Sitting of 13 November 1986

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

Business of the House
Mr. Speaker: Business questions. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
2.35 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Can I first thank the Leader of the House for responding to the call that I made two weeks ago for a debate on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and also express the hope — I apologise. I should have asked for the business for next week.
Perhaps I can now say on a point of order that I am always anxious to improve the productivity of the House, and perhaps at some later stage we can have a discussion about clipping at least two minutes off our business in other weeks.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I thought that that somewhat frenzied opening was instinctive of the feeling that we would be on the hustings next week.
As the House is aware, the debate on the Address and reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 19 November. The business for the remainder of the week will be as follows:
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER — There will be a debate on the report of the committee on financing the BBC, chaired by Professor Alan Peacock (Cmnd. 9824). The debate will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER — There will be a debate on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 24 NOVEMBER — Until about Seven o'clock, Second Reading to the Petroleum Bill.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of European documents in relation to the draft budgets of the European Communities for 1986 and 1987. Details will be given on the Official Report.
Debate on Monday 24 November. Relevant European Documents: (a) 5484/86 Key figures for the 1987 Budget; (b) 7113/86 Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 1986; (c) 7068/86 Revised key figures for the 1987 Budget; (d) 7927/86 Preliminary Draft General Budget 1987; (e) 9192/86 Draft General Budget of European Communities for 1987; (f) 8877/86 Letter of Amendment to Preliminary Draft Budget of European Communities 1987; (g) COM(86)360 Letter of Amendment to the 1986 Budget; (h) 8876/86 Preliminary Draft Amending Budget No. 1 1986; (i) 8883/86 & ADD 1 Commission Communication on recent developments affecting 1986 Budget and 1987 Preliminary Draft Budget.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:
(a) HC 21-xvi (1985–86) para 2; (b) HC 2I-xxiii (1985–86) para 2; (c) HC 21-xxiv (1985–86) para 3; (d)
106
HC 21-xxvi (1985–86) para 1 & HC 272-ii (1985–86); (e) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 7; (f) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 7; (g) HC 21-xxvi (1985–86) para 4; (h) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 6; (i) HC 21-xxvii (1985–86) para 6.
Mr. Kinnock: May I first repeat my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for providing time for the debate on AIDS that I asked for a couple of weeks ago? I hope that the Government will be able to announce that they will help to deal with the problem with the speed and funding that is necessary, as it would be immensely unfortunate if what has been described as "the Prime Minister's war on AIDS" were to be cash-limited.
I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging a debate next Thursday on the Peacock report and the financing of the BBC for which I have asked since before the summer recess. So that we can hear the full spectrum of Cabinet opinion on the BBC, can the Leader of the House also tell us whether both the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be speaking in that debate?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the autumn statement last week. Will the Leader of the House now tell us when we are likely to be able to debate that important statement? I hope that there will not be an overlong delay.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there are acute problems with staffing and provision at social security offices throughout the country as a result of the Government's policies, which increase the number of people in need without increasing the number of officers needed to attend to them. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Government time is given in the near future to debate this significant and growing problem?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister makes a statement early next week on her visit to the USA this coming weekend?
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I can take the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. As for the visit proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of course I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's request, but he will be aware that there is no fixed rule that an oral statement is made after every bilateral meeting. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be answering questions in the usual way next week. I shall, however, refer his request to my right hon. Friend.
The question of the adequacy of social service facilities and the number of officers could fall within the ambit of today's debate, but I take account of what the right hon. Gentleman says. His request for an early debate on the autumn statement will be echoed throughout the House, but it would be courteous to await the deliberations of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and I hope that its observations will soon be available.
Obviously, I am delighted at the enthusiasm which the right hon. Gentleman shows for the prospective debate on the Peacock report. I am sure that that enthusiasm is fully matched on this side of the House. He knows perfectly well that I do not have the task of arranging the list of speakers, but I have no doubt whatever that the speakers will be more than a match for the rather griping reactions exhibited from the Opposition Benches.
Finally, I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says about AIDS. It will be extremely important for the House to have the chance of a full day's debate on this

107
subject, which is of great and impending significance. I hope that it will help to create a constructive climate of public opinion.
Sir John Farr: May the House have an early opportunity to discuss air traffic and passenger fares in Europe? As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Council of Ministers has recently had a meeting and appears to be completely divided on what would surely be a desirable idea — the early breaking up of the monopolistic cartel system of air passenger fares in Europe soon. Could we have a debate or discussion on that soon?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is of such public interest. It seems that this is properly an aspect of our European Community policy within the wider ambit of foreign affairs and so could be covered by the debate tomorrow.
Mr. Michael Foot: If the Leader of the House is not yet certain whether the Prime Minister will make a statement when she returns from the United States, could she not make a statement before she goes? Is it not the case that there has been a remarkable change of policy by the United States Government in their decision to go so far as to sell arms to states which have been engaged in acts of terrorism over long periods? Can we be told whether the Prime Minister was informed of these matters and what she will say about them when she goes to Washington? Considering how much she has said on terrorism in recent years, it is extraordinary that she did not make any reference to that important matter yesterday.
Mr. Biffen: That is precisely the sort of question that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she is available from next week on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
He must not neglect that great tradition. I would have thought that that traditional opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have commended itself to him. But, obviously, I shall draw her attention to his remarks.
Mr. John Powley: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the part of Her Majesty's Speech in which she said:
"A Bill will be introduced to facilitate the conservation and management of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads."?
While that may not be of worldwide interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to other constituencies, may I urge my right hon. Friend to facilitate the introduction of that Bill at the earliest possible opportunity because of its significance to Norfolk and my constituency?
Mr. Biffen: I am glad that we have stumbled across such an eminently popular Bill. I take account of what my hon. Friend says and am encouraged by it.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House noticed that, now that the cameras have gone, SDP Members, who put in a Prayer Card yesterday to occupy this Front Bench, have not even turned up for work today? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to start allocating payment on the basis of attendance in this place? Perhaps he could also look into the allocation of what is known as Short money. That comes within his province and is allocated on the basis of the number of
108
Members of Parliament and the numbers of votes cast at the general election for Opposition parties. Does he not think that another criterion should be added — namely, attendance in this place?
Mr. Biffen: If we were to have this basis of payments by attendance, and rewarding the great labours that that implies, the hon. Gentleman and myself would be stakhanovites by almost any standard. I regret the absence of the stalwarts who were here yesterday, but both he and I know that the real business of parliamentary democracy is carried on by the likes of him and me.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate a further debate on housing and the problems experienced in Leicester, and everywhere else, by the privately owned sector and the landlords who are losing all their rights? In Leicester, many people are reluctant to take any tenants into their houses because they can never get rid of them. I welcome the Gracious Speech, but I hope that there will be time to look at their rights and the rights of the proprietors of Ginns and Gutteridge, who have just won in a local government ombudsman case, having spent great sums of money trying to fight Leicester city council's planning authority. Could we not have another debate on Ginns and Gutteridge and the rights for a private crematorium?
Mr. Biffen: As ever, my hon. Friend forcefully makes the case for his locality, but on Monday we shall have a debate that will cover local government. I hope that the fact that this is on a national scale will not inhibit him from making his speech then.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite the additional £1,000 million, direct from the Consolidated Fund, and the 40 per cent. increase in expenditure, the EEC is out of money for 1986? In the motions on Monday week, will the Government be showing their view on how this deficit should be balanced out, and saying whether, in 1987, the 1·4 per cent. VAT levy will be breached?
Mr. Biffen: Those points are of considerable significance and interest to the House. I am unable to answer them, but I shall make sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary knows of them.
Mr. Cecil Franks: I remind my right hon. Friend that, during the summer term of the last Session, the matter of the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police was raised in the House by many hon. Members, including myself. During the summer recess, the Sampson report on the deputy chief constable was published. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary issued a statement shortly afterwards saying that he was asking for various reports as to the lessons to be learnt from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Will my right hon. Friend consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and perhaps find time for an early debate on the wider issues involved in this extraordinary case?
Mr. Biffen: I am aware of the facts that have been elaborated by my hon. Friend and particularly of the interest that he has shown in this case from the outset. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and bring this point to his attention.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House join in congratulations on the engagement of
Mr. MarkThatcher to Miss Diane Burgdorf? Will he join me in hoping that, if they marry, and if Miss Burgdorf wishes to settle in this country with Mr. Thatcher, she will not have to wait too long for an entry clearance certificate, that the application will not fail the primary purpose test and that her documents will be considered genuine by the entry clearance officer? If that happens, it will be contrary to the experience of many black and Asian men and women of modest means who find all these things extremely difficult when they marry British citizens.
Mr. Biffen: The whole House will have noted the felicitous good wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Eric Forth: Following the question by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), when we debate the proposals in the European draft budget, will the House be given the opportunity to separate the proposal for the normal budgetary requirements of the Community from that which will be contained within it for a £1·5 billion additional payment, which represents the failure of the Community to discipline its costs? Can my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that we shall be allowed to consider these matters separately and, more importantly, vote on them separately?
Mr. Biffen: In as much as the points raised by my hon. Friend touch upon procedural questions, I shall certainly look at them and be in touch with him.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Bearing in mind that there have been two serious incidents in Scottish prisons, that we have currently over 47,000 people in prison and that the promise to remove remand prisoners from police cells has been breached to the extent of 100 people remanded by police per day, will the Leader of the House find time to debate the whole subject of imprisonment and what we are to do about the disgraceful conditions in British prisons?
Mr. Biffen: The point raised is certainly important and highly topical. The subjects chosen for the debate on the Loyal Address do not cover that point, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on the court judgment that the Ealing, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham councils were acting illegally in banning The Times, the Sun and other News International newspapers from public libraries? Could he arrange for suitable Ministers to come before the House to answer questions about the court costs and the way these are met by the councillors concerned? My constituents are not prepared to meet the cost of the Ealing council's political action; they think that the money should come not from taxpayers and ratepayers but out of Labour party funds.
Mr. Biffen: I am not quite clear where ministerial responsibility lies in the tangled affairs that my hon. Friend has spoken about, but I shall certainly look at it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government insist on making absolute asses of themselves in the court in New South Wales by pursuing Mr. Peter Wright over the Wright memoirs? Does the Leader of the House not recall that two weeks ago I asked him whether he would arrange for the Attorney-General to come to the Dispatch Box so that we could at least
110
question him about his approach during those proceedings? The Attorney-General has not done that. Are we to presume that he is running scared of Parliament and is frightened to come before us to set out what he believes to be his case, knowing that if he did come to the House he would be vigorously questioned and the stupidity of the whole approach would be exposed?
Mr. Biffen: Whatever case the hon. Gentleman might have had has not been enhanced by his approach. Of course the Attorney-General comes to the House for questions, as do all other Ministers, through a roster that is agreed through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman must take his luck with all the rest of us in exploiting that situation.
Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on defence, because since the summer recess it is clear that only the Conservative party now intends to maintain Britain's defence strong against foreign aggression? Should that not be brought home in a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I think that there is just a little time left before a general election and that the House will have a chance to consider these matters when considering the Defence Estimates. As a dry run, I am sure that my hon. Friend and all of us on the Government side will carry this debate to the country at large, so that, when the time for choice comes, the people will see that one party offers the security to which my hon. Friend refers and that the other parties offer monumental uncertainty.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given that the existing EEC directive on financial assistance to the shipbuilding industry expires on 31 December, will the House be given an opportunity to debate this important subject before the end of the year?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the topic and also the time factors involved. In the meantime, he might like to consider making his points during the debate on industry on Tuesday.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Did my right hon. Friend notice the interim results published yesterday by the British Steel Corporation? They show a profit for the half year of £68 million; that follows 10 years of losses, the greatest loss being in 1981 and of about £700 million. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the future of the British Steel Corporation, especially as the regime in Europe about state aids, quota restrictions and price restrictions is coming to an end and particularly in view of the chairman's statement yesterday that the future of the British Steel Corporation depends upon a full return to the commerical sector?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes some very pertinent points. I should also like to point out that next Tuesday there is to be a debate on industry, when it will be perfectly appropriate to refer to the successes of the steel industry and the prospects that it has of joining the private sector of our mixed economy.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Without inviting the Leader of the House to trespass upon next week's debate on AIDS, may I at least ask him to confirm that the Government intend to make sure that, in advertising to the public the dangers of AIDS, all the effort that has been put

111
into making sure that Sid is aware of the British Gas flotation will be equally put into making the British public aware of the dangers of AIDS?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman very fairly and kindly observed that normally I should not be asked to anticipate the contents of debates that will be held next week. Therefore, I must ask him to await the observations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. in the meantime, I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of that point.
Mr. John Whitfield: I refer to the matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inquiry that was instigated, or at least conducted, by the chief constable of west Yorkshire, Mr. Colin Sampson, into the activities of the deputy chief constable of Manchester raised very serious criticisms of the latter gentleman? Before the House embarks upon a debate on the subject, it ought to balance those criticisms very carefully against the wider public issues that are involved in the matter.
Mr. Biffen: When my hon. Friend refreshes his memory by reading tomorrow's Hansard, he will see that I have undertaken to raise this matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I am sure it is most important for me to do.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When will the House have an opportunity either to debate or to have a statement on the evidence that was disregarded during Hindawi's trial, namely, that there were no fingerprints of the gentleman supposedly responsible for planting the bomb on the case which was supposed to contain the bomb and that the judge, when asked by the jury for advice, said that the Hebrew — the lettering on the covering of the bomb was a matter of no significance, on the advice of the police? When could we further have a chance to debate the disappearance of Mr. Vanunu, about whom I have had information from Israel today that that unfortunate gentleman is suffering torture during his incarceration in that country?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the case of Mr. Vanunu will be raised in an Adjournment debate on 18 November. On the wider issues, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to make a characteristically colourful speech in the course of tomorrow's debate on foreign affairs.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the three hon. Members who have been rising; then we must move on.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend seriously and sympathetically consider, if not next week then the week after, arranging for a debate on the flotation of British Gas? Will he bear in mind that it is not just that many of us want to tell Sid something but that at least one of his Back Benchers wants to hear Sid say something?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look carefully at my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, if the purpose of his suggestion is that this House might enable the British public to be more
112
widely informed of the prospective flotation, I think that we should be very amateurish, compared with what is now being done.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early opportunity for the House to debate the very encouraging employment figures that were published at 11.30 this morning? Is it not right that the House and the country should know more about the successful Conservative policies that have resulted in low inflation, sustained growth and now a decline in unemployment?
Mr. Biffen: In a mood of total charity, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the Opposition have very kindly nominated employment as one of the topics for debate next Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marlow? [Interruption.]
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am deeply indebted to you, Mr. Speaker. There is a great deal of concern among our friends in the middle east that, although we seem to treat the Syrians in one way, the disappearance of Mr. Vanunu has not been properly explained. An early statement by the Government would very much reassure our friends in the middle east.
Mr. Biffen: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I must repeat to him that there will be a debate on the Vanunu affair on 18 November.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS
  BANKING
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. John McGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Michael Howard, presented a Bill to make new provision for regulating the acceptance of deposits in the course of a business, for protecting depositors and for regulating the use of banking names and descriptions; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1].

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John McGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to make further provision for the investigation of and trials for fraud; to amend the rules of evidence in criminal proceedings; to provide for the reference by the Attorney General of certain questions relating to sentencing to the Court of Appeal; to amend the law with regard to the jurisdiction and powers of criminal courts, the collection, enforcement and remission of fines imposed by coroners, juries, supervision orders, the detention of children and young persons, probation and the probation service, criminal appeals, anonymity in cases of rape and similar cases, officers of inner London magistrates' courts and the costs and expenses of prosecution witnesses and certain other persons; to make fresh provision for the payment of compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and for extradition; to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

  113
  1984 in relation to searches of detained persons, computer data about fingerprints and bail for persons in customs detention; to make provision for remands to customs detention; to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of offences under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section; to extend to the purchase of easements and other rights over land the power to purchase land conferred on the Secretary of State by section 36 of the Prison Act 1952; 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 2].

  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  Mr. Secretary Moore, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. David Mitchell, presented a Bill to provide for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, together with associated works; to provide for connected improvements in the road network near Ashford, in Kent, and in the rail network in South Eastern England; to incorporate part of the railway tunnel system into the United Kingdom and to provide for the application and enforcement of law in relation, to and otherwise for the regulation of, that system and matters connected with it; to provide for the construction of certain highways and associated works in the vicinity of Folkestone; and for connected purposes: And the same was committed to a Select Committee, pursuant to the Standing Order of 4 November in the last Session of Parliament; and to be printed. [Bill 5].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
In paragraph (4) the word "twelve" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 43; and in paragraph (7) the word "nine" shall be substituted for the word "ten" in line 64;
(2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 16th, 23rd and 30th January, 6th, 13th and 20th February, 27th March, 3rd and 24th April, 1st and 8th May, and 3rd July;
(3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 5th and 12th December, 27th February, 6th, 13th and 20th March, 5th 12th and 19th June; and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 19th November, Wednesday 26th November, Wednesday 11th February, Wednesday 18th February, Wednesday 25th February, Wednesday 4th March, Wednesday 13 May, Wednesday 20th May and Wednesday 3rd June;
(4) On Monday 15th December, Monday 9th February, Monday 11th May and Monday 6th July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock; and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 27th November. Thursday 22nd January, Thursday 23rd April and Thursday 18th June;
(5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day. —[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    SECOND DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 November]
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Rippon].
    Question again proposed.

  Education and Family Poverty
  3 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I welcome this opportunity of the Queen's Speech debate to report to the House about the progress of the Government's education policies. Much has happened since I last reviewed these policies on Second Reading of the Education Bill in June.
  Our education system is a large investment in our nation's future. It is an expensive investment, made by national and local taxpayers. Most of the argument in this House—I expect that we shall hear it yet again from the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) this afternoon — is about the size of that investment. We hear much less from the Benches opposite about getting good value for all these billions, about the benefits to the children, to the students and to the nation.
  We hear even less about quality, about achievement, and about standards. Yet the purpose of the investment must be to promote the higher standards of achievement that we, as a nation, must have. Resources matter, of course, whether they are material or human. But education cannot just be seen in money terms, it is not cash but quality that counts, and by quality I mean what the children and students are learning.
  Over the past week there has been huge media interest in the teachers' pay talks; they are featured on news bulletin after news bulletin. I only wish that there could be as much public interest not just in the crisis of these talks— I will have something to say about them later—hut in what is happening in the schools.
  I am immensely encouraged by some of the things that I have seen as I visit schools across the country. Many exciting changes have taken place in primary schools. The mind of a young child of five or six or seven is probably never as open again in his life to learning, and the interest is intense. It is a very challenging job for anybody to make the most of that great opportunity. The child's mind is searching and that provides great opportunities for teachers not just in such important things as reading and writing and maths but—as we are now introducing into primary schools, for example, in a much more systematic way—the teaching of science.
  I have seen an immense change in the type of subjects taught in secondary schools. The greater emphasis is now

  115
  upon technical and practical education so that one can get the attention, interest and enthusiasm of the 13, 14 and 15-year-olds, many of whom, quite frankly, are often bored at going to school. The technical and vocational education initiative has helped to reshape the curriculum; a new interest and a new relevance are being given to what is being taught; and I am glad to say that in the schools where more practical lessons are established, truancy and absentee rates tend to come down.
  Our concern for standards has made us active in the area of the school curriculum and public examinations. We need a good national school curriculum. By that I mean a set of objectives about what should be learnt and what standards should be achieved. We are seeking to establish a national curriculum by agreement with the other partners in the education service.
  We have made a good start on mathematics, science and foreign languages, and next on the list is English. I want to see progress towards nationally agreed objectives in the teaching of English, but that is held up because there is no agreement—indeed, there is confusion—about one essential element, which is the question of what pupils should be taught about how the English language works. The English language, in my view, is our greatest national asset. There is widespread disquiet about the standards of English in our schools, and I do not mean only how well children can express themselves in writing or in reading books, but in how they can express their ideas orally by speaking out with confidence. I am sure that a fundamental change is needed. I shall shortly appoint an independent committee to recommend what pupils should learn about the English language. The results will then need to be taken on board in teacher training and in classroom practice.
  The curriculum for secondary school children needs to be supported by exams, which most of them take at 16-plus. That is why we are pressing ahead with the GCSE. The first courses have started with the benefit of the extra money that we have found and earmarked for teaching training, books and equipment. The GCSE courses will be more challenging than existing ones, and to get good grades candidates will have to show their ability over a wide range of skills, especially by applying the knowledge that they have acquired and not merely by the orderly recall of facts in a three-hour exam. The GCSE is important because it will raise standards of achievement.
  Another thing that worries me about the curriculum is what I consider to be the curse of our system — early specialisation. In my view, no one should be able at the age of 14 years to drop science or the humanities, and I am working towards making this impossible. But after 16 our ablest sixth formers often pursue a narrow curriculum, which I think is limiting and closes far too many options. We are therefore pressing ahead with the introduction of the new AS-level in the autumn. An AS-level will take broadly half the study time of an A-level, and this will allow those who are, for example, specialising in science to do an AS-level, for example, in English or history, and those specialising in the humanities to do an AS-level, say, in maths or chemistry.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to making the new AS-level related in a logical way to the existing Scottish higher grades?
  Mr. Baker: I have a high regard for many aspects of the Scottish education system. We are now in the process of consultation over the type of exams that the AS-level will involve. I shall take on board what my hon. Friend has said.
  I turn to the changes in the organisation of our education system, especially the Education Act which went on to the statute book last week. For too long we have left too much to the professional educators and the professional providers. The users, the customers, have had too little say and too little opportunity to make their contribution. I think that parents have had too limited a role. Our system is often described as decentralised, but it has not taken decentralisation all that far. Enormous powers have been entrusted to local education authorities, and not always with the happiest results.
  The Education Act changes all that. It increases the power of the governing body and the head teacher. It removes local authorities' present dominance over most governing bodies. It strengthens the role of parents and it also puts business people on to governing bodies. The changes here are very radical — for example, from 7 January next year, the governing body will have to circulate an annual report about the discharge of its functions to all parents; and to hold a meeting open to all parents, to discuss the report and the affairs of the school.
  A second example is in the appointment of head teachers. It will no longer be possible for a local education authority to foist without more ado upon a governing body a head whom that governing body does not want.
  Thirdly, from next September, every governing body will become responsible for spending a sum allocated to it by the local education authority to cover at least books, equipment and stationery. This is a minimum requirement. Some LEAs—Solihull and Cambridgeshire, for example — give much greater financial delegation to governing bodies. In the experiments in Cambridgeshire that I have seen, possibly the full school budget is handed over. There have been some articles about this in this week's press.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving governing bodies the right to have their own budgets and to decide how they are used, rather than local education authorities?
  Mr. Baker: I shall come to that directly. What I have been describing, and what my hon. Friend is pushing me to do, is what I believe to be the way forward. It will lead to the keener management of resources and will encourage on to governing bodies people of higher quality. In due course I shall want to use the powers in the Act to extend the list of items on which financial delegation to governors is obligatory.
  The local education authority will still be left with far-reaching responsibilities in, for example, teacher training and the management of the teacher force. The local education authorities will also play an important role in the new system of teacher appraisal.
  However, the LEA-maintained sector should not have the monopoly of free school education. Parents deserve a choice between what the maintained sector offers and what can be provided by others who also have an interest in

  117
  raising standards and widening opportunity. That is why the Government are planning to establish up to 20 city technology colleges. These will be in our cities. They will be set up by private promoters who will contribute towards the capital costs. Current costs will be met by a grant from my Department, payable on the basis of conditions agreed with the promoters. The colleges will have a broad curriculum with a clear bias towards technology, microelectronics, maths, physics and design. I have been very encouraged by the response that I have had to the proposals. Urgent work is under way to establish the city technology colleges as soon as possible.
  Dr. David Owen: The Secretary of State has already criticised early specialisation, which must be a serious problem of city technology colleges. Is he putting those forward for consultation or has he already made up his mind? Is he prepared to consider the 1944 Act and the voluntary school sector and work in partnership with local authorities instead of imposing on them his scheme for city technology colleges?
  Mr. Baker: On the specialisation point, in the booklet on CTCs I sketched out curricula. From those curricula, the right hon. Gentleman will see that humanity subjects, expecially English and a foreign language, are expected to be studied up to and even beyond the age of 16. That is not a narrow specialisation. I am glad to see that one of the chambers of commerce that is pressing me to establish a city technology college is the Plymouth chamber of commerce.
  I also have responsibility for—
  Mr. John Powley: Does my right hon. Friend confirm my view that city technology colleges should be complementary to the existing state system rather than be in competition with it and perhaps with existing technical colleges? They should complement one another and not compete.
  Mr. Baker: I look upon them as complementary. They will act as beacons in some of our inner cities to improve the quality of education right across the entire educational system.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Baker: If hon. Members will allow me, I shall continue.
  I also have responsibility for higher education, for colleges of further education, polytechnics and universities. I am glad to tell the House that the numbers entering higher education have expanded steadily since 1979. There are now almost 140,000 more students in higher education than there were in 1979, including an increase of 80,000 in the number of full-time students. The proportion of 18 and 19-year-olds entering full-time higher education has risen from 12·4 to 13·9 per cent. Most of this increase has been in the polytechnics and I pay tribute to the excellent work which is happening in the polytechnics. I am glad to say that the number of first-class degreees awarded by polytechnics went up last year by 20 per cent. The Government have given positive proof and have shown their commitment to polytechnics by increasing the provision next year by £54 million which is an increase of 8 per cent., and £15 million of that £54 million will be targeted towards new courses in science and technology and the extension of applied research relevant to industry.
  118
  The Government also recognise the contribution that universities make to our national prosperity. But we must also recognise that there is a need for change and reform. The University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have agreed a programme of reform involving greater selectivity of research funding and the rationalisation of small departments, and in the light of the changes that are taking place I announced that recurrent grant to universities for the next financial year will go up by £95 million, an increase of more than 7 per cent.
  The sums that I have mentioned are, of course, a part of the very large increase that I announced a week ago in total education expenditure for next year. Local authority spending on education next year will increase by 18·8 per cent. over our plans for 1986–87. The sums that I have just announced are in line with what the local education authorities said they would need to continue their policies and that money will allow for an increased spending on books and equipment and a bigger programme of repairs and maintenance.
  By making such sums available, the Government are showing their concern for the quality of education in our schools, polytechnics, colleges and universities. One of the largest increases was the sum for teachers' pay next year, which amounts to some £460 million. The total cost of the pay offer which I announced to the House a fortnight ago is in four years £2·4 billion and in five years £3·3 billion. That is a huge sum of money; it is an advance on the money that was on the table at Coventry in July and it will allow an increase to teachers over 18 months of 25 per cent.
  The House will need no reminder of the long-running nature of the problem. Reform of the teaching profession was mooted at least seven years ago. The present negotiations have been going on for over two years. There has been widespread disruption in the schools and this has hit children's education. It is time to bring this long-running saga to an end. That is why I made a statement a fortnight ago on 30 October clearly setting out the Government's position. I would like to remind the House of what I said.
  I said that we would make additional resources available only when two very important conditions are delivered. First, there must be a pay structure with differentials which reflect the varying responsibilities of teachers and the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers throughout the school system and at all stages of their careers. Second, teachers' professional duties must be more sharply defined and clarified, leaving no room for ambiguity, and this must be carried through into enforceable contracts of employment. In particular, teachers should be under the express contractual obligation to cover for absent colleagues, and to be available to work at the direction of the head teacher for 1,300 hours on 195 days of the year.
  I must emphasise the importance that I attach to both these conditions — first, pay structure. The teachers deserve and must have a better career structure while continuing to be classroom teachers. Some must be encouraged to take on the responsibilities of headship.
  The proposals which I set out on 30 October would, over three years, provide for about half of the teaching profession to hold either the five levels of allowances ranging from £900 a year extra to £4,800 a year extra or the extra payments for deputies and head teachers. The

  119
  Coventry proposals provided for only 15 per cent. of the teaching profession as a whole to hold allowances, and for the higher of the levels of allowances to be only just over £2,000. A career structure of the sort that I have proposed is essential. If teachers are placed on one long scale with automatic progression to the top, they will have little incentive to improve their performance. They must be able to earn extra rewards for good teaching and for taking responsibility. That is what happens in other professions.
  Secondly, teachers' duties and obligations must be clarified. There must be no more arguments about what is or is not part of their duties. There must be no more claims that teachers do not have to write reports for parents or to speak to parents about their child's progress. There must be no more claims that teachers do not have to attend staff meetings. The duties must be clearly set out and teachers' contracts must provide adequate time within which to fulfil them.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Would the Secretary of State tell the House what legal advice he has received about the constitutionality of the teachers' contracts? Will he let the House examine the legal advice that he has received?
  Mr. Baker: The position is that the contract operates between the teacher's employer, the local authority, and the teacher. Part of the negotiations which are still continuing are concerned with the list of duties and obligations. They started with 19 and these have been redrafted to 13. I gather that they are broadly the same. There is general agreement that these obligations should be set out from both sides. The head teacher wants to know exactly what he can ask a teacher to do, and teachers want to know what they are expected to do.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, even if the salary scales and the conditions of which he spoke were acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House, he has not mentioned the third condition — the changing of the Burnham arrangements? As he made clear to the House, he will become the employer in terms of pay determination. How does he expect any worthwhile profession to accept immediate good conditions—even if they were that — and give up something which its members regard as a fundamental right of their occupation?
  Mr. Baker: I shall refer to the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 in a moment and then answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I was dealing with the matter of duties and obligations. 1 now refer to the resources that the Government will make available.
  As I told the House on 30 October, the Government are willing to make very substantial additional resources available to achieve these purposes — £118 million in 1986–87 and £490 million in 1987–88 in England and Wales. The cost over four years would be about £2·4 billion. All this is on top of the increases in expenditure per pupil on education, which I mentioned, leading to an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio from 18·9: 1 in 1979 to 17·6: 1 this year. Average class sizes are now about 25 in primary schools and 20 in secondary schools. It would not be right to add still greater costs to a settlement
  120
  of the present dispute. This amounts to a fair and generous settlement for the teachers, recognising their status in the community and in our national life. There can be no question of finding more resources, adding still further to the costs of settling the present dispute and to the £16·6 billion for education services next year.
  I now turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the Burnham arrangements.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I wish to raise a matter about teachers and the current round of negotiations. If the Secretary of State is to impose his own contract and his own pay offer, how does he intend to assess teachers' support for that offer? Will he ballot teachers to find out whether a majority of teachers support his proposals?
  Mr. Baker: I do not have rights to ballot teachers. One difficulty — [Interruption.] — in the present dispute is determining the views of the teachers represented by the six teachers' unions. Another difficulty, which has been recognised over the years in the Burnham negotiations, is that the six unions have conflicting and differing interests. Those conflicting and differing interests have been exposed over the past six days. The negotiations, which are continuing, have been taking place under the Burnham arrangements. They were set in place by the 1965 Act, but it is clear now that the Act has come to the end of its useful life. If anyone wants proof positive of how ineffective and cumbersome the arrangements are, the negotiations at Coventry, Nottingham and now at London have demonstrated this.
  Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked me, in the interests of children, to withdraw our proposals to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act. I remind him that, over the past 18 months, the inability of local education authorities and trade unions to come to any meaningful agreement about pay and conditions has meant that the education of children has been disrupted and disorganised. It is recognised on all sides that Burnham has failed. Burnham has not delivered. Burnham, over the past fortnight, and the past week in particular, has mumbled, fumbled and stumbled. It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition is saying that only when a negotiating procedure is thoroughly discredited must it be retained.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the seeds of the present trouble were sown in 1965 when the Remuneration of Teachers Bill was passed? It separated discussion of pay from discussion of conditions of service. That separation can never be sensible and workable and the present difficulty will not be resolved until it is sorted out.
  Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Few people in the education world are prepared to defend the present negotiating procedures of Burnham. The separation of pay and conditions is at the heart of it. There is another difficulty. There was a concordat which was suspended two and a half or three years ago. The Secretary of State for Education and Science who, after all, would be expected to pick up a large part of the bill, had a standing at those negotiations. But that is not the position at the moment. We propose, therefore, to bring forward a Bill that will repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act and

  121
  establish an interim advisory committee. That committee will advise me on the pay and conditions of teachers. The Bill will be introduced shortly. The children of our country deserve something better than the fiasco of Nottingham and London.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I should like to make three points. First, it is not Burnham that is discredited but the Secretary of State and his policies in regard to it. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman may clearly recall that I made no protest about a reform of the Remuneration of Teachers Act but protested about the motives behind the right hon. Gentleman's changes. Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman answer questions that he evaded earlier: what is the Government's legal advice and how can they enforce contracts on people whom they do not employ? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us the answers, will he tell us whether a Bill is in draft or whether he is simply using this as a gambit to try to influence matters that should be the subject of proper negotiation?
  Mr. Baker: There is certainly a Bill in draft and I will be bringing it forward. The ultimate responsibility for the enforceability of conditions of contract must, of course, lie upon the employer. That is recognised in the discussions and negotiations which are going on. It is recognised now because there is disruption in some of our schools. Some authorities are imposing contractual conditions and some are not. That dilemma will arise from these negotiations or from any further system. It was agreed in the negotiations that the role and duties of a teacher should be sustained and laid down and that that should form a part of a contract of employment. When a contract of employment is formed, the only person who can exercise enforceability of it would be the local education authority. I recognise that, and it is recognised in the existing negotiations.
  Mr. Kinnock: If a local authority of any political persuasion or make-up does not concur with the view of any Secretary of State for Education and Science as to what the contract means and how it should be enforced, how will the Secretary of State seek to enforce a contract over people whom he does not employ?
  Mr. Baker: This is the problem that exists now and will continue to exist under the existing negotiations. [Interruption] I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman correctly because his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North knows that this is the position. If a contract exists which sets out the duties and obligations of a teacher and which the teachers, head teachers and local authorities want, at the end of the day it is essentially for the local authority to enforce it. Some local education authorities are doing that — in those local education authority areas, some of them Labour, where there is disruption in schools, contracts are being enforced and money is being stopped — and some are not. That happens because there is not a universally agreed definition of a teacher's duty. Such a definition is needed.
  As I understand it, in the negotiations so far there is broad agreement among all sides as to the definition of a teacher's duties. That has been the core of the discussions at Coventry on the 19 conditions. In fact, that will be part of a contract of employment. But I readily recognise that it is up to the local education authorities to enforce it,
  122
  because they are the employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered the right hon. Gentleman's question absolutely precisely.
  The talks are still going on, as I understand it, at this moment. I must tell the House that I do not intend to copy the example of Mr. Pearman and sonic unions by giving an instant knee-jerk reaction to the outcome of their discussions. I shall look at it with my colleagues. I shall judge it against the background of the conditions which I laid down on 30 October and which I have reiterated today. I shall, of course, tell the House of my conclusions. I must emphasise that I shall judge the outcome of any negotiations against the background of the conditions which I have reinforced and reiterated today.
  All parties will need to make a sober appraisal of the situation. I have heard some reports of union leaders saying that they intend to turn schools into battlegrounds. Those are not my words and that is not my intention. The offer that I have put forward is generous. It is sufficiently generous to resolve the problem. Any teacher who disrupts education in the coming weeks and months will do an enormous disservice to the children and will not be lightly forgiven. How would the teachers justify such action when they have been offered a 25 per cent. pay increase over 18 months? The working parents of children who have been sent home or locked out as a result of such action will not forgive the teachers, and nor will the country.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: This afternoon the Secretary of State for Education and Science, with the hype that has become his hallmark, has attempted to set out the Government's stall in the run up to the general election.
  Of course, there are many good things in British education, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the opportunity to familiarise himself with the nation's schools. That is a good thing and it would be a good thing too, if more Conservative Members did that. It would certainly be a good thing if more of them sent their children to the state schools. [Interruption.] J Yes, I went to a private school, but I sent my children to a state school. That is the difference.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Radice: There are, of course, major problems in our education system which are widely recognised by pupils, parents, teachers and voters alike. I welcome the fact that, under pressure from the voters, the Government have at last understood that education should be a priority.
  We also welcome the fact that, after seven years of saying that the nation could not afford extra money for education — I have heard that from the previous Secretary of State time and time again— the money has been found, although, characteristically, the Secretary of State multiplied by three the actual increase in spending on education for 1987–88.
  In the DES press release on 6 November it was claimed that education spending would increase by over £2 billion. In fact, if the planned increase for 1987–88 is measured against what is called the estimated outturn, or what is actually being spent this year, the increase is only £650 million.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey:Only?
  Mr. Radice: Wait for it. The great victory over the Treasury, of which the Secretary of State was boasting to assembled journalists last week, is largely accounted for by the Government reluctantly accepting that local education authorities are sensibly this year, as in the past three years, spending more than the Government planned. Indeed, if we substract the extra £460 million which the Government have sensibly earmarked for teachers' pay, the additional money allowed for education is £190 million, an increase of little more than 1 per cent., or well below the rate of inflation. In the coming year education will be a lower proportion of public spending than in the previous year.
  Parents and teachers could be forgiven for concluding that the Government's last-minute change of direction is influenced far more by political calculation, both electoral and personal, than by genuine conviction. What is more, the increase announced in the autumn statement is clearly far too little and too late to put right the many glaring problems in our schools. We did not hear anything from the Secretary of State about the shortage of books and equipment, the peeling walls and leaking roofs, the demoralised and alienated teaching force or the neglect of special education. We also did not hear about the cuts that his Government have made in higher education over the past eight years. If the Secretary of State does not accept my word, he has only to listen to his own advisers, Her Majesty's inspectors, who have been warning successive Secretaries of State about the inadequacy of provision and the state of repair in far too many of our schools.
  In an election year the Secretary of State will want to listen to what the voters have to say. According to public opinion polls, parents object to having to pay for basics such as books and they support the idea of smaller classes. The Secretary of State might note that. Parents also want greater investment in education and they are very unhappy about the Government's handling of education.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: Those who lead some of the teachers' unions have stated that if no agreement arises out of the present negotiations, or if the Secretary of State imposes a solution, as may happen, the schools will be turned into a battleground. Parents would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman supports that. What would he say to teachers and teachers unions about using schools as battlegrounds?
  Mr. Radice: Most people in the House know that over the past two years I have been working for peace in our schools.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The hon. Gentleman is not doing a good job on Labour committee members in the talks on this offer.
  Mr. Radice: I am not in government. What a mess the Secretary of State and the previous Secretary of State have made of our schools.
  The Secretary of State has told us about his colleges. I believe that they are educationally unsound, technologically inappropriate and socially divisive. It will mean that many pupils will be creamed off and scarce teaching resources will go from already hard-pressed inner city schools to the new colleges. It will mean that the inner cities will be divided, because the select few will go to the best equipped schools, while the overwhelming majority will go to the schools with inferior resources. Does the Secretary of State really believe that he will solve the
  124
  problem of the backwardness of our technological education by providing 20 colleges when there are over 3·5 million pupils in our secondary schools? We need to ensure that all those pupils get a good technological education.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those schools will set a standard in technology which will ensure that industry and education come closer together? Does he accept that the technical colleges and technical schools — technical schools have long been abandoned — did a first-class job for British industry and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be applauded for the initiative that he is displaying in introducing the 20 experimental schools?
  Mr. Radice: Twenty schools will make little difference. That is the truth of the matter. They are an electoral gimmick. In any case, in the past that sort of experiment did not work.
  The long-running teachers' dispute is perhaps the central issue of this afternoon's debate. It is common ground that the key to raising education standards is the performance of our teachers. I hope that it is also common ground that we cannot attract and retain the best graduates unless teachers are decently paid. We have heard much in the past two days about the Secretary of State losing his patience. Frankly, those of us who have been working hard for the past 18 months for a long-term settlement of teachers' pay and conditions much resent both his attitude and his clumsy interference in the negotiations earlier this week. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government that if they had come up with the sort of money that they are now offering the teachers we should never have had a teachers' dispute at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  The issue that faces the House this afternoon is whether the Government are prepared to accept the long-term and comprehensive deal that has been so agonisingly worked out over the past few days by the employers and teachers. Over the past few days the Secretary of State, his civil servants and his press department have consistently rubbished the negotiations, as I know, but I urge hon. Members and the Secretary of State to stand back from immediate political and tactical considerations, undertake a sober appraisal and look at the merits of such an agreement.
  First, the package offers a substantial increase in pay which is broadly within the Government's price tag. Secondly, it provides a structure of pay that will help recruit the best graduates and reward the classroom teachers, who are vital for the improvement of standards, while at the same time providing a career structure. For the first time, the package links pay and duties and provides a clear definition of what teachers' duties should be. It assists the raising of standards and the improvement of the education service by reducing class sizes and providing preparation time for teachers. Last, but not least, it is a voluntary agreement, freely agreed between the local authorities and the teachers. As such, it is far more likely to stick than any settlement that is imposed from above. All in all, such an agreement offers by far the best chance of a new beginning for our pupils. Above all, it will bring long-term peace to our classrooms and provide the best framework for improving the education prospects of our children.
  I have heard criticisms, mostly from the Secretary of State. One is that the agreement is far too expensive.

  125
  However, as I said, the pay proposals will be within the Secretary of State's price tag. Perhaps there will be some extra money for the improvement of the service. As I understand it, the money will be phased in over five years. I hope that the Secretary of State is not saying that he is against smaller classes.
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Radice: No, I shall not give way.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Radice: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's first intervention was not any good, and I shall not give way a second time.
  There has also been a criticism — [Interruption.] There has also been a criticism of the pay structure. It has been said that it does not reward senior teachers — [Interruption.]
  Mr. Kinnock: Quiet, that boy at the back.
  Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman should be quiet at the front.
  Mr. Radice: —but the pay structure rewards classroom teachers, and those are the people whom we need to reward. It also provides an adequate promotion structure. In a pay structure one needs to achieve a balance between recruiting the best people into the profession, keeping the best people in the classroom and providing a proper promotion structure. That is what this pay structure is trying to achieve.
  The last criticism is that it is said by some that the agreement will not stick, but my latest information is not only that the agreement is likely to he signed by unions representing the majority of members but that the majority of unions will sign the agreement. We should remember that agreements between the local authorities and teachers very often go through on a majority vote. I well recall the previous Secretary of State hailing an interim agreement last January which was not supported by the biggest union, the NUT. In any case, I believe that an agreement such as I hope will be brought to a successful conclusion tonight is far more likely to stick than is a settlement imposed from the top.
  We know that the Government intend to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. We can agree, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that the negotiating machinery needs to be improved. In particular, there is a general consensus that pay and conditions should be negotiated together.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is waking up, is he not?
  Mr. Radice: I have always believed that they should be negotiated together. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes the news that the employers and teachers have agreed on a new negotiating machinery which discusses pay and conditions together, and on which the Secretary of State or his representatives would be present. Judging by the evidence, we need a reform of bargaining, not its abolition. We shall emphatically reject any pay-fixing arrangements that give all the power to the Secretary of State. We shall reject them as being dictatorial, arbitrary and an affront to basic rights.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the question of reform?
  Mr. Radice: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. The Secretary of State says that he who pays the piper must call the tune, but I remind him that he is not the sole piper.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: I shall not give way. I remind the Secretary of State that he is not the sole piper, and that at the moment the local education authorities are the senior piper. As a result of Government action, they will be paying 54 per cent. of any settlement. In pay settlements, it is not the Government but the local education authorities which are the chief piper. Of course, rate-capped authorities will have to pay even more. Indeed, ILEA will be paying the whole lot.
  Nobody knows whether that is all that will be in the Bill, or whether the Secretary of State will use the excuse of the so-called changing of pay arrangements to impose a settlement on the teachers. If the Government use the new legislation to impose a settlement, they will he wrong in principle and they will run into severe problems in practice. It is one thing to have a contract and teaching duties that are freely agreed—indeed, I believe that that will happen — but as Sir William Pile, a former permanent secretary to the Department of Education and Science, has recently said, it is quite another for the Government to impose a contract on 425,000 teachers.
  First, there is the constitutional issue. After all, the Government are not the employers. Secondly, there is the practical issue. The Government and the Secretary of State must answer Sir William Pile's question as to how they can impose contracts and conditions of service on people whom they do not employ. We have not had an answer, and we should be given one.
  Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State said that that was a dilemma.
  Mr. Radice: It is a dilemma for the Secretary of State. I understand that.
  In conclusion, I believe that the way forward proposed by the Secretary of State will not work and does not deserve to work. The more we hear from the Secretary of State, the clearer it becomes that he does not believe in partnership and thinks that he can run all education and all our schools from his office in Elizabeth House. We reject his authoritarian approach, because it is wrong in principle and will not work in practice. We shall obtain peace in our classrooms and make progress in our schools only if we are prepared to give priority to education, not just at election time, but in a sustained way over a number of years; if we are prepared to invest effectively and wisely in improving standards, widening opportunities and generally improving the education of our children; and if we are prepared to accept that education is a partnership between pupils, teachers, parents, local education authorities and the Government.
  3.49 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: It would gladden the heart of my hon. and much revered Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), whom we all love dearly, to reflect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and the spokesman for the Liberal party have all been educated at most distinguished

  127
  public schools. Having heard the debate so far, I believe that the Old Paulines have won the battle over the Wykehamists hands down. However, I shall await a final decision until we have heard from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud).
  I do not know what my hon. Friends thought, but I felt that the hon. Member for Durham, North was somewhat hysterical because he was arguing such a weak and thin case. I should add that I like the hon. Member for Durham, North. I also like the Leader of the Opposition very much indeed — after all, someone who likes rugby cannot be all bad.
  I made my maiden speech from the Opposition Benches 21 years ago during an education debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on at last getting away from some of the nonsense that has prevailed over the years since 1965. I therefore support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that the endless row over teachers' pay has been a blight on the education of our children and a squalid blight on the character of what ought to be a most respected and responsible profession.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having screwed a very substantial settlement out of the skinflint Treasury. That is no mean achievement under any Government, but is particularly so under this one. As a result, teachers have secured a larger percentage rise than any other public service. That should be said loud and clear. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to say it, and it should be borne in mind by the public when they reflect on the negotiations.
  I have always contended that teachers as a whole are underpaid and have been for many years. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the way in which the money is to be applied. Some 23 years ago, in a similar row, I remember urging the late and much respected Lord Boyle when he was Secretary of State for Education that out of the global sum agreed for the increase he should reward the best teachers and those with experience and responsibility much more than the bottom end who had just come out of training college. That was not done. Over the years this differential has gradually been whittled down. The status of the profession has gone down with it.
  We hear a great deal about the fact that teaching should be a "profession". So it should be. But one of the characteristics of a profession is that it is tough and competitive at the start and that the rewards that come later for skill and industry should be large enough to be an incentive to achievement. It is much more important to provide adequate differentials between those of long standing who are committed to the profession and those newcomers who may disappear after a year or two. Very often the dedicated teachers have the most family commitments and the greatest financial commitments, and they should attain some priority. That is why I congratulate the Government on having belatedly recognised this fact.
  Of course I understand that the NUT and other union leaders are obsessed about the votes of their many members rather than with standards of excellence. But that egalitarian nonsense and levelling everyone down is damaging for the tillage of the profession and the quality of our children's education.
  Everyone has an interest in education — parents, ratepayers and taxpayers. For more than 20 years I have
  128
  argued that teachers' salaries, which are by far the biggest item on the rates bills that we all loathe receiving, should be the responsibility of the Exchequer. After all, the Education Act 1944 placed an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide an adequate supply of teachers. Why, then, should not he, rather than the local authorities, be responsible for paying the bill? Therefore, I am glad that this overdue reform is at last to take place.
  The Secretary of State also called for proper terms of service. That applies throughout the whole of industry and the Civil Service, so it should also apply to teachers. I was especially pleased that he referred to the problem of the curriculum as I wish to refer in particular to the standards in our schools which are related to it.
  As my right hon. Friend was kind enough to state, in Cambridgeshire we take that matter extremely seriously. I am particularly interested in his commendable desire to improve the standard of English teaching in response to what I understand are complaints from industry, and I know that he is extremely bothered, as we all are, by the problem of youth violence in society. Therefore, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a disturbing example of how education is going wrong.
  Parents of an 11-year-old girl in my constituency brought to my notice a weird instance of what I can only describe as miseducation in a local school. I shall not mention the school by name because I believe that this also occurs in other schools. The problem is not unique to Cambridgeshire. In the English class pupils were given so-called poems and asked to act them out. I shall not read all this nonsense, but I shall give the House one or two examples. One poem reads:
  "Chaos ruled OK in the classroom
  as bravely the teacher walked in
  the havocwreakers ignored him
  his voice was lost in the din."
  The great McGonagall must be turning in his grave.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Is the hon. Gentleman reading Beano?
  Sir Anthony Grant: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who is an education specialist, I am reading what is taught in an English class to I I-year-olds in a state school. The poem continues:
  "He picked on a boy who was shouting
  and throttled him then and there
  then garrotted the girl behind him
  (the one with grotty hair)."
  The poem continues with references to bloodshed, swords, grenades and things of that nature.
  Even more disturbing is a poem entitled "Nooligan". It reads:
  "I'm a nooligan
  I spray me name
  all over town
  footballs me game
  (well, watehin')
  I'm a nooligan
  violence is fun
  gonna be a nassassin
  or a nired gun
  (well, a soldier)"
  What sort of drivel is that? What has it to do with the education of 11-year-olds? What rights do parents have to stop this sort of muck from being purveyed to their children? What powers have my right hon. Friend and his Department to correct this nonsense?
  It might seem rather amusing, but we must consider also what is happening in schools in other areas. I cite in

  129
  particular Camden council. It has come to my attention that, as a result of the pressure on teachers, the accident prevention scheme could not use the police to deliver lectures on road safety because the teachers were hostile to the police and were injecting that hostility into the children. If we had a combination of two such attitudes, it would he deeply disturbing and something that all of us throughout society, whether parents or not, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should take seriously. 1 have written to him and sent him this extraordinary load of drivel, at which I hope he will have a look.
  By and large, the majority of teachers are fine, dedicated people who recognise the great responsibilities of their task, but are often, unfairly blamed for the failings of parents. Their good name is besmirched by a minority of political fanatics and bigots who have bored into the profession like death-watch beetles, as they have all too often in many decaying Labour party parliamentary seats, such as Knowsley.
  At the end of the day, the standards of education depend primarily on the standards of the teaching profession, and my right hon. Friend's policy will raise the standard and status of the profession. It is good for teachers, for children's education and for the future of the country, and may it come into effect as early as possible.
  4 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: I apologise for the quality of my voice, but I caught a cold in the streets of Knowsley last Monday. The House will be glad to know that mine is a temporary malady, unlike that of the Labour party, whose malady will be more permanent when the results of the by-election are announced later tonight.
  The timing of the debate is not particularly opportune, bearing in mind that the ACAS talks are still going on. The House will no doubt share my feelings that it is unhelpful for us to discuss education while it can jeopardise an agreement, we hope from a majority, if not all, of the unions. What has been so wrong about these talks—in Coventry, Nottingham and now London — which purport to settle the teachers' pay dispute is that none of the parties involved shows any interest in the nation's children. The Secretary of State, the Labour-led local authority employer, the NUT and the NAS/UWT all have in common that they would prefer no deal to one for which someone else might take the credit.
  Mr. Radice: Rubbish.
  Mr. Freud: Hon. Members are protesting so much because clearly that is true.
  The Government have known about teacher disenchantment for many years, just as they have known that the Burnham procedure no longer works. It has taken until now, with an election in the offing, to put on the table such money as is remotely likely to placate the teaching profession and make a career in education vaguely attractive. As the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) so rightly said, that money offered two years ago would have saved all the anguish that teachers and children have suffered; the electorate will not forget this.
  It is interesting to compare the Keith and Ken approaches to the problem. They use different footwork to achieve the same goal of taking over responsibility for
  130
  pay and conditions, thanks to the teaching unions being as concerned with recruitment of their opponents' members as they are with the well-being of the nation's children. Both Secretaries of State realised that if they could engineer non-acceptance of what sounds like a reasonable deal they would be on the high ground, because the public are fed up with strikes and will grasp at any solution that promises to end disruption.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) wanted to scrap the 1965 Act, but he did not know what to put in its place. Sadly, he missed the comparative peace and quiet of the early 1980s, when discussions could have taken place. Instead, the Government have waited until all was chaotic and have come up, as of course they had to, with more money, which is right, and more centralism, which is wrong.
  Therefore, we have to choose between Pearman, who is probably too expensive in the long term and too insensitive in the short term, and the Secretary of State, who seems to have taken upon himself a divine right — "On the eighth day, Baker created teachers". Of the alternatives, the Secretary of State's solution is more realistic because he has the money to pay for it. However, his approach must become more flexible. His final solution must involve local authorities. He must not rule out direct LEA negotiations with the teachers, if that is the way they want to do it.
  I favour incentives to persuade able and conscientious teachers to remain in the classroom, but I also know that schools work best when teachers pull together and share responsibility for their smooth running. It is far from clear how the competition for allowances will work, and whether those too incompetent to win the allowances will still be in charge of teaching our children. What will he done to improve their performance?
  The teachers should shelve their demands on class sizes, although I think that they are right to want to retain a significant difference between scale 1 and scale 2. Teachers have worked hard and long to achieve that first step on the ladder. There must be a reasonable gap for difference in their pay.
  In an ideal world we would have partnership and the Secretaries of State would have their parts to play, not by agonising or wizard public relations, but by understanding, support and honesty. When I talk of honesty, I am thinking particularly of the previous Secretary of State's "offer" of £ 1·25 billion, which shrank and shrank the more one looked into it, and seemed to be given over ever longer periods until it ended up worth half-a-sixpence. I criticise support first in respect of the assisted places scheme, which was a kick in the teeth to the maintained sector of education.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): No.
  Mr. Freud: It certainly was a kick in the teeth, in that the concept behind it was that good education is available only in the private sector. We would not have minded the concept that if someone is academically able he should move from one school to another more suited to his ability. However, we deny that those schools are available only in the private sector.
  The CTCs, unlike the American magnet schools, will undermine the comprehensives by unfair competition. We greatly resent the fact that the Secretary of State is inviting

  131
  local industry to fund a divided community. There is no question but that with a CTC running alongside a comprehensive, with better conditions and better pay for teachers, and better facilities for children, one will end up with a divided community. If that is what the Secretary of State wants to do—in one place as an experiment—we should have watched it with interest. However, to commit £160 million, £35 million from his Department, to get private funding to divide society is wrong.
  Mr. Pawsey: With the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not follow his argument. For years industry has been saying that a gulf exists between what is taught in the schools and what is needed in industry. Here is a genuine and honest attempt, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to bridge that gap, and we are talking about 20 schools only. We will see how the experiment works, and if it works as well as we believe it will, let it be extended. The hon. Gentleman is being less than generous — which is a criticism seldom levelled at him—in being so critical in advance of the inception of the school.
  Mr. Freud: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is wrong with helping an existing school, by the injection of extra money, extra teaching and extra expertise, to become a centre of excellence, which he is now trying to create in a CTC? My objection is not that there should be the odd centre of excellence, but that existing schools are unable to become such places.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about CTCs. Is it not correct to say that there is a considerable shortage of mathematics and technical teachers, and that the Secretary of State has not made it plain whether the new CTCs will he authorised to offer greatly enhanced salaries to their prospective teachers? If that is so, is it not divisive not only of the system but of the profession? When he is winding up the debate, it would be a good idea for the Minister to tell us about that matter.
  Mr. Freud: I shall leave the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to make his own speech. I agree with what he says. Partnership requires a general atmosphere, not of divisiveness, but of encouragement and an atmosphere which upholds morale. That has been singularly lacking from Elizabeth House. Does the Secretary of State know how much the honest classroom teacher resents the commitment of that extra finance out of the maintained sector of education? Does he know how much resentment there is concerning AS-levels, about which he talked so recently? The concept of AS-levels is right but for the fact that small schools, and especially small sixth forms, would be insufficiently funded to teach to AS-level standards. As a result, once again it would be the private sector and the large sixth form colleges which would benefit, and people in small rural areas who have a sixth form and no alternative would miss out.
  I should like to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the Boston compact, in which employers joined forces with local schools to guarantee jobs in return for an improvement in examination results. I am delighted that a similar scheme is expected to go ahead in London, and not only because that allows me to mention David Steel. As the House will know, Sir David Steel is chairman of the
  132
  Wellcome Trust and will chair the London Enterprise Agency Educational Trust which was launched on Tuesday by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). I wish that well because it seems to be a far better way of creating understanding and partnership in education than by diverting public money into private institutions.
  If Burnham is to go, Burnham Mark II must be better and not just different. We favour a permanent independent pay review board, possibly consisting of three wise men or three wise people. I beg the Secretary of State to remember the priorities. They are not to gain party political advantage or score points over the Opposition, but to ensure the well-being of the local community and of the children, who are only 15 once. While we sit and jockey for position, the children lose what cannot be made up.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is always rewarding to follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) but not as rewarding as it would be if one had the opportunity to follow him when he performs in other media.
  The part of the Gracious Speech that I should like to take as my text is the sentence which says that the
  "Government will continue to promote enterprise, the growth of employment and the education and training of young people."
  As well as anything, that sentence illustrates how difficult it is to allocate subjects to different days on which we debate the Gracious Speech. That is because many things encompassed within it do not fall strictly within the boundaries of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security.
  I should like to start by looking at the enterprise and jobs element contained in the Gracious Speech and make a plea for a special type of enterprise. Wearing my aviation hat, I commend to the Government and to the House the need for support for British Aerospace in its approach to the Government for launch aid for the A330 and the A340 airbus projects. Those projects are an important test of our ability to continue with a meaningful presence in the civil aviation industry. I realise that some people are suspicious about subsidies to industry, but it needs to be stressed that the aid being sought by British Aerospace is not a subsidy but rather in the nature of a loan.
  The A320 project is a remarkable success. That aeroplane has not yet flown, but it has obtained more orders than any other aeroplane at that stage of development. That is proof that airbus is a worthwhile project in which Britain should invest. It would be a tragedy for Britain and for Europe if we were not fully committed. I grieve that we see the Governments and Parliaments of France and West Germany already committed to the A330 and the A340 projects while once again Britain appears to be the Johnny-come-lately and we seem to have the most doubts about whether or not we should commit ourselves to this enterprise.
  There is sufficient evidence that this is a worthwhile project in itself, but in any case we have to retain a commitment to the civil aviation industry. Money spent in that way, even if only as a loan, is a safer insurance for the future than some of the money deployed by the Government to industry. If we are to find challenging jobs for the people emerging from our education system, we

  133
  have to be involved in projects of the airbus kind. For that reason, I hope that the Government will decide at an early date to commit themselves to this project.
  We need to establish an enterprise culture. That has been said many times by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I am worried that in some cases there is still far too much hostility towards industry while in other cases the attitude is one of apathy. There has even been deprecating talk about the real continuing importance of manufacturing industry, but it is vital that we have a healthy core of manufacturing industry. Coupled with the general hostility to industry, there appears to be a lack of interest in engineering. We do not seem to see our engineers in the same way as engineers are seen in some of our partner countries.
  I heard the other day that we are producing about 8,000 or 9,000 engineering graduates per year, but in Japan the figure is around 90,000. That is a daunting fact. A chemical company that I visited recently believed that it was right to increase the number of engineering apprenticeships that it offered. The firm had a number of inquiries but was not able to fill the places that it was prepared to make available. One wonders why this should be the case. Is it because fathers who have been made redundant in their fifties and sixties are saying to their sons, Avoid engineering-type jobs, or you may face my fate and become redundant"? That betrays a lack of understanding of the complex nature and span of the engineering industry, whose image is connected with dirty overalls and the carrying of spanners. There is no perception of the vast range of activities that are covered by the various industries that are connected with engineering. The industry needs to be esteemed, and esteem is vitally connected with rewards.
  Recently I visited the assembly lines of Airbus Industrie where I met a young man who was on secondment from British Aerospace. I guess that he is in his late twenties. He said that there is a different attitude towards engineers in France. He told me that in his class at school he had been lucky in having a teacher who was particularly enthusiastic not only about the opportunities that are available in the engineering industry but also about the importance of that industry. He also told me that several of his classmates had gone on to take engineering degrees and that they are now in good jobs where they are using their engineering expertise.
  This young man said that the different attitude towards engineers in France was brought home to him when his wife was talking to one of their newly acquired French friends. He said that when his wife told this friend that she was anxious to find a job in France, the French lady turned to her and said, "Why on earth do you want a job? After all, your husband is an engineer, isn't he?" That illustrates very clearly why—
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: What sexist nonsense.
  Mr. Haselhurst: The hon. Lady is prepared from a sedentary position to trot out a slogan which obsesses her.
  Dr. McDonald rose—
  Mr. Haselhurst: I am merely repeating—
  Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haselhurst: Very well.
  Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinary statement. Apparently he approves of the suggestion that because a person's husband is well off there is no reason for the wife to seek employment. What an extraordinary view to appear to endorse.
  Mr. Haselhurst: The hon. Lady betrays an absurd obsession. All that I was trying to do was to point out what had been said to me by somebody else. I have not tried to make a qualitative judgment about what was said.
  Dr. McDonald: The hon. Gentleman is backing off.
  Mr. Haselhurst: No, I am not backing off in the slightest degree — [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will keep her mouth closed, I shall try to explain to her the point that I am trying to make. I do not think that she impresses the House by that kind of reaction. I have recounted a straightforward anecdote that was related to me by an Englishman whom I met in France. My purpose was to illustrate the different treatment accorded to engineers in France compared with the treatment accorded to British engineers. If the hon. Lady wants to get on her bike and go on a great trip covering sexism, that is for her. But that is not my point. What the wife of this Englishman does is her business. The hon. Lady betrays an inherent personal obsession by getting so excited about what I said.
  What can be done about the little interest that is paid to engineering in Britain? The Government have taken a number of helpful initiatives. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science referred to the "quiet revolution" in education. He instanced the introduction of the General Certificate of Secondary Education, the technical and vocational education initiative, the establishment of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the establishment of city technology colleges. These important steps have been taken by the Government to try to create more interest in the practical and vocational aspects of preparation for the world of work. However, we have to ask ourselves whether that is enough.
  If there is to be closer co-operation between education and industry, which has been one of the themes and one of the successes of Industry Year, we have to go a great deal further than we have gone so far. I commend the steps that have already been taken by the Government. Also, I commend what many companies have been doing during Industry Year. However, it does not add up to a universal pattern that is strong enough to cope with the problem.
  I continue to find instances of companies that have been unable to attract the right kind of recruits, or a sufficient number of recruits. Apparently, they have made no real effort to talk regularly to schoolchildren about the kind of careers that their companies can offer them. We must be much more emphatic about the need for cooperation between industry and education, which means that prejudices on both sides will have to be broken down.
  Another alarming factor in our attempt to create a greater commitment to vocational studies and training is the hostility in some parts of the country towards the youth training scheme. There is worrying evidence that young people are rejecting that scheme and that their rejection varies according to the type of course. I understand that, whereas clerical courses are fully taken up, electronic engineering and similar courses are under-subscribed. Apparently, youngsters feel that they are being

  135
  used by the youth training scheme. That is tragic, because I have always been a strong supporter of a properly devised two-year training scheme for young people.
  That attitude is not found in West Germany. Young people accept that they must undergo a period of training during which their wages are fixed as a relatively small proportion of the adult wage. That is not regarded as a difficulty. As we have reached that stage more recently in this country, some young people apparently believe that they are being sold short. That is a great shame.
  I recently visited two workshops in the west midlands whose training schemes are being supported by the Manpower Services Commission. Both schemes came into existence through the initiative of the Community Projects Foundation. I have the honour of being the chairman of the trustees of that foundation, and it was in that capacity that I visited those training schemes. They are two good schemes, but there are worrying anecdotes about the resistance of young people to join the youth training scheme when they leave school. In one class of 30 pupils, only two are said to show, at least at the beginning, any interest in training of this kind. However, the reaction of young people who have chosen to join such courses shows that the quality of the training on offer is very good indeed. How we bridge the gap I do not know, but we have to address that problem.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend say a word about the percentage of young people who gain full-time employment after being on the youth training scheme? I hope that he will also find time during his particularly interesting speech to refer to apprenticeships and to the fact that in West Germany apprentices are paid only one third of the skilled man's wage, whereas in the United Kingdom they are paid two thirds of the skilled man's wage.
  Mr. Haselhurst: I have already alluded to West Germany and I do not want to take that comparison any further. However, my hon. Friend is right to refer to the success rate of young trainees in gaining full-time employment. The take-up varies, but overall it has been high and that is encouraging.
  I believe that a young person is foolish if he does not take up the opportunities that are available. At least one of the two schemes that I visited recently was specially designed to cater for the needs of those with low attainment — the especially difficult cases. That scheme has a 70 per cent. success rate in permanent job placements. There is much evidence of what can be done with well-thought-out, well-prepared training schemes, and we must ensure that more people take up the opportunities presented by them.
  Mr. David Crouch: I was recently in Germany, together with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), looking at its equivalent to the youth training scheme. One of the deficiencies in the German system was that, although the period of training was longer—from two to five years, depending on the potential of the youth—there was no provision for general education, only industrial training. That scheme is less advanced than ours. On a day which is devoted, to some extent, to education, I believe that we should emphasise that our youth training scheme should embrace the idea that education, not just training for industry, should play an ever larger part in the scheme.
  Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I accept what he says.
  One of the important features of the technical and vocational education initiative is that it enables that blend to take place from the ages of 14 to 18. The YTS operates from the age of 16 for those who have made their decision to leave school. One hopes that the YTS rekindles—or even sparks off for the first time—the imagination and enthusiasm of the trainees, and perhaps leads towards further education. For that to happen, we must make sure that there is sufficient flexibility and movement between one scheme and another. In the past, the channels have been too rigid and we must break that down.
  I broach my next point with some trepidation, in view of the over-excited reaction from Opposition Benches to one of the other matters that I have raised. I have always questioned how far it is right to continue with the YTS as an entirely voluntary scheme. Of course I realise that one volunteer is better than a pressed man—or, I hasten to add, woman. However, can we for ever tolerate young people wilfully failing to take the opportunity of well-prepared and worked-out schemes and preferring to take such money as is available from social security? If we were providing nothing for young people, there would have to be a state safety net. However, as the state, at great expense, together with employers, also at great expense, are providing opportunities for the betterment of those young people as well as the ultimate betterment of the country, can we for ever say that the voluntary principle must be so sacrosanct that nothing can be done about it? The Government will have to think about that.
  I have been taken a little further down some lanes than I intended. I would like to refer to the educational aspects of the Gracious Speech. I commend what the Government have done to change the government of schools. I hope and believe that that is right, but I have some reservations. I am not sure that there is universal evidence that the governors of schools are hungry enough for the higher standards to ensure that they come about. I have had direct experience of people who believe that everything is rather jolly and rather nice—people who, with the best will in the world, believe that they have the finest school that they could possibly imagine. They do not judge the school critically, and perhaps do not know how to look at it more critically. That means that the gulf will remain wide between what state schools provide and what may be found in the private sector. If more parent governors are the key to an improvement in educational standards, they must be somewhat sharper in the way that they address themselves to their task.
  It is almost sub judice to say anything today about the teachers. It is self-evident that we will not achieve a good standard of education or the quality that we need unless we have an improved and committed teaching force. During the past 18 months, I have spoken to many teachers about this, but what worries me is that, as they have pursued what I understand they believe to be a legitimate claim, they have become carried away with the importance of what they are doing and the environment in which they are working—to a point where they are making demands that bear less relationship to reality than they must bear if, within our democratic society, we are to accommodate them. There are other public servants of importance, whom we acknowledge in this House, who must also be requited to a satisfactory level. There is a danger that teachers are trying to gain in a settlement a

  137
  quantity of resources which does not acknowledge that government must always be about priorities, and we cannot relegate entirely such matters as housing and social security simply so that everything can be done at once to bring education to a state of almost perfection.
  The teachers underestimate the danger that, if they go too far in their salary demands, they will attract emulation from other groups of public servants, and so may well not be treated as the special case which they regard themselves to be. That special case will be cited to boost further claims and there will be a rerun of what happened after the Houghton settlement, and the position that teachers believe they have won will be eroded in short time, to their loss and the nation's loss.
  Teachers must remember that parents' perception of this is very mixed. Of course the majority are excellent and dedicated teachers, and we must acknowledge and accept that, and they must be rewarded. But they are not all of universal standard. Parents see, on a day-to-day basis, some of the weaknesses. Sometimes parents may not be altogether fair in their judgments, but parents are the indirect customers of the state schools. They can make a comparison between a teacher who is struggling with a class of 36 and a teacher who still seems to struggle with a class of 20. Parents may also look over their shoulders and compare what is happening in the private sector. They may wonder why the arithmetic tables—if they are still important in our society — are learned in the private sector by the age of seven, whereas in the state school children may still be learning the three-times table. Parents worry about the standard of the teaching profession.
  My right hon. Friend is right to bring forward legislation to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. There is a patent need for a new mechanism. I hope that such mechanism as will ultimately emerge will give an assurance to teachers about their future prospects. I ask them not to expect to get everything they need and want at the present time, but if we can demonstrate that they will not slip behind as they have done in the past and provide a mechanism to give that reassurance, we may enter a period of greater tranquillity.
  There must be a better understanding of industry's needs and a better relationship between education and industry. We must make sure that the country is well represented in the new industries, hence my reference to airbus. So let the Government, in the words of the Gracious Speech,
  "continue to promote enterprise, the growth of employment and the education and training of young people."
  Let there be an added urgency in strengthening the links between all elements. Employers, teachers and parents need to be far better informed about this essential interrelationship. I believe that the country will be strengthened in the end only when all are committed to it.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I hope that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) will forgive me if I do not take up many of the arguments that he advanced. He had some interesting comments to make about training, and it may be worthwhile to consider them when we have a greater opportunity to discuss them.
  It has been said during the debate, and on a number of occasions recently, that education has become one of the key political issues and a source of conflict between the main parties. That it is a conflict is already evident in this
  138
  debate, and for that reason I wish slightly to lessen the element of conflict by injecting initially an element of consensus. During the previous Session we saw the passage of what is now the Education Act 1986, and I took the opportunity on the Second Reading of that measure to draw the attention of the House to the activities of the Federation of Conservative Students and the way in which, in various circumstances, it has challenged the freedom of speech by its rather stupid and insensitive behaviour.
  On the Second Reading of the Education Bill, as it then was, I suggested that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is also the chairman of the Conservative party, would be well advised to spend some of his time considering the federation's activities. It was with some pride and satisfaction that I read this morning a news report in the Daily Telegraph which suggested that the right hon. Gentleman has taken my advice, has acted upon the federation's behaviour, has closed it down and has kicked it out of Conservative Central Office.
  It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to inject a note of consensus into the debate. I hope that on many other occasions the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will act upon my advice. On the same note of consensus, I offer a word in favour of the federation. It must feel a little unhappy this morning at having been disowned by its parent body, but it may feel reassured to know that it is clear that the commitment of the chairman of the Conservative party to freedom of speech is equally divided between the federation and the BBC.
  I leave the federation behind, in the same way as the Conservative party has done, to make some comments on the teachers' dispute and the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which are central to the debate. I shall make two preliminary comments. First, I am in a position as a parent, which is not unique, of having a child who this year —he is a 16-year-old, so he will not take kindly to my describing him as a child — will be taking his O-levels. Therefore, I have a great and deep personal desire to see no disruption in our schools. Like every other parent of children in that age group and in others, I shall judge the behaviour of the Secretary of State over the next few weeks on whether he can deliver peace in our schools. This is extremely important for my child and for many others throughout the country, and this is the real judgment that parents will make, irrespective of whether the outcome helps the right hon. Gentleman's political ambitions. Continuity of education in our schools is all important.
  Secondly, I wish to make a few preliminary remarks about the performance of the chairman of the employers' side in the negotiations that have been taking place over the past few days. The comments that the Secretary of State has made from the Dispatch box have been slightly disappointing, and the same can be said of the comments of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who acts as the Liberal party's spokesman on education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's comments can be attributed to the cold that he contracted at Knowsley. He is usually a much more balanced and able individual than the comments that he made this afternoon would suggest.
  It is worth while putting on record the efforts that the chairman of the employers' side has made to reach a negotiated settlement. He has showed considerable patience and a great deal of skill in the negotiations, and I speak as someone who has watched his career develop

  139
  over a few years. He is a former colleague of mine on the Wakefield metropolitan district council. We did not always agree at that stage, but I hope he will feel that my comments this afternoon are appropriate, given the background of our personal experiences.
  In the light of the Government's intervention in the teachers' pay dispute or pay settlement and their general behaviour, we must ask why the Secretary of State has behaved as he has in the negotiations. There was a long period of studied indifference by the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and it has been rightly said that if the money that is now on the table had been made available 18 months ago we would have had a settlement and no disruption.
  The previous Secretary of State said, in effect, "This has nothing to do with me and I want to leave the issue to the employers and the unions. I shall not help in any way." There was a long period during which we asked the right hon. Gentleman to intervene, but he did not. We then had a change of Secretary of State, but there was still the same approach pre-Coventry. A long time elapsed between the Coventry and Nottingham negotiations, and all that we had from the Secretary of State was silence, with the exception of a speech at the Conservative party conference. It is fair to say that there were no effective comments about the Coventry agreement.
  When we came near to the time of the Nottingham negotiations a statement was made in the House, and when the negotiations started we had the indirect but potent intervention of the Secretary of State, which means that we must come to a judgment on the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour. I can come only to the conclusion that the Secretary of State is determined to ensure that the negotiations do not reach an effective and successful conclusion. It seems that he feels that there is political mileage in that. The Minister of State shakes her head, but I shall give further evidence that I consider to be important.
  Over the past seven years there has been threat after threat by Government Back Benchers and from the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science to intervene directly in pay negotiations. Throughout that period we have had evidence of Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers taking every available opportunity to run down the status of teachers. The Government are determined not to see an agreement between teachers and their employers, and that is why the Secretary of State has behaved as he has over the past fortnight.
  I think that we can understand the Secretary of State's present behaviour, and that being so I wish to move forward to consider the implications of removing the Burnham machinery. The Government were elected on the basis that they would restore local democracy and move away from the nasty centralising tendencies that seemed, according to them, to be endemic to Socialists. Yet there is a suggestion in the Queen's Speech that one person, the Secretary of State, will basically determine teachers' pay. If that applies to teachers, why should it not apply to other local government employees? Why should it not apply to local government manual workers and clerical staff? If the power is taken to determine teachers' pay, it seems that we
  140
  are seeing the thin end of the wedge. Why should not the Government exercise the same power over other groups of workers?
  If there is a long period of negotiation between local government manual workers and local government employers, for example, will the Government say, "We want the power to impose a settlement upon this group of workers because they cannot reach a settlement"? Is that what they will say? If they take that course, they will claim that they have a precedent. They will say, "We have done this with the teachers and we shall proceed on the basis of what we have done previously."
  I worry greatly about this attack on local democracy, especially from a Government who claim to be opposed to centralisation. All that we have seen since the Secretary of State took up his present position is the direction of more and more power to the Department of Education and Science, with less and less power remaining in the hands of local education authorities and local government. I worry about that aspect of the abolition of the Burnham system.
  I am worried also about the way in which teachers will respond to the loss of their pay machinery and how they will respond to the Government imposing upon them a settlement on pay and conditions. That contains two crucial elements. How can the Government impose contracts when they are not the teachers' employers? The Secretary of State wriggled away from that question. He was asked it more than once and on each occasion he failed to respond, but it is crucial to the entire nature of the Government's proposal. If the Government say that they will change English contract law so fundamentally that they, as a third party, can impose a deal and a contract, it will be a fundamental change in contract law and the House and the House of Lords will wish to comment upon it fully.
  How will the Government impose that contract? If local education authorities will not impose the contract and will not take teachers to court to impose it, what do the Government propose to do? If local education authorities say that they cannot take teachers to court, will the Government tell them that some of their rate support grant will be removed because they have failed to behave in a certain way?
  The Secretary of State must say how he intends to use the powers which I suspect he will take to himself in the legislation that will be introduced. The contractual questions must be answered as quickly as possible so that teachers know the answers.
  As a further aside, I must say that I was disturbed when the Secretary of State did not respond to my suggestion that he may wish to put his proposals to a ballot of the teachers. I am a sensible and often commonsensical man. Some time ago I came to a simple political conclusion. I have been told regularly—it has been reinforced by the newspapers — that the Government favour ballots in industrial disputes. I made a suggestion which I considered to be totally in line with everything in which the Conservatives believe—to have a ballot on the Secretary of State's proposals
  We heard all about ballots during the miners' dispute and other industrial disputes. Every time the Prime Minister and other Ministers said that we should have ballots, yet this afternoon the Secretary of State did not seem enthusiastic. Is that because of a change in principle? That worries me, because no one has announced that the

  141
  Government have changed their position in principle. I know that Governments change their principled positions. Have the Government changed their position, or are they simply worried about the result of a ballot? Is that why they do not have the courage to put the Baker offer to teachers? I suspect that that is the real reason. They do not have the courage to put their offer to the teachers for the teachers to make a judgment on it.
  Mr. Flannery: On the question of ballots, my hon. Friend probably noticed that, throughout the years, the Government have repeatedly condemned the National Union of Teachers. During that time the NUT had 17 ballots of its entire membership on whether it should engage in industrial action. On every one of those ballots between 79 and 83 per cent. of the union membership voted for industrial action. The Government never mentioned that when they were demanding ballots.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct. It is sad that the NUT can run 17 ballots while the Secretary of State is incapable of running one.
  Further to my previous point about contracts, the Government seem to have made the false assumption that high morale can be imposed on teachers by imposing a contract. Classroom performance of teachers cannot be improved by imposing a contract. The very best that the Government will obtain will be an alienated teacher force characterised by low morale. The worst that they will obtain is that teachers will continue to take industrial action.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting set of speculations and assertions. Will he give us some idea of his grounds for suggesting what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may do? Will he tell us whether he or other Labour Members would like the Remuneration of Teachers Act to continue in its present form?
  Mr. Fatchett: Those points will not delay me for long. My assumptions follow intrinsically and logically from what the Secretary of State has already said and done. On the question of the Remuneration of Teachers Act, Opposition Members have already made it clear that they would welcome a negotiated agreement between the employers and the teachers' unions on the machinery for negotiating pay and conditions in the teaching profession. That position is clear enough.
  The worst possible position for the Government would be for their acton to cause further industrial disruption in schools. That cannot be avoided if the Secretary of State continues with his decision to act unilaterally. It is not too late for him to draw back and show good will towards the teachers' unions and the employers' associations. I hope that he will have the grace and common sense to do that. If he does, he will be remembered by teachers and parents for that good will. If he does not, he must take responsibility for what will happen subsequently.
  It is sad that, yet again, the Secretary of State devoted so much of his speech to teachers' pay and conditions and to criticising the teaching profession. I had hoped that the debate would provide us with an opportunity to talk about standards, quality, access and opportunity in education. The Secretary of State —
  Mr. John Whitfield: Waffle! Waffle!
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) can intervene, but from that position he is hardly making an intellectual contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Whitfield: Nor is the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State talks about standards in his own terms. He said that standards cannot be bought by investing more money in education. 1 f money is not invested in education, standards will deteriorate. My criticism of the Government is that they have allowed that deterioration to take place. I wish that the Secretary of State would address himself, not just to that deterioration, but to the opportunities for more people of all ages to have access to education. For instance, why did he not talk about the extension of nursery school provision or the opening up of higher education in society? None of those topics is on the Conservative party agenda. The Government will go to the country during the next 12 months with a record on education—
  Mr. Dunn: With regard to nursery provision, does the hon. Gentleman know whether more rising fives receive some nursery provision in primary schools, voluntary day groups or in nursery schools than they did in 1979?
  Mr. Fatchett: I, and I am sure all parents throughout the country, would like the provision of nursery education to be a right for children of that age. The Government cannot be satisfied with their record. The Government will go to the country with their education record in tatters but, even more important, they will go to the country with a limited agenda. That is an agenda of little education merit —an agenda of scare and attack upon teachers. Most parents will recognise the Government's record for what it is and will reject what they have to offer for the future of education.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) failed to answer the question that was fairly put to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He did not answer it, not because he did not know the answer—I suspect that he knows it perfectly well—but because he did not wish to give it. The answer is that there are now more children in nursery schools than there were in 1979 when the Labour Government left office.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who is in political control of the bulk of the local authorities that have increased the provision of nursery education? Will he also say how little the Government have done to encourage that trend through the rate support grant?
  Mr. Pawsey: With respect to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has just entered the debate, I must tell him yet again that more children are educated in nursery schools today than in 1979. Those are the facts. With all respect to him, no matter how much he huffs and puffs he knows that that is true.
  I want to comment on two points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). I admired what he said about his deep and personal desire to end the teachers' dispute. There is no disagreement in the House about that. I only wish that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would also say so a little longer and louder.
  However, the hon. Gentleman was uncharacteristically unfair when he sought to suggest that my right hon. Friend

  143
  the Secretary of State is seeking to take power from the edge and bring it to the centre. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that because, like me, he served on the Bill which became the Education Act 1986. That Act gives more power to parents. How can the hon. Gentleman square that with his argument that my right hon. Friend is seeking to take power to the centre? With the utmost respect, I do not think that he can reconcile those two dissimilar points.
  I intended to refer to only one issue, that of teachers' pay. However, before I do so, I am drawn to say a few words about city technology colleges. It is proposed to set up 20 schools catering for 20,000 pupils only. It is intended that these pupils will enjoy a technical, scientific and business bias, which is entirely good. How anyone can say that those 20 schools will be divisive frankly escapes me. I believe that the schools will be useful as a yardstick against which we can compare the results of other schools. As far as that goes, it must be applauded.
  I speak as a product of a technical school and technical college. I am well aware of the good of such institutions and that is, above all, why I welcome the CTCs. I am aware that they will help to bridge the gap between industry and education. That point has been made repeatedly by employers. I also welcome the fact that they will be funded by industry through trusts set up for the schools. That will help to ensure that they produce young people who understand engineering and industry. It is significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) devoted a substantial proportion of his excellent speech to the need to reinforce industry. I am sure that he would join me in applauding the creation of the CTCs.
  I must return to my main theme this afternoon, which is teachers' pay. I shall briefly recap on some of the salient features of the dispute. Disruption first started in the spring and summer of 1984. Hon. Members will recall that a substantial pay award was then made at arbitration, amounting to 5·1 per cent. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the former Secretary of State, made an offer worth £1·25 billion over four years. Attached to that offer were certain conditions, but the offer was rejected in 20 minutes. If I may paraphrase, "Never has so much been rejected so quickly by so many."
  In January 1986 ACAS entered the negotiations and in March an increase of 8·5 per cent. was ratified under its auspices. In May this year an interim 5·7 per cent. increase was agreed for 1986—87. July saw the emergence of the Coventry heads of agreement. In October, the Main committee recommended for Scotland a 16 per cent. pay increase. The teacher unions in England, in their wisdom, then decided to make six extra pay demands which would have added 50 per cent. to the cost of the Coventry heads of agreement.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now enters the action with a truly massive offer of some 16·4 per cent. — the offer that is now on the table. Clearly, my right hon. Friend believed that he was making an offer that could not be refused, and that view was shared by most Conservative Members, by most parents—who are not getting increases of anything like that amount—and by many teachers.
  144
  My right hon. Friend's offer, added to the earlier increases, makes a total pay rise of about 25 per cent. over 18 months. That is the magnitude of the offer which currently lies on the table. It is conditional on the acceptance of certain defined teachers' duties—basically, the duties that teachers have accepted over a substantial period.
  On the one hand, there is an offer of 25 per cent. over 18 months—an offer which goes back to Houghton in terms of RPI — and, on the other, a continuation of a dispute that damages children and schools and reduces the status of an honourable and honoured profession.
  In parentheses I remind the Opposition and the teacher unions that Houghton was lost in the period betwen 1974 and 1979—the period of the Labour Government when inflation was allowed to rip and reached a figure of about 27·5 per cent. Under the Labour Government inflation became almost an item of policy.
  I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that the teachers' dispute is now less about pay, less about conditions and less about children's education, and increasingly about politics—politics between unions, politics in unions and politics about the membership of unions. The dispute has become increasingly an exercise in macho-union politics.
  Most classroom teachers think that the 25 per cent. offer over 18 months is a good, fair and reasonable increase. However, the problem is that some union leaders, for reasons that seem to range from a wish to embarrass the Government to showing their membership that they can be as militant as the next union, have decided that 25 per cent. is not enough and that duties that were freely undertaken for years are now unnecessary, unfair and unwanted.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now criticised for saying that he will impose — almost for having the cheek to impose—a 16 per cent. increase. I ask Opposition Members one simple question: how many other groups in industry would like an imposed solution that includes a 16 per cent. increase in pay? That is the offer on the table, and I urge teachers to pick it up.
  I wonder what parents will think when they see professionals turning down that sort of real and substantial increase in favour of more classroom disruption, with yet more damage to their children's education. Their reaction will be very simple. They are absolutely fed up. A letter that I received from a constituent today — not a Conservative supporter — states:
  "Once again my 10 year-old son is having his schooling interrupted by industrial action by some of the teachers. I presume that I am expected to write to you and say how dreadfully misunderstood has been the teachers' case. Well, I do not so write. I consider the teachers' action to be very unprofessional and their estimate of their own value to society to be considerably greater than it is in reality."
  That letter came from an ordinary member of the electorate. That is the thought that I urge all the teachers' unions and Opposition Members to take fully into account. That is the reality and the view of the situation seen outside this Chamber by members of the public.
  Mr. Fatchett: I do not deny the validity of the letter from which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted. However, I wonder whether it is statistically representative. I notice that the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations is on record as criticising the Secretary of State's intervention and his activities of this week. Does

  145
  the hon. Gentleman not accept that the NCPTA is more representative of parent opinion than are his one simple letter and his prejudices?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wonder whether the association to which he referred has had an opportunity to poll its membership. I suspect it is a one-off assumption.
  Mr. Fatchett: Is that the answer that the Under-Secretary has just given the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Pawsey: That is not the answer I was given, as a matter of interest. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has yet another answer for the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman rises again, he ought to watch it. But I am not giving way further on that issue.
  In the Gracious Speech there is reference to repealing the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. It was interesting that both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to the reform of the Burnham arrangements, yet did not go further. It is significant that they did not detail the way in which their reforms would affect Burnham. What exactly are their proposals? I willingly give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who currently has the misfortune of facing the Dispatch Box, if he will enlighten the House on the Opposition's proposals for the reform of Burnham.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been attending to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) made it clear that we would support the negotiated reform of Burnham—a machinery that was fairly negotiated between all interested parties to get a better, more progressive machinery for determining teachers' pay. That seems to be a sensible and reasonable way to approach the subject. The Government seem determined to impose something that will not have the support or the enthusiastic backing of people who are concerned with that machinery and those negotiations.
  Mr. Pawsey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage, but on nothing else. What has he said? What type of reform does he suggest for Burnham? Who would comprise Burnham? Who would pick up the tab at the end of the day? How will it be an improvement? We put those issues to the hon. Gentleman. We should like to hear specific details, not vague generalities that can be translated into anything at all.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the difference between "negotiation" and "imposition".
  Mr. Pawsey: That may be a clever phrase, but a clever phrase does not cut any ice in this House. We recognise that the hon. Gentleman is making the best of a bad job. But he has still not told us what he would put in place of Burnham. He has still failed to spell out the details of his Burnham package.
  Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: No. I have given way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech in his own inimitable fashion. The House will listen, with its usual respect, to what he has to say. He will make his point if he has the good fortune to be called.
  146
  We shall see—this is heralded in the Queen's Speech — the demise of the Burnham committee negotiating machinery. Judging by what has taken place at Nottingham, that will not be before time. Burnham has become an unwieldy instrument, more used for argument than for agreement. But what I have genuinely found surprising is the way in which teachers and employers can sit around a table and produce agreements which have to be funded basically by a third party—the Government—whose representation at discussions is minimal, and whose involvement, apparently, is only the power to veto. This throws an interesting light on the old adage about power and responsibility. We have a Government with little power over Burnham but all the responsibility for finding the funds and picking up the tab. No wonder my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State views Burnham with apprehension and concern and is anxious to see it replaced. Burnham has had its day and should be decently and speedily buried.
  I hope that the new machinery which emerges will recognise the importance of teachers in society and will ensure that they receive good and reasonable rernuneration. Job satisfaction is simply not enough. Equally, I trust that good and reasonable remuneration will be balanced by a desire to teach and train the nation's youth to the benefit of those young people and of society.
  Over the past two years, I have argued in the House a not always popular case — basically, more pay for teachers. I have said that a teacher's job is a great deal more than long holidays and free periods. I have repeatedly asked my right hon. Friends to put more money up front for teachers so that their professional worth is recognised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done just that. He has screwed from a reluctant Treasury sums that few hon. Members thought possible. He has put together a good, fair package which should ensure peace in the classroom and good education for the nation's children. The offer made by my right hon. Friend clearly shows his commitment to the education service and to the teaching force. If we are to obtain the best education for our children, we need the goodwill and enthusiasm of teachers. Over the past few years, that goodwill has not always been forthcoming. The offer now on the table should prove, as nothing else, that the Government are anxious to improve the standards and quality of teachers and of teaching. The Government have put their money where their mouth is. The offer should be accepted.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: This is a sad occasion for me. The House will know that this debate on the Loyal Address is possibly the last time that I shall have an opportunity to speak on the Queen's Speech on a subject which I have pursued with as much energy as I can during my time in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not sad for myself. Had I entered Wormwood Scrubs, which serves my constituency, 27 years ago instead of Westminster, by now I might have been paroled for good behaviour. I am desperately and profoundly sad about the subject that I am about to raise. I have had the privilege, during 27 debates on Loyal Addresses, to share with the House my thoughts on the National Health Service. I shall refer to the grave omission this year, for the second time running, of any reference in the Gracious Speech to the

  147
  Health Service, which takes up £2 billion of public expenditure. This is a further sign that health has been relegated to the second division.
  In my earlier days, a debate such as this would have been answered by a Minister for Health, or a day would have been allocated to debate the matter with the Minister for Health. Today, health is looked upon as no longer a matter for parliamentary control. Over the last seven years there has been a change in managerial administration. Management rests outside the House. It is no wonder that health is omitted from the Queen's Speech. All that goes on in the National Health Service today is outwith the power of Parliament and of democratically elected local people, and rests, after the adoption of the Griffiths report, purely with managers, some of whom know a lot about the way in which industry might be run, but have very little idea about humanity and the needs of sick and disabled people.
  Last year I tried to be constructive and critical. For the sake of accuracy I have availed myself of a copy of my speech. I regret to say that some of the major efforts that I made to persuade the Government to move a little towards patients, in spite of their original "patients first" claim, have been to no avail, and today I shall refer again to some of the basic points that I was trying to make then. I come back full of despair.
  When I first became an hon. Member, I was brash enough to be the first of the batch of new boys to make a maiden speech. For the sake of accuracy, I have looked at my speech. Despite the fact that a Tory Government were in power, the speech was full of hope and enthusiasm. I said that we had established a foundation upon which could be built, in the next 20 years, a superior service for sick people, but instead there has been a deterioration in service. My enthusiasm has given way to despair.
  The House has kindly heard me make speeches on this subject many times. I am pleased to see in his place the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), because we have pursued similar ends, often from different sides of the House, in debate after debate.
  Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the hon. Gentleman, as I have so often done in the past.
  Mr. Pavitt: If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is typical of the hon. Gentleman.
  I have a high regard for the new Minister for Health. Last year, when I spoke in the debate on the Loyal Address, the hon. Gentleman, although he was the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, was kind enough to respond to one question and said that he would ensure that I received an answer from the Minister of State. I have never received that answer. I do not blame him for that; I just blame the circumstances at the time.
  I am afraid that I do not have that same high regard for the Secretary of State for Social Services. He is one of the most able Ministers in the Government and would be an able Minister in any Department. If he has the good fortune to move up in the Cabinet table, I am sure that he will juggle the statistics with the same expertise as he has shown in dealing with the Health Service and social
  148
  services. As for his commitment to health, he is a professional Minister, but he is not full of care and compassion for the subjects whom he administers.
  The Government tell the House and the nation that there have never been so many nurses and doctors, or such huge increases in expenditure, yet every hon. Member knows that in his own patch he has to watch cuts which are made under the euphemism of "efficiency savings" taking away any possibility of improving services.
  The Government boast about the increased amounts of money that they give, but, unfortunately, that expenditure cannot catch up with the increased technology which is now available and the increased demands and needs of a larger population. The Government like to talk about their long-term capital appreciation and to boast about the number of hospitals that there will be, some time. They say nothing about resources allocation. In 1982 the resources allocation to the NHS increased by 0·8 per cent. on the 1981 allocation. In 1983 there was no increase. In 1984 there was a decrease—minus 0·1 per cent. In 1985 there was an increase of 0·4 per cent. For most of that time inflation was about 3 per cent.
  There should be an increase in resources, but the Government have chosen to put their money not into resources but into long-term capital investment. That is entirely wrong. I should have liked the Gracious Speech to say something about the Government's plans in this respect. They could have introduced legislation for a number of good causes, not least to end the closure of hospitals, which occurs under the present procedure. What consultation procedure is followed before the Minister makes a decision? The present procedure is too vague. I should have liked to see in the Gracious Speech legislation that tied that down so that more people would have a greater say in the consultations between themselves and the Minister.
  The National Health Service is bedevilled by the Government's obsession with industry, factory production, statistics and rationalisation. My hospital is known as the Park Royal, Central Middlesex hospital, and for 25 years I have watched rationalisation at work, mainly by Lord Weinstock in GEC. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) talked about engineering. Twenty-seven years ago I represented high employment engineering, but that has all been rationalised out of existence. A company can make higher profits producing fewer goods and sacking more people. In terms of a capitalist enterprise, that makes business sense, but if the same criteria are applied to the Health Service, more and more people are made redundant and more and more services are cut. The Government then try to claim that, with the slimmed-down version, they are doing as much as if resources had been poured in.
  I am especially worried about one rationalisation in the NHS which the Minister has on his desk and which affects my constituency. One result of the last reorganisation was that there were 91 district health authorities. The theory was that, as far as possible, for geriatrics, mental illness and mental disability, there should be coterminosity between social services caring for the patient in the community and those caring for the patient under the NHS. The Minister will soon decide whether to amalgamate Brent district health authority with the Paddington and North Kensington health authority, making one of the largest health authorities in the country. There has been no consultation. This amalgamation is

  149
  another means of rationalisation. It enables cuts to he made much more quickly and effectively under a single authority.
  I shall give some examples of the way in which the present operations of the NHS affect the patient. First, there is the elderly lady with renal failure who has been kept alive with home dialysis. In August she contracted peritonitis and had to go to hospital twice a week for dialysis because she could no longer be treated at home. Her 70-year-old husband had to drive her 15 miles to hospital, and back again after midnight, because she had to spend six hours on the machine. She is in an impossible position. She has been told by the health authority that the solution is to buy her own machine to use at home, and that is the solution. The local neighbours have been clubbing together to find the £6,000 to help her pay for the machine. Because of the shortage of nurses, there are no nurses on duty in the dialysis unit after 6 o'clock. As with all home dialysis treatment the relations do the necessary, so the lady's 70-year-old husband has to take the nurses' place. That district health authority has announced that it will support no more home dialysis, that it is up to the patient. Is that the care that the Government talk about when they refer to putting patients first? There is a shortage of funds, and so an elderly person with renal failure has to find £6,000 to save her life and to save her husband's health.
  Another example is not far from this place. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in both Houses, have been fighting for five or six years to prevent the closure of Westminster hospital. Its closure has been on the stocks for some time and it is being run down. When I discussed this in the House last year, I had to say that, having fought hard with a number of colleagues from both sides of the House to save the department of cardiac surgery, that department was closed. The department of ophthalmics also closed. Now the radiography department is under threat of closure in spite of the fact that public subscription and donations have provided £1,200,000 worth of expensive machinery for cancer patients.
  Last week the hospital was informed that unless £45,000 could be found within the next few weeks it is likely that the pacemaker unit that deals with heart cases will have to be closed. About 60 per cent. of heart cases in the unit come from outside the Riverside district. The children's hospital is to be closed also. The original arrangement was to shift it to the parent hospital Westminster. However, that is now in doubt. It might be closed altogether or shifted somewhere else.
  Further evidence for what I call the salami-slicing of hospitals by taking off one piece at a time until they are no longer viable is the promised relocation of Westminster hospital to a site near the Brompton hospital. The pie in the sky that is being held out is that if Westminster hospital is closed by degrees over the next few years a brand new, shining, "Rolls-Royce" hospital will emerge. One could ask, "When?" Hopefully, by the end of the century. The House still needs its own hospital. Hundreds of hon. Members are grateful for the services that are provided by Westminster hospital. We still need to fight to keep it open.
  Within the past 24 hours I have come across the saddest case of all. A 94-bed hospital for geriatrics in my constituency was closed three years ago. Yesterday the Minister decided to approve the closure of Neasden hospital, which was a hospital for 84 geriatric patients.
  150
  They will be transferred to an ordinary hospital, on the plea that the site could be sold to provide £2·7 million. That money is needed for very good purposes and I am not complaining about that, but I feel a little upset because before the recess the previous Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), agreed that no announcement would he made until I had had an opportunity of completing negotiations with the local social services and other interested services to try to preserve the hospital. By coincidence, yesterday morning I sent to the Minister a plan for the use of the site, including a map of the skeleton of the buildings, which I had hoped to discuss with Brent borough council and the local health authority.
  I had received a letter, dated 21 October, from the general manager of the North West Thames regional health authority, Mr David Kennedy, which said:
  "Thank you too for the kindness in sending me a further copy of the plan for the site—we are still looking at the possibilities."
  I had hoped to save that hospital. However, once there is confrontation— I hate confrontation — the desired result is rarely achieved. I sought patiently for a solution rather than confrontation—no pickets as 50 old ladies are taken by ambulance from one place to another.
  The Neasden hospital is a little oasis, surrounded by high rise blocks and urban sprawl on the north circular road. It is 100 years old and its red brick buildings are beautiful. Although its facilities have been brought up to date, the bulldozers will come in. Perhaps eventually the money will be realised. The hospital has been at the heart of the constituency. More than 80 per cent. of the students in the school next to the hospital are black. Despite all the tensions in that locality, there has been no understanding that the Health Service should be put into perspective within the local community. Health provision in any area should match and marry the other services there.
  I hope that the Minister's private office will show him the report of my speech and that he will then confirm that he has only authorised the closure, and not ordered it. Hospital closures involve redundancies and therefore procedures must be followed, and they need time for negotiation. This morning I received a telephone call saying that there was a plan to close the hospital within 14 days. That is not enough time for negotiation. I ask the Minister to intervene to prevent the district manager from moving with arrogant haste. There must he time for the proper redundancy arrangements to proceed.
  I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for detaining the House, and in conclusion I appeal to the powers that be to spare the National Health Service as many further cuts as possible. When I say the powers that be, I am not talking about the Minister. The relevant powers no longer rest with him or this House. The Act which established the Health Service made the Minister responsible for the lot, subject only to Parliament. However, when one looks back over the past 10 years, one finds that Parliament has had absolutely no say. I have served on Standing Committees for 27 years on every major Bill affecting the Health Service. Previously Governments had much say, but now the managers have all the say.
  The omission of any reference to the Health Service in the Gracious Speech was not the only omission. Every newspaper today comments that the Gracious Speech omitted to tell us the date of the general election. The newspapers were, of course, more concerned over that

  151
  omission, and election fever is now gathering pace. However, whenever the election comes, whether sooner or later, it is inevitable that the Labour party, which is committed to the National Health Service, will be returned to power.
  After the second world war, when the country had been economically stripped to fight the war and when 3 million men had had to be brought back into civvy street, Nye Bevan established the greatest example of health care in the world. The next Labour Government will do another Nye Bevan, and whatever this Government do in the meantime to erode and to nibble away at the Health Service, we shall restore it.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: It is happy for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should have called me to follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). As I said earlier in an intervention, I have often followed him in the past when we have been debating the National Health Service or health matters generally. He speaks with a long experience of the problems that face us and a dedicated service to the NHS which the House recognises. I too, as I think the House knows, have had a long experience in the Health Service and I am still doing something on the Medical Research Council, as the hon. Gentleman did at some time before.
  I shall break with our tradition—that of myself and the hon. Member for Brent, South—and not follow him tonight on health matters because I want to speak on something that concerns the Gracious Speech but which, I regret, is not mentioned in it. I hope that I shall not be out of order in referring to something that is mentioned only obliquely. I am referring to the arts, which I embrace with education.
  The Gracious Speech says that the Government
  "will continue to promote enterprise, the growth of employment and the education"—
  that is my key word—
  "and training of young people."
  The arts are part of education. They are part of the education of us all at any age and that is important. I regret that they are not mentioned in the Gracious Speech. They should always be mentioned. They may not rate as highly as defence or social security, but nevertheless they are an important part of our lives.
  I refer in particular to the promotion of the arts. There has been criticism this week of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, notably by three distinguished men — Sir Claus Moser, the chairman of the Royal Opera House; Sir Peter Hall, the director of the National Theatre; and Mr. Luke Rittner, the secretary general of the Arts Council.
  Sir Claus Moser, desperate for the continuing success of the Royal Opera House, said that he feared, because he was only to get £13 million—quite a lot of taxpayers' money—from the Arts Council, that we were in danger of
  "becoming a nation of philistines."
  Those are strong words from a man passionate about the arts, his particular love being the opera.
  Sir Peter Hall, whose particular love is across the river, has said that the Government
  152
  "is intent on diminishing the arts … the arts is the area of our national life receiving the worst treatment at a time when public spending is rising."
  Both those gentlemen are honourable and honoured men and highly regarded for their contribution to the arts, to our society in general and to our progress as a nation in stimulating culture. But they are both wrong in the words that they have used to describe the Government's backing for the arts today.
  Mr. Luke Rittner, the secretary general of the Arts Council, is also wrong when he speaks of a lower expenditure on the arts. There has just been announced in the autumn statement an increase in expenditure on the arts of 2·5 per cent. in real terms. That is admittedly just below the rate of inflation, but it is an increase from £134 million to £138·8 million. Mr. Rittner wanted about £30 million more, and who can blame him? That is his job, like a trade union leader. Like Oliver Twist, he is asking for more and we cannot blame him. But to say that we are spending less is wrong. To say that we are not spending enough would be fair, and I would agree.
  From 1979–80 to 1987–88 there will have been an increase in Government expenditure on the arts in real terms of 9 per cent. That is not a diminution, but an advance, although not a great advance. In the autumn statement this year the arts have done a little better than the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, which has actually suffered a cut.
  I should like to have seen in the Gracious Speech a mention not only of the need for continuing interest in and promotion of the arts but of more money for the arts, along with Sir Claus Moser, Sir Peter Hall and Luke Rittner. But we must recognise that money for the arts today must come from more sources than just the Treasury. It should be coming, and does come, from local government as well as central Government. In fact, local government makes a far bigger contribution towards the arts and the promotion of the arts than do central Government, although admittedly some local authorities spend more than others. The Government and Members of Parliament in their constituencies should be doing what they can to encourage those which spend less to spend more and to catch up with those which are giving a lead in sustaining, promoting and supporting the arts.
  Two other sources for the financial support of the arts should also be mentioned. There is commercial and industrial patronage and private patronage. We should do much more to encourage commercial and industrial patronage and support of the arts than we do. There is an organisation for directing industrial money behind the arts. Hon. Members, the Minister and the Government should give still more encouragement to industry in that respect.
  That might need the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A little tax incentive to give money for the promotion of the arts would go a long way and remove a great deal of our embarrassment as a nation of culture about whether we are giving enough taxpayers' money to the arts. More would be achieved if we could encourage private patronage of the arts by industry, commerce and private patrons too. Many well-known persons, even in the House, have been fortunate enough to make a name outside the House for their generous patronage of the arts.
  One of the features of the progress of art in the United States is that it is due not so much to central Government

  153
  or local or state government as to the great support which artists and all art institutions, from museums, opera houses, theatres and so on downwards, receive from individuals, whether they be people, companies or commercial organisations. What one can see is impressive. One has only to go to the New York city opera to see that it has grown out of its great support from individuals and from industry. As one enters the Metropolitan museum or the museum of modern art in New York one sees a list of the names of individuals who have given a great deal of money.
  Last year in Dallas—a popular place to go to these days; I strongly recommend it—I visited the museum of modern art and I found that it had a Churchill room presented by a Mr. Emery Reeves, a distinguished publisher who published Sir Winston Churchill's war memoirs outside the United Kingdom. No doubt he made a great deal of money but his widow has presented to that gallery his collection of about 60 magnificant impressionist paintings and a large collection of paintings of Sir Winston Churchill. That is an example of how individuals can contribute to the art of a nation. Such a contribution is worth while, not just for the Government or a state such as Texas in the United States, but for an individual.
  Lastly, the consumer, the person who pays to go to the theatre, cinema, opera, museum or wherever, can contribute to the arts. In some places, such as museums, they do not have to pay. But whether for a film, the theatre or the opera, the consumer is prepared to pay for good quality art in all its forms.
  In some ways, we in Britain stand very high in the world, if not at the top, as a nation of culture. We are a nation of artists, actors, great theatre, opera, great modern opera, film producers, television producers, modern radio, literature and drama. We are a nation with a wealth of art and we have much old wealth. Great collections can be found in our museums which we should be proud of. We are also a nation with enormous potential in what I call new art. One has only to think of the names that have emerged in recent years. Recently dead is the greatest sculptor in the world, Henry Moore. There was Benjamin Britten and there are many others such as Graham Greene, who are great writers and poets. It should not be forgotten that we have that place in the world. It should not be forgotten that it needs sustaining because that is how a nation makes its mark on history.
  We have a duty as a Parliament and Government to see that art is sustained. I would like to see more Government money coming into the arts and more local government money being encouraged to promote the arts in the regions, so that people will be proud to say, "In my town there is a great museum." In Newcastle, the opera house has risen from the ashes, as we read only this morning. It has been rebuilt within the past 11 months, having been almost burnt to the ground. A great theatre, built in 1867, has emerged again. Congratulations to Newcastle. It is not the richest part of England, but it has its priorities right. I believe that the theatre will have a great future because it is a great theatre and it is a great thing to see that a region is prepared to do that. It did not come to the Government cap in hand for the money. The money was found locally from the city council and a local industrial patron. That is how it can be done.
  I am sorry that the arts did not get a mention in the Gracious Speech. At least they have had a mention in this debate. They should not be forgotten or go unrecorded.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is typical of those Conservative Members who believe that there should be standards in public affairs and that in certain defined areas of our national life statutory provision and taxation should be an essential element. The House will be poorer for the hon. Gentleman's departure after the next general election because, alas, not every Conservative Member takes the view of national affairs that he does. It may well be that there are considerable differences between the hon. Gentleman and myself and between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) as to the extent of the area that should be within the public realm. We want it to be more comprehensive and much bigger. We want it extended into areas that the hon. Member for Canterbury would not sustain.
  That used to be the old political divide. However, the new political divide that the Government are bringing into the nation is not how large that area shall be but whether it shall be there at all. It is clear that the provisions in the Gracious Speech, and especially the performance of successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Education and Science, show that the frontiers of the state, to use a term which they frequently use, must be rolled back until the areas which, historically, we have said are a matter for community concern, for Parliament or statute, are minimised or swept away —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) confirms my supposition of that philosophical divide which is fundamental. That frontier is, I suspect, more important within the Conservative party than probably any other political frontier in democratic politics today.
  I say that as a preface to my comments about education. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is now presiding over a move in a direction which destroys still further the structure of local government, half of whose activity is in education. He is substituting that with arbitrary centralisation which, in previous years, has been typified only by its association with political systems which are not democratic. He may not realise that he is now in the grip of that process by the statements he has made of late, and by the statement in the Gracious Speech about prospective legislation for education.
  I believe that the Government are acting largely out of ignorance. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is in the Chamber because early in the morning on 21 October he and I had an ill-tempered exchange. It is reported in column 1129 of Hansard. His speech on that occasion illustrated the Government's profound ignorance about education. He pretended that Mr. Butler had been in office for only a few months before the great Education Act 1944. In fact, he had been in office for more than three years. He mixed up the Spens and Norwood reports. They are important reports and he transposed the names, got their dates wrong and did not understand that the Education Act 1944 said nothing about secondary selection and still forms the basis, by statute, of our education system today. I will not go further, but I use those facts to illustrate the Government's ignorance of what they are about. They are about to embark, if the Secretary of State's Bill goes forward, on difficulties which will further undermine the coherence of the education system in this country to the distress of parents and the community.

  155
  The Secretary of State does not understand that education, or learning—that is more important—at any level will operate only in a climate of consent. One cannot force anybody to learn. One has to create a climate of consent that must exist beyond the classroom, in the staffroom, among the governors, in local education authorities and nationwide. Without that consensus at national level, the LEA, the school, or the staffroom, one cannot get it in the classroom. We are now moving into an era where there is a lack of consent at many of those levels. For example, take the technical colleges. In an intervention earlier I asked the Secretary of State whether the colleges will be able to pay above the scale to attract technical teachers, of whom there is a great shortage. We have not heard the answer. The mere fact that he has suggested the colleges is divisive.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State may shake his head. I shall be pleased to give way when I finish this point. Either the existing statutory system, for which he is responsible, is not delivering the goods, in which case he has a responsibility to do something about it within the maintained system—he has not apparently done that—or it is delivering the goods, and the colleges are unnecessary. Which is it? If it is not delivering the goods he should do something within the maintained system. He is now doing something in the semi-private sector because he is reintroducing direct grant status. Direct grant status, whatever its merits or demerits in the past, will not easily work today.
  The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) talked about the need for technical education. All hon. Members who are experts on the private sector of education should ask themselves what happened to Oundle. Were the lessons of Sanderson ever learnt? I suggest that this country would be in a different industrial situation if the lessons of that great headmaster had been learnt. Unfortunately, the private sector in the so-called private-public schools did not learn the lessons that Sanderson discovered. I believe that even Oundle has departed from those principles today.
  I see that the Secretary of State has not chosen to answer my questions about his city technical colleges, so we have to conclude that they are but a cosmetic. There is nothing that he has said and can say to prove the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said that the code of professional obligation is important. We all believe that codes of professional conduct are important: the Government have introduced legislation in that area. Will there be self-regulating organisations in all sorts of professions? I think that we would agree with it in principle because as long as the profession is sufficiently transparent, which some are not, those people are placed in society and the obligation that they are undertaking in exchange for certain privileges is clear.
  I had better tell the House that I spent 14 years as a classroom teacher. I am one of those who believe that there are professional standards, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that some of his conditions are not of that sort. They are not codes of conduct. They are not the criteria of excellence that he would suggest. He has gone into the minutiae of conditions. Were not-the figures that he used, even in his speech today, 1,300 hours and 195 days?
  156
  Anybody who knows anything about teaching and successful education knows that one cannot count the hours spent by a teacher in his or her job. Teachers are not susceptible to such mathematics. They might be made susceptible to it by a lack of good pay, which was the case under my noble Friend Lord Glenamara, then Ted Short, when I had to go on strike against him three months before I came to the House. If one has to be driven into negotiating, it is because the structure is wrong. Now the Secretary of State is repeating errors made by people in industry by forcing people to adopt almost work study methods. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the conditions that he is laying down. I am not against conditions, but they must be realistic.
  Let me show why the Secretary of State is being unrealistic. I refer to substitution. Anyone who has had any experience of teaching knows that if one is asked to substitute unexpectedly for an absent colleague it upsets the rhythm of one's day. Difficulties are created and it lowers the quality of the teaching that one can provide for one's contractual obligation to a class. One of the most difficult things in life is to teach a seven or eight-period day. I did that for many years on end. It is more exhausting than anything that a Member of Parliament can do.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: May I ask my hon. Friend about substitution for someone who is absent? Does he accept that it is all very well substituting for an absentee for a short time, but if that person is absent for a longish time, more permanent arrangements should be made so that the disruption is minimised? That is one of the sticking points.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. It happens in the House — Ministers have to substitute for each other. Substitution for colleagues is a matter of good will and give and take. But suppose that the local education authority does not provide sufficient facilities, with supply teachers, or does not provide for an adequate teacher-pupil ratio, or a reasonable reservoir of staff? The attitude of the teacher in the classroom will be affected.
  The Secretary of State is making substitution for absent colleagues a condition. That will work only provided there are proper surrounding conditions, which are also fair. Judging from the right hon. Gentleman's performance, those conditions will not be provided. Judging from some performances by some local education authorities, they will not provide them, either. Even in the best of local authorities, it is sometimes difficult.
  Let me give the Secretary of State another example. I hope that he is listening and not just reading his papers, because he should listen to practising teachers. A forward education authority provides additional teachers for remedial reading in primary schools. Reference has been made to the standard of English teaching. Let us consider a practical example. Remedial reading in primary schools is fundamental. I know of an education authority that provides generously for additional teachers to go into primary schools, to take pupils out of class and help them with their reading, so that when they get to secondary school they are enthusiastic and not reluctant pupils. But supposing that the teacher, instead of being used for that purpose, is asked to substitute for absent teachers because the authority will not provide supply teachers. The

  157
  remedial pupils will not be seen to. Even a good authority can be upset sometimes by the lack of teachers, and teaching standards decline for that reason.
  If the Secretary of State has his way, the House, not the Burnham committee, will have to discuss such matters. I hope that my practical illustrations will show the Secretary of State that there are matters of which he knows not with which he is dangerously dabbling.
  I now come to remuneration. The Remuneration of Teachers Act, which had its Second Reading on 25 April 1963, was known as Boyle's law. The then Minister of Education, Sir Edward Boyle, disagreed with an agreed Burnham arrangement. It is interesting to see the reasons that he gave to the House in the debate on 25 April 1963. He quoted a letter that he had sent to the chairman of the Burnham committee:
  "I believe that the expansion of the profession, as well as the esteem in which it is held and thus its attraction for potential recruits of high quality, depends quite as much on the opportunities it offers of advancement for the most able, best qualified and most ambitious of its members as on the level at which the more junior are paid."
  Sir Edward Boyle went on to say that the agreement
  "set the balance too much in favour of the teacher already in service and too little in favour of future recruits. It rewarded insufficiently those who have the prime responsibility for organising the life and work of the schools."— [Official Report, 25 April 1963; Vol. 676, c. 429, 431.]
  That is, people outside the classroom. That Act, dubbed Boyle's law, caused enormous resentment in the teaching profession, and is doing so at the moment. If the Secretary of State wants recruits to the teaching profession, the chaos in the past two years, brought about largely by himself and his predecessor, is not the best way to go about it.
  Teachers are not necessarily motivated by money or they would not do the job. In my experience, most people are happy to have reasonable prospects of promotion, a square deal in pay and conditions and, above all, satisfactory conditions in their work so that they can do their job in a way that gives them satisfaction and produces what parents and the community want. That is my experience of most of my colleagues in the teaching profession, of which I am proud to be a member. I do not believe that, in some Pavlovian response, they will jump for high salaries, in a way that might he appropriate in other forms of life, although I doubt that. That is the line management which Sir Edward Boyle tried to impose and which the Secretary of State is taking further, because the differentials proposed by Sir Edward Boyle would be small compared to those that the Secretary of State may impose upon teachers in future. Moreover, the differentials will not only apply this time, because the Secretary of State and his friends clearly have plans for the future.
  I am glad that you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because you may be interested in what a former Speaker, Dr. Horace King, said about the Remuneration of Teachers Bill. As we all know, Dr. Horace King was not given to exaggeration. On 25 April 1963 he spoke about that Bill, and said:
  "This has never happened before in the history of Parliament. The House is not the place to attempt to consider any complex wage structure in any profession or industry. That might be appropriate to a Fascist grand council. It might be the practice inside the Soviet Union. It is beyond the capacity of Members of Parliament to deal with such a detailed and complex issue.
  Moreover, we are not asked to discuss and amend the proposals which the Minister and his advisers have thought
  158
  up at Curzon Street. We are asked to accept them lock, stock and barrel."—[Official Report, 25 April 1963; Vol. 676, c. 504.]
  The same position faces us today. The Secretary of State has said as much, and the Queen's Speech announces another Bill. I have the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1963 before me. A single order could be annulled by resolution of the House — it is, in other words, a negative order—and an order will probably be placed before the House as a result of the proposed Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked who the employer would be. Judging by the way in which history is repeating itself, the Secretary of State wants the local education authority to be the employer when it comes to policing his conditions —whether or not they are fair— while he decides the remuneration. That is clearly what the Secretary of State has in mind. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State questioning what the future will bring, because that is the Secretary of State's only option. He can only introduce a Bill that gives him the power, probably by statutory instrument, to determine unilaterally what the scales should be.
  Thus, the die is cast. Alas, a Bill has been mentioned in the Queen's Speech and the Government have probably gone beyond the point of no return. The Secretary of State can do only one thing to remedy the situation. He must ensure that the advisory committee is seen to be politically disinterested. It should have sufficient professional advice available to it to enable it to make wise recommendations. By professional advice, I do not mean people from universities or institutions of education, but people who know what it means to be on the classroom floor.
  The Secretary of State might yet save the situation if that professional advice is available Year and if the committee makes the sort of wise recommendations that the whole profession would find acceptable. That is the only way in which the profession's confidence could be rekindled and regained. In the Secretary of State's presence, I say that that is the only way in which the nation and Parliament can have confidence in him. His success in this venture is as important for him and his party as it is for the House and the country. If he acts wisely in respect of the proposed legislation — unwise though it is — he may regain the profession's confidence. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "investment" in a monetary way, but ingesting in regaining the profession's confidence is the only way of enabling our system of national education to work as the country wants it to.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Twelve other hon. Members have expressed an interest in the debate. If hon. Members speak at great length, it will not be possible for them all to speak. Perhaps hon. Members will do their calculations.
  6.14 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I shall concentrate on education, and, like him, I spent many years involved in education,—in my case in a poor inner-city area. But I think that what we have in common probably ends there.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have announced his commitment to repealing the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and the

  159
  Burnham machinery. That machinery has now been thoroughly discredited. We shall have to have a new arrangement for settling schoolteachers' pay, duties and conditions of service. It must be beyond doubt that we need well-motivated, properly rewarded teachers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South would have liked to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a generous settlement, but, as my right hon. Friend has already done that, the hon. Gentleman found himself a little short of advice for him.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South also referred to a need for a climate of consent. But what sort of climate of consent is being allowed to parents and pupils after yet another year of threatened industrial action? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I should like to read to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a letter that I received today from one of my constituents. It says:
  "Apparently the teachers want a 50 per cent. pay increase. In addition, they're prepared to disrupt pupils' education for a third time and set the most appalling example of greed and anarchy to impressionable young people. My own 14-year-old twins face the GCSE exams in the second year of the system's existence. They're already so fed up with the extent of the third year of teachers' strikes that I have great difficulty in persuading them to work or hold any respect for these unprofessional people, who bleat that society does not treat them as professionals. That is not surprising when they, unlike three million others, have a job and work. I have got no time for this kind of talk. Salaries from £8,000 to £20,000 are above the national average and are certainly higher than the amount we live on here. Teachers have on average to work 6·6 hours a day for 196 days. You, Mrs Bottomley, I am pleased to say, and I work over 12 hours a day 365 days of the
  I do not know how my constituent knows that, but she is correct. The letter continues:
  "You will forgive me, I know, but I feel so angry, so boiling mad, that if I met a teacher tomorrow I'd have to be restrained. I am trained as a further education teacher myself but I prefer to be self-employed and less well-off. We are so exasperated that we dare not discuss this issue at home because we all become furious in our frustration. It eclipses almost every other concern about which I have ever written. Can you relay this utter desperation to Mr. Baker please, and urge him to do his utmost for peace in our schools."
  That was written by a mother in my constituency where, for the most part, the teachers have acted with great restraint. We talk about the professionalism of teachers, but it must be the height of irresponsibility to take action that jeopardises the future of young people at a time when they need their education and training perhaps more than at any other stage, especially when such a generous settlement has been offered.
  Some of the union leaders refer to their work in the language of the National Union of Mineworkers or of the National Graphical Association, but they are speaking not about coal or newspapers but about children. Mary Warnock, in her Dimbleby lecture two years ago, referred to the growing lack of respect for teachers that led to positive suspicion. The action and threatened action that we have seen during the past two years has done little to restore that respect.
  Furthermore, 40 per cent. of youngsters leave school with no formal qualifications and with very little to show for their time at school. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) referred to many initiatives to broaden the curriculum and to make it more
  160
  relevant to those youngsters. We do very well for our most able pupils. Our universities and polytechnics are among the best in the world. There are 80,000 more students in higher education that there were when the Conservative party came into office. A record percentage in that age group is now receiving higher education. But over the years we have fallen down over the needs of those youngsters who are not high fliers, and it takes time to put the machinery in place that can recognise and then meet those needs. Remarkably, more than I million youngsters have now participated in youth training schemes, which shows what can be done for youngsters who do not respond to a traditional, academic form of education. However we debate the origins of our present system, some would say that whenever we moved from grammar schools and secondary moderns to comprehensives, somehow all education became a watered down version of grammar school education and that we forgot about the vocational contribution.
  That is why I welcome the many initiatives to recognise this group of people. There is the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, the technical and vocational education initiative, the certificate of pre-vocational education and, above all, the GCSE, a much broader exam that offers youngsters the opportunity to show what they know and understand rather than simply what they have managed to learn by heart.
  It is entirely unsatisfactory to resent the proposed city technology colleges on the ground that they do not fit into the natural, overall state monopoly of educational provision. We can challenge the fact that there will be only 20 such colleges, but to challenge the proposal is a denial of the seriousness of the situation in many inner-city areas and others where resources are not the only key in education. In London, twice as much per head is spent on pupils as is spent, for example, in my own constituency, as a result of which my constituency is 92nd in the league of 96 education authorities. The parents who live in inner-city areas will respond to the new initiative, the enthusiasm, the commitment and the greater autonomy offered by CTCs.
  In education, the endless myth is that resources are the key. I am delighted that in the autumn statement so much more money has been found for education, but we should remember that over the years much research has suggested that results are related to much more basic issues than the amount of money invested. We need only look to Japan, which achieves very much better results even with classes of twice our size, to wonder about our fundamental assumptions.
  A recent article in The Economist suggested that a British Government that greatly boosted educational spending would be pouring champagne into the Thames unless and until British teachers demanded higher standards from their children and more from children of all abilities.
  Class size is a further myth. There is no evidence or research to suggest that a reduction in class sizes improves educational output. In fact, we have a record low pupil-teacher ratio and record expenditure per head on pupils. I welcome those successes, but it is an absolute myth for teachers to think that education will be improved if they insist on a reduction in class sizes.
  Various research into achieved results in schools looked at inner London comprehensives and compared delinquency rates. That found that, even allowing for

  161
  expenditure, social background, income and ability, different schools had dramatically different delinquency rates.
  Michael Rutter, in his book "Fifteen thousand hours" —the number of hours that children spend in compulsory education — compared 12 inner London comprehensives and again found dramatic differences, where the less able pupils in one comprehensive did very much better than the brightest in another. That was after allowing for all the socio-economic variants. Surprise, surprise, he found that what mattered was the ethos of the school, the calibre of the head and the quality of the teachers. We must grapple once and for all with those fundamental issues. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was so right to get to grips with initial teacher training and to make further provision for in-service training. That is the secret of success in education.
  Good management of schools cannot be underestimated. Much mention is made of the HMI report and shortages of books or equipment, but, as is well known, in the majority of cases this was due to lack of management. The deployment of resources and the deployment of teaching staff is absolutely fundamental. In looking at effective use of resources, one of the least effective uses is the teaching of empty desks. Until people are prepared to grasp the nettle on school closures, we shall continue to have a remarkably wasteful provision of education. I accept that it requires all of us as hon. Members to be prepared to face up to school closure issues in our own constituencies.
  The other key variable in education and its output is the confidence of parents, and I have already said enough to suggest that the further threatened action by teachers can only further jeopardise the confidence of parents in schools. This year's Education Act greatly enhanced the role of parents within schools and gave them more power on governing bodies.
  Last night I attended the election of parent governors at one of the largest and most successful sixth form colleges in my constituency, and I am pleased to take this opportunity officially to say that this sixth form college provides education that is as good as is found in any school that I have visited, he it in the private or public sector. For a college with more than 1,000 students, the parent governor was elected by 19 votes to 17. We shall have to consider how to encourage parents to face up to their responsibilities on school governing bodies now that they have the right to be heard and to make a contribution.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East did much to carry us forward in broadening the curriculum. His White Paper "Better Schools" said that the curriculum should be broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated—four key concepts that will take time to implement.
  We are going through a time when parents and pupils increasingly feel betrayed and angry and are suffering from a sense of despair. If we get over this hurdle and implement the generous offer to teachers, I believe that once more we can move forward to an education system that provides the right education for all pupils, regardless of their ability, so that they can fulfil their potential and be prepared for the world of work and citizenship. Essentially there is, I believe, a fundamentally strong belief
  162
  in all parts of the House that it is shocking that once again the teachers should be threatening industrial action in the light of such a generous offer from the Secretary of State.
  There are youngsters who have faced more than two years of disruption, at a time when they have needed education in a way that they have never needed it before. Parents are angry, children betrayed and local employers and ratepayers mystified. There have been measures to improve initial teacher education and in-service training, and there have been measures to develop the curriculum, to broaden the examination system, to pay attention to those who traditionally have been failed by our school system and to enhance the role of parents. The autumn statement contained a further commitment of extra resources to education. Dismantling the Burnham machinery is a necessary first step, along with many other initiatives, to restoring to a profession the respect which traditionally it had been able to take for granted and upon which our children's futures depend.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Ken Weetch: I wish to make a short contribution on the Gracious Speech, and I begin by saying that, since the Secretary of State announced his proposal for salary levels—and they have been directly comparable with those that resulted from the Coventry negotiations—I have taken opinion in a number of large and primary schools as to who thinks what about the salaries. The consensus that has emerged is that people are for or against various proposals depending on whether or not they gain. The issue of principle is that, whereas a collegiate structure with long scales and few post differentials emerged from the Coventry negotiations, the Secretary of State has proposed a system with more differentials and more fragmentation for posts of responsibility. That has been the issue of principle in this salary dispute from the start.
  The Secretary of State says that he will pay the money and provide the increase only if there is a set of contractual obligations. Previously, those obligations were listed under 19 headings, but in his speech he said that they were down to 13. Whatever the figure, the principle is the same.
  I have rather a different opinion about contractual obligations. I was a schoolmaster for 10 years and I trained teachers for 10 years, but I have been a trade unionist all my life. If I am a trade unionist and I am negotiating, I prefer a contract and a rule book to none because that is how negotiations take place in the trade union world. Although I would prefer a hard and fast contract, I would bargain hard for an agreement.
  Although there is a case in principle for combining discussions about money and conditions of work, the Secretary of State is combining them, not for that reason, but because of the recent disruption as a result of a complete collapse of morale in the profession which he seeks to prevent teachers from causing again. He wants a legalistic contract to batten down the hatches and stop them doing that again. I warn the Secretary of State that peace in our schools will be achieved by raising the morale in the profession and paying teachers reasonably well.
  I am surprised that, although the Government have spent six years talking about financial rectitude, they have suddenly found all the money that they are now scattering here and there. The teachers' negotiations are no different from negotiations in other sections of the economy, yet the

  163
  money has been found. It could have been found two years ago if a general election had been that bit nearer, and all this shot and shell could have been avoided.
  All the trouble ensued because of the serious deterioration in the teachers' position. The Houghton award fixed a reasonable level of salaries, but that deteriorated. We have not had peace in our schools during the past two years because the negotiators were trying to find a settlement by pushing around an inadequate sum. No balance or consensus could have rectified that.
  The Secretary of State is about to make serious strategic mistakes in his general line of policy. He is about to impose an agreement which suits his book, if no agreement emerges from the negotiations. That is ill advised, high handed and peremptory, and he should not do so. Before he takes more power for himself, he should come to the House and argue his proposals for the reconstruction of the Burnham committee, so that we can contest the likely future power structure. He is altering the rules of the game before anything has been settled by debate in this House about the long-term structure of power.
  I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State's aim of reforming the Burnham machinery. It badly needs reform. It is a set of idiosyncratic procedures with a mystique all of its own. In the past a global sum has been fixed and if it has been exceeded in the negotiations, the hassle has come afterwards. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) that when we win the general election he will be faced with the weaknesses of the Burham machinery and we shall have to face the problems, so we may as well do so now.
  Mr. Spearing: If the Bill is passed, there will be not a Burnham committee but a Baker advisory committee.
  Mr. Weetch: I understand that there is to be an advisory committee at an interim stage, but that there is to be a new permanent structure. I was a professional negotiator for schoolmasters at one time and I would prefer the Government as paymaster to be present in the negotiations from the beginning so that we would know whom we were talking to and who provides the money. If I were in government and the one who paid the piper, I would not like to call all the tunes, but at least I should like to determine some of the notes. As a trade unionist I would prefer to come face to face with reality, so if the Government were the paymaster for the most part, I would rather negotiate with the paymaster from the beginning.
  In my lifetime I have called the Burnham machinery various names. I shall not do so now, but merely say that when the Burnham committee has its funeral there will not be many mourners. I for one shall not be present.
  The Secretary of State must answer for some basic mistakes in his approach. He is pursuing a policy of divide and rule and, although he may succeed in the short term, he will damage the teaching profession in the long term. If he imposes a scale of salaries, it will be a recipe for continued decline in morale. It is better to take the slower course of waiting for painstaking negotiations to succeed than to go for a quick fix. As a politician of long standing he will know that it is much better for a defective, democratic decision to emerge than to impose a solution, even if that solution is more idealistic and suitable.
  164
  The Secretary of State's actions show that he has no confidence in the profession. Unless morale in the profession improves quickly, we shall continue to have trouble in the nation's schools.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Not surprisingly I particularly welcome this debate on the Loyal Address and the courage and determination shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in all that he has done to try to resolve what has been a harrowing two years of union disruption.
  There is no doubt that the cynical approach of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has greatly damaged my right hon. Friend's excellent proposals. John Pearman and other employers needed some guidance. We have seen them in Nottingham on television, showing off and saying that they care greatly about the problems that they face. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Durham, North could have given a lead or taken the initiative and told them that they had the best that they would ever get and that they should resolve their differences now. Unfortunately, it is very rare for any member of the Labour party to tell the unions what to do —it is always the unions telling the Labour party what to do, because they are the puppet's masters.
  So far there has been no debate about the children. We have talked about parents, teachers and parties, but the children seem to have been forgotten, particularly by Labour Members. After two years, even if there is a speedy resolution now, no one will have won, and that is a tragedy for all the children who have had to go in for O and A-levels. That is a great disappointment, particularly when some of the unions have been so bloodyminded in refusing to cover at lunchtime, so that children have been sent home. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is aware, many children have their only decent meal of the day at lunchtime, but they have been denied that by inter-union wrangling.
  I have had a number of letters from constituents complaining about the GCSE, not because it is not a good examination — it is, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on that—but because teachers have not done enough preparation to teach the new syllabuses correctly. That was neglect on their part. They knew that the examination was coming up, but because of their inter-union wrangling they refused to accept that fact, and they have had to catch up, and they have not been particularly successful in doing so.
  I am particularly pleased that we are to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and thereby dismantle Burnham, because all teachers want to be treated as professionals, and should therefore expect to be paid by results. The results are the conditions and the way in which they show their professional approach and carry out their caring activities in the school. My brother-in-law is a teacher and I know the duties that he has to do. He enjoys his job, and there is no doubt that it is a calling to become a teacher in today's life, and even if one is paid badly, one does it because one loves one's job.
  In the past two days there have been meetings at ACAS simply because too many unions represent the teaching profession. That may be a simplistic approach, but I would have liked to see far fewer unions. Because of the inter-union wrangling, one cannot get the two sides to agree on anything. I have a long-lasting hope that one day there will

  165
  be a single professional union to represent all teachers throughout the teaching profession. There will then be proper professional negotiations instead of what has happened, with the No. 2s in both cases—the NUT and the NAS-UWT—perhaps trying to take over from Fred Jarvis and Fred Smithies to get as much coverage as they can in the media in order to fight a union battle. Because the NAS/UWT is running behind, Nigel de Gruchy has to claim that he is representing all the teachers. Many of them come from Leicester, and they were never consulted before he took this unlawful action. I only wish that pay was docked for that action. It was irresponsible, and the second in command does not always represent all the members. I should like to see all those members come under the rules of the trade unions, so that all members are balloted genuinely.
  A couple of weeks ago I went to a school in my constituency and found ballot papers lying around the school common room. Anybody could have picked one up and used it, even if he was not a member of the union. I do not believe that the union had genuine, fair and private ballots. I want to see proof that any future industrial action will take place only after a proper ballot of the members, so that the union can speak with absolute authority and with the support of its members.
  In 1985 the examination results were good. Many people would say that that was remarkable, in view of the union unrest. The point that the unions miss is that parents, above all, want to see their children improve. They all value the education that can be given in schools, and they acknowledge how professional the teachers are. The majority of teachers did not want to take action and were content to work the extra hours, and the 19 teachers' duties set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are correct, and were being carried out in the first place. I congratulate those teachers who defied the unions and were concerned to ensure that the children came first. I congratulate those children on doing so well in their exams.
  The next problem is that the offer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was never seen by many union members. There has been criticism of my right hon. Friend for putting advertisements in the national papers outlining the offer. It is only right that we should refer strongly to that offer. It is not just a case of teachers' pay being increased on average by 16·4 per cent. by 1 October 1987, with the first 8·2 per cent. increase payable from 1 January 1987 and the second by 1 October 1987. The new nine-point incremental scale, rising from £7,900 to £12,700, puts the Government's money where their mouth is. It should reassure all teachers that they can get a higher pay scale than they thought possible.
  I have heard rumours that some of the teachers' unions never expected to get such an offer, and I know that they are particularly grateful to the Main committee in Scotland. The five additional above-scale allowances go from £900 to £1,800 to £2,800 to £3,800 and to £4,800. We are paying professionals a professional salary for doing a professional job and for looking after our children and ensuring that they get the best possible tuition.
  The salaries for deputy heads are rising from £14,750 to £22,250, and those for head teachers from £15,500 to £30,500. That shows the Government's commitment to resolving a terrible dispute and to paying not just by results but for fulfilled obligations, while recognising the important role of teachers. I said at the time of the offer
  166
  that it was generous and I hope that hon. Members will agree—certainly the Conservative party will. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. I should have thought that the matter would be resolved as quickly as possible so that teachers could look forward to peace in our schools and so that our children could start to benefit.
  Such good salaries require good contracts, which should be binding and clear and precise in defining the important duties of teachers. Many teachers have said that those duties have been taken for granted by the Government. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are recognising those duties by listing them. What is wrong with saying that teachers have to be available to be called upon for extra duties and that they must accept that teachers' work cannot be carried out only within school time and on the school premises? Many important points are set out in my right hon. Friend's letter to teachers, but I shall not go through them all as I should like to think that we know them.
  It seems only right that teachers should consult and liaise with parents, attending meetings arranged for that purpose. Parent-teacher associations are a natural part of the system. Participating in staff meetings and marking tip inside or outside schools has always happened, as has carrying out an appropriate share in such administrative and organisational tasks as flow naturally from those duties. A contribution is demanded to the appointment, induction, professional development and assessment of junior colleagues. One would want to help new entrants to the school teaching staff. Co-ordinating the work of all other teachers is required, as are supervising ancillary staff, handling pastoral arrangements, looking after the curriculum and evaluating in-service training, and advising and co-operating with colleagues on teaching programmes.
  Another important matter is the setting, marking and recording of the work of pupils. I should have thought that teachers would he proud to do such duties. The new pay scale will reward the hard work of teachers and means that for 39 weeks they will work 33·5 hours per week. It is a new pay scale, and the Government are making a generous and substantial offer of 16·4 per cent. The new contract will give teachers a reward and encourage them to perform their duties in an even better way than most of them do. The most important duty is looking after the classes of their absent colleagues and meeting parents. I understand the reasons why many teachers take time off, but it seems right that other teachers should be prepared to join in and help. The problem is that, because some of the teachers belong to different unions, they do not dare touch the work.
  Unions always address their members as brothers and sisters and send fraternal greetings to each other, and I should have thought they could help each other. This is not a matter of not understanding union life, because I worked for Robert Maxwell for two and a half years in the print business, and I fully understand the different rules in different unions. Surely we could get all the unions to work together.
  We cannot let this never-ending round of negotiations flounder on and on. The children need to see our schools return to normal working, and we need an early and lasting conclusion. This is a generous offer, and it is not a question of strident NUT reactions. I have here the latest

  167
  news release from the NUT. It is dated November and is No. 24, and is headlined: "No easy options". The option is very much "Accept now and shut up." It says:
  "The responsibility borne by the negotiators at Nottingham is a heavy one indeed."
  They could have fooled me. They seem to have talked and talked and nothing has come out of the talks except hot air and a union battle about control.
  The news release says that my right hon. Friend's offer is imposed. Yes, it will be. The NUT says that it will be disastrous, but I have talked to the teachers in Leicester and they do not seem to think that it will be disastrous. The news release says that it will
  "alienate, not motivate, all teachers."
  It will reward and not upset teachers. It says it will
  "undervalue not reward the classroom teacher."
  The figures that I have quoted prove that the teacher will be valued even more.
  The news release says that the offer will
  "divide, not unite, the profession,"
  but we are recognising the profession as such and paying professional rates for the job. Surely that will unite teachers. It says that the offer will
  "impair, not enhance teachers professionalism."
  If we are paying more, surely we are enhancing the role of the teacher. It says the offer will
  "destroy, not encourage collective bargaining."
  The unions should have got together and had one person to represent them all. That is the kind of collective bargaining that I would look for in proper negtiations.
  The news release says that the offer will
  "prevent, not advance or permit advances in teachers' conditions of service".
  It is offering better promotion prospects for all teachers and giving them a guaranteed career structure with additional promotional posts for the additional pay. For those reasons there is a lot in the offer for teachers.
  The Government have raided the Treasury for these extra funds. We have seen the autumn statement. It has been discussed and hon. Members will know that provision for the Department of Education and Science is up 15 per cent. in the 1986–87 round. Some £460 million is being made available in 1987–88 as part of a package to end the long running teachers' dispute.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said, we are to get 20 city technology colleges in urban areas. We are to get one in Leicester, but I am a little bit worried about where it will be located. It does not look as if it will be in my constituency. I believe in these colleges, and they will help my constituents. In Leicester we all work together in education and training. My constituents will be able to go to the college, because I gather that the catchment area will be wider than originally planned.
  Perhaps when my right hon. Friend reads this part of my speech he will look for a different location. There is a good school in the area, called Judge Meadow community college, and the head teacher of that school supports this plan. I should like the college to be located there. I look forward to local industry coming forward with additional funds to encourage the location of the college in my constituency rather than in any other Leicester constituency.
  I look forward to the 18 and 19-year-olds entering higher education. More and more are already going in, but
  168
  this is a great commitment by the Government, as indeed is spending per pupil, which is now at record levels. In 1985–86 it has risen by 17 per cent. in real terms from 1978–79, and capital spending on education remains broadly at present levels. We know what is happening to the science budget, and we know, because we have a university in Leicester, that money for the universities is to increase by £61 million in 1987–88 and by £72 million in 1988–89. Extra money is coming forward to show that our schools and colleges are being properly looked after by this caring Government. The provision is welcome, as indeed is my right hon. Friend's speech.
  Pupil-teacher ratios were mentioned earlier in the debate. I have always had a special interest in Leicester and like to know whether it does better or worse than any other part of Britain. I look upon Leicester as the centre and the heart of England. Leicester does extremely well in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. In primary schools we have a pupil-teacher ratio of 21·6. In secondary schools the ratio is even better. We must remember, of course, that rolls are falling and that the numbers of teachers are also falling.
  The commitment by the Government to ensure that we have the best people for the job is guaranteed by the new offer. I am fed up with hearing about this dispute going on and on. As soon as the dispute is mentioned many people turn off the television or turn down the radio. The dispute is not of the Government's making, but arises because of inter-union wrangling. The pay is there, the money has been found and we are committed to providing the best possible education for our children so that they can get the best qualifications to go out into the world. It is not always a happy world, but it is very competitive, and children need qualifications if they are to get real and lasting jobs.
  For those reasons I support the Government and look forward to seeing a speedy resolution of this dispute. Such a resolution is in the interests of the children, and we must never forget them.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The last time that I followed the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) was probably when he made his maiden speech, and I preferred that speech to the tone of his speech today. I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman because he was dragged in by the Whips to make a contribution to this debate.
  Before I come to the topic of education, I should like to speak about the reference in the Queen's Speech to the need for continued co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland through the Anglo-Irish agreement. This may not be the time to dwell too long on this matter but inevitably, as long as the shadow of what became known as the Stalker affair dominates relations between Britain and Ireland, and as long as we have the deception that the chief constable of west Yorkshire, Mr. Sampson, was brought in to sabotage Mr. Stalker's inquiry into the RUC and specifically to prevent charges being laid against members of the RUC, enormous damage will be done to co-operation between Britain and Ireland. It is now necessary for the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make sure that there is the fullest possible public inquiry into these affairs. Without that, there will be no acceptance of what has been said to have taken place.

  169
  Perhaps I could now come to education. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, East, I am interested in the announcement about city technology colleges. It is interesting that the Secretary of State should choose to make the announcement not to Parliament or to any formally constituted body of consultation but to the Conservative party conference, an audience which even the Government's most fervent admirers would not see as hypercritical in any sense of the word. The point has been made that, if the Secretary of State had decided to close a school in the manner that local authorities close them or to open a school in an inner-city area, he would have had to go through an exhaustive consultation process and the matter would have come to the Department of Education and Science for decision. But because the Secretary of State is far more concerned with the cosmetics and the politics of education than with the reality of the education of our children, he chose to announce the colleges at his party's conference—precisely because he had an eye on the ballot box and not on educational success.
  The city technology college concept is fundamentally misguided in the constituency that I represent. Therefore, the Secretary of State must spend more time upon explaining the purpose of those colleges to Members of Parliament. If the Secretary of State insists that this recently announced gimmick is the solution. to the education problems of this nation, either he implicitly accepts the very real criticisms that have been made of education and of the way in which his predecessors have run education in Britain or he is saying that there is nothing wrong with the education that is provided in the inner cities and he has turned his attention to the poor performance of pupils in inner-city schools, not because of the teachers in those schools but because of the under-funding and poor morale. The city technology colleges will not improve poor morale in inner-city schools. Furthermore, they will not improve the education that is provided for those who continue to attend local education authority schools. Nor will they solve the problem of local authority under-funding because of the cuts in their budgets.
  The city of Manchester is spending about £1,400 upon the education of each of its pupils. That has to be compared with the £2,000 that is spent on each pupil at Manchester grammar school. It is not surprising that Manchester grammar school claims a record of educational excellence. Although that is socially divisive, the results are there to be seen, given the narrow base upon which Manchester grammar school founds its educational policy. Other schools in Manchester cannot compete with Manchester grammar school because they are underfunded. Furthermore, the standards in those schools will not improve, because the better pupils will be creamed off into the city technology colleges, as will the better teachers. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has provided a solution that bears no relation to the educational needs of inner cities, or to the under-funding of education in the inner-city areas. That will not improve the morale of the teaching profession.
  During the last seven years this Government have turned their back on the education of pupils in state schools. Instead, they have resorted to gimmicks, such as the assisted places scheme and the city technology colleges. Recently, the Secretary of State announced an increase in the amount of money that is to be provided for education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr.
  170
  Radice) has often illustrated graphically, most of that money is not new money. The Secretary of State is simply making up the money that would have been spent by the local authorities if their budgets had not been cut.
  However, in so far as new money has been provided, the Secretary of State is not addressing the real issues that have to be faced by those who live in the inner cities. He has not addressed the fundamental problem of motivation there. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) referred to the lack of motivation of pupils because of disruption to the general certificate of secondary education courses on account of the potential industrial action by teachers. That lack of motivation is as nothing compared with the lack of motivation suffered by pupils in my area. They know that most of them will be unemployed when they leave school at 16. With unemployment rates as high as 70 per cent. in the Moss Side and Hulme areas of Manchester, they know what to expect when they leave school. No city technology college, no fiddling about on the margins of education, will make a jot of difference to their future or their motivation. Until the Government provide work for those pupils when they leave school, they will have no motivation, nor will morale among the teachers be improved.
  The debate has been dominated by education, apart from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) who referred to the National Health Service. I intend to spend a few minutes on the National Health Service, which I hope will please the present incumbent of the Treasury Bench, the Minister for Social Security. He must feel a little out of joint because of the direction that this debate has taken so far. In particular, I should like to refer to the hospital service, which is outside his own direct area of responsibility.
  Manchester royal infirmary, St. Mary's hospital and the Manchester royal eye hospital—hospitals of more than regional significance— are threatened with a most severe financial crisis. The central Manchester health authority is talking about closing two wards. Doctors have described that proposal as a threat to the future of those hospitals as teaching hospitals. That is not the rhetoric of party politicians; it was said by doctors at Manchester royal infirmary.
  Today I have seen a copy of a letter in which the unit manager at St. Mary's hospital, one of the major maternity hospitals in the region, has invited all those over the age of 50 to apply for early retirement, as that would stave off the possibility of enforced redundancy for other members of staff. Those redundancies would fundamentally threaten the health care that is provided for the people who live in the centre of Manchester, and who, because of the environment in which they live, already suffer the greatest health problems.
  We have already invited the Secretary of State to come and see for himself, but we have received no reply to our invitation. We have also asked the Secretary of State to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament, and I am sure he will. However, will the Minister for Social Security ensure that the message reaches the Secretary of State that this is no mere scaremongering, or simply a party political exchange across the Floor of the House? The crisis that faces those hospitals must be resolved by the injection of new money. The Secretary of State must take this matter seriously. We expect serious answers to our questions.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: A year or so ago Andy Warhol said that we would all be famous for 15 minutes in the future. Having listened to the Secretary of State for Education and Science today, it seems that he had his 15 minutes some time ago. He blew his second chance. He will not be the leader of the Conservative party. The post will be readvertised tomorrow. However, I do not want to digress so early in my speech.
  The country into which I was born was England. England is now a grotty place. To its everlasting shame, the majority of its people have decided that the nostrums which will govern their future lives will be callowness, vulgarity, indifference and selfishness. England can be divided, like Gaul, into three: the north, the south and the inner cities of the south and the north. People in the south have come to despise those who live in the north and in the inner cities—in places like Hackney and St. Paul's in Bristol. Partly through fear and partly through greed, people in the south have become contemptuous of the way in which people in the north and those in the inner cities dress, eat and live. They are also contemptuous because many of those people do not have jobs.
  I feel only pity for the majority of the people who live in the country into which I was born. Over the past eight years they have turned their backs on Christian and humanist philosophies and instead have taken their lead from the Government. It is not that I begrudge those who live in the south their yachts, Porsches, yuppie houses and wicker baskets, or their muesli for breakfast or philistine culture. But when style, fashion and consumerism take over from substance and values, it is clear that England's culture has suffered an irreversible decline.
  England has never been a nation of idealists. However, the fact that this country has moved during the past eight years from being a nation of pragmatists to a nation of chancers is both profound and tragic.
  The most sinister development—this brings me to the subject of this debate — which shines through the philosophy behind the Queen's Speech is that education, culture and understanding, if allowed to spread too far and too deep, will pose problems for a Government who intend our society to be structured, hierarchical and ordered. Hence one mandarin from the Department of Education and Science has written to his fellow mandarins:
  "There has to be selection because we are beginning to create aspirations which society cannot match … When young people drop off the educational production line and cannot find work which meets their abilities then we are only creating frustration with perhaps disturbing social consequences … People must be educated once more to know their place."
  That is the view of a senior mandarin at the Department of Education and Science.
  Against that background it is no wonder that art and art education are being increasingly threatened by the Government. The death of monetarism, announced in the autumn statement, certainly has not been followed by the rebirth of art and art education in the Queen's Speech.
  The lead comes, as it always does in society, from the very top. I believe that any fair-minded Member of the House would accept that we have one of the most uncultured and uncivilised Prime Ministers that the country has ever known. A couple of years ago I said in a debate in the House— there was no challenge from
  172
  either side — that our Prime Minister could not distinguish between a drawing by Matisse and a Rupert Bear cartoon. Nothing has changed.
  For my evidence I do not call upon the words of New Socialist or Marxism Today —I turn to the words of Harpers & Queen, a magazine which, in my view, every Member of the House should read regularly. I have my up- to-date copy and I wish to quote from page 198. Terence O'Neill is a distinguished British photographer. He knows a bit about the arts and he knows a bit about people. He has been photographing the Prime Minister and Mrs. Glenys Kinnock. He says of the Prime Minister:
  "When you photograph Mrs. Thatcher there's nothing to photograph. She's just a hairstyle — she's just a political image … Mrs. Thatcher has made 10 Downing Street into nothing. She has turned it into a dreary place … She's made the whole place a backdrop for a dummy. And as for that dummy husband Denis … you just try and photograph him."
  Then Mr. Terence O'Neill talks about Mrs. Glenys Kinnock in glowing and happy terms.
  When one reads the words of the photographer and the person who wrote the article in the magazine—which is far from Socialist, far from Left-wing, and far from radical, important though it is — one comes to the inevitable conclusions, first, that Margaret Thatcher is the worst Prime Minister that we have had and, secondly, that Glenys Kinnock is the best Prime Minister that we will never get.
  Mr. Whitfield: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 41, I believe, it is the rule of the House that speeches must be relevant and not boring. Some Opposition Members may find this speech amusing, but it is certainly irrelevant to the serious matter of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have heard some things which may be discourteous but, so far, I have heard nothing which is out of order.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) can sit here with his contempt for culture, decency and values—the kind of things which lead civilisation forward. The Prime Minister —
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): Since the hon. Gentleman explains his sense of good taste and culture by referring to his avid readership of Harpers & Queen, I scarcely think he is in a position to lecture any other hon. Member about taste. He has made distasteful and objectionable remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and will no doubt make similar remarks about others, but his judgment is of little concern to me. It is the judgment of the country, twice delivered in 1979 and 1983 and to be delivered no doubt some time in the next 18 months, which will determine what the people of this country think on this matter.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I think it is unhappy that I have drawn the Minister out — look how I have touched him. I dared to quote an eminent photographer about the lack of culture of the Prime Minister and he is in a tiz. He is pathetically looking for some further patronage than the pathetic little position that he holds at the moment.
  The Prime Minister leads a Government who have utter contempt for the future of our children. The Government seek to play down our children's aspirations and wish to

  173
  make them feel guilty, as I have no doubt the hon. Member for Dewsbury thinks they ought to be, about loving beautiful things, interpreting their own imagination and stretching their minds. The Conservatives have a contempt for that type of thing, but there is no contempt on these Benches for looking for some form of Utopia, some kind of imaginative and creative future for the children of our nation. That is the relevance of the contribution that I am making to the debate. It is that which has upset the Minister and the little Back Bencher over there.
  I will give three examples of the kind of philistinism that worries me and worries many other people in our society. First, in eight years, the Government have destroyed freestanding art colleges in our country and wrecked a tradition of teaching art which had hitherto been admired throughout the world. Almost the last of our art colleges in Britain is the Wimbledon school of art—a place of enormous excellence. It is about to be merged with Kingston polytechnic. Distinguished people in high places have asked why. They have pleaded with the Government not to do it. Those people include Roger de Grey, president of the Royal Academy of Arts, Peter Blake, Patrick George, Slade professor of fine art, Sir Peter Hall, director of the National Theatre, Patrick Heron, the well-known painter, Philip King, professor of sculpture, Royal College of Art, David Puttnam, Jocelyn Stevens, director of the Royal College of Art, Roy Strong, director of Victoria and Albert museum, and John Tooley, general director of the Royal Opera House. All that the hon. Member for Dewsbury can say of those 10 distinguished people among the great and good of our country, who practically reflect civilisation itself, is that they are irrelevant to a debate in the House. What kind of crude philistines have we become?
  Secondly, the National Advisory Body—I hope the hon. Member for Dewsbury has learnt something about the National Advisory Body—has slashed fine art places —20 per cent. across the country at large and 50 per cent. at the Kent institute which covers the colleges of Rochester, Canterbury and Maidstone. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—a distinguished artist—made a speech earlier on about the arts, before the hon. Member for Dewsbury was in the Chamber. The Canterbury and Maidstone schools of art got together today to make a statement on what they consider to be a ruthless campaign on the part of the NAB and the Government against fine art students in colleges.
  At the Kent institute—it is not in some Socialist part of Britain but in the heartland of Tory Britain—only 1 per cent. of all the students will be reading fine art; if one includes higher courses, only 18 per cent. will be reading fine art. That is a ridiculous balance and the Government owe us an explanation. Only 1 per cent. of the graduates in Britain read fine art, yet the Government are slashing the numbers down and down. The hon. Member for Dewsbury uses that fact for a cheap cynical intervention.
  Thirdly, the modern philistinism which governs the Conservative party relates to its painful ignorance and mendacious intent to split off those interested in design in the world of art from those who are interested in fine art. It is monstrous. We cannot have designers who do not have a basic training in fine art, especially when designers are crucial to industry.
  The Government seem intent on wrecking an enormous and proud tradition in Britain, and we have not had many protests from Conservative Members about what is
  174
  happening. The Government do not appear to listen to complaints about the new philistinism in Britain. No one listens very much to the Minister who has responsibility for the arts following the share-out in the autumn statement. If we exclude the sum that is being spent on the British Library building, the increase in expenditure on the arts is a miserable 2·68 per cent. Instead, we should be thinking of doubling total expenditure on the arts
  The Minister with responsibilities for the arts reminds me of a piece of sculpture that the artist wants to bolt into the floor so as to make it something which is fixed, powerless and mute. The Minister appears to have no strong voice in the Cabinet. Even the godfather of monetarism, the current chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William Rees-Mogg, can no longer stomach it. It appears that he has gone off to his Somerset retreat complaining that the Arts Council is not getting a fair deal and will not receive one next year. I even read articles about 20 per cent. cuts for national theatres and opera companies, and the possibility of one of our four major companies having to close. That may not happen, and I am sure that it will not, because the people in the areas concerned will fight back against such philistinism.
  Whether it is for art students or working-class people, the victims of high-rise flats, those who live in badly designed housing which straddle lorry routes, those who see brick walls through their windows and those who have sitting rooms with no books in them and are the victims of every sort of ugliness and destructive act which defies hope for this country, the Government must take some of the blame. I shall not be supporting the Gracious Speech.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. John Whitfield: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to contribute to the debate. The benefit of my intervention earlier obviously struck home with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). At least it brought him to the subject of the debate and away from perpetrating the rubbish which is set out in a little known magazine as representing the thoughts of some third-rate photographer. At least we had the benefit, if that is the right word, of his usual articulate invective, which was as usual misdirected and misinformed.
  Part of the debate has concentrated, rightly, on the enforceability of teachers' contracts, should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science be forced to intervene in the present negotiations if they do not arrive at an acceptable agreement. As the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) reluctantly admitted, the Government are paying the piper, which means that they must be able to call the tune. The Government have provided undreamed of extra resources for the teaching profession—such resources were certainly undreamed of 12 months ago—and surely they are entitled to insist that teachers' contracts contain certain conditions. It will be for local authorities to enforce conditions, but the Government are within their rights to insist that teachers' contracts contain certain basic conditions.
  If certain local authorities decide not to enforce contractual conditions, this will be as much a breach of contract on their part as failure to observe conditions will be a breach on the part of teachers. It will be for individual ratepayers in individual employing authorities to require authorities to enforce contracts, and I look forward to the time when the contracts are established. Teachers' salaries

  175
  are determined on a national scale and there seems to be no reason why the conditions of the contracts should not be determined on a national scale as well.
  I have always been a little uncertain why we should persist with the myth of local government control of education. We know that the vast proportion of local government expenditure is directed to education and we know also that the majority of that expenditure is funded by central Government. Local authorities have increasingly to play a responsible role as employers and education authorities in their districts, or lose power to control education altogether.
  That brings me to the local authority in my constituency, which is the Kirklees metropolitan district council. The Government can demonstrate that they have bent over backwards to allow the authority to run education in its area as it thinks fit, despite an enormous campaign to preserve the Wheelwright sixth-form college in Dewsbury. There was tremendous local opposition to the proposal by the education authority to close it. The former Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), refused to intervene, in spite of being asked by me to do so. I accepted his decision, of course. My right hon. Friend allowed the local authority to close the college. As a result, there is no sixth-form education in any of the secondary schools in Dewsbury, with the exception of the St. John Fisher school, which is the Roman Catholic high school.
  Not content with that act of vandalism, as I would describe it, the Kirklees authority twice rejected moneys made available to it under the Government's TVEI scheme. This is an example that shows that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch does not know the meaning of caring for pupils. Some of the invective that he bandied about the House would be better employed if it were directed to some of those who are running education in Kirklees. It would be better directed also against some of the leaders of the teachers' unions. I choose my words carefully because I think that the majority of teachers in Kirklees are decent, caring and cultural people. It disappoints me greatly that they do not rise up more often to get rid of the leaders of their unions.
  I have found myself in trouble in Kirklees in referring to the leaders of the teachers' unions as Luddites. I have done that on more than one occasion and I am tempted to do so again. The leaders of the teachers' unions in Kirklees are not concerned for the children. Indeed, the children come last in their consideration. The leaders of the unions are resentful that proper incentives are being offered to good teachers to keep them in the profession. They are resentful that good or new teachers should be attracted into the profession to teach subjects such as engineering, physics and chemistry. They are resentful also of good education. It is my contention that the longer that the teachers' dispute continues the more discredited will the teachers' unions become. The longer that the dispute continues, the better from an electoral point of view—I shall be frank and honest about this — and the more certain it is that there will be the return of a Conservative Government.
  The teachers' dispute has continued for two years and there is not the shred of an argument to allow teachers to refuse that which is being offered to them. They are being
  176
  offered a tremendous package and one that they could not have dreamed of receiving 12 months ago. We have heard Opposition Members repeatedly dragging in the red herring of the pupil-teacher ratio, and red herring it clearly is because the ratio has become acceptable. Where we have good teachers — we have many thousands of them —there is no request for the ratio of teachers to pupils to be increased. Only bad teachers cannot control classes of up to 30 pupils. There is an abandonment of responsibility in the profession.
  I fully support the Gracious Speech and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which injected some sense into this senseless, uncaring dispute which will damage our children's education.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I understand that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) is a solicitor. God preserve us from that sort of thing. I wish to refer to the speech—it was a speech—of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). I am sure that he believes all the things he said, but it is frightening to think that he does. He said: "I cannot understand what all the fuss is about." That is precisely why the fuss has arisen. The hon. Gentleman is not present now — the Government seem to be bringing in hon. Members from all over the place—and I am sorry to have to remark on his speech in his absence. The leaders of the Conservative party also believe the things he said and cannot understand what all the fuss is about.
  During the industrial action, our children have been kept out of school. I speak as a former head teacher. The problems were caused entirely by the Government. Now the Government talk as though they had always offered the teachers the money which they must now offer because the position has become desperate. The Government had to offer the teachers the money because they are determined to go into a general election handing out the goodies, as they promised at the Tory party conference.
  The Secretary of State is boxed in. He does not understand education. His speech today was flimsy and unknowledgeable. It is sad that we must put up with the disruption in schools and that our children must suffer it.
  I have spoken in every education debate in the past twelve and a half years, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) knows, since he has spoken in most of them himself. But we are now engaged in probably the most important education debate in which I have taken part. It reflects the problems between a hard-line Government and the teaching force—a well-behaved, moderate, middle-class group of people whom they have driven to desperation.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury was not present when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). The hon. Member for Dewsbury talked about good teachers as though they were separate from their union leadership. He was not present when I said that the biggest union, the National Union of Teachers, had held 17 ballots. It did not casually call its members out on strike. They came out after 17 ballots. The result of every ballot was about 80 per cent. in favour of industrial action. The union officials, at the behest of the rank and file, balloted the teachers, who decided to take that action because they were becoming increasingly desperate.
  Mr. Whitfield: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: No. I do not wish to listen to more of the nonsense that I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman. I wish to tell him some facts.
  In the present discussions, tremendously important decisions will be taken affecting our children. I am worried about those decisions and I wish to place on record my hope that a negotiated settlement acceptable to both sides can be reached between the employers and the teachers. The Secretary of State and the Government are not the teachers' employers. The teachers' employers are the local education authorities. The teachers embarked on a three-day discussion with their employers and each day the discussion went on into the night. They were still in discussion at seven o'clock this evening. I do not know whether it is continuing.
  The two sides discussed matters which have hardly been mentioned by Conservative Members. This afternoon, the teachers and their employers discussed cover and how long it should last. Most people do not know what that means. It means that, especially in small schools with six, seven or eight teachers, if a teacher is ill the class must be shared out. Therefore, the children affected go into another class and the number of pupils in that class could be even doubled. The teacher tries to grapple with the class, but becomes only a child minder. According to the Government, that position should not just last for a day but may continue indefinitely. If there are insufficient teachers to take over teaching for absent colleagues, the children affected will be in grave difficulty. That does not happen in private schools, where classes are tiny. The children of Conservative Members usually attend private schools. Conservative Members do not understand the state education system. Most of them have gone to preparatory schools, public schools or crammers. As a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, I have visited those schools and seen the beautiful conditions in some of them. Yet Conservative Members try to lecture Opposition Members about the state schools which our children attend.
  Hardly a word has been said about class sizes. The hon. Member for Dewsbury repeated like an incantation the words "pupil-teacher ratios." Of course teachers want to teach fewer children. That would enable them to spend more time with each child. That fundamental matter has been negotiated by the teachers and their employers this afternoon. Teachers also need non-contact time. They do not only teach from nine o'clock to four o'clock. They must take their work home with them. The Government would force them to take more and more work home. The hon. Member for Dewsbury says that those who pay the money should call the tune. The Labour Government provided the money for the Houghton committee's recommendation of a 30 per cent. pay increase without laying down harsh conditions. The trouble has arisen since the Conservative Government came into office and did not give sufficient money to the teachers. The Government cannot dodge that. They can blame the teachers, the Labour party and anyone they want, but we all know that they are to blame. The future of education in Britain depends on the current negotiations. Two years of disruption were caused not by the teachers but by the Government. Why in heaven's name did the Government not offer two years ago the money that they have now produced? Then there would have been no disruption. The teachers would have received a reasonable wage—not paid all at once, but gradually. The Government's first
  178
  basic offer to the teachers was an increase of about 2 per cent. They gradually upped that offer because it was unacceptable. Now Scottish teachers are being balloted on strike action because the conditions imposed on them are unacceptable.
  For seven years, the Conservative party has attacked state education. The Government could not get their way, so they have had to resort to diktat, threats and crude intervention in legitimate negotiations. The Queen's Speech states that the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 will be repealed. That means that, since the Burnham committee will not accept crude diktat from the Minister, it will be abolished. But that matter was settled this morning. The two sides no longer differ on whether the Burnham committee should be abolished; they differ on what will be put in its place. If a new committee is faced with something that smacks of the hard line of the Tory party, it will have to negotiate with the Government—and I suppose that the Government will then say that the new committee is useless as well. Those are some of the realities that we have to face. Negotiation will be a thing of the past if it is left to the Minister to make up his own mind without resorting to the teachers.
  In the current negotiations, the employers are the local education authorities, and they are ably led. The unions are split on some points because it is difficult to get a group of disparate unions together on everything. However, they are trying as hard as they can. What about the present position? It appears that if something is negotiated, the Minister will intervene crudely and tell them that the negotiations are going the wrong way and that he will not accept it. What a position when the employers and the negotiating unions are told that they are wasting their time negotiating—that the Minister will decide what happens. The Minister is listening, so I hope that he realises that if that arrogant attitude to the teaching forces in our country continues, it is a recipe for the struggle to continue. The Government, as they have done for years, will disrupt the education of our children.
  No one wishes to see an acceptable negotiated settlement between the Minister and the teachers more than the Opposition. However, we are fearful that there is a deliberate attempt to confuse because of the coming election. I am worried about that. The negotiations between the teachers' unions and the employers may end this evening. The Minister will not accept the results. There is no doubt about that because he regards himself as the employer, not the local education authorities. If that is his and the Government's attitude, there is no doubt that teachers will struggle against the Minister's dictatorial and pre-emptive assault on democratic negotiation.
  People who do not believe that the Minister is behaving in that way need only read the editorial in The Guardian yesterday, which stated:
  "Mr. Baker is wrong, too. On Monday night, he followed last week's dubious take-it-or-leave-it Commons statement on teachers' pay with a peremptory wrecking statement that the emerging Nottingham terms were simply 'not acceptable'. This kind of approach will not do. Even at the best of times, it would be wrong to dictate in such a way to some 400,000 teachers. At such a critical time as this, it is bad politics, too. The upshot could be further industrial action by the unions. If so, it will largely be Mr. Baker's fault."
  The Secretary of State smiles affably. He is new to the scene. He is so witty and urbane that he will plunge us into another round of struggle through his arrogant attitude to the teachers, if someone does not tell him clearly that that

  179
  is exactly what will happen. I told him when he made his statement a fortnight ago that that was liable to happen. None the less, he went forward and crudely intruded in the negotiations. The Secretary of State looked mildly surprised when people did not take that blow in the eye and react to it as he expected. Although the parties want the negotiations to come to a conclusion, they know that the Minister is a hard-line boss, and that is frightening for everyone seeking peace in our schools.
  What the Secretary of State really wants is to hamstring and tie up the teaching profession by making voluntary duties compulsory and contractual. He knows that it was voluntary duties, not strike action, which caused the trouble last time. Teachers do so much work after school —they are involved in football matches, drama, parent evenings and all the rest. The Government and the Minister decided that they must hamstring teachers by making these voluntary duties, which they have done for more than 100 years, contractual.
  The Secretary of State wants to destroy teachers' capacity to fight back when gross injustices such as poor pay in schools and bad conditions are inflicted upon them. Above all, he wishes to inflict a much wider division within the profession by denying teachers a proper and just basic salary scale. Hence, he has split the scale and will bribe the top levels — the head teachers — to make them pliant tools of the Government. The teachers who are really needed urgently, the ordinary teachers on scales 1 and 2 who do most of the hard work in the classroom—many without break in the primary schools—and who are as important as anyone in the profession will lose out, yet without them we cannot educate our children.
  I appeal to the Minister, whose actions are a recipe for chaos in our classrooms. Let us see what happens after this. Teachers want to get on with their jobs with some dignity and fair pay. I ask the Minister and the Government to think again. It is up to them; the ball is in their court, and especially in the Minister's court. The negotiations may now have ended and I hope that he will show some acceptance of all the hard work that has gone into teaching our children properly and in peace.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: The Gracious Speech has this year been more notable for its omissions than for anything else. That is a sure sign that there is something in the air. The Prime Minister has now declared open season for an election and she is naturally anxious to avoid too much controversy. She wishes by all means to deflect attention from the deficiencies that have been caused and further aggravated by her Government's economic and social policies. We have therefore been given what has been described in one of our national newspapers as a "lightweight, disposable programme" that can easily be thrown aside if the time becomes suitable for an election campaign.
  As a Welshman, I am disappointed that there has been no mention of a new Welsh language Bill—a fact that will disappoint many of my compatriots. However, tonight I wish to direct attention to the lack of care and concern shown by the total absence of any constructive plans to reduce poverty in this country.
  Poverty may be regarded as a relative term. We do not see people in this country these days walking barefoot in
  180
  the streets or starving to death as they do in many Third world countries, but there is a great deal of hidden poverty here — deprivation of a kind that saps the spirit and deprives its sufferers of hope.
  The Government would no doubt wish to forget the statistics that tell this sorry tale of inner-city squalor, poor housing, inadequate medical facilities, dilapidated school buildings and the failure to provide enough school textbooks and equipment. The Government would prefer to dwell on the relatively booming economy of the southeast and the lucrative City deals that bring wealth to the already wealthy few, the soaring house prices in the leafy suburbs—which are well beyond the wildest dreams of people who live in Wales, Scotland and the north of England where the industrial base has been destroyed, where dole queues are still growing and where thousands of young people are leaving school without the remotest chance of a job. I would like to stress to the Ministers who bury their heads in the sand that it is not—I repeat not — easy to live on the dole, despite crass attempts to prove otherwise by those who should know better.
  During their years in office, the Tory Government have presided over a 3 million increase in the number of people who are officially below the poverty line. In 1979, the number of people on supplementary benefit was 5·9 million. Today, it is about 8·8 million. The figure is likely to rise to over 10 million by the time an election is called. What a record for the Government to take to the country.
  All hon. Members receive in their daily postbags letters from constituents who, through no fault of their own, are unable to make ends meet — one-parent families, unemployed school leavers, and middle-aged men and women who are suddenly faced with redundancy. But possibly the most distressing letters are from older people — pensioners on fixed incomes—who arc trying, with great difficulty, to live out their lives without getting into debt. In many cases, they go without the comforts and treats that the rest of us take for granted. Too many people live in damp houses. They cannot afford to eat, because of the high fuel bills that inevitably land on their doorsteps at the end of a severe winter. In country areas, those people have been deprived of a regular bus service. They cannot afford a car to take them to the nearest post office or chemist. They have to count every penny before they dare buy their weekly provisions but are often too proud to ask for help. If they are very unlucky, they end up in poorly run homes for the elderly with no one to look after their rights. It is shameful that, at the end of long and useful lives, they shoud have to live lives of such poor quality just because the Government have other priorities, such as tax cuts for the better-off.
  The alliance believes that far more generous provision should be made for the elderly. Their pensions should be increased and supplemented by a pensioner credit scheme. Their housing costs should be taken care of. Determined efforts should be made to improve insulation. Another improvement would be the abolition of standing charges on fuel bills. Cuts in heating allowances should be restored. It is time that pensioners were given a fair deal and allowed to live out their lives in comfort and dignity. It is clear that the Government have washed their hands of any responsibility. It is time for them to go and for others to take over.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Fred Silvester: I apologise to those hon. Members whose speeches I did not hear. I had to deal with a constituency matter, and I have not heard all the debate, as I should normally wish to do. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), although it was interesting that he took up the less well-covered subject of the two that have been allocated for debate. Although many of us share his concern about people living in poverty, it does not always help to exaggerate the case. For example, his suggestion that the heating allowances have been cut is not, strictly speaking, true.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who spoke at length about the teachers' strike, is about to leave, but perhaps he will stay for a moment to hear what I have to say. My criticism of him is similar to that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. There have, of course, been mistakes and difficulties throughout the struggle between the Government, local authorities and teachers. The most depressing aspect of his speech was the comment, for example, that it is difficult to get the disparate unions to work together. He said that it was the Government's intention to weaken the bargaining power of teachers and that the Government were setting the better paid teacher against the lower paid teacher.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech was geared to the question whether the operation of the teachers' unions —the teachers' negotiating power—was being affected by this process. He should start at the other end and ask, "What would be the best structure for the profession to provide the best teaching for our children?" He should start with the children. He has to ask himself some serious questions, which he has not done. The most serious point of all is that, whatever he thinks about the Government, there has been an unsettled period in the teaching profession.
  There have been two years of negotiation and counter-argument, much of which arises from the fundamental flaw in the structure of the way in which these things have been negotiated, a great deal of inter-union rivalry and other matters. We cannot go on like this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been trying to bring some certainty and sanity into this matter and bring about a conclusion. That is what we need above all, not something that can be bought at any price. There is not an unlimited price to be paid. A sensible solution can come within what the hon. Member for Hillsborough would have to admit are very generous limits on the offer that has been put before the teachers.
  I am sorry, too, that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is not here. We are used to the fact that he suffers from arrogance and self-deceit, but I did not realise that he is such a bully and, particularly, that he is such a snob. I wonder whether his constituents take kindly to the assumption that their preferences of the way in which they choose to live their lives are to be discounted and that his ethereal and superior attitude to the way in which we could conduct our lives is suitable. What is the hon. Lady muttering about?
  Dr. McDonald: What I said to the hon. Gentleman was that my hon. Friend excluded inner city areas, on the ground of insufficient money—I know that many of his
  182
  constituents are among the poorest in the country—from engaging in the kind of consumerism that he described.
  Mr. Silvester: That statement underlines the fact that, in snobbery, the hon. Lady joins her hon. Friend.
  Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Silvester: I will in a minute.
  Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way so that I can point out that people are extremely poor, that many in Hackney, as indeed in many city areas, are unemployed and dependent on supplementary benefit? Therefore, to say that they cannot engage in the purchase of large numbers of consumer goods is not to engage in snobbery. It is merely to describe, with the utmost sympathy, a situation in which the poor find themselves. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman describes the inability to purchase consumer goods as snobbery, it just shows how out of touch he is.
  Mr. Silvester: If the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to let me finish my sentence, she would not have led herself down a blind alley. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady are making the false assumption that the tastes—now she does not wish to listen—that operate among poor people are not the tastes that they wish. The assumption that it is their fault that they do not enjoy the same activities as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is a false one and is thoroughly insulting to the people whom he is supposed to represent.
  As the hon. Gentleman went on about the introduction of a greater technical element into schools, he might also like to turn his attention to this matter. We heard earlier that there is considerable evidence to suggest that where the school curriculum is intensified in the areas of technical achievement children from exactly the homes that the hon. Gentleman described find that their interest is greater and truancy rates are reduced. He might turn his attention to that matter as well.
  I wish to turn my attention to a different subject concerning education. It is a sensitive one and will, no doubt, get the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) even more worked up. It is important for us to give calmer consideration to this matter. It concerns the way in which we treat the problem of racism in schools. I have become increasingly depressed in recent months because the way in which what I thought was steady progress in dealing with this subject has been put into reverse.
  A large report—the Swann report—sought to tackle that issue. It contained some issues that are at the root of our present difficulty. Some local authorities, through their approach to this subject, have increasingly distanced themselves from the people they represent. Page 4 of the Swann report states:
  "Whilst individuals may belong to different groups of various kinds they are in addition also part of the wider national society by virtue of a range of common shared characteristics, such as a common language and a common … legal system, which taken together give that society a degree of unity".
  I think that most of us would agree with that.
  The report refers to a society which contains many ethnic groups and which, nevertheless, can provide the coherence which is recognisable as a nation. One important element of that is what we do in our schools.

  183
  The schools do not exist to create something new. One of their main purposes is to transmit the traditions and cultures with which they began. That is why a crucial part of our education policy is to increase the power and influence of parents, who are the natural transmitters of the country's culture.
  It is of great concern when some people, whose natural goodwill and desire to ensure that schools assist in enabling people of different ethnic origins to live and work together, ask for changes in the curriculum which are not acceptable to many others. There is growing concern that those changes require too great a change in the nature of society. We are all told that we suffer from either unintentional racism or institutional racism. This is regarded as such a fundamental part of the way we think and breathe that it must be expunged by special efforts. Those efforts are causing some of our present difficulties.
  I shall give an example of the dispiriting way in which the trend is developing. A well-prepared book for children between 11 and 13 called "Black Settlers in Britain 1555 — 1958" was prepared not simply to look at the contribution of blacks in our history—that is as worthy of study as anything else—but to encourage schools to make it appear that that contribution was the equivalent of the other people who lived at that time who did not happen to be black. The authors dug around and unearthed some interesting facts. I learnt that Florence Nightingale had an assistant called Mary Seacole, who was black. That may be of some interest, but to go on to say that equivalent weight must be attached to that fact illustrates the difficulty we face. The same difficulties arise in language and other aspects of our inherited culture.
  Not many people, except the very prejudiced, object to finding ways to maintain the culture of ethnic groups so long as they wish that to continue, but that does not mean that that has to be done by excluding the culture that most British parents of white stock expect to be taught in schools. I asked an ILEA teacher why English history was not included in the curriculum. He said that it was more than his job was worth—I think that the position has now changed—because it was said that to teach English history was to give undue weight to a part of life not shared by some of the black children in the school. Such distinctions are fundamentally at odds with what is acceptable to some people. We have to find a way to overcome that difficulty.
  We should look at the famous Brent council, where the temperature is continuously rising. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of the council's proposals, but one thing is certain. It is that progress will not be achieved by increasing the tension in which schools have to work. Many head teachers have done extremely good work in finding ways to break down the barriers to understanding. We shall be in great difficulty if local authorities lay down strict curricula or guidelines which prevent them from being flexible in maintaining what many children and their parents want.
  The debate has been dominated by the position in schools during the present negotiations. At last, a clearer strategy for the school system as a whole is emerging from the Government, and I hope that it will continue. I do not accept the criticism of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) of the city technology colleges. They are part of the same structure. We are trying to multiply the options
  184
  available to parents throughout the country. That can be done through the CTCs, but the most promising approach arises from the Education Act 1986, which will enable schools to take much more control over their affairs.
  If school governors and parents are given a greater say in the running of schools, different school attitudes and different school qualities will develop and there will be different choices of schools. I should be sad if anyone said, "Because school A was developing in one way and had greater parental involvement than school B. we should somehow stop it." I hope that a multiplicity of approaches to education will develop. That will be beneficial if it is at the grassroots level—school level. I think that the CTCs will make a small but useful contribution, and I wish them good luck.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: I listened with interest and sadness to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) refer to his last contribution to debates on the Loyal Address after a long and distinguished career in the House. I congratulate him on his attempt to pursue his aims of eradicating disease and bringing comfort and dignity to disabled communities. I was sad when he said that his enthusiasm had turned to despair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South referred to illness, and one of its causes is the disease of poverty. I found nothing in the Queen's Speech about the eradication of poverty. Poverty is a word that is bandied about, but there is a failure to define it. Academics may come up with answers after an in-depth study. Sometimes publicity-seeking politicians spend a week on subsistence-level incomes and at the end of that experience come out purified, assuming that they have experienced poverty. However, they return to their high living and to comfort, hut, more than anything else, they return to security.
  It is a sick joke and an insult to people who suffer real poverty for politicians to go through such exercises. Real poverty is the soul-destroying day-to-day effect of being insecure, of suffering the knowledge that one cannot support one's family, and of feeling completely inadequate. If one has only enough money for pure physical survival and cannot join in the normal activities of a community—it is no joke not being able to provide presents for children at Christmas or being unable to provide birthday presents and the little niceties of life—the cumulative effect can be a psychological one that erodes a person's dignity and makes that person feel unwanted.
  Manchester city council has just issued a report which uses the Government's own guidelines on poverty. The report looks at the number of people living on means-tested benefits—for example, supplementary benefit, free schools meals and housing benefit. Its findings are a condemnation of the Government's economic policies.
  In 1978 unemployment stood at 11 per cent. — just under one in 10 was out of work. Since then the number of jobs has declined dramatically, and across the city it had jumped to a staggering 24 per cent. in 1985. The rise in unemployment means that last year nearly one third of Manchester's population was claiming and depending on supplementary benefit. In the inner city, in my constituency, the percentages claiming benefit are even higher because even within the inner city there are pockets of deprivation, areas where 60 per cent. of school children

  185
  receive free school meals. One area of my constituency has been badly hit by the closure of old, established firms. Manufacturing has been allowed to go to the wall and the community with it.
  The report says of my constituency:
  "East Manchester also has a high proportion of residents on low incomes. In the area covered by the Openshaw DHSS Office 38 per cent. of residents receive Supplementary Benefit, and in Beswick, Clayton, Newton Heath and Bradford over 50 per cent. of all school children receive free meals."
  All the areas mentioned in the report are in my constituency, in the inner city of Manchester. This area and its people are the victims of the closure of massive firms—engineering firms, wire manufacturing firms, and steel and heavy manufacturing firms. In the area over 60 per cent. of males arc unemployed, and many of them will never work again.
  The report goes on to say that virtually all parts of Manchester have more poor people than the country as a whole. The position is deteriorating day by day as more and more Manchester residents are having to live on very low incomes.
  My constituency has more than its share of elderly, disabled, low skilled and black people. Young people have already lost hope, and if they have not, they are fast doing so. That is the measure of the decay in the inner cities, not only in Manchester but throughout Britain. About 43 per cent. of young people under 20 years of age are now out of work. What hope does the Queen's Speech offer them? The answer is none.
  Poverty is no respecter of age, and in Manchester, as in other inner city areas, pensioners are fearful of the onset of winter. They will be going to bed in the early afternoon, not only to shorten the winter and the fuel bills, but to ensure that the winter does not shorten their lives. Hypothermia took its toll of the elderly last winter, and, in the main, hypothermia is caused by poverty. Elderly people are unable to meet crippling fuel bills to warm condensation and damp-ridden system built houses.
  Poverty also brings ill health in its wake. In Manchester's inner city 80 per cent. more deaths occurred among those under 65 years of age when compared with the national average. That is the effect of the Government's economic strategy. Unemployment produces poverty, poverty produces physical and mental ill health, and it is on the increase.
  The report refers to increasing poverty, saying:
  "There is considerable evidence then that the number of people likely to be living in poverty in the City has increased since 1978, and that as a consequence the number of people dependent on welfare benefits has grown substantially … Nevertheless not everyone who is entitled to Supplementary Benefit claims it, though the take up in Manchester is probably rather better than the national average … Bearing this in mind it is likely that around 40 per cent. of the City's population are either dependent upon or are living in households who are entitled to receive Supplementary Benefit, and can therefore be considered on the 'poverty line'.
  Added to these should be the many people living in households which do not receive Supplementary Benefit, but who are dependent upon incomes below Supplementary Benefit level. Using national rates to estimate the size of this group, the conclusion reached is that nearly half of the City's population is either dependent upon Supplementary Benefit, or upon incomes below Supplementary Benefit level."
  "Half of the City's population"—that is a scandal and a crime on our people, and it is an indictment of the Government.
  The city council can try to do all in its power to fight poverty. It recognises that a major programme of action,
  186
  both locally and nationally, is needed. The city council is committed to improving the quality of life for its residents, across all the services it provides. It is determined to do what it can to stimulate employment within the city and to help people get the benefits to which they are entitled. However, positive improvements are needed at national level in the Health Service, in the fuel boards, in transport policies and, most urgently, within the social security system. Only then can the rising tide of poverty be turned.
  City councils can do all in their power to stimulate jobs, but unless there are changes in the Government's national and regional policies Manchester and the north-west will continue to bleed to death. There was nothing in the Queen's Speech that suggested that there would be any dramatic change in the plight of my constituents and, therefore, I shall vote against it.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I notice from the way in which the debates on the Loyal Address have been planned that, although a major Bill in the next Session will deal with the criminal justice system — I have to declare an interest as a practising barrister—we seem somehow to wish to ignore that during these debates. Tonight we are debating education and family poverty, and if I work in the odd comment on other matters, I apologise in advance. However, those matters are all linked.
  We are told time and again that we have what is called a caring Government. We have a Government who are apparently in favour of law and order, but we have a Government who show little law, little order and little caring. We have a Government who seem to ignore the plight of many persons who fall foul of, or indeed fall out of, our present system.
  Let me give a simple example. A young man, whom I will call Philip, aged 20 or 21 commits a crime, he has a mental age of between seven and 10 and he has committed crimes before. Inevitably, he finds himself without money or a home, and so he steals. What do we do? We send him to prison and he adds to the 47,000 already there, but of course prison is not the place for him. As a society, we do not seem to understand that there are misfits—people who do not fit into the normal pattern. There are people who, because they are handicapped, mentally or physically, have problems. Yet we have a Government who trumpet on about whether the defence can challenge members of a jury and whether this or that can be admitted in evidence.
  We have a Government who do not seem to understand that there is a link between crime and poverty. They do not understand that there are people within our society who are damaged, mentally or physically, through no fault of their own, who have no way in which they can cope with a complex society such as we have. Nothing is said in the Gracious Speech about dealing with or seeking to care for them.
  It was said many years ago by the late Winston Churchill that a society is judged by the way that it treats its most humble and disadvantaged members. If we apply that test to society today, what do we find? We find that, inevitably, those at the bottom of the pile who have nothing going for them and who may be handicapped in many ways are ignored by society and the state today. It could not care less.

  187
  The past eight years have seen an aggressive non-caring attitude, a selfish attitude, a what's-in-it-for-me attitude. We are led by a Government who are inevitably interested only in their own. They are interested, not in the country or in the mass of the people, but in what is in it for them and those who support them. We have seen that time and again.
  Rainhill is a large mental hospital in my constituency, with nearly 1,000 patients. It has a regional secure unit attached to it. When I first became Member of Parliament for St. Helens, South a number of people had been in that hospital for between 10 and 30 years. Often, the reasons for their being sent there were wrong and they should never have been sent there, but that hospital was their home. It was the only place that they knew. Under the modern policies of this supposedly caring Government we have seen many of them bussed and shipped out, sent to Colwyn Bay or put into private — I use the word advisedly — accommodation or hostels. In effect, we have destroyed those human beings. If somebody who has been institutionalised over a long period is taken out of the only environment that he knows and understands, and where his friends are and is moved many miles away, he will be destroyed. The environment of such people is destroyed and they as human beings are destroyed. That is not caring.
  The Government say that in some way we must reduce the number of people in long-stay hospitals. I am all in favour of the treatment of the mentally ill and handicapped within the community, but, for goodness sake, cannot somebody think of the real effects, on real human beings, of imposing a policy from above which is supposed to save money but which in reality causes hardship and pain.
  I am all in favour of those who are now becoming sick and being diagnosed as handicapped being kept in the community, but we should at least allow those who have spent between 10 and 40 years in hospitals to serve out the rest of their lives in the company of those whom they have known for the past 20 or 30 years. Please do not destroy their world, because it is the only world that they know.
  We are told that we have a caring Government, but I look at the Gracious Speech and see little about that in it. This afternoon I asked the Leader of the House about conditions in our prisons. The Gracious Speech says that we shall have a new Criminal Justice Bill which will deal with matters such as the right of challenge, the administration of justice, the conviction of men for fraud, but that does not go to the heart of the problem.
  Britain today has a prison system which is the cesspit of Europe. I do not blame the prison officers. They have to deal with the conditions in which they are asked to serve. As a member of a Select Committee I recently visited America, and those of us who saw clean and modern prisons were almost envious. I return to the words of the late Winston Churchill on the test of a society, and I see nothing in the Gracious Speech which in any way goes to the heart of that problem.
  I know that there are no votes in prisons, but there should be some human dignity and some human rights. There should be some educational input in the prison system. Education withers and dies at present simply because of the conditions and the lack of resources. If we do not educate the young who have committed offences,
  188
  they will be tempted to commit more offences. The object of the exercise must surely be to rehabilitate those who are sent to prison. In an educated and caring society that is what we should do, but the Government do not care, and the Gracious Speech lacks that sense of caring.
  There was a time when we looked upon our education system as the jewel in our crown. Over the past 10 years, and especially over the past five years, we have seen a denial of opportunity in the north-west, north-east, south and elsewhere. People have been denied the chance to improve their lot. We have lost any concept of reeducation and retraining in the fast advancing society. I see nothing in the Gracious Speech which would lead me to feel that there was any hope for the future.
  The Gracious Speech, I say with great sadness, gives no hope to millions of people. It gives a prospect of further profit to a few in its comments about privatisation. It is like the Mansion House speech and the autumn statement. It is supposed to be yet another candle lit on the road to the election. The Government have put out so many lights that were the hopes of people in this land. The time has come for the Government's light to be put out.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I apologise for having had to absent myself during the debate because of other parliamentary commitments. I shall endeavour to be brief, so as to be fair to other hon. Members.
  It is not surprising that one could not recognise the real world from the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We all judge things by our constituency. All I can say is that immediately adjacent to my constituency is a brand new prison at Bovingdon. In Lawn lane in Hemel Hempstead, a Conservative-controlled county council has just planned and built a hostel for the mentally ill and a brand new hospital is being built. The Conservative-controlled borough council in Dacorum has the largest programme of sheltered housing of any local authority in Hertfordshire and caused the housing corporation in its recent report to draw attention to the strength of provision in Dacorum. Those are the hallmarks of a caring Conservative Government and a caring Conservative county council and borough council.
  I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on the Front Bench that nothing has been of greater pleasure to my area than for phase one of the Hemel Hempstead hospital to have been occupied gradually over the past few months. That is phase one of a hospital which the previous Labour Government cancelled. By next autumn, when phase two will have started, we shall have some of the most modern health facilities in the country. That too is a tribute to the caring Conservative Government.
  While my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South is on the Front Bench perhaps I may advise her that one of the problems suffered by areas in the shire counties is the unfair distribution of health resources between the outer parts of the London regional health authorities and the inner London parts. I hope that she will take speedy action to ensure that that inequity is corrected.
  I welcome the fact that over the past two years the spotlight has turned on education, because it is an important issue. The Bill proposed in the Gracious Speech is to deal with teachers' pay. I welcome the fact that the

  189
  Secretary of State has decided to introduce that legislation because it is absurd that teachers' pay and conditions have been separated for so long. I know from talking to many teachers over the past few days that the grass roots share the Secretary of State's view that the Bill is welcome and believe that it will create a better climate for education than we have had recently.
  What was not in the Gracious Speech, and what I believe should have been, was a better method of organising secondary and primary schools, especially secondary schools. The present system has been under great strain as a result of falling rolls. Inevitably, local authorities cannot close schools fast enough to keep up with the pace. Therefore, even as we have, certainly in my local authority, rising expenditure in real terms per pupil at primary and secondary level, there are problems, because the distribution is not equitable.
  This has something in common with the Health Service. It is not a question of all schools having lost pupils equally. The unpopular schools have lost a disproportionate number and there are some schools which, on a five-form planned entry, have been admitting under half that number of pupils per year. However, the curriculum still needs to be maintained, as do the grounds and buildings. Money to keep that going comes away from the successful and popular schools and, therefore, curiously, the financial squeeze is hardest where it is least appropriate and it is felt least in the unpopular schools. I believe that there should have been a Bill to reorganise school finance.
  The other problem is that the decision to close schools is taken by politicians at county council level or by bureaucrats at officer level. They do not necessarily have the same priorities as parents, pupils and staff. That is why head teachers and staff often feel picked on when their school is due for closure. Everyone could understand if closures arose because a school which simply could not attract enough finance to carry on had to have a voluntary merger or to mend its ways. The decisions are slow because one has to have ministerial involvement before a school can be closed. That is right and proper under the present system. However, a per capita funding system would lead to a great deal more in the way of voluntary activity at local level.
  Such a system would encourage responsibility because decisions would be made by the head teacher and governors who would know the local circumstances of the school best. They would know which teachers deserved to be paid more and which local firm to go to in order to get a leaking tap fixed. Therefore, they would manage the money more efficiently. Under the present system it is wholly absurd that one has to go to the bureaucrats at county hall to obtain permission to carry out a minor repair and that it has to be carried out by the county's direct labour force.
  The scheme would be responsible but it would also be responsive because a per capita funding system means that schools that were successful in attracting pupils would automatically attract funds. Therefore, it would be encouraging excellence and deterring poorer quality schools. That, in turn, would promote striving for better standards on the part of poorer schools.
  That alternative is long overdue. It is being heralded in Cambridgeshire, part of which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Cambridgeshire has successfully experimented with per capita funding at a low level because it applies to only
  190
  about 1·5 per cent. of the schools' budgets. In my constituency a local headmaster and the governors would have discretion over about £3,000 out of a school's total resources of about £450,000. That is absurd.
  I commend what the Government have put in the Gracious Speech, but I wish that they had tackled that fundamental problem as well.
  8.39 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I am glad to be able to take part in this debate on education. Over the past few years, I have watched the Government's attempts to destroy the state education system and the morale of the teaching profession. For the past two years, the Government have dillied and dallied over providing sufficient money to pay teachers decent salaries. It is not so much that aspect that I wish to concentrate on as the Government's attempt in their proposal to impose some kind of contract on teachers.
  For many years teachers have undertaken out-of-school activities of all sorts, such as voluntary activities; they have organised clubs, games and theatre visits; they have taken part in parent-teacher evenings and made endless attempts to meet the parents of the children whom they teach. They have held staff meetings, attended courses, and sought to train themselves. They also spend a great deal of time marking books, essays and examination papers outside the hours that they spend at school. They spend time reading, studying and preparing. Particularly over the past few years, many teachers have had to provide much of the material to be used in lessons. They used to have resource centres with such provision. Many of those centres have disappeared because of lack of funding.
  All that was work that most teachers undertook voluntarily and gladly, yet the Government have such a legalistic approach. They cannot believe that professional people wish to inform themselves and go beyond their strict duties in the hours of school. Because they could not believe that, they sought to impose contracts on teachers and to list duties, and in so doing they utterly and completely destroyed the morale of the teaching profession. It will be many years before that morale is restored properly, and it will require a Labour Government to do it. The next Labour Government will make sure that teachers are properly provided with the resources that they need with which to educate the children under their care.
  I cannot say how strongly I feel about the destruction of the teachers' morale. It is important that we have teachers who are committed to the work that they undertake, who care about the children whom they teach, and who are given the support that they require in that task, which is often difficult and emotionally draining and which absorbs a great deal of time. Yet the Government just sweep all that aside, and the loss is for the children and for their parents, who wish their children to have a decent education, perhaps a better education than they received at school.
  The legalistic and dictatorial approach of the Secretary of State has done much to damage state education, with the right hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge and lack of experience of the profession and the demands of state education. The Government are composed of Cabinet Ministers, probably not one of whom has ever sent his

  191
  children to a state school, who neither know nor care and who simply back the Secretary of State in his dictatorial attitude.
  That is a legacy that it will take a Labour Government to undo. Imposing contracts, no matter how detailed they are, will do nothing towards solving the problem. In their arrogant treatment of the teachers, the Government have pushed teachers—although I am sure that on reflection many will set that attitude aside—towards saying, "OK. I shall do what is in my contract—nothing more, and nothing less." That is how teachers feel at the moment, and it is entirely the Government's fault, yet I am sure that for most of them their commitment to their profession and to the education of the children in their care will mean that they will struggle to overcome that attitude.
  The Secretary of State talked today about the involvement of parent governors and parents in schools and education. That is a good thing. I have seen several examples of that in my constituency this year. Sometimes large groups of parents have attended my advice surgeries or parent governors have come to me out of sheer frustration. The Government would like to think that that frustration is connected with industrial action in the schools. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
  For example, in two primary schools, the parents, staff and governors alike have been driven to despair because of staffing difficulties. They have been unable to find primary school teachers, those on the bottom rung of the salary scale, to come and teach. Therefore, reception classes in the infant schools in my constituency, classes well above the average that the Secretary of State cited in his speech, with 30 and more pupils, have been without one teacher throughout the year. They have had no stable teaching, not because of industrial action but simply because it has not been possible to find suitable staff to take over those classes. They have had a succession of teachers and sometimes a succession of supply teachers. I do not know how such large classes can be taught how to read adequately anyway, but children aged five need the stability of one teacher. When they fail to have one teacher throughout the year, how they get a proper foundation of education is beyond me.
  Groups of parents have also come to me because of the lack of repair and maintenance in the schools. The Prime Minister likes to say that throwing money at a problem will not solve it. It certainly solves the problem when it is a matter of providing the materials to repair schools, and of paying people to come and paint, to stop up leaks, to strip out an old kitchen and make sure that it is hygienic and can be used to provide decent meals for the children. Such repairs need money, and that money has not been made available. Parents and parent governors have had such involvement in my constituency, and the blank wall that they have met has been nothing to do with industrial action; it has been all to do with inadequate financial provision, either for the salaries of teachers or for building, maintenance and equipment.
  The Government have a real hang-up about paying people at the top of the education profession. They want to pay senior teachers and head teachers more. Of course those people should be properly rewarded, but it is the classroom teacher who needs a decent level of pay, to attract suitable people into the profession and to give them a due reward for a hard grind. The Secretary of State
  192
  himself and junior Ministers in his Department have never had experience of teaching anybody anyway, so they do not know the demands that it makes in terms of knowledge, training and the psychological drain of handling a class, in which sometimes children face many problems connected with their home background, and do not wish to learn. None of the Ministers has faced that problem so they do not understand what it is like. That is why they do not understand that a decent financial reward for the classroom teacher, the sort of reward that the Government are prepared to give to the police, is necessary if education is to reach a proper standard.
  According to The Guardian, the Secretary of State intervened in the middle of the negotiations on Tuesday, but not over pay. I give his own Department's figures. I do not necessarily say that they are the true figures. The Department calculated a figure of £300 million and the employers negotiating calculated about £100 million. The Secretary of State intervened and tried to wreck the negotiations because the employers and teachers' unions wanted to spend more on lowering the maximum size of classes and on other measures that would improve the standard of education. That shows how much the Government care. They talk about increasing public expenditure, but when it comes to spending money on raising the standards of education in our state schools the answer is no, and the country had better understand that.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: It is appropriate that much should have been said today about education because this is an important aspect of life, but I shall concentrate on another important aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will shortly refer to the problems of family poverty, and nowhere does that manifest itself more than in housing.
  I listened carefully to the Gracious Speech and, like many hon. Members, found its significance to lie more in what it left out than in what it contained. There is nothing whatever in the Gracious Speech to show that the Government have realised the nature and extent of the housing crisis in our country, and how that crisis could be resolved. Although the proposal
  "to extend the rights of people living in privately owned flats in England and Wales"
  receives a cautious welcome, the commitment to continue the Government's
  "firm monetary and fiscal policies"
  and the implication that the Government intend to continue their attacks on local authorities bode ill for the prospect of improved housing standards.
  In his Budget speech in March the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us of the "success" of the Government's economic policy. On the same day the Prime Minister referred to the record standards of living that our country was said to be enjoying. I am afraid that those alleged truths have escaped the notice of the people of Tyne Bridge, and I suspect that the same is true of the rest of the northern region. Under this co-called successful economic strategy public investment in housing has been cut by more than 60 per cent., resulting in deteriorating housing conditions and a halving of the number of jobs in the region's construction industry since 1979. It is that combination of poor housing and high unemployment that has led to a deterioration in social conditions, and to

  193
  an increase in crime and vandalism in our inner cities—all that under a Government whose Prime Minister back in 1979 offered our country hope and harmony.
  If we want a secure future and a harmonious society we shall have to build it, and that means a lot more assistance and a lot less hindrance than we have had from this Government, or are likely to get. We are constantly told by Ministers that investment through inner city partnerships is contributing to that future, yet in my constituency the two local authorities, Newcastle and Gateshead, have between them lost more than £300 million in rate support grant over the past six years—a figure which reduces to a mere pittance the amount provided through inner area partnership grant in the same period.
  When the Government's policy of council house sales was introduced they promised that the capital raised from sales would be available for building new homes, but the truth is that councils are unable to make any impact on housing problems even by that means because of the restrictions on the spending of sales receipts that the Government have introduced. I say, and the Labour party says, that people have a right to a decent home. The provision of such rights was never easy, and no one would ever suggest that the problems can be resolved overnight, but this Government's abandonment of the progress that was being made has multiplied the problems and made the task immensely more difficult. The Department of the Environment has reported that nearly £20 billion needs to be spent on Britain's decaying housing stock. At the Government's current spending rate it will take 67 years to deal with our defective housing, leaving aside further deterioration in the meantime.
  The Government also support more private sector control of council housing. However, that would force council tenants out of their homes into worse accommodation, so that their houses could be sold off. Any Government who deliberately create conditions where suffering is inflicted on families by forcing them to live in damp, draughty, depressing housing have no right to claim to have the interests of the people at heart. To deny, as many Conservative Members do, that there is any link between housing deprivation, deteriorating health and rising levels of crime and vandalism is the same as seeing fewer ships than Nelson did, and, as we know, he chose to see none at all.
  I offer no panacea for the crime and disorder problem, but investment in our communities will go a long way towards resolving it. Investment in new and modernised housing must be at the top of the list of priorities in building a future for our people.
  When we raise such matters, Ministers ask what it will all cost, thus implying that the Government defer action on housing because of the cost alone. There was no difficulty in finding the vast millions of pounds that it cost for the Falklands war, and still costs. Nor was there any difficulty in finding the substantial sums that the extra security measures cost as a direct result of the Government's decision to support America's bombing of Libya. No doubt Ministers will say that they were national emergencies. So they were, but they were emergencies which the Government could have avoided, but did not.
  Labour Members say that the housing crisis is also a national emergency that results directly from the action, or lack of action, taken by this Government. Therefore, as a national emergency, the money must be found, and will
  194
  be by a Labour Government. Young families need a decent home in which to bring up their children. The elderly need warmth, comfort and security in their homes, and the handicapped need adaptations to make life more tolerable in their homes. These are not outlandish ambitions, or greedy or extravagant demands. They are absolute necessities for the people of Britain and for any modern civilisation.
  My constituency of Tyne Bridge has the entire range of housing and house types, from the castle keep to hack-to-back Tyneside flats, but we also have more than our fair share of housing problems. The cause of many of those problems lies in the inadequacies of the developments in the early 1960s, and in the dreadful communal living accommodation with which we are left, following the drastic error of trying to provide homes on the cheap—a policy which, even after the lessons, appears to endear itself still to this Government. Ordinary, decent people in my constituency, and others throughout the land, are reaping the consequences of such policies and are having to live in conditions which may have won accolades for being remarkable examples of modern architecture, but which are totally unsuited to modern living.
  The housing situation in Tyne Bridge is bad, but the councils of Newcastle and Gateshead are doing their best to alleviate it. Over the years, before this Government came to office, slum dwellings were almost completely eradicated, and so very few houses now lack basic amenities. The councils have plans for the modernisation and repair of the housing stock and, where appropriate, the clearance of some of the worst examples of 1960s architecture. However, it is a mammoth task.
  It is estimated that Newcastle's housing stock needs £152 million over the next five years, and Gateshead's £145 million over the next 10 years, to bring them up to a decent standard. The need for new build is evidenced by the fact that in Tyne Bridge alone more than 12,000 people are still forced to live in overcrowded conditions. Most of them cannot afford to purchase their own homes and their only dream is to be allocated a decent council house — a dream that is an illusion under a Government who so obviously and bitterly abhor the public sector and worship the free market private sector.
  What of the private sector? More than 60 per cent. of the pre-1919 housing stock in my constituency is in a state of substantial disrepair, and one in four private sector homes is in an unsatisfactory condition. The councils are trying to tackle these problems but are obstructed and frustrated at every step by central Government.
  While the nature and extent of the problems urgently require more resources, the Government have slowly been strangling the housing sector. Gateshead's housing investment programme has been cut by 75 per cent during the period 1979 to 1985, and Newcastle received only 55 per cent. of what was needed to carry out a modest programme in 1986–87. As if to rub salt into their wounds, both councils have been rate capped by this Government.
  The minimal support given to the local authorities through the inner area partnership has been cut in real terms, and the flexibility to use the moneys as the councils perceive the need has been severely curtailed. Despite the fact that housing is the major inner area problem, no part of inner area partnership grants can be used to help improve the housing stock itself. This problem is not

  195
  peculiar to Tyneside, because one has only to travel a short distance from the House of Commons to see similar housing deprivation.
  We need a strategy which will improve conditions for all sections of the community, and which will give people a choice over where they live and more control over their environment. The basis of that strategy must be a substantial boost to investment in house building and repair, including measures to help elderly owners who find it difficult to maintain their own homes, assistance for first-time buyers and those on low incomes, and adequate provision for single people to meet the growing demand in that area.
  The way forward in housing is to recognise the moral duty that we have as a society to provide decent homes for our people. The way forward for our society is the recognition of the major impact that such provision would have on our environment, health, peace of mind and civilisation.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: It is fair to say that we have had a robust and argumentative debate on education. It was rather more argumentative on the Opposition Benches judging by the emptiness of the Government Benches, and rather more rigorous than the distinctly flimsy and threadbare Government programme for the coming year as spelt out in the Queen's Speech.
  Although I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say it, the Opposition's arguments were rather more persuasive than the Secretary of State's lame and unconvincing opening speech, which must have left many people wondering—given his attitude to the teachers and the local authorities—whether he really wants the current negotiations to succeed, or how and by what means he would impose a settlement if a voluntary agreement were not reached.
  There were many important, witty and incisive contributions on education by Opposition Members. That is a subject on which it is not my special prerogative to comment, but as to the area that I cover, I commend the speech that has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland).
  I should perhaps pay a special tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), whose contributions on the NHS over the years are perhaps unequalled in the House. His speech tonight showed all the concern and commitment for a genuinely free and comprehensive Health Service for which he is so justly known. If my hon. Friend is right in saying that this is his last Queen's Speech contribution, we shall certainly miss him.
  At present, all the opinion surveys show that what matter most to people are unemployment, health and education, yet on all those subjects the Queen's Speech is thin to the point of invisibility. There is nothing in it that will reduce unemployment. Health is not even mentioned, despite the fact — or perhaps because of it — that the NHS continues to crumble apart almost daily. As for education, as my hon. Friends have unerringly demonstrated, the specifics of the Queen's Speech are scarcely geared to producing harmony or better standards in the schools.
  196
  There is another matter which at present is a huge national issue, yet the Government's response in the Queen's Speech is a deafening silence. That is the reemergence of mass poverty in our society on a magnitude and with an intensity to which most people believed no civilised society would ever again decline. The Government would prefer to forget and ignore that matter.
  One of the first acts of the Government in 1979 was deliberately to abandon the annual official calculation of the poverty figures. When the figures for 1983 were finally worked out at the end of last year, the Government were so ashamed that they sat on them for six months and then embarrassingly put them in the Library, hoping that no one would notice, a few hours after Parliament had disbanded for the summer. The figures are, indeed, shameful. They show that in 1983 just under 9 million people were living on or below the supplementary benefit line. That included 2·75 million people who were existing on less than supplementary benefit. That was three years ago. Given the continuing remorseless rise of unemployment, there can be no doubt that the number of people living on or below supplementary benefits in Britain today is between 10 million and 11 million. That is one in every five.
  I recognise that it is somewhat fashionable in certain Right-wing circles to try to disparage those figures by changing the definition of poverty and suggesting that being on supplementary benefit today no longer amounts to being in poverty. As the Prime Minister recently put it with the breathtaking complacency of which only she is capable,
  "People who are living in need are fully and properly provided for."
  I wonder whether she or any other Cabinet Minister on more than £800 a week has any idea what it is like to live as a single person on supplementary benefit on £29·80 a week or as married couples on £48·40 a week with everything to be paid for from those sums, except housing costs.
  Eighteen months ago London Weekend Television commissioned a national survey entitled "Breadline Britain". It found that 7 million people regularly go without food simply because they cannot afford to eat; that 3 million households cannot afford to heat the living areas in their homes; that nearly 3·5 million households do not have enough money for carpets, a washing machine or a fridge; that about 6 million people go without necessary clothes; and that 3 million people cannot afford to celebrate Christmas or give presents once a year to their family and friends.
  Perhaps most important the survey found clear evidence of a threshold of deprivation where people become so poor that they are largely prevented from sharing in or contributing to the communal life of the society around them. That independent LWT survey found that that figure was at a net income of about £70 a week for a couple which is about one third above the level of the higher long-term supplementary benefit rate. It illustrates clearly the helplessness and alienation to which Government policies now condemn more than 10 million of our fellow citizens.
  That revelation came as a bit of a shock to Mr. Matthew Parris, the former Tory Member of Parliament for West Derbyshire, who scoffed that living on supplementary benefit was all a matter of better management of resources until, before the television

  197
  cameras, he could not even get to the end of one week on supplementary benefit without running out of cash. He is not alone in that.
  A DHSS sponsored survey, published last year under the title "Selective Social Security", found that more than half the couples with children on supplementary benefit ran out of money most weeks and, indeed, were in debt when they were interviewed. That is perhaps scarcely surprising when supplementary benefit today for a couple with two children under 11 amounts to precisely £2·46 per person per day. I wonder how many Members of Parliament and their families could survive on that subsistence level. If they could not, I wonder how they could justify forcing 10 million people to do just that.
  Today, we are seeing the re-emergence on a horrifying scale of an under-class of the dispossessed. Behind the growing statistics are hidden the crippling signs of social degeneration. As unemployment rises, so do the rates of suicides and para-suicide—that is, where people injure themselves, although not fatally. There is abundant evidence that long-term unemployment causes deterioration in mental health. There is a clear link between the growth of unemployment and the rising curve of marital breakdown. Studies have found that children born to unemployed fathers have a lower birth weight and a deficit in growth in the early years compared with families where the father is in work. Other studies have found that after the father's job is lost the children suffer increased disturbance in feeding habits, gastro-intestinal complaints, sleeping difficulties, proneness to accidents and behavioural disorders.
  What is so sickening about this catalogue of malaise is that there is nothing predestined or inevitable about it. On the contrary, it is man-made, or perhaps one should say woman-made, it is remediable and it is preventable. It is simply, however, that the Government have no intention whatever of preventing it.
  The Government's attitude to the poor can be summarised as one of benign neglect. It is a brutal philosophy. Force down the wages of the lowest paid, like the domestics on £50 to £60 a week, through attacks on wages councils, and privatisation. Fob off the pensioners with the absolute legal minimum with which one can get away. Drive the army of the unemployed into impotence and despair by cutting and taxing benefits, by abolishing the earnings-related supplement and now by bringing in the infamous work test.
  What is so despicable about the Government's policy towards poverty is not so much that they have allowed the numbers in hardship to grow so massively, but that they just do not care. They are simply not interested in the problem of poverty.
  Sir Ian Percival: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Meacher: It is indeed utterly disgraceful, and I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that it is disgraceful that one person in five now lives in poverty and that the Government do not care.
  Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was saying that his is a disgraceful accusation. There is no monopoly of caring on the Labour side.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is at least touched by the accusation, which is utterly true. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber
  198
  at the beginning of my speech—he was not here until then—to hear me make the point that the figures that I am quoting are all Government figures. There is no question but that the numbers in poverty in 1983 were nearly 9 million, and the Minister will not deny that the figure today is almost certainly over 10 million. That is one in five of the population living at a level at which most hon. Members could not survive, even for one week.
  Sir Ian Percival rose—
  Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way again.
  Under the Government, the poor have simply been written off. The Government have their electoral sights fixed firmly on those in work, and those out of work and those dependent on benefit amount to no more than ballast, and can be thrown out in the electoral dash for growth. Thatcherite individualism, unlike traditional Conservatism, is a philosophy of unabashed selfishness. Applying their own philosophy, the Government's selfish interest has no need of those who are poor and do not like the poor. They blame the poor for their own poverty.
  The Government do not care electorally. Unfortunately, they know all too well that poverty does not mobilise its victims; it paralyses them. It is a cruel and punitive philosophy reminiscent of the antagonisms of the Victorian poor law towards those who fell into its grasp.
  It is not so much the economics of poverty that we repudiate so strongly as the values and morality behind the Government's policies. We repudiate the morality of a Government who have doubled poverty so that it extends to more than 10 million people while at the same time giving every member of the Cabinet and everyone else on more than £50,000 a year tax handouts since 1979 worth an extra £245 a week. We repudiate the morality of a Government who give pensioners an 80p a week rise, just enough for about a couple of loaves of bread, while at the same time this year giving a pay rise 50 times greater to generals, judges and civil servants.
  We repudiate the morality of a Government who offer the Prime Minister £30 a week in mortgage tax relief to help her buy a £500,000 mansion in Dulwich while at the same time cutting by half the mortgage interest payment benefit for those on the dole. That must cause thousands of evictions. We repudiate the morality of a Government who insist on introducing a work test to check the availability for work of the unemployed when the country knows that the problem is the opposite of that — the availability of work for the unemployed.
  The Government have a degrading philosophy. At best, it shows a callous indifference towards the poor, and at worst I suspect that it shows real contempt directed not only at those whom Tories find most undeserving, like the unemployed and single parent families, but at the sick and disabled, the widows and the elderly and low paid. They have all been forced to take cuts in their living standards. The latest cut was announced only last week, the chipping away of statutory sick pay. According to the Commons Library, it was the 35th cut in social security since 1979. According to the same independent source, the cumulative value of those cuts in benefit since the Government came to office is £11 billion plus another £3 billion clawed back from the unemployed by the taxation of unemployment benefit, a measure which the Government introduced for the first time four years ago.
  Those sums would be enough to give every pensioner and every unemployed family in the country a Christmas

  199
  bonus next month of £1,000. Such a bonus is about as likely under this Government as a snowstorm in hell. In reality the divide between rich and poor has never been starker. In the same month that the big bang deregulation in the City of London spawned six-figure salaries —£2,000 a week for young men in their twenties and thirties—the Government awarded elderly people a pension of precisely £39·50.
  In the year in which Christies recently sold a bottle of vintage Château Lafitte for £105,000 the Fowler Social Security Bill was whittling away the incomes of millions for whom Château Sainsburys would, I suspect, be an improbable luxury. Unmentioned as it is in the Queen's Speech, that Fowler Bill which is now the Social Security Act 1986 will feed through a series of regulations which will have an impact next year on the lives of 15 million people. Like the Queen's Speech, it will do nothing to alleviate poverty because it merely redistributes existing resources among the poor. Several specific measures in that Act will increase poverty. Those measures are the 20 per cent. rate contribution, the halving of mortgage interest payments, discretionary loans from the social fund in place of single payments, the lower rate of income support for the under-25s and the absence of any client group premium for the long-term unemployed and for carers. Some will suffer quite substantial cuts in living standards.
  Of the 3·75 million households in total that the Government admit will lose under the Fowler Act, the Government's own technical annex shows particularly large losses for low-paid families without children, for the unemployed without children and for pensioners in the 60–80 age group. Moreover, the cuts in housing benefit will have an especially severe impact on pensioners and the low-paid who are in full-time work. Nor are the Government, in their anxiety to maximise their tax cutting electoral bribes, even prepared to put enough money into preventing a repetition this winter of last winter's horrific catalogue of deaths from hypothermia.
  Government figures that were released just over a month ago show that in last year's cold winter 22,000 more of the over-75s died, compared with the previous winter. After the farce or tragedy of last year's exceptionally severe weather payments, all that the Government are proposing this year is a system of payments when the temperature drops for a full week below minus 1½ deg C. On last year's experience, that will exclude two-thirds of the whole area of England. Even then the Government propose to restrict payments to those elderly people with less than £500 in the bank, which means that the great majority of the poorest pensioners will be excluded.
  What makes the Government's whole policy of squeezing the poor so obnoxious, in my view, is that it is strongly opposed by public opinion throughout the country. The "Breadline Britain" survey found that the overwhelming majority of the population believe that Government spending should be increased to get rid of poverty. Three quarters of the population believe that the gap between the rich and the poor is too wide, that differences in pay between the high paid and the low paid are too great and that the Government should increase taxation on the rich.
  But it is not only that the Government have done the reverse of that and hugely benefited the richest in our
  200
  society through tax relief, paid for by benefit cuts imposed on the poorest. What is even worse is that the Government have humiliated and degraded poor people by laying waste the whole physical environment of the social security system. In some areas, that system is now sliding remorselessly towards a state that can only be described as disintegration. Everywhere it is showing unmistakable signs of breaking down.
  Staff numbers have been cut, despite a huge increase in demand resulting from the tripling of unemployment in the last seven years, leading to a gross overload of pressures throughout the system. In many offices the post is not being processed, or it is not linked to case papers. Last month there were 170,000 unlinked items of post. Where post is processed, claims are not dealt with properly. Nearly 140,000 claims for supplementary benefit were outstanding last month, even though supplementary benefit is limited to cases where the need is urgent and immediate. In addition, also outstanding were 160,000 single payments — these are official figures — 23,000 appeals and 217,000 other claims.
  Claimants who telephone for information are often unable to obtain an answer, as the telephones are not being manned, due to staff shortages. This year, one in five offices have closed the switchboard during normal business hours, and a further one in five reduced the number of lines that are available for incoming calls. I understand that some of the offices with the biggest backlogs are open only for a few hours a day to callers, because there are insufficient staff in those offices to deal with them.
  Not surprisingly, the frustration and resentment caused to claimants by delays in obtaining payments, without which they have to go without food, are increasingly spilling over into violence, with counters and security screens being smashed and staff assaulted.
  There was an incident at the Camberwell area office in London last August when the counter service was shut—it is still not open, three months later. Three weeks ago, on 22 October, the Oval area office was attacked and it has been shut since then. I want to tell the House the reason for that because it is highly significant. The Oval office was open, after hours of queuing, for between 10 minutes and two hours a day, during which time claimants were obliged to struggle with each other, held back by two security guards, to get their hands on one of the limited number of tickets enabling them to be seen.
  The staffing and funding shortages have forced the local management of the Department of Health and Social Security offices to institute what is, in effect, a state of siege—a kind of cattle market—in our social security system. Yet at last week's meeting with the unions, the Government refused any increases in staffing. They have allocated an extra £1·75 billion to meet the expected increase in entitlement for benefit this year because of rising unemployment, yet there will be no extra staff to deal with the work. That is in addition to the fact that 35 offices have still not completed even the last uprating exercise.
  The effect can only be longer waiting lists, even bigger delays in the processing of forms — which already extends up to three or four months — and an even greater number of errors in payments—already found in many cases to exceed 60 per cent. It will result in a further

  201
  plummeting of morale among staff and a further winding up of the frustration, anger and bitterness felt by claimants.
  It is not simply that the quality of service to claimants is deteriorating, though it is, and massively. The delays stretching into months, the collapse of home visiting, the atmosphere of latent violence in more and more offices, the threats against staff, and the inaccessibility of help, whether it is by letter, telephone or queuing at the offices, adds up to a system that is in the throes of breakdown.
  At this time, DHSS offices have been described—not by me, but by others—as the
  "salt mines of the Civil Service".
  That is a description that anybody would recognise who has sat, as I have, for hours in grossly overcrowded rooms in substandard accommodation with under-trained, under-paid and grossly over-worked staff livng under appalling pressures. DHSS offices — I say this with no pride—must now rank as the worst buildings in some of the worst conditions and with the poorest paid and hardest pressed members of staff in the whole of the public service. It is a poor service because it is intended for poor people who rank very low—or, indeed, nowhere—in the Government's priorities.
  One certain thing in politics today is that as long as Thatcherite capitalism persists, poverty will deepen and intensify. It is not simply that the Government are indifferent to or, even contemptuous of the plight of those condemned to poverty, but rather that the Government, year after year, have been squeezing the social security system and the staff which unhappily works in it, to a point where they are deliberately generating a breakdown. I submit that that is an ugly and vindictive philosophy that commands almost no support in the country.
  In conclusion, for the pensioners, the widows, the sick, the disabled, the low paid, the carers, the unemployed and all the staff in the DHSS offices whose commitment and loyalty is unquestioned and unquestionable, but whose patience is now at breaking point, the next election cannot come too soon.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): In the last few minutes of his speech the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to some of the difficulties in some of the local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security. His remarks led to the inexorable conclusion that there must be a substantial and detailed reform of the complexity of the present social security system to alleviate these difficulties. That is precisely what we have done with the Social Security Act 1986, against the absolute and total opposition of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  In the catalogue of woe of the hon. Member for Oldham, West — there is no one better than the hon. Gentleman at taking the truth and stretching it beyond all credibility—there was no mention of the 5,000 extra staff that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services put into the system very recently. There was no mention by the hon. Gentleman of the complement review that is designed to match staff and work load, which has been going on for some time and is nearly completed. There was no mention of the fact that during all the period of the previous Labour Government, including the hon. Gentleman's time as a Minister in the DHSS, there was not one move towards making a modern,
  202
  efficient social security system to provide claimants with a decent service. Before the hon. Gentleman lectures us about the service, he had better consider what he provided when he was a Minister.
  I am conscious of the fact that in this debate on education and family policy I face across the Dispatch Box an Etonian, a Wykehamist and a Berkhamsteadian. As a mere product of the state system, I feel suitably daunted by the prospect of facing those who have had such a splendid and, no doubt, expensive education.
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I should like to explain why he—he who would have wished to be present for the debate—has been unable to be with us. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Oldham, West for being gracious enough to accept the reasons for my right hon. Friend's absence. The House will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend has today been involved in discussions on AIDS, and has this afternoon met the chairman and director general of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to discuss the crucial role of public education in fighting the spread of AIDS. He has asked, in particular, whether the independent broadcasting organisations would be prepared to cooperate with the Government in carrying forward a public education campaign. I am pleased to tell the House that the chairman of the IBA has agreed that it is clearly a public service role for both television and radio and that further work to identify and develop this role should be set in hand immediately. I am sure, too, that the House will be intrigued to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be having discussions with the BBC shortly.
  When I became the Minister for Social Security some weeks ago, I was warned that it was likely to be a rather wide brief. I am bound to say that I did not anticipate until this afternoon quite how wide the brief might be. There was a moment during the evening when I feared that I might have walked into the Chamber on the wrong day and that even the hon. Member for Oldham, West might restrict his remarks solely to education. That was clearly a horrifying moment for me and, I rather suspect, for the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice).
  We have had a series of wide-ranging speeches from hon. Members, on both sides of the House, on both education and family matters. The debate began with a strong emphasis on education, and this can be said of the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Durham, North as well as of those from many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North, who appears not to be in his place for the moment, spoke with his usual honest and straightforward concern for education. I fancy that when he reads his speech tomorrow in Hansard he may feel that that was unnecessarily negative. There was, alas, no reference to the introduction of the GCSE examination or any of the vocational qualifications which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is working so hard to introduce. I fancy, however, that there is a great deal of common ground in education, and it is important to build on that wherever possible. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may regret what he neglected to say this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who is also apparently unavoidably absent, confessed to the House that he had caught a cold in Knowsley. I am not sure whether that was a statement of

  203
  medical fact or an early prediction of the result of today's by-election, but no doubt we shall discover that before too long.
  I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish to see the highest possible standards in the maintained sector of education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also shares that view. In the absence of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, I must say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that I regret his hon. Friend's opposition to the assisted places scheme and to the Secretary of State's proposals for city technology colleges. I suspect that Mr. Gladstone would frown at the preferences of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, who approves not of the policies of Mr. Gladstone, but of the policies that would delight Mrs. Frances Morell. That tells us much about the modern-day Liberal party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), my parliamentary neighbour, spoke with his usual forthright and robust good sense. I share his support for the devolution of financial responsibilities to the heads of some of the larger comprehensive schools. Hinchingbrooke school, an excellent school in my constituency, is delighted to have such devolution. My hon. Friend will join me in saying that heads of Cambridgeshire welcome that responsibility. Governors and parents also welcome it. It is thoroughly in the interests of the schools and the sooner the principle can be extended, the better it will be for everyone.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was courteous enough to send me a note explaining why he had to leave the debate. He raised the important matter of access to further and higher education. I must tell him that since this Government come to power student numbers in higher education have increased by almost 80,000 and that the proportion of 18 to 19-year-olds entering higher education has grown by 15 per cent. Within that total, science and engineering courses have increased by 30 per cent. That trend is wholly welcome and desirable.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) expressed his regret that he might be making his last contribution to a debate on the Loyal Address. If that proves to be the case, on the basis of my knowledge of the hon. Gentleman since 1979, I must say that his contributions on this and other occasions will be missed. He has undoubtedly made a lengthy contribution to the National Health Service. Although we do not universally agree with his propositions and comments, we respect without qualification his concern for the National Health Service and his deep knowledge of it.
  The hon. Gentleman was, however, mistaken on this occasion. He said that the Government wished to diminish the importance of the National Health Service. I must tell him that the National Health Service is of prime importance to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the recent announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will become the chairman of the National Health Service management board.
  The hon. Gentleman may also have forgotten that each year Ministers meet individually the regional chairmen of the National Health Service to discuss progress and future plans. The action plans arising from these meetings are lodged in the Library of the House for hon. Members to
  204
  see. I wish to study carefully the comments of the hon. Gentleman on one issue. He said that resource growth was less than inflation. Spending has risen by about 25 per cent. ahead of the general inflation rate since 1978–79, and is planned in the forthcoming year to increase by a further 2·5 per cent.
  I understand that in a few days' time the hon. Member for Brent, South will meet my hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the closure of Neasden hospital. Therefore, I shall reserve any further comment upon that.
  The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to Manchester hospitals and cuts in services. My right hon. Friend and I will study the hon. Gentleman's remarks very carefully, but I should like to explain the real situation in Manchester. In the middle of next month my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will perform what is loosely and rather vulgarly called a sod-cutting ceremony for the £26 million phase 2 development at the Manchester royal infirmary, which is the largest capital scheme currently under way in the region. When that is completed it will provide X-ray facilities, intensive therapy facilities, 10 theatres, 280 acute beds, a school of radiography and much more besides. The situation may not be entirely as the hon. Member for Stretford suggested.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke with his usual passion about education, in which he has a well-known interest. Despite that passion, I cannot accept his strictures about the Houghton pay levels. By 1979 teachers' pay levels had fallen to 13 per cent. in real terms below the levels established by Houghton. In contrast, by October 1987 they will be 10 per cent. above those same Houghton levels. The hon. Gentleman should not use alternative statistics.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who I am delighted to see back in his place in view of the robust remarks that he made earlier, spoke about good taste and finer instincts, while revealing in what he said that he has very few himself. He is not a very convincing guardian of artistic values and refined sensibilities. I find it pretty hard to be lectured on good taste by a man in a dark brown suit, a striped shirt, a spotted tie, blue socks and suede shoes. That may be the hon. Gentleman's version of good taste, but I fancy that it is not necessarily the view of his constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) referred to phase I of Hemel Hempstead hospital. This was cancelled by the previous Labour Government, and we reinstated it. My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously for phases 1 and 2 of that hospital. I am delighted to remind him—if he had forgotten that phase 1 is due to start next autumn, despite its cancellation by the hon. Member for Oldham, West when he was a member of the Labour Administration.
  There has been a persistent thread running through the debate, whether hon. Members were referring to education or to family policy. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) back to the Chamber after his temporary attendance earlier this evening. If the hon. Gentleman had been here longer we would undoubtedly have heard from him, because we always hear him when he is here. However, he has been notably silent, and upon that I rest the case that he must have been absent.
  The thread of the debate is what the late Mr. Iain Macleod once referred to as the root of all progress. I refer, of course, to money, to the provision of resources for

  205
  services and benefits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science referred comprehensively to the scale of education resources, so I should like to consider primarily, though perhaps not exclusively, resources for family welfare.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way as I have many points to make on the observations about family poverty and I wish to make progress.
  Opposition rhetoric, not least from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, has continually referred to cuts in provision, despite the unassailable evidence of increasing resources for health and social security programmes. There is no one less willing to see growth in resources than an Opposition spokesman seeking to damn the Government's record. The reality is that the Government are currently spending at record levels on social security benefits and, in real terms, on the National Health Service. That intriguing little fact was not immediately evident from the hon. Gentleman's remarks this evening. It also seemed to have slipped temporarily from the Leader of the Opposition's notice in his ill-informed remarks yesterday. I remind them that this year we expect to spend about £44 billion on social security, an increase—[Interruption.] If I trail my coat, the hon. Member for Oldham, West will undoubtedly trip over it. He has done so again this evening. About £44 billion will be spent on social security, an increase of 37 per cent. in real terms, and an increase on Health Service expenditure of £18·75 billion, or 25 per cent., in real terms. However Opposition Members may wriggle, independent research and statisticians will confirm that those are accurate figures.
  As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about unemployment, I shall turn to the reality. The social security increase is not simply a reflection of unemployment levels. Most of that increase—around £7 billion or more—is due entirely to other factors. About £1·75 billion is a result of the increasing number of retirement pensioners. Our latest figures reveal that the number of retirement pensioners has risen by nearly I million since 1978. A further £1·5 billion is being spent because of increasing numbers of the disabled and long-term sick receiving benefits. Despite what the hon. Gentleman had to say, they will be noticeably better off as a result of the social security reforms in due course.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: In a moment.
  Already, as a result, 280,000 more people are receiving attendance allowance, 300,000 more are receiving mobility allowance, and 270,000 more are receiving invalidity benefit. That is a substantial improvement. Those numerical increases have been absorbed. In addition to those numerical increases, we are spending around £4·5 billion extra because of genuine increases in the average amount of benefits paid. Of that, about £1·6 billion will go to people with family responsibilties. That is the context of rapidly rising expenditure in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West accuses the Government of increasing family poverty. It is a rum proposition.
  Global expenditure is up, individual benefit expenditure is tip, family income supplement prescribed levels are up as much as 20 per cent. for large families,
  206
  supplementary benefit levels are up 6 per cent. and scale rates for families with young children are up by as much as 29 per cent. On the back of those substantial increases, the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to accuse us of increasing family poverty.
  Mr. Radice: Before the Minister gets carried away by this fantasy of Government generosity, perhaps he would like to take account of the fact that pensioners, who he thinks are better off and who are the largest group, suffered a cut of £450 million in housing benefit — largely to do with measures in the Fowler Social Security Act—and a further £86 million in the uprating only a fortnight ago. Is the Minister ready to acknowledge that pensioners have lost since 1979 because the link with earnings in the uprating means that a single pensioner today is £8 a week worse off and married couples are £12 a week worse off than he and they would be if Labour's formula had continued to operate? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that some of the most vulnerable people over 80, who were getting heating allowances, have also had cuts in supplementary benefit because the Government considered they were too well off?
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman might do well to recall that the largest single cut in pensions occurred when the Labour Government introduced the pensions fiddle of 1976, when he was in the Department and Barbara Castle was the Secretary of State. There is no dispute that the increase in retirement pension is exceeding the increase in the retail prices index, as we promised it would when we came to Government. That is the reality of what we promised, that is what we have achieved and that is what we shall continue to achieve.
  The fact about family poverty, on which the hon. Gentleman's remarks centred, is that supplementary benefit and family income supplements are specifically targeted at the families most in need. The record that I have quoted in part—in his heart, the hon. Gentleman knows this—shows beyond doubt that we have not only protected their position, but are providing substantial and positive help and encouragement.
  Dr. McDonald rose—
  Mr. Major: It is no good the hon. Lady muttering about things that she does not understand. She might be wise to listen. She may learn something that will be of considerable assistance to her.
  Above all, what the Opposition consistently overlook, but what pensioners do not forget, is the practical advantage to those on modest incomes of near stable prices, including fuel prices, compared to the banana republic inflation of the mid to late 1970s. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, in talking to me about heating allowances, might bear in mind the substantial amount in the supplementary benefit scale for heating and the fact that additions are running at a substantially higher level than anything the Labour Government produced. That is against the background of the fact that the price of fuel has increased in the past year by as much as it went up every six weeks or so during the whole period when the Labour party was last in government. The Labour party might contemplate that before lecturing us across the Floor of the House.
  I am not at all complacent about the problems which were touched upon by the hon. Members for Manchester,

  207
  Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and others. Because we understand that those problems exist for families, one of the central objectives of the social security reforms was to do more to help low-income families with children. Our decision to focus more help on those people was based specifically on an analysis of need, which we set out in detail in the Green Paper last year.
  We concluded that it was necessary to concentrate more resources on low-income families with children. That is why we proposed, as part of the reforms, a number of specific measures with that aim in mind. We proposed to continue child benefit as a benefit paid to all mothers with children, tax free, direct and without a test of income. We proposed a new family premium, which was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, in the new income support scheme, so that non-working families would receive better protection than hitherto.
  Mr. Meacher: Piffling.
  Mr. Major: Piffling perhaps to the hon. Gentleman, but very helpful to the people in need. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that extra help is piffling. No wonder his private school education did not allow him to realise what reality was for many people on low incomes.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Major: I shall not give way.
  We proposed a radical improvement in the help available to low-income families with children through the creation of a new and expanding family credit scheme. None of those improvements has found its way into any speech by an Opposition Member during the whole debate since 3 o'clock.
  The hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, for Manchester, Central and for Oldham, West spoke of what they called "poverty". Of course there are, and always have been, elements of poverty, but hon. Members did as others have done and drew wholly false conclusions from the 1983 low-income tables. Clearly, they have read them. Equally clearly, they have not understood them. I wish to challenge the view that the supplementary benefit scale rates can be used as a definition of "poverty", for I do not believe that they can. The hon. Member for Oldham, West should beware before he says that that is the case. Such a view is misleading. The fact is that supplementary benefit exists to ensure that people do not live in poverty. To measure poverty by the supplementary benefit rates is ludicrous. [Interruption.] The Opposition should wait a moment.
  Supplementary benefit is, of course, an income of last resort—a safety net of which we can be justly proud—which has increased in value since 1979, but it is by no means the only assistance to those without other income. Supplementary benefit recipients have certificated housing benefits and all their housing rates paid. They are provided with an income to cover day-to-day living costs. They may also be entitled to a large number of passported benefits —free NHS prescriptions and dental treatment spring immediately to mind, although there are many others. In that sense, the purpose of supplementary benefit —
  208
  especially with its passporting provisions—is clearly to prevent hardship and poverty. It is absurd to argue that those who have been specifically helped in this fashion
  Nor have any previous Government, including the one in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West served, ever regarded the supplementary benefit scale rate as an official poverty line. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I remind him that when the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was a Minister—no hawkish Right-winger, he — he made it plain that the Labour Government did not accept that a single poverty line could be drawn. Nor can it, and it is a crude abuse of statistics to suggest that it can in the way that the hon. Gentleman did today.
  I also remind the hon. Gentleman that there is something paradoxical about the low-income tables. Because they depend for their definition on the supplementary benefit scale rates, real increases in those same supplementary benefit scale rates raise the number of people on low incomes who appear in the tables. The higher one puts up the supplementary benefit scale rates, the more people are put in the tables and the more people the hon. Gentleman suggests are living in poverty.
  That produces some interesting effects which have been utterly ignored in some of the assertions that we have heard tonight and from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, who was, as usual, ill briefed. Between 1979 and 1983, the whole of the increase in the number of families with resources below supplementary benefit level is directly attributable to the real increases in the supplementary benefit rates. Therefore, those tables contain unequivocal nonsense. When benefits go up, the number of people in poverty, according to that definition, appears to go up as well. If we wanted to reduce poverty on that definition, we would reduce the level of benefit to where it was when the hon. Gentleman was in office, and that would clearly be absurd and grossly unfair. [Interruption.] I understand the statistics, but the hon. Gentleman does not, and, not understanding them, he misinterprets them, and misinterprets them quite deliberately.
  There are further misleading concepts in the tables that have utterly escaped the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is muttering beside him. Consider, for example, the use of the term "family", to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West returned repeatedly. Clearly, he has not read the notes on the tables. Families in those circumstances are defined as "the assessment unit" for supplementary benefit. In essence, although the hon. Gentleman referred to them as families, they may well be single people rather than families with children. There are a series of other elements in those particular tables that are capable of quite different interpretations from the ones that the hon. Gentleman sought to put upon them today.
  The hon. Gentleman may recall that I announced in July that before the next editions of the low-income tables are published there will be a technical review of the methods and assumptions used—
  Mr. Meacher: Fiddling.
  Mr. Major: Again, the hon. Gentleman is not listening. To avoid any misunderstanding I should stress to him and the House that that review is at the request of my statistical

  209
  advisers who feel that the tables should be calculated on a better and separate basis. They, too, share the doubts that have been expressed this evening about those tables.
  In recent months the hon. Gentleman has had a great deal to say about the policies and priorities of any future Labour Government. In the midst of a galaxy of commitments, many vague and contradictory, and most of them utterly uncosted, he has failed to make his true policy intentions clear. What is the policy of the Labour party? When will the hon. Gentleman cost his promises and tell us how he will pay for them? He repeatedly reaffirms that in the first year of a Labour Government his party will increase retirement pensions and child benefits and extend the long-term scale rate of supplementary benefit for the unemployed. He costs that at £3·6 billion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is rattling his cage. Let him do so.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West has utterly refused to say whether he would give corresponding increases to the supplementary benefit scale rates and housing benefit needs allowance. Will he? He must know that unless he gives those increases the poorest members of society would simply not get the benefit and, in some cases, no benefit whatever from the increases that he is talking about. That is the practice of what the hon. Gentleman says, and if he carries his policies through to a logical conclusion, although accept that that is asking a lot, I warn him that the cost of his proposals could rise to £4·6 billion, and that if he were to do the logical thing and give the same increases to the long-term sick and widows, to as much as £5·6 billion. I accuse the hon. Member for Oldham, West of utterly failing to make his policies clear and of failing to show how those policies would be paid for by the people of this country. His proposals are simply the tip of the iceberg of the expenditure which the taxpayer would have to bear.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Jews (Soviet Union)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
10 pm
Mr. Roy Mason: I wish to raise with the Foreign Office the question of the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union. There are 2,115,000 Jews in the USSR. An estimate of practising Jews is up to 500,000. It is worth noting that Russian wartime losses were about 30 million. The Jewish share was 2·5 million, reducing the Jews from 2·5 per cent. of the population in 1941 to about 1 per cent. That meant that Jewish losses were proportionately four times as severe as those of the Soviet population as a whole. Therefore, they paid a price too. Yet, Russia is hostile to Zionism and to the new state of Israel. It deprives the Soviet Jews of the consolation of pride in the new Jewish state and contacts with it. Therefore, there is a tendency for the Jew in the Soviet Union to be technically a member of a non-Russian nationality. Indeed, on the passport of every Jewish person in the USSR the word "Jew" appears as the nationality. Yet Jews are denied the full facilities for maintaining and furthering the Jewish culture of the past.
Pressure from Western democracies, highlighting the suffering of the Jews and the restrictions on emigration to their land, has resulted in some movement. However, during the past few years there has been a drastic drop in the number of exit visas granted. In 1979, 51,000 Jews were permitted to leave. In 1985, the number was 1,140. Last month, the figure was a mere 104 and this year it will be less than 1,000.
The Soviet authorities say that almost all Jews who wish to join relatives abroad have already done so. The truth is quite different. Since 1968, some 648,000 Jews have requested invitations—a necessary legal prerequisite to the granting of a visa — from relatives abroad. Only 265,000 had received exit visas up to the end of 1985, leaving a balance of about 383,000 Jews still waiting for permission to leave. Even more depressing, is the number of refuseniks: people whose application to leave has been refused. Currently there are about 11,000 such cases known in the West and probably many more are unknown. A total of 8,200 have been waiting for five to 10 years and 1,200 have been waiting for over 10 years. Undoubtedly, there is a Jewish question in the Soviet Union.
The Council of Europe reported on the plight of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union in 1982. It noted with concern the current wave of anti-semitism present in most areas of Soviet life. It noted that the Jewish community in the Soviet Union is an oppressed cultural minority and it considered the situation worthy of international concern. The Council called upon the Soviet Union to cease the dissemination of anti-Jewish propaganda and the harassment of Hebrew teachers, to declare an unofficial time limit on the waiting period for exit visas and to grant, as a matter of priority, exit permits to those Jews who applied to leave five years ago or more.
Since 1980, the granting of exit visas has slumped. Today there is a virtual sealing of the gates. Particularly hard hit are the activists who, in Moscow, Leningrad and elsewhere, lead the struggle for visas. Thousands of Jews have been refused exit visas for many years. They have been told again and again that their chosen path to their

211
chosen land is a dead end. They live in a harsh limbo world of refusal. Many are thrown out of their professions, often pilloried in the Soviet press and regularly taunted with the phrase, "You will never leave the Soviet Union." Russian Jews describe this period as "nil emigration". Arrests of Jews still continue. They feel that they are at the crossroads and appeal to Western voices to cry out on their behalf, otherwise they fear that they will be crushed out of all activity.
The Soviets are refusing to honour and adhere to international treaty obligations. The draft resolution of the Council of Europe publicly declared that the policy of the Soviet authorities on Jewish emigration and Jewish culture is unacceptable. A culture is being made to disappear in spite of internationally guaranteed human rights. The doors of emigration are closing tightly. Families are being separated for long periods, and people are being exiled to Siberia because of their struggle for human rights.
I led a visit to Moscow last year of an all-party Soviet Jewry committee delegation of Members of Parliament. Our purpose was to meet refuseniks. It was a highly successful mission, all members playing their part to the full. We met 37 refuseniks — families, couples, groups, academics, workers and young activists. We were on a weekend charter tour, but we veered off to meet refuseniks in their apartments in and around Moscow. We made contact by telephone, had groups organised, and used taxis, the underground and trolley buses to get to our destinations. We split up into small parties and met late on Friday night, throughout Saturday and Sunday —there were meetings all weekend, including one with our ambassador in Moscow before we left.
First, we gave those people encouragement and explained our special visit to them. We explained activities going on, on their behalf. We told them about the debates printed in Hansard and the motions on the House of Commons Order Paper. We explained about other national and international bodies involved. I was somewhat disappointed with their living standards. They were not the best of living conditions, no doubt because they were refuseniks. Many were on menial jobs and low pay. That was reflected in what we saw. They do not fear us highlighting their plight. Indeed, they want us to do more, because the general situation for all Soviet Jews has deteriorated.
The all-party parliamentary committee on Soviet Jewry is grateful to the Foreign Office for its activities on our behalf, and we wish to place on record our appreciation, but at the same time we should like to inform the Foreign Office of our constant anxieties and we hope that it will take them on board. One small way in which we, in our all-party committee, believe that the Foreign Office could help to boost morale in the refusenik community would be to invite refuseniks to attend cultural and other events at our embassy in Moscow. With that in mind, colleague officers and I have written today to Sir Bryan Cartledge, our ambassador in Moscow. We have invited him to make a presentation of our committee's annual award to those Soviet Jews, past winners of the award, still resident in Russia, who have been prevented from accepting our invitation to attend here at Westminster in person. I hope that our ambassador agrees.
212
Additional administrative obstacles are constantly being placed in the path of potential emigrants. There have been reports of them being told that exit visas have been refused for life. In addition, some have been told that the required invitations from relatives from abroad can now be accepted for only one exit visa application. Each invitation can now come only through the postal system and can no longer be brought in by visitors to the Soviet Union. If the application is refused, it can be renewed only once a new invitation is received. Many of those denied the right to emigrate have been told that the refusal is based on security grounds, although in many cases those concerned have not worked for the Government or been in military service for many years.
An official campaign against the Jews was stepped up in late 1984 and early 1985, with crude attacks in the Soviet press, and on radio and television. In 1984, the Soviet authorities created difficulties over providing burial space in cemeteries, especially in the Moscow area, and have insisted instead on the cremation of the dead. That has caused great offence to orthodox Jews, whose religion forbids cremation.
The authorities have also stepped up their efforts to prevent the teaching of Hebrew, with the widespread confiscation of Hebrew literature and the arrest in the past two years of Jewish leaders, showing that a significant factor in several of these cases is that "criminal" charges are being brought for the alleged possession of firearms and drugs, as well as the more normal "political" charges, such as anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.
The Soviet authorities also announced that from 1 August 1984 customs duties on parcels sent to the Soviet Union had to be paid by the recipients. That move was seen as an attempt to eliminate schemes, some of which involve Jewish relief organisations, whereby the duty is pre-paid at the point of dispatch. The Post Office earlier sought clarification of the new arrangements from the Soviet authorities but was merely told that it applied to all categories of parcel. There is also continuing concern, especially among Jewish organisations, at the non-delivery of mail sent to the Soviet Union. Although the United Kingdom delegation, in concert with our Common Market partners, raised the matter at the congress of the Universal Postal Union in Hamburg in July 1984, it still goes on.
During our visit, one interesting theme, which was difficult to accept totally, was that scientists and Soviet academicians yearn to go West to New York, Washington or London to enjoy, and become involved in, the international seminars of higher learning. They like to mix in the higher learning circles of the Western world. "Well," say the refuseniks, "Why not make them pay a price, with refuseniks being released pro rata or in proportion to the number of academics visiting the West." Refuseniks say, "They freeze us out of Israel, let us freeze them out of the international circles of higher learning." That is a natural reaction, although difficult to put into practice. I must ask the Foreign Office whether that should not be registered with the Russians.
We also came across some young activists and human rights demonstrators who had paraded in the streets, but who had unfortunately been harassed as a result. I thought that morale was low, but there was allied with it a spirit that was unyielding despite their difficulties. There has been more harassment, with the searching of flats, confiscation of literature, with refuseniks being stopped in

213
the streets and embarrassed, with them being questioned at work, losing their jobs, with their wages being cut and with demotions.
Moreover, the teaching of Hebrew has been severely cut back. The Soviets fear that it is being taught solely in order to prepare Jews for Israel and its environment. Why not? Are not the Jews a special case? A land of their culture awaits them. Their religion, culture, and language await them, along with a chance to help to build their own state. I marvelled at them all, and thought that they were wonderful. On their behalf, we must constantly remind the Russians of their international obligations.
The Russians must recognise the universal declaration of human rights. Article 13(2) states:
"Everyone has the right to leave any Country including his own and return to his Country."
Thousands of Jews await release from their Soviet bonds. At the moment there is "nil emigration". They are appealing for Western voices to cry out on their behalf. Last week, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe opened in Vienna. As early-day motion 21, which was placed on the Order Paper yesterday, says, the Vienna conference presents a valuable opportunity for a thorough review of the Helsinki Final Act by the participating states on the question of human rights.
The "Helsinki process" has high aspirations, but it has been repeatedly frustrated by Russia's failure to live up to its statements of good intent or to honour its commitments. The plight of Jews in Russia is a prime example of the Soviets appalling disregard for human rights. Western Governments represented in Vienna must insist that this deplorable state of affairs be remedied. In future the Soviets must be judged by their performance, not by their promises and still less by their propaganda.
There is a yawning gap between the Soviets and the Western democracies on the interpretation of democracy. Within the definitions, religious freedom is very narrowly defined in Russia. This is the entrapment of the Jews. In our country we see no danger in religious expression, irrespective of the church or its culture. Until the Soviets are prepared to widen their horizons and to recognise these persecuted minorities, all of us who hold all the basic freedoms as of right, with no distinctions of any kind—such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, birth or any other status — must make them aware that we are prepared to campaign for the Jews to be recognised. If detente is to be meaningful and the Soviet's signature is on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is incumbent on them to be fair and true to the Jewish race.
10.16 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye very presumptuously so that I can intervene in this debate. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) for allowing me to intervene so that I can make a few quick comments. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall have to be very quick indeed so that the Minister can have a chance to reply to the many detailed points that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, not only for his speech, which was packed with scholarship, facts and figures—all of which I endorse—but also as a student of the dreadful plight of Soviet Jews. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented
214
the subject, and for the way in which he said thank you to the Foreign Office for its efforts in the past. Just because we ask for more does not mean that we do not appreciate those efforts.
I wholeheartedly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said, and am conscious of the work that he and other hon. Members in all parts of the House have done over the years. I was the founder chairman of the all-party Soviet Jewry committee. It has burgeoned and developed since then. We have made many efforts, but it is frustrating to know that the numbers are even fewer than before. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the miserable statistics of the ones who are allowed out.
My wife is the chairman of the Parliamentary Wives for Soviet Jewry, which two years ago held a successful international conference in London which highlighted the plight of Soviet Jews. Earlier this year we were able to rejoice at the release of Shcharansky and subsequently members of his family. We thought that was the beginning of a new era, but since then the gloom and doom has returned and the whole scene is extremely sorrowful and sad.
We are therefore fully entitled to repeat our exhortations to the Soviet Union. Let it now be bold and acknowledge that human rights and the universal declaration of human rights are important. After all, it is a signatory. We do not wish to intervene improperly in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, but they become externalised once it is a signatory of a universal declaration and a particular group of people wish to leave the Soviet Union. That is a matter of external interest to us, and we insist on our participation in it. We know that the refuseniks appreciate our efforts, although they are often puny. We wish that we could do much more. We thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central for what he did on his recent visit. We thank others who have been before as well as those who will go in the future, and we thank the Government for their efforts.
10.18 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): It is with genuine pleasure that I say to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) how grateful I am to him for raising this subject and for initiating this debate. I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I know how both hon. Members have given their time to this difficult subject. It is a particular concern to hon. Members on all sides of the House at present, and the timing is extremely apposite.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, 10 days ago we saw the opening of the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna at which abuses of human rights, including the Soviet treatment of their Jewish people, will be a central theme. Last week I myself visited Vienna for two days.
It is also apposite because, in the wake of the Reykjavik summit, people from Governments in both East and West are looking again at the East-West relationship, including its vital human rights component, and wondering how best to make progress in the new circumstances.
First, I shall turn to two of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. Obviously, I shall take careful note of his suggestion that invitations should be issued to refuseniks to attend embassy cultural events. I shall pass that on to our embassy in Moscow. The embassy must also bear in mind the risks that such invitations could

215
involve for the refuseniks and the problems that any Soviet citizen has in getting access to our embassy. That reinforces many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech.
On the letter that the all-party committee for Soviet Jewry has just sent to our ambassador in Moscow and the proposal that he should present the all-party Committee's award, I have no doubt that he will consider that interesting suggestion carefully and sympathetically. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for making it.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, despite protestations to the contrary from Moscow, I have no doubt that Jews in the Soviet Union are still subjected to widespread discrimination. They are prevented from freely practising their religion; prevented from developing their culture and language; discriminated against in political life, education and employment; and, perhaps most important of all, many are prevented from maintaining contact with their family and friends overseas. The right hon. Gentleman has already provided the House with eloquent and detailed evidence and we particularly share his concern on exit visas.
We have heard much about Mr. Gorbachev's determination to present a new and more human face to the world. I do not discount the changes which are taking place, in particular the first, halting moves towards greater openness. It is, therefore, with great regret that I note that the new broom has not swept away the dismal record of recent years in the granting of exit visas to Soviet Jews.
We all greeted with enormous pleasure the release of Nathan Sharansky after years of incarceration in Soviet prisons. We greeted with equal pleasure the release of such non-Jewish dissidents as Yuri Orlov and Irina Ratushinskaya, although Mrs. Ratushinskaya has still not got her visa to come here for medical treatment. But two or even three swallows clearly do not make a summer.
There seems to be no pattern as to who is granted a visa. Old age and ill health do not guarantee one. Sometimes one has the impression that visas are being saved up to be used as bargaining counters or distributed as prizes for good behaviour. What a cynical way to do business!
I am in no doubt about the strength of feeling that exists on this subject among ordinary men and women in this country. My postbag, like that of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend bears daily testimony to that.
It is not only the Jewish community which suffers harassment and repression. I hear equally depressing stories about the treatment meted out to Baptists, Pentecostalists and other Christian activists, as well as to many others of all denominations, whose crime has been simply to think for themselves and to demand free speech or freedom of association.
But it has to be said that the persecution suffered by the Jewish community has always been a central theme in our criticisms of the Soviet Union's human rights performance. They have probably suffered more consistent harassment than most other groups. The rights which that community is fighting to exercise cut across the whole spectrum of human rights abuse—the right to freedom of worship, the right to national and cultural self-expression, the right to leave one's country, and the right to expect one's Government to act within the rule of law.
216
When my colleagues and I raised these issues with the Russians, we used to be told that criticisms of these abuses constitute interference in the internal affairs of another country and are therefore unacceptable. In other words, it was none of our business. I am glad to say that we now tend to meet a greater readiness, to discuss the issues reasonably, even to admit that a problem exists. That is encouraging, but it is a big step from admitting a problem to resolving it.
What, then, should we do? What practical steps can we take to encourage the Soviet Government to conduct themselves in a more just and civilised manner towards the Jewish community and towards other dissenters? There will be no overnight miracles. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we need patience and persistence. First, my colleagues and I in the Government will ensure that the subject is on the agenda for our bilateral conversations with our Soviet opposite numbers at every available opportunity. We will tell them that the subject will not go away. Only real practical improvements will secure this.
Secondly, we will say again and again to the Soviet authorities that in raising the subject of human rights we are not engaging in political point scoring but are representing the deeply felt concerns of all political parties in this country and of the public at large. I always stress this point in my talks with the Soviet ambassador. I and my colleagues are greatly assisted in this task by the dedicated organisations and individuals who campaign on behalf of Soviet Jewry and ensure that the subject is kept at the centre of public attention.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that human rights are seen and understood as an integral part of the wider East-West process. I sometimes hear the argument that we ought to set human rights on one side and concentrate instead on achieving real measures of arms control and disarmament. With respect, this is fundamentally mistaken. It ignores the intimate linkage between security and human rights. The way that the Soviet authorities treat their citizens creates a problem of trust and understanding which is at the heart of the problems that we and others meet over arms control table. It is often said—but is none the less true for that — that there can be no security without trust. We cannot keep these issues in self-contained packages, bringing one out and putting the other into cold storage as the fancy takes us. We must pursue each consistently.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the CSCE review conference which opened in Vienna on 4 November. Our delegation is now participating vigorously in a thorough review of Helsinki commitments. When this is complete, it will aim to build on the proposals tabled at the specialised CSCE meetings which have take place in the past two years. These proposals include a number of provisions which, if agreed and implemented, would alleviate some of the hardships suffered today by Soviet Jewry. Among these proposals will be that tabled by the British delegation at Berne on interference with the mail and telecommunications.
We shall also be looking at the proposal made by Mr. Shevardnadze in his opening speech to the Vienna meeting on 4 November for the holding of a conference of CSCE participating states to consider problems of humanitarian co-operation including human contacts, information, culture and education. This is a challenging proposal. It will need careful consideration, but I will want to have many more details of Soviet thinking on participation at such a conference, access, openness, arrangements for

217
publicity, the ability of dissenters and refuseniks to speak to visiting Ministers, and so on, before I can give a responsible reply.
This is a time of change in the Soviet Union. Under Gorbachev, "openness" has become a catchword. This is far from the openness we know in Western countries, but at least the veil of secrecy is being lifted a little. There are some signs of growing cultural freedom; there is some debate within the party on the way forward. The Soviet public are being provided with bad as well as good information; they are hearing of accidents and disasters as well as record production achievements. A few days ago, Pravda even carried a long interview with myself on the subject of arms control. This makes it even sadder that so far there have been only minimal tactical changes in the Soviet human rights policy, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so movingly and with so much information.
218
I urge the Soviet leadership —I am sure that in this I have the whole House with me — to see that the improvements we are asking for would not damage their security or undermine their system. It is a great enough country to tolerate these changes. In his speech in Vienna, Mr. Shevardnadze claimed:
"the strength of any society lies in its ability to perfect itself".
We are not asking for perfection, only some real and perceptible improvements which would remove an irritant, relieve human suffering and immensely improve the Soviet Union's standing in the world.
It is with genuine feeling that I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend for having raised this very important and apposite subject tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Short Brothers plc
  Short Brothers plc
  Departmental services
  Departmental services
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Royal Greenwich Observatory
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Designer Drugs
  Designer Drugs
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing and Planning Act 1986
  Housing and Planning Act 1986
  Livestock Units
  Livestock Units
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Employee Share Schemes
  Employee Share Schemes
CIVIL SERVICE
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Stock Exchange
  Stock Exchange
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tenancy Agreements
  Tenancy Agreements
SCOTLAND
  Livestock Units
  Livestock Units
DEFENCE
  Police
  Police
  Rapier
  Rapier

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
Lord Hothfield—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Family Law Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Mary lebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to reform the law relating to the consequences of birth outside marriage, to make further provision with respect to the rights and duties of parents and the determination of parentage; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision in respect of pilotage. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to remove the restrictions concerning the hours during which intoxicating liquor may be served with meals in restaurants; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any Committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the
24
House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:—

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jacques, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Seear, B.

Stedman, B.

Tordoff, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Mowbray and Stourton—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we debate today the Government's objectives in foreign policy and defence. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne will wind up the debate and will then cover some of the defence issues which I know will be of interest to your Lordships.
In the gracious Speech Her Majesty the Queen stated that Her Majesty's Government,
"continue to attach the highest importance to national security and to preserving peace with freedom and justice".
This is a fundamental proposition. It is the core of our foreign policy.
After 40 years of peace in Europe it is perhaps easy to fall into the trap of assuming that there are no longer any threats to the security of the United Kingdom or Western Europe generally—in other words, the trap of taking peace for granted.
However, this year sees two significant anniversaries. It is now 30 years since the Hungarian uprising was brutally crushed by an invasion of Soviet military forces. It is 25 years since East Germany built the Berlin Wall to stop its own people voting with their feet against the communist system.
The countries of Eastern Europe remain in the grip of a Soviet-imposed system. Some have tried to assert their individuality: we recall the Prague Spring of 1968 and the spectacular rise of Solidarity in Poland in the late 1970s. Any gains have been short-lived. The results of 40 years of Soviet domination have been

25
dismal for living standards as well as for human freedoms. We in Western Europe choose to pay the high financial cost of defending ourselves to keep the peace in Europe. In contrast, Eastern Europe has no choice but to pay a high price of a different sort.
Meanwhile, beyond Europe, notwithstanding the efforts of its public relations experts, the Soviet Union is behaving in a far from peaceful manner. Its invasion of Afghanistan seven years ago has brought untold destruction to that already poor country. There people have voted with their feet: between a quarter and one-third of the entire population, some 4 million people, have fled their own land as refugees.
This dreadful story continues. Some 7,000 to 8,000 people a month are being added to the 3 million refugees in Pakistan. Thousands more have been killed. These facts fly in the face of Soviet statements of commitment to peaceful co-existence. There is no more effective reply to those who assure us of the Soviet Union's lack of aggressive intentions.
The Soviet Union's armed presence in Afghanistan has been repeatedly and resoundingly condemned by world opinion—most recently by no fewer than 122 countries at the United Nations General Assembly last week. Yet they have not responded. Their much vaunted withdrawal of certain troops and equipment in the last few weeks has been cosmetic and irrelevant. Indeed, we have reason to believe that some of the equipment withdrawn was only recently introduced into Afghanistan.
As the seventh anniversary of the invasion approaches, our own position on Afghanistan is clear. The Soviet Union should withdraw all its forces as soon as possible. Until it does, we must and will do all we can to keep up the level of international concern. but Afghanistan is not unique. The Soviet Union gives over 3 million dollars a day of financial and other support to Vietnam, whose army, the third largest army in the world, maintains its illegal occupation of Cambodia. Vietnam's human rights record is also deplorable. Again, thousands of people are still fleeing the country.
These examples show as clearly as can be two inherent features of the Soviet approach to the outside world; its wish to impose its ideology on other countries, particularly its neighbours, and its readiness to resort to military force if necessary. So Europe's 40 years of peace have come about not by chance, nor by blind trust in proclamations of good intentions, but by the determination of the NATO alliance to defend itself against any attack, be it conventional or nuclear.
The Soviet Union's new leadership under Mr. Gorbachev has not changed its long-term objective: that of achieving superiority over the West. Lenin advocated a zig-zag path up the mountain. So the Soviet Union is now seeking to present itself in a favourable light. Nevertheless, we do not doubt the Soviet leadership's interest in arms reductions. Mr. Gorbachev sees that the Soviet Union cannot achieve military superiority in competition with the West. And he also wants to reduce the enormous burden of Soviet military spending, to release resources for the belated task of modernising the Soviet economy. We have recognised these aims. Credit where credit is due!
26
And the West has risen to the challenge. In a range of different fora we have shown that we are ready to do business—provided of course that the terms are right.
The United Kingdom is working actively to broaden political contacts at all levels with the the Soviet Union and the other countries of Eastern Europe. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council led a parliamentary delegation to Moscow earlier this year. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will also be visiting Moscow next year. We have our views, and we express them frankly. In Eastern Europe, the internal situation differs from country to country, and this affects the breadth and depth of our relations. But in each case, as with the Soviet Union, we use this dialogue to make clear our critical view of human rights abuses.
In addition, the United Kingdom's attitude in arms control talks has been one of activity coupled with realism and responsibility. We have welcomed the progress made at the Reykjavik meeting, especially the fact that there now seems to be a real prospect for significant cuts in the two superpowers' nuclear arsenals, provided that progress in all areas is not held hostage to the Russians' proposals on SDI. It does not make sense for the West to stop research into new defences against nuclear missiles if the Soviet Union is pressing on with its research. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will of course be discussing the way forward on arms control post-Reykjavik when she meets President Reagan this weekend.
Some areas now seem to us to offer particular scope for progress. Efforts should continue towards an early agreement on intermediate nuclear forces. The Russians have no reason to go back on their previous position and to start insisting now that an INF deal should be linked to SDI. Work should continue towards 50 per cent. cuts in strategic systems. If achieved, this would be a dramatic step forward. There is a clear need for international action to bring about an effective global ban on chemical weapons. We have been pushing hard in this area, introducing new proposals on the all-important issue of verification.
However, the deeper the reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons the more important it becomes to address the imbalances in conventional and chemical weapons forces. Nuclear weapons have prevented not only nuclear war but also conventional war in Europe. So, when we examine the future of nuclear weapons, we must address the intractable problem of these other imbalances as well.
Last December, the Government tabled a significant new initiative designed to bring about troop reductions on terms acceptable to both sides. We still await a constructive Warsaw Pact response, although, given the scale of their superiority, it is scarcely surprising that the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies have been dragging their feet. We also led the way in setting up of the NATO task force after the NATO ministerial meeting in Halifax earlier this year. And we played an active part in bringing the Stockholm conference to its successful conclusion. This conference showed that there is scope for progress on these difficult issues. But we will make this progress only by holding firm in

27
patient negotiations which properly take account of all the interests involved, and certainly not by listening to the siren voices of unilateralism.
The United Kingdom will also be playing its full part in the Helsinki review meeting in Vienna. This meeting is about the underlying reasons for mistrust in Europe. One reason is the persistent Soviet abuse of human rights. Another is the fact that the Soviet Union and East European governments, to varying degrees, still block the free flow of information, ideas and people across national boundaries, in clear breach of their Helsinki obligations. We will be pressing hard in Vienna on these fundamental questions. They set the basic context for our approach to East-West relations.
The economic, political and security relationship between the United States and Western Europe has given us 40 years of peace and prosperity. It is folly enough to denigrate these links but a far greater folly to put them needlessly at risk. Just when the economic and political success of the Western way of life is getting results, just when the Soviet Union is, at long last, ready to talk seriously, why now throw in our cards, in a grand unilateral gesture? What a mistake that would be. It would dismay our friends and delight our adversaries.
This Government will not make that mistake. We shall ensure that our nation is properly defended against the continuing military and ideological challenge from the Soviet Union. We shall stay true to our responsibility to preserve peace with freedom and justice.
Of course, this threat from Russia is a relatively new phenomenon for us. Historically our European neighbours have been much more troublesome. That is now a thing of the past. We now see an unparallelled degree of close co-operation.
The United Kingdom has had its turn as President of the Council of Ministers since July this year. We have used this opportunity to press hard on various practical fronts. We have put business and jobs at the top of the EC's agenda by developing community wide strategies for employment, job-creation and retraining, for helping small and medium-sized enterprises and for cutting the red tape that strangles businesses. We have sought to make Europe safe for the tourist but not the terrorist, to confront the menace of drugs, and to advance the reform of the common agricultural policy and the Community's food aid programme, to meet the needs of developing countries more effectively.
These are all valuable areas where we have sought to make the Community work as it should, because the Community cannot adopt a confident and strong stand in the world unless it gets its own house in order. Indeed, world trading patterns are growing ever more complex. So the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom and its European partners are coming to depend just as much on the stability and openness of world trade, as on careful calculation of East/West strategic issues.
This is why the United Kingdom presidency has welcomed the launching of the new GATT round in Uruguay, and has worked with success to manage
28
trade relations between the Community and the United States and hold off protectionist pressures. We have also kept up the pressure on Japan to make necessary structural adjustments in its economy and to remove remaining non-tariff barriers.
We are confident that our presidency has made a valuable contribution in many different areas, demonstrating that the United Kingdom is now a respected and effective Community member. We shall also be taking full advantage of the opportunities which the Single European Act affords. We want to see the Community have a strong and efficient internal market. It is already the largest market in the world. But it is still fragmented. It needs to become the largest single market in the world.
We shall also be seeking closer foreign policy cooperation. These developments will make the Community's voice in the world strong and respected; and the United Kingdom can only benefit from that.
I turn now to a new threat we face: the threat of terrorism. The stand of the Government is quite clear: we deplore and condemn all acts of terrorism. We have made it plain that no government which sponsors, directs or otherwise helps terrorists in their criminal work can expect to enjoy normal relations with the United Kingdom. So, when faced with conclusive evidence of the active involvement first of the Libyan and now the Syrian authorities in plotting terrorist outrages, we did not hesitate: we broke off diplomatic relations. This was the right response.
In addition, this week 11 of the members of the European Community sent a clear message to Syria that the Syrian Government's official involvement in terrorist activity was completely unacceptable. Our partners also agreed on certain specific measures, including an embargo on new arms sales, to bring home to Syria the need to change its policy. This was a highly satisfactory outcome. We believe that the significance of this message and the reasons for it will be well understood in the Arab world. But—and I must emphasise this—it would, of course, be quite wrong to interpret these steps as "anti-Arab". We and our partners in the Twelve attach great importance to our links with Arab states and to maintaining and strengthening the Euro-Arab dialogue. Our diplomatic efforts to bring the two sides in the Arab/Israel dispute closer together are continuing; and at our initiative the Twelve are offering substantial practical help to the Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel. In short, we want to see peace in the Middle East. But we condemn as totally counter-productive terrorist outrages as a means to that end.
I should now like to mention quite briefly one other area of the world where we have been actively working for peaceful and just settlements; namely, southern Africa. This Government, like successive British Governments, have consistently condemned the apartheid system. The South African Government have taken certain steps towards dismantling it. But these steps have been too few, and too slow; and the South African Government still refuse to take the steps necessary to start genuine dialogue with freely chosen leaders of the black community.
Britain has done more in practical terms to bring home its disapproval of apartheid than many

29
countries whose rhetoric costs them nothing. We have instituted an arms embargo, an oil embargo, an embargo on nuclear co-operation and a voluntary ban on new investment. In addition we have joined our Community partners in agreeing that iron and steel and gold coins should not be imported into the Community.
There is now a new and unsettling dimension. Emotions in the region are running high after the tragic death of President Machel. All governments in southern Africa owe it to their people to proceed very carefully, to avoid precipitate action which could bring disaster for millions. Violence is no answer. There is another way forward: fundamental but peaceful change through dialogue. We say, let the South African Government pursue it.
Finally, perhaps I may say a short word about recent developments in certain of the United Kingdom's dependencies. Your Lordships will recall the Statement of 29th October announcing the Government's decision to establish a fisheries interim conservation and management zone around the Falkland Islands. This was not a step taken lightly. But, faced with alarming overfishing and certain actions by Argentina, we had no choice but to take steps to conserve vital marine resources, in the interests of the Falklands as well as of all those with an interest in the fishery.
I must emphasise again: this is an interim measure, taken solely for conservation reasons. We should prefer—and will continue to work hard for—an agreed and effective multilateral regime to preserve these fish stocks.
Meanwhile, we remain committed to seeking more normal relations with Argentina, itself, putting to one side our differences over Falklands sovereignty. We hope that the Argentine Government will also see the need to proceed on that basis. We look to the Argentine Government to recognise the Falkland Islanders' rights to live in peace under a government of their own choosing.
Five of our remaining dependent territories are in the Caribbean. Our relationships with the region as a whole are thriving and we are determined that they should remain so. We take seriously our responsibility to ensure that our dependent territories there enjoy good government.
As your Lordships are aware, in July we announced the setting up of a commission to review the constitution in the Turks and Caicos Islands and to make recommendations for their future. The commission has started work and aims to conclude its review by the end of the year. We are especially grateful in this context for the considerable support we have been given by Commonwealth governments and constitutional experts in the Caribbean region. Help in this and other areas from Commonwealth partners proves the merit of Dr Johnson's adage about the value of keeping friendships in good repair. I myself look forward to discussions with Commonwealth Caribbean leaders at a conference in Miami next week.
Nearer home, the Government are likewise standing by the long-standing British commitment to Gibraltar. We have discussed our differences over Gibraltar with the Spanish Government in a friendly and construc-
30
tive manner, as befits two EC partners and NATO allies. This dialogue continues. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary is to meet the Spanish Foreign Minister in January. These discussions take place against the background of our firm commitment, contained in Gibraltar's 1969 Constitution, to respect the Gibraltarians' own wishes.
Finally, I am sure that all your Lordships will wish to acknowledge the outstanding success of the state visit to China. It demonstrated that the future wellbeing of Hong Kong remains an essential element in our bilateral relations, but also that those relations are now extremely good. This augurs well for the future. British firms should use this new climate to expand trade with the fast-growing Chinese market.
The Government's foreign policy is a success story. As our presidency draws to an end, our international reputation is high. That is because we do not compromise on basic issues, particularly those relating to the defence of our nation. That strong commitment to the defence of democracy gives a firm base for using our good sense and good judgment in many different areas of foreign policy. We are proud to show the world that open societies and democracy work, and that peaceful co-operation is not a soft option but the best option.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for the wide-ranging speech with which she has opened this debate. The noble Baroness has rightly concentrated on the major issues contained in the gracious Speech, and I shall seek to do the same.
I am sure that noble Lords feel, as I do, that although there have been significant events since we debated foreign affairs 12 months ago, the problems that we dealt with then are still there. I wish I could say that one or more of those world problems have been resolved and that mankind is better off as a result. Sadly, those problems remain unresolved. Tension remains high in the Middle East and Southern Africa. The scene in Central Africa is uncertain, and East-West relations are still bedevilled by suspicion and lack of mutual trust.
On East-West relations, may I pose the obvious question which I suppose is central to this debate: is there more hope today than existed 12 months ago, or is there less? Then, we were on the eve of the Geneva summit and there were high hopes that it would lead to some constructive results. Today, we meet in the aftermath of the Reykjavik summit. The inconclusive talks between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze have taken place in Vienna.
On the Southern Africa front, this time last year we were considering the Eminent Persons group which had been set up, and we had some expectation that it would help to make progress; but despite the group's most commendable efforts, the result was failure—a failure orchestrated by the South African Government.
Again, in the Middle East, 12 months ago it seemed that co-operation between the PLO and Jordan might hold some promise of progress, but, sadly, that did not materialise. I come back therefore to the central question: is there more or less hope today than there was a year ago?

31
I am not a pessimist. I do not have it in me to be a prophet of gloom. I venture to say, therefore, that notwithstanding the apparent lack of progress, and if one can penetrate the thick fog of propaganda which pours out of Moscow and Washington day by day, it is in my view possible to distinguish some credits on the balance sheet; for example, if, temporarily, Reykjavik appeared to be a failure, it showed that there are crucial areas on which agreement is possible.
On 15th October Mr. Shultz went so far as to say that the summit,
"is perhaps the most productive meeting that has ever been held by two leaders of these two countries."
President Reagan said:
"we are closer than ever before to agreements that could lead to a safer world without nuclear weapons."
Similar encouraging statements emerged from Moscow.
As the glittering prize of substantial nuclear disarmament appeared to be within their grasp, both leaders at Reykjavik, and their foreign secretaries last week, retreated, each blaming the other. The rest of the world, with an equal interest in the consequences of success and failure, is naturally becoming fed up with the exercise. What therefore is the snag? What is the real cause of this failure to agree? I hoped that the noble Baroness could have clarified that for us, but she did have a great deal of ground to cover. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will apply his mind to that question.
Because it is not enough just to say that the Americans are our allies, (and valued allies at that) and that we must trust them, while the Russians are not really to be trusted. That is a point of view, not an explanation. We all know the political, social and economic differences between East and West. We have debated them many times in the House in recent months and years. The question is: what is holding up the chance of progress?
We should like to see SS20s, cruise and Pershing II missiles properly negotiated, but the hope of that has again receded. We are informed that the root of the problem is the failure to agree over the future of the SDI and that that, and that alone, stands between some form of success and failure. That leads us to the ABM treaty of 1972. In Reykjavik, the President and Mr. Gorbachev tentatively accepted a 10-year extension of the ABM treaty, but that agreement foundered over the question of what exactly could or would be permitted under the ABM treaty during the proposed term.
That is where I should greatly value some assistance from Ministers who, after all, are or should be in possession of all the facts. The United States interpretation, as I read it, is that virtually everything short of actual deployment is allowed under the treaty, while the Soviet Union insists that SDI research should be "confined to the laboratory".
I am not an expert. I believe that there are nuances within those interpretations; for example, on the extent of the permissible research. The Government view on this is important. If that is what separates the two sides, do the Government think that it is enough to justify failure? What is the official view?
32
I must concede immediately that since Reykjavik the position has changed rapidly on several occasions. That was made plain in the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech the other night, especially if one reads between the lines. Yesterday's Daily Telegraph, for example, referred to the uncertainty which exists. The leader stated:
"British Defence Policy is today ultimately determined by decisions taken in Washington and in the last few weeks Washington has been put in several minds over the strategic future."
Is that true? Is the Daily Telegraph right? Some clarification of what has become a confused situation is urgently needed.
I also read Professor Lawrence Freedman's article in the The Times of 16th October with great interest. He is a fair and objective commentator. There should be discussion on what is permissible under the ABM treaty and on what the Soviet Union means by "laboratory research".
Many believe—I think that includes the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is to follow me in the debate—that SDI is a technological uncertainty and a financial incubus, and that Professor Freedman was right when he said:
"The governments of America's Allies now have to explain why a remarkable arms control package should be put in jeopardy to protect a programme that is unlikely to yield much of value and can proceed only on the basis of a contrived version of ABM."
The ABM treaty was a historic achievement—and in my view we should seek to build on it and not to distort it.
The Prime Minister is to visit Washington later this week, as the noble Baroness said, and perhaps we may be told what her main objective will be during that visit. Is she intending to discuss the relative importance of IBMs in Europe as against conventional forces? The figures of the respective conventional resources of East and West were published by the Institute of Strategic Studies last Thursday, but they did not disclose a great imbalance, as we have been led to believe exists, although the Warsaw Pact have a marked superiority in tanks. We hope the Prime Minister will discuss the nub of the problem. The Vienna talks between the Foreign Ministers ended in stalemate. However, both were very careful to leave the door ajar.
The talks now return to the negotiators at Geneva. We hope that the Prime Minister will discuss the full implications of making the deployment of SDI a barrier to further progress. We all recognise that Mr. Gorbachev desires to see a reduction in arms expenditure mainly because he has considerable economic difficulties to overcome. However, we would also be impressed if the USSR withdrew in strength from Afghanistan.
I think that the Soviet Union have become very skilful propagandists over the last few years, much better than they used to be; and we have to note that as well. However, they have to realise that aggression is the most potent enemy of trust and confidence. We realise that there are reasons why they may not trust the West. The Soviet Union must realise that they must make proposals upon which we can rely. On the whole, the record of the West, in making promises and keeping to them, is, historically, a good one, and the Soviet Union must be seen to respond similarly.

33
The other chink of light discernible through the fog was the measure of agreement referred to in Stockholm on September 22nd, to which the noble Baroness referred. I would certainly give every credit to the right honourable and learned gentleman the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in Stockholm. I was particularly glad that 35 countries in Europe took part. We realise not only that we have a stake in these momentous affairs but that smaller countries such as Holland, Belgium and Denmark have a perfect right to be heard and to take part in the discussions. I frequently feel that I would like to see our representative sitting round the table with President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev when the fate of this country and of the world is in the balance.
The second area of major concern mentioned in the gracious Speech—South Africa—has also been dealt with by the noble Baroness. In spite of the honest efforts of the Foreign Secretary to find a modus vivendi, it was made plain to him, as to the rest of the world, that there is no real intention on the part of Mr. Botha to move away from the principles of apartheid. That was also the considered view of the Eminent Persons Group. There is no relaxation, and punitive measures continue to be taken by the Pretoria Government.
Her Majesty's Government have said repeatedly that they are against apartheid and that they wish to see an urgent dialogue between black leaders and the South African Government. The Government also want to see Nelson Mandela released from his long captivity. I accept entirely that that is the wish of the Government. The noble Baroness made this plain last year when she pledged the Government's support to the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and his colleagues on the EPG. Since then, all efforts have failed. We are dealing with one of the most intransigent governments of the century in the Pretoria Government. When the Government say in the gracious Speech that they want to see the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 on Namibia, they must know it is the Pretoria Government who stand squarely in the way of a solution to that long-standing problem.
In the face of all this evidence, of their own declared beliefs and of world opinion, the Government have thus far refused to co-operate in taking firm action on sanctions. On other international issues, in the case of the Argentine and more recently in the case of Syria, the Government have called on our partners in the United Nations to take action. However, concerning South Africa the Government are tardy to co-operate. I fear there is a disturbing inconsistency in some aspects of our foreign policy; I shall refer to this in a moment. The United States Congress supports a stronger line on sanctions and as a result of the recent elections will probably bring a call for even more strong policies. We hope that the Prime Minister will not stand against these when she talks to the President during her visit in a few days' time.
Concerning the Middle East, to which the noble Baroness referred, the gracious Speech states that the Government,
"will look for solutions to the problems of the Middle East".
Can the noble Lord say whether there are any solutions under consideration? The tragedies of the
34
Middle East continue to unfold. The cradle of civilisation seems to have become the graveyard of compassion and hope. All of us hope that the communiqué which followed the Israel/Egypt meeting in September and which said,
"1987 should be a year for serious peace negotiations"
will develop into something constructive. There has been a report that King Hussein of Jordan is planning a conference to discuss the East/West bank problems. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on this and tell us whether there is to be a United Kingdom representative present at that conference.
We are conscious that our justified break with Syria will inevitably affect our diplomatic position in the area. However, we still have some influence in the Middle East. I believe that, if we are to be serious about tackling terrorism, the Government have no alternative but to face up to reality.
We warmly welcome the initiative taken by Sir Geoffrey Howe in asking Mr. Shevardnadze to engage in talks concerning terrorism. Those who plan the slaughter of innocent people do not recognise national boundaries. We hope that the Soviet Union and other East European countries will co-operate with us in stamping out terrorism. This is another challenge to them. There is no kid-glove method of dealing with this monstrous conspiracy against humanity. The first reaction of many of our Common Market partners to the proposals of the Foreign Secretary at the Luxembourg meeting to deal with Syrian involvement was disappointing. The Community meeting in London under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary on 25th September gave some hope that effective united action against terrorism would be taken where necessary. In the light of this the first response to the Foreign Secretary's measures were quite inadequate. The meeting held last Monday produced better results, especially on the ban on arms sales, even if the measures fall short of the original proposals.
It was disconcerting to read that M. Chirac had doubts about the validity of the evidence following the Hindawi case. Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that the evidence is conclusive. We must concede that it is not easy to obtain agreement on everything when 12 sovereign states, each with its own national interests, are involved. We recognise that we cannot always rely upon achieving something approaching a unified foreign policy. However, this is also an unstable world. There are moments when a strong Community voice on major issues could be crucial in maintaining world peace. There may be occasions when the Community would wish to assert a viewpoint which is independent of the super powers. I hope this will not be regarded as heretical, as I think it is plain common sense.
The noble Baroness referred to the Falklands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong. I will make some brief points. First, the Falklands remain a problem because any hope of a dialogue with the Argentinians seems to have faded away. I believe that every noble Lord in this House had hopes that with the election of a democratic government under President Alfonsin we could at least have had some constructive discussion on matters of mutual interest. In all the circumstances,

35
I believe that the Government were right to take action on the fishing issue. However, I hope they will make plain in the right way at the right time and through the right channels that they are ready to have talks with the Argentine Government. I also hope that Professor Alfonsin himself, whose election to office we have welcomed, will have the statesmanship and indeed the common sense to seize the opportunity to have talks with us.
As regards Gibraltar, I shall make only one point; that is, that an agreement with Spain to ease flying restrictions which were imposed in 1969 could be greatly to the advantage of both Gibraltar and Spain. It could develop tourism to the great economic benefit of the people of Gibraltar without infringing sovereignty. I hope that the Government will be able to make some progress in that direction.
Thirdly, Hong Kong, which I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year, is inevitably in a state of transitional uncertainty. Again, I warmly support the tribute which the noble Baroness paid to Her Majesty the Queen upon what was unquestionably a most historic and successful visit to China. What the people of Hong Kong are now waiting for is the publication of the draft basic law which it is to be hoped will dispel the doubts which still linger. However, I believe that this remarkable community will survive the difficulties and that China will honour her obligations and commitments.
During her visit, Her Majesty the Queen announced that 90 scholarships in this country were being made available to young Chinese scientists. That splendid idea, which won Her Majesty's immediate support, was conceived by my noble friend Lord Rhodes, and we congratulate him most warmly upon it. My noble friend's efforts to improve relations between China and Britain have been remarkable and he deserves every tribute for his work over several years.
This may be the appropriate moment for me to say on behalf of all of us here how much we have admired the patient, modest and courageous efforts of Mr. Terry Waite. In the midst of terror and fear, his has been the voice of reason and of compassion.
Finally, I return to the Geneva negotiations. It is upon those and their progress that our hopes are concentrated. It is plain that the great stumbling block is lack of mutual trust. It is here perhaps that a British Government can help most. It is here that a unified Community approach could help to build a bridge between the super powers. That should certainly be the great, the essential, objective of our time.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did I understand him correctly in quoting the excellent publication of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and in saying that the conventional balance shown in that study published last Thursday does not show a very great balance in favour of the Warsaw Pact except as regards tanks? I have the book open. I shall not weary your Lordships, but would not the noble Lord agree that on land and in the air almost every figure of importance in the conventional area is over two to one in favour of the Warsaw Pact?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what I said—and the noble Viscount will be able to read it in Hansard tomorrow—was that the imbalance was not as great as we had been led to believe. I specifically mentioned tanks because the report states that it is in that area that the greater imbalance lies. In the field of other forces the disparity is not as significant as we thought.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, this, I suppose, is the occasion on which to make a few general remarks on the vastly important and rather alarming subjects of foreign affairs and defence. In the time available it is not possible to say very much and so I shall limit my remarks to what I regard as a few contentious subjects. In any case it is surely absurd to consider foreign affairs and defence together. We should certainly have a full day's debate on defence.
First, I shall refer to Syria. The Foreign Secretary's efforts to rally his Community colleagues in support of some type of concerted action against that country may be considered to be fairly satisfactory; indeed, it is perfectly acceptable. It is true that M. Chirac—as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said—apparently, with no supporting evidence of any kind, seems to have suggested at one point that the whole affair may have been the result of an Israeli plot cooked-up with British connivance. In my view we might have done without such insinuations on the part of an all too candid friend. However, in a general way, there was a good deal to be said for the French Prime Minister's analysis of the situation in the Middle East as a whole—I think that it was intelligent. We can only hope that he does not himself now conclude a deal with terrorists regarding the release of further French hostages, although, on the face of it, it certainly looks as though to some extent that has already been done.
The action of Greece only reinforces something which I personally have thought all along; namely, that that country should never have become a member of the Community. It simply does not have what might be called a "European outlook". I do not want to be pejorative in any way but only to make an obvious point. Indeed, that brings me on to something which applies to both subjects under discussion this afternoon.
As I see it, there is no reason why the unanimity rule which rightly applies to many decisions taken under the Treaty of Rome, should apply in the field of "political co-operation", which is not covered by the treaty in any way. Thus, if certain members were, for instance, prepared to contemplate some more rational method of organising European defence and to streamline their production of arms to that end, then they should surely be permitted to go ahead, any decisions taken by them not necessarily, of course, being applicable to other members who did not want to be under any such obligation.
Similarly, in foreign affairs, if a large majority felt that some action was eminently desirable they should surely be allowed to present it as representing the Community. Alternatively, it might possibly be agreed subject to the consent of the European Parliament. I merely throw out these suggestions for discussion. All that I would insist upon—and I have insisted upon this

37
for some time—is that in the whole sphere of foreign affairs and defence we should not be paralysed by the veto of some small and, quite possibly, neutralist member. Is that something with which the Government might conceivably agree in principle?
As for the "arms in exchange for hostages" deal with Iran, apparently concluded by President Reagan behind the back of everybody else concerned in the United States, we can no doubt go along with what I am sure is the Government's view—it can be—and only register acute dismay. That a government officially bent on eliminating terrorism—and, indeed, highly critical of our own efforts in this respect—should act in this way and, in addition, inevitably be assisting the Ayatollah in his apparent intention to overrun the Middle East will, to say the least, hardly encourage our friends in that part of the world, or in any other parts of the world for that matter. Therefore, can we take it—and this is my question which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will answer—that when the Prime Minister visits the President tomorrow or the next day, she will leave him under no delusion about our feelings in this respect or the feelings of her closest ally? I should like to know whether or not that is so.
Nicaragua is often held up as something which divides the members of the North Atlantic Alliance, and so it does in that few, if' any, of the European members of the alliance believe that the imposed restoration by force of the appalling Somoza regime would be in the interests of the free world as a whole, or even that the shaky Sandinista Government is much of a menace to anybody. However, Nicaragua is, after all, in America's backyard, just as Ulster is in ours, and it is therefore only by a kind of disapproving silence that the Europeans can effectively respond to the action of the "Contras" as they call them, financed as they now are, to a large extent by Congress.
Further south we come to the Falklands. Here the Government's policy—or perhaps it is only the policy of the Prime Minister—has for a long time seemed to us, on these Benches at any rate, to be self-defeating. Why should we not talk to the excellent President Aifonsin about everything, including the so-called "sovereignty" of the islands? To talk about sovereignty would not necessarily mean consenting to anything unless we thought it to be in the interest of all concerned to do so. Naturally we would always bear in mind the wishes of the 1,700 inhabitants of those islands, but surely it would be absurd to give them a veto on any settlement which, in our view, not only protected their interests but also safeguarded those of the United Kingdom as well. Nobody here—and this is a good point that one must make—would contemplate a simple handover of the islands to the Argentines; and if they insisted on that, then I think they would have to realise that the negotiations would be broken off. But there are all kinds of variants on the sovereignty issue—which we know of and need not repeat here—which no intelligent observer could suppose would be detrimental to the fortunes of the islanders themselves. And so simple insistence on their indefinite and total independence within the British Commonwealth could eventually result in the collapse of the present democratic regime in Buenos Aires and
38
its replacement by another dictatorship which might one day feel obliged to indulge in another war.
As for the declaration of the 200-mile fishing zone without any discussion apparently with the Argentines, or the United States, or anybody else so far as I understand it, well, words fail me. Are we going to send out a number of units of the hard-pressed Home Fleet 6,000 miles south in order to police it? I hardly believe that.
Baroness Young:: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but on a point of factual information, as the Statement on the interim conservation zone made clear, the protection will be done by two fishery vessels and an aeroplane, as fishery protection is done in other parts of the world.
Lord Gladwyn:: My Lords, if you think that two fishery vessels are going to police this area satisfactorily, well you can believe that if you like; but obviously it will not be the case.
We come to Eastern Europe where there are, as we all know, increasing signs of discontent with the regime imposed by the Russians as a result of their victory in the war. Only in Hungary has the regime been modified to some extent so as to make life rather more agreeable to the bulk of the population. East Germany and Czechoslovakia may be tolerable if you can put up with a total absence of personal liberty, but in all—and more particularly of course in Poland—there is a growing discontent. That is obvious. What then should our attitude be towards these manifestations of an evident desire to have close links with the West rather than with what they certainly regard as the more alien East?
That brings me to the main point I want to make this afternoon in my necessarily short intervention. It concerns the whole nature of our relations with the Soviet Union. As I see it, we cannot expect that this enormous centrally-directed totalitarian giant, very strong militarily if pretty weak economically, will ever become something equivalent to a Western type democracy. We cannot expect it. If so, there will always be tension, as it is called, between it and the "free" societies of the West. We must recognise that there will always be tension.
But surely that does not mean, in a nuclear age, that there can never be some sort of co-existence, as they say, between the two fundamentally divergent systems, still less tension that will necessarily result in war which would utterly destroy, if not both participants, at any rate the democracies of Western Europe. How then can tension best be reduced, so as to at least exclude this grim possibility, and coexistence, so to speak, come into its own?
The simple answer is by agreement on arms control, and here my analysis will differ substantially from that advanced by the Prime Minister in her speech in the Guildhall last Monday, and indeed to some extent with the general presentation as we had it from the noble Baroness when she introduced the debate this afternoon. There is little doubt that the conclusion of an arms control agreement would result in a lessening of fear on both sides, but I think more particularly on that of the Soviet Union, and that this would probably result in its turn—I say probably, but we must hope

39
that it would—in more inclination on the part of the Politburo to meet Western views in many fields in which progress is now difficult or even impossible.
It is a truism to say—I think it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that the Russians must now make every effort to repair their ailing economy, and a sort of truce with the West is clearly desirable for this purpose. So it seems to me to be counter-productive, to say the least, to make the conclusion of any arms agreement dependent on progress in other fields—in other words, the famous doctrine of "linkage". The proponents of linkage are indeed often those who, more especially in America, for various reasons do not want any kind of agreement, hoping that the increasing pressure by the West will one day result in the collapse of what is called the "evil Empire". I believe this to be an unlikely and in any case a very dangerous assumption.
Of course we should go on pressing the Soviet Union to make further concessions on human rights, and certainly to come to some arrangement in Afghanistan which would enable them to withdraw their troops after the fearful experiences of the last five or six years. Of course we must do that. But it must be obvious—not least to the Russians—that progress in both these directions would be consonant with an easing in commercial and economic relations between the two opposing blocs. But that is a very different thing from linkage as regards negotiations on arms control—that is to say, making one thing dependent on the other—as I have tried to make clear.
The other great impediment to arms control is star wars. Your Lordships may recall that from the outset I have suggested that, however genuine the belief in it of the President—it may be genuine—this unfortunate project has really had three main objectives. In the first place it was designed to further the cause of the President and the Republican Party by giving the American people what one can only suppose is the erroneous impression that it would eventually both protect them from nuclear bombardment and, by inference, restore to them that nuclear dominance which they lost when the Russians gained the capacity to do precisely that.
This was the all-important political point which was grasped by President Reagan when he went ahead with the scheme on the sole professional advice, it would appear, of the Hungarian, Dr. Edward Teller, the elderly and violently anti-Soviet "father of the hydrogen bomb" as he is called, and the director of the great arms laboratory at Livermore, which was after all the most likely to gain from the vast expenditure made available for research. Spreading huge sums all over the country was indeed the second objective which might also be considered to further, if not the cause of the Republican Party, at any rate that of the President.
Thirdly, it was recognised that, for obvious reasons, the Russians would probably be unable to accept, without modification, a plan which, if it ever came about, would obviously put them in a position of strategic inferiority, this fact alone appealing to the strong elements in America who, as we know, do not want any arms agreement at all. As I see it, Russian
40
opposition was therefore evident from the start, and it just will not do to maintain that continued opposition on the part of the Soviet Union is merely a propaganda ploy designed to put the Americans in the wrong. It just will not do to suggest that.
Happily, as I think we have just learned, in spite of his intense campaign in favour of star wars, the President has now lost his majority in the Senate. This will not mean that the project will now be abandoned—too many vested interests may have already been created for that to happen soon, and I believe that some new democratic senators. in order to get elected, had to say that they too agreed with star wars. But with luck, it will mean that money devoted to research will probably be further reduced by Congress and that the President will come under increasing pressure—I think this is certain—to agree to some compromise acceptable to the Soviet Union. We can only hope so.
We must also assume that the Prime Minister—I should like this to be confirmed—during her forthcoming visit will at least seize the opportunity of persuading the President to live up to the undertakings regarding research which he made when I think she saw him at Camp David two years ago, and incidentally not now to violate the famous, if unratified, treaty of 1972 as he seems unfortunately to be on the point of doing.
The SDI project is, in any case, of supreme importance. We should not allow ourselves to be confused by technical details when the political issues stand out a mile. Nor should we be misled by suggestions that the Russians are actually engaged in a star wars programme of their own. Whatever the research in which they are indulging, there is no reason to suppose that they are trying to set up an equivalent of a star wars programme as is now envisaged in America. What they will do, even at great expense, if star wars goes on, is to triplicate the number of their ICBM warheads and arrange for them to be MIRVed, that is to say dispersed, before emerging from the atmosphere, thus rendering them immune from laser or other beams directed from platforms in space or otherwise from the United States. One of the more sinister results of its unhampered pursuit will be the potential nuclearisation of space. In this at least Mr. Gorbachev is right. Even now ASAT, that is to say anti-satellite action, is being pursued by both sides and it simply must be stopped by some agreement which could be easily verified.
More generally, in proposing the total abolition of even strategic, to say nothing of intermediate, nuclear missiles with 10 years, I fear that both sides are merely striving to obtain a propaganda advantage. If there is ever to be a satisfactory agreement on their limitation it must, indeed it can only, rest on heavy or very heavy reductions in all categories of these weapons. As I see it, this could well have been achieved in Reykjavik. It was not impossible and it should have been achieved there, but such an agreement would have had to be based on the continuation in principle of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction; the famous MAD which, after all, has preserved peace in Europe for over a generation. In other words, you simply cannot put the nuclear genie back into his bottle, but you can see to it that he does not become the angel of death.

41
To revert to star wars, I should imagine that hardly any politicians and only very few higher civil servants will have had time to master the enormous literature on the subject now available. Nevertheless, in conclusion I urge them to read the long, dispassionate and admirably reasoned criticism by a certain Mr. Michael McGuire of many recent books on star wars, including one by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, which appeared in The Times Literary Supplement on 31st October. At the end of that newspaper article Mr. McGuire remarks:
"The world at large needs to recognise that the SDI is unlikely to collapse under its own disabilities, but equally there is nothing inevitable about placing weapons in space. British strategists and commentators do a disservice by assuming that it is inevitable, for they ignore the glory of the American political system—its openness to argument. There is already signifiicant domestic opposition to the SDI, particularly within the arms control community and, more broadly, among intellectuals and former government officials. But it is hard to mobilise effective grass roots support behind that opposition as long as it can be portrayed as being anti-American and pro-Soviet. The only way to outflank that strategem is for America's allies to do their homework and speak up forcefully and publicly on the issue as friends of the United States as well as members of the world community"
These are wise words and we can only hope that Mr. McGuire's advice will be followed. They should be read with his final conclusion that, at the end of the day, there must also be some kind of basic political understanding. A dreadful choice now confronts humanity and must be made shortly if events in our computer age are not to get out of human control. I do not say that this country can by itself exercise any very great influence in Washington or in Moscow. But if there were to be a common front of all European members of the alliance it is possible that we could make an impression on what might be called the hinge of fate. It seems to me that it is high time we tried to do so and, if it cannot agree on anything else, the European Community should at least be at one in urging the President to accept some compromise on star wars. Can we take it that, in principle, the Government accept this view? I should much like to hear on this point the opinion of the noble Lord who is to wind up this debate.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House and to the noble Lord who is to wind up that a very longstanding engagement may make it impossible for me to get back before the end of the debate. If all the speeches that follow mine are a good deal longer I should have no difficulty, but I am afraid that if they are shorter it will not be possible.
I welcome the statement in the gracious Speech that the
"Government will contine to attach the highest importance to national security and to preserving peace with freedom and justice"—
and that they—
"will maintain the United Kingdom's own defences and play an active part in the Atlantic Alliance".
I hope their deeds will match their words, particularly when it comes to defence expenditure. Also I welcome the statement that the
"Government will work for new agreements on arms control and disarmament".
42
I congratulate the Government on the considerable contribution they have made over a long period to what progress has been made towards a ban on chemical weapons.
It seems to me, however, that in this whole field there is a need for clarification of thought about where the Government think they are going. It seems to me that what we are asked to believe went on at the Reykjavik meeting, what has been said and written about it, what went on and was said at the party political conferences which took place at about the same time, have all revealed an extraordinary degree of muddled thinking about nuclear defence matters, and, first of all, about the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Supporters of the Government's policy are fond of saying that "the deterrent" has kept the peace in Europe for about 40 years; that it must therefore be a good thing; that we must therefore keep it and keep it up to date. By "the deterrent" they are generally referring to Britain's own submarine ballistic missile force, equipped with American missiles, but with our own home-designed and home-produced warheads.
I never have been able to find any evidence whatever to show that the existence of that force, in addition to the much larger United States force, has contributed anything to that state of peace. It is surely not suggested that, had it not existed, peace would not have been preserved. Many things have contributed to the maintenance of that peace and none more than the presence of United States' land and air forces stationed on the Continent of Europe, firmly linked to the fact that the United States of America has the capability to inflict terrible damage and destruction by the delivery of nuclear warheads on to targets within the Soviet Union, just as the latter has the capability to do the same to the United States. It is the fact that this is so, and that any direct conflict between their Armed Forces, in Europe or elsewhere, runs that terrible risk which has been the strongest deterrent to military adventures across the Iron Curtain by either side. The fact that both sides have far, far more nuclear weapons than they need to maintain this overall deterrent to war does not detract from the fundamental value to world peace of this mutual deterrent to war.
But if we are to believe what we are told about Reykjavik, all this is now in danger of being thrown away. This will be done apparently either by the success of the strategic defence initiative in achieving what is called the "President's vision" of rendering nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete", or else by abolishing all strategic or ballistic (it is not clear which) missile delivery systems within 10 years. What will be the deterrent to war then? Will it rest solely on nonnuclear forces, and will they then be provided? Or is it going to rest on shorter-range, nuclear-delivery systems not capable of reaching the territory of either the Soviet Union or the United States? The latter would be cold comfort for Europe and would be a very foolish step. It would be a weaker deterrent and would make it more likely both that war might break out and that it would then turn nuclear.
If one is to reduce the fantastically excessive number of nuclear weapons on both sides, but yet retain the overall deterrent to war which their possession by the super powers provides, the ones that one should keep are the long-range ballistic missiles in submarines,

43
which are practically invulnerable and pose the least threat of a pre-emptive first strike. The ones to get rid of are the vulnerable, shorter-range ones and the long-range, land-based missiles, all of which are dependent on first use to be effective and are themselves a temptation to a first pre-emptive strike. If the aim is to render all nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete and to rely solely on conventional forces, we shall be in danger of returning to an era in which the major industrial nations of the world could again envisage war, as defined by Clausewitz, as a method of "continuing state policy by other means". The results of that in this century have been bad enough.
Today, even without nuclear weapons, they would be much worse. But, as the Prime Minister herself said the other day, it would not be without nuclear weapons. Everybody now knows how to make them. Even if you thought that they had all been abolished—and you could never be sure of that—it would not be long, once a war had started, before they reappeared; and you would have had the worst of both worlds. You would have lost the overall deterrent to war which they provide; and you would then suffer from their use in the war which you had failed to deter.
I ask the Government, therefore: do they really want to see nuclear weapons rendered impotent and obsolete? And do they support the proposal to abolish all strategic or ballistic missile delivery systems within a fixed period? And if either, what are their reasons for doing so? The Prime Minister clearly has reservations on this issue. She has described the "President's vision" as "pie in the sky". I support her view of the chances of SDI achieving the "President's vision"; however, I do not regard it as pie, but as poison.
Whether it is pie or poison in the sky or in space, what is SDI really intended to achieve? If, after an immensely expensive effort, it provides only a partial defence, what is now known as SDI-2, all the arguments, or almost all the arguments, which led a previous United States administration to reject the proposal to develop an anti-ballistic missile system—even the one that they are permitted under the ABM treaty—apply in that case to the proposed SDI.
Far from leading to strategic stability and a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, it could lead, and probably would lead, to instability strategically, to an increase in nuclear weapons and, what is more and very significant, their introduction into space. And if, of course, ballistic missiles are going to be done away with, it will not be needed. Why therefore do the Government support the SDI proposal? Is it just in the hope of jobs for the boys? The prospect of that does not seem to be very great. For a balanced view of the whole SDI question, I would strongly commend to your Lordships the long review (which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned) of a number of books on the subject which was published in The Times Literary Supplement on 31st October, written by a distinguished Fellow of the American Brookings Institution.
Another aspect of nuclear policy which is now left in a muddled state is that of intermediate range nuclear forces. Two different reasons were given to us to justify
44
the installation of Tomahawk cruise missiles in this country, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, and of the replacement of Pershing I by Pershing II in Germany. The first was the need to reassure the Germans that they were still covered by the American nuclear umbrella, and that there was no question of decoupling the threat of escalation to a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union from the defence of the Federal Republic. The existence of the US Poseidon and British Polaris submarines and of the former's F-111 and our Tornado dual-capability aircraft, as well as all the battlefield nuclear weapons, was apparently not enough to provide that assurance.
The second reason was that, while the Soviet Union could threaten targets all over Western Europe with their SS.20s, Europe was liable to be subjected to nuclear blackmail, unless a more or less equivalent force, capable of reaching targets in the Soviet Union, was based on land in Western Europe. The existence of many other Soviet nuclear delivery systems which could strike targets all over Europe, and other United States' systems which could strike the Soviet Union, was apparently considered irrelevant.
Nobody has ever officially suggested that the cruise missiles and Pershings could knock out the mobile SS.20s, although popular opinion tends to think that that is what they are for. If they were to be effective in that role, they would have to strike first, as would the SS.20s, if they were to fulfil the role for which the Soviet authorities say that they are intended—and I see no reason to doubt them; that is, to destroy NATO nuclear delivery systems based on land in Europe.
Now it appears, I am glad to say, from Reykjavik, that both sides have come to the conclusion that none of these systems is needed. If they agree on that, we are back where we were when Helmut Schmidt, in his Alastair Buchan Memorial Lecture in 1977, accused the United States and the Soviet Union of coming to strategic arms control agreements designed for their mutual security which decoupled the US nuclear umbrella from the defence of the Federal Republic, an accusation which is said to have led to the decision to deploy cruise missiles and Pershing II. That German voice is now being heard again, echoed by some of the American military, protesting against the proposals made at Reykjavik. I urge the Government to disregard it, and to persuade other NATO governments to do the same.
If we do not need these systems, and if we were to abandon battlefield nuclear weapons, as I have consistently advocated, does NATO need any nuclear delivery systems other than those considered sufficient to act as the overall deterrent to war, the need for which I have already argued, and which I believe can be provided by the US Navy's ballistic missile submarine fleet?
There is one clear need which the crazy policy adopted by the Labour Party Conference would attempt to remove; and that is to make it quite clear to the Soviet Union that they could not themselves use nuclear weapons in Europe without running the risk of retaliation in kind. I believe that it is reasonable to maintain that a system is required for that purpose, assigned to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Whether or not it needs to be based on land is

45
arguable. I believe that its control should not be delegated below SACEUR himself, and the longer its range the better, as long as it is seen clearly as a retaliatory force. That is the prime function of our Polaris submarines, and always has been, ever since President Kennedy agreed to let us have the missiles on that condition. I believe that it should be their sole function, and that you do not need a weapon of the characteristics of Trident and its proposed new warhead to fullil it.
It seems to me that all the political parties need to clear their minds on these issues: the Conservatives over their attitude to SDI and to any proposal which seeks to abolish altogether strategic nuclear delivery systems, especially ballistic missile ones; both the Conservatives and the Alliance about the need to continue to maintain an independent British nuclear strike force—and I am sorry to find that the Liberals, with whom I have usually agreed on this subject, appear to have fallen under the spell of some Welsh witch doctor—and the Labour Party about a policy which would place NATO in the same position,vis-à-vis nuclear armed opponent, that Japan was in in 1945 and which would eventually remove the overall nuclear deterrent to war. And I hope that their spokesmen will cease claiming that I support any part of their policy other than that of not wasting precious defence resources on Trident and devoting them instead to conventional forces.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, before the noble and gallant Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain why it is that the views he has expressed about the British independent nuclear deterrent are apparently shared by no other five-star officer in the Western Alliance; and why it is that he was able to continue as Chief of the Defence Staff holding the views that he did?
Lord Carver: My Lords, I do not know why no other five-star officer in NATO thinks that way. I think that it would perhaps be more correct to say that no other five-star officer in NATO has publicly expressed his views in that way. I remind the noble Lord that, for most of the time that I was Chief of the Defence Staff the policy of the government of the time was to continue the Polaris submarine force for as long as possible and not produce a replacement for it. I have never in any way quarrelled with the role of the Polaris submarine force—the primary role, for which President Kennedy let us have the missiles themselves—that of being an intermediate range nuclear force for the support of SACEUR. I have never quarrelled with that, and I do not quarrel with it now.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in that case, if I have your Lordships' permission to intervene again, may I ask the noble and gallant Lord to make every effort to be in his place when I come to wind up this evening, and I will tell him?
Lord Carver: My Lords, I certainly will.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit, may I make a small preliminary
46
note by asking whether your Lordships have seen the front page of this afternoon's early edition of the Standard newspaper, a copy of which I have in my hand. The banner headline is "Iran: Regan confesses". What President Reagan is alleged to have confessed is what has been talked about for some days lately: namely, that the United States has shipped weapons—arms of some sort—to Iran. The President is reported in this way:
"he defended his action as necessary to improve contacts with moderate elements of the Iranian Government. He added that it would strengthen the chance of setting hostages free. Mr. Reagan denied that sending weapons amounted to a ransom for the hostages. But he said he will contunue contacts with Iran in the hopes of releasing more captive Americans."
I believe that it would be prudent to take a deep breath and count a long 10 before commenting on tidings such as that. Your Lordships may care to think long and deeply while you count—I suspect that noble Lords may find some of the thoughts disturbing.
It so happens that this year, unusually, we are debating this Motion on the first day of the loyal Address debate just after rather than, as is more usual, just before Remembrance Day. In this House more than another place, there are many Members whose memories no doubt go back to the real thing, the actual experience of war rather than the imaginary, often academic, forms of war which we are used to discussing. In this atmosphere of what seems to me to be a greater realism than we are normally accustomed to, I should like to suggest that we should manage to talk about it, if we can, with fewer what I call rubber stamps.
Rubber stamps are commonly referred to, I suppose, as clichés, but I prefer the term rubber stamp because I think of it as something which one can put out a hand to and bang down on paper in order to save oneself the trouble of thinking out a word or a phrase. We have plenty of them in all sorts of contexts, such as: "This side up", "Remember the post code", "House of Lords Refreshment Department", "flexible response", "use no hooks", "INF", "MBFR", "CSCE", "Not known at this address", "Mutual assured destruction", "Kilotonne megadeath", "No rubbish to be shot here" and—the great pair of rubber stamps of the age—"nuclear deterrent" and "nuclear deterrence".
The point of thinking about these as rubber stamps, to my way of thinking, is this. We take it for granted that this is something that happens on both sides of the great divide between East and West. We have mutual deterrence: we deter the Russians, they deter us. We forget, therefore, that there is no such word as deterrent or deterrence in the Russian military language. It does not appear in their training manual or in any publication that is known to the West. They simply do not understand the idea of deterrence at all.
What they do understand—I am referring to an authority quoted already, I think by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver—is the Clausewitz idea of war. He said:
"War is only a branch of political activity; and it is in no sense autonomous. It cannot be divorced from political life and, whenever this occurs in our thinking about war, the many links that connect the two elements are destroyed and we are left with something that is pointless and devoid of sense".

47
In my submission, my Lords, this is what we tend to do in the West. We talk about deterrence and we talk about ending war altogether as though it was something entirely on its own in a vacuum. The Russians have never done this, and I have no doubt that it appears to them as a grievous error that anyone should do so.
The nuclear capability, therefore, is not something that exists in order to deter the West; it is part of their whole system of war and it is meant not for deterrence but for use. There is no question about it, this is the Russian attitude to the nuclear capability: it is there to be used, it is part of a war-fighting capacity in which they fully believe.
It is, therefore, incumbent upon the West to make sure that it will never be worth while for them to use it. We call this deterrence on our side, and there is no reason why we should not use our rubber stamp at that moment. If this is so, it means to say that there is no point in discussing with the Russians beyond a certain point the reduction of nuclear arms on both sides. I say "beyond a certain point" because, of course, the discussions have to continue and weapons be reduced as much as possible.
Why then do the Russians want this enormous force—what is the point of this great war-fighting machine? For a comment on that, I refer your Lordships to a remark made in a book by Professor Sir Michael Howard, a very distinguished military historian:
"Russia has aspired to global power status, as did Germany before 1914; and if the West complains, as did Britain about Germany. that the Russians do not need a Navy for defensive purposes, the Soviet Union can retort, as did Germany, that she needs it to make clear to the world the statuts to which she aspires; that is, so that she can operate on the world scene by virtue of her own power and not by permission of anyone else. Like Germany, she is determined to be treated as an equal, and armed strength has appeared the only way to achieve that status."
It is difficult to find a more completely logical and resolute statement of aims and intentions than that.
I find it very remarkable that anybody in the face of that, should seriously propose to do away with the particular part of our own defences that will make it impossible for the Soviets to put that whole machinery into effect. If that is done, if we abolish our own nuclear capability as the Labour Party proposes to do and, as a result of that, dismantle the nuclear capability of NATO, which is the ultimate achievement that will flow from that, we shall leave ourselves defenceless, as practically every speaker has pointed out.
It leaves me in a state of astonishment when I hear a remark coming from such a sage and sensible person as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the preponderance of Russian over NATO weaponry in the NATO area in Europe is of less significance than he had supposed. In tanks, in aeroplanes and in guns the proportion of Russian to NATO weaponry is at least two to one and in some cases three to one, and there are far more soldiers in the front line than we have on our side. It is perfectly true that, if you had thought that that proportion in all cases was three to one and then you suddenly discovered that it was two to one, the significance would become greatly reduced; but the implication of
48
the noble Lord's words surely must be that the significance is not particularly great. I find this very frightening indeed if the Labour Party seriously believes that two or three to one against us is not a significant disadvantage on our side.
Lord Kennet:: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Earl? It would greatly assist the House now and in the future during this debate if he could let us know whether he has actually looked at this week's military balance published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, which shows that figure of three to one he was giving is, in their estimation, in the order of 1.2 to one and 1.3 to one, and so on. If he challenges these figures, perhaps he would be so good as to reveal the sources he sets against those which are available to the international institute.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery:: Yes, my Lords, I think I have overdone my figures and, if I have, I apologise. It is my own fault because I have the book here; my noble friend has it and I read it about five minutes ago. The last thing I want to do is to mislead the House; but the point is that, if the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, thought that the significance was much higher against us than that, it is against that significance that his party has proposed total unilateral nuclear disarmament. There is no particular point in pursuing that in the course of this debate because it was the great feature of Labour policy that lost them the last general election, and it is the one that is almost certainly going to lose them the next.
To revert to the Soviets and their history (and it is necessary to remember a little bit of the history) there are factors other than the ones I have mentioned—that is, the wish to be a great power on the world scene—that have brought them into the situation in which we see them now. There are at least three particular ones and we go back to the October Revolution of 1917, which was brought about largely by the Tsarist despotism of the Romanovs. That was a revolution such as we have seen in France and indeed in England in earlier days. On top of that they were forced into revolution by the astonishing incompetence of their own government in waging war, which provided them with no less than 5.5 million casualties in the course of two years. Finally—this is the one that we usually remember and think of—they have the doctrine of Karl Marx (if it still remains in force) according to which the Russian revolution is to be exported to the other countries of the world, with the accompanying downfall of the capitalist system.
This is what we are against and I think we do ourselves no very great service if we discuss the relations between East and West solely in terms of weapons, armaments and disarmament. What we have to acknowledge is the fact that these people on the other side do not think like us. They are motivated by impulses at least as strong as those which motivate us, and what is required on our side is patience and, above all, courage. We need a little less readiness to say that these people are evil. They are not particularly evil; not by their own standards anyway. Above all—and this is what brings me right into the context of the Queen's Speech—what is required is the restoration of the one great casualty to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, particularly referred; and that is trust.

49
The revolution in Russia set them upon a kind of stage which proclaimed to the world (and they have since demonstrated this by their own behaviour all over the world) that from our point of view they are not to be trusted. The counterblast to that is to produce measures on the Western side which make us not trustable by the Russians. I do not believe that the Americans—or us, for that matter, but particularly the Americans as the other great power—are any more to be trusted by the Russians than the Russians are to be trusted by the Americans. By that I do not mean that either side is untrustworthy. I mean that neither side can be expected to trust the other, for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with honesty or morals, but simply political acts.
Therefore, the task that faces men and women of goodwill all over the world is one of patience. We have by some means to restore trust, and this is why I applaud the use of that word "trust" in the gracious Speech. It is the one thing that is not often mentioned, and it should be. What is mentioned by implication is something quite different: that is fear. When anybody proposes that we should ourselves disarm in the nuclear sense while leaving the opposition armed, in my submission that is not prudence. It is most highly imprudent.
It is perfectly legitimate to say that we would rather be subjected to Russian domination (which they have promised us if they get the chance) and become a satellite like Hungary. You can prefer that if you like and, if you do, that is perfectly honest. But if you are not doing that at all and if you are simply saying that the situation is so dangerous and these arms are so terrifying that we must abolish the ones which we have on our side, that is not prudence and that is not wisdom. It is not honesty: it is fear. I do not personally believe that any nation, least of all this one, should be guided by a policy of fear.
I would offer your Lordships two thoughts. One comes from the American, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said:
"Never strike sail to a fear. Come into port greatly or, with God, sail the seas".
The other is from our own poet, Clough, in the hymn, "Say not the struggle naught availeth":
"If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field".
My Lords, I myself am on the side of those who are holding the field and will never let go.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, the visit of the Queen to China has highlighted many opportunities. You might say trade was an important factor, but I think what she did when she went to China was to forge something which was far more important even than trade; and that was friendship. In the Queen's Speech she said about her Government that,
"They will discharge their obligations to the people of Hong Kong and will work closely with the Chinese Government to carry out the Sino-British Joint Declaration".
This can only be done on a smooth basis if in the interim between now and 1997 we have built up such
50
a fund of friendship with mainland China that it will be smooth.
Her Majesty's visit must imply a revival of public interest both in China and in Britain which was very much needed. I predict that it will have repercussions for a long time to come. I have received many reactions to the Queen's visit from China and from delegations in this country. They all agree that it was timely and that it was psychologically a first-class time to go. The fact that the Queen agreed to visit China was a coup for the Chinese as well as for Britain. She was well received in China because her visit had a mark of approval about it which pleased the Chinese.
I wish to make three practical suggestions which I know are realisable. The Queen took with her, when she visited China, a scroll symbolising 30 three-year fellowships as a gift. The idea of post-doctoral fellowships arose from a visit to this country by a group of scientists from all over China. It took place in February of this year. They were of the age group most victimised by the cultural revolution which began in 1967 and ended in 1978. Among many other places, the scientists visited Manchester and they honoured me by being guests in my house. During the course of conversations with them, the leader of the delegation said that there was a superstition in China that the Germans, the Japanese and the Americans have better high technology than we have in this country. Remembering that the Germans make no charge for their Chinese students, I was not surprised.
When I asked my Chinese visitors whether, if we offered post-doctoral fellowships, the gift would be accepted in Peking, Peking was then consulted and the answer was an enthusiastic yes. That is rather different from the experience of Macartny, who was sent by William Pitt the Younger in 1793 loaded with scientific instruments as a gift to the Emperor of China. The emperor did not want to know. He said they had all they wanted and there was nothing in the West that could do them any good. That was a commoner offering gifts which are unacceptable to an emperor. I think, therefore, that there is something romantic about the Queen taking an offering of acceptable gifts to a commoner.
The Royal Society agreed to administer the fellowships and the Queen was enthusiastic. We set to work getting subscriptions, the first of which was from the Overseas Development Administration. Afterwards, contributions came to a total of £1 million and they presently stand at over £1 million. One of the cheering aspects of the whole thing was that the Chinese ethnic group in Manchester came forward of their own volition to offer money, which was accepted.
My next point concerns my belief that a good follow-up to the Queen's visit would be to help to remove all forms of discrimination in the United Kingdom's trade relations with the People's Republic and to treat China as we would any other country which is friendly to Britain so far as concerns trade. I refer to what was known as COCOM, or the Coordinating Committee for Multinational Export Control. The situation is out of hand. There are hints that the list is to be revised and I should welcome news about whether that is being considered. We know that certain unspecified countries are to press for China to

51
be removed altogether from COCOM regulations. Why can we not take the initiative to bring China out of COCOM? We should at least support other countries who are advocating that and then perhaps the officials (who are no small number) who are at present acting to stop trade with the PRC could be transferred to promoting trade instead of stopping it. Perhaps I may also suggest that we might review with our EC partners the quotas of imports from China which are limiting China's capacity to earn foreign currency.
My last point is that many years ago I took the initiative to twin Manchester with Shanghai. The suggestion was referred to the Chinese central government, but it was turned down on the grounds that Shanghai had too many twins already. The alternative proposed by the Chinese central government was Wuhan. It is a great city of 5 million inhabitants in a region of 50 million people in Hupeh Province. The last time I went to China, I went to see them. I found them a friendly and tough community. They have a wide range of both heavy and light industry and a university with a strong tradition. Visits have already been made between Manchester and Wuhan and Wuhan and Manchester. Indeed, only this week I had great pleasure in receiving in Manchester a delegation from Wuhan.
These are practical things that can be done to forge what I have so passionately felt for a long time that we need. The Chinese set great store by treaties of friendship. It is as though they are reaching out for friends all over the world. It is important from our point of view that we take a leading part in this movement. Numerically we are behind the United States, Japan, Germany and France. We need to have a policy on this matter.
As it stands at the moment there are 10 fully-fledged twinnings; nine, you might say, are on the stocks and are ready for acceptance. China is a vast and thickly populated country and I believe that more power and responsibility will be given to the regions when they have learnt how to cope with it. Twinning is part of the learning process. It is absolutely fascinating to study the business of trade with representation in China. At the moment we have two consul-generals, one in Peking and one in Shanghai. I have looked up the Foreign Office Yearbook for 1914, having in mind the revolution by Sun Yat-sen in 1911. We then had in the consular service over 70 people and five of the major regions had consul-generals and a whole retinue of followers. It is too much to expect that we could have the same sort of representation now, but there is no doubt that, if a plan were organised for having consul-generals throughout the regions leading up to the takeover in 1997, there would be an immense fund of good will coming from mainland China towards a smooth transition.
That is all I have to say. I believe passionately that it is possible. I have demonstrated in my own small way many things which could be built on if it was properly organised. We need a central body to co-ordinate not only the regions in China but also the local authorities here and the industries that are identified with localities. We have a tremendous
52
opportunity, and I only hope that we can do something about it while there is still time to build.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I shall ask your Lordships for a few minutes to stop thinking about all the pressing problems that confront us today and instead to look at how our foreign policy is formulated, because today's problems, which were referred to in the gracious Speech and by all noble Lords who have spoken, and which will be referred to by those who are yet to speak, stem to a very large degree from the actions and the inactions of five, 10 or 20 years ago.
Some 40 years ago when he was Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin summoned to the Foreign Office a group of young and leading diplomatic correspondents. After they had received their cups of tea and dry biscuits, he turned to them and said, "Gentlemen, I have been thinking about Africa. It is a hell of a big continent. I do not know how many hundreds of millions of people live there. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of square miles it covers and I am too old to learn about these things. In any case, I am too busy dealing with the Germans, with the Russians, and with the Americans. I have no time for that and I shall be dead soon. But you are all young men and you will be alive when Africa becomes one of the most important factors in the whole world scene. I should like you to think about Africa, gentlemen. Good afternoon."
I do not know how many, if any, of them thought about Africa, but the moral of that story, to my mind, is that although even then the Foreign Secretary was too busy to think about one of the areas which he knew would be of vital importance, he had the bigness of mind to realise the need for long-term strategic thinking, for pinpointing those areas which needed thought and a build-up of policy.
Today, the need for that sort of thinking is just as great as it was then, but the pressures today on the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, on his time and on his energies, are even greater than they were at that time. He spends so much of his time jetting from one continent to another, attending this proliferation of high-level meetings where so little is accomplished. He also has his role in the EC which is very time-consuming and, on top of that, of course, to his responsibilities has now been added the whole of the Commonwealth. So the problems facing him are far greater than they were when Ernest Bevin sent for those diplomatic correspondents.
It is no wonder that he has no time for the unhurried thinking, the leisurely sitting down and the discussions which are so essential in the formulation of sound policies for the future. When he is not in his aeroplane or at meetings, not to mention when he is attending Parliament, he has to deal with the short-term crises which, had the right decisions been taken long before he appeared on the scene, might never have occurred at all.
Let me give your Lordships just two examples of what I have in mind. It has been obvious for many years now—one can almost say for many decades—that the problem of South Africa and its neighbouring states was something which would get worse and worse until it reached crisis proportions at some stage, as indeed it has now. We were faced, as we

53
are today, with a clash of interests—of our own interests. We have great investments in South Africa, we have important trade with South Africa and we also have great investments in certain countries of black Africa with which we have very important trade. We also have our responsibilities to the Commonwealth as a whole; the need to hold the Commonwealth together. How much thought has been given to that? I do not know.
We have our responsibilities specifically to our fellow members of the Commonwealth who are most affected by what is now transpiring in South Africa, in the shape of Zimbabwe and Zambia. There is their need of access to the sea without having to go through the unfriendly neighbouring country of South Africa, not to mention the very great length of that journey. The Beira lifeline is, and always has been, of enormous importance. But we are now beginning to tackle this problem as if it were entirely new, whereas we should have been thinking about these things 10 or 15 years ago and preparing contingency plans in case—as, in fact, has happened—the worst transpired.
I shall not labour that point, but let me move on to another aspect where I believe that we are seriously lacking in long-term planning and where the disbenefits, the handicaps, resulting from that have not yet made themselves felt, though they are just beginning to do so, but will make themselves felt in the years ahead. I refer to the activities of the British Council. Your Lordships may think that that is a very minor point to raise in a debate of this kind. But, after all, our standing in the world depends to a very great extent on the number of people who speak English, who know about our culture, who know about our history, who have studied in our centres of learning and of higher education and who have imbibed some of our ideas.
Because the sums of money involved are relatively modest it does not mean that this matter does not warrant serious thought at the highest level. I should like to quote to your Lordships some figures which you may have read in the press, from evidence given by the Director-General of the British Council, Sir John Burgh, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place. He said:
"I am convinced that our total overseas effort, covering the British Council, the BBC External Services and the Central Office of Information, is failing to sustain our standing and reputation overseas …
"It matters that in Indonesia, the German trained Minister of Technology has mentioned on numerous occasions the absence among his staff and advisers of any British trained experts and hence of any British mafia to lobby for British goods and services.
"It matters that we cannot give sufficient assistance to English medium schools and universities—that is schools and universities which teach in English, in Hungary and Turkey and elsewhere.
"It matters that in Uruguay English has been demoted as an obligatory subject in the curriculum and that its place has been taken by French following an intensive cultural relations effort by France.
"It matters that in West Germany even intelligent and educated people, who have no cause to concern themselves with Britain, build up an image of Britain consisting of 'football hooligans, decline, racial friction and archaic traditions' …
"Britain, too, needs to recognise the importance of cultural relations as an important and integral aspect of our foreign policy—and then pay it not merely lip service but provide the necessary resources for its implementation".
54
Unless serious high level consideration is given to it now, unless a decision is taken that this is an important matter on which the future welfare of this country will to some extent depend and on which its future influence in the world will depend, we shall be too late. These are the problems to which the Foreign Secretary himself and his ministerial colleagues ought to be giving attention but, because of all the pressures to which I have referred, it is to all intents impossible for him to do it.
I want to make it clear that I am in no way blaming the present Foreign Secretary for whom I have the highest regard, as I do for his colleagues: nor am I blaming in any way the officials, who, once again, are of the highest calibre. The system is at fault, not the people. The system, after all, is based on the Victorian days of relative leisure and slow communications. Now we live in an entirely different age and need not an entirely different set-up but changes and thought to be given to how those changes can be made.
The system has a further disadvantage. The fact that Ministers, whether it is the Foreign Secretary himself or his colleagues, can now fly about the world and present themselves to their opposite numbers or to heads of state in different countries inevitably devalues the role of Her Britannic Majesty's ambassadors. I can say without fear of contradiction that our ambassadors are all men of the highest intellectual capacity and of the highest quality and calibre. But the jobs which they have to do as they rise higher up the scale become, paradoxically, progressively less important, and they become more and more the bearers of messages and less and less the actual representatives of Her Majesty.
The result is that an increasing number of the brightest young and middle-aged people in the Foreign Service today are leaving it. There is no shortage of first class recruits for the Foreign Service. It is still sought after by those who are looking for jobs when they have finished their education. But it is an undoubted fact that in their thirties when they are First-Secretaries or Counsellors they look around to see what the future holds for them—it may hold a knighthood, it may hold an embassy, it may hold an excellency, it may even hold a Rolls-Royce—and decide that that is not enough. There is not the responsibility which they are capable of carrying out and which they wish to have. For that reason (more than the fact that other people may offer more money) and in order to gain more responsibility and have a growing amount of responsibility as they move up the ladder, they leave the Foreign Service at that crucial stage and join international business of one kind or another. Good for this country, yes, but a potential danger in the future for the service itself.
I do not pretend that I know the answers to this complex question. I am sure that some noble Lords present with far greater experience of the Foreign Office than I have have given it some thought. They may have some ideas. They may disagree profoundly with what I have said, but I think there is a fair degree of agreement among many people on this matter. One thing stands out. I do not know how possible it is but I believe that there should be a self-denying ordinance not only by the Foreign Secretary himself but by his colleagues in other countries that they will stay at home more and think, and leave more responsibility

55
to the people on the spot—the ambassadors—to carry out the jobs which now the jet aeroplane has made it more possible for them to do. If they stayed at home to think I am sure that a good many future troubles would be avoided.
In conclusion, I urge Her Majesty's Government to give serious and urgent thought to this problem, because unless it is solved and solved quickly we shall lurch from crisis to crisis, most of which could have been avoided had thought been given to the various matters some 10 years earlier.
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, before I address the subject of foreign aid as mentioned in the gracious Speech, I ask first that I may have the understanding and forgiveness of the House if I am unable to remain until the end of the debate. It is important that I should return to my diocese this evening, and the timing of the trains may not make it possible for me to remain very late.
I want warmly to welcome the salutary words of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about Africa, for it is in regard to Africa that we must be particularly grateful to Her Majesty's Government for aid on a wide scale, from Sudan through Kenya, the Ivory Coast and into Zimbabwe, even despite some doubts about the wisdom of this kind of action in multilateral aid.
In particular I should like to welcome the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government to give 10 million dollars over three years to the special fund for Africa of the United Nations agency, the International Fund for Agriculture and Development. The concern that is expressed through the greatly increased awareness of ordinary people throughout our nation to the needs of famine victims in Africa makes this especially appropriate. But the international fund's concern is for food production by the small farmer, and many of the small farmers of the world are women. If we are not once more to witness ghastly scenes like those that were brought to us by BBC television last year, it is vital that the small farmer should be encouraged and better educated, and that the woman farmer in particular should be encouraged. So I urge that Her Majesty's Government's bilateral programme of aid for Africa should put increasing emphasis on this type of project, namely, small-scale food production, and on the further training of the men and women who are doing that sort of farming.
It was hard fully to express the delight that I experienced when I learned earlier in the week of Mr. Patten's success in Brussels with the recent EC decision to buy, when it is available, more food for other countries, and for famine areas in particular. What an encouraging thing that is, particularly since the money that is thus saved will be used for further support for agricultural projects in developing countries. Perhaps I may speak personally, to say that in the long term it may even herald a restoration of the scenery of the English shires; but that would be no more than a by-product for which we are grateful.
Alongside the need for increased food production in the developing world and the proper use of food aid, a matter in which the Government have shown great
56
interest and have given others much help in understanding the position, it is important to remember that those countries also need the development of accessible markets for their manufactured goods. I am glad to note the progress that has been made on this front during the past 12 months. In particular I should like to mention the lifting of restrictions on clothing and textiles exported from Bangladesh that was agreed in July and will come into effect in January next year. This action will relieve some of the deep anxieties about the effects of multifibre agreements.
In view of these positive actions by Her Majesty's Government it would be very disappointing if the EC programme did not expand rather than merely be maintained at its present level. The gracious Speech mentioned maintaining foreign aid. Our national record in the matter is not to be despised. I should like to say in particular how grateful we are to note the proportion of our foreign aid that is being given in the form of grants rather than loans. I trust that in the remaining couple of months Her Majesty's Government will be able to use the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community to ensure that, if at all possible. the level of aid from the Community is increased. I have already mentioned the positive attitude of people in this country to the whole subject. I believe that this is mirrored in most member states of the Community and that for Her Majesty's Government to urge the maintenance—or if possible an increase—in the level of aid would not only encourage the people of this country but those of other countries too.
I listened attentively to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she mentioned the death of President Machel of Mozambique, because I want to urge the Government to give very serious consideration to the needs of the frontier states and of Mozambique in particular. On a smaller scale, we have seen the effect of television news enlightening the British public about conditions in Mozambique in a way which can be compared with the earlier presentation of Ethiopia. The death of the President was tragic and a grievous blow to a country already fraught with civil war and famine. Already Zimbabwe is high on the nation's list of concern among the frontier states. I hope that our concern can be expanded, and in particular to Mozambique.
I have urged further generosity and further and deeper concern. but with all that I have said I wish to state my gratitude for the place which this subject takes in the policies of Her Majesty's Government.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester will forgive me if I do not follow him down the course he took of aid in Africa, however important that subject may be. In my brief intervention I want to take my cue from the sentence in the gracious Speech in which it is stated that Her Majesty's Government intend:
"continuing to seek more normal relations with Argentina".
I must say that in the light of what happened last month this looks like being exceedingly difficult, but is as important as ever.

57
Last month I had the pleasure and honour of visiting Buenos Aires as a member of the British delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Conference. I have not attended one of these events before. I found it fascinating and learned a great deal from the experience. Perhaps I may digress for just a minute to say something about the IPU, because I am sure that all noble Lords who have participated in IPU activities will agree with me that it is a most important institution for the promotion of parliamentary democratic traditions and one which is worthy of our support. It provides a forum for legislators of most diverse outlook from 107 countries to exchange views. As the delegates, particularly those from the Western-style liberal democracies, are mainly backbenchers they do not speak for their governments and therefore the resolutions are less important than the mutual understanding created by participation. In this context it is worth noting that the British and Argentine delegations have held informal bilateral meetings at every single IPU conference since the reincorporation of Argentina two years ago. There have also been exchange visits between British and Argentine delegations under IPU auspices.
All these activities have proved most useful in creating an atmosphere of better understanding about the problems of the other side. The recent visit to Buenos Aires was no exception. We participated in a meeting with the Argentine parliamentary group and sought ways to establish more direct diplomatic relations which might lead to a formal meeting between our governments to discuss the problems of the South Atlantic. At that meeting I warned our Argentine friends that both of us must avoid creating any obstacles that might be used as excuses by our respective governments for taking no action. I cited the recent agreement made by Argentina with the USSR and Bulgaria as an example of action that was bound to prove conflictive and create a problem. Unfortunately, this proved all too correct. I was therefore not surprised, but nevertheless deeply shocked, by the unilateral declaration by Great Britain of a Falkland Island conservation zone. Unfortunately, when this move was announced I was away in Brazil; otherwise I would have participated. Both sides have done something wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right.
Perhaps I may go back a little in time, to April 1977, when in this Chamber in a debate on the Falklands I indicated that over-fishing was taking place, that it was a very serious problem and that the solution to the fishing problem—by way of any dialogue that might ensue—presented a perfect opportunity for collaboration between Britain and Argentina, the two most interested nations and the two nations participating least in the fishing operations or exploiting the marine resources in the area. What happened? Apart from that dreadful conflict, absolutely nothing happened until last year, when we put the problem to the FAO to seek a multilateral solution. At that time I expressed my doubts about that manoeuvre because it was no substitute for direct bilateral discussion. As we took unilateral action two weeks ago, I presume that means that the multilateral solution is now dead.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me? May I correct him on a point of fact? The
58
conservation zone is an interim arrangement. We have made it clear that our preferred solution to the problem is a multilateral one. That is still our wish. There is a real problem about the conservation of fish. and the new fishing season starts in January. It is necessary to do something now.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I of course accept the facts as given by my noble friend. However desirable an ultimate multilateral solution may be, it will not work. We have taken interim action, but the two parties to the dispute will still have to resolve the problems between them.
Of course, Argentina should never have signed agreements with Russia and Bulgaria; but they have not yet been ratified, let alone implemented. In the meantime, we have moved in advance of a multilateral decision because of the serious conservation issue. It has been so for the past nine to 10 years. To retaliate in advance ignores the fact that Argentina claims that territorial area. That claim is supported by all Latin American countries and by many members of the United Nations. We cannot ignore the existence of the claim, however much we disagree with it.
I have pleaded time and time again for common sense on this issue. It is more than ever essential to establish direct diplomatic relations and to establish a dialogue directly with Argentina. Multilateral and unilateral solutions will not work.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said on that subject. I agree with him entirely. The Labour Party and the Alliance have adopted the policy that dialogue with Argentina must now take place. Her Majesty's Government alone remains intransigent. I hope that they will think again before any further damage is done.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Queen's Speech includes a promise by the Government to continue to attach:
"the highest importance to national security and to preserving peace with freedom and justice".
The House may be a little surprised that I propose to cite and welcome two actions by the Government towards "preserving peace with freedom and justice". The first relates to human rights. I was disturbed by the reports of the executions in Indonesia, which is an ally of the West. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the matter. I received a most courteous and kind response from Sir Geoffrey Howe, who described in detail how the Government's representatives in Indonesia brought pressure to bear upon the Indonesian Government to end the executions which were taking place. I have of course acknowledged that reply from Sir Geoffrey Howe. I want to acknowledge now the contributions which the British representatives in Indonesia have made on this matter.
I should like the Government to go further. It is inconsistent with claiming that the West stands for the free world when it is allied with countries such as Indonesia and Turkey which so constantly deny human rights.

59
My first purpose is to recognise the actions which the British Government have taken in Indonesia. My second relates to what has happened in the United Nations with regard to peace in the South Atlantic. On 2nd October, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a remarkable resolution by 121 to one votes, with eight abstentions. I wish to read out the resolution because it is an example to the world. It called on all members:
"to respect the region of the South Atlantic as a zone of peace and co-operation, especially through the reduction and eventual elimination of their military presence there, the non-introduction of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and the non-extension into the region of the rivalries and conflicts that are foreign to it".
What an example to the world that comprehensive resolution is!
I want to congratulate the Government on the fact that their representative at the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of that resolution. There were eight abstentions. The Government might have abstained. They had the courage to vote in favour of the resolution. The United States of America was the one country which voted against us.
We have recently had the serious development of the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Syria. No private Member can challenge the evidence which the Government have brought about the Syrian Government's actions regarding terrorism. But the decision to break off diplomatic relations and the decision of the European Community to apply sanctions will inevitably seriously affect a dangerous situation in the Middle East. It will inevitably change the balance of power there, enhancing the status of Israel that has carried out revenge raids upon Lebanon, and that is denying the people of Palestine their right to a home state. I wonder whether the British Government could not have taken another course and made these charges at the International Court at The Hague, bringing forward its evidence there and enlightening the world in respect of what has been done by the Syrian Government.
Despite the vote by the United States on the southern Atlantic, there have been two developments in the United States that are surely to be welcomed. The first is the Democratic victory in the elections for the Senate. The Democratic Party is committed to support a nuclear weapons freeze. For that reason, if for no other, we welcome its victory. The second piece of encouraging news is that the Pentagon is prepared to abolish bilateral missiles. I read in the Daily Telegraph a most authoritative statement saying that the Prime Minister was opposed to that move. I hope that this is not true. If it is true, I am sure that the Prime Minister will have public opinion against her. The public will welcome any step that is being taken to deal with the nuclear menace.
I turn to a fact that is sometimes ignored when we are discussing foreign affairs. It is that there are two wars at present proceeding in the world, the first between Iran and Iraq and the second between China and Vietnam. Cannot we do something to bring these wars to an end? Will the Government consider proposing to the Security Council of the United Nations that negotiating commissions, balanced in
60
their membership, should be formed to seek both an end to the Iran-Iraq war and an end of the conflict between China and Vietnam? The fact that discussions are proceeding progressively between China and the Soviet Union gives some hope that such action in that case might be taken.
The last subject to which I wish to refer is South Africa. The European Community decided upon sanctions against Syria but no decision was reached regarding sanctions against South Africa over apartheid. One welcomes the fact that the United States Senate has adopted a series of recommendations which go far in respect of sanctions. But one deplores the fact that our own Prime Minister opposes sanctions and is only ready to apply them in a very limited manner. I personally am in favour of sanctions as a matter of principle. I feel, however, that sometimes we take an exaggerated view of their effect. All history shows that governments are capable of amazing resilience when action of this kind is taken.
What is more likely to happen in South Africa is that the conflict between the black people and the government will intensify. I am pessimistic about the future. I see great danger not merely of a conflict within South Africa, but of actual war upon South Africa by the front line states. It seems to me that there is only one solution to the problem. It is the solution to many other problems as well. The United Nations should establish a peace-keeping force of overwhelming power that would be able to intervene in situations like that in South Africa, particularly in Namibia where the South African Government is illegally legislating.
I hope that the day will come when the only armed force in the world will be the peace-keeping force of the United Nations. All military power should be in its hands alone. When that day comes, it may be able to intervene effectively, representing the will of the world against the kind of resistance shown by South Africa today.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to say something, if I may, about the joint policy of the Liberal and Social Democratic Alliance towards the British nuclear deterrent. It is contained in this document issued by the Liberal Party last month, which also spells out the entire joint Alliance defence programme. It begins by reaffirming our support for NATO and for all the obligations of NATO membership, including the acceptance of allied bases on British soil. It calls for a strengthening of conventional weapons, for a lessening of NATO's dependence on nuclear weapons, for the maintaining of a British minimum deterrent pending a disarmament agreement, for a more resolute approach to arms control and disarmament, for a comprehensive test ban treaty, for strengthening nonproliferation, for a zone in Europe free of battlefield nuclear weapons, for freezing further deployment of cruise missiles while negotiations continue and for withdrawal of support from SDI and the strengthening of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
All these points are agreed between the Liberal and Social Democratic parties. On all of them except one the two parties have followed faithfully the

61
recommendations of the joint Alliance Defence Commission that reported earlier this year and whose report was welcomed by the two parties. On only one point—the possible replacement of Polaris—does this statement depart from the recommendations of the joint Alliance Defence Commission. Previous Liberal policy held that an Alliance Government should maintain Polaris pending a satisfactory disarmament agreement. This statement now declares that an Alliance Government should also, if necessary, modernise our deterrent, without escalating it. That is the difference, which is plainly set out.
Perhaps, because there are likely to be efforts to misrepresent the Alliance on this point, I may put on record the exact words of the statement:
"In Government we would maintain (with whatever necessary modernisation) our minimum nuclear deterrent until it can be negotiated away as part of a global arms negotiation process, in return for worthwhile concessions by the Soviet Union which would enhance British and European security. This is in contrast to Labour's 'give-it-away' approach".
In the second paragraph it says:
"In any such modernisation we would freeze our capacity at a level no greater than that of the Polaris system. This is in contrast to the Tories' intent greatly to increase our nuclear deterrent capacity".
I see that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has returned. I would add that we also say that we shall assign the minimum deterrent to NATO. I hope that reassures him somewhat.
That is the long and short of the joint Alliance defence policy. That is the position. So when the election comes the electors will have a threefold choice. If they want Britain unilaterally to scrap all British nuclear weapons and boycott all NATO and American nuclear weapons, they will be encouraged to vote Labour. If they want Britain to increase its nuclear deterrent eightfold, if they want an eightfold escalation in the British nuclear deterrent, they will be encouraged to vote Tory. If, on the other hand, they would like Britain simply to maintain the deterrent pending a disarmament agreement, they will be encouraged to vote for the Alliance. Those are the issues at the general election. If this is plainly put to them I do not have the slightest doubt which of the three choices the British electors will make.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered impertinent if I ask the noble Lord, why was there such a widespread impression, after the Liberal Party Conference, that the party was split from top to bottom?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, as I have said, as a member of the joint Alliance Defence Commission, I would be the last to deny that the business of bringing the two parties together has been long and difficult. But we have now achieved it, as I have shown. At the election the Government may misrepresent us for a time but it is amazing how, in election campaigns with television available, the truth comes out and we shall gain from it, I assure the noble Lord.
This is the position that will prevail when the election comes. Of course we expect vigorous attempts from the Labour Party, from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and noble Lords opposite, to misrepresent our party. We do not share the confidence of some
62
noble Lords opposite, for example, in the famous lack of bias of Mr. Tebbit and the Conservative Central Office. We expect the policy to be misrepresented for a time.
There is a point which I know interests the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. The document does not spell out how, if it were necessary, an Alliance Government would replace Polaris. This is true. This is a question which both the Government and the Alliance may well have to face in the future. I put this to the Government: if the Americans and the Russians agree to deep cuts in strategic weapons the Government concede that they will have to make reductions, too, in British strategic weapons. On Monday last the Secretary of State for Defence stated in the other place:
"If there were large reductions in strategic systems and no development of any new weapons as a threat to us, we would consider whether we would contribute to further reductions thereafter".
He also said:
"If there were large reductions in strategic weapons of the size suggested by the hon. Gentleman-50 per cent. or so—the Government would be perfectly prepared to go along with the search for such reductions".
That is plain enough. It would obviously be unthinkable, at a time when the Russians and the Americans were cutting their strategic weapons by 50 per cent., that the British Government should increase British weapons eight times. At a time when the world was disarming, when East-West relations had vastly improved, that the British Government should insist on increasing Britain's share of the world's nuclear capacity by nearly 20 times would obviously be absurd. I am glad to see the noble Lord the Minister agreeing with me. Even the Conservative Party could not be as foolish as that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not in the least agreeing with the noble Lord. I was shaking my head in disbelief and disagreement with the facts that he was alleging to recite.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I can recapitulate, and when the noble Lord winds up perhaps he can answer my questions. I have quoted the Secretary of State for Defence last week as saying that if there are major strategic cuts in American and Soviet strategic weapons the British Government would follow suit. That is what he said. I am only saying, yes, I am agreeing with the Secretary of State. I am saying that it is absurd to think that in these conditions the British Government would continue with the full Trident programme, multiplying our nuclear deterrent by eight, increasing our share of world nuclear weapons by up to 20. The noble Lord, Lord Lewin, will bear me out on this. The Government therefore are going to face the same problem as, I admit, the Alliance faces: what would be an appropriate replacement for Polaris? The noble Lord can answer this tonight. For example, would the size of the Trident fleet be reduced? Would the submarines carry fewer missiles? Would the missiles be fitted with fewer warheads? Would Trident missiles be replaced with cruise missiles? What is the answer? We look forward to hearing this from the noble Lord.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer has been recited on more than one occasion. I shall recite it again later tonight.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we can hardly wait for this event. I anticipate that the noble Lord will say, "Let us see how the disarmament goes. It is too early to decide." That is obviously the answer. If he says this I shall have great sympathy with him, and so will all my noble friends on these benches. If the noble Lord says it is foolish to decide now exactly how Polaris should be replaced, this of course is the view of the Alliance. We too say that technology is changing very rapidly, that international relations are changing very rapidly, that we need to know how disarmament is going. For that reason, in this document, there is no statement about how, when the time comes, if it is necessary, Polaris should be replaced.
Another feature today has struck me. There was a very strong attack by the noble Baroness on the unilateralism of the Labour Party. We all looked forward to a stirring reply from the Labour Front Bench. I was disappointed. The fact is that for a noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench in a defence debate to defend Labour's defence policy would be a complete innovation. It has never happened before to my knowledge. Yes, we entirely enjoy and profit from the personal views that noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench put forward on defence policy. But I must say that it would help our debates if they also set out their party's policy, even if they had to say that they did not agree with it. Since they have the privileges of being the official Opposition, there is I think a certain reciprocal obligation on them to explain to us what the Opposition policies are.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord is making one of his usual confused speeches. He must be aware that this is a debate on foreign affairs and defence. As I am the Foreign Affairs spokesman on this side of the House, and my noble friend Lord Oram will wind up and will deal mainly with defence, this is how we have handled it—certainly since I became leader of the Opposition—and this is how we shall handle it now. We are not proposing to change things for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is a tradition that we should wait and wait and wait for a noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench to stand up and explain what the Labour Party's defence policy is. In case we do not get a clear statement later, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I take it upon myself to set out the Labour Party's defence policy and make one or two comments upon it.
What is the most distinctive and important feature of the Labour Party's defence policy? It is that a Labour Government would scrap all Britain's nuclear weapons and boycott all NATO and American nuclear weapons. If the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned that point, I did not hear him. If the spokesman who winds up mentions it, I should be very pleased and surprised.
The Labour Party is not pacifist. It calls for strong conventional weapons. It is prepared to call on the
64
British Armed Forces to fight. However, it insists, that the British Armed Forces should be ready to fight with conventional weapons against an enemy armed with conventional and nuclear weapons. That is the distinctive feature. The Labour Party urges that NATO too should adopt this policy, this non-nuclear policy. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, agreeing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am not agreeing.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it may be true that even if the Soviet Union had an effective monopoly of nuclear weapons it might not use them. Certainly, if it was winning a conventional war it probably would not use them. But let us suppose it was losing the conventional war. Can we really believe that it would then accept defeat rather than make a small demonstration of nuclear power, knowing there could be no reciprocity and knowing that this small demonstration would lead, as it would have to, to the immediate surrender of all the NATO forces? Therefore, it is a very natural thing that we do not get strong expositions of Labour's policy from Members on the Labour Front Bench. They are too well-informed and responsible.
Finally, I should like to say that we agree with the Opposition that the Government's policy is wrong in several respects. It is wrong in its demand for vast and costly escalation in Britain's nuclear weapons; in its excessive reliance on nuclear weapons; on dragging its feet on the zero zero option and on a comprehensive test-ban treaty. On all these points we agree with the spokesman on the Opposition Benches. Where we part company with Labour is over the basic hard truth about defence policy; namely, that while the Russians have got nuclear weapons we have to have them, too. That is where we differ from them.
As a member of the joint Alliance Defence Commission I am the last to deny that it has been a long hard graft bringing the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party together on a realistic defence policy. But, we have now done this and we shall put this policy fully and with confidence to the electorate at the general election.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Carver, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, I must apologise for the fact that I shall be prevented from attending the closing stages of this debate. However, I will study very closely what takes place in my absence.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, reinforces my view that it is a matter of great regret that the foreign policy of this country on major issues no longer commands anything approaching bipartisan support. Inevitably, this fact deprives the country of some of the authority that it should exercise in international affairs. In particular, it weakens the alliance of democratic powers which, if seen by their adversaries as united, reliable and determined, could bring nearer an understanding between East and West.

65
The gracious Speech has touched with inevitable brevity on some of the issues that will preoccupy the Secretary of State in the coming months. One factor common to all these issues is that few will be capable of quick solution and all the issues will require great patience. Happily, patience is clearly one of the Secretary of State's many virtues. He knows better than most that impatience for quick solutions is often the quickest way to multiply their real dangers.
The meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan has shown more clearly than ever before that both sides envisage reaching agreement on arms control. It is hard to believe that either side is deliberately blocking an eventual settlement. Each side will, of course, wish to include points of especial value to itself. The problem is immensely complex, involving matters at the leading edge of scientific technology; controversial questions of military doctrine as well as political questions of overriding importance. Many people are dogmatic on these matters who clearly are not equipped to understand them. The SDI is disparaged and has been described in this House as "useless". I ask myself how these people know that so firmly. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked the other day, "if the SDI is so 'useless, why is Mr. Gorbachev so manifestly alarmed about it?"
There is no alternative to allowing specialists, with proper supervision, to continue to search for agreement in intensive negotiations. Her Majesty's Government must encourage this search and together with our European allies ensure that European security is carefully safeguarded and not bargained away. American interest in European security is real: however, the European viewpoint must be vigorously asserted. On this side of the Atlantic we must constantly keep in mind four considerations. First, historically, there has never been a conventional deterrent. Secondly, Soviet superiority in numbers of men and in conventional arms is likely to be a long-lasting fact of life. Thirdly, it is likely to be a part of Soviet policy to maintain towards Western Europe an invasion capability for,the foreseeable future. Lastly, the Soviet military dominate the policies of the Soviet State in a way which has no parallel in Western democracy. Inside the Soviet borders the military have a domestic purpose to back up the Communist élite and outside those borders, they have the duty of policing developments in the satellite countries. This is in addition to the protection of the Soviet State itself in Europe and the Far East.
It is both true and desirable that substantial reductions can be made on both sides in nuclear weapons without affecting their deterrent role. However, the problem of the mismatch between Soviet and NATO conventional arms cannot be solved in the short term without nuclear arms. The French Government obviously see it in this way, as is shown by their recent decision to modernise their nuclear forces.
Concerning Anglo-Soviet relations overall, the Prime Minister has said that Mr. Gorbachev is "someone she can do business with". I wish we could do more business. By "business" I mean trade with the Soviet Union. Since the early 1960s there have been frequent promises of expanded trade. Indeed, Mr.
66
Gorbachev made a great point of it on his visit here. However, those promises have not been fulfilled. I hope that when the Prime Minister visits Moscow she will not participate in a routine repetition of those promises without some greater expectation of fulfilment.
The execution of Soviet diplomacy has shown some considerable change in recent times—at least the public relations aspect of it has done so. That no doubt reflects in part the influence and experience of the experts on American affairs who are now in charge of the Soviet Foreign Office. However, I have every confidence that the Secretary of State, if not the media, will be able to distinguish between public relations and the reality of the underlying policies. Historically, people in this country have been strangely gullible whenever the Soviet Union chooses to exercise its public relations capabilities.
The gracious Speech refers to our relations with the European Community. In general, I consider the present situation to be disappointing. The subject has been fully discussed in this House over recent weeks and to good effect. Some genuine doubts have been allayed. However, nothing can disguise the slow progress in drawing together the strength of Western Europe in this highly competitive world. We used to say in the last war that the speed of the convoy is the speed of the slowest ship. Slow ships have joined the EC convoy since it was first assembled and we ourselves have from time to time hindered its progress.
All parties in the United Kingdom should constantly remind themselves how necessary it is for our long-term economic survival to improve the working of the Community and to amend and sometimes abandon some of its outdated economic policies. However, the day when the EC members quickly, unquestioningly fall into line with each other is still far off. Maybe the vision held by so many of a Europe effectively united in purpose and policies may not be attainable in this generation. However, much can be done to improve the present deficiencies and the Government deserve credit for their efforts and for some of their successes.
The Royal visit to China, so eloquently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, was timely and successful. With the agreement on Hong Kong we must accustom ourselves to a new basis for our influence in the Far East. That basis can only be built on friendship, increased trade and cultural links with China itself. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, will have appreciated that the House is very grateful to him for the remarkable and highly successful initiative he took in organising the collection of money which led to Her Majesty's announcement of a substantial scholarship fund. I have not seen the latest Anglo-Chinese trade figures; but it is clear that there has been in part a large increase in British industrial interest. However, it will require stamina, both physical and financial, to secure the place in Chinese trade which our industry should command.
The resolution of the problem of Hong Kong, once so sensitive and apparently intractable, reminds us all that the issue of Gibraltar remains unsettled. There is an air of optimism, but it would not take much for it to develop dangerously. Public opinion in both

67
countries can be very volatile on this subject. No doubt both parties to the dispute will—as we did over Hong Kong—have to make adjustments to long-established historical perceptions. The long delay in past decades to face the facts over the Falklands led to the unhappy dilemma in which we now find ourselves. It is easy to criticise the recent move on fishing zones, and certainly in the short term it has left us in an isolated position. In that position the memory of the success of the Falklands campaign is greatly diminished internationally by the appearance of obstinacy in its aftermath.
I know that the current practice is to disregard the United Nations Organisation as a constructive element in the settlement of international disputes. However, it is in nobody's interest that the organisation should be constantly downgraded. The Anglo-Argentinian dispute must be resolved. I should like to see the Secretary General of the United Nations or an intermediary begin to try to find a way through. He would not succeed at once, but he could begin the process, which will no doubt be long, of bringing to an end the present arm's length situation where positions untenable in the long run are regarded as sacrosanct.
Had there been time, I should like to have spoken more fully on South Africa and the Middle East, which in my view are both questions which are impossible to solve without further years of manoeuvring and negotiations. It is not unreasonable to hold passionate views about apartheid, but it is unreasonable to propose policies dictated only by passion and not by reason. Selective sanctions, very widely agreed and honestly applied, hold some expectation of fruitful result.
All-embracing and punitive sanctions applied for the sake of appearance and against the advice of liberal South Africans—black and white—will make a bad situation worse and prevent the development of an essential dialogue. The dispute over sanctions last summer within the Commonwealth brought some realism into that important and valued relationship. One hopes that the ill-considered statements of those who are not without blemish themselves in matters of discrimination will not be repeated at the projected Commonwealth meeting in Canada.
British foreign policy is often accused of only being reactive. In the short term, I suppose that it is. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to the desirability of strategic planning for the future. However, when he told the story of Ernest Bevin and the diplomatic correspondents, I wondered how near the mark many of those diplomatic correspondents would have been if they had started to write down their forecast of the past 30 years and how totally unable they would have been to anticipate what in fact has taken place.
However, for the present, in my view, the areas in which we should try to take a lead in British foreign policy are: the protection of our own and European security through NATO; the promotion of political and economic unity within the EC; the liberalisation of trade through the GATT; the reduction of the world debt problem; the intelligent use of overseas aid; and the discharge of our responsibilities towards our remaining colonial territories.
68
So far as concerns the Middle East, the policy of the Western powers seems at the moment to be in total confusion. Is it reasonable to ask the Government for a clearer statement of their policy in what is without doubt a situation of great danger? Are we to attempt to play a serious part or have we abandoned any role at all?
6.20 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham:: My Lords, I wish to refer to two points. The first is the cost of defence, and the second is the Reykjavik conference and the connected problems of nuclear deterrence. I see that in the gracious Speech the Government say that they will,
"maintain the United Kingdom's own defences and play an active part in the Atlantic Alliance."
Well and good, but I hope it is understood that the cost of defence is steadily mounting because of the increasing complexity and sophistication of the weapons. To maintain the same degree of defensiveness, you have probably to accept increasing expenditure year after year.
Then they say a little further on:
"My Government will honour their commitments to the people of the Falkland Islands".
With that also I heartily agree. I must say that I welcome the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has just made that the Secretary-General of the United Nations could set in motion discussions that might lead to the solution of this problem. However the one thing we must not do if we are hoping to get a solution is to give the impression that we have already decided that we cannot afford to defend the Falklands and that we are looking for a way of disembarrassing ourselves of the problem.
If we give that impression we certainly shall not be successful, so I hope that the Government realise, when they give this commitment here, that they are taking on something that is expensive and may become more expensive as time goes by. I hope they realise that.
In that case, why is it that in a later paragraph of the Queen's Speech they say that they want the proportion of the national wealth that goes on public expenditure steadily to decline? We cannot have it both ways. I take it we all hope that the total wealth of the country will go on increasing year after year, and that this should mean an increase both in private personal incomes and in public expenditure. However, there are a number of fields of public expenditure where you are bound to face a considerable increase in expense, and I suggest that this must be so in defence because of the increasing sophistication of weapons.
It is so in health for the same reason—the increasing sophistication of the equipment required to keep people in good health and prolong their lives. Something similar is true of education and housing. It is unwise therefore for the Government to give this general pledge that what is spent on public expenditure will become a continually decreasing proportion of the total national wealth. I do not think that that can fit with the commitments on defence given in the earlier part of the Queen's Speech.
When I have raised this matter before in debates of this kind I have always been told by the Government

69
representative replying for the foreign affairs section of the debate, "Of course we shall deal with this subject next Wednesday, because it is an economic matter". That is all very well. You can divide up policy for the purposes of the debate, but in fact what we propose to do about defence and what we can afford in all fields are closely hound up together. I should like the Government to reflect on this.
The other matter is the Reykjavik conference and the related questions of nuclear weapons. My own reaction to the Reykjavik conference from the time we knew the result to the present day has been one of complete and increasing bewilderment. I am, after all, not a skilled soldier or scientist but a simple politician and I find it harder and harder to discover in what way this conference could be claimed, as it now is in many quarters, as being a remarkable success. So far as I could see, at the end of the day they agreed on nothing whatever. The two principal persons proclaimed their commitment to the desire for peace and disarmament, and they also firmly declared that they were not going to agree with each other. As the conference was being held in Iceland, I could not help being reminded of that hero of Icelandic saga of whom it was related that he worshipped Christ but called upon Thor in emergencies. It seems to be a habit not uncommon among people responsible for national defences.
I am looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, taking up the battle with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, at the end of the debate. I think we all will listen to that with great interest. I hope also that the noble Lord will answer the questions about Reykjavik put to him by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred to an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph In that same article it was suggested that if the proposals for arms reduction that were trailed before us at Reykjavik had in fact been adopted, it would have been difficult for this country to maintain its own defences or its own independent deterrent. Would the Government have liked to see the proposals that were put out at Reykjavik, and which foundered on the question of star wars, actually coming into practice? Are they satisfied that the United States is paying sufficient attention to the needs of its allies' defences as well as its own?
On the whole question of nuclear weapons, I listened with great interest to the account of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of how he secured a united policy for his party. I am sure that this great achievement will resound down the ages. But I must admit—and it may seem to be showing a lack of respect to him—that I recognise that this question of an independent British deterrent is important; whether we should have one, what it should be, and what it ought to cost. However, I want to say that it is not the major question in the whole argument about nuclear weapons.
The major question, which is a moral as well as a political, defence and financial question, is, "Do you want to be connected with nuclear weapons in your defence or not? Do you want to be a member of an alliance which is unquestionably a nuclear alliance?" NATO depends in its whole working on the
70
assumption that the United States possesses enormous nuclear power. Any nation that belongs to NATO cannot escape the fact that it is, by merely belonging to that alliance, under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, and it is no good at all trying to deny that—unless of course we were to try to denuclearise the whole of NATO. I cannot imagine that anyone really wants to do that and see the NATO countries without nuclear weapons in the face of the Warsaw Pact with its present armoury.
I conclude therefore that on this major question the answer must be that we want this country to continue to be an active member of the Atlantic alliance; and that means, irrespective of whether we have our own special British nuclear deterrent, that we co-operate with the United States in the organisation necessary for nuclear warfare. If we were to withdraw the whole British contribution to the nuclear armoury of NATO—not only the weapons themselves but the arrangements we make for where they are to be sited, and so on—that would cause an enormous wrench in the whole structure of NATO and it is difficult to know whether the alliance would recover from it.
I trust therefore that, whatever comes out of all this, this country will remain a firm member of NATO on the understanding that NATO is a nuclear alliance and that the commitment to the alliance is a commitment to nuclear weapons.
Lord Kennet:: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? I believe that the noble Lord has spoken with great courage. Has he anything to say about the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the British Rhine Army, which would then leave them holding the only sector of the front where a Western army was not provided with nuclear weapons? Would this not therefore constitute a direct invitation to the choice of that sector for attack?
Lord Stewart of Fulham:: My Lords, I do not think that what the noble Lord says can be disputed. I disagree with it for that reason.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Moran:: My Lords, I want, if I may, to make two main points, the first of which follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has just been saying.
The experience of my professional life has led me to the conviction that diplomatic initiatives need to be prepared unhurriedly, with very great care and thoroughness, in the fullest consultation with all those in one's own government machine who can tell one what the consequences are likely to be in the areas they know about. What can happen if this is not done was shown very clearly by the collapse of the Suez adventure in 1956. It is therefore worrying that some recent initiatives by the staff of the White House under Mr. Donald Regan appear to have been launched without such consultation. Reports from Washington claim that the recent secret discussions with Iran, whatever their objective, have been conducted without any consultation with the State Department, the Pentagon, or even the CIA.
Of more direct concern to us were the proposals on missiles tabled by President Reagan at the Iceland

71
summit. But here again the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, General Rogers, let it be known that he had not been consulted about the military effects of the 100–100 option for reducing intermediate-range missiles. According to the knowledgable Senator Nunn, the US chiefs of staff were not consulted either. All this is not reassuring. The 100–100 option—withdrawing all intermediate missiles in Europe, SS.20s, Pershing Its and cruise—sounds attractive, though we must remember that the Americans would have to take their weapons back across the Atlantic while the Russians would only have to take theirs back to central Russia, whence they could easily be brought back. But both General Rogers and the Germans have pointed out that such a step must be linked with measures that balance short-range missiles, in which the Russians reportedly have a nine to one superiority.
The Times on 23rd October, reporting on the Gleneagles meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group, said:
"the West Germans are seriously concerned that the United States and Soviet Union could strike a deal over intermediate nuclear forces … without taking into account the hundreds of short-range missiles which are based in East Germany and Czechoslovakia … The Germans were adamant that the two groups of missiles had to be discussed together."
But the same report quoted British sources as saying:
"The Germans want a binding commitment to negotiate a reduction in all short-range missiles, but we feel that it would be unwise to put too many weapons systems into the same basket.
"If the Americans say that the best they can do is an agreement on INF, which would mean the withdrawal of cruise and Pershing II from Europe, then our response would be to take it."
I should like to ask the Minister who is to wind up for the Government whether this really is our position. I hope not. The German view seems to the layman to be eminently reasonable. I was greatly surprised that my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver said that we should disregard the doubts of the Germans and the American military leaders. I was somewhat reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about this in opening the debate and by the remarks of the Prime Minister in another place yesterday when she said:
"The Government would support the conclusion of an intermediate nuclear forces agreement … But such an agreement must be accompanied … by agreement on how to deal with shorter-range nuclear missiles, of which the Soviet Union has many more than NATO—and it is worth remembering that large areas of Britain are within range of those weapons."—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/1986; col. 23.]
Equally serious is the question of conventional weapons, and, as the Prime Minister reminded us on Monday, of chemical weapons. My three years in Hungary brought home vividly to me the great strength of the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. I saw very sophisticated amphibious tanks swimming down the Danube, great numbers of Warsaw Pact aircraft in the skies and Red Army transport on the roads.
Earlier in this debate some speakers threw doubt on how great the imbalance with the Warsaw Pact really is. But it seems to me to have been spelt out very clearly indeed in Annex A of the Government's Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986. I quote just two of the comparisions: in artillery, NATO has 3,000
72
and the Warsaw Pact 8,800; in fixed-wing tactical aircraft, NATO has 1,250 and the Warsaw Pact 2,650. That is the current balance of forces on the central front.
If nuclear weapons are removed without arrangements to replace conventional weapons is not the West's deterrent undermined and does not Western Europe become a much more dangerous place? For NATO to match Warsaw Pact conventional forces seems to me to be quite outside the realm of practical politics. After all, we have for 30 years in Vienna been trying to reach an agreement on conventional forces. But the Russians will not even admit that there is an imbalance. I am not surprised that General Rogers is somewhat concerned and that the Germans are anxious. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is to see President Reagan on Saturday. Her robust remarks at the Guildhall on Monday were very welcome. I hope that she can persuade him to be more cautious from now on, for in Reykjavik he seems nearly to have been bounced by the Russians into signing rash agreements—so at least it seems to one dependent for information on press reports. It would be helpful if the Minister, who knows the facts, would spell out in his concluding speech how it looks to Her Majesty's Government.
The second point I want to make is a general point about our foreign policy. It is a plea for rather more hardheaded realism, rather more standing up for what we ourselves consider is right. rather more independence, and rather less make-believe and wishful thinking and less modification of our policies to compromise with others. Sometimes we do adopt a realistic hardheaded approach. We did so over the admirable Hong Kong agreement, on which those who negotiated deserve our warm congratulations. This led to the excellent relations we now enjoy with China, of which the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and my noble friend Lord Greenhill have spoken. We have done so in the recent announcement on the Falkland Islands fishing zone, though I think we should have encountered rather fewer problems if we had firmly announced that four years ago. The Prime Minister did so robustly over sanctions in South Africa despite enormous clamour to have general and punitive sanctions.
However, we still cherish some illusions. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that he thought we still had some influence in the Middle East. Maybe we have, but I am inclined to doubt it. We talk a great deal about our role, but I wonder how much influence we have on key players such as President Assad, Khomeini and indeed Mr. Shamir.
Perhaps I may say a word about terrorism. Here I should like to applaud the tough line the Government have taken, but there are great difficulties in this field too. I noticed that on the very day, 4th November, when we announced that there would be Anglo-Soviet talks on combating terrorism, the Soviet Ambassador to Egypt described our severing of relations with Syria as "an act of state terrorism". That shows that we have a good long way to go in that field. And I think it is perhaps kinder to forget the remarks made by M. Chirac in his Washington interview.
I have argued in earlier debates that efforts to evolve a common Community foreign policy, in which we all

73
move as one, contains for the moment a large element of make-believe. For example, on Greece I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said. When I see Mr. Papandreou claiming that President Assad is his good friend and that there is a special relationship between Greece and Syria, and his rejection of our very clear evidence of what Syrian government agents were up to in this country, there come to mind the words of that great lover of Greece, Lord Byron:
"For what is left the poet here,
For Greeks a blush—for Greece a tear".
There are other difficulties towards a common policy. I have mentioned before the problem that all but one country in the Community belong to NATO and that Ireland is neutral, which means that on the fundamental questions of East-West they are bound to take a different view; and more recently over the Falkland Islands we have seen the announcement by Spain that they do not recognise our fisheries zone and they seem almost to be inviting their fishermen to defy our regulations. I hope that it will not come to that.
I think therefore that it is very difficult to reach a common view except on matters which are not of fundamental importance to any of the member states. But of course we need to seek the widest support for our views and I hope that we shall continue to pursue policies which we regard as sensible, which are very carefully worked out and which support British interests, and that we shall not be blown off course by the views of others.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, this debate has proved abundantly that lying athwart the whole complex of our foreign relations and defence, of burning urgency and unchallenged priority is our relationship and that of Europe with the United States. As my work makes me spend part of the year in America, perhaps I may be allowed to talk about those United States concerns and European reactions which vex Americans and seem to bar progress on the common road of the Atlantic alliance. Of course it is well understood that grievances are mutual, that true democracies are pluralistic and that no democracy is more pluralistic than the United States. Washington often speaks through more than one voice and, recently and very irritatingly, it speaks through many voices. But basically we have an American Administration who have a deep and courteous concern for European and British interests, a proven record of loyalty and solidarity.
Although America may be moving towards the Pacific and South-West—in the 1984 elections, the President could easily have been elected by the votes of the South and West alone—and although none of the last four American Presidents hails from the Eastern seaboard, the American taxpayer is today fully committed to paying 400 million dollars a day for the defence of Europe. Reagan, Shultz and Weinberger, three Californians, in my view speak more courteously to their Atlantic allies than some of the gruff, Boston Brahmins and putative Anglophiles of earlier post-war administrations.
74
There are deep psychological changes which the sensitive on both sides must take into account—a massive reversal of roles. Before the war, the British had a worldwide vision and an abiding sense of responsibility. The Americans at that time did all the finger wagging, eyebrow raising and backseat driving. Today, this role seems to have fallen to Europe and causes irritation and dismay. It touches nowhere more painfully than on those three sensitive issues; nuclear defence and the pivotal role of SDI, the turbulence in Central America, and the scourge of terrorism and the dilemma of how to combat it.
There is puzzlement, indeed consternation, about the thrust of the nuclear debate in Europe. The confusing signals of European requests for renewed assurances that America's nuclear shield will remain intact and the new desire for nuclear disarmament on any terms, including unilateralism, strengthen the isolationist sentiment in both of America's political parties. The spectre of a Labour Britain, denuded of the nuclear deterrent, casts the whole of NATO's future into doubt. Mr. Kinnock's assurances that a non-nuclear Britain nevertheless could be a NATO loyalist, provokes the answer that NATO, if it still existed, would have no room for a Britain stripped to its conventional waist. Only a political Neanderthaler would honestly believe that a few hundred more tanks or frigates would seriously deter the Soviet power.
There is such a thing as the provocation of weakness, which sometimes tempts even a less than bellicose power—any power—to step into a vacuum and impose its will with a mixture of self-righteousness and greed. The Americans are not so much concerned with arguments about which weapon systems are to be retained, replaced or adapted; it is the principle of the nuclear contribution and the deployment of nuclear arms in Western Europe which is paramount. Opposition to SDI is seen to be a form of defence Ludditism. To stop technological advance is unhistorical and unreasonable. The enormous advantages accruing to mankind from the gigantic strides forward in research and experiment are self-evident. The Soviets know why they are so fiercely opposed. I believe that their real concern with SDI is not only the factor of strategic imbalance but also the dramatic effect of SDI-linked technology, not least on conventional warfare. Laser technology alone can dramatically improve conventional weapons and perhaps give NATO forces incremental strength outweighing their inferiority in numbers.
American observers distinguish between the often muddle-headed ideals of pacifist purists of the younger and youngest generations who "knew not Joseph" and the sophistry of those who should know better. I must say in all honesty that I am amazed by the many orations of Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr. Healey, who not only knew Joseph but was one of his brethren. No more persuasive champion of the European and British nuclear deterrent ever held the post of Defence Minister in any NATO country.
The basic grudge Americans hold against those European voices who hector and harass her about her policies in Central America is that people in distant lands forget how close, how immediately relevant and potentially menacing the turbulence in Central America is to the United States. She borders on three

75
countries: Canada, the USSR and Mexico. Presently, there are no US military forces along the whole of her southern border. Yet 55 per cent, of US seaborne trade passes through the Caribbean; 50 per cent. of US crude oil imports pass through the Caribbean; and 50 per cent. of US supplies to NATO in time of crisis would pass through the Caribbean. An unstable border region would require substantial redeployment of US forces, especially in any European emergency.
America's evaluation of what goes on in Nicaragua is not always given sufficient credence by some European governments and media. Whatever the roots of the tragedy in that and some of the surroundings countries may be, nothing is more dangerous than to think in stereotypes and the Manichean formula of good versus evil. Throughout Central America, with the possible exception of Costa Rica, there is no tradition of fair government, parliamentary democracy or human rights on a Western European and especially British scale of values. Corrupt and bloodthirsty juntas relieve one another and vie in excessive practices. Of course past American administrations might have done much more to assert their influence in mitigating social ills, political oppression and human rights violations.
It is fair and good that public opinion everywhere should monitor transgressions and counsel reformist action, but ultimately the enlightened self-interest of a super power must be considered and a country such as Nicaragua that shows every sign of becoming a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship, with Cuban, East German and Russian instructors and militants controlling its Security Services and police, with the PLO for good measure supervising civil aviation, constitutes a threat to the security of the United States.
I have spoken to Nicaraguan dissidents and reliable expert witnesses such as the well-known reporter, Elizabeth Weymouth of the Los Angeles Times Mirror and Washington Post, who have recently returned from the area. They all seem to corroborate the case of the Administration. Washington feels that we in Europe should give an ally the benefit of the doubt and trust the robustly functioning and, on balance, fair democratic system of America to deal equitably with contentious issues in her own backyard.
The judgment at the Old Bailey, convicting, as it were, Syria of state terrorism, has been an historic turning point, for long-held suspicions have been confirmed and grim warnings vindicated. But will they be heeded? Of that triad of terrorist states, Iran may be the passionate heart, Libya the flailing arm, but Syria is the brain and nerve centre. The Syrian record of action of complicity goes back a long way, and is by now well-known. Landmarks of the last five years have been the assassination of the French Ambassador Delamarre in Beirut in September 1981, the bombing raids on American and French headquarters in the Lebanon in 1983, various murders of moderate PLO leaders, especially Issam Sartawi in Portugal in 1984, and terror raids against the French forces of UNIFIL, up to the recent series of outrages on French soil. All these crimes originated either on Syrian-held Lebanese soil or in Syria itself.
76
Syria has at its helm a man whose deft footwork, devious mind and ruthless will mark him as the most dangerous and the most effective culprit. Assad shelters Abu Nidal and other kindred arch-terrorists. He provides them with logistical support, safe houses, arms, passports and, through inter-Arab channels, with more than adequate finance. In the Lebanon, he misused his mandate from the Arab League and, far from bringing peace and order, he fanned the flame of civil strife not only in the Moslem camp but also in the Christian community. The Syrian embassies in London and East Berlin are only two uncovered hornets' nests of international subversion.
The Western world—including, I am afraid, the United States—has often been side-tracked into playing along with terrorist states. Western leaders have been impressed by Assad, even dazzled by the brilliant ease with which he performs his minuets—three steps back, one step forward: a hijack, a kidnap, a plastic bomb, then an offer of mediation; the exchange of a few prisoners; the release of the wooden coffin of a slain victim. It is to the credit—the historic credit—of the right honourable lady the Prime Minister to have reacted with dignity and strength and spoken for all civilised mankind.
Sir Geoffrey Howe's appeal to the EC to take stringent measures against Syria has met with muted positive response. It has been marred by the unnecessary indiscretion on the part of the French Prime Minister. This has been mentioned before in the debate, but I am still puzzled by how and why Mr. Chirac should have made some of the remarks that he undoubtedly did make to Arnaud de Borchgrave, an author and old friend of mine, of whose integrity I am fully convinced.
I have good reason also for believing that the German Chancellor can be wholly exonerated from any allegations against him. I understand that he neither mentioned, let alone endorsed, rumours of Israeli and dissident Syrian involvement, and that he considered this as an example of disinformation and psychological warfare aimed at fudging the effect of the Old Bailey court ruling.
The attitude of the Greek Government is more than disappointing. To be frank, the present stance of the Papandreou regime with regard to European unity and Atlantic solidarity is a veritable Greek gift to Europe.
But we must be watchful that last Monday's London communique is a constructive step towards collective action and not an ephemeral token gesture. Europe must not falter again. What is at stake is not only its political clout but its claim to be a civilising force. A relapse into rank appeasement would put Europe in grave danger of sliding into a processs of Levantinism—Euro-Levantinism.
British public opinion stands squarely behind the Government. Most newspapers have urged wider measures of retaliation. There have been reminders throughout the European press of the barbarian nature of the Syrian regime—the massacre of thousands in the city of Hama, and the recent Amnesty International report which pillories Syria for using torture at every stage of detention. The Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, for example, suggests the idea of endorsing Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.

77
Whatever its merits, I should think that even the sternest critic of Israel must surely pause and reflect on the need for watchfulness and toughness on the part of any responsible government when confronted with a neighbour such as Assad's Syria.
If we wish to face the brutal truth, is this not also the right hour to reassess the role of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and its record? The PLO has offices in Britain co-ordinating massive campaigns on the campuses of our universities and polytechnics and within trade unions and professions. There is a tendency to stress the distinction between the Syrian-backed bands of Abu Nidal and Abu Moussa and those who keep their fealty to Yassar Arafat. But let me give you one figure: in the 19 years of the PLO's existence, 500 people were killed and over 2,000 maimed in operations outside Israel. Ninety per cent. of all the victims were non-Jews and non-Israelis, chiefly Europeans, Americans and Arabs.
The Syrian-backed faction operated in isolation only in the last four or five years, but, throughout this 19-year period, Arafat's Al Fatah hit men stalked the pavements of London, Paris, Berlin, Munich, Rome and Athens. One of its leaders planned the "Achille Lauro" outrage. Only the other day the PLO claimed credit for murders in Cyprus and Jerusalem. It manifestly opposes each and every effort, including that by Her Majesty's Government, in the direction of peaceful negotiations.
Would a move to delegitimise the PLO office be detrimental, as some appeasers claim, to peace moves in the Middle East? I suppose the very opposite is the case. It would help tens of thousands of peace-loving Arabs on the West Bank to create a new representative leadership which, without surrendering their ideals and aspirations for self-government, would be prepared to parley, either independently or with the help of Jordan, with the Israelis. It would enable the United States to resume its initiative, for which it would seek and, I hope, receive the help of Britain and Europe. It would relieve much of the menace—the deadly menace—of assassination and blackmail that hangs over the lives of West Bank notables and ordinary citizens.
My Lords, compromising and condoning terrorism, finding a rationale for bland inaction, is not only an offence against morality; it is also plain lack of political common sense, and flies in the very face of all canons of real-politik and elementary psychology. Have we not yet perceived that Assad, Gaddafi and company will yield only to strength and tough, concerted action? Financial concessions and clandestine side deals will never sway them. Theirs are fine-tuned ears. They sense the faintest mumblings of dithering, dissent and jitters. Have we not perceived that those paying ransom and bowing down to blackmail among their neighbours and clients in the region listen anxiously for a signal that Europe is resolved to back both Britain and America but that, in the absence of such action, they feel they must join in a chorus of anti-Western chants? The Libyan raid was in my view a textbook case: it shook the Libyan regime and made for a relatively quiet summer. In my view, that quiet would have persisted but for the emotional explosion of European dissent. A hard, united attitude in support of
78
America's act of self-defence might have secured the fall of Gaddafi.
What are the arguments for a muted response to Syria? It is said that, unlike Libya, she has the strong support of the USSR. Does anyone really believe that the Soviet Union would risk a conflagration on an issue of patent state terrorism? Of course she will defend her client by deafening propaganda but, in the face of united diplomatic and economic action on the part of the West, she will not act rashly. The Soviets have always had a somewhat uneasy feeling about traceable state terrorism, for they themselves have not been immune to painful incidents on Soviet soil. Then there is the argument that Syria might be needed for the peace process in the Arab-Israeli dispute. This is a farcical suggestion, since Syria has actively impeded each and every move to bringing about a settlement by negotiation.
Finally, there is the argument that Assad's or Gaddafi's fall might bring about a change for the worse, and that more obnoxious leaders may be waiting in the wings. That was the argument of the appeasers in the 1930s who claimed that Hitler, though bad, was still not yet the worst, and that far more radical fanatics of the Right—or of the left—might supersede him.
No, my Lords, the battle against terrorism and the terrorist states must go on. The United States Government have announced that they are considering further measures against Syria, and we in Europe should correlate ours, for what is at stake is not only human lives, European and British lives, but also European and British self-respect.
Consensus in planning and consistency in action may yet win the day in the battle against terrorism. Moreover, it would open, rather than close, the road to resumption of the peace process. It would enable conciliatory forces in Israel to parley with Jordan and a new, representative leadership of Palestinian Arabs, with the active support of the United States and the European Community, including Britain. Above all, consistency and determination would help to cement the most precious asset that we have in the field of world affairs and peace-making—the Atlantic Alliance.
7 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I wish to take as my text the passage in the gracious Speech referring to South Africa. Worldwide attention is currently focused on punitive measures to end apartheid, to lift the state of emergency, to release political prisoners and to grant Parliamentary representation to the black population.
There has been a plethora of literature on the subject of sanctions—arguments, commissions, newspaper articles. I pose the question to your Lordships: What type of economy and political dispensation would the world like to see in South Africa in 10 years' time? Would they like to see an economic wasteland? I ask this because of the direct effects of sanctions.
I do not wish to debate at length on the subject of sanctions because I know many noble Lords have already spoken on the subject. The most profound effect that sanctions have had is a psychological one of the South African economy. It has weakened the

79
economy; it has worsened the unemployment. There is currently a 2.6 per cent. population growth rate—almost 300,000 new job-seekers enter the market per year. Almost 8,000 jobs are lost per month. It might stagger your Lordships to realise that over 40 per cent. of the population is under 20 years of age. In order to keep blacks, whites and everyone in jobs, the country needs a 5 per cent. economic growth rate. Last year there was a negative economic growth rate. This year it is likely that there will be about a l½ per cent. growth rate.
The majority of surveys show that blacks want pressure to be put on the Government to end the morally indefensible principle and policies of apartheid, but they do not support economic sanctions. Sanctions, I contend, will not in the short term bring the Government to their knees. They have already led to the polarisation of the community. Indeed, sanctions are seen by many as a moral gesture rather than a practical one.
There is no quick "fix" for the situation in South Africa. It is highly complex, with a diversity of different population groups. I believe that what economic sanctions have done has been to place the Government back into the laager mentality. I say this because I have spent all my life in South Africa. I was born in England and I went out there when I was three months old. I have resided for 29 years in Cape Town. What the sanctions campaign has done has been to undermine successfully confidence among investors in South Africa. Note, however, that once confidence is undermined it may never be fully recovered even in a changed South Africa. I would go so far as to say that the sanctions campaign is a violent option.
Much of the unrest has its origins in socio-economic deprivation. I was a solicitor in Cape Town for several years and many of my cases were criminal ones concerning children who really did not have anything better to do than to go out and commit the most trivial crimes. It is frustration. Rising unemployment falls into the hands of the right-wingers as well as of the left-wingers. I notice, as a rather horrifying statistic and a very emotive issue, that over 350 people have died from the "necklacings" horror in South Africa, since the phenomenon appeared last year.
Change is more likely to occur from internal pressure, from industrial strikes and from pressures exerted on the Government by the business community. I mentioned in my last speech in your Lordships' House on 3rd July the position that would occur should every black worker drop tools for just two weeks. They could bring the means of production almost to a total standstill. Would that not be a more viable alternative than punishing the nation with economic sanctions?
If sanctions were to have an effect, it would need to be a universal effort with monitoring of all imports and exports to and from South Africa. It would need to be universally monitored to be short and quick. As I have already said, sanctions, as imposed at the moment, can only bring about a slow decay of the economy. I go so far as to say that for every sanction which is imposed there are two sanction-busters round the corner. Many South Africans are making a fortune out of sanction-busting.
80
In my last speech I stated that the Government was on an unstoppable and irreversible reform programme. I feel that it is necessary to acknowledge that major reforms have taken place such as the abolition of the pass laws, the opening of central business districts to all, the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act and the granting of full property rights to blacks. However, the backbone of the apartheid legislation remains: the Group Areas Act. I had hoped that the Act would be totally repealed. It is currently under revision by the President's Council. At the recent meeting between President Botha and the business community, he stated there would be grey areas. This indeed is a slight revision of the Group Areas Act. But why, my Lords, do they need to keep that Act? Since they repealed the Group Areas Act in South West Africa (Namibia), it has made no difference whatsoever. I consider apartheid to be totally morally indefensible. What is necessary is a positive move towards the total repeal of the apartheid laws.
I wish at this stage to make brief mention of a few of the recent developments in South Africa. I have mentioned the meeting between the Government and the business community. What really happened there—the positive element—was that it showed a sign of the willingness of the Government to take heed of the pressures being exerted by the business community. The Government were apt not to take full heed of the pressures exerted by the business community last year.
Mention should also be made of last week's cabinet reshuffle in South Africa. I feel that this has performed two functions. First, it has consolidated the power-base of President Botha. Secondly, it has made provision for a siege economy. The South African newspaper Business Day, has outlined the effect as follows:
"The essence of the changes, we suspect, is a preparation for sanctions and a siege economy, in which the central government will have control of information, tax, tariffs, prices, costs, expenditures and anything else it cares to take over. It is the opposite of democracy.".
That just reinforces my point that economic sanctions are counter-productive.
Thirdly, the recent bomb attacks in South Africa—attacks on soft targets: innocent civilians, whites, blacks, Indians and coloureds, mercilessly killed. Is this the right way ahead for South Africa? I believe all such attacks can do is to fortify the cause of the ultra right-wing Afrikaans Weerstrandsbeweging.
The country is currently in a stalemate situation. It is necessary to build bridges to resolve the deadlock. On one side there is a government which is not prepared to legalise the ANC or release Nelson Mandela until violence, which is arguably their main weapon, is renounced. Conversely, there is the ANC calling for the government to renounce violence. The government has introduced a National Statutory Council whose brief sounds very hopeful:
"To provide for participation in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation; the granting to black South Africans of a voice in the process of government in the interim period and the furtherance of sound relations among and the human dignity, rights and freedoms of all South Africans".
While this sounds promising, it still does not meet the aspirations of the majority of South Africans. The

81
main hurdle is one of mistrust—mistrust by the blacks of the sincerity of the Government's reforms and conversely, mistrust of the whites of the so-called "swan gevaar", which is an Afrikaans word that means the 'black danger' should the blacks come to power. It is inevitable that there will one day be a black government. I only hope that the people of South Africa can take that stealthy step into the unknown.
One possible starting point and solution which could develop a bridge between the conflicting parties is a mutually agreed bill of rights. All the parties concerned want a bill of rights. The African National Congress Freedom Charter calls for a universal bill of rights. Recently the Nationalist party and the Minister of Justice called for a bill of rights but with protection for property rights. Obviously this would go against the universal bill of rights of the ANC, but surely this is a starting point? In addition, the Federated Chamber of Commerce has called for a Bill of Rights and so has the Opposition, the Progressive Federal Party.
I should like to quote from a recent presentation given by the well-known civil rights advocate in South Africa, Sydney Kentridge.
"There is still time for change. I have no doubt that one of the most positive things which government could do in the time available would be to accept a bill of rights. By a bill of rights I mean a statute which could provide a real restraint on arbitrary executive action; which would preclude indefinite detention without trial; which would prevent forced removals of communities; which would undo bans on political organisations and individuals, so as to allow them to carry on open political activity: and which would dismantle apartheid by making discrimination on the grounds of race and colour actually illegal.".
This could possibly be a bridge in breaking the deadlock.
But what viable alternatives are there to peaceful change in South Africa? Essentially, we all want the South African Government to give us some form of time horizon for their reform programme. What I propose to your Lordships is a recommendation which has also been endorsed by the South African business community. It is a Marshall Aid package drawn up by Her Majesty's Government and their partners in the EC outlining a programme of meaningful reforms and inducements such as the total repeal of all apartheid laws, a unified education system, the establishment of democratic structures, the unbanning of the ANC, a bill of civil rights and representation for blacks at central governments. These inducements would help to create labour-intensive industries, train teachers, build schools, raise housing standards for the poor and fund health care programmes. What is therefore needed is a fiscal support for the private sector initiatives across racial barriers such as the Urban foundation whose objectives are the improvement of housing, education, training and creation of career and employment opportunities. The Urban foundation is not a Government-funded body but a privately-funded body and it is here that I welcome the contribution made by Her Majesty's Government for the improvement of housing and education schemes in South Africa. The private sector and its alliances remain one of the few bridges to peace.
In conclusion, I believe that the South African Government is faced with the options of danger or disaster. The danger is to take the leap into the unknown; the disaster is to take the line that they are
82
currently taking, characterised by Dr. van Zyl Slabbert as the "violent evolution". It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, stated in his address on 3rd July, that the South African Government bring themselves to take the leap into the unknown. I fully support the policy of Her Majesty's Government in pursuing constructive peaceful change in South Africa, as outlined in the 6th Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both sides (the South African Government and ANC) must realise that a negotiated settlement is preferable to an endless struggle.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords. the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path. The text for my own observations on the gracious Speech comes from an address by Mr. Harold Pinter when earlier this year both he and his wife, Antonia Fraser, were honoured by Hull University. Mr. Pinter said:
"We live within what seems to me to be a distinct and palpable discrepancy. We are glad to be alive today and look forward to being alive tomorrow. At the same time we draw closer and closer to death, by which I mean the destruction of the natural world and the end of civilization: in effect, the end of the world. The destructive force we have created is both systematic and random, since, while its targets are specific, its effects will be unbounded. The term 'end of the world' is perhaps a cliché, but I suggest that there is nothing banal about the facts to which it refers. What struck me as truly remarkable is that we live in the shadow of utter catastrophe and manage not to think about it".
Mr. Pinter went on to say that in the previous year he had visited Turkey with Arthur Miller on behalf of International PEN and had met artists and academics who had spent some time in military prisons and who had been tortured. He said they had been imprisoned for their ideas and had committed no concrete acts against the state. He continued:
"The American Ambassador said to me: 'Mr. Pinter, I don't think you understand the realities of the situation here. You have to take into account the strategic reality, the military reality, the political reality'. 'The reality to which I am referring', I replied, 'is that of electric current attached to your genitals'. 'Sir', he said, 'you are a guest in my house', and turned on his heel. He found mention of that reality offensive. Indeed, so might you, since I am a guest in your house—but that is my point. We take refuge in finding offence in 'strong language' when it is the reality which is obnoxious, brutal and disgusting".
Mr. Pinter then concluded:
"Some have declared nuclear war to be unimaginable. I don't think so. I suggest it requires only a moment's silence, a moment's thought, to imagine it quite clearly and vividly. We cower behind the fact that we have no language to describe it and, finding no language to describe it, limply assume it won't happen. The contrary is true. It may not happen only if we have the courage to find a language to describe it. At all events, it seems to me that we have a most serious obligation to think precisely, and to insist, therefore, upon accurate descriptions of actual facts. We cannot allow others to do our thinking for us. If we continue to submit to political rhetoric and political abstractions we are doomed".
The relevance of what Mr. Pinter said to the gracious Speech is that this House manages to avoid discussion of the true reality within which we live.
One would not suppose from anything said so far that a man who purported to reveal the truth about Israel's development of nuclear weapons has been spirited out of this country and is now revealed to be in gaol in Jerusalem. If it is true that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons, then it is time for us to think about the "utter catastrophe" to which Mr.

83
Pinter referred, for the Arab states will not tolerate that. They, too, will want to be able to destroy mankind and when that happens will be time to prepare for the end. We must face the reality of our situation. We are in the valley of the shadow of nuclear death. If we are to have any hope of emerging alive on the other side, we must recognise what our position is.
The Labour policy has been criticised and certainly it, in its turn, criticises the United States for its failure to accept anything savouring of peace, for its failure to match the Soviet moratorium on nuclear matters or to accept the target of a non-nuclear world by 2000AD. As I have indicated, it is my conviction that by the opening of the second millennium we shall either have that non-nuclear world or one in which the shattered remnants of the human species are moving painfully towards extinction.
We have not yet heard much of Labour's peace campaign. In the immediate aftermath of the American attack on Libya, Labour shot up in the polls and the Government declined. Since then our leader has been diverted into attacking the lesser target of the Militant Tendency and, whether or not that is the consequence, it happens that the Tories have caught up and passed us again in the polls while that has been going on. The lesson seems to me to he very clear. Forget Militant. Concentrate on peace. It is peace that the people of this country are concerned about. They are really worried about nuclear war and the Labour Party is the only party which puts that at the head of its programme. Therefore I welcome the Government's decision to place defence at the head of their programme and I suggest that we match them, face to face, placing our peace policy against their so-called defence policy. That, I think, is the way to victory for the Labour Party in the coming general election.
The noble Baroness, who has just temporarily left us, said that she is sorry about Libya and that the Government are sorrowful about the civilian casualties that have been inflicted upon the people of that country. But sorrow without compensation may be thought to be lacking in sincerity. And what about our charity organisations and the United Nations? Who has been to Tripoli to see the civilian victims? I happen to know of three people who have. They are not well-known people but one of them is a surgeon. They are recently back and, although I have not yet seen their report, I have seen a preliminary account of what they say, which states that over 50 civilian casualties were admitted to Tripoli central hospital alone, including the dozen or more who have died as a result of their injuries. The attack took place at two o'clock in the morning without any warning and the surgeon among the three said that the psychological results have been catastrophic.
American friends tell me that Mrs. Thatcher's complicity in this barbarous action—the murder of innocent people by the air power of a great nation—has been a great help in concealing from the bulk of United States citizens that their action in Libya was not a brave achievement but a disaster not least for them. For who, in future, will take seriously the complaints of Americans about terrorism when they themselves are guilty of this piece of unsurpassed state
84
terrorism—a crime whose very technical skill was the measure of its total inhumanity?
The United States is undoubtedly the greatest nation in the world and if it is capable of stooping to this, and rejoicing in it, there is little hope for the rest of us. Star wars, or the Strategic Defence Initiative as they call it—once again hiding the truth under words rather than revealing it—is no saviour of mankind. On the contrary, it could be the funeral pyre of our species. The gracious Speech conceals, rather than reveals the situation that we are in, but it is in line with Government policy, which is to use words not to explain themselves but to avoid doing so.
Before leaving Libya and the Americans, I must however mention their one very great saving grace. They always have within themselves the most trenchant critics of their own policy and of their own government. In this case I recommend to your Lordships a reading of Noam Chomsky of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. On this subject he describes the American relationship to Libya in terms which I personally would hesitate to use—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has asked us to reflect upon the civilian casualties which, sadly, did indeed take place as a result of the American raid on Libya. I wonder whether he would equally reflect upon the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher by a weapon shot from the Libyan diplomatic mission in London.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Indeed, my Lords. I think it is right that we should reflect upon what has happened on our own soil, in our own country, by the action of a person in the Libyan Embassy. But the fact that a man of that country behaved in that fashion in no way excuses the great civilised nation, the great leader of the Christian tradition in the world, behaving in an even worse way. I shall not go on; I think the point is obvious.
In these circumstances there is a tendency for us to ask: What can we do? Is it that we are set upon a course which is bound to lead us in the end to total disaster? Is it the case that, having created the knowledge of the nuclear weapon, we are bound to have it and to deploy it? No, my Lords, that is not so. We have knowledge of many things which we do not deploy, do not use, do not gather, do not grow. We have 50,000 nuclear weapons about the place. We do not need to have them. That is the danger; not the knowledge. We cannot destroy the knowledge. That has been said in this House and it is true enough. But what we can do is to get rid of the weapons themselves and it is to that course that governments are theoretically devoted.
We are ourselves—the noble Lord will agree with me—signatories to a United Nations resolution in which we say that it is our ultimate objective to be rid of the nuclear weapon; indeed, to disarm totally. What I am complaining about is not that the ultimate objective is wrong—I think that the ultimate objective is absolutely right—but that we are not moving in that direction. We are moving in the opposite direction all the time, where the situation is getting more and more dangerous. Consequently, I think that Mr. Pinter's fears were very well justified.

85
Finally, I have just one more piece of evidence for my sad tale. I refer to the Colombian Nobel Prize winner, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He said this:
"In the Golden Age of science, it does no honour to the talents of mankind to have conceived the means by which a multi-millennial process, so bountiful and colossal, should he returned to the nothingness from whence it came through the simple act of pushing a button."
That is the position we have got ourselves into. I do not say that the Labour Party has all the answers but I do say that when my noble friend on the Front Bench comes to speak at the end of the debate he will be able to point to a policy which at least tries to take the steps towards getting us out of this situation, in contrast to the policy followed by the Government, which is to dig ourselves further into the shambles all the time.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall lower the tone of the debate in not following the high principles which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has been enunciating. I have only one reason for rising to speak. It is to persuade the Government, if I can, to be more unprincipled in their conduct of foreign affairs.
Should we not rely less on principle and more on following our nation's interests? When I have made this point in the past the noble Baroness has shaken her head sadly and regarded me as an advocate of Realpolitik. But to follow our national interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested, does not necessarily mean riding roughshod over international agreements and ignoring other countries' desires and needs.
The gracious Speech referred to the Falkland Islands. I join the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, in thinking that here is a case where we need to reassess our national interests. If we do we shall find that they coincide with much though, of course, not all of Argentina's national interests. I shall not go over the events of 1980 which led to the Falklands armed conflict. Once General Galtieri had invaded the islands Britain had no option but to retaliate. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will recall that I have vehemently supported the legitimate and tactically sound decision to sink the "Belgrano" against those who want to slander the Prime Minister and were prepared to risk seeing British sailors and soldiers in the task force drown so long as their own precious consciences remained Simon pure.
But ever since our victory British policy in the Falklands seems to me to have been insane. We have spent millions of pounds on fortifying these islands, even though it was clear that Argentina would never again attempt to take the islands by force. We have done nothing to rebuild our fences with other South American countries where we need trade. And having by our action given Argentina the opportunity to overthrow the military junta, did we do anything to help her struggling and courageous democracy under Senor Alfonsin? We did not. We have done everything we can to weaken it and snub it, despite the fact that the discredited army chiefs still threaten its existence.
At the time of the Falklands conflict we put a strain on our most important ally, the United States. The
86
relations of the United States and Latin America have always been difficult and delicate, but when Galtieri invaded, the President and his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense did not waver. Despite Mrs. Kirkpatrick and those like her who put Latin American relations first, they backed Britain all along the line with Sidewinders and other arms. Ever since then the United States has begged us to reopen discussions with Argentina. Our European allies are frankly amazed and amused by our obsession with this area, and regard that obsession as yet another example of our refusal to recognise that our future lies in Europe. Why should the EC give subsidies to our depressed areas when we squander money on vast airfields in the Falklands? And now there is the fishing dispute. If this goes to the United Nations, will there be one nation that will side with us if the matter is brought to a vote on a resolution?
We keep saying that we are standing on our principles when in fact we are standing on our head. We stand on the principle of sovereignty and self-determination. Those are fine principles but those were the principles which we paraded as our excuse for the Munich settlement when we gave way to Hitler. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a means whereby the flag of Argentina can fly side by side with ours on those islands and we can retain and maintain the safeguards for allowing the islanders to live as they always have lived. But we cannot guarantee to preserve these islanders in amber like flies, untouched by time to be the marvel in the 22nd century of a rare British sect of quaint speech and customs. Think of the millions of people in the United Kingdom whose lives have changed by immigration and the rough tides of trade cycles.
The notion that a few hundred Falklanders, supported by an intransigent lobby in this country, can veto any agreement that displeases them is, I maintain, an intolerable affront to the people of the United Kingdom. That is why I deplore the statement of the noble Baroness that the islanders have a right to,
"live in peace under a government of their own choosing".
I submit that they have no such right. They have no right to impose upon the United Kingdom an endless defence commitment and inflict unjustifiable taxation upon the citizens of our country.
I ask myself not what principle we are standing on, but what are our interests. Is it in our interest to insist on a self-imposed fishing ban which is to be enforced by a hopelessly inadequate number of surface vessels? What will happen when some foreign fishing fleet challenges the ban and incidents occur? We have here a recipe for confrontation and ultimate humiliation. For we shall find that we cannot enforce the ban by ourselves.
The noble Baroness intervened to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that we had to take the action we did because a new fishing season is at hand. But the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, had already said that this problem was well understood in 1977. We were taken by surprise because we remain convinced that we can ignore Argentina and indeed other interested nations in that area. Why must we resemble a rhinoceros at hay instead of a questing sheep dog eager to get the flock together? Our Falklands policy distorts and overstrains our defence policy.

87
I am not disputing for one moment that the Falklands fisheries need protecting. Of course a ban is needed. And this gives us the opportunity to safeguard the interests of the islanders and at the same time to repair our relations with Argentina. Why cannot we now in our own self-interest bring Argentina into partnership to safeguard these fisheries? Why cannot we jointly and adequately patrol these waters with vessels from both countries? It is in the interests of both countries that this should be so.
From that co-operation we can begin to go further. Argentina must know by now that we shall never allow the islanders to be ruled from Buenos Aires. Why therefore cannot we begin talks which do not rule out accommodations on the issue of sovereignty but make our commitment to the islanders clear? We are going to have to do this about Gibraltar. If I understand the matter correctly, we have not ruled out the issue of sovereignty in our discussions with the Spanish Government. Moreover, it is in our interest to help Senor Alfonsin and in the interest of every South American state threatened by military rule or communist insurrection. It is no good expecting him to abase himself and lick our boots, begging forgiveness. We did not ask Dr. Adenauer to do that in West Germany after the war. One might as well expect the Pope, as the price of unification with the Anglican Church, to deny that the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is an article of faith. It is we who have to take the lead in this matter.
Sir Winston Churchill would have known that. The Prime Minister often expresses her admiration for that great man and she will never be forgotten for following in 1982 his maxim: "In defeat, defiance." But she has forgotten his other maxim: "In victory magnaminity." She has not shown a spark of magnaminity in her dealings with Argentina. How unlike Sir Winston, who, despite his hatred and contempt for Prussian and Nazi militarism, never saw the Germans as outside the pale of European civilisation. On the contrary, he saw them as a great, historic race and Germany as a great, historic state with a culture second to none. He wanted Germany back in the Concert of Europe. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can influence the Prime Minister to make that great imaginative leap and take a lead in approaching Argentina; but I am bound to say to him that Mr. Kinnock has a far better understanding of our national interests in South America than has the Prime Minister.
Principles are dangerous if they are treated as God-given laws. Principles in foreign policy are not more than a guide. Follow them blindly and, as at Suez 30 years ago, you will find that the admirable principle of not giving in to dictators ends in disaster. Just as admirable is the principle of never surrendering to terrorism. But let us beware lest that principle, too, makes us neglect our national self-interest.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will join with me in asking the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, to found a literary prize each year for the highest flight of fancy by any world statesman. I have no doubt that this year it will be won by Monsieur Chirac. Monsieur Chirac said that the plot to plant a bomb in the El A1
88
aircraft had been set up by the Israeli secret service, aided and abetted by DI6 who, naturally, operate on their own and never allow the Prime Minister to know of their plans.
Monsieur Chirac made the mistake of judging other intelligence services by his own, because of course the old Deuxième Bureau always operated like that and did so when France planted a bomb on the Greenpeace boat in New Zealand. However, Monsieur Chirac was right on one matter; namely, when we react to incidents of this kind we should always remember our national interest and not immediately apply the rules and punishments that we learnt at school.
I have no love for Syria and I rejoice that the Prime Minister has personally done so much to improve our relations with Israel; but diplomacy needs finesse, because on one point Monsieur Chirac was right: the real danger is Moslem fundamentalism. That is what we need to contain in the Middle East, and we should use every resource that we have to destabilise governments which accept Moslem fundamentalism or harbour its agents. Clandestine action is often better than overt gestures. Let us not adopt the habit of getting in a huff every time something disgraceful and wicked happens here or abroad. That is not diplomacy. Let us remember the adage on which President Kennedy was brought up: Don't get mad, get even.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Saint Brides: My Lords, I look forward to hearing how the noble Lord the Minister will respond to that forthright, lively and eloquent speech. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will forgive me if I do not follow him into that area of the world but rather revert to another theme of the gracious Speech; namely, East-West relations.
Our future here in Britain is inseparably linked with the relationship between the two super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and will inevitably be affected by it for good or ill. There are two reasons for this. First, it is because we are close allies of one super power against the threat of attack by the other; secondly, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, vividly reminded us, like the rest of mankind we have literally a vital interest in the two super powers continuing to refrain from ever using against each other the huge—indeed preposterous—arsenal of nuclear weapons which each has built up in competition with the other.
What happened at Reykjavik between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, and more recently in Vienna between Secretary of State Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, is of the utmost importance to all of us in this country. Two weeks ago at Stanford University in California I attended a conference on Asian and Far Eastern security affairs between American scholars and a group of Soviet scholars from Moscow. It was a conference at which for some time I was invited to take the chair rather to my surprise. I must say that for a British Life Peer to occupy such a role must in the nature of things be a rather rare occurrence and a challenging one even for a member of that versatile group, the Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships' House.

89
I thought and still think it odd that both at Reykjavik and in this unofficial inter-super power conference at Stanford, whether in the conference itself or in private conversations outside it, the Soviets should have attached such overriding importance to SDI. As one noble Lord has already pointed out in this debate, this suggests that, unlike a numerous and influential group of American and other scientists, the Soviets believe that SDI can be made to work in something like its original form. So they see the continuance of the SDI programme as a serious threat to the Soviet Union both militarily and economically. It is a threat militarily because of the destabilising effect that SDI could have on the strategic balance and thus on mutual deterrence. It would be a new technology which provided America with a means of defence which the Soviet Union lacked; and thus, in default of adequate Soviet counter-measures, would increase the Soviet vulnerability to a sudden nuclear attack by America. America itself in this scenario would—because of SDI—enjoy some degree of immunity from Soviet retaliation. Moreover—and this is a point which has not so far been mentioned in this debate—whatever weapon star wars ultimately puts into space (if in fact it does so) could be used not only defensively against enemy ballistic missiles, but also offensively against targets of choice anywhere on the earth's surface.
The Soviets see SDI as a threat to them economically because they believe that an important faction in the United States Administration believes and hopes that, given its recent economic shortcomings, Soviet society could and would cripple itself in any new and vast technological competition with the United States, such as would be involved in trying to match SDI. So just as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, forecast in his most interesting speech, the Russian colleagues of ours at this conference told me that rather than enter into such a competition they would choose the simpler option of manufacturing as many new and additional nuclear ballistic missiles as were needed to swamp and saturate any conceivably affordable scale of American strategic defence.
The suspicion and mistrust, amounting to a degree of paranoia, which are shown in those Soviet reactions to SDI are misplaced. Neither this American Administration nor, in my belief, any likely future American administration would ever act so recklessly or irresponsibly as the Soviets say they fear. Yet some feelings of this kind probably do exist fairly widely in the Soviet Union, and particularly among the military. General Secretary Gorbachev must take account of that, just as President Reagan has to take account of public opinion in America, which, for its part, yearns for the general protection against nuclear attack which SDI, at any rate in its original visionary form, promised to provide.
We thus stand, as it were, at a fork in the road. One course, that of continued and enhanced confrontation, leads to a dangerous escalation in the degree of mutual threat posed to each other by the two super powers, and to the rest of us if the worst happens.
The other course is of continued, patient discussion, particularly of the technical possibilities and impossibilities of SDI. That might in due time lead to
90
a revival of the proposals for large reductions in strategic and intermediate ballistic missiles which were also mooted at Reykjavik. My own guess, for what it is worth, is that SDI will be found in the end to provide some extra element of possible point defence, but not, as originally foreshadowed by President Reagan, an anti-nuclear umbrella covering a whole country with all its cities. On that more limited basis of SDI, sufficient mutual deterrence would be preserved to meet Soviet fears and to enable some reductions in nuclear weapons to proceed.
I am sure that our Government were right to urge upon the United States administration that any substantial reduction in the nuclear weapons potential of the NATO countries, including the USA, must be accompanied by not only a like measure of nuclear disarmament by the Soviet Union but an appropriate reduction of Soviet and Warsaw Pact military potential by conventional means.
As I see it, the process of trying to reach a new understanding and a new dialogue between the super powers must begin by their discussing the scope and timing of SDI, based on realism and mutual tolerance. That may sound a tall order, but it should not be beyond the powers of statesmanship which the Soviet Union and the United States showed when in the 1970s they came to a whole series of arms control treaties which, for some years thereafter, helped to preserve the balance and maintain a measure of confidence between them.
In my view, the United States administration have tried hard since Reykjavik to get such negotiations started. I hope that they will now take a long and searching look at SDI so as to see whether the heart of the programme cannot be preserved in a way which both meets the realistic expectations of Americans and at the same time persuades the Russians that their more apocalyptic fears are ill-founded.
May I add this as regards our own country? As we all know, the Americans are a highly competitive people. If you call an American businessman "aggressive", he will take it as a compliment. They are severely practical. They judge one another sternly, and whether we like it or not, they judge us—their allies—sternly too. At present, we stand high in their esteem because they believe that we pull our weight in the boat. Because of that, we have valuable influence in that country, as I know from my yearly sojourns there since 1978. But if we stop being in their eyes an asset to the alliance, and instead become a liability, by denying them the full co-operation in defence matters which they currently enjoy, we shall forfeit their esteem and our influence, much to Britain's detriment. I hope that our countrymen and countrywomen will bear that in mind in the time ahead. There could be no merit and no mileage vis-á-vis either super power—in fact, very much the reverse—in turning ourselves into the New Zealand of the North Atlantic.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that he has spoken with much wisdom about American public opinion and the American people's yearning for the protection which could be afforded by successful SDI. Has he seen the public opinion polls in America which show that a

91
clear majority of the American people believe that SDI, the great shield itself, is already up there and is working very well.
7.55 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I support the robust but necessarily brief statement on foreign affairs and defence in the gracious Speech. As many noble Lords have already said, these subjects have been much in the news lately through international meetings, through the meeting of President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, through party conferences and through many media programmes.
What has struck me about the recent media reporting of all those events is that little regard has been paid to the importance of the facts of the defence situation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, tried, in one television programme that I saw, to bring in a few facts, but, other than that, the commentators and the media seem not very interested in the facts. Many politicians give one the impression that they have made up their minds and do not want to be confused by the facts.
I make it clear that I am speaking today as an individual, although last week some of your Lordships may have seen that the Foundation for Defence Studies, a registered charity, launched a Defence Information Council of which I have been asked to be chairman. It is probably unnecessary to say that the views that I shall express today are entirely my own. The Defence Information Council will stop at the provision of information and leave views on the basis of the facts to others.
The Foundation for Defence Studies ran a Gallup poll last December before a conference at King's College. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, used a phrase to the effect that the preponderance of conventional balance in favour of the Warsaw Pact was not as big as some people had been led to believe. I would draw his attention to the fact that only 30 per cent. of the sample, and thus, roughly, of the electorate, knew that the Warsaw Pact had a preponderance of conventional weapons over NATO.
That is due to the kind of statement—although there have been many that I would criticise much more strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made, because, listened to loosely as I probably did, it gave the impresssion that there is not much in the conventional balance.
The media find the facts boring. I find them rather dramatic. I wish I could encourage the media to give them to the public more clearly, more simply and more often. If defence and foreign affairs, regrettably, continue to be the matters of controversial party politics which they have become in recent years, then Lord Melbourne's old dictum which I have quoted in this House before, that he did not believe in mass wisdom based on individual ignorance, will become true, especially if we do not get the public to understand the rudiments of the facts.
The figures in White Papers, from the Ministry of Defence, NATO, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies are all always slightly different. In that respect, I should like to pay tribute to Colonel
92
Alford, who regrettably died this year, for the military balance produced by the institute and for all the work that he has done to put together, year on year, its excellent publication. Noble Lords may be amused to know the comparisons of arms in the Falklands Islands war, during which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, was, fortunately for the nation, at the helm. I ran my eye down the document of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and noted that the Argentinians, among other things, were reported to have Roland surface to air missiles. This struck me as important and totally in contradiction of the MoD statement, which said that they had none. To cut a long story short, I would say, in support of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that the missiles were, in the end, found to be there.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am gratefiul to the noble Lord. He must not misrepresent what I said. I said that the figures produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, endorsed by the director, showed that the imbalance was not as great as we had been led to believe. That is true. If one cannot get up in Parliament and make such a statement without one's integrity being questioned by the noble Viscount, then this Parliament has come to a pretty pass. If we are to conduct our debate with integrity, we must accept statements as they come.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not withdraw my remarks about the noble Lord's statement nor about the opinion poll which showed, as a result mainly of the statements of leaders in this country, the degree of confusion and misunderstanding that exists. As this assessment by the institute—one of the most important, in my view, that has been made—has been raised so often during the debate, I have to ask your Lordships' to bear with me for a moment while I deal with the actual figures.
I have made statements in the past showing that, on land and in the air, the Warsaw Pact has an advantage of over two to one in conventional forces. I have always excluded the navy. Our naval power, certainly in surface ships, is still superior to that of the Warsaw Pact. However the ratios are clear. In main battle tanks, it is one to 2·29; in artillery, one to 2·68; in mortars, one to 2·83; in SSM launchers, one to 3·19; in anti-tank guns one to 5·54; in anti-tank gun launchers one to 1·95. The anti-aircraft gun ratio is only one to 1·04. In fact, in the previous year, NATO had the advantage in anti-aircraft guns. NATO has withdrawn a large number. Frankly, few people believe that modern aircraft will be efficiently shot down by anti-aircraft guns today.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I should like just to finish making this point. The ratio in SAM launchers is one to 6·83; in armed helicopters, one to 2·92. When we come to aircraft, the three main columns show ratios of one to 1·03, one to 2·38 and one to 2·089. The aircraft figure shows the biggest difference compared with the Ministry of Defence estimates. By any standard, in what matters—I shall come to men later—it is a ratio of over 2 to 1 on land and in the air as an average.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Viscount rightly pays tribute to the survey. Would he not give a fairer picture if he read the summary in the survey of the conventional imbalance, which is well prepared? This shows, first, that the imbalance is less than it was in last year's survey. Secondly, it shows that the impression now being given by the noble Viscount is totally fallacious.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the impression is entirely accurate. The difference between the two years is marginal and described as marginal in the survey. The trend since 1979 has been a build-up on the Warsaw Pact side in respect not only of items on land and in the air, but also in respect of chemical weapons. Of these chemical weapons, the international institute—here, I criticise it—makes scant mention. My noble friend the Minister will perhaps refer to chemical weapons. However, we know that the figure has grown steadily to some 300,000 tonnes, probably, in the main, nerve agents, quite apart from other pretty obnoxious substances. We have almost nothing to put against them. The other indirect effect of chemical weapons is to render the efficiency of our Armed Forces much more difficult because of the clothing that they have to wear at all times.
The other balance that has swung since 1979—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran—is that the ratio in tactical nuclear weapons is now nearly 9 to 1. Not the least reason for this is American and British withdrawals. To sum up, we have the 2 to 1 conventional imbalance, the huge chemical imbalance and the tactical nuclear imbalance of some 9 to 1. There are also the trends in terms of expenditure in real terms that are still going up. Some items are slightly down compared with last year. I acknowledge that, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. But the trends since 1979 are unmistakeable in the directions I have mentioned.
I am sorry to keep on about the total strengths of the super powers; but sometimes people will say at this stage that the reserves should not be forgotten. The difficulty of getting reserves across the Atlantic is well-known among experts. I shall certainly not repeat it. So often, the picture of the super powers is painted as being equal. However, according to this book, the manpower of the Soviet Union's regular forces is over5 million. This shows a build-up from 3.5 million in 1979. In reserves, the Soviet Union now has well over 6 million. On the other hand, the United States has a little over 2 million in the regular forces and 1.6 million in the reserves.
The tank comparison is even more dramatic. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the United States has over 14,000 tanks on a world-wide basis compared with the 53,000 that the Soviet Union possesses. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, thought some people had said. To me, the figures represent an extraordinarily strong balance in favour of the East and the Warsaw Pact. It should be remembered that while the number of people confronting each other in Europe is a less dramatic figure, a close reading of any of these excellent publications—this will also be within the knowledge of many noble Lords—confirms that the USSR has many more people in the front line
94
compared with people behind it than have the allies. The allies, particularly perhaps the Americans, need an enormous number of cooks, psychiatrists, television sets, welfare, and goodness knows what. In comparing the number of men facing each other, these factors should be taken into account.
I am probably known to have very favourable views about our greatest and strongest ally, the United States of America. I normally sing their praises. At the moment, however, I get worried by the continual reiteration of their President that he will contemplate a nuclear-free situation, either totally, or in the intermediate range weapons, bearing in mind the figures and the trends that I have just given.
I noted that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who is not in his seat, felt that it did not matter much if we went hack to the 1979 position, where we would not place intermediate range missiles on land in Europe if they withdrew all the SS.20s. Against the background of what has happened since 1979, including tactical nuclear weapon withdrawals, this seems to me to be a dangerous move back towards the trip wire philosophy and the philosophy of mass retaliation. I would find that less credible than some of the matters he criticises for credibility to which I shall come later.
I believe that the Soviets do not want war, but they are run by a dictatorship and we are talking of the long-term through to the next century. On the facts of the situation at the moment, without the nuclear deterrence and, in my view for credibility, without the flexible response possibilities of the current nuclear defence, we would be overrun in days and we would rest entirely on the awful decision of the United States' President or ourselves to release strategic weapons on a major scale.
I have taken longer than I meant to do through answering certain questions. However, let me deal with one other main thesis. It has been argued that if we did not have Trident, and if we were much cleverer in our research and development as NATO, and in our purchasing or manufacturing of modern weapons, we would be able to raise the nuclear threshold enormously. Once again it is the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who has often expounded this thesis. The allies do not have a Trident to consider removing, but even in the British budget it is naive to think that the politicians would allow the military the 3 per cent. when the military say that they can do something for 100, and the probability is that they can nearly accomplish it for 97. But the thesis has nothing to do with giving up Trident. The only way that a major raising of the nuclear threshold could take place would be if we were very much cleverer than we have been in the past in using modern technology to produce the kind of weapons which would be infinitely more effective for the same costs.
On this subject it is worth once again referring to another publication of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in which all parties have confidence. It is their spring issue of Strategic Survey. I quote the following:
"Setting aside the state of the East-West conventional balance at the present time (see military balance) … there is no reason to believe that NATO will be able to do much radically to improve its conventional defence and thus significantly to reduce its ultimate

95
dependence on nuclear weapons. The offensive threat from the East is certainly not static and it is not obvious that new technology and new concepts are the monopoly of the West. Nor is it obvious that technological developments necessarily favour defence given that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact will have access to new technology".
The paper goes on in the same vein.
I quote that because in the past the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has asked me and others how we can contradict the highly qualified and important people who contributed to the two surveys of the ECECS study. I think the answer lies in the proposition that if the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, had complete chief executive control of the whole of NATO weaponry he might well be able to do enormously better. But as we are a collection of democracies, and even with all the efforts that are being made—and I wish them enormous success—we simply cannot ignore the fact that over the last 10 years the technological gap has been closing and that the Soviets have the lead in a number of areas. It can remain as a thesis only for a long time to come that, if we manage to be much cleverer like the marketing director of a firm that is going downhill, we shall then do much better.
Let us wait until that day occurs. In the meanwhile, let all of us with knowledge of these matters, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, lend all the power we can to keeping the credibility of deterrence, including the credibility of the grotesque power of our own nuclear deterrent even though it be but 5 per cent. of that of the Soviets. The deterrent value of nuclear weapons to a defender, as oppposed to an aggressor, is in my opinion very much greater because an aggressor basically has an objective. The objective may be resources, such as high technology agriculture, the electronic know-how of West Germany, or consumer goods or whatever. I do not say that the Soviets want war, but if, with their appallingly low standard of living, they saw the possibility at any time between now and the next century (which is what we are talking about in planning these weapons) of getting the objective at a cheapish cost, they might try.
It is no consolation to them to know that if we were to use a nuclear weapon to prevent them from doing so—and that would only happen if deterrence had failed, and it need not fail—it would pay them nothing, in terms of their objective, whatever it may be, to use their 95 per cent. more powerful nuclear weapons in retaliation. The threat of 5 per cent. is therefore credible, and the threat of the allies' nuclear deterrence—not of Trident alone, which has never been suggested by anybody, but of the total NATO position, including two centres of decision, with perhaps the French a third—to keep in the potential aggressor's mind the possibility, or even the probability, that no kind of aggression would pay, however powerful his conventional superiority is, is what has kept peace for 40 years, and can continue to keep peace. We must keep that fact in balance with the very important objectives of disarmament, and not let disarmament completely override it.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, sadly the noble lord, Lord Chalfont, cannot be with us so I follow in the next
96
place. I must apologise for arriving too late and missing the opening speeches, much to my regret. I had to take the chair at the annual general meeting of a charitable association, the date of which is arranged from year to year. Although I disposed of the business as briskly as I could, it was not brisk enough.
I was glad to catch the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, because I shared his satisfaction with that part of the gracious Speech which dealt with the maintenance of our defence capability. However, I could not share his views on the retention of the United Kingdom's strategic deterrent. Neither, I believe, would any of our NATO allies share his views.
It was only in March this year in the communiqué of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group that the alliance collectively acknowledged the value of the United States' and the United Kingdom's nuclear contribution to the alliance and they particularly welcomed the United Kingdom's plans for the replacement of Polaris with Trident.
I must say I cannot understand the rationale for the retention of United Kingdom nuclear capability below strategic level if we abandoned Trident. Surely it would be incredible to a Soviet leadership that the United Kingdom Prime Minister would authorise the release of a British battlefield or intermediate range nuclear weapon without strategic deterrent to back it up.
I was on the fringes of the chiefs of staffs' committee when the noble and gallant Lord was Chief of the Defence Staff. I was the Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff. I sometimes attended chiefs of staffs' meetings when my boss was away. My recollection is that it was the chiefs of staffs' collective view at that time that possession of an independent strategic deterrent by this country was a first priority in the allocation of our resources. Certainly, I can assure the Minister that that was the case when I was a Chief of Staff and when I was Chief of the Defence Staff.
I do not aspire to be a politician. I spent many years as a professional adviser to a succession of Ministers of all political colours. It is in that vein that I should like to speak tonight, first on the Alliance nuclear deterrent policy. I studied with great care the joint Alliance defence document and I wondered that among the membership there was no one who had any intimate knowledge of a submarine-launched strategic deterrent. I do not know, of course, who they applied to for professional advice.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps the noble and gallant Lord will allow me to say that I was responsible for building the strategic deterrent when I was Naval Minister, and I was a member of this commission.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. I was coming on to him as I warned him in a note that I should do.
Having read the defence document, I then watched and listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he addressed the Liberal Conference on television. He said—and I wrote it down at the time—that:
"We could run Polaris until at least 1997, that the lead time for a replacement was between three and five years, so no decision on a replacement for Polaris need be taken until 1991 at the earliest."

97
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was the Navy Minister and was responsible for taking Polaris decisions around about 1965 and 1966. I fear that the level of his professional advice has slipped a bit since then.
The Polaris submarines will all reach their 25th birthdays between 1992 and 1994. We have never operated a nuclear submarine for that length of time but the experience we do have with our older nuclear submarines is that as they get older the refits take longer, unscheduled maintenance is required more frequently, and the risk of unexpected breakdown arises. Since the Labour Government in 1964 cancelled the fifth Polaris submarine we are left with no margin for the unforeseen. Any unexpected major breakdown would mean that we could no longer keep one submarine on patrol and the credibility of our deterrent would be destroyed.
The Polaris system itself, the weapons and the onboard system, is based on the technology of the 1950s, before silicon chips and in the early stages of the transistor. It first became operational in the United States Navy in 1961 and they gave it up in 1974, when it became unique to the Royal Navy. Since that time we have been responsible for monitoring reliability and for putting right things that go wrong. In 1980 we discovered cracking in the first and second stage solid fuel propellant motors. We had to pay to open up production lines which had closed in the United States factories to get new motors made. Quite recently one of our Polaris submarines fired four missiles to test their reliability, and one failed. Telemetry told us what went wrong: as the jargon goes it was well within the matrix of reliability.
However, by the early 1990s the Polaris system will be into its 40th year of life. Some of the delicate electro-mechanical systems could well start failing and we should have to reopen production lines in the United States factories which have long since switched to more modern technology and reassemble workers with the expertise to make good these defects. There can be no absolute cut-off. They do not all stop on the 1st July, 1994, but it would be culpably irresponsible, from a professional viewpoint, to plan on running the Polaris force beyond 1995.
There is another aspect, and that is credibility. Credibility in the eyes of the Soviet leadership is measured by the number of warheads they might expect to land on them, not how many missiles would be fired at the other end. Some of the missiles will fail for technical reasons. No system can gauranteee 100 per cent. reliability. Some missiles will fail to get through Soviet defences. The Soviets have the only anti-ballistic missile system in place. In 1972 when they started deploying the system, it was obvious that we had to improve Polaris because we did not have the resources of a fifth boat. So the Chevaline improvement was designed, developed and produced.
Since 1978 the Soviets have been making further improvements to their anti-ballistic missile defences. They have been developing another missile which has a capability inside the atmosphere, and this is now being deployed. Our intelligence experts expect it to be deployed to the maximum allowed by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. They have developed surface to air missiles, the SA 10 and the SA l2, which have a
98
capability against ballistic missiles. They are building in Krasnoyarsk a phased array radar with an enormous aerial the size of the Ministry of Defence building, which will give them a capability when it is finished (it will take some years to build) to deploy a nationwide ABM defence. Both this phased array radar and the deployment of a nationwide ABM defence would be in breach of the ABM treaty. The deployment, once that radar is finished, could be achieved in months, not years.
I heard the Secretary of State for Defence say on a television programme recently that Polaris with Chevaline could not be expected to remain credible beyond 1995. The Secretary of State for Defence sees top secret intelligence reports, I no longer do. I would not be prepared to argue with him. The professional advice is that if you are going to replace Polaris you must do it by 1995. The Trident programme is six years down the road.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked what would replace Trident. Indeed, he asked the Minister how he would replace Trident. Two alternatives have been proposed. The first alternative is to go with the French and buy the M.4 missile. My own professional advice would be that as the French are already developing the M.5 such a course would not make much sense, because by the time we have the M.4 the French would be phasing it out. Therefore, it would make more sense to go for the M.5. It is now generally acknowledged that at least to go with the French would be more expensive than Trident. I shall not go into the technical details, although I could do so if noble Lords so wished, but it could take longer than the time we have available.
Cruise missiles have also been suggested. There is only one available and that is the Tomahawk—the submarine-launched version of the missile which is already deployed 'at Greenham Common. It is relatively cheap, costing about £1 million a time; it is small; it is easy to store; it has a range of 1,350 miles; it is accurate; and it has one nuclear warhead. However, it has disadvantages. Because of its short range and for other technical reasons it has to be fired quite close to the coast and that exposes the firing submarine to Soviet anti-submarine capability. On the other hand, Trident has 15 times the sea-room of Polaris and provides the submarine with much more room in which to hide in an era when we can expect Soviet ASW defences to improve. However, even more important for Tomahawk is its vulnerability to air defences. I could perhaps best explain that by comparing it with the V.1, which will be familiar to many.
The V.1 was also a cruise missile. However, it was slower; it flew a bit higher; it was much less accurate; it did not have a nuclear warhead, but it was a cruise missile. Once we organised our defences, only 15 per cent. of the V.1 s fired reached the target area—the target area being Greater London. During the whole of the V.1 campaign only 23 per cent. of the missiles fired reached the target area, and that was in the face of the air defences of the 3.7 AA guns, the Spitfires and the Typhoons.
The Tomahawk is a better missile than the V.1, but I suggest that the Soviets' AA defences have increased in much greater proportion. By the period about

99
which we are talking they will have airborne early warning to give early detection of low-flying missiles; half their fighter force, some 2,000 aircraft, will be equipped with a look-down/shoot-down capability with air-to-air missiles capable of firing at targets close to the ground. The SA.10 and the SA.12 mobile missiles will be grouped around strategic targets, and the assessment is that to provide the same capacity as Polaris, which is what the Alliance is pledged to do, would require two submarines on station, each equipped with at least 60 vertical-launch cruise missiles. No one has yet designed a battery to fire vertical-launch missiles.
By the time the decision to cancel Trident is taken, the first Trident submarine will be half complete. We would have to build three more submarines to keep two on station and two to relieve them, and later some more. Quite palpably, such a programme could not be achieved in time and would cost very much more than Trident.
There is another overriding restriction and that is the production of nuclear warheads. It is a very specialised branch of technology. Nuclear warheads have to be designed, developed, tested and manufactured. Testing of the non-nuclear components must take place in the vehicle for which they are intended to ensure that they will stand up to the stresses of launch and flight. The nuclear warhead as a whole must be tested in underground tests and at least three such tests are required. Once that is complete, the warheads have to be manufactured. That is a slow and difficult process and, as your Lordships can imagine, it is not a production line that can be switched on and off. The whole programme can take at least 10 years.
The Trident warhead programme is now in its sixth year and, from the press reports of United Kingdom nuclear tests in Nevada, it must be nearing production. To take a decision to cancel Trident and to replace it with something else in 1988 would mean that we could not possibly equip the replacement with its warheads before the end of the century. The Alliance policy to cancel Trident but to maintain the deterrent may have electoral attraction. However, I believe that it would be more honest and more realistic to accept that if Polaris is to be replaced then Trident is the only replacement.
I should like to say a few words about those who condemn Trident as an enormous escalation in nuclear fire-power. Each Trident submarine will have 16 missile tubes. Each Trident missile can take anything between one and 14 warheads. Therefore, the maximum potential of the one submarine which can be kept on station from a four-submarine force, is 224 missiles—not the 500-plus which are so often quoted. However, the number of missiles that are bought; the number of missiles that are put into tubes; the number of tubes that are left empty; and the number of warheads that are put on each missile is a ministerial option and a decision that does not have to be taken yet. The Alliance say that they will maintain a minimum deterrent. Trident is as minimum as Ministers may care to make it.
I intend to turn at this point to the Labour policy, but I see that time is running on and enough people
100
have already dealt with that matter. However, finally, it is to my great regret that I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, because so many have referred to his quotation of the military balance. I personally view statistics with a great deal of scepticism. I place much more value on the views of those who actually have the responsibility for planning and conducting military operations and who have responsibility for the lives of the men who have to carry them out. I know that politicians think that war is too important to leave to the generals, the admirals and the air marshals, but they might perhaps sometimes listen to our advice.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I listened with the greatest attention to the powerful exposition by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, of the case for Trident, just as I read with the greatest attention the very same words which he published in the press a week ago. I must say a few words in defence of the position of the Alliance on this matter. The argument which the noble and gallant Lord advances is of course a well-trodden one and the answers to it are well-trodden. I do not pretend that it is not a powerful and important argument.
We in the Alliance do not propose to prolong Polaris beyond 1995, or at least very much beyond 1995, and we shall not be risking human life—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, at one point implied—once we have taken the professional advice which will be available at that time. It is not in our programme to send sailors to sea in rusting boats. If the world situation makes it necessary—and my noble friend Lord Mayhew spoke at length about this—we shall replace Polaris with something else. From the way in which we are going at present it is perfectly obvious that much to our regret, the world situation is very likely to make it necessary.
As regards the question of what to replace Polaris with, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, did not really look beyond Tomahawk. But we are not necessarily bound to Tomahawk in the way of cruise missiles; we are not necessarily bound to vertical-launch cruise missiles; we are not necessarily bound to cruise missiles at all; we are not even bound to submarine-launched missiles. When the Government ordered Trident they did not consult British Aerospace about what it could build. I see that the Minister is indicating that they did do so, but British Aerospace thinks that they did not. I dare say that there was communication, but the producer, the industrialist, thought that they did not do so. The noble Lord the Minister will be speaking in a moment. We would consult everybody we could about what was available and then take our decision.
Lastly, on the possible underweaponing of Trident—I think the House knows what I mean—I do not believe this for a moment. When we say that it is overweaponed, overpowerful, we mean it creates a destabilising effect because the Russians, if they were reducing, would think it was a destabilising effect, a step-wise upwards jump. The only way we can convince them that it is not is to invite them on board the boats every time they go to sea, and say, "Look at this tube. It has not got a missile in it. Look at this

101
missile. It has only got three warheads, or one, instead of the 10 it might have". There is the possibility of changing all that once we get to sea. Are we not going to have to have a Soviet inspector going to sea on every Trident submarine if the underweaponing of them is to carry conviction in Moscow?
Lord Lewin: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This is the solution that I proposed myself as a valuable arms control initiative. It is perfectly feasible to invite the Russians to go and look in the missile tubes and see whether the missiles are there. It is quite impossible to magic up a missile once the submarine has gone to sea, and put it in the tube. It is also perfectly possible for the Russians to inspect the number of warheads, but it is equally technically impossible to add warheads once the submarine is at sea.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, let us accept all that, and then we are just stuck with about five times the expenditure we ever needed. If this is what has to be, then the original decision to buy it looks crazier than ever because it is incompatible with a disarming world all round it. That is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way again?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to get on with the rest of my speech, if I may.
May I now turn to Syria? Sir Geoffrey has performed well. He kept his head during the inevitable confusion at the first European meeting, and he guided through the European Council of Ministers a reasonable package of retaliatory measures. He was helped in the first place by the professional skills of our own diplomatic service and police, and evidence was produced which was good enough to convince that really quite sceptical body, a modern English jury. The Syrian state was conclusively implicated in this attempt at mass murder, and Sir Geoffrey has been rewarded by a practical and useful endorsement from all the members of the European Community except Greece, and to a lesser extent France.
Our record in this matter is good, and I for one cannot fail to compare it with that of the United States President, who is prepared to bomb cities on evidence which was not so good, and to buy hostages out of terrorist hands by sending arms to a terrorist country behind the backs of his Congress, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defence, and even his CIA. I trust that Britain has not been involved in this commerce as some other of the United States allies have.
Everywhere in the world there are geopolitical disputes. Nothing can excuse terrorism, but nor can anything excuse the rest of us from knowing why it is that the terrorist acts as he does. Today international law, because it is so widely breached, more than ever needs our active support. Some countries invade their neighbours and hold foreign territory under military occupation. They raid the military and transport installations of their neighbours and of other
102
countries. Others set up sanctuaries for their neighbours' rebels and arm their neighbours' rebels, and also those in countries which are not even their neighbours. Others again deny their own peoples their human rights in a way that justifies internal rebellion, thereby tempting other countries to arm those rebels.
The principal countries doing one or more of these things at the moment are the Soviet Union, South Africa, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Israel. Libya, the United States and Turkey. All the great documents of our generation from the United Nations Charter to the Helsinki Final Act and the Stockholm statement of this year are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Our country and the other members of the European Community are very largely innocent of these breaches, and we must see that we remain so. But we must be equally careful not to get dragged along by those outside who are less careful of the law. In the long run international state terrorism in the world cannot be faced down without some juridical arrangement. What that arrangement could be now needs to be thought out and discussion opened. That should have already begun.
When it thinks of South Africa the world is convulsed with horror and indignation, and rightly so. I was there last week. The media have been reporting accurately within the limits of a censorship as strict as it is unaccountable. What we read is true. The tragedy now is that the oppressed blacks are killing each other. I think this always happens when an insuperable and implacable tyranny continues for decades. The anger of the oppressed turns inward. They begin to fight each other about how to fight the tyrant. If you can do no direct harm to an impregnable oppressor, it is easy to believe you are indirectly harming him if you harm someone who does not seem to he trying to harm him as hard as you.
This reaction is fostered by the very apartheid that the blacks are fighting. Because of the emergency laws the new militant youth—the so-called Comrades—cannot meet people from other provinces, other cities, other townships, even from other streets to discuss who, or what, the real enemy is and what it is best to do. They cannot have political meetings. They cannot quote each other's words.
So far, 20,000 have been arrested this year and thrown into prison without charge or trial. Whole communities are moved by force. Many of the Christian priests and pastors are afraid, so even the routine preaching of peace and love is diminished. Other priests and pastors have aligned themselves fairly and squarely with the oppressed and reach out to them with help and education. They do not advocate or further violence, although of course they have to discuss it.
The rest of the world hears the shots and the shouts. We reach for what we can, short of invasion; and that is sanctions. Black South African opinion is divided about this, so it is quite natural that there should be confusion and delay among our countries. One well-travelled and well-informed white industrialist, having told me how many blacks would be put out of work in his province, which was a very great many, said: "If you must do it, do it to the hilt and do it in one move.

103
Get it over with. Ratchet sanctions are the worst of all solutions for two reasons. Firstly, they constitute a dare to the South African Government: if you don't do what I say before I count to 10, I'll biff you again, and harder'. Who can give in to that? And secondly, in sanctions the businessman will always outsmart the politician, and the more steps you introduce in your sanctions, the more time you give the businessman to keep ahead of the game. Therefore, throw the whole lot at us at once, and do it now. If sanctions are going to work at all, that kind will work quicker and thus inflict less poverty and less of its attendant violence." I think that this argument has an intrinsic plausibility which deserves to be weighed against the practicalities of European and United Nations politics.
At any rate, tail end Charlie is not the best place for our Government to be. The foot-dragging of our Government and the German one earn us great hostility there among people who are in the right, who are in a life and death struggle, and who will form the government there when the tyranny is overthrown, as of course it will be sooner or later. The United States—the United States Congress, not the Administration—are the heroes now, despite the Administration's much-resented record in Namibia and Angola. We are outflanked.
I now turn to arms control. Since Reykjavik, Western governments seem to have forgotten something which was well known to the last generation of governments: you cannot reduce one type of armaments without reference to other types of armaments. If you do, you will merely expose any imbalance which may exist in the others and lay the world open to the risk that that imbalance will be exploited by the stronger side. Linkage, for instance between strategic missiles and INF—or between either of those and strategic defences—is not a matter of choice. These things are linked in the nature of things. Linkage inheres in every picture the mind may form of how to achieve arms reductions: only the naive or careless can doubt this.
In particular it has been quite careless of our Government to suppose the Russians, as the inferior party in this matter, can ever have been prepared to unlink either strategic weapons or INF from SDI. Mr. Gorbachev said this in his proposals of 15th January, and in his epoch-making speech to his party conference. Apparently our governments later made the mistake of taking Soviet statements that they might be prepared to negotiate an INF package separately from an agreement on SDI as meaning that they would be prepared to sign and put into effect such a package separately from an agreement on SDI.
It is in the nature of things that the Russians will not allow their adversary, any more than we will, to develop a safety shield from behind which to threaten them with impunity. They, and we, as the Government continually and rightly say, will take whatever measures are possible and necessary to prevent that impunity from retaliation being achieved. The cheapest, the safest and the most obvious of those measures is of course disarmament.
The press reports that Western leaders were surprised at Mr. Gorbachev's proposal in Reykjavik
104
that strategic nuclear weapons should be reduced by 50 per cent. over five years. Where were they on 15th January when he first made it and was fully reported in the world press? The Prime Minister seems concerned about the possibility that deep nuclear arms reductions in Europe will expose the very well-known Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional and chemical arms, much discussed this afternoon, especially by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. That superiority is now estimated by the IISS at 1·25:1, in a way that I shall not go into again. Where was the Prime Minister on 27th February when Mr. Gorbachev said to his party conference that disarmament had to be approached in its entirety? Where was she on 13th June when the Warsaw Treaty meeting in Budapest made specific public proposals in its "appeal" to NATO for conventional as well as nuclear disarmament? Was it not specifically in response to these Soviet proposals that NATO Ministers, at Franco-British initiative in Halifax, set up a high level task force on conventional arms control?
I fear that the Prime Minister may even tomorrow say to the President in Washington, "Do not engage in nuclear disarmament". If she does she will be ignoring the present opportunity and not serving mankind or her own country well. What she ought to say is: "Let us go back to the Russians with proposals for improvements to their overall disarmament plan. Let us not seek to remove the conventional imbalance by increasing Western levels of armament. Let us do so by reducing Eastern ones—better still, by reducing both, not by equal amounts but to equal levels. All these matters—and others, equally relevant—are covered in the plans Gorbachev has put forward publicly this year, even if, as you say" (she might say to President Reagan) "there was some doubt about what was being said at Reykjavik. So let us take Gorbachev at his word. Let us put him to the test." That is what we hope to hear she has said.
When it comes to conventional reductions, we face the preliminary question of what forum they should be discussed in. For each element of disarmament one needs a different cast of countries. For conventional disarmament we need at least all the members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and this rules out the MBFR talks in Vienna, which the United States unfortunately favours, because France and Hungary are not there. It would also be absurd to leave out Sweden or Finland, given the importance of the Nordic balance in the European jigsaw. So we have to go to the Committee on Disarmament in Europe, which France favours, because it contains all the NATO and Warsaw countries as well as the neutral countries.
We must not forget how ruthlessly Krushchev was overthrown, and how quickly. Mr. Gorbachev is manifestly the most constructive and imaginative Soviet leader we have faced since then, perhaps since 1917. I want to hear our Prime Minister telling President Reagan that this is a golden window of opportunity in the 40 years search for hard-nosed disarmament agreements, and urging him to use it with all the imagination and constructiveness he possesses.
I want to hear her tell him that Sir Geoffrey Howe's entirely convincing questions about SDI have not been

105
answered; that he is mistaken in sticking to it through thick and thin; that it is a chimera which should be gracefully laid to rest, or pared down to some minor and non-provocative military reality. I want to hear her tell him that he is a wiser man than those of his own advisers who have taken him into illegality; that it is his duty to himself and to the world to overrule or dismiss them and bring his great country back into communion with the rule of law.
This House ought to be increasingly concerned by the way our Government increasingly compound with international illegality. Later this year, when Mrs. Thatcher has gone, because she disapproves of it, the United States will break SALT II. I am thinking also of the implausible episode in the United States when on 1st May last year the President declared that Nicaragua constituted,
"an extraordinary threat to the security of the United States"
and consequently declared a state of emergency, of all things, in the United States. I do not like to hear the Government go along with that nonsense at all. I do not like to hear our representative in the United Nations say that Nicaragua has brought its troubles on itself. It has not: it has had its troubles thrown at it by the United States Administration.
I do not like the prospect of British-made weapons, such as Blowpipe. being given by the Americans to the Contras. I recently questioned the Minister of State about it and she has answered that she knows nothing of that and that we would never do anything so insubordinate as to require end-use certificates for arms we have sold to the United States. I do not like to hear the Government pretend that they do not know that the United States National Security Council staff have been covertly threatening to reduce aid to Costa Rica, Honduras and El Salvador to wreck the Contadora process. I do not even like the way the Government have ignored the report of an all-party group from this Parliament, and reports from many other such observers, that the 1984 Nicaraguan elections were, on the whole, fair and valid; not as valid as ours, but more so than El Salvador's and far more so than Mexico's.
This overall effort to make life as difficult as possible for a very' small, poor country whose politics the Administration dislike is a breach of the United States own Helsinki commitments (which do not only apply within Europe) and to which the United States recommitted itself only a few weeks ago in the Stockholm statement. The actions are also undertaken in defiance of the direct finding of the international Court of Justice that they are against international law—a court from the jurisdiction of which the United States Administration have withdrawn that country with the sole purpose of avoiding that judgment, which they saw coming.
The Government should be using their famous special relationship—and Members of the Government still use this archaic phrase—to persuade the President of the United States that justice is justice all round the world and that he should bring his country back to its own honourable tradition. It is not too late; and indeed we Europeans shall now, since the mid-term elections, have many friends of justice in Washington. Senator Nunn, the new chairman of the
106
Defence Committee, knows NATO is in disarray and needs putting together again.
Senator Pell, the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, knows full well what legality is and what it means for his country. Western Europe—and we are still president of the Community for a few more weeks—should now be making strong common cause with the new American Congress. It will be in the interests of the United States as well as in our own to do so, because democracy moves.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, on previous occasions when I have taken part in foreign affairs and defence debates arising out of the gracious Speech I have dealt, always from the Back Benches, almost entirely with the problems of the third world, much as today the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester were speaking. On those occasions I have stated my belief that the conquest of poverty is the only foundation for a lasting peace in the world.
Clearly, on this occasion I cannot follow that course since I have a much broader canvas to cover arising from the debate. However, I wish to make one point from my more familiar role, and that is to pay a genuine tribute to the new Minister for Overseas Development, Mr. Chris Patten, for the way in which he has so quickly made his mark with two policy initiatives which will help to overcome some of the basic problems faced by the destitute populations of Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, drew our attention particularly to the problem of that continent. Mr. Patten has brought before Parliament a proposal to support the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and only this week we heard of his success in persuading our European partners that food aid to Africa should neither be a means simply of disposing of our unwanted food surplusses in Europe, nor should it be provided in a way which prevents the proper development of Africa's own agricultural resources.
The noble Baroness, LadyYoung, will recognise that these are policies which have been constantly urged by us from this Dispatch Box, but without success until now. That means that the action by the new Minister is all the more warmly welcomed by us.
Before I turn to the defence aspects of the debate to which we have listened, I should like to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Rhodes, who raised the important question of China. I am constantly surprised in discussions about world affairs that China gets so little attention, because China has one-quarter of the world's population and therefore at least it should have one-quarter of the attention of debaters when we consider international affairs. My noble friend Lord Rhodes (as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has said) has played a particular role in relation to China. We congratulate him on all that he has done and not least on the particular success to which he referred in obtaining enough money from the Government to provide for a proper exchange of science students between China and this country.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, it was not all from the Government. That was about one-third of it.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction, but I am sure that he was instrumental in getting money from both quarters. Of course, the matter of the Queen's visit to China was mentioned in the gracious Speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to it in her introductory speech. But she seemed to concentrate only on the trade aspects of our relations with China. This seems to me to be an unwarranted limitation. My noble friend Lord Rhodes said—in agreeing, I think, with what I have just said about it not being just trade that matters—that friendship is what he asks for, friendship with China. Yes, indeed! I, myself, have been some three times in recent years to China. I remember that when I was in Chungking I sent a card to my noble friend Lord Rhodes because of his leading role in these matters. When I got back, he said, "Thank you for your card. I was there in Chungking when you sent it"—which shows that we are both diligent watchers of China.
The important thing for the future, as I envisage, is that here we have a communist country anxious to play its role in the world. We should be not only friendly, as my noble friend suggests, but working in close collaboration with them in international circles with a view to using their influence, which will be increasingly important in all our approaches to world problems, particularly those that are arising in the third world.
A number of references have been made to my party's defence policy. I am flattered that so many people are taking an intense interest in our policy. It indicates that they think we shall soon be the government of the country. There are three pillars upon which the policy of the Labour Party rests. The first—and let there be no mistake about this—is that the Labour Government will ensure the defence of this country and will provide the resources necessary for the most efficient achievement of that objective. There is no doubt that that is our intention; there is no doubt that it will be our duty.The fulfilment of that duty will be made all the more difficult by the rundown of our manufacturing base and by the running out of the wealth from the North Sea. But, despite those difficulties, we shall recognise the need to provide all proper resources to our defence services and we shall not fail in that duty.
The second pillar of our policy is our country's membership of NATO to which we are firmly committed and within which we shall play our full, appropriate part in a firm and continuing alliance with both our European and our North American partners. There is no doubt—we have made it clear time and again—that we consider our defence to be part and parcel of NATO's strategy and the other way round.
The third pillar is that we shall make our contribution to that NATO alliance in the field of conventional armaments believing, as we do, that this country will be safer and more defensible than if we rely upon the so-called independent nuclear deterrent. Let there be no doubt that there is no difference of opinion as to whether we should provide adequate defence for our country. The vital question is how to do so.
108
We have had a number of exchanges in the course of the debate about the balance of conventional forces in Europe. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, dealt with this subject at considerable length. Just as differences of opinion have been expressed in your Lordships' House, so there are differences of opinion on the subject among the experts. I was watching a television programme the other evening in which experts from various prestigious quarters gave different views one from the other on the question of whether conventional forces are in serious imbalance.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt his speech. I was slightly puzzled by the noble Lord's comments earlier, when he said that we would remain in NATO and would rely on the NATO Alliance as part of our defence policy, but we would not have anything except conventional forces as the third pillar of defence. Does that mean that we are going to rely on NATO to provide a nuclear shield for us?
Lord Oram: My Lords, I propose to come to that question later in my speech, if the noble Lord will exercise patience in the matter.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I want to know whether the noble Lord and his colleagues do, or do not, accept that the international institute figures have never been seriously challenged and are approximately correct.
Lord Oram: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn adequately answered the noble Viscount on that matter.
In making my point, I am not taking sides on that issue. I do note that the Government's policy is based on the assumption that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, makes that there is gross imbalance and that nuclear weapons in the West are therefore necessary to rectify what he sees as an imbalance. However, if that is the case, surely there is another conclusion that can logically be drawn in that situation. If there is such a dangerous imbalance, ought we not to ensure the build-up of NATO conventional forces on land, sea and air. That is what we in the Labour Party believe to be necessary, and that is the role that we shall play within NATO.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord deal with the point that I put to Lord Stewart and that Lord Stewart answered very frankly? If a Labour Government withdraw nuclear weapons from the Rhine Army and make the Rhine Army the only sector of the central front without nuclear back-up, is that not an invitation to the Russians to choose that sector to attack, if they are going to attack anyway?
Lord Oram: My Lords, I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explaining how nuclear weapons in that situation could be used defensively because in my view, if they were used in that situation, the victims of that dropping of the bomb would be our own forces: we would kill our own people. Surely the lesson from Chernobyl—a much less tremendous explosion but

109
tremendous enough—is that nuclear fall-out is no respecter of frontiers. If an explosion of that order occurs in the Ukraine and can affect sheep in Cumbria, what sort of situation will there be in a battlefield if nuclear bombs are dropped in so-called controlled use?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to answer that, if I may. If what the noble Lord says is correct, the British Army of the Rhine will be killed by bombs dropped by the Germans, Belgians, Americans and so on, on other sectors of the front.
Lord Oram: My Lords, that may well he, but I think that we have had sufficient exchange on this point, and I rest on what I said earlier.
As to expenditure on Trident—which is the basis of Government policy, and was the basis for a very trenchant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, who I thought sufficiently answered the middle-of-the-way policies of the Alliance parties—from our point of view, the reason we would cancel Trident is that expenditure of that order in that area will inevitably involve cuts in the expenditure on conventional armaments on land, sea and air.
As an example, I would refer to a recent report by the defence correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph, I think two Sundays ago. He set out detailed cuts in the Army's equipment, quoting from what he claimed to be a briefing document for senior staff officers. He concluded with a quote from an Army source to the effect that the cuts will result in a plunge in morale in the Army and that Army spending will be at a mimimum safe level. I believe that similar cuts are planned in respect of naval forces.
It is therefore becoming increasingly clear that we shall be compelled through the force of economics, quite apart from the strategic questions, to choose between adequate conventional forces on the one hand and the next generation of nuclear weapons on the other. We in the Labour Party opt for adequate conventional forces and we shall play our part in NATO on that basis.
Some commentators have raised the question as to whether Britain can remain a member of NATO if its contribution is confined to the provision of conventional armaments. The members of NATO are sovereign nations and it is for each one of them, after negotiation with its partners, to determine what contribution it can best make to the collective defence of the Alliance. Indeed, different nations, as we well know, make different commitments to NATO, including commitments in relation to nuclear weapons. France, for instance, does not commit its nuclear capability to NATO: nor indeed does the United States commit its major nuclear forces to NATO command.
Therefore there is absolutely nothing in principle—I know the noble Lord, Lord Annan, does not particularly like principle, although I very much enjoyed listening to his speech about the South Atlantic—to bar Britain from being a full and loyal member of NATO on a non-nuclear basis and making the most effective contribution to NATO which our resources
110
allow. We recognise of course that all this implies many difficult negotiations, particularly with the United States. We shall enter into those discussions in the framework of being allies and friends, but not sycophants.
We do not take everything that comes from Washington as suitable for application here or anywhere else, because the most reliable friends are those who speak frankly when differences emerge. If I may, I shall briefly quote two such examples where I think we ought to make it clear where we stand. I refer, in the field of defence, to star wars and, in respect of foreign policy, to Nicaragua. I am sure those two issues will be discussed by the Prime Minister when she goes to see President Reagan this weekend; but I am afraid that it is a bit too much to expect that she will give him the right advice when she sees him.
It would appear from press reports, and indeed from the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech, that European governments are now worried that the two super powers came near to agreement at Reykjavik on a mutual reduction over 10 years of strategic nuclear missiles. I rather fear from that Mansion House speech that the Prime Minister will tell President Reagan that he was in danger of going too far at Reykjavik. My view is that he did not go far enough. If he had abandoned his fantasy of SDI, that conference in Iceland would have marked an historic turning-point in world affairs with a massive reduction of armaments. Our Prime Minister should seek to persuade President Reagan to go back to that negotiating table, because I believe there are the seeds of a genuine international breakthrough.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Brockway drew attention to the significance of the recent American elections, because whatever message our Prime Minister gives to the President, he already has a salutary message from his own electorate. The new voices in Congress are opposed to President Reagan's escalation of the arms budget, to his SDI proposals and to his support for the Contras in Nicaragua. That was the message which the American electorate gave him, and I hope that he will listen and change his policies.
In this debate much attention has naturally been given to the East-West confict and to the European theatre. However, it is my view that there is a greater likelihood of war or of the spread of Soviet aggression elsewhere than in Europe. It may be in South-East Asia, in the Middle East, in Central America or perhaps in southern Africa. Therefore the other message which I should hope that a British Prime Minister would deliver to President Reagan is that in the third world Soviet-style communism cannot be stopped by force or arms.
When there is a situation, as there is at this time in Nicaragua, of a poverty-stricken country in which there is a broad-based (and I stress the words "broad-based") movement, which in that case is in government and which is in revolt against social injustice, such as landlessness for the peasantry and conditions of extreme poverty, it is not possible to resist that movement by force of arms. Ilan attempt is made to do so, it plays straight into the hands of the communists who are able, whatever role they may

111
play in the early part of the movement, to step into positions of leadership in the broad-based movement. That is what happened in Cuba many years ago, it is surely the lesson of Vietnam and in today's world it is the lesson to be learnt in Nicaragua.
It is not only from the Opposition Benches in this country, but also from large and powerful sectors of public opinion in the United States, that the dangers of military interference in Nicaragua from outside are seen. Those interventions will not succeed in their objectives. On the other hand, it is all too likely that they could cause a situation reminiscent of the Vietnam disaster. Our efforts should be put behind those who want to stop that disaster.
Before I close, perhaps I may give another illustration as there is another area which has not been mentioned in the debate today where similar issues are at stake. That is in the Philippines where President Cory Aquino is now walking on a tightrope. She is currently on her way to Japan which is perhaps a long way to walk on a tightrope, but politically she is indeed on a tightrope. We have a situation in which the United States, understandably anxious to maintain its military bases there, has to decide (as I think it has not yet decided) what kind of government and what kind of economic and social policies it will support. It would be a tragic mistake for it to support a military coup, which appears to be all too imminent.
At the same time, if the communist forces of the PLA are not to seize power, then President Aquino must be enabled and willing—and I am not sure that she is willing, but she must be enabled if she is willing—to bring about these fundamental antipoverty policies which alone can be the basis for a stable government there. If she does not succeed, the communists will; that message is again one which should be delivered to the White House.
What I have illustrated in relation to Nicaragua and in relation to the Philippines is, I believe, a worldwide problem. That problem can only be met by a massive attack on the problems with which the teeming masses of the third world are confronted. That should be the direction in which all our efforts in diplomacy and in economic affairs should be directed. If Iceland had succeeded, that would have released the resources which we need to tackle these vast problems. Therefore, I hope that we shall not criticise what happened at Reykjavik. We should bend our energies to return to the spirit of Reykjavik.
May I conclude, since the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others have made this point, on the argument that the existence of nuclear weapons on both sides, terrible and awful though they are, has at least kept the peace for 40 years. I concede that there is some truth in that. It is a horrific truth that we have to rely on that sort of imbalance in order to keep the peace. But I believe, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, indicated, that there are factors other than the hydrogen bomb which have kept the peace.
Let us therefore recognise that it is a highly precarious and highly dangerous form of stability upon which we are relying. I would paint the picture of a pyramid. It can find equilibrium if carefully poised on its apex. It is that sort of peace, that sort of
112
equilibrium, which hydrogen bombs ensure. We now have to strive to achieve a situation in the world of a pyramid firmly on its base. That is our objective, and I believe that we could move gradually towards that more stable peace if the Government would only listen more attentively than they have done over the years to the voices that come not only from this side of the House but from the other parts.
There was the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, speaking from the other side of the House, with his understanding of the Falklands situation. I do not refer just to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, and certainly not to my own. There have been speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We had our controversy, but there was much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with which I thoroughly agreed. Then, as I have indicated, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made a notable speech about the South Atlantic. Also, as so often, I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. The Government have to listen to the other way of going about the world in order to make sure that the world continues to live.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would clear up one point. We are much obliged to him for making clear the Labour view that Britain should dispense with nuclear weapons, even though the Russians retain them. But is it also the Labour view that NATO should dispense with NATO weapons, even though the Russians retain them?
Lord Oram: My Lords, I listened with care this afternoon to the opening sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I regretted that I was not able to hear all of his speech, but I heard him say that the Alliance policy includes persuading NATO to adopt a position of less reliance on nuclear weapons. I share that view that we aim to reduce NATO's strategy as being a nuclear strategy.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I just make my question plain? The noble Lord has plainly misunderstood my question. My question is, is it Labour's view that NATO should dispense with nuclear weapons while the Russians retain theirs?
Lord Oram: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would look at his notes again. That is what he said in relation to the Alliance policy, and I said that I agreed.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is the fourth successive year that I have had the privilege of rising to reply to this debate. As always, the quality of the contributions has been high, as is only to be expected in your Lordships' House, where so much experience resides on the subjects of foreign affairs and defence. A number of telling points have been made and I shall try to deal with as many as possible in a few moments. But before I do so I should like to make one or two general remarks.

113
I have the privilege of speaking to your Lordships wearing a number of hats. But the office which I assumed earlier this year—that of Minister of State for Defence Procurement—could not be more relevant to the subject of this debate. To defend the nation effectively the Armed Forces need the right equipment. And with technology moving ahead at a great pace what is adequate for the job one year may not be the next. The halcyon days when it took decades, or even centuries, to move from one generation of equipment to the next are long gone. But the more sophisticated the equipment the longer it takes to develop and bring into service. For the most advanced equipment this process can take as long as 15 years. For example, work on the Tornado aircraft began in the 1960s and the aircraft entered service in 1982.
But not only must we plan far ahead into the future—equally we must be ready to bear the costs of the high technology now so essential. To help meet this the Government increased the defence budget in real terms in seven successive years from 1978–79. As I indicated when repeating the Autumn Statement to your Lordships last week, the defence programme now benefits from the substantial real growth in previous years and the wide-ranging action to improve efficiency and value for money.
Furthermore, the more effective deployment of defence resources has enabled us to increase the proportion of the budget spent on equipment from 40 per cent. in 1979–80 to about 45 per cent. now. This percentage represents some £8¼ billion being spent this year for these purposes.
Meanwhile, we are pressing on—and this takes up a great deal of my time—with getting better value for the money we spend by, for example: measures to avoid so-called gold-plating of equipment; increased competition (which has produced substantial savings, as this year's White Paper has demonstrated), and increased collaboration with our NATO partners to share, and thereby reduce the cost to us of development.
These measures produce economic benefits not only in terms of supplying our own services. They also increase the attractiveness of British equipment for overseas buyers, and we must not forget the importance of these exports in specifying our requirements for new equipment. Such exports contribute to our balance of payments and, through longer production runs, help a good deal in our crusade for better value in defence expenditure. In addition, defence exports currently sustain some 120,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, and last year new contracts signed amounted to almost £3 billion—a figure which does not include significant orders finalised this year.
As a timely example of the continuing process of updating equipment I am happy to announce today that the Government have placed an order with British Aerospace for the new Rapier 2000 air defence missile system. It has evolved from the Rapier system which first entered service in 1974. The Rapier family has contributed greatly to the defence exporting successes I have just mentioned. It has achieved more than £2,000 million-worth of orders from some 12 different
114
countries. This new order will give the Army and the Royal Air Force an effective capability against high performance aircraft well into the 21st century. The order is worth about £1,000 million, and we expect it to provide employment for about 10,000 people at the peak of the programme throughout Britain and within a wide range of industry.
There was a time when the raw material of a debate on defence was just such matters as the effective equipping and deployment of our forces. There used to be a broad consensus as to what our policy was. The argument was not over what, or even how, but over whether the Government were doing it properly. As is all too evident, that consensus has now broken down—a breakdown that I view with apprehension and sorrow, because we are talking not about the proper stuff of party politics but about the security of the nation.
The sort of defence policy proposals which we have been hearing from some noble Lords opposite and their honourable and right honourable friends would very greatly damage our ability to deter aggression, and thus put at risk the peace that we have enjoyed in Europe for over forty years.
Let me take just two examples. First there is the proposition that NATO should commit itself in all circumstances to meet a conventional attack only with conventional weapons—combined with the proposition that NATO's conventional forces should have only defensive capabilities, unable to retaliate against attack. Let us set aside the question of whether the necessary build-up in conventional weapons could be achieved without a massive increase in defence expenditure. What lessons would the Russians draw from this? Could they not conclude that they could launch a conventional attack and, win or lose, Warsaw Pact territory would not be at risk? Would this not be very, very dangerous?
Secondly, what lesson would the Soviet Union draw if Britain were to throw out the American nuclear bases? We are a senior member of the alliance who has traditionally played an important and cohesive role. Would the Soviet Union conclude from our actions that NATO was united and strong, or divided and weak?
This Government remain committed to effective deterrence through NATO. The objectives of NATO strategy of flexible response are quite clear. First and foremost the alliance aims to maintain a range of conventional and nuclear forces sufficient to deter aggression or intimidation; its secondary objective, should aggression occur, is to have the ability to respond to any attack at the right level—which means the level it would take to make the aggressor cease his attack and withdraw. In meeting both these objectives, it is quite right that NATO should resist any commitment to a "no first use of nuclear weapons". To reduce the risk of war, NATO must ensure that the Soviet Union can never be certain of fighting or threatening to fight a successful conventional war in Europe. And, since the fostering of uncertainty in the mind of the aggressor is an essential factor in a successful deterrent policy, it would clearly be utter folly to comment in any detail, as I have sometimes been

115
asked to do in your Lordships' House, on the use of nuclear weapons in any particular scenario.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, directed us toward what he termed "the valley of the shadow of nuclear death". If asked to contemplate which policy most clearly signposts us toward the apocalyptic vision, I would unhesitantly suggest that it is the policy of noble Lords opposite. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear again the other evening, we depend and will continue to depend upon nuclear weapons for our defence. No other means of preserving peace is yet at hand. The Government therefore remain committed to the Trident programme which will contribute to the credibility of NATO's deterrent and provide this country with a degree of security out of all proportion to its cost well into the next century.
As for alternatives to Trident, quite frankly there is no other system which could conceivably do the same job for the same price. Sea-launched cruise missiles would be neither cheaper nor as effective. They have only one warhead, so that many more would be needed to equal the minimum deterrent provided by Trident. That means that we should need more submarines, which are by far the most expensive component of the system. It is no answer to deploy cruise missiles on existing hunter-killer submarines. This would involve one submarine trying to do two incompatible jobs and doing neither adequately.
There are two further points to consider. First, the range of a cruise missile is much less than that of its ballistic counterpart—as well as taking longer to fire and thus being more vulnerable to improvements in Soviet defences. Second, there is a limit to how far offshore a sea-launched cruise missile can be fired to ensure that it makes landfall accurately enough to carry out successful overland navigation to its target. These two factors combined mean that the launching submarine would be restricted in the sea-room in which it could operate effectively, with all that that implies for its possible detection by enemy forces.
As for Dr. Owen's Euro-deterrent, I am a firm believer in the need to get to grips with European collaboration and make it more effective. But it really is illusory to suggest that there is readily available some kind of European alternative to Trident which would be cheaper and adequately effective. It is illusory because there is no sign that a joint European force is on offer and because there is no alternative system which could provide a credible deterrent more cost-effectively than Trident. Above all, by removing—as I presume is proposed—Britain's right alone to use the deterrent when our supreme national interest so requires, we simplify the calculations of a potential aggressor and make an attack upon us more likely, not less.
I undertook to explain to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, the contribution that Trident will make to deterrence. We have no doubt of the commitment of the United States to the defence of its European allies by whatever means are necessary. But deterrence is a matter of perception. What is important is not how we see things, but how a potential adversary does. It
116
would undoubtedly be a grave decision for the United States to use nuclear weapons in defence of Europe with all that that could mean for the United States homeland. It is therefore possible that the Soviet Union might at some stage calculate that it could impose its will on Britain and Europe by military force without becoming involved in strategic nuclear war with the United States.
An independent nuclear force under British operational control means that in those circumstances the Soviet Union would have to consider our reaction as well. Our nuclear deterrent is small in comparison with the superpowers, but in absolute terms it can inflict massive damage.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? The explanation which he has just given is a familiar one and was in a White Paper produced some years ago. It implies the first use of weapons. Will the noble Lord explain how he reconciles that with the Prime Minister's statement that Trident would be a weapon of last resort?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the position upon our use of nuclear weapons is plain. We have said that we shall never be the first to use nuclear weapons—or any weapons—save in response to an attack. That is the scenario, as the noble and gallant Lord knows well.
The existence of the British force would enormously complicate Soviet planning, and in the view of successive British Governments and of our NATO allies, it strengthens deterrence and reduces the danger of attack. That is the contribution that Polaris makes to deterrence now and that Trident will make in the future.
I must add that I find it frankly incredible that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, could have felt capable of carrying out his role as Chief of the Defence Staff if he did not accept the key contribution that the United Kingdom deterrent makes to effective deterrence.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, recited a new version of Alliance policy. I must tell him that his policy, and I know that he claims to have had a significant hand in its creation, is nothing short of foolish nonsense. By the mid-1990s, Polaris will be nearing the end of its useful life for a range of technical reasons, well enunciated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin—not least the enhanced defences by then available to the Soviets. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows that, or he should do because he was Navy Minister for a time in the mid-1960s when, as he said, Polaris was under construction.
If by the mid-1990s no arms control agreement has been reached, we shall be totally naked unless we produce a replacement. What incentive will there be for the Soviets to reach an agreement if they know that they have to wait only a year or two and our Polaris system will be of no account anyway? No, the absurd policy enunciated by the noble Lord is a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, and he should not pretend otherwise.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. The Alliance has no intention whatsoever of indulging in unilateral nuclear disarmament, Will he please record that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in that case, the noble Baroness had better prepare a replacement for the system that is about to wear out.
Perhaps I may now turn to the issue of warship design, and the short, fat/long, thin argument. Since I announced the resignation of Professor Caldwell from the chairmanship of the inquiry into hull forms for frigates and destroyers, there has understandably been interest in the appointment of a new chairman. I am now pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that Lloyd's Register of Shipping has agreed to conduct the inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. H. R. MacLeod. I hope that Lloyd's will produce a report which will help us when we come to decide the designs of future frigates and destroyers for the Royal Navy. It is my intention that, subject to the requirements of security and commercial confidentiality, the report should be published.
I turn now to some other points raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked what is holding up progress on agreements reached at Reykjavik. It is not the West. The United States has made clear that it is ready to go ahead with an agreement on 50 per cent. cuts in strategic weapons and on INF. But the Soviet Union is holding this hostage to agreement on SDI. The SDI research programme is investigating the feasibility of strategic defences. President Reagan has spoken of SDI as being the insurance policy of the United States and the Alliance. Whether this insurance will be necessary at some future stage cannot be answered now. It is therefore clearly right that the SDI, particularly in the light of the Soviet Union's own activities—I recall that your Lordships were told at some length a year or two ago of Soviet activities in this area—should not be abandoned now. The United States made clear that the SDI is being conducted within the ABM treaty. We have welcomed this. However, the Soviet Union is insisting on severe new restrictions while its own comparable activities remain unacknowledged. It is hardly surprising that President Reagan has refused to accept this one-sided proposal. We hope that agreement on this issue can be reached. In the meantime, there is no reason why agreement on reductions in nuclear weapons should not go ahead.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say what are those severe new restrictions demanded by the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that they have been widely canvassed in the press. I shall perhaps write to the noble Lord with the details. Both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Gladwyn, asked about the forthcoming visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Washington. The objective of the visit is to continue at the highest level our very close bilateral consultations with the United States Administration, including discussion on arms control,
118
East-West relations, and regional and bilateral questions. I cannot at this stage give further details about confidential discussions that have not yet taken place. I dare say, however, that my right honourable friend will be making a statement when she gets back.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to the figures of the military balance in Europe produced by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. My noble friend Lord Trenchard also mentioned them at some length. These calculations are extremely complex for reasons that we explained in this year's Defence White Paper, which, of course, includes our own figures. The institute's military balance is widely consulted and widely respected. By any measure, it is clear that the threat that we face is a substantial one and, as your Lordships will have noted, the conclusions reached by the international institute are not far different from those that we reached in our own White Paper. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will note with interest the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the British Council and the diplomatic service, and I assure the noble Lord that we share his appreciation of the value and importance of these two national assets.
I undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to repeat our position on the involvement of the United Kingdom deterrent in arms control. It is that if very substantial reductions in United States and Soviet strategic forces were achieved and there was no significant change in Soviet defences, then we would consider what contribution we could make to arms control in the light of the reduced threat. The reasons why we do not speculate on the precise conditions or what our contribution to arms control might be are obvious enough. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested that this put us in the same position as the Alliance. But, my Lords, there is a difference. The Trident programme is well under way and will come into service in the mid-1990s as Polaris reaches the end of its useful life. The Trident programme will continue while the search for arms control goes on. I have already expressed my views on the Alliance position at that juncture.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I think one other noble Lord referred to the large number of warheads carried by the Trident submarine. The Trident force will have to sustain the British independent nuclear deterrent well into the next century. It must therefore be able to cope with likely developments over that period, including developments in Soviet ballistic missile defence. While I am not prepared to discuss the total number of missiles and warheads concerned, I can however tell the noble Lord that we do not propose to deploy the maximum theoretical capability of the Trident D5 force. The noble Lord had an interesting exchange with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, on that matter.
My noble friend Lord Montgomery talked, as he often does, about events and matters in the South Atlantic and I think is looking for a restoration, for example, of diplomatic relations with Argentina. But

119
it would be difficult to restore diplomatic relations until Argentina said that hostilities towards us had permanently ceased. But there are intermediate stages and the normalisation of commercial, cultural and other links would, we hope, go in tandem with a progressive upgrading of consular and other official relations.
We remain ready to explore with Argentina how to achieve these more normal relations, but they insist that there can be no discussion of bilateral matters in the absence of negotiations on sovereignty over the Falklands.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, are the Government really going to insist on the fact that there cannot be any negotiations with the Argentines unless we include on the agenda sovereignty, it being obvious that we need not give away anything on sovereignty? But we could discuss all kinds of variants of sovereignty which have been widely discussed in the press, and President Alfonsin has already said that he is prepared to do that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are ready to discuss a wide range of matters with Argentina, including the normalisation of relations between our two countries. We have made our position on sovereignty absolutely clear time and again. If the Argentinians have any doubt about it, that must be very surprising. We did indeed start negotiations at one time, as the noble Lord will recall, some years ago in Switzerland, and the Argentinians torpedoed those negotiations almost at the first breath.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, expressed a view about the Falkland Islands with which, if I may say so, I profoundly disagree. The fact of the matter is that the people of the Falkland Islands are just as entitled to live under the government of their choice as is the noble Lord; as I am, and as are the people of Argentina. That is a right which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. I think that the noble Lord does such matters no service by suggesting that that right is of no account.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, in a powerful speech, related particularly to his experience in the highest office. I commend the conclusions of the noble Lord to his noble friends opposite and hope that he will repeat them again and often.
I greatly welcomed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so without sounding too presumptuous, I have a slight soft spot for him because I know that he served in the Royal Flying Corps with my father a great many years ago. I think that the noble Lord has made a singular contribution to Sino-British relations, and I commend him for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, in a powerful and interesting speech, made a number of points almost all of which I agreed with. I commend him for that. I was pleased to hear the comments of the noble
120
Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on Her Majesty's Government's policy of supporting fundamental, peaceful change to a non-racial and nonrepresentative system of government in Southern Africa. As he well knows, while we have adopted a series of measures designed to impress upon the South African Government the need for urgent reform, we remain opposed to general economic sanctions the effect of which would be to polarise the conflict and punish ordinary working people here and in South Africa. We are also fully committed to a programme of positive measures to assist black South Africans, and announced in July an additional aid programme for this purpose of £12 million over five years.
I hope that the noble Lord will spread his views widely in his native land. It is perhaps views such as his, widely held, that will eventually persuade the South African Government to move away from the grisly system that they now support. It is worth adding that together with our European partners on the 16th September we adopted a new package of positive and restrictive measures designed to send a further political signal to the South African Government. This package, including bans on new investment and the import of iron, steel and gold coins, has now been fully implemented. We shall continue to work with our European partners and other like-minded countries to promote peaceful dialogue. Advocacy is the only realistic way forward. Progress will need patient but determined effort.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, during his wide ranging speech, referred to the possibility of big cuts in the Army budget. I can assure the noble Lord that such stories are pure speculation. The suggestion that big cuts are planned in the Army budget is quite without foundation. None of the various measures referred to in recent press reports form a part of our current forward plans.
Defence and foreign policy are inseparable. My noble friend Lady Young, in opening this debate, spoke of the new impetus given to the search for effective measures of arms control at the Reykjavik Summit. I spoke earlier of our commitment to deterrence. Let us be clear that the policy of the NATO Alliance is to follow both these tracks. Our purpose is to prevent war—any kind of war—not just nuclear war. To that end we shall, while maintaining deterrence, seek out and pursue the opportunities for real disarmament and genuine detente.
This is the policy which has been consistently expressed in the gracious Speech for the past seven years—and indeed before that in the gracious Speeches inspired by the noble Lords opposite. I commend it to your Lordships again tonight.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he is going to ignore totally the argument put forward about linkage? Do the Government really think that there can be no agreement on arms control unless the Soviet Union agrees at the same time to notable concessions in human rights, the evacuation of Afghanistan, and so on? Does the noble Lord not believe that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the blockage in the way of arms control at Reykjavik was the Soviet Union.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.
Moved, That this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday next.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.

George Donald Evans and Deborah Jane Evans (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]

  John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
  Presented; read a first time; read a second time pro forma, and committed to Select Committees.
  House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS
  LIVESTOCK LIMITS: PLANNING CONTROL
  LIVESTOCK LIMITS: PLANNING CONTROL
  ROYAL NAVY SHIPS: HULL DESIGN INQUIRY
  ROYAL NAVY SHIPS: HULL DESIGN INQUIRY