consider the matter.
Lord Belstead: It is on that point that I have undertaken that either my noble and learned friend or I shall write to my noble friend Lord Trenchard. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I make sure that copies of that letter go to noble Lords who have spoken on this particular subject.
Viscount Trenchard: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moran Lord Moran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 76:
[Printed earlier: col. 827.]
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76 has already been discussed and, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 23, line 33, at beginning insert ("if not acting with another,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 76A and Amendment No. 76B were put down at the request of the Water Authorities Association.
Amendment No. 76B: Page 23, line 35, at end insert—
("(b) if acting with another

(i) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(ii)").

I express my surprise that these authorities do not appear to have been fully consulted by the Government on the provisions of the Bill. If they had been so consulted I think that some time would have been saved. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. With his long experience of water problems he carries great authority on these matters.
In the case of unlicensed fishing, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 carefully distinguishes between individual poaching and persons acting together to take salmon illegally. This is, I understand, a useful distinction which the courts understand and which enables large numbers of individuals to be processed by magistrates' courts under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Effectively, they can plead guilty by post and the conviction and fine are dealt with by correspondence.
The Bill as drafted seeks to do away with that distinction and the prosecution would require the attendance of every individual, as well as members of groups, at the magistrates' court for a hearing to decide upon the mode of prosecution. I am advised that this is an extraordinarily tedious procedure to the bulk of offenders who are individuals caught without a licence, and would divert scarce legal and bailiff resources away from the real task of detecting and prosecuting gangs. Therefore, I think that it is important that we should keep the distinction, and that is the objective of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I think that Amendments Nos. 76A and 76B should really be dealt with together with Amendment No. 77F.
Lord Moran: Amendment No. 77F simply seeks to define in the Bill the notion of acting together.
Lord Belstead: May we take that amendment with Amendments Nos. 76A and 76B?
Lord Moran: Yes.
Amendment No. 77F: Page 24, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A person shall be treated as acting together with another for the purposes of this section if both are engaged in committing an offence under it or one is aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence by the other.").
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord says, the amendments would create a distinction between a person acting alone and a person acting with another in relation to the new handling offence. The noble Lord, together with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is proposing that someone charged with a handling offence when acting alone could only be tried summarily, and someone acting with another could be tried either way.
I do not believe that when it comes to the serious offence of receiving illegally taken salmon it makes any difference whether the person is acting alone or with another. The Government feel that the distinction does not have a bearing on the seriousness of the offence and should not therefore be used as the basis of determining the method of trial. I recognise that in respect of certain offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 there is a distinction between the person acting alone and the person acting with another. However, Clause 27 seeks to remove that distinction and to leave it to the discretion of the courts to consider the seriousness of the offence.
Having said all that, I realise that the noble Lord is in the process of putting his finger on a problem and I think that when we come to Amendment No. 78B I shall be able to be more helpful to the noble Lord's case, which is that the situation—to put it in the noble Lord's words—could give rise to a problem in relation to simple angling offences. As I have said, I shall be offering an alternative solution to that particular problem when we come to Amendment No. 78B.
However, the amendments which are proposed could leave us with a situation where two wholesalers, both receiving illegally taken salmon under identical circumstances, may have to be dealt with differently if one was a partnership and the other was a one-man band. On that particular point, with which these amendments are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I say that I have to resist. I hope that I shall be able to be more helpful when we come to Amendment No. 78B.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 23, line 40, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 77A and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 77B, 77C, 77D and 77E.
Amendment No. 77B: Page 23, line 40, after ("search") insert ("and seizure").
Amendment No. 77C: Page 24, line 1, after ("sections") insert ("32 (power to enter lands)").
Amendment No. 77D: Page 24, line 1, leave out ("(2)").
Amendment No. 77E: Page 24, line 1, after ("premises),") insert ("34 (power to apprehend persons fishing illegally at night)").
All of these amendments have been put down at the request of the Water Authorities Association. Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B introduce the power to,
"seize any fish and any instrument, vessel, vehicle or other thing liable to be forfeited in pursuance of this Act".
That provision has been taken from the 1975 Act.
As many noble Lords have mentioned this evening, organised poaching is big business and the water authorities consider that powers of seizure would be a genuine deterrent to gangs freighting—for example, by container lorry—salmon taken illegally. I therefore think that it would be important and useful to have this provision.
As regards Amendments No. 77C, 77D and 77E, I point out that at present the Bill limits the scope of bailiffs compared with the provisions of the 1975 Act. These amendments re-establish the powers of bailiffs in the Bill and specifically include the power to enter lands and, to avoid any doubt, continue the power to apprehend persons fishing illegally at night. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that the effect of these amendments is covered in legislation and for that reason the amendments are not necessary. Clause 26(6) attracts to the enforcement of the new offence the relevant powers that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 gives to water authority bailiffs. We believe we have included all the powers necessary and relevant to the new offence.
First, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B. I assure the noble Lord that we have already attracted the seizure and forfeiture powers in the 1975 Act. We have done it in this rather complicated way. Subsection (6)(b) of Clause 26 amends Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1975 Act so that any references to that Act are to be read as if they included references to this clause. This means that the new offence is one for which the courts may order forfeiture of articles seized under paragraph 5 of that schedule. Therefore, the existing power of water bailiffs to seize fish, vehicles, etc., is applied to the new offence automatically, and I therefore suggest that Amendments Nos. 77A and 77B are unnecessary.
The other amendments, Nos. 77C, 77D and 77E, refer to powers which do not so much concern the new offence created by Clause 26 of handling illegally taken fish but relate really to illegal fishing itself. However, I assure the noble Lord that water bailiffs wishing to enter land or premises, or apprehend people at night, already have the powers in the 1975 Act, and those powers are not weakened by this Bill.

853
However, noble Lords will appreciate that powers relating directly to the prevention of illegal fishing are not needed to enforce the new offence which is concerned with dealing in fish after they have been illegally caught. Nonetheless, I emphasise that those powers of entering and apprehending people are not in any way weakened because they remain in the 1975 Act. I hope that I may have assured the noble Lord that the effect of each of these amendments, 77A to E, is in fact still covered in existing legislation.
Lord Moran: In the light of that explanation from the Minister, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77B to 77F not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: This seems a convenient moment for the Committee to take a break, and I suggest that we resume our discussions at 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 until 8 p.m.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of drift-netting.
.—(1) During a transitional period of five years from the date of passing of this Act no new licence shall be issued, and no existing licence renewed, for fishing for salmon by drift-net within six miles of the coasts of England and Wales.
(2) After the transitional period referred to in subsection (1) above it shall be an offence to fish for salmon by drift-net within six miles of the coasts of England and Wales.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of £400 or £40 for each day thereafter on which the offences continues;

(b) on indictment, to 2 years imprisonment or a fine or to both.").

The noble Lord said: I recognise that this is a difficult and controversial question and that we are dealing with people's livelihoods. Nevertheless, I think that this question is of key importance in the international effort to conserve Atlantic salmon, which has led to the establishment in Edinburgh of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, or NASCO.
Drift netting was banned in Scotland 23 years ago. That action was taken only in Scotland and is I think another example of our lack of a national salmon policy, which I deplore. Drift netting still continues off English and Welsh coasts. Of course, much the most important drift net fishery is that in the North-east, off the Northumberland and Yorkshire coasts. I believe that it has been a traditional fishery that has existed for many years, but for most of those years it was conducted with hemp and cotton nets and relatively limited numbers of salmon were caught—I believe something of the order of 2,000 fish a year. However, there was then an explosion in numbers after the introduction of monofilament nets in 1967 and it now takes vastly greater numbers.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Home, was right when he said at Second Reading that it was taking entirely too many fish, perhaps 30 or 40 times what it used to take in the old days. The real trouble with this fishery is the use of monofilament nets, or perhaps I
854
should say in deference to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, multifilament fine ply nets. Monofilament nets are banned for salmon netting in Wales and it would greatly help if the Government would now ban them in England, as suggested in the excellent leading article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.
My real concern is with the international aspect. There is a widespread impression, both in this country and among our friends in North America, that departments in Whitehall have not grasped the significance of the new international dimension of Atlantic salmon conservation. Maybe this is because there is no British representative on NASCO. It is another field in which we seem to have handed matters over to the EC and tended to opt out ourselves. The EC represents us on NASCO and it represents not only ourselves and the Irish, who have large quantities of fish, but also Denmark, which is like asking a buzzard to help conserve rabbits.
I should be grateful for an assurance from the Government that from now on the three departments concerned will give real attention to this international aspect of the salmon problem and that they will keep in touch with the Atlantic Salmon Trust and other bodies who are concerned with the international aspects, and ensure that our domestic policies take full account of this aspect.
As I explained on Second Reading, what we urgently need to do is to restrict the intercepting fisheries off Greenland and the Faroes, which have devastated our runs of large spring salmon. However, it became clear at the meeting of NASCO last June, that Denmark and Greenland will not consider a reduction of the Greenland quota so long as we and the Irish permit substantial drift netting for salmon at sea. So if we are to make progress, I think that we must phase out drift netting in England and Wales. I am not too much concerned about exactly how we do it. I do not think that we can ban it immediately without causing real hardship, but it would make all the difference in the world if the Government would commit themselves now to phasing out drift netting in England and Wales, so that other countries would see that in the fullness of time it was going to end. I very much hope that they will do that. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: This is a new clause affecting England and Wales. I had understood that it had been intended that some other amendments, including the second Amendment 81, in the name of my noble friend Lord Burton (there being two amendments numbered 81 as a result of an error on the Marshalled List) would be considered with this amendment. If that is so, it is important because it is a question of whether we have a debate on all these amendments involving Scotland together. I should like to speak on this in any case but perhaps we could have this clarified first.
Lord Belstead: If noble Lords would not object, the Government suggested that with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, Amendment No. 78, we might take Amendment No. 79, the second amendment marked 81, Amendments Nos. 82A, 84C, 89, 90A, 90B, 93 and 94. In other words, we

855
would be having a debate on these amendments, although of course only Amendment No. 78 is being moved. However, if any of your Lordships wish to diverge from that, it is up to any noble Lord.
Lord Burton: With all these other excellent amendments which have been put down on the Marshalled List, I had not intended to move the second Amendment No. 81. However, while I am on my feet I should merely like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Moran, why he has "six miles" in his amendment. I should have thought we might have gone to the full sea limit, but there may be some very good reason for it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may continue with my speech on that and these points will no doubt be answered in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. What I am proposing to do, and I think this is appropriate, is to go back to the very first drift netting which occurred round the British Isles, which was in Scotland, as I was a junior member of the Government at the time in the early 1960s. It is very relevant to the whole question of banning drift netting round our shores, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is suggesting.
When that began in the early 1960s, it was clear that enormous quantities of salmon were being taken, and the Hunter Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, was considering the whole question of salmon and brought out an interim report in, if my memory is right, 1962, to deal with this point because it was so urgent.
I shall just remind those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the method then used, that what had happened was this. Manmade fibre was being produced. In those days, it was simply a form of nylon. It was so strong and yet so fine that the salmon were caught, whereas before that, with the kind of drift net which had been used for herring, but with large mesh, the salmon could see the net and avoided it. But with this new substance, it was possible to catch enormous quantities of salmon. Again, a drift net could be used by one single fishing boat to extend over several miles. As the salmon at that point would be swimming near the surface, in theory one could have several fishing boats pretty well covering a huge area at the entrance to an estuary or a river mouth. That was the sudden danger which appeared really as a result of new manmade fibres.
As a result of the interim report by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and his Committee, the Government, of which as I say I was a junior member at that time, brought orders before Parliament for completely banning drift netting round the coast of Scotland. If I remember rightly, those orders had to be renewed every two years, and they have been.
When the main Hunter Report came out later, I think from memory in 1965, when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland, as he mentioned in our Second Reading debate, he then made sure that this ban was continued. It has continued ever since so far as the waters around Scotland are concerned. It was disappointing to some of the fishermen in Scotland because it was the seine
856
net boats which mainly had been involved in turning to this new form of fishery, particularly from the coastal areas of Angus and Kincardine. Of course, they had bought quite a lot of equipment and then they had to go out of business. But on the whole it was a good thing and it was widely approved from the point of view of the conservation of salmon that it should be banned as quickly as possible.
The position in England and Wales has been different. So far as England is concerned, I think I must say that it is off the coast of Northumberland that a great many of the salmon are caught, because it has always (or anyway within living memory) been legal to use drift nets and for fishing boats to use drift nets off the coast of England by a system of licensing. It was control by licensing rather than it being completely banned. That has caused—and I do not need to remind a number of noble Lords of this—a good deal of controversy because of the fish which are thought to be going to run the Tweed and other Scottish rivers and which are thought to be caught in large numbers off the coast of Northumberland.
I am not going to pursue that because it is a matter of controversy and in the debates today and last Tuesday we have already discovered that noble Lords have different ideas of how salmon travel round our coasts. But I think that it was a reasonable deduction that some of the large numbers of salmon being caught by drift nets off the coast of Northumberland were salmon which would go up Scottish rivers.
I remind Members of the Committee of the main report, the final Hunter Report in 1965, which had as its main recommendation the one that would have been the most drastic of all: that all coastal net fishing should be abolished; that is to say, that all the nets that we have been discussing earlier in our debates in the firths and up the river mouths of various kinds should be abolished, phased out. That would have been Scotland, of course, because that is what the Hunter Report was dealing with.
The positive proposal of the Hunter Committee was that every single salmon river should have one trap; that the alternative to coastal netting would be one trap in each river, which was the device that would then control the amount of salmon being taken and in that way it would be systematic and selective. So it is worth remembering that that was the main point in the final Hunter Report. But it was a recommendation that successive governments have not followed. Quite apart from anything else, there were 3,000 or 4,000 men involved in coastal fishing and it looked as though their employment might disappear. But I think is is worth remembering that the Hunter Committee felt so strongly about the use of nets, that that was its main recommendation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has also spoken about the fisheries off Greenland, in the oceans, in the Atlantic, and has pointed out that although international agreements have been reached with Denmark and others on the amount of salmon to be taken off Greenland and in other parts of the Atlantic, it is dependent upon what we are doing ourselves; and that other countries are less likely to agree to proposals which seem eminently suitable to us from the point of view of conservation unless we are clearly also taking action round our own coasts.

857
I have tried to set the scene of what has happened in Scotland since 1962. I am certain that in Scotland it has been accepted that there should be no drift netting at all in the seas round our coasts. In an earlier amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin today, drift netting was again to be banned. But that was in coastal waters and it was not clear how far it would extend. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is for a period of five years, quite clearly a probationary period, and also only for six miles. Like my noble friend Lord Burton, I should like to know from the noble Lord why six miles has been chosen. I can only say that from the point of view of the Scottish experience it would be excellent if drift netting could be banned entirely round the coast of Britain.
I recognise that there has been this traditional fishing by licence off the coast of Northumberland and that, if that is to be changed, it would have to be phased out gradually. In November, the Government answered a Written Question of mine and made a statement that it had been decided not to bring an end to drift netting off the coasts of England and Wales but to make further restrictions in the licensing. I am not sure that that is really good enough and I hope that tonight it will be possible for the Government to give a further explanation of what they have in mind. But in principle I am sure that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is right.
8.15 p.m.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I am afraid that I am not quite clear how far we have got in the list of amendments. I have amendments down, No. 82A, and No. 84C which is on the subject of drift netting. Are we taking all these together? I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the suggestion was that we should do so. With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may speak to my Amendments Nos. 82A and 84C, both of which deal with the question of drift netting.
Amendment No. 82A: Clause 28, page 25, line 17, at end insert (" "drift-net" means any length of net allowed to float or drift being either attached to or released from a fishing boat and not being a length of net attached to or held on the shore;").
Amendment No. 84C: Schedule 4, page 35, line 3, at end insert—
("Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51).
6A. In section 1(1)(a) there shall be inserted the sub-paragraph—
"(vi) a drift net.".").
I understand from my advisers that this relatively simple-appearing amendment, if accepted, would ban drift netting altogether, which is what I believe is necessary. I warned the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that although I was able to thank him for something earlier on today, now at eighteeen minutes past eight I am going to find it very difficult to thank him (or perhaps it is my noble friend Lord Belstead) because of the most serious omission of all. I described this Bill as a wee timorous beastie. I still consider it to be a wee timorous beastie. It is a pusillanimous little Bill. We have spent hours and hours of time tinkering about with the minutiae of really a very small Bill.
The main problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said that we should address ourselves has almost been ignored. There will not be any salmon to protect unless we take very strong steps to protect them. In
858
regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—and I was a little surprised by his intervention—I am convinced in my own mind that the business of poaching is secondary. It is important but it is secondary.
The really important things are involved in the over-fishing of salmon, legally. As noble Lords know, I am an angler, I am a netsman and I make money out of people who are wise enough or unwise enough to want to stay in my fishing hotel to take fishes. So I am in the thing right up to the neck. But I look upon salmon as a very important economic asset, in the first place of Scotland and in the second place of the whole of the United Kingdom. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I have bitterly regretted that Her Majesty's Government have not seen fit to have a national policy for salmon. There is no suggestion in anything that has taken place in this Chamber that Her Majesty's Government have any policy at all for salmon. That is very sad. I think that perhaps Her Majesty's Government have not taken on board the valuable asset that we have and that we are in danger of squandering and eventually destroying altogether.
There is an immensely boring book called The Atlantic Salmon by Professor Netboy which many of your Lordships may have either read or glanced at. The professor took the trouble to trace the history of the Atlantic salmon and, believe it or not, one of the greatest salmon-producing countries of Europe was France. There are now virtually no salmon at all to be caught in France, simply through lack of interest or mismanagement. There were salmon in Spain; now there are very few. There were many salmon in England; now there are very few. Mercifully, there are still salmon in Scotland but our stocks are being rapidly depleted. I do beg Her Majesty's Government to take a rather bigger view than has been taken so far, and to consider salmon fishing as an asset of the British people.
I am not just talking about noble Lords who can afford to fish for salmon: that is a thing of the past. What is happening now is what is happening in other forms of the fishing world. Fishing, I believe, is the greatest participatory sport in the United Kingdom—people fishing for pike, people fishing for perch, people fishing for trout and so on. The canals of the United Kingdom are being stocked by angling associations. The great reservoirs are being fished. It is a great national sport in which people of widely different incomes are participating. I am not just speaking for a small group and I am not just speaking because I am involved in netting or because I enjoy salmon fishing.
I believe that the salmon is an important economic asset of the United Kingdom and I believe also that fishing is a noble sport. There is plenty of room for many, many more fish than there are at present. There are thousands of miles of river in Scotland which could be developed, could be used and could be enjoyed. I should like to see that very much; but if we do not take some steps there are not going to be any fish to fish for. So all this fussing about small details really indicates to me that we seem to be missing the point. The real point is that we have to protect the salmon.
I cannot help speaking about this with quite a degree of emotion. On the one hand you have anglers and on the other hand you have estuarial netsmen: then you have the high sea fishermen. They all take their toll. In time, I am convinced that it will be necessary to think in terms of sharing this limited availability of fish so that everybody can have a go.
I am also equally convinced that the salmon, as an article of food, is going to be provided by the fish farms. They are being very successful; they are very well run and are developing fast. So the tonnage of fish produced by the fish farms will rapidly increase and I think you will have the wild salmon becoming of importance largely as a "sport" fish—a sport fish that could be enjoyed by people from all over the world and from all classes and all types in this country. It is to that that I personally am applying my mind in this debate.
I am bound to say that it seems to me that the most serious threat at the moment over which Her Majesty's Government have some control is the drift netting off Northumbria and the North of Yorkshire. I think the figures speak for themselves and I do not apologise for repeating them at this late hour. In parenthesis, I remember when I had the honour of being a member of Her Majesty's Government we used to talk about "this late hour" when it was about half-past six—and now it is nearly half-past eight.
I will just remind your Lordships of the figures. You have had them all before but I make no apology for giving them to you again. The average declared catch of the drift nets between 1950 and 1959 was 2,162 fish. Between 1970 and 1979 the average catch was 48,140. I will just repeat those figures: 2,162 between 1950 and 1959 and 48,140 between 1970 and 1979. In 1984 the figure was 77,220. Those are the declared figures. There are people who suggest that they may not be correct. About that, I cannot judge; but those are the declared figures.
To get the business into proportion, one has to relate this to the catches viewed against the total catches. For England and Wales, from 1970 to 1979 the figure was 110,600 fish. In the same period in Scotland the figure was 407,500 fish. In 1985 the figure was 100,200—it went down. In Scotland the figure was 286,000 fish. It may interest your Lordships to know that out of the 100,200 fish that were accounted for in England and Wales in 1984, no less than 77,200 were caught by the drift nets. I know that, at this time of the day, to be confronted with a whole mass of figures may be very irritating, but perhaps your Lordships will read the account in Hansard tomorrow and check the figures for yourselves. I would just repeat: 100,200 fish, out of which 77,200 fish were caught by the drift nets.
Obviously no one in his senses wants to advocate any policy which is going to increase unemployment or harm the livelihood of honest, decent people plying their trade, but, with great respect to many observations I have received, I must say I feel that some of the remarks have been sentimental and really not backed up by any sort of logical thinking or indeed by any real facts. At the most, the number of people engaged in drift netting in the North-East fisheries is—I cannot say exactly but I doubt whether it exceeds
860
700. These people, who engage in a perfectly legitimate and perfectly proper exercise, claim that what they are doing is something which is traditional. We have heard all along about tradition, tradition, tradition. I do not know how long it takes to make a tradition, but it seems to me that, from the figures I have given you, the "tradition" in 1950 to 1959 was to catch 2,000 fish; the "tradition" in 1984 was to catch 77,000 fish. Really, can we accept this rather sentimental argument of tradition? It is rubbish.
We know perfectly well how it was possible for these figures to have been so rapidly increased. They were increased by the introduction of the monofilament or, as I rather tiresomely suggested to your Lordships, the multifilament nylon net. That is what has made it possible. I got a delightful letter from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, quite rightly, putting their case. Among other things, they said:
"Fishing families on the North East coast have depended for generations upon the catching of salmon, using traditional methods."
The "traditional methods" were the hemp net, and these figures tell the whole story. The letter continues:
"The original nets made from hemp and cotton, suffered from mildew and rot: the slime and weed collected necessitating an inordinate amount of laborious cleaning. The much maligned monfilament nets have proved lighter, easier to handle, less susceptible to the retention of slime and weed and thankfully much safer to use"—
and, of course, thankfully, much more profitable.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: May I clarify a point? My noble friend has just mentioned the national federation. I have objected to them about their name, because they represent a certain number of fishing organisations in England and Wales, but none in Scotland.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I did not wish to give the impression that they had anything to do with Scotland. They are entirely to do with England, because there is no drift netting in Scotland. This refers only to drift netting where it is legal, off the north-east coast of England.
Can we seriously believe this idea about phasing-out? That is what will be suggested this evening. Let us suppose that we were concerned with a figure of 2,162 fish. Do your Lordships think that you would be considering phasing that out? Is it not because the figure has leapt to this enormous amount that your Lordships are rather frightened about bringing in a ban? And what is it that noble Lords are frightened of? I suggest that humanitarian principles have come in and that your Lordships do not like the idea of what has been described as depriving somebody of his livelihood.
I must tell your Lordships—and if noble Lords have thought about it they will know already—that the people engaged in this drift netting are only part-time. Drift netting for salmon is only part of what they do. The average season for drift netting—it is not throughout the year but, heaven knows!, it is long enough—is this. In Northumbria, it runs from 26th March to 31st August; in North Yorkshire it runs from 1st February

861
to 31st August; and in Scotland it runs from 11th February to 26th August. Your Lordships will see that in Scotland it is shorter than the netting season off the coast of Northumbria and North Yorkshire. It might interest some of your Lordships to know that the Tay netting season is from 5th February to 20th August.
As to the damage (if one can call it that) that is being done, perhaps your Lordships would consider these figures for a moment. Scotland East is a term of art. I have here the statistical bulletin, which is rather discreet in the way it presents the figures, so it describes the Rivers Tweed, Forth and Tay as Scotland East. The average annual catch on those rivers from 1980 to 1984 was 55,611 fish. The average annual catch from the Northumbria and North Yorkshire drift netting was 60,330. So the Northumbria and North Yorkshire drift netting fisheries accounted for more fish than the three rivers of Scotland which I have just mentioned.
There is every evidence to suggest that this interceptive fishing is catching the fish which are destined for the Scottish rivers. I do not think there has been very much argument about that. A lot of serious scientific research has been put into it, and the inference—but one must always be very careful about the movement of salmon—is that approximately 95 per cent. of the fish caught are destined for Scottish rivers. I find that unacceptable.
An organisation called NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—with which your Lordships are all familiar, is in despair about the inactivity of Her Majesty's Government. We go on complaining, but what do we do about it ourselves? Nothing. Quotas are being imposed on other countries and accepted, but what do we do? Nothing. What will certainly happen is that, being so distressed by our inactivity—they know well all the figures I have given—they will not play. The Norwegian Government were prepared to take further steps to limit the fisheries, but if we do nothing they will not take those steps and the next thing that will happen is that the quotas will be increased. What I am trying to convey to your Lordships is that there is not a great deal of time, and I doubt very much whether this phasing-out idea is wise. I do not think there is time for phasing-out.
It has occurred to me that, if Her Majesty's Government are so concerned with the livelihood of these honest men who are doing drift netting, we might consider some means whereby they could be recompensed and bought out. I am not a very good mathematician, but I have done some calculations and it looks to me as though, if you bought them out at five years' purchase of the known catches, it would not cost much more than about £2 million. When we are talking about a great national industry, £2 million is not a great deal of money.
I look upon this very seriously, and I feel that there is a terrible danger. We have gone on and on about the minutiae of a very pusillanimous little Bill, and we are overlooking the main issue, which is an attempt to conserve a very valuable and continuing asset.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: If the noble Marquess were to press his amendments I should have to find myself in the opposite Lobby, and for that I shall give
862
reasons in a moment. There are two reasons why drift netting should be brought to an end. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has told us the history of the Hunter Report, and that was one of their recommendations. The first reason is that the modern gear of the present drift netter is such that the nets are intercepting far too many salmon which would otherwise breed in Scottish rivers. I do not differ at all from my noble friend in that assessment. Drift netting on the north-east coast of England employs some families, and they can justly claim it to be traditional. It is their gear which is not traditional. That has changed out of all knowledge.
The second reason, as my noble friend Lord Moran has said, is that if the Atlantic salmon is to be preserved other countries will have to accept restrictions. It is becoming clear, for example, that Greenland, the Faroes and Denmark, in particular, Greenland and the Faroes, are becoming restive because we in this country have not so far done anything about it. They have their ceilings. They are beginning to question their ceilings and will do so increasingly if we do not act in our own home waters. Having said that, because of the rather special history of drift netting in North-East England, I do not believe that it would be either fair or practical to apply an abrupt cut-off. I am sure of that.
It is simply not practical politics now. It is not that a great number are involved. I would accept my noble friend's estimate of about 700 being involved in this business. But when unemployment is such a sensitive matter, I do not believe that a cut-off at this time is an option. Politics is the art of the possible; as we know, so is legislation. Therefore I feel that we should not go for the cut-off but for the phase-out with, I hope, a pledge by the Government that in future they will take further action about the phase-out.
With respect, I would differ from my noble friend about the actions that the Government propose. My noble friend described them, I think, as little details. The eight hour reduction in the netting at night will be very valuable. The provision that the owner of the boat has to be on it when it goes to sea and that he cannot just send off somebody else in it will be another effective action. The fixed week-end closure is another. These three provisions are a valuable start to what I hope will be an increasingly rapid phase-out.
I should like the Government to make a positive statement that after three years, when they have had time to assess the results of the initial phase-out, they will make proposals to carry this on further, particularly by not renewing licences when anybody retires. When a licence holder retires or dies, that licence could not be renewed. It would not take very long, with those measures, to phase-out drift netting altogether within, let us say, possibly five or 10 years.
Those are the considerations that I have in mind. Though I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansdowne in his assessment of the gravity of the situation in relation to the Atlantic salmon, I would not have a cut-off now.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Mamock: I do not want to delay the Committee to any great extent; but on Second

863
Reading I gave voice to my own personal feeling that we had to tackle the question of drift netting sooner or later. Whether it should be done, as we did it in Scotland, almost instantaneously, or whether it should be phased out is a matter of judgment. It was easy for us to do it because it was new in Scotland, but I accept the point from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that it is all very well to talk about a traditional form of fishing when it is traditional with very modern tackle. The difficulty is the actual take. The noble Marquess mentioned the figure of 77,000 against 2,000 over the same relative periods.
I am concerned about how this will be felt internationally by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Suppose we did stop it right away: what will happen to those 77,000 salmon? Will it assist in any way with conservation if we leave as it is the ability to catch by the netsman at the estuary? I can see the advantages for them right away. It is a pure commercial advantage if the salmon are going into the Scottish rivers. I think the suggestion was that about 97 per cent. of them (I have seen that figure) or 95 per cent. would if not drift netted successfully have gone into them. But what percentage of those that get in to the estuary actually get to the upper streams where they breed? It would be a very considerable increase and bonus—indeed a bonanza—for the netsman if we leave it there.
I am concerned—and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, proclaimed his concern—for the aspects of conservation. If we are going to conserve, and if we are going to do the kind of things we expect the Greenlanders, the people in the Faroes, the Norwegians and everybody else to do, we have to go easy ourselves and make our contribution. I shall be the first to agree fully to the cut-offs and to the stopping of the drift netting if we can ensure that we do not then proceed to accept that the netsmen can have their 90 per cent. share of what is left, with very little going upstream.
That is the challenge. Is it a challenge of quotas or something else? The Government have to make up their mind to look at this from the point of view of salmon conservation, not just from the point of view of drift netting but what follows if you stop drift netting. Will you get the aspect of conservation that you need? I leave it to the Government to try to sort it out for us. The noble Lord the Minister will be a better man than I am or anybody else if he succeeds in satisfying everyone, but we must make a start on that.
Viscount Trenchard: I should like to add a brief word. We have conflicting problems here. The urgency which my noble friend Lord Lansdowne stressed is very great indeed. At Second Reading I pointed out that the statistics are not necessarily related to the size of the stock, and that there is a very strong thesis which suggests that if the catch now, with all these modern nets about which we have been talking, which my noble friend uses as well as the driftnetsman, is down by half, the stock is down a great deal further.
The other urgency, which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, mentioned, is that internationally we shall not keep the agreements if we do not do a little more a little more quickly. Contributions large and small are
864
important. Drift netting has to make a large contribution because of the proportion of catch, which the noble Marquess has stressed. The nets also have to make a contribution. I make no apology for putting down the next amendment, Amendment No. 78ZA, with that in mind. It involves a contribution from anglers as well. Small contributions are important psychologically, if we are to ask people to deal with an urgent problem faster than their self-interest would like them to do.
I want to stress one other point in case it is in the Government's mind. There is still loose talk to the effect that salmon farming will so bring down the price of salmon that this will save the wild salmon and make it uneconomic for the driftnetters and others to go after them. Anybody who has looked at salmon farming margins at the moment will realise that that is not so. Such is the ease of handling these very light nets and the driftnets that the catching of wild salmon will continue to be profitable using the kind of modern gear that is available. Like my noble friend Lord Home, and notwithstanding the fact that I am a phase-out man, I think we have to phase-out faster even than he thinks. My noble friend mentioned five or 10 years. I cannot see much hope of that happening unless we push it and unless we take the suggestion of the noble Marquess that we consider compensation together with a phase-out so that the phase-out can be fairly fast.
I have one final point. There has been a great deal of stress upon the traditional aspect of the north-east fishery. Obviously that is correct. Drift nets of hemp on cork have been there for a long while. But the drift netting that is going on around the south-west coast of Britain is, so far as I am aware, new—or if there was any drift netting, it was so insignificant that it is not true. Thus in terms of a ban that affects England and Wales, the traditional problem of the livelihood of the father and son, and all the rest, is in the north-east. A little compensation could lead to an ability to phase out drift netting fast enough to save the salmon. I say that that really must be done in five years.
Lord Tryon: I have probably attacked drift netting as often as anybody over the past three or four years—on at least every opportunity that the subject has been raised in your Lordships' House. Certainly I had plenty to say about the matter when we were debating the Second Reading. I shall try not to repeat what I said on that occasion. I have also crossed out the vast majority of the points that I had intended to make tonight because the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has made them all.
I have just one or two points left to make. To pick up on the question of tradition, that is almost the only argument that the drift netters are using, although I will deal with one or two others in a moment. I agree with the noble Marquess that that argument is complete nonsense. As I said on Second Reading, the difference between the almost accidental catch of 2,000 fish in the 1950s is not something that anyone would begrudge. I cannot believe that people were even fishing for them because a mere 2,000 salmon does not give any number of people a living. But the 70,000-odd fish that are caught now is 35 times that

865
number. That is a staggering increase. It is traditional for this House to have about 1,300 Members. If our membership suddenly increased to 40,000 we would find life here rather different.
The difference between a drift net and the old-fashioned heavy net is like that between an old bicycle and Concorde. They need totally different rules and regulations. The drift netters claim in the letter that I, too, have received that they are helping to stop poaching. They argue that there is a mass of illegal fishing off the coast of Scotland but that the situation is better off the north-east coast of England because the drift netters are helping to police the area. They may have a small point, but it is a pretty poor country that cannot enforce its own laws. I hope that we are not reaching the stage where we are expecting volunteer vigilantes in the form of licensed drift netters to police our laws. We still seem to have a navy and an air force, and the river boards have boats that can undertake some patrolling. Those fish are enormously valuable.
The most difficult aspect of this whole question is that of employment. There is no doubt that there are 500 or 600 people—a figure of 700 was mentioned—who derive part of their income from drift netting for salmon. I understand that most of them catch other fish as well. I simply do not know what the effect on employment would be of a ban today, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the Committee.
I am sure there was some unemployment when drift nets were phased out off the coast of Scotland. Unemployment has been created in the fishing industry for a variety of other reasons from time to time. I have no axe to grind other than that of somebody who likes salmon fishing on holidays. I am even sensible or silly enough to take salmon fishing from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, from time to time. But that is my only interest in salmon fishing, even though the National Federation of Fishermen accuse some of us of having other reasons for taking the line that we do.
My strong feeling is that with proper conservation more jobs will be created in the valleys of Scotland over the years than will ever be lost in this little north-east drift net fishery. I am sure that that is the case. One cannot prove it. One hears that some 35,000 people are involved in the rod-fishing industry in one way or another. That totally dwarfs anything that we are talking about in the way of drift netters. One has only to drive up to the Spey valley in the spring, in March, to see that there are no tourists there. It is as cold as can be. Apart from a few people heading up to the ski slopes beyond, the hotels are full of fishermen. There is almost nobody else there apart from the peope who work in the distilleries and what-have-you. The tourist industry in all those valleys is totally dependent on fishermen staying at those hotels. I am sure that, with proper conservation, salmon will provide more employment than will ever be lost from a more or less immediate ban.
I am a naive—politically—Cross-Bencher. We have heard about the art of the possible from the noble Lord, Lord Home, and I listened carefully to what he said. My strong feeling is that we should at least seek
866
from the Government an assurance that drift net fishing will be very heavily reduced over the next five years, as an absolute maximum. It may be impossible to achieve that which the noble Marquess wants to achieve. If he pressed his point of view I would probably go with him, but I believe it might be wiser to try to phase out drift netting over a short period of time. I hope that we shall receive some encouragement on that front.
The Earl of Perth: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home, that this must be undertaken on the basis of phasing out the practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, has just said, it is important that the Government should say, "We're going to do it, but we'll do it over a period of time". The noble Lord, Lord Ross, rightly asked about the netsmen and commented that they are going to do very much better.
At some time or another in this debate the word "compensation" has been used. I would not have thought that it was beyond the skill of the Government to talk with the National Federation of Fishermen and say, "We must do a deal. Over the next few years, your federation must recognise that this practice will have to be totally phased out. But we don't want hardship and we acknowledge that netsmen and so forth may do very much better. So we'll impose a quota on netsmen and for a period of time, anything over and above that quota will be to your advantage and to your credit".
I do not have the scheme exactly right but if the Government will only say that they will work on such a scheme, and will make a commitment to allowing a period of time, at the end of which the nets will go, then I for one would feel satisfied. The idea of saying that it must finish today is just not on, politically or in any other way.
The Earl of Dundee: I should like very briefly to add my support to those noble Lords who are in favour of phasing our English drift nets, as distinct from abolishing them straight away and in favour of compensating the fishermen who have been phased out. Clearly there is a very strong case for doing that, although on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Gray said that there was insufficient evidence for going beyond the various restrictive measures affecting drift nets recently announced by the Government.
Admittedly the connection cannot be precisely demonstrated between increasing drift net catches and depleted numbers in Scottish rivers and estuaries. However, as my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has already remarked, annual drift net salmon catches are now up to 77,000. Thirty years ago the comparable figure was about 2,000, and it is estimated that more than 94 per cent. of those fish then and now are of Scottish origin. Therefore, if drift nets were to be discontinued there are good grounds for believing that a significant and even dramatic improvement would result in Scottish waters.
9 p.m.
Then there is the effect internationally which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. If we

867
are seen to phase out our own interceptory fisheries there is a far greater chance that our voice will be heeded when we argue in favour of conservation through the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation and the EC; while conversely, it is now all the more difficult to achieve proper quotas and control of salmon catches in other areas where these fish are intercepted such as off Greenland and the Faroes.
Regarding fair treatment for English drift net fishermen, a five-year period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, during which fishing continues but no new licences are issued is surely a reasonable timetable. Equally, in the context of our present discussions and the main purpose of this Bill, a Government scheme of financial compensation to the relatively few fishermen involved, if implemented, would surely be a very small price to pay.
Lord Burton: Several noble Lords have referred to our international reputation. Important as this is, I think that what is really important is that these fisheries are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. This fishing will not continue at the present rate of 77,000, or whatever it is, because there is a seven-year cycle of fish coming back; and there has already been a few years of it. I have little doubt at all that in a very few years the numbers of fish they are catching will drop materially.
A noble Lord: It has already started.
Lord Burton: It has already started. That is very possible.
The so-called National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—several noble Lords have had a letter from it—referred to the north-east. I immediately thought that it was talking about Aberdeen and then discovered it was Northumberland. The letter talks about conservation but what has not been mentioned tonight, and certainly was not mentioned by the organisation, is that these drift nets let go an enormous number of fish which are damaged. These go into our rivers and cause disease and that is the very worst possible thing for conservation.
There is the employment problem, as several noble Lords have said, and clearly we must phase out; but we must phase out rapidly—certainly after five or six years. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard. That is the absolute maximum. It must run down very quickly or there will be very serious damage to our national interests.
Lord Biddulph: I must stress again the international implications. For 1984 the total Tweed salmon catch was reduced by 59 per cent. while other eastern coastal rivers increased their catches slightly. I am sure this is to be attributed to the Northumbria fishery. I cannot think it could be anything else.
As to the international aspects which I consider to be so important, although this Bill obviously is extremely welcome it does little to conserve salmon. A total ban on drift-netting will, I am sure, achieve this
868
over a phase-out period. I would think that is probably the best idea. Internationally this Bill cuts no ice. I know that several noble Lords have mentioned that NASCO is under strong pressure from Greenland and the Faroes for salmon producing countries to put their own house in order before agreeing to further quotas and, it is to be hoped, reductions in those quotas.
I repeat what I said in my maiden speech on Second Reading. I referred to NASCO, which is the operating mechanism of the new international treaty. Its principal objective is the reduction of interceptions by one nation of salmon originating in another nation's river. The difficulty is to persuade the signatory nations that to begin to undertake these interceptions, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, conservation begins at home. But who starts the process, thereby setting an example?
Last year's deliberations of the West Greenlands Commission underline the problem. Denmark, in respect of Greenland, said that before there can be consideration of a further reduction in the already reduced 870 tonne quota for Greenland the commission would need to reach an understanding and define a fair sharing of the burden of conservation. There cannot really be anything wrong in that. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: I said that Article 9 of the Treaty provides, in part, that,
"A Commission shall take into account the efforts of states of origin to implement and enforce measures for the conservation, restoration and enhancement and rational management of salmon stocks in their rivers and areas of fisheries jurisdiction.".
Denmark requests that other members, consistent with the provisions of the treaty, make specific unilateral commitments for conservation measures similar to her own. Canada has taken drastic reductions in angling limits and commercial netting; and drift netting is banned. The United States of America prohibits the taking of fish by all means other than angling. They have also taken measures to prohibit the sale of salmon. They have spent 160 million dollars over a period of 10 years on their fisheries and the enhancement of their salmon rivers and stocks. We cannot claim anything like that in this country. I am not sure that we spend anything.
However, drift-netting is banned in Iceland and there is very little river-netting there. It would seem to me that surely now it is the EC's turn to satisfy Denmark that member states producing Atlantic salmon in large numbers are undertaking measures to comply with Article 9 and such measures as the elimination of, or substantial reductions in, drift-netting and netting by fixed engine, and so on. The EC is not forthcoming with assurances and it is quite easy to see why. How could it be, when the United Kingdom and Ireland are still uncommitted to reducing these abuses?
The United Kingdom has always been in the forefront of salmon conservation and legislation. Latterly, the Government have been dragging their feet. Now we have a great opportunity to put this right. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said in his speech that we should grasp the nettle firmly. I feel that the introduction of this clause will enable us to do just that, and I support it.
Lord Belstead: I have listened carefully to the speeches which noble Lords have made this evening and have learned a good deal from them. One word of caution was uttered by my noble friend Lord Home, and it was repeated by several of your Lordships, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, among them. It was a word of caution which touches upon the effect of this amendment, for though it is the case that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, speaks of a transitional period of five years, of course as salmon drift net fishing licences are valid for one season only, under this amendment the drift net fisheries would in fact all be closed by the end of the first year.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I make the familiar point—and I shall not make it again—that the right to fish for salmon and sea trout around our coastal waters goes back to the days of Magna Carta. However, nowadays it is a right which is much restricted. All forms of netting for salmon and sea trout are licensed by water authorities and are strictly controlled by them as regards the number of people who may fish, the dimensions and construction of the nets which they may use—I know that your Lordships feel deeply about that, and I understand why—and the times when they may fish. It is a fact that, where there has been evidence that drift netting is posing an obvious threat to stocks, water authorities have proposed restrictions. It is not the case that nothing has been done. For instance, while there was certainly some increase in drift net licensing in Northumbria in the 1960s, since 1971 the number of licences has been halved from 242 to 121 licences; and in Yorkshire the number of licences has dropped from 38 to 29 over the last seven years.
Regarding the English north east coast fishery, as your Lordships will know, the Government have only recently completed a very lengthy review of that fishery, and we concluded that we did not believe there was a case on conservation grounds for terminating the fishery. However, we decided that it should be further restricted. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Home for mentioning some of the restrictions; and though my noble friend made it quite clear that he wished to see the phasing-out of the fishery, he was generous in what he said about believing that these restrictions would have an effect.
Very briefly, I ask your Lordships to consider the following measures: that the licensed fisherman must be present when his net is fished except when the water authority is satisfied that he is physically unable to be there owing to illness or injury (I shall not conceal from your Lordships that this requirement has already drawn from fishermen some reaction about the effect that it will have); that the drift-net fishery should be closed for eight hours at night (at the moment the fisheries are not closed at night at all); that the week-end closed periods for salmon and sea trout should be standardised on the longest period now in force (this means that they will be closed from six o'clock in the evening on Friday until six o'clock in the morning on the following Monday); and that steps should be taken to change the balance of fishing effort from drift nets to the inshore fixed nets known as T or J nets—and I am advised that proposals for this have come forward from both the Northumbria authority and the Yorkshire authority.
870
The preparatory work for these measures is in hand, and it is our intention to bring these measures into effect as soon as the statutory procedures can be completed. I very much hope that in most of those cases this will mean during 1986. I repeat that these measures are expected to have a significant effect on the level of the fishery. We have received representations from local fishermen who believe that their catches will be seriously affected.
This perhaps allows me to mention two other aspects underlying the Government's attitude to the fishery. First—and your Lordships have been very open and, I think, very thoughtful in putting this point—there is the fact that it is of economic importance to an area which is going through a very difficult time. I realise that the entire income of those who are fishing does not come from salmon, but as I understand it we are talking about a general mixed fishery and we are talking about it in an area in the United Kingdom with one of the highest rates of unemployment. We feel strongly that it would be wrong utterly to deny that source of livelihood to the fishing community at the present time unless there were no other way to conserve stocks.
Moreover—and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, will forgive me; I know that he does not want me to say this—the existence of a legally controlled fishery has been of help to the water authorities in combating illegal netting. That has been shown in case after case where prosecutions have followed information supplied by licensed fishermen.
After the most careful consideration the Government have concluded that the right approach to that fishery is not to ban it but to tighten the controls in the ways that I have described. Those controls must be given a chance to work. From an international point of view other countries must give them a chance to work. Members of the Committee have asked me for an assurance as to how the Government see the future. We have previously given an assurance, and I repeat it now, that we shall review the position after three years' experience. We shall clearly have to take into account all the aspects put forward this evening. I ask your Lordships' Committee to accept that way forward, and I hope that after my reply the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I think that in one respect he has misunderstood the wording of my amendment. It reads:
"no new licence shall be issued, and no existing licence renewed."
But what I meant to say, and I probably drafted it clumsily, was that no new licence should be issued to any new fisherman and no new licence to any existing fisherman. I did not mean simply the annual licence. I was thinking not in terms of phasing out in one year but in five.
I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Lord Campbell of Croy, why I said six miles. There is no significance in that. I simply attempted to define English and Welsh coastal waters, but probably there are good reasons why there should be another figure. I

871
must confess that I rather agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If there is ultimately to be a phasing out of that fishery, there should be some cutting down by everyone else. For example, in 1983 other forms of net in Scotland took a total of some 189,000 salmon. I think that it would be reasonable in the interests of conservation for everyone to cut down a bit.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I should be happy to have any form of phasing out as long as ultimately the end result was that the intercepting fishery should cease. In terms of his reply I do not see how we shall be able to exercise our influence internationally to get Greenland and Faroese fisheries reduced, which is what I want to do. The Minister did not respond to my point about the need for Whitehall to take on board the international aspects of the problem and discuss them with all concerned. Perhaps he would care to say a word about that.
Lord Belstead: I was asking your Lordships to give the new rules a chance to work, but in what was perhaps too brief an aside I said that other countries ought to give the new rules a chance to work also. Let us not forget that there is a substantial drift net fishery off the coast of Ireland, and, as I understand it, another off the coast of Newfoundland. We are not alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and many other noble Lords, made a point which I take on board: we need to show internationally that we are moving in the right direction. There has been a reduction in the number of licences in past years, and I gave the figures. Among the tighter controls which I sought to describe there is a move off the Northumbrian and Yorkshire coasts for a further reduction in drift net fishing and a substitution of T and J nets. There are also the effects of the other controls, not least the very draconian effects of closure of the fisheries at night and for the whole of weekends. I hope that the message of what we are doing in that way will be put forward in the international forum—I am sure that it will be—by the British representatives in NASCO.
Viscount Trenchard: Before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, makes clear what he wants to do, I would ask my noble friend to consider before the next stage of the Bill whether he cannot give any statement along the lines of that requested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—that it is the intention to phase out ultimately. I feel that unless we do that our chances of bringing the Irish under control—my noble friend mentioned the Irish problems—let alone continuing to make progress on high seas netting overall, will be very small. I wonder whether my noble friend is prepared to consider the possibility of the Government saying something further at Report stage. If he is not able to do so and if the noble Lord, Lord Moran, were to get his wording correct on licences and re-table his amendment, I would support it.
Lord Belstead: I do not believe that your Lordships wish this to go on much longer. I have given an assurance that we shall review the position after three years' experience. I indicated to the Committee that I
872
had listened to the argument, meaning that I had listened to what had been said about it on all sides, that one would need, in reviewing the matter after three years' experience, to look at it in the round from every point of view. The message coming from your Lordships is clear. I am afraid, however, that this evening I cannot go further on behalf of the Government than I have gone.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord, Lord Moran, decides what to do, I hope that at the end of the three years, if it is to be a three-year period, the Government will not simply say that the catch has gone down from, say, 77,000 to 70,000. It must go relatively considerably further. How to decide that is a question of judgment. The fact is that the catch is going down already due to over-fishing. So it has to be something more. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, used the words "in the round". That means, if I understand it correctly, that the reduction will be taken in relation to the overall position on salmon and that it will not simply be claimed that the amount has gone down a little. That may mean nothing.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I do not know whether my amendment still stands. I presume that it does. I should like to make one or two observations about what my noble friend Lord Belstead has said. Of course I welcome the idea that the licensee is obliged to be on board when his net is working. We have heard nothing about how the Government propose to enforce this regulation. It requires thinking about. I wonder whether I can attract the attention of my noble friend Lord Belstead. It is a point to which he may wish to reply. I was referring to the licensee being obliged to be on board while his net is working. That has to be enforced. Is it going to be enforced by the other licensees?
Apparently Her Majesty's Government are not capable of enforcing difficult laws and have to leave it to members of the profession to police the coast. That was a dreadful admission, I thought. I was horrified by the reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon. It seems quite extraordinary. We have the fishery protection squadron that has been plying up and down the coast of Scotland with great success. There has been a very considerable reduction. The drift netters were going out of their own area and up off the coast of Scotland. That has been brought completely to a stop. The fishery protection squadron is perfectly capable of also policing the Northumbrian and the North Yorkshire coast. This argument therefore that Her Majesty's Government are incapable of enforcing a law seems to me absolutely dreadful.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made great play with the week-end closed period. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I do not know whether he knows all about this. The week-end closed period is not something new; it has been going on all the time. All that has been brought in now is uniformity. Only very small areas of the coastline with which we are concerned were different from the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. period. That is a sop and nothing more. I am not in the least impressed by that.

873
I am asking the noble Lord to tell me how he proposes to enforce this regulation that the captain—licensee—is always on board. Will he have a great army of people there to ensure the moment they touch down that the licensee is there? How will he do it? Do not let us be in the least impressed by this closed period. It existed before; and a tiny alteration has been made.
Very little has been said about the other arrange-ments which apparently will happen. We shall take away one thing and put in another.
"The Northumbrian Water Authority has sought an order permitting the use … of 'T' nets in the Southern area, where they are currently banned, and their request has been accepted".
That is another form of netting which will take place.
"The Authority is to study the structure of its licence duties with a view to offering financial inducement to fishermen who may be prepared to use only these fixed nets".
That is quite important, but I do not see why all this should be a question for the water authority. Why cannot Her Majesty's Government do something about it? This is a national matter. It is not a matter for local water authorities. I am horrified that that is the way in which it is being treated.
The only satisfaction which I have from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that he is undertaking to review the effects of the new arrangements after they have been in operation for three years. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in asking what will a review mean? We have to have some kind of satisfaction. We have to have more than an undertaking from her Majesty's Government that they will review something. What we want to know is that something important will happen; that the decimation of salmon stocks will be reduced.
If I may speak for one moment longer, I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—of course I do. In the end, what will happen? Inevitably, there will have to be a system of quotas. There are too many people chasing too few fish. In the end the commercial netsmen—of whom I am one—will have to accept quotas; and anglers—of whom I am also one—will have to accept quotas. One already has this in the United States of America. If one fishes in the Yukon in Alaska one will find that one is allowed to kill only three fish. People go so far as to fish with barbless hooks so that they can easily disengage the fish and put it back in the river without hurting it. The quota system is almost inevitably bound to come. But what I am concerned with—and I wish that the Government were as concerned as I am—is the preservation of a great national asset and something which is of vital economic importance to my country, Scotland.
I am unable to withdraw my amendment unless I can have a rather more serious assurance than I have had so far from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
Lord Belstead: Very briefly, the water authorities do enforce these rules. I was simply reminding the Committee that it had been to the advantage of conservation generally that there were people in the licensed fishery who, in case after case, had brought to the attention of the authorities that illegal fishing had been taking place. So far as coastal protection is
874
concerned, the Northumbrian Authority has its own protection vessel; and the authorities all have in-shore protection vessels. The reason why this is a matter for water authorities is that Parliament in the 1975 Act placed the responsibility on the water authorities for conserving and regulating salmon and fresh water fisheries. So far as an undertaking from me is concerned, I am afraid that I can say no more.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Lansdowne—whose speech we all admired—whether he can tell us what is the weekly close time on the River Tay and now does it compare with the drift netting fishery that we have been discussing?
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I think that I can answer that question because I wrote it down this morning. The Tay slaps at 12 noon on Saturday until 6 a.m. on Monday. In the case of my own company, one boat crew fishes for 40 hours per week; one shift does eight hours a day. That is what happens on my own river. I think you will find that it will be possible for the drift netters to fish for very much longer hours; I think that they will manager 60 hours. Does that answer the noble Viscount's question?
Viscount Ridley: The point is that the weekly close time in the sea is 60 hours, and not 42.
The Earl of Perth: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that he cannot go any further in his undertaking. I find that a rather unhappy situation because he merely says that the Government will review it at the end of three years. Review it to what end? If the noble Lord were to say, "We shall review it and if there is not a substantial reduction by the various methods that we are going to introduce, we undertake then to take further measures," I would go along with him. However, just to say that they will take certain measures and will then review the situation, is to give no undertaking at all.
Lord Belstead: We are going over the same ground again and again. I said that we would review it taking the matter in the round. Obviously—probably first and foremost—we would have to review it from the conservation point of view. We would have to look surely to see whether the effects of the drift netting fishery were affecting conservation. I do not think that I can go further than that this evening. An assurance of a three-year review is something which the Government have already given. I am only repeating it this evening. I am sorry, but I cannot go further than that.
Lord Burton: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask him how he intends to assess what effect it is having on conservation.
Lord Belstead: I think that perhaps for the last time I shall say that I have said all that I can say.
Lord Moran: So far as my own amendment is concerned, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have supported me. I find myself in complete agreement with all that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said this evening. I have listened with very great care to what the Minister has said and I understand very well the drift of his argument.
However, I have not failed to notice tonight that the view of the Committee seems to be almost unanimous that his fishery should end in due course. There is obviously a difference of opinion between those of us who think that it should be phased out over a period and those who think that it should be stopped at once. However, I do not think that a single noble Lord has taken the line that it should continue.
I have agreed that my amendment is defective in parts and so I am prepared to withdraw it. However, I propose to re-introduce it at the Report stage. I hope very much that before then the Government will agree to go some way to meet the strong views which have been expressed in all parts of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Trenchard Viscount Trenchard moved Amendment No. 78ZA:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of netting.
.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales may, if requested to do so by the appropriate water authority, temporarily prohibit all netting operations, when either the flow of a particular river has dropped below the prescribed flow for seven consecutive days or more, or when such a river has run below one-seventh of its annual average flow for seven consecutive days.
(2) For such application to succeed the Ministers must be assured that in the opinion of the appropriate water authority there is risk of an undue further diminution of the stock of salmon in such river if netting were to contimue.
(3) The ban shall be lifted not later than 48 hours after the river concerned rises above the levels mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) The Ministers may also, in the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above and when such netting ban is in force, ban worm-fishing and/or prawn-fishing and/or spinning by anglers with rod and line. Fishing by artificial fly shall not be affected. Such a ban may only be made on the recommendation of the appropriate water authority.").
The noble Viscount said: I shall not keep your Lordships, and I shall withdraw this amendment at this late hour because I do not think your Lordships have a stomach for much more. We had a long discussion on this issue in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, and we had a unanimous view from those who spoke except for two noble Lords on the extreme north coast of Scotland who have rivers which run straight into the sea. As a result of that discussion I thought that we still need an amendment, not least to show that both the legal estuary nets are prepared to make a contribution towards conservation and also that the anglers are prepared to do so.
There is no doubt in any knowledgeable person, as we found when we discussed this before, that those rivers with long estuaries, and often with three or four individual rivers running into the same estuary, collect salmon which go up and down, and an overcropping situation takes place in drought. In England and Wales we are fortunate in that in most of the cases involving these rivers the water authorities have fixed prescribed
876
flow levels (I am not sure whether "prescribed" is right or whether it is "proscribed") which are used often to control the degree of extraction, or compensation water, when the river goes down to a certain level and no net abstraction can take place.
In the rivers where these may not yet have been fixed—and I believe they are required to be fixed—I have suggested that one-seventh of the annual average flow be the level to trigger consideration by the water authority. The consideration would only be given, and a recommendation to the Minister would only take place, if the water authority—the most knowledgeable body that there is; much more knowledgeable than the drought review which my noble friend mentioned last time—believe that a further undue diminution of the stock of salmon in such a river was likely if netting continued.
I have to use those words because in so many of them the stock has been going down anyway, and we ought to be doing much more than this. The ban would last only while the river was flowing at those low conditions if the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Wales agreed.
During those bans it would be within the water authority's power to prevent certain methods of fishing when the water has gone down extremely low, Putting a worm in front of the nose of the fish can be a good way of removing him. You can see them all, and it is done. I know it was done in Wales when I used to fish in Lord Moran's river. Prawn fishing can get them so frightened that they take a snatch in the end, and even spinning can produce foul hookery. What I have suggested here is that this kind of provision would not run any of the risks that the two noble Lords who have North Scotland rivers foresaw. It would only be applied when the most knowledgeable people in the game recommended it.
The drought review officials—for whom I confess I still have not seen the terms of reference—I imagine will be taking evidence from the water authorities. We already know what the water authorities think about this situation in many cases, and what we suggest here is that we short circuit things and do not wait another two years while the stock dwindles, and we make a contribution towards salmon conservation, set an example, and make it easier for the Government to take a few more steps in the kind of direction we have been discussing for the last two hours before dealing with this amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: As I spoke at length on Tuesday night on this matter, I will not say any more except to congratulate my noble friend Lord Trenchard on not being defeated and returning to the charge. It is an important issue. It must apply to the whole kingdom, and I hope and believe that at the next stage of this Bill we shall be able to produce an amendment which enables the Government to take time to think how they can get round this and achieve some kind of legislative position which enables the authorities in each river area to do something about low water flows. I believe this House has demonstrated, beyond any further need for proof, that something must be done in this respect. I beg to support this amendment.
Lord Belstead: I have listened with care to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and indeed I also congratulate him not only on not being defeated but also on bringing a new element into the discussion in subsection (1) of this new clause. On the other hand, my noble friend will forgive me if I remind him that this was a matter which was discussed over a period of very nearly an hour two days ago. The Committee did not agree on it. The Government, in the person of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, were as helpful as they could be; he said that he would take it away and, without commitment, would look at it carefully and come back at the next stage.
I hope my noble friend Lord Trenchard will not think I am being unhelpful when I say that I really do not think I can go very much further than that, except that in the consideration of the matter by the Scottish Office I shall ask my noble friend Lord Gray if he will consult with me or whether I may consult with him, so that we can look at it from both points of view, from each side of the Border. I hope my noble friend Lord Trenchard will feel that that is a fair reply to an interesting amendment, which, however, I do not think we can take very much further this evening.
Baroness White: No doubt the Minister will consult with the Welsh Office and the Welsh Water Authority.
Viscount Trenchard: I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that coming back at the next stage is a definite commitment and is not overtaken by the commitment that his noble friend and mine gave on the last occasion in relation to the drought review. I was not in my own mind clear as to whether the drought review was to be the be-all and end-all, with nothing before that, or whether the Minister's preparedness to take away the view of the Committee and consider it for the next stage was equally important. On the grounds that it is equally important, which my noble friend has just mentioned, I agree to withdraw the amendment tonight—with the one remark. I do not think either of my noble friends should put too much emphasis on two speeches, out of I think probably about 20 the last time we discussed this, in relation to this matter. There was utter unanimity except for two proprietors who own netting rights as well as fishing rights.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Removal of differential penalties under Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975]:
[Amendment No. 78A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 78B:
Page 24, leave out columns (3) and (4) in lines 29 to 38 and insert—

("(a) If not acting with another, summarily

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(b) If acting with another,

(i) Summarily

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

878

(ii) On indictment

Two years or a fine or both.

(a) If not acting with another, summarily

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(b) If acting with another,

(i) Summarily

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(ii) On indictment

Two years or a fine or both.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 27 refers to a schedule in the 1975 Act in connection with offences and, as I understand it, simply removes the facility for magistrates' courts to treat Section 1 offences (that is about illegal implements) and Section 27 offences (that is fishing without a licence) under the quick provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, whereby defendants pleading guilty can do so by correspondence.
While Section 1 offences are usually associated with other more serious indictable offences, Section 27 is so widely cast as to draw in less serious offences. Indeed, many water authorities, for example Thames, do not have a salmon fishing licence and the clause and offence as stated would make coarse fishing without a licence an indictable offence in every case, much to the annoyance of the courts.
As at present drafted, as I see it, a small boy fishing for gudgeon in the Thames without a licence would apparently be commiting an indictable offence, which is surely ludicrous. It would also generate a great deal of court work for bailiffs and legal staff and, in the long term, may be a deterrent to prosecution. Thus I have suggested, at the request of the Water Authorities Association some alternative wording. I believe the Minister was good enough to say that he had something to offer on this. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Clause 27 removes the present distinction in the 1975 Act between offenders acting alone and those acting together because that particular distinction is no longer considered relevant to the seriousness of the offence being committed. Clause 26 is drafted so that it does not differentiate between persons acting alone or together in relation to the new handling offence. However, the noble Lord has hit on a problem in this particular amendment and we recognise that Clause 27 as drafted presents a problem in that some simple angling offences—fishing without a rod licence or the kind of offence that the noble Lord mentioned—would be triable either summarily by magistrates or on indictment by Crown Courts.
We accept that it is not necessary to provide for trial on indictment in such cases. We therefore propose to bring forward an amendment to that part of Clause 27 which relates to offences under Section 27 of the 1975 Act to the effect that offences committed with rod and line will be triable summarily while offences committed with other fishing instruments will be triable either summarily or on indictment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will feel that that goes far enough to meet the case which he is making on this particular amendment.
Lord Moran: I am very grateful to the Minister and I think that should clear it up. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78C not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): There are two Amendments No. 81.
[First Amendment No. 81, second Amendment No. 81 and Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 82A:
[Printed earlier: col. 857.]
The noble Marquess said: I apologise for speaking out of turn. I cannot be satisfied with the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. All that he has given us is an undertaking to review affairs in three years' time. I find it totally unacceptable. Various suggestions have been made. I have taken the hard line that drift netting should be banned. I have suggested that it should be banned immediately, and if Her Majesty's Government are so concerned with the livelihood of the 600 or 700 people involved in drift netting perhaps they will consider compensating them. I think it would cost something in the neighbourhood of £2 million. Other suggestions have been made but there has been no firm undertaking by the Government. That is my worry. I am only repeating the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may suggest a gesture by which we put down an amendment for Report. Clearly the noble Lord's reply was unsatisfactory. We can discuss it there and if he does not give us something better we can divide the House on it.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: Like my noble friend Lord Burton (though I take a slightly different view) I rather wonder whether my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has forgotten that there is another stage to this Bill and that it might be a good thing between now and then to see what has been said today. Then we can put down an amendment to the phrasing to make it a little different from the wording so far.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have not put the amendment yet.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I naturally take my noble friend's advice and very reluctantly, promising to come back to this later, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 82A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments.]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 35, line 3, at end insert—
("In section 19(2) of that Act (forfeitures) the words "on indictment" shall be omitted.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, which went with Amendment No. 68A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 35, line 3, at end insert—
(" . In section 22 of that Act (provisions as to River Tweed), for the reference to the Board of Commissioners of the River Tweed there shall be substituted a reference to the council constituted under section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969.
.In section 24 of that Act (interpretation), for the entries relating to "District" and "District Board" there shall be substituted the following entries—
"District" and "Salmon Fishery District" shall be deemed to include the River Tweed;
"District Board" and "District Salmon Fishery Board" shall include the council constituted under section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969;")
The noble Lord said: These related amendments are all intended simply to achieve consistency between provisions in the Bill and provisions in existing legislation. The 1951 Act definitions of "district" and "district board" have been removed to avoid possible confusion with the comprehensive definition in the Bill. It is necessary to preserve the existing recognition in the 1951 Act of the River Tweed as a district and the River Tweed Council as a district board. The drafting achieves this. References to the board of commissioners of the River Tweed are also updated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 84A:
Page 35, line 3, at end insert—
(" .In section 10(6) of that Act (powers of water bailiff) after the word "obstruct" there shall be inserted the words "or assaults" ")
The noble Lord said: I have drawn attention to this matter: it is a quite simple and straightforward one. I hope that my friend will look at this, and I therefore do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 84A not moved.]
[Amendments No. 84B and 84C not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Burton: May I draw attention to two matters at this point? Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 refers to "one mile from low water". I think that this Bill is now changing it to three miles. I do not ask for an answer now, but may I ask the Government to look at this matter?
The other point concerns the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That allows in certain circumstances, for a certificate to be produced to a court instead of an expert witness perhaps having to

881
wait hours or even days to give his evidence; and it is possible to submit a statement. Could we not add that to this Bill so that analysts producing evidence in respect of fish might produce a statement rather than these very valuable people having to waste a lot of time sitting in the court?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: May I ask the Minister very briefly, when he is considering this, also to look at the question of "miles"? I understand that "miles" means "statute miles". Is there any way of putting that into the Bill? I think it has been raised once or twice before, Perhaps if we could get the term "statute miles" put into the legislation that would help a number of people like myself reading it in the future.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can give the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Burton the assurance that they seek. We shall look at both of those points before the next stage of the Bill.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 35, line 29, column 3, at end insert ("1,").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. We are retaining some parts of the 1868 Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act and it is necessary to ensure that the Short Title to that Act is not repealed. The amendment achieves this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 35, line 36, column 3, at end insert ("In section 19(2), the words "on indictment".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with manuscript Amendment No. 68A. I beg to move the amendment formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 87:
[Printed earlier: col. 800.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 87).
Clause 31, page 26, line 29, after ("shall") insert (", with the exception of the provision mentioned in subsection (1A) below,")
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 88:
[Printed earlier col. 800.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 88):
Clause 31, page 26, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) Section [Permitted methods of fishing for salmon] of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and such an
882
order may include such transitional or saving provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provision brought into force by the order.")
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 90A, 90B, 90C and 91 not moved.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 92:
[Printed earlier: col. 809.]
The noble Lord said: I hope very much that the Government will accept this amendment. As I understand it, they have undertaken to consider the whole question of dealer licensing in England and Wales, which was supported by so many of your Lordships. They said earlier that if this is done it will require the amendment of the Title. Also, during the whole of our discussions, it has become apparent that, apart from the provisions for the administration of salmon fisheries in Scotland, the whole of the rest of the Bill ought to apply throughout Great Britain. This point has been made by many noble Lords and it seems to me that the shortest, quickest and easiest way of achieving this is to put it in the title at this point. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. My noble friend has given certain assurances that matters will be looked at again. But, if I may say so, the noble Lord is putting the cart before the horse here, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot agree to change the Long Title at this stage. My noble friend has given an assurance for the earlier request which the noble Lord made, but I am afraid that I cannot accept an amendment to change the Long Title at this stage.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: If the cart is before the horse, which I can see is possible, I take it that there would be no objection—perhaps we could be helped by the Chair—to putting down the same amendment at the Report stage. I do not want it to go because if we are going to alter the Long Title it has to be done in this House. We do not want to miss the only opportunity we have.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can answer my noble friend. I am advised that the change of the Long Title would be consequential if the earlier changes which were requested were made so that it could be done in this House.
Viscount Trenchard: I very much trust that with all the talk we have had on conservation in relation to England and Wales in two Committee days in a situation of probably a bigger crisis in salmon in England and Wales even than there is in Scotland, we shall not have difficulty in getting some conservation measures in at the Report stage, which can only be done if there is a commitment to change the Title also.
Lord Moran: What the Minister has said will cause some disappointment in England and Wales but I have noted his assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Home, that this can be inserted at the Report stage. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  BBC TELEVISION: ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
  BBC TELEVISION: ADVERTISING REGULATIONS
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION: RENEWAL
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM LEGISLATION: RENEWAL
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR NHS: REMIT
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR NHS: REMIT
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: CARRIAGE OF WASTE
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: CARRIAGE OF WASTE
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: HANDLERS OF WASTE
  CONTROL OF POLLUTION: HANDLERS OF WASTE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: SECTION 7 REPORT
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1985: SECTION 7 REPORT
  INDUSTRIAL AIR POLLUTION INSPECTORATE
  INDUSTRIAL AIR POLLUTION INSPECTORATE
  SEA-BORNE TRADE STATISTICS: EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  SEA-BORNE TRADE STATISTICS: EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  SEA-BORNE TRADE STATISTICS: UNITED KINGDOM
  SEA-BORNE TRADE STATISTICS: UNITED KINGDOM