Sitting of 29 October 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREAT YARMOUTH OUTER HARBOUR BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall he presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
  Ordered,
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

  ESSEX BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Essex Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  MID GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Mid Glamorgan County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these Orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a dclaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the suspension of other proceedings on the Bill, Standing Order 171A(1) shall apply to the presenting of petitions against the Bill brought from the Lords in the present Session and only Petitions presented under this Order shall be received as Petitions presented under Standing order 171A(1);
  Ordered,
  That any Petitions presented under the foregoing Order shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the 11 ouse.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Plymouth City Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the York City Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these Orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the suspension of other proceedings on the Bill, Standing Order 171A(1) shall apply to the presenting of Petitions against the Bill brought from the
  306
  Lords in the present Session and only petitions presented under this Order shall be received as Petitions presented under Standing Order 171A(1);
  Ordered,
  That any Petitions presented under the foregoing Order shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss measures against South Africa.
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of European Economic Community measures in relation to the ending of apartheid in South Africa.
    Mr. Jim Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community under his Presidency will next consider the effectiveness of the measurs it has taken against South Africa.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he intends to take as President of the European Economic Community Council to seek to end apartheid in South Africa.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further European Economic Community measures have been taken against South Africa since the Commonwealth Ministers' meeting in August.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss measures to end apartheid in South Africa.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Foreign Ministers of the Twelve discussed South Africa on 15 and 16 September and again on 27 October. They will continue to do so regularly. They agreed on 16 September a package of further measures designed to send a strong signal to the South African Government on the urgent need for fundamental change.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Foreign Secretary take a firmer and more insistent position, .not least in regard to the effective exclusion of Namibia and several significant

    307
    products from the sanctions arrangements? Does not the present situation suggest that the sanctions policies pursued by Britain and western Europe will appear to be merely a rhetorical exercise which, without strict monitoring, could bring the worst possible consequences?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The measures adopted on 16 September do not apply to Namibia, because all but one member of the Twelve consider Namibia raises a separate problem which requires a different approach. The measures were agreed after a great deal of discussion among members of the Twelve and represent a considered arid concerted package designed to achieve the results intended.
    Mr. Eastham: Reflecting on the Foreign Office's disappointment at the reaction of the EEC Ministers on the issue of Syria, is it not understandable that the EEC Ministers are disappointed with the representations made by Her Majesty's Government on the question of South Africa? Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the overwhelming feeling of the people of Britain, who are absolutely opposed to apartheid in South Africa?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am totally aware of the overwhelming opinion of the people of Britain and of the European Community, condemning apartheid and requiring it to be replaced as soon as possible. On that point there is no difference in any part of the House. On the matter of representations by the United Kingdom, I
    think that my colleagues in the European Community felt that the mission that we undertook towards southern Africa in July represented a very effective presentation of the case upon which the people of Europe are agreed.
    Mr. Barnett: Does the Foreign Secretary recognize that an increasingly serious situation is developing in southern Africa, involving increasing degrees of disorder, with the tragic death of Samora Machel? Does he not feel that he should now respond to the call made recently by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth for an international brigade to defend the front-line states against intrusion from South Africa? Whey does he not give a lead of that kind in the European Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should like to differentiate between the one bad point and the other good points made by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would be sensible or fruitful for the European Community or anyone else to begin thinking about mobilising an international brigade in these circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the increasing gravity of the situation in South Africa. The death of President Machel, however it was caused, is undoubetedly a matter of the utmost regret in all parts of the House. There is certainly mounting tension in South Africa and it is of the utmost importance for the South African Government to summon up the courage to make the leap of imagination necessary to call together leaders of the African people with a view to replacing apartheid as soon as possible. There is no doubt about that, but I do not think that it would be right to follow the hon. Gentleman in the other part of his question.
    Mr. George Gardiner: When my right hon. and learned Friend next has discussions with his Community colleagues, will he stress to them how utterly counterproductive sanctions and the threat of sanctions are to the reform process in South Africa? Furthermore, will he
    308
    explain to them that constructive discussions between the leaders of all groups to reach an acceptable settlement are far more likely to succeed in the context of an expanding economy than in one in which blacks and Cape coloureds are being thrown out of work?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have often made plain our view that general economic sanctions should not be seen as an end in themselves and that we do not regard them as an effective way of bringing an end to apartheid. On the other hand, we equally join our Community partners in underlining the imperative importance of discussions, such as my hon. Friend urges, between the South African Government, the leaders of the black Africans in South Africa set free from imprisonment, and the political parties set free from bans which prevent them from operating. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that there is no sense in punishing ordinary people here and in South Africa by the imposition of general economic sanctions.
    Mr. Ashby: When discussing South Africa with his colleagues, will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the question of Bophuthatswana and suggest that its position be reconsidered, as it is a multi-racial state which has had a large measure of independence for some 10 years? If the independence of Bophuthatswana is not to be considered, will he consider with his colleagues additional help and aid to that country to improve education and similar facilities within its boundaries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited Bophuthatswana, but I must tell him and other hon. Friends who visited it that, with the best will in the world, it is not possible to regard Bophuthatswana or any of the other so-called independent homelands as having the features of independent states. Our position on Bophuthatswana, as on the other so-called independent homelands, is quite clear.
    Mr. Beith: Why does the Foreign Secretary not discuus with EEC Ministers new measures which would give a clearer signal to South Africa, such as ban on direct air flights from Europe to South Africa, which could help the front-line states if they then took the traffic?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because we do not take the same view about the effectiveness of that measure as the hon. Gentleman and because Community Foreign Ministers have spent many hours of many days of many months arriving at the agreement of September 15 and 16. I have an obligation, as President of the Council of Ministers, to seek a further agreement on the outstanding measure. I have sought consensus on that without success. That is as far as the matter can go.
    Mr. Colvin: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as Britain was responsible for dividing the land of the Tswana people into two at the turn of the century we have a moral obligation to assist its reunification? Does he agree that recognition of the state of Bophuthatswana would be a logical first step towards that very laudable aim?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the legitimate interest that my hon. Friend takes in Bophuthatswana and recognise that there are certain features of it which he and other hon. Friends find it possible to commend. If I remember correctly, however, Bophuthatswana is divided between seven widely scattered chunks—
    Mr. Colvin: Now only six.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: So be it — six. It represents a widely scattered fragmentation of the jigsaw board across what we all used to know as South Africa. It is for that reason, among others, that it has not been recognised as an independent homeland, whatever the efforts made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, in a recent exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), he was asked why Namibia was excluded from the EEC policy decision in respect of South Africa? The Foreign Secretary gave no answer. Can he correct the omission today?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I answered the question a moment ago. With one exception, our European Community partners do not regard Namibia as appropriate for inclusion in the same treatment as South Africa.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most damaging things that has happened recently to the ending of apartheid, and sympathy for that end, was the International Red Cross decision to throw South Africa out of an organisation which is meant to be about healing world wide, whether enemy or ally? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make his views clear and say that that is a most reprehensible action from what used to be a wonderful organisation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know what effect that decision will have on the prospects for securing an end to apartheid in South Africa, but it must be a matter for regret that the normal pattern of universality of the International Red Cross should have been varied in that way. It is equally a matter of regret that it should have led to the response that it received. One of the outstanding features of the International Red Cross for a long time has been its capacity to maintain its presence everywhere, regardless of politics and local circumstances.
    Mr. Faulds: If it is argued that sanctions are unacceptable and ineffective against South Africa, why should they have been deemed necessary against Argentina and now against Syria?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are three different situations there and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, with his perceptiveness, does not acknowledge that. With Argentina there was armed conflict, at the conclusion of which we withdrew the sanctions that we had in place. Argentina has still not withdrawn the sanctions that she has had in place. As for Syria, there has been state abuse of diplomatic immunity and there has been state direction of terrorism. The entire House supported the measures that we took in that respect on Friday. As for South Africa, the problem is one of immense complexity and long standing. It is a matter on which the Government have agreed with our European and Commonwealth partners on taking certain measures designed to give a clear signal to South Africa. The three situations are quite different and I have no doubt about the rightness of our position on each of them.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of a clear signal, but does not all this signalling to South Africa lack precision? South Africans, and some hon. Members, would like to know what exactly
    310
    the South African Government are expected to do before these measures are withdrawn. What stage of the reform process is supposed to be reached? Will my right hon. and learned Friend define the purpose of his diplomacy a little more precisley?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position has been made clear beyond any possible doubt, both in the mission that I undertook and in the mission that the Eminent Persons Group undertook. In each case we were pressing the South African Government to be ready to commence a dialogue with leaders of all groups in South Africa, and to create the climate for that to be possible to release unconditionally Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners, to unban the African National Congress and the other political parties, and to create the circumstances in which all the people of South Africa can make their consent available to constitutional measures acceptable to them all.
    Mr. Healey: Now that the United States, in pursuit of the same objectives as the Foreign Secretary has just described, has decided to impose wide-ranging sanctions against South Africa, which go far beyond the shamefully trivial measures agreed by the Community in September, and especially in the light of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have rightly accepted the principal of punitive sanctions by the measures that they announced against Syria yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary, as President of the Foreign Affairs Council, seek to bring the Community into line with the rest of the civilised world by adopting the same measures as the United States has adopted? Moreover, will he go to the Security Council to seek to make those measures mandatory sanctions under the United Nations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have done that which the President of the Council was required to do in seeking, in two meetings in the past two or three weeks, to promote consensus on the measures agreed on 15 and 16 September. It has not been possible to take consensus further than the measures then agreed, but the Community Foreign Ministers taken as a whole do not see the case for going down the path advocated by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I am sure that the whole House will be glad to welcome this one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman is keen to encourage us to follow the example of the United States.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. McQuarrieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Gibraltar for discussions with the Chief Minister and Members of the House of Assembly.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no plans to visit Gibraltar in the near future, but I naturally consult the Chief Minister and his colleagues at regular intervals.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am well aware that he has discussions with the Chief Minister in London. I am sorry that he cannot find time to go to Gibraltar to have similar discussions not only with the Chief Minister but with Members of the House of Assembly. May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the recent reported remarks by the Prime Minister of Spain, Senor Felipe Gonzalez, that he wants a solution to the Gibraltar

    311
    problem to be reached within four years, and that if that does not happen there will be serious repercussions for the people of Gibraltar? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Spanish Government that the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar is not for trading, and that the preamble to the constitution of Gibraltar will remain so long as the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the central point of my hon. Friend's question, I am not sure that the reports that we have seen of the remarks by the Spanish Prime Minister are necessarily complete, but the substance of his point is contained in those reports. It is right to say that this is not the first occasion on which Spain has mentioned time scales in that context. Our position is quite clear. Our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar remains unchanged. The discussions that are taking place must take place in the context of that commitment. They are not susceptible to handling by the imposition of time scales, nor can their outcome be predetennined, but it is right to say that those discussions are taking place under the Brussels agreement of November 1984 in a friendly and constructive spirit, as is appropriate between two European allies and partners.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the concerns that are being expressed by and on behalf of the small community of workers of Indian origin living in Gibraltar who feel angry that their wives are not being allowed to join them, or are being expelled from the territory or, on some occasions, if their wives are pregnant, are being asked to leave on the ground of some form of immigration control? As we have a responsibility for the territory, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do about that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I propose to look into the facts of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the point that he did not mention in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), which is that the British Government are negotiating firmly on the basis of the Gibraltar constitution which this House approved?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thought that I had made it absolutely plain that our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, which is set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution, remains unchanged. It is most important to understand that the discussions are taking place on that basis.

    South Africa
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Government of South Africa.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As part of my European Presidency mission, I had discussions with South African Ministers in Pretoria in July. I have no present plans for further meetings with representatives of the South African Government although normal Government-to-Government contacts continue.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that his hand was weakened with representatives of the South African Government because of our Government's
    312
    reluctant support for sanctions and acquiescence in the imposition of sanctions when some were belatedly imposed? Does he not agree with the findings of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which said that the deferment of sanctions was one of the reasons why the apartheid system would not be changed?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not agree with that judgment of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, because our view on sanctions is not precisely the same as that of members of that group. I do not think that my hand in presenting to the South African Government the case on which we all agree was weakened. I went there with the backing of a united European Community, the backing of a united Commonwealth, and the backing of the United States Government, on the substance of remedies. One should be dismayed about the fact that, notwithstanding that universal backing and the extent to which it might be thought that I went with some sympathetic understanding of South Africa's problems, the advice that I had to offer was rejected. That is a matter for great regret.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to seek the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, would it not be wrong to make the one conditional on the other? Will he take this opportunity to make it perfectly clear that he believes that any such linkage is a setback to international diplomacy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position has been the same for a number of years. We have joined Commonwealth partners and others in rejecting any formal linkage. However, it is not to be excluded that the two questions might be more readily resolved together rather than separately.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State condemn continued reporting restrictions in South Africa, which suppress so much of the horror that is going on in that country? Will he support the NUJ's appeal to set up an independent news agency in that country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have joined our international partners in deploring the curtailment of press freedom in South Africa. It must be seen as a consequence of the general state of events in that country. We deplore such press restrictions in every part of the world.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not seriously disturbed by the ominous stories coming out, with a news blackout, which may be expanded rumours, suggesting that over 20,000 pople have been detained in South Africa, that many have been brutally beaten up in gaol, and that probably well over 1,000 pople have been killed since the reinforced emergency by the security forces began? I appreciate the difficulties, but will my right hon. and learned Friend consider summoning the ambassador to express our grave concern and anxiety about those trends and ominous rumours coming out, and asking him to give us a factual and logical report of the picture in those disturbed circumstances?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House, together with the international community, has condemned many times the continuance of the state of emergency in South Africa arid some actions and measures taken under it. We have taken a number of opportunities to bring that home to the South African Government. It is one of the features that I brought home very clearly during my visit to South Africa.
    Mr. Winnick: Bearing in mind what the United States Government have decided to do, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out, does the Foreign Secretary have any conception of how humiliating it is for Britain to endorse and see in action what he is doing in relation to South Africa? Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that one has to take sides? One is on the side either of the South African authorities, or of those who fight to liberate the country from the tyranny of apartheid.
    Sir Goffrey Howe: I think that most hon. Members have a different view from that of the hon. Gentleman about relative standards of humiliation. The fact is—I cannot underline this too strongly — that there is no dissent whatsoever between the Government and the Opposition about the unwisdom and evil of apartheid and the need for it to be replaced as quickly as possible. The problem is to find the best way of securing its removal. It is the firmly held view, not just of Her Majesty's Government but of many people in this country and elsewhere, that to go down the road of imposing sanction after sanction is to make the prospects of change less likely. The hon. Gentleman should accept that point without qualification.
    Mr. John Townend: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets representatives of the South African Government, will he make it crystal clear to them at what stage sanctions will be withdrawn if the reform programme continues? Will he make it clear that the British Government do not demand that there should be a one-man one-vote in a unitary state?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not the business of the British Government, or that of any Government, to promote precise prescriptions for the replacement of apartheid in South Africa. We wish to see a non-racial representative Government brought about with the consent of the peoples of South Africa, after a dialogue between Government and representatives of the black people, along the lines I have described so many times.
    Mr. Anderson: In his dealings with the South African Government, has the Foreign Secretary forgotten about Namibia? Now that the Crocker initiative has effectively been abandoned by the United States of America, does the Western contact group exist in anything but name? When did that group last meet for any substantive discussion? Are the Government prepared to allow the Namibian question to drift, or will the Foreign Secretary take a new initiative and ask for sanctions against South Africa? Surely the case for sanctions in relation to Namibia is even stronger than that concerning the internal position in South Africa.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position on Namibia is the same as it has been for some time. We wish, just as the rest of the internal community does, to see a solution of the Namibian question along the lines of resolution 235. It is in that context, as in any other, that we do not believe that sanctions will be an effective way of securing implementation of the resolution. We believe that negotiation still offers the best way of achieving an internationally acceptable solution on the basis agreed by the South African Government. The United Kingdom has maitained a common position of contact with partners in abstaining from recent resolutions calling for sanctions.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. Patchettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Committee for a Free Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): None, Sir.
    Mr. Patchett: In view of the Government's strong antiterrorist position, will the Minister display consistency by making a statement dissociating himself from any person, party or country supporting the Contra terrorists active in Nicaragua?
    Mr. Eggar: With regard to the organisation to which the substantive question referred, it is fundamental to any democratic society that individuals and groups should be allowed to lobby freely on behalf of their political and other aims, provided that their activities remain within the law.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend condemn the censorship which exists in that country? The fact is that civil rights are badly affected in that country, martial law has been imposed and there is a singular lack of freedom. Does my hon. Friend agree that that aspect must be considered?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, certain civil rights were suspended in Nicaragua last October. It is of considerable concern that recently the Opposition Newspaper La Prensa was closed and two bishops were expelled.
    Mr. Corbyn: Has not Nicaragua been in a state of war since the revolution of 1979 due to United States' aggression, and have not thousands of innocent people been murdered by Contra forces financed by the United States? Is not the least that the Minister could do the taking of action to prevent organisations working for the Contra recruiting people from this country to go to Central America to destroy a democratic Government and murder innocent people?
    Mr. Eggar: It is a pity that, after the long recess, the hon. Gentleman remains as clouded by prejudice as usual.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not a matter of concern that the Nicaraguan regime should have been persecuting the Mesquito Indian minority? Will my hon. Friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government condemn that persecution?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course Her Majesty's Government condemn all human rights abuses.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister not taking prevarication to a fine art with the answers that he has given to Labour Members? If the Government are opposed to terrorism, torture, rape and mass murder of innocent peasants, no matter where they are, can he not give a positive answer to the questions that he has been asked? Should not the Government be registering the protest of what is probably the majority of the British people against the mass murders being perpetrated by those being trained by our allies, the United States?
    Mr. Eggar: Her Majesty's Government condemn human rights abuses, wherever they may occur. However, the hon. Gentleman should be prepared to condemn publicly the abuses of civil rights that have happened inside Nicaragua.
    Mr. Foulkes: Let us return to the question. Is the Minister aware that the inaptly named Committee for a Free Nicaragua, which is organising mercenaries to fight alongside the Contra terrorists, is run by an officer of the Federation of Conservative Students, who has privileged access to the House as the research assistant of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)? Why is it that the chairman of the Tory party is able to discipline a Tory student officer who merely upsets Lord Stockton, but refuses to take any action to stop this Tory support for state-sponsored terrorism? Will the Minister now restore some little respect to the Conservative party by dissociating himself and the Government from the actions of the Committee for a Free Nicaragua?
    Mr. Eggar: It is a pity that the hon. Member did not listen to the answer that I gave to the first supplementary question. As he did not, perhaps I should repeat it. It is fundamental to any democratic society that individuals and groups should be allowed to lobby freely on behalf of their political and other aims, provided that the activities remain within the law. I should have thought that Labour Members, above all, would be aware of that. After all, that is what the Knowsley, North Labour party has been doing over the past few days.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not a travesty to suggest that the people of Nicaragua could be freed by gangsterism and banditry supported by the Government of the United States? Should not those with influence in the United States persuade that country to end its support for this activity, and should not those who have influence in Nicaragua be speaking up for human rights in that country?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course there is a role for the United Kingdom, and we are playing it very actively—together with our European partners—in promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Central America. We are working through the Contadora process.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Government of Turkey to discuss the situaton in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend met the Turkish Foreign Minister during the European Community Turkey Association Council meeting in September. He made clear the Twelve's well-known position of support for Senor Perez de Cuellar's efforts to reach a settlement on Cyprus. We continue actively to support the United Nations Secretary-General's initiative there.
    Mr. Gregory: As Britain's ties with Cyprus go back to 1878, and as it is a fellow member of both the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth, will the Government take a lead in the international community in trying to restore the peaceful and sovereign state of Cyprus?
    Mr. Eggar: We do, of course, work very closely with the Secretary-General and we support his initiative. He is determined to carry on with his peace efforts and has repeatedly told us how much he values our assistance.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister remind the Turkish Government that they are part of NATO, which is
    316
    supposed to defend democracy and freedom? Is it not time that they were reminded that they used NATO forces and troops to occupy an area that was not theirs? Is it not also time that our Government got off the fence and told the Turkish Government to get out of Cyprus at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Eggar: We obviously are determined to assist the Secretary-General in his efforts to achieve a peaceful solution within Cyprus — [Interruption.] I wish that Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), would not take such a simplistic approach to what are basically complicated questions.
    Mr. Hickmet: When will my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decide that it is time to stop reciting the formula that the Government support the good efforts of the Secretary-General, because his good offices have failed? The British Government must decide what to do about that. The fact is that the Secretary-General's mission has failed due to the intransigence of Mr. Papandreos and the Greek Government.
    Mr. Eggar: As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary-General met President Kyprianou and Mr. Denktas in New York last month to discuss the initiative. We are hopeful that progress can be made and shall continue to do all that we can to support the Secretary-General. My hon. Friend may not be aware that it was recently announced that the United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Goulding, would be visiting Cyprus soon.
    Mr. Bob Edwards: Is the Minister aware that the treatment of Cyprus is unprecedented? That country, which is a member of the Commonwealth and of the Council of Europe, and whose representative sits on the Council of Ministers, is occupied by a foreign power. Even though it is allied to us through NATO, we contemplate no action to get rid of the Turkish army. That makes agreement in the Community impossible.
    Mr. Eggar: I must make it quite clear once again that we are working hard to ensure a peace settlement in Cyprus. We are working to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, and that must be the best way to proceed.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that as a guarantor power in 1974 we had a duty to intervene in that conflict? Do not the guilty men sit on the Labour Benches, because they refused to take any action then which would have prevented a division of the island?
    Mr. Eggar: I take careful note of my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Freeson: Is not the sticking point in an undoubtedly complicated situation regarding the peace settlement the refusal to accept the early removal of a foreign army from Cyprus? Until it is accepted that that foreign occupying army should be removed at a very early stage in the process, there will be no settlement. What is the Government's position on the removal of a foreign army—the only one in western Europe to be occupying the territory of another country?
    Mr. Eggar: The two sides to the dispute obviously hold different views about the position of troops on the island of Cyprus. Part of the difficulty that the United Nations

    317
    Secretary-General faces in bringing about a peaceful solution is that he has to reach an agreement on the future of the Turkish and other troops on the island.
    Sir Peter Mills: Despite what the Minister has said, we have to redouble our efforts to resolve this problem. Will he bear in mind that there is no question of Turkey entering the Community until this problem is solved? It would help very much if the Minister made representations to the Americans about their aid to Turkey, which really means that they are supporting foreign troops in Cyprus.
    Mr. Eggar: No application has yet been made by Turkey to join the European Community. The priority for Turkey, the United Kingdom and the Community is that the association agreement should be made to work properly.
    Mr. George Robertson: The Minister can see that there is genuine concern in the House about this issue. He says that no formal application for membership of the European Community has been made by Turkey, but reports in today's newspapers suggest that a formal application to join the European Community will be made by Turkey next month. Surely there can be no question of the British Government supporting that application or acquiescing to it so long as foreign troops remain in occupation of the northern part of Cyprus?
    Mr. Eggar: No such application has yet been made. If and when an application is made, these matters will have to be considered, together with many others.

    Argentina
    Mr. Bob Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the past three months towards the normalisation of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have repeatedly demonstrated our desire for more normal relations with Argentina. Regrettably, the Argentine Government still show no willingness to respond to the many initiatives we have taken since 1982.
    Mr. Edwards: That is a very sad reply. It is vital that some encouragement should be given to this new, democratic Government in Argentina. If we can maintain diplomatic relations with Spain, which has a claim on Gibraltar, there should be no difficulty, now that there is a democratic Government in Argentina, about restoring diplomatic relations with that country. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will have another think about that vital question.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact remains that although Argentina now has a democratic Government, about which we have expressed congratulations many times, and a long time ago, the President of Argentina and the Argentine Government have shown no willingness to recognise the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to have their wishes respected. All the initiatives that we have taken towards restoring normal relations have been rebutted by the Argentine Government. We abolished
    318
    financial restrictions. The have done so only to a limited extent. We have proposed the resumption of air links but have received no response. We have lifted trading restrictions but have received no formal response. We allow Argentine vessels into British ports. They ban British vessels from Argentine ports. We have offered to return Argentine dead to their native land but the Argentines insist that they remain on the Falklands to support their claim to sovereignty over the islands. Spain and the United Kingdom are members of the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance, but in terms of Britain and the Argentine we are the country against whom Argentina launched an armed assault four years ago.
    Mr. Dalyell: Following the Gimenez visit, would it not at least be constructive to contact the International Red Cross with a view to visits to the Falklands by Argentine families?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that I heard the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question correctly. We have made a number of suggestions through the Red Cross about our willingness to accept next of kin visits to the Falkland Islands, but we have had no response from the Argentine Government.
    Mr. Crouch: As someone who recently spent nearly two weeks in Buenos Aires, I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that public opinion there is not in any way anti-British. There is strong feeling about just one item, the sovereignty of the Falklands, and it seems to be held largely by Members of Congress and by Ministries and is not in the minds of the general public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind, because underneath Government opinion in the Argentine there is a feeling that they want to re-establish good relations with Britain?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The House will welcome his insight and that of this colleagues following the visit of the IPU delegation to Argentina. There is a great deal in the point that he makes. The United Kingdom has been trying to respond to the feeling he mentions by the suggestions that I have spoken about. We have suggested measure after measure to enable us to begin normalising relations with Argentina. The Argentina Government have repeatedly made it clear that the only matter on which they wish to commence discussions is that of sovereignty. That is at the top of the agenda, but it is the most difficult question and one on which we have made our position clear. That is why it is proving so difficult to bring about what my hon. Friend would like.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: During their discussions with representatives from the Falkland Islands, did Ministers not realise that if the financial terms were right the people of the Falkland Islands would accept resettlement? If they would not accept resettlement, they would certainly accept a change in sovereignty. In so far as some calculations put expenditure on the Falkands in excess of £1,000 million a year, would it not be far more cost-effective to spend money on compensation rather than to squander taxpayers' money in the way that the Government are doing?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will have been somewhat astonished by the grisly spectacle of the hon. Gentleman speaking with such contempt about a matter of this kind. All we are seeking to do is to uphold the

    319
    wishes of the people in the Falkland Islands. They are representatives of a community that lived undisturbed in those islands for more than 150 years until their life was brutally disturbed by the Argentine invasion only four years ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that, as it is now more than four years since the end of the Falklands war, it is regrettable that we do not have direct diplomatic relations with a basically friendly country, as Conservative Members have said? Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of a new Brazilian ambassador coming to London to examine again the possibility of reopening direct diplomatic relations wth Argentina?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The longer the hon. Gentleman addresses himself to this question, the more he understands its difficulties. It is quite right to say that we would like to see the establishment of more normal relations with Argentina, without embarking on negotiations about sovereignty. It is in pursuit of precisely such relations that we have removed the restrictions I have listed. We have removed trade restrictions and have offered to remove all aeronautical restrictions. We have also removed financial restrictions, but to all those measures we have received no response, or less than a complete response from Argentina. The Argentina Government have not indicated their willingness to take the necessary steps down the road that the hon. Gentleman wishes them to take.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus to discuss the continued division of that island.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so. We are in regular contact with the Cyprus Government at the highest level. As I have already made clear, we take every opportunity to urge all the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Secretary-General in the continuing search for a settlement in Cyprus.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that the attitude of the Turkish Government to the efforts of the United Nations has been unhelpful to say the least, especially when, earlier this year, a delegation of leading Turkish politicians and others paid a provocative visit to the Turkish-occupied part of northern Cyprus?
    Mr. Eggar: It is obviously important that all sides and parties to the dispute within Cyprus understand the problems that the other sides face at all times. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows well—I know his long interest in the affairs of Cyprus—it is a highly complex situation and it does nobody any credit to simplify it.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the British Government emphasise to the Turkish Government that the situation in Cyprus is no barrier to the entry of Turkey into the EEC and that the EEC is open to all democratic states in Europe?
    Mr. Eggar: As I have already made clear twice, Turkey has not yet applied for membership of the EC and therefore those considerations have not come into effect.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Minister has so far evaded the question of the Turkish troops in Cyprus. Does not that evasion show that the Government have no views on whether the troops should he removed?
    Mr. Eggar: No. Clearly, the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Republic of Cyprus must form part or a comprehensive settlement.
    Mr. Lawrence: Have further steps been taken to protect the lives of British service men and their families in the sovereign bases following the attack upon Akrotiri by the Abu Nidal terrorists?
    Mr. Eggar: It is by no means clear where that attack came from or which organisation was behind it, but following it the authorities within the sovereign base have taken precautions.

    Australia and New Zealand
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he plans to pay an official visit to Australia and New Zealand.
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to do so during the course of next year. The dates have yet to be agreed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister take this opportunity of defending and applauding the robustly independent attitude of the New Zealand Government in respect of nuclear weapons, and will he at the same time deplore the attempts of the American Government to whip New Zealand into the nuclear line?
    Mr. Eggar: As my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Young said in another place on 19 March, the New Zealand legislation will be a matter of great regret. Defence co-operation is an important part of our bilateral relationship and Royal Navy visits have traditionally formed an integral part of that. If they cannot be resumed, the relationship will he diminished.
    Sir Peter Blaker: As a result of the New Zealand Government's repudiation of the nuclear defence assumptions of its defence pact with the United States, it has, in effect, been kicked out of that pact and no longer enjoys the protection of the United States. Does that not have a moral for those parties in Britain who wish us to repudiate the nuclear deterrence basis on which NATO is founded?
    Mr. Eggar: As usual, my right hon. Friend is right and makes his point well.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister take the opportunity when it arises to commend the Australian Government on their robust attitude to sanctions against South Africa and explain why it is that Her Majesty's Government impose visa restrictions on people who wish to come here from parts of the Commonwealth and none whatever on people who wish to come here from South Africa.
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's latter point is relevant to the question on the Order Paper. It is not for us to comment on the attitude that the Australian authorities and Government may take to relations with South Africa.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us with fairly long memories remember with

    321
    glory the exploits of the New Zealand Division in north Africa during the last war, and are deeply sad that that country has separated itself from the Western alliance? We very much hope that it will soon come back.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the New Zealand people and Government will pay particular attention to my hon. Friend's comments.

    South Africa
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if European Economic Community discussions about joint action against South Africa take place within the framework of political co-operation; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Foreign Ministers of the Twelve discussed South Africa in Political Co-operation on 15 and 16 September and again on 27 October. They will continue to pay close attention to the issue.
    Mr. Deakins: Does not the situation in the Community over South Africa illustrate the confusion that exists in institutional arrangements, which is now being sanctified by the Single European Act? Political co-operation is supposed to be separate from the rest of the EEC's activities, yet the absurd and limited sanctions against South Africa have had to be imposed by Trade Ministers. Does that not illustrate the confusion underlying the Government's approach on this issue?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that it illustrates no such thing, save the hon. Gentleman's ignorance of the facts. The decisions on the measures against South Africa were taken by Community Ministers meeting in political co-operation, but the implementation of the measures was agreed at meetings of the Council on Monday, because the trade measures had to be taken by a regulation at that Council. Those measures were agreed not by Trade Ministers but by Foreign Ministers meeting in the General Affairs Council. The purpose and effect of the Single European Act is to bring closer together the working of those various institutions.
    Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him yesterday? Is it the Government's view that it is the responsibility of the Community as such to ensure compliance with the decisions of the European Council on sanctions against South Africa?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question depends on the precise instrument under which the particular sanctions are imposed—
    Mr. Healey: Answer the question.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will do so if the right hon. Gentleman gives me a chance. For example, action on coins has been taken under a regulation agreed on Monday, in line with decisions already taken and announced in the House by this Government. The decision on a ban on investment was taken by representatives of member states meeting on Monday, and will be enforced by member states according to their specific requirements.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to do with questions. I do not wish to raise either the fact that no Opposition Member was called who supports the Turkish-Cypriot case or that no hon. Member was called who argues that Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the Falklands is valid. What I want to raise is whether it is not ridiculous that we have an hour of Foreign Affairs questions in which not a single reference to the breaking of diplomatic relations with Syria can be made. Is it not necessary that the relevant authorities should examine the advisability of leaving a five-minute gap in the hour for Foreign Affairs questions so that emergency, last-minute questions could be put in? We could then have an opportunity to discuss the fact that the breaking of relations with Syria was not done on the judgment of the Foreign Office but on the diktat of No. 10.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be an interesting suggestion to put to the Procedure Committee. However, I was glad that I was able to call the hon. Gentleman on question No. 1.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), as you will recall that yesterday you cut short a statement by the Foreign Secretary—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not cut short statements.
    Mr. Banks: You said so.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not. I said that today I would bear in mind those who were not called yesterday. That is exactly what I have done.
    Mr. Banks: No, you did not, Sir.
    Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I said that he should put his interesting suggestion to the Procedure Committee.

South Atlantic Fisheries
3.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, I should like to make a statement on South Atlantic fisheries.
The Government are today taking steps to establish a Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone. It will be generally of 150 miles radius from the Falkland Islands. At the same time we are declaring the entitlement of the Falklands, under international law, to a fisheries limit of 200 miles, subject to delimitation with Argentina. We are also confirming our rights to jurisdiction over the continental shelf up to the limits prescribed by the rules of international law.
The necessary legislative measures will be introduced shortly in the Falkland Islands. Our action is taken in agreement with the Governor and his Executive Council. We are informing the fishing nations, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, our allies and partners, the European Commission, the United Nations and other Governments concerned, including Argentina. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
The House will know that the rapid increase in fishing in the south-west Atlantic, with its serious impact on fish stocks there, has aroused widespread concern. The Government share that concern and have been active in trying to meet it.
From the outset, the Government took the view that the problem would best be solved on a collaborative basis. Accordingly, as a result of a British initiative in March 1985, a study was launched last November at the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We gave it every support. We saw this as the first step to agreeing multilateral conservation and management arrangements under FAO auspices. In public, and directly to the Argentine Government, I made clear our view that a solution without prejudice to our respective positions on sovereignty could and should be found. However, some fishing nations have not co-operated fully with the FAO study, and its preparation has been delayed.
Pending completion of the study, we took steps to reduce by voluntary means the impact of the fishing effort in the 1986 season. We had hoped to extend these voluntary arrangements into 1987.
Argentina has pursued a different course, and her actions have undermined the multilateral approach. In particular, Argentina has embarkd on aggressive patrolling more than 200 miles from Patagonia and within 200 miles of the Falklands. Unlawful use of force by Argentina led in one case to loss of life and the sinking of a vessel. Argentina has concluded bilateral fisheries agreements with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. Through these agreements Argentina purports to exercise jurisdiction that is a matter of international law the entitlement of the Falkland Islands. These agreements are incompatible with the multilateral initiative.
In sum, the Argentine Government's recent actions show an indifference to conservation needs and a preference for obstruction rather then co-operation. The Government are determined that there should be adequate protection for the fishery. In view of the failure of Argentina to co-operate in a multilateral approach, we have therefore decided to establish unilaterally a
324
conservation and management regime. We remain, however, ready to work for a multilateral arrangement, which would still be our preference, just as soon as that can be achieved. I have made this clear to the Argentine Foreign Minister and suggested to him that we should review how Britain and Argentina can co-operate to support conservation on a regional basis.
The legislation to be introduced by the Falkland Islands Government will take effect from 1 February 1987. Its aim will be to preserve the viability of the fishery. Fishing within the conservation zone will he licensed by the Falkland Islands Government. Licensing will reflect conservation needs. The Falkland Islands Government will use its own civilian fisheries protection vessels and a surveillance aircraft.
Revenue and costs will be for the Falkland Islands Government. The conservation zone for most of its circumference will be co-extensive with the protection zone. Our forces stationed at the Falklands will continue to deter Argentine aggression and maintain the integrity of the protection zone.
Mr. Denis Healey: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that he has made a very serious statement which embeds Her Majesty's Government still deeper in the quagmire of the Falklands commitment. He knows that his announcement is bound to make negotiations with Argentina more difficult and to reduce still further the minuscule minority of Governments in the United Nations who support the British position on this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just announced the unilateral imposition of a fishing zone around the Falklands, which is something that he told the House last year was not justified. In his statement to the House on 14 March 1985 he explicitly supported the Select Commitee for drawing attention to the "political and practical problems" of policing such a zone when it comprises some 70,000 square miles of ocean, in part overlapping a zone already established by Argentina. He has dumped the responsibility for policing such a zone on the population of the Falklands, which is half that of the average parish in the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard the Falklands Government as being free to use force in imposing this unilateral decision against any fishing vessel which may, without agreement, fish in the zone?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that 18 months ago it was still our view that we should strive to achieve a multilateral agreement on this matter. It is for that reason that we have striven so hard to do so and why it was only after the lapse of that time and in face of the actions of the Government of Argentina, that I have listed, that we reached the conclusion that a unilateral regime has to be imposed at this time. As I said in the statement, we remain ready and willing to achieve a multilateral regime as soon as possible. It must be the Government of Argentina who take the steps to make that possible. They have failed to do so thus far.
There is no question of Her Majesty's Government embedding themselves deeper in a quagmire, which was the graphic phrase chosen by the right hon. Gentleman. We are asserting, as is necessary, the maintenance of our sovereignty, the preservation of fish stocks in the south Atlantic and the jurisdiction we are entitled and obliged

325
to exercise. The policing of the fisheries conservation zone will be undertaken by civilian surveillance aircraft and fisheries protection vessels of the Falklands Government. That will be comparable to the division made in United Kingdom waters. It is open to Her Majesty's Government to use armed forces in appropriate circumstances in the waters around the Falkland Islands, as well as in waters elsewhere within our jurisdiction.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he will receive the wholehearted support of the Conservative Benches for the decisive action that he has taken and that we, at any rate, will reject the surly and weak-kneed reaction of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? Is it not perfectly clear that, if the Government had not been prepared to take such decisive action now, there would have been lasting and serious damage to the fishery stocks of the south Atlantic, with harm not only to the Falkland Islanders but to a much wider range of countries as well?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend. He is precisely right in his diagnosis of what would have happened had we not taken the action which he commends.
Dr. David Owen: On the grounds of fishing and fish stock conservation alone, I believe that the statement was fully justified. However, was it naval grounds which made the Foreign Secretary limit it to 150 miles, which seems prudent? Will the Foreign Secretary now say to the Government of Argentina that, although he is not ready to consider a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina, he is ready to discuss other alternatives such as pooling sovereignty and a possible transfer of sovereignty to the Security Council of the United Nations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's first comment. The decision on the precise extent of the zone depends, among other things, on what is practical and sensible to set out in the circumstances within the maximum 200 miles that we could have claimed. Sovereignty remains a matter which is not for negotiation. It is not possible to contemplate moving in that direction when one realises the total reluctance of the Government of Argentina to take even the most elementary steps towards normalising relations along the lines we have so often described.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: The long delay in coming to a decision has been harmful to fish stocks. Is it not yet another illustration of the impossibility of coming to an agreement about anything with the present Government of Argentina? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Falklands Government have enough resources to police the area?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the basis of the decision on which the Falkland Islands Government will be provided with the resources that I have mentioned, with the availability of Her Majesty's forces at the Falklands to maintain the security and integrity of the protection zone.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, if his statement is to be in any way meaningful to the British fishing industry, the owners of the much depleted distant-water fleets will have
326
to convince their bankers that the new regime that he has announced will be secure and will stop the depletion of stocks? Is he further aware of the desperate financial plight of the distant-water sector of the fishing industry? Finally, does he believe that what he has said today will provide sufficient confidence to create the level of bank lending necessary?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those practical questions. He will recollect that some companies already have joint ventures with some of the far eastern fishing fleets and that other joint ventures are under discussion. The number of British vessels among those already fishing around the Falklands is a small proportion of the total. We hope that the establishment of this conservation zone will offer scope for the expansion of British fishing efforts in those waters because within the framework of the conservation regime, first priority will be given to vessels connected with the Falklands. We hope that the British element will grow rapidly. We believe that the arrangements that we have made will be adequate for the protection of the zone with the support of Her Majesty's forces in appropriate circumstances.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by our fellow citizens in the Falkland Islands and every member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Falkland Islands group in this House? What estimate has been made of the additional revenue to the Falkland Islands from the licensing arrangements? Are additional facilities expected in Port Stanley for the revictualling or refuelling of ships which will use the port as a result of the agreement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The revenue will depend on the number of licences applied for and issued. We expect the revenue to make a useful addition to that of the Falkland Islands Government, taking account of their present financial circumstances. The facilities on the islands will be considered in the light of the scale of demand that develops.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Foreign Secretary concede that much of the difficulty could have been obviated if the Government had shown more enthusiasm for the third United Nations convention on the law of the sea? How does this particular proposal stand in relation to that convention? The Foreign Secretary mentioned the division of the continental shelf. How does he propose to have the Falkland Islands Government negotiate median lines with neighbouring states, including Argentina?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the law of the sea, the 200-mile zone, within which the fishery conservation zone is being established, does not depend on the convention. That has been accepted by the International Court of Justice. On the continental shelf and the question of delimitation on the south-western side, facing Argentina, we have taken account of the need for delimitation in the precise border of the zone that we have established. Beyond that it would be a matter for negotiation, which we hope can take place.
Sir Anthony Buck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by most of us—at least by those of us who have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands?

327
Will he say a little more about the enforcement of the arrangements? It seems hard that the burden should fall in the way he describes. Might it not be necessary for there to be further Royal Navy or Royal Air Force deployment there to assist with the enforcement of these arrangements?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, Sir. The position is the same as in every other area where fishery rights are being protected. The function of fisheries protection is undertaken by the fisheries protection resources, which will consist of civilian Falkland Islands Government fisheries officers with a surveillance aircraft and two fisheries protection vessels. That is comparable to provision in United Kingdom waters and should be adequate for the purposes. If there were a need for further support, as everywhere else, it is open to the Government to use armed forces in appropriate circumstances. The tasks of the existing garrison will continue to be to deter Argentine aggression and to maintain the integrity of the Falkland Islands protection zone.
Mr. Mark Hughes: I should like to follow precisely that point. Are the resources for the Falkland Islands Government in manpower and ships other than utterly inadequate to deal with the size of Russian, Japanese and other machinery there? Is it not completely erroneous to believe that they can cope without bringing the British military presence into direct confrontation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, if the matter is handled normally, as it is in other parts of the world. The scale of the fishery protection resources available is believed to be adequate, and comparable to provisions made in United Kingdom waters. Beyond that, the resources of the garrison remain available to deter Argentine aggression and to maintain the integrity of the protection zone.
Mr. David Crouch: The Government have shown great patience in trying to get a multilateral agreement on this important matter. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that it will exacerbate relations between our two Governments. The Argentine Government, I might remind my right hon. and learned Friend, had already made separate fishing agreements with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. I believe that they feel that it is strange that we have not done anything to conserve fish, but now we are doing something.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One factor that we took into account was the fact that Argentina had been making agreements of this kind with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, purporting to exercise jurisdiction—as a matter of international law, however, it is the entitlement of the Falkland Islands — and making agreements that were incompatible with the multilateral initiative. Because of that, we felt obliged to take this measure unilaterally. We remain anxious to secure a multilateral conclusion if that is possible.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Was it not impossible to secure agreement with Argentina on this issue as long as the British Government refused even to discuss sovereignty with them? That being so, would it not have been better to listen to the pleas of the fishing industry much earlier, to take temporary action of this
328
kind before the East European trawlers came in to scoop the pool, and to get on with the job of improving Britain's diplomatic relations with Argentina?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that I detect a certain difference of emphasis on this between the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. partner on the Front bench, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We have been trying, since we took our initiative at the beginning of last year, to establish a multilateral fishery conservation regime, but that has proved impossible. Argentina has taken the actions that I have mentioned, which make it even more difficult to achieve. In those circumstances, to suggest that it would be easier to negotiate about sovereignty than about this single practical thing seems absurd.
Mr. John Townend: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this decision and observe that it is better late than never? To what extent will there be increased opportunities for the British deep-sea fishing industry in that the Government could negotiate rights for foreign vessels to fish in Falklands waters in return for increased opportunities for British vessels to fish in other countries' waters?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That question extends national ambitions in a sensible fashion, which should be taken account of. The key is that we have created a framework which existing joint ventures between British fishing vessels and others in Falklands waters can begin to expand. That may create other opportunities.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the interests of conserving these valuable stocks, a decision was certainly needed. I argued some two years ago in an article in the Glasgow Herald that we needed a bilateral fisheries agreement between Britain and Argentina in the hope that it would diminish hostility between the two. Anyone with a knowledge of the fishing industry and of the fisheries protection service knows that a fisheries protection service cannot be introduced in circumstances such as these overnight. It is a complicated business.
Bearing in mind the difficulties associated with policing fishing activities, do the Government intend to transfer one or two unarmed fisheries protection vessels from the United Kingdom fleet to help the Falklanders manage the stocks?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful that the decision to establish a conservation regime is in line with the advice offered by the hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage, and I am glad that he endorses—
Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend wanted a bilateral agreement with Agrentina.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) must contain himself.
I am also glad to respond to the advice of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the desirability of achieving, if possible, a bilateral-multilateral regime. It is for that reason that we have striven for so long to do it. It is for that reason, as I have said, that we remain ready to work for a multilateral arrangement, which would still be our preference. I have

329
made that clear to the Argentine Government. In the absence of that, we have to take this action, as I think the hon. Gentleman recognises. Fisheries protection vessels will be in place by the time the zone comes into effect on 1 February 1987. That is why I gave that as the date of commencement. The necessary support from armed forces, if it became necessary, would come from the present garrison at the Falklands.
Mr. Keith Speed: Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, I must point out to him that two small civilian craft and a light aircraft are unlikely to be able to provide proper enforcement. Is he aware that earlier this year the Argentines carried out an armed attack upon a Taiwanese trawler, resulting in loss of life, and that it is hopeless to try to compare the threat in United Kingdom waters with a threat in the south Atlantic? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at enforcement again? We need to have the Royal Navy in visible back-up to the civilian craft.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am fully aware of the facts pointed out by my hon. Friend. The attack to which he refers was a matter that I identified as one of the reasons why it was necessary to take the action. What I am saying—it is perfectly plain — is that, for fisheries protection purposes, the resources that I have described should be adequate and are comparable to those that are normally necessary. But, of course, it will be the task of the garrison to continue to deter Argentine aggression and to continue to maintain the integrity of the protection zone, which is substantially co-extensive with the conservation zone.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I think that the decision will be welcomed by both the fishing industry and the Falkland Islands because the waters were being overfished, and without the certainty of limits and help in investment, it is unlikely that the British fishing industry would participate in developing the stocks there. But at the same time is not the Foreign Secretary wrong to place the entire burden of enforcing the regime on the pathetic resources available to the Falkland Islands? Up to now, his argument has been that we should not impose fishing limits because of the certainty that they would be defied and the difficulty of enforcing them. In placing that burden on the Falkland Islands now, is he not really showing the courage of his own lack of convictions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand precisely what the position is. We refrained from taking the action until now because we believed, as I think the whole House would wish us to, that it was better to try to achieve a multilateral regime if possible. We initiated that through the Food and Agricultural Organisation and have been working to that end. Unfortunately, for the reasons that I have given, that has not proved possible, so we are taking this decision to put the unilateral regime in place. I repeat: the regime depends on two components — first, upon the establishment of the normal fisheries protection resources that I have described, and in addition upon the availability around the Falkland Islands, as would be necessary anywhere else, of Her Majesty's armed forces, with the customary task of protecting the integrity of the protection zone and deterring Argentine aggression. It is for those reasons that the forces are on the islands, and for no other purpose.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Argentine Government had negotiated on that point as on other points that he mentioned at Question Time, there would have been no need for us to take the action, and that the only reason why we have had to do so is the refusal by the Argentine Government to negotiate and come to an agreement? In that case, it happens to be the Argentine Government's fault that the Government have had to take the action: their hand has been forced.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am entirely grateful to my hon. Friend. He made precisely the point that I made in my statement. It was for the reason that he gave that we have taken the decision to establish the unilateral regime. I repeat: we should have preferred to achieve a multilateral regime. That remains our long-term preference.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be an important debate and a ten-minute Bill after this. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes, and then we must move on.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we all understand why he has come to the Dispatch Box today—for a bit of electioneering and flag-waving, trying to give the British people the impression that the Government will take on the Argies again without any fishing protection vessels 8,000 miles away? It will not go unnoticed in the coastal and fishery areas of Britain that, while the Tory Government can suggest a 150-mile exclusion zone around the Falklands to protect fish stocks, they cannot do so for British fishermen around here. That will be the response of British fishermen. They will see the measure for what it is worth —a load of hypocrisy.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman speaks for a large number of constituencies, but I have not heard him speak with great credibility on behalf of the fishermen of England. Within the framework of the common fisheries policy, we have established a perfectly effective regime for the protection of British fishing interests in the waters around Britain and around the European Community.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: After waiting so long, would it not have been prudent to wait for a chance to read and study the FAO report? Is not the reality that the Royal Navy has been given an unwelcome burden in the north Atlantic when it is over-stretched? Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many serious commentators will see that what we have gained in fish stocks we have lost in attempting a realistic long-term policy on the problems of the south Atlantic?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish the matter were as simple and benign as my hon. Friend suggest. It is necessary, for the reasons I have outlined and in response to the performance of the Argentine Government, to take action to establish a unilateral regime after a long and patient attempt to establish a multilateral alternative. It would not have been possible to go on waiting for that to emerge from the work of the FAO because the appearance of the first draft of the report is not expected until at least the end of this year. It is important to take action from the beginning of the next fishery season at the beginning of February.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the questions that I asked his

331
Department in July this year about the high mortality rate of rock hopper penguins in the Falkland Islands? One of the reasons advanced for the high mortality rate was over fishing around the Falkland Islands. Was concern for rock hopper penguins considered by the Foreign Secretary when he made his announcement? Can he tell the House what has been discovered by the Government about the cause of death among rock hoppers in the Falklands? Is he not aware that rock hoppers will be grateful to him for his statement today—the live ones, of course?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that among the many factors leading us to take the decision, those that were not the most important were his own interests and the impact of puffinosis on penguins in the south Atlantic. Several thousand penguins, out of a population of about 4 million birds, are thought to have died from the effects of a seabird disease known as puffinosis. It is no doubt because of the hon. Gentleman's passionate interest in the subject that I am able to give him the additional information that tests at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary centre in Norwich showed unusually high concentrations of lead in the birds' tissues. Further research will he undertaken next year. But that interesting information had nothing to do with the motivation of today's decision.
Mr. Bowen Wells: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I was the only member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to vote in favour of the establishment of the fisheries zone, so I welcome his action. Can he really tell me that he has made no estimate, as he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), as to the revenue and the costs to the Falkland Islands? I trust that the revenue exceeds the costs.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the broad basis on which the matter has been undertaken. Obviously, it is not possible to identify precisely, in advance, what the revenue will be. That depends on the number of licences that are issued. There is an expectation that the costs should be kept as low as possible. The costs should not exceed the licence revenue. It is no doubt on that same prudent premise that my hon. Friend voted so long ago for the measure that we have been wise enough to take today.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that what he has said so far about the costs of this exercise has been vague in the extreme? What consultations have taken place with the Falkland Islands Government? Has the Foreign Secretary given the Falkland Islands Government a blank cheque that, whatever happens, British conventional troops are at hand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decision to proceed to the unilateral regime has been discussed with the Falkland Islands Government, including the cost of implementation and policing, revenue as well as costs, and has led to the expectation that I have identified. The fisheries protection vessels will be the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government. The defence of the integrity of the Falkland Islands protection zone will remain the responsibility of the forces in place in the Falklands at present.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us who talked to
332
Argentine parliamentarians recently in Buenos Aires made the point that the Government's action on Argentina is asserting sovereignty in the matter of Bulgaria and Russian agreements was bound to bring a response? Will he take this opportunity of responding to those Argentine parliamentarians who argue that the exclusion zone arid some agreements in future on ending the state of hostilities should be treated as separate matters?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is probably prudent to treat all the various sources of conflict and argument separately from one another, with a view to seeing whether we can resolve any or other of them. I am quite glad to acknowledge that some people in Argentina realise the extent to which the actions of their Government made today's decision inevitable.
Mr. Eric Deakins: How can we avoid an escalation of this dispute into another cod war'?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: By a sensible response on the part of the Argentine Government. If they were willing to respond to the moves that we have been pressing ahead with for some months and agreed to the establishment of a multilateral zone, which we regard as far preferable, there would be no question of such a risk arising.
Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, when the fishing licences for far eastern fishing nations are considered, there will be no unfair discrimination against the Taiwanese squid fishermen who have been more diligent in respecting the conservation requirements of the area than many other fishermen from the same part of the world?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that I can begin, at this stage, to draw up policy guidelines in that much detail. I should like to take account of the way in which such behaviour has taken place in the past.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's policy will be seen as an act of aggression by the Soviet Union? Is he aware that the Falkland Islanders will not be able to police those waters; that the Soviet Union, which took out nearly 400,000 tonnes of fish down there last year, will not accept that Britain has the right to impose such restrictions; and that it will drive a coach and horses through the policies that the Government have set on course for a whiting war in the south Atlantic within 12 months? Is that what the Government want?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware that this exchange would not have been complete without the addition of the hon. Gentleman's uniquely misguided insight.
Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the enormous resources that have been removed from the area over recent years by Eastern bloc, Japanese and Taiwanese fishermen, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, because we have the wherewithal to provide the necessary policing that clearly will be required, it will be of any benefit to the British taxpayer?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As to the position of the British taxpayer, as I have said, the responsibility for fisheries protection will be that of the Falkland Islands Government. It is hoped and expected that the cost will not exceed the licence revenue that is forthcoming. The cost of Her Majesty's forces in the neighbourhood remains

333
unchanged. They remain available as heretofore to maintain the integrity of the protection zone alongside which the borders of the conservation zone largely will march.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Since the Falklands remains a colony, is parliamentary sanction needed for the changes in Falklands law that this statement implies? Will the Foreign Secretary place in the Library a list of the intrusions into the fishing zone so that we may know exactly what will happen? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise how warmly one can welcome the evidence that in this case, as in the case of his response to the Hindawi verdict, the smack of firm government is back in fashion in the Foreign Office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am more than content to acknowledge the tribute paid by my hon. Friend in the spirit in which it was intended. The necessary legislative measures will be introduced in the Falkland islands. Copies of the declaration which underlie this statement have been placed in the Library. I shall consider whether it is possible to provide the additional information my hon. Friend has requested.
Mr. Foulkes: With respect, will the Foreign Secretary now answer the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Specifically, what discussions took place with representatives of the Soviet Union before this announcement was made? Since the Soviet Union does not accept British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and has concluded a bilateral fishing agreement with Argentina, what does the Foreign Secretary expect will happen if a Soviet Union fishing fleet were to move into the 150-mile zone?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This matter has been raised several times with the Soviet Union. Representatives of the Soviet Union have stated their intention to conduct themselves in a fashion that is not inconsistent with British claims in the area. Doubt about the interpretation and significance of the agreements entered into between the Soviet Union and Argentina and the likely intention of Argentina in that respect have led us to conclude that we need to act unilaterally to achieve the objective on which the whole House is agreed.

Availability for Work (Minister's Statement)
4.12 pm
Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the statement yesterday by the Paymaster General about the availability for work test. In reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), he informed the House:
"The questionnaire will be used for only new claimants who apply for benefit."—[Official Report, 28 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 183.]
That statement is not correct, as it has become clear that the questionnaire is being applied to a selected group of disabled unemployed claimants and others over 50 years of age who have been unemployed for more than 12 months and are required to report to the Department every three months. More than 100 of those claimants have already been suspended from benefit after application of the questionnaire.
This morning, I contacted the Department of Employment about this matter and was referred to a number of answers to questions which, it was said, informed the House of this policy. Those answers do not inform the House of that policy. Therefore, the House has been misled by the statement. I request the Paymaster General to make a statement to the House to correct it.
The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I checked what I said to the House yesterday and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the other place. I am satisfied that we gave a wholly accurate description of the nationwide scheme we are introducing to improve the tests for availability for work. In a limited number of locations—about six towns—experiments involving quarterly attendance of which we notified the Members of Parliament representing those towns and about which we have answered questions in the House, have been taking place. Those experiments are about to end. They have included the use of this form. We will evaluate those tests. These are part of a number of pilot tests that we run from time to time.
If, in the light of our evaluation, we decide that we want to introduce any further changes to the system, we will come back to the House with them. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), by himself and others yesterday and at the answers, I am satisfied he will find that we gave a wholly accurate description.
I had it in mind yesterday that we were taking on 1,400 people at a cost of £14 million. It is actually 1,400 people at a cost of £16 million. I have already written to the hon. Gentleman this morning to correct that. I shall be answering questions on that. Other than that, he is wrong to suggest that I misled the House. Yesterday, I gave a totally full description of the changes that we are making.

No-Smoking Areas in Public Houses
4.15 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public houses and all other premises licensed for the sale of alcohol to provide a no-smoking area of not less than forty per cent. of the area available to the public.
This small Bill is suitable for the fag-end of a Parliament, one might say. It is encouraging to see the size of the distinguished turnout to welcome it today. Anyone who watched "Yes, Prime Minister" last night will have seen a programme which, in jest but also in all seriousness, showed the difficulty of introducing anti-smoking legislation, bearing in mind vested interests, electoral consequences, loss of taxation revenue and other issues. Nevertheless, we have to take notice of the recent book, "The Big Kill" presented by the Health Education Council of the British Medical Association.
In my constituency, 161 people died last year from smoking-related diseases—heart attacks, lung cancer or emphysema. Smoking was the cause of one in seven deaths. Every day, nine beds in Bassetlaw hospital are occupied predominantly by smokers. This costs the National Health Service well over £500,000 in that constituency. Every year, 200,000 people die from smoking-related diseases.
This small Bill has been introduced because pubs are the last public area of leisure, travel or activity which do not have no-smoking areas for those people who prefer to breathe clean air. In our trains, planes, buses, theatres, London tubes, shops and cinemas, those members of the public who do not want to smoke are well catered for and have the choice of moving from smokers. That does not happen in pubs.
A Department of Health and Social Security survey in June 1973 showed that 79 per cent. of non-smokers would prefer a no-smoking area in restaurants or pubs; 71 per cent. of ex-smokers would prefer such an area; and 43 per cent. of smokers would like non-smokers to be catered for. Yet, of all the pubs I have visited—it must have totalled many over the years—I know of only one, the Fat Cat, in Elmer street, Sheffield, which has a no-smoking room, where there is usually a larger attendance than on the smoking side.
Every summer, thousands of customers sit outside the pub because they prefer to sit in the fresh air rather than in the smoke-filled interior. Customers regularly vote with their feet. They buy their beer at the supermarket and drink it at home rather than put up with pollution in the pub. If a pub customer tries to open a window or keep a door open, as I have done, he quickly finds himself evicted.
This is not an attempt to ban smoking; it is merely a Bill to segregate smokers. [Interruption.] It provides for voluntary segregation so that non-smokers have the right to sit in a part of the pub where they can eat their steak and kidney pies and drink their beer without having the air contaminated by nicotine. It is an attempt to make smokers realise that smoking can be as anti-social as spitting used to be, or belching is now, or any of the other unfortunate habits which have, thankfully, died out. A recent MORI poll found that eight out of 10 people agreed that there was a need for a special area at work so that non-smokers could at least get some relief from working with people constantly polluting the atmosphere. Pub staff breathe in smoke all day with no respite.
336
The Bill is not an attempt to ban smoking. It is an attempt to prod the brewers into providing non-smoking sections in their premises such as those provided by British Rail and British Airways, so that people using these facilities have a choice. At present they have no choice.
There is no legislation that says that there should be no-smoking areas on trains, undergrounds or planes, but once owners of the organisations in such sectors introduce no-smoking area, they quickly become acceptable. I am certain that, if the brewers realised that there is a demand for no-smoking areas in pubs, the last major leisure activity in this country that does not have them would be happy to introduce them voluntarily.
4.20 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill is one of the worst examples of nanny state Socialism for a long time. Its paternalism is surpassed only by the proposals made by the head of Sweden's national welfare board last month for legislation forcing bars to introduce one or two alcohol-free evenings each week. Conservative Members, as they believe in reducing Government regulations and control over industry and individuals,should have no problem in defeating this ridiculous measure.
The Bill is unnecessary. If there is a demand for no-smoking bars, sooner or later market forces will satisfy such a demand. Examples such as The Lamb in the City of London, or the Maltman in Glasgow prove that legislation is unnecessary and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has conceded, there is no legislation that requires British Rail or British Airways to create separate smoking and no-smoking zones. Secondly, more pubs are installing sophisticated air cleaning systems that remove 99 per cent. of tobacco smoke and indoor pollutants. One manufacturer provides pubs with "clean air pub" stickers for those establishments that install such air cleaners, and the solution is surely ventilation and not legislation.
The hon. Member's proposal would be unpopular as well as unnecessary. He quoted a MORI poll, and I shall quote a Harris poll which shows that only 18 per cent. of a sample believe that the subject of the Bill should be a matter for central Government. It is unnecessary and unpopular, and could be unworkable. Would we have smoking prevention officers, presumably paid at taxpayers' expense?
The main case for restricting smoking in public places —passive smoking—now appears to be unfounded, as a research paper published in the Cancer Research Campaign's journal this summer said. The cancer researchers concluded:
"Our findings appear consistent with the general view, based on all the available evidence, that any effect of passive smoking on risk of lung cancer or other smoking associated diseases is at most quite small, if it exists at all."
Commenting on the controversy that this article aroused, the epidemiologists Professor Doll and Professor Peto described the evidence as "equivocal", the risks as "trivial" and the passive smoking case for further restriction on smoking in public places as a "matter of personal opinion". Anti-smoking campaigners have rallied support for the Bill because it provides them with yet another opportunity to make the nation's 17 million smokers feel guilty and defensive about their habit.
Parliament should tell these people that smoking, like eating and drinking, are matters of personal life style and

337
it would be almost as offensive to introduce legislation compelling pub landlords to provide smoking areas as it is to enforce no-smoking areas. The hon. Member and his colleagues were quick to reprimand my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security for telling people in the north what to do. The hon. Member and his colleagues will have to answer more to the people in the north for what he is trying to impose on them than anything that my hon. Friend has done. I ask the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 90.

Division No. 301]

[4.24 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Home Robertson, John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ashton, Joe

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Kennedy, Charles

Barron, Kevin

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Lamond, James

Beith, A. J.

Latham, Michael

Best, Keith

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Loyden, Edward

Bidwell, Sydney

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Bruce, Malcolm

McNamara, Kevin

Buchan, Norman

Marek, Dr John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Marland, Paul

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Maxton, John

Clarke, Thomas

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michie, William

Coleman, Donald

Mikardo, Ian

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Corbett, Robin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dalyell, Tam

O'Brien, William

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Deakins, Eric

Radice, Giles

Dixon, Donald

Raffan, Keith

Dobson, Frank

Randall, Stuart

Dormand, Jack

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Douglas, Dick

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Dubs, Alfred

Robertson, George

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Rogers, Allan

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Fatchett, Derek

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Faulds, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Sheerman, Barry

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Fisher, Mark

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Foster, Derek

Sims, Roger

Foulkes, George

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Godman, Dr Norman

Steel, Rt Hon David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Strang, Gavin

Gould, Bryan

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Wainwright, R.

Hanley, Jeremy

Wareing, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Wigley, Dafydd

Hayes, J.

Wilkinson, John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

338

Winnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and

Mr. Roland Boyes.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Lester, Jim

Alexander, Richard

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Ashdown, Paddy

Lilley, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Lord, Michael

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

McCrindle, Robert

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Maclean, David John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Blackburn, John

McQuarrie, Albert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Madden, Max

Brinton, Tim

Mallon, Seamus

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Monro, Sir Hector

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Buck, Sir Antony

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Budgen, Nick

Ottaway, Richard

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Patchett, Terry

Chapman, Sydney

Pawsey, James

Cockeram, Eric

Pollock, Alexander

Crowther, Stan

Powley, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Proctor, K. Harvey

Dykes, Hugh

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Emery, Sir Peter

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Fallon, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Farr, Sir John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Forrester, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Speed, Keith

Fox, Sir Marcus

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Gale, Roger

Stern, Michael

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Gorst, John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Gow, Ian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gower, Sir Raymond

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Greenway, Harry

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Waller, Gary

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Walters, Dennis

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Watts, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Whitfield, John

Hickmet, Richard

Whitney, Raymond

Hind, Kenneth

Wiggin, Jerry

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Winterton, Nicholas

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Wood, Timothy

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Tellers for the Noes:

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Mr. Rob Hayward and

Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Frank Dobson, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Jerry Hayes and Mr. Andrew MacKay

No-Smoking Areas in Public Houses
  No-SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC HOUSES
  Mr. Joe Aston accordingly presented a Bill to require public houses and all other premises licensed for the sale of alcohol to provide a no-smoking area of not less than forty per cent. of the area available to the public: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

Westland plc
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Defence I must announce that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate, including no fewer than seven Privy Councillors. I therefore propose to apply the 10 minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
4.34 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The trigger for our debate today is, of course, the Government's reply, published in one Command Paper, to the third and fourth reports from the Select Committee on Defence. I will come back to the fourth report, but I propose to concentrate first on the third report and that part of the Government's reply which dealt with the matters discussed in the third report. The third report takes as its subject a matter with which we should all be deeply concerned—the defence implications of the future of Westland.
The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and his Committee for a clear and cogent exposition of the defence issues, based on wide and deep research. As Cmnd. 9916 makes clear, the Government agree with much of the Committee's analysis. Inevitably there are points on which we cannot go the whole way with the Committee, but this does not prevent us from recognising the report as a major contribution to thinking on the subject, and one which is already proving valuable in helping us to form our own views.
The Committee rightly points out that the helicopter has an established place in both maritime and land and air warfare, and that its existing range of capabilities is gradually being extended. Both the existing roles and their extension were vividly demonstrated during the Falklands conflict and its aftermath, when helicopters were not only employed for anti-submarine warfare, amphibious assault, reconnaissance and surveillance, rapid movement of troops about the battlefield, re-supply and evacuation of casualties, but were adapted at short notice to remedy our lack of airborne early warning. At the same time, the helicopter has its vulnerabilities—to air defence systems, direct fire, attack by other helicopters and so forth. As the Committee has observed, the helicopter is not yet able to replace an entire capability in the land-air battle. For example, attack helicopters must complement ground-based, long-range direct-fire weapons rather than replacing them.
The problem for defence planners, and for Ministers, is therefore to define their place within a programme of balanced capabilities, and also, equally important, within the constraints of availability of funds. Against this background, I believe that the Committee's comment that quantity has been sacrificed for quality is a little severe.
It is true that numerically the three services' holdings of helicopters are a little lower than a decade ago—some 850 in total compared with 940 in 1975—but the reduction is not large, and the overall capability has actually increased through acquisition by all three services of new and more powerful types, for example, the Navy's anti-submarine Lynx, with its greatly increased range and
340
torpedo-carrying capability compared with its predecessor the Wasp; the Army's Lynx, armed with Tow missiles, and carrying a much greater clout in the anti-tank role than the Scout which it replaced; and the RAF's Chinook, each of which can carry 55 fully equipped troops—and indeed carried more in the Falklands. I believe that the record shows us to have given the helicopter a very good priority in the defence programme and to have built up our capability in this key arm of warfare.
Furthermore, improved types of helicopter feature prominently in our future programme. The new antisubmarine helicopter, the Anglo-Italian EH101, is a high priority project to which we are firmly committed. Its higher payload will enable it to operate effectively at the very long ranges necessary to deal with hostile submarines equipped with stand-off weapons and sophisticated defences. It will thus exploit to the full the improved sensors and weapons that will be in service in the next decade, and thereby will enhance the protection given to allied shipping.
Westland and its partner, Agusta, plan to develop three versions of the helicopter— naval, passenger and utility —so as to enable the development costs to be spread over larger sales, thereby increasing value for money.
Our second requirement is for a new light attack helicopter in the anti-tank role to replace Lynx fitted with Tow. Entry into service is planned for the late 1990s and the programme is thus at a somewhat earlier stage than EH101. Nevertheless, good progress is being made.
Together with our partners— Italy, the Netherlands and Spain—we have recently signed two memoranda of understanding: one laying down the framework for collaboration on the Agusta Al29 light attack helicopter and the other covering a joint feasibility and cost definition study, which is expected to start shortly and take two years to complete. I hope and expect that this project, too, will come to fruition in due course.
The most difficult issue facing my Department concerns support helicopters. The RAF operates the Wessex and the Puma in this role, as well as the Chinook. Within the next 10 years both Wessex and Puma will be approaching the end of their cost-effective lives as they become progressively more expensive to operate.
There is no absolute cut-off date: given the necessary overhaul and updating most helicopters can be kept going for a long time—and the timing of any successor system is therefore, to some extent, a matter of discretion. There is also a major prior question: for what range of tasks do we want to use support helicopters? Only when we have answered that question can we go on to decide what kinds of helicopters we need, and how many of them.
The Committee has commented that the delay in formulating the support requirement has exacerbated the problems faced by Westland as the only British helicopter manufacturer. I am aware that there has been some criticism of our decision early last year to leave decisions on air staff target 404 in abeyance, and I should like to put this matter into perspective. A staff target is no more than a broad statement of the functions and desired performance of a new piece of equipment, made before the feasibility or method of meeting such a need have been assessed. It is in no sense a fully defined requirement.
This particular staff' target dates back to 1978, and it came into particular prominence in 1980 when my Department, very sensibly, considered whether a common

341
helicopter could be found to carry out both the antisubmarine and the support tasks. The conclusion then was that this was undersirable, and EH101 went ahead as a separate programme.
Meanwhile, it remained fully open to the Ministry of Defence to reassess the military requirement if new evidence came along to warrant it. This is precisely what happened. The experience of Exercise Lionheart in the autumn of 1984, and the new thinking it stimulated about the army's helicopter needs, are well described in the Committee's report—[Interruption.] I would just say to the Opposition that the Select Committee spent a great deal of time and energy on this study. Those hon. Members who devoted so much time to it will take considerable exception to its being treated with such levity.
It was therefore necessary for the defence staff to go back to the drawing board and to undertake a fundamental study to review the military requirement for support helicopters. This study is looking a long way ahead—in fact as far as the year 2010. It is considering what changes in support helicopter roles and capabilities can be expected up to that date, how support helicopter assets can be used most effectively to fulfil these roles and, in the light of this, what the best force mix would be. On the basis of this, a force mix is to be recommended.
As the Select Committee has recognised, these issues are bound up with the question of the army's air mobility needs. We have noted carefully the Committee's preliminary view that there is a very good case for fulfilling a fully air mobile brigade, and this is being borne in mind in our studies.
The Committee has stressed the importance of resolving these matters quickly. Certainly I accept that. We shall continue to work as rapidly as possible on the military issues and on their consequences for procurement and for the defence programme. A key aspect of this is affordability.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend has put clearly before the House the military issues that are at stake and the decisions to be made about when and what type of new light support helicopter will be required. Is it not a fact, however, that work is needed now at Westland because the EH101 programme cannot fill the available capacity at the Westland plants?
Mr. Younger: I am keenly aware of that point, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to it. I assure him that I shall be dealing with that later in my speech. As I have already said, a key aspect of this is affordability. One cannot state military requirements in a financial vacuum, and resources are tight. I cannot at this stage forecast what our decisions will be or what their consequences may be for Westland, but I recognise the need to resolve this as quickly as possible and I can tell the House that the decision on the future needs of the services in this area will be taken in the new year.
Meanwhile, I very much welcome the Committee's commendation of our decision to carry out a fundamental reappraisal of our requirements before committing ourselves to procurement. I think the House will recognise that we would have been failing in our duty if we had fudged the difficult and complex judgments about military
342
needs in order to rush to procurement of hardware at any cost. This would have been fair neither to the services nor to the taxpayer.
The Committee has also raised the question of service responsibilities for helicopters and has said that it believes there is a strong case for giving the Army, as user of support helicopters, full responsibility for them. I think that the Committee has raised an interesting question.— [Interruption.] The House may wish to know what it is.
Most NATO nations assign responsibility for operating all battlefield helicopters to their army, but Canada and Norway do so to their air force. We have a split system, with the Army operating smaller and lighter helicopters and the RAF the bigger and heavier ones. It would be wrong to underestimate the upheaval that would be caused by going down the road the Committee has suggested. Major changes would be necessary in the training, manning and support organisations and in the plans of the two services concerned, and it remains to be seen whether the demands of the modern and more mobile battlefield require a fundamental change in existing arrangements.
Moreover, while it would be wrong to become complacent, I should point out that the Falklands campaign demonstrated the ability of all three services to work effectively in integrated operations. Under the revised organisation of the Ministry of Defence, established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), all operational requirements are considered centrally, which has removed the risk of capabilities which cross service boundaries not being given their rightful priority.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State understand that one of the issues in this debate is the integrity of the Prime Minister? Does he intend to deal with HC 519, because, apart from the defence issue, the lying, cheating and dishonesty which undoubtedly go on are most important?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman should mind his language. He might also care to consult an ear, nose and throat specialist, because I have already said that I intend to cover both reports. I hope he will accept that that is the right way to deal with this.
Before embarking on any change in ownership of helicopters, I would need to be fully satisfied that any benefits would justify the considerable upheaval and could not be secured by simpler means; for example, by some change in command and control arrangements. Nevertheless, the Government are considering the matter and we will bear the Committee's views very much in mind. Naturally, much of the Committee's third report deals with current helicopter projects and future helicopter requirments, but the Committee also addressed the defence industrial base and Westland's place in it.
The Ministry of Defence is the largest single customer of British industry. Defence procurement accounts for about half the output of the aerospace industry. In this and other sectors the Ministry sustains through the work of the research and development establishments and extra-mural R and D contracts much of the industry's R and D base. In terms of employees, Westland is a relatively small company compared with the giants of the defence industry such as GEC and BAe, but it is the only domestic source of helicopters, and as a result it is one of the relatively few companies to which the Ministry of Defence pays more

343
than £100 million per annum. Indeed, MOD payments currently run at between £150 million and £200 million per annum. Thus, there always has been, and continues to be, a close relationship between the MOD and Westland.
Westland is more than a helicopter company. Upwards of 40 per cent. of its turnover arises from the aerospace and technologies divisions, which are successful and competitive. The smaller of the two, the aerospace division, is now the largest employer in Cowes on the Isle of Wight, and its aerostructures and hovercraft business is expanding. The technologies division is rather larger and comparable in turnover to each of the two helicopter divisions. It is very successful in areas such as environmental control and life support systems, filtration and heat transfer. It is a significant sub-contractor to the Tornado programme, providing valves, tanks, undercarriage components and many other items. It is also very successful in the civil and export field and is a supplier to airbus and the U.S. B1 bombers and F18 fighters. The technologies division represents the ideal defence supplier. It is successful, innovative and profitable, but not wholly dependent on the MOD for orders, having achieved wide civil and foreign military sales.
These two divisions and the helicopter customer support division help to make Westland what it is now, a sound company, and I know that the management believes that it is better placed than it has been for some time. It is, of course, the helicopter division at Yeovil for which it is better known. This division has been successful in supplying the MOD for many years with most of its helicopter requirements and in supporting the MOD helicopter fleet. The core of Westland's future helicopter business rests on the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter, which will he widely deployed in the Royal Navy in the 1990s.
As I have said, Westland is also involved in preliminary work on the four-nation light attack helicopter for the late 1990s based upon the development of the Italian A129 helicopter. I am glad to say that Westland's collaboration with its European partners has not been affected by the involvement with Sikorsky and Fiat. In addition, the company is taking part in some major technological developments. Here it has a world lead, as was shown by its recent success in recovering from the Soviet Union the world helicopter speed record and breaking the 200 knot barrier. It has also sold in the civil market and has had export successes.
We wish Westland well in its closer association with Sikorsky and Fiat and hope that it achieves early export orders for its full product range of Sea King, Lynx, Black Hawk and EH101 helicopters. The Government will, of course, give the company every assistance for its exports, just as we give every assistance to other aerospace manufacturers.
The Committee drew attention to the national security issues that can arise as a result of foreign investment in United Kingdom defence suppliers. This is not a new issue. We welcome foreign investment in Britain's industries—whether they be defence or civil suppliers—and this has been the case for many years. Where national interests are at stake and there is the possibility of controlling interests arising, powers are available under existing legislation. Of more immediate concern is the protection of classified information and technology. I can assure the House that there are well established procedures and practices to protect such information and technology in our defence
344
industries, just as there are in defence establishments. I cannot, of course, go into detail, but we take many factors into account. In the case of Westland, as we would with any other firm where there has been a significant change in foreign involvement, the protection of classified matters has been positively confirmed.
The Committee rightly drew attention to the defence industrial base and Westland's position in it. The Government's position was well expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 January, when she said that the Government's concern was to see a financial reconstruction of Westland as soon as possible which maintained a British helicopter, design, development and manufacturing capability, supported United Kingdom participation in collaboration with NATO allies and safeguarded the interests of the company, its employees and shareholders.
We are pleased that a financial reconstruction came about which has put the company on a sounder financial footing and that a British helicopter capability has been maintained which can support the MOD fleet, meet current orders for Lynx and Sea King helicopters and participate in the collaborative projects that I have mentioned.
The Government and Westland have a long and successful history of working together. I know and accept that Westland needs a clearer indication of the Government's intentions against which the company can plan its future and, as I have said, decisions on the future support helicopter needs of the services will be taken in the new year. The third report from the Select Committee on Defence has proved valuable in taking forward our views on these and other matters, and we are grateful to the Committee for the work that it has done.
I now turn to the Committee's fourth report on the Government's decision making and to that part of the Government's reply which dealt with this report.
The fourth report gives the House a complex and detailed narrative of events, not only on the days and weeks immediately preceding and succeeding the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter on 6 January, but indeed for some months before that. The Committee's examination of these events is entirely in accordance with the Government's acknowledgement of the competence of departmental Select Committees to consider the issues raised by subjects such as Westland.
I have no doubt that hon. Members will have their own points to make on particular aspects of this report. On the bulk of it, I refer the House to paragraph 28 of the Government's reply to the fourth report. It says:
"Full accounts of the matters with which the Fourth Report is concerned have already been given by Ministers in statements in Parliament, speeches in debates and Answers to Parliamentary Questions, and by the Head of the Home Civil Service in his evidence to the Committee."
The report also deals with a number of general issues arising out of the relationship between the Executive and Select Committees.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Prime Minister have any knowledge before 6 January?
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is clearly spelt out and the Committee made its opinion on it quite clear. It is up to us today to comment on the unanimous conclusion of the Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in winding up this debate, is far better placed than I am to

345
deal with the general questions arising out of the relationship between the Executive and Select Committees. I propose to leave all that aspect to him.
There is, however, one issue of constitutional practice on which I should like to end. This is the principle of collective ministerial responsibility. The so-called Westland affair powerfully reinforces the wisdom of successive Administrations in generally abiding by the rule of collective responsibility. That message, underlined by the unhappiness of two ministerial resignations, will long be remembered when so much else in our current political controversy has faded.
As for the future, I am glad that Westland is now on a sounder financial footing. The Government fully recognise that Westland provides a capability which remains important to the Ministry of Defence and that we have a substantial part to play in the company's future. I hope that when we have completed the firm assessment of our requirements which I have mentioned we can together plan constructively for the way forward into the 1990s.
It is, as I have said, far from the case that Westland's links with partners in Europe have suffered as a result of its involvement with Sikorsky and Fiat: on the contrary, its links with firms on both sides of the Atlantic are in excellent shape. The work of the Select Committee on both these matters should be warmly commended by the House.
5.1 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State has dealt fully with the question of helicopters and their role in the armed forces. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow him in the detailed arguments which he put forward.
As the Secretary of State said, we are debating the response of the Government to the third and fourth reports of the inquiries by the Select Committee on Defence, both into the Westland company and into the Government's decision-making process as it related to that company. The third report is about the future of the helicopter industry, the role of helicopters in the armed forces, and the future of our defence industrial base. The fourth report is about the battle for Westland, which commenced with Sikorsky's attempt to acquire a minority interest, and ended with the leaking by the Government of the legal opinion of Her Majesty's Solicitor-General. As the House well knows, it was a battle which led to the resignation of two Cabinet Ministers, which called into question the Prime Minister's integrity, and as the Government's response to the fourth report shows, a battle which could have far-reaching consequences for Select Committees, not only those set up by the Government in 1979 but also long-established Select Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee.
The responsibility for the damage that was done and for the drama lies with the Government and especially with the Prime Minister. The right hon. Lady cannot blame anyone else, not the Labour party, the trade unions, the Russians or even the BBC. In this case the enemy really was the enemy within. The root cause of both the industrial and constitutional problems which arose over Westland lay in the fact that the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, have constantly placed ideological belief ahead of state or national interest. The delicate balance between ideology and national interest,
346
which all other Governments since the war have sought to maintain, has been undermined by the Government. That has had a damaging effect both on industrial policy and on the conventions of the constitution.
In the Westland affair the Government—in reality, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—failed, and indeed refused, to recognise that our defence interests and, perhaps to a greater extent our defence industrial base cannot be safeguarded and secured by the laws of the market place and cannot be determined by the interests of shareholders.
The Department of Trade and Industry failed to understand that in the production of more and more sophisticated military equipment, the choice for Britain, whether we like it or not, will often be to join in collaborative projects with western Europe, to produce under licence, or to buy off the shelf from the Americans. Because of the size and power of the American armaments industry, the American alternative would lead ultimately to the destruction of our industrial base and our manufacturing skills.
As the Select Committee points out, 72 per cent. of all the military helicopters in use in the countries of the West have been manufactured in the United States. Without collaborative ventures within western Europe, and without a measure of state protection, the whole of western Europe's helicopter industry could be wiped out in a very short time.
The Government's simplistic and short-term view was put clearly by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) in his evidence to the Select Committee. In paragraph 167 of the third report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman defined the defence interest as being to
"secure helicopters of the right kind at a reasonable price from a reliable source".
For "helicopters" one could substitute fighter aircraft, frigates or tanks, all of which could probably be bought from the United States or manufactured under licence. The price might well be lower to the Ministry of Defence, but the cost would be higher—for the social security budget, for the balance of payments and for our depreciating and declining manufacturing industry. If those words were strictly and literally applied, there would have been no Tornado project, with a consequent massive loss of jobs and technology, and there would be no British participation in the European fighter aircraft, with similar consequences for British industry.
Despite all the traumas and convulsions relating to Westland over the past year, and despite the Government's belief in shareholder power, as the Secretary of State conceded, the underlying problems of the Westland helicopter business and of the future of 8,000 jobs are no nearer a solution. There is little prospect of orders for the new EH 101 helicopter until perhaps the end of the decade, leaving Westland desperately short of orders in the meantime. The defence budget has no money to buy helicopters; the Government, and especially the Army, still have not decided what role they see for battlefield and support helicopters. Those problems cannot be solved by shareholders; they are matters for the Government.
Let me deal now with the fourth report of the Select Committee and the Government's response to it, and in particular the leaking of the Solicitor-General's legal opinion and the subsequent inquiry by the head of the Civil Service into that leaking.

347
It may be said that ultimately, eventually, the constitutional proprieties were discharged. However, a Minister resigned on account of his own misdeeds and those of his civil servants. Apparently, that was sufficient to lay the ghost of Sir Thomas Dugdale. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks took all the blame and resigned. No one else did — not the Prime Minister, nor the civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry, nor those at No. 10, all of whom had been, I believe, part of a conspiracy to subvert some of the conventions of the constitution.
Lest future historians are tempted to write up the resignation of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks as an example of high principle and devotion to the constitution, I must say that it did not seem like that at the time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had finally admitted that he had authorised the leaking of a confidential document which was covered by the Official Secrets Act and was the legal opinion of the Solicitor-General. Yet we certainly did not get the impression that the Prime Minister was very angry about that reprehensible and unconstitutional act.
I do not recollect that the Prime Minister summoned the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Cabinet room and read out to him chunks of the collected works of Walter Bagehot on the constitution. I doubt very much whether the right hon. Lady keeps a copy of the collected works of Mr. Bagehot. Indeed, far from showing anger at the unconstitutional action of her Secretary of State, the right hon. Lady did her utmost to dissuade him from resigning and hoped that he would soon return to high office.
The Prime Minister could not admit that the Secretary of State had done wrong because if he had done wrong she had also done wrong because she was his partner—his senior partner, indeed — in that wrongdoing. She had used the Secretary of State just as she used the Solicitor-General, just as she duped the Attorney-General and just as she used the Civil Service—and all, it seems, because the right hon. Lady had a temper tantrum owing to the activities of the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
Statements, questions and speeches in the House with regard to the letter that was leaked have tended to concentrate on the events of Monday 6 January. I notice that the Secretary of State, in the few minutes that he spent on the fourth report and the Government's reply to it, also concentrated on that day. That was the day when civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry and Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell at number 10 went through the mechanics of leaking the Solicitor-General's letter, but that was the execution of the plot. The plot had been hatched before then, and it was the Prime Minister herself, I am sorry to say, who put the ingredients together for that plot.
The plot started, as is clear from the Select Committee report, on the morning of Saturday 4 January. The Prime Minister, no doubt in high dudgeon at the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence, told the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get in touch with the Solicitor-General about possible inaccuracies in a letter written by the Secretary of State for Defence to the merchant bank which was advising the European consortium. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, being a loyal member of the Cabinet, did as he was told and telephoned the Solicitor-General on that very Saturday morning.
348
The devotion to duty of Ministers and civil servants on that weekend was impressive. Everyone was on parade, it seems — the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his officials, the Prime Minister and her officials, the Solicitor-General and his officials and, of course, during those days the Secretary of State for Defence was never far from a telephone.
After the call from the Department of Trade arid Industry, the Solicitor-General started to heaver away and by 7 pm on Saturday evening he had produced what is described as a provisional oral opinion. The speed with which that provisional opinion came out was impressive. It certainly gives the lie to all those scurrilous people who accuse lawyers of being slow. But then, the orders had come from on high.
I am bound to say that it is surprising that the only evidence which the Solicitor-General took before coming to his opinion was, so far as I could see from reading the reports, from one of the prosecutors—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The accused, the Secretary of State for Defence, was not asked to give evidence. He was just told about it on the telephone a few hours later. Late on that Saturday evening, he was told that he had provisionally been found guilty.
The Secretary of State for Defence did not seem very bothered. He replied saying that he had evidence in the Ministry of Defence to clear his name. But the Solicitor-General never called for it although there was plenty of time. The whole of Whitehall were at their desks and the whole of Sunday lay ahead. But no doubt the Solicitor-General had his reasons.
By about 7 o'clock on that Saturday evening, No. 10 had been told, so we understand, that a provisional opinion had found the Secretary of State for Defence guilty. When that was communicated back to the ranch excitement started to mount. It was still Saturday evening, but once the Prime Minister was informed of the provisional guilt of the Secretary of State, her immediate reaction—I quote from her speech to the House on 27 January—was:
"The matter clearly could not be left there. I therefore, through my office, asked him"—
the Solicitor-General—
"to consider writing to the Defence Secretary to draw that opinion to his attention." — [Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 652.]
In other words, "Tell Mayhew to put it in writing." That, of course, is what the Solicitor-General did.
Things now were moving along nicely. Her Majesty's Solicitor-General had pronounced the Secretary of State for Defence guilty and there was a 99 per cent. certainty that a copy of that opinion in the form of a letter would be in No. 10 some time during the morning of Monday 6 January. All that was left to be done was to ensure that the letter got into the public domain—a curious phrase —and then it would be, "Gotcha, Heseltine."
What happened next? The Prime Minister was desperate to get the letter into the public domain. She admitted that in her statement on 23 January when she said:
"it was urgent that it should become public knowledge before 4 pm that afternoon".
That was the Monday when the Westland board was to meet. Later in her statement on 23 January, in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the Prime Minister said:

349
"It was to get that accurate information to the public domain that I gave my consent." — [Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 450–55.]
So the Prime Minister was keen that weekend to get the letter into the public domain.
Are we now asked to believe that, after the Prime Minister asked the Solicitor-General on Saturday evening to write a letter, nothing then happened—that the Prime Minister suddenly collapsed in a heap muttering faintly to herself the words, "public domain"? Are we asked to believe that nothing else was said or done until —surprise, surprise—some time on the Monday morning an ancient retainer from the Solicitor-General's office turns up on the steps of No. 10 with a piece of paper with a pretty pink tape around it, the Solicitor-General's opinion?
Then, suddenly, apparently with magical and telepathic powers, the civil servants of No. 10 and the civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry got together and leaked the Solicitor-General's letter. The Prime Minister willed the ends; the means, of course, could be left to her civil servants. It was impossible for the means to be other than unconstitutional. I do not understand how the Solicitor-General's legal opinion could, by constitutional means, have been put into the public domain. The conventions are clear and I should be astonished if the Prime Minister, with her legal experience and her experience of Parliament, and the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks with his experience of the law and of Parliament, did not know very well the conventions regarding the legal opinions of Law Officers.
A Law Officer's opinion cannot be made public without his or her consent. No consent was sought. In any case, consent can be given only in what are termed exceptional circumstances. Those were not the sort of exceptional circumstances when a Law Officer's legal opinion should be made public. Even if the circumstances were exceptional and consent had been given, the publication of the Law Officer's opinion must be to Parliament, certainly not to the parliamentary Press Association. By willing the ends, the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry willed the unconstitutional means.
After that, events moved very fast. Mr. Bernard Ingham told Miss Colette Bowe to lock up her scruples and call for Mr. Christopher Moncreiff, that well-respected purveyor of news to the public domain. Of course, he did his job and the Prime Minister got the headlines she wanted. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry resigned, but the Prime Minister is still toughing it out. If the Prime Minister's civil servants were not acting on her orders, they should be punished. If they were, the Prime Minister should be punished. If the Secretary of State did wrong, as he did, the Prime Minister also did wrong and her punishment should have been no different from his.
The Law Officers were naturally furious at the way in which they had been used and the Attorney-General forced an inquiry, which was conducted by Sir Robert Armstrong. It was clear from the report of the Select Committee on Defence that the head of the Civil Service was only going through the motions. He knew what had happened, as did the Prime Minister. He certainly knew enough not to ask the two principal Ministers, the Prime
350
Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to give evidence. That would have been more than his job was worth. He knew enough not to make any inquiries in any of the other Departments involved, because the letter was copied to the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Sir Robert Armstrong knew enough not even to ask any questions in those Departments. Immediately, he drew up his own list of suspects, and they were the five civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry and No. 10.
In doing that, the head of the Civil Service showed extraordinary detective skills—skills which would have ensured that he received the highest medal of the Sherlock Holmes Society. Of course, the head of the Civil Service knew very well, as did the Prime Minister and everyone else, that the inquiry was a charade and a farce.
What happened next was predictable. The unfortunate Colette Bowe pleaded the defence of superior orders and was granted immunity from prosecution. The other officials faced no disciplinary action whatsoever and their careers are prospering. It is impossible not to make the contrast with the case of poor Sarah Tisdall, who spent six months in Holloway—but she was only a junior clerk.
The Prime Minister no doubt thinks that she has got away with it, but she has not. The jury is still out. When it returns on election night, and when all the other offences have been taken into account, the Opposition have no doubt what the verdict will be on the Prime Minister and her Government.
5.25 pm
Sir Humphrey Atkins: According to the clock on the wall, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has spoken for 23 minutes on a matter of some interest to the House, but despite the fact that he is still the Opposition spokesman on defence he spent only six of those minutes talking about the defence implications of Westland plc. I understand the reason for that. No doubt if the right hon. Gentleman had talked for longer than six minutes about helicopters, he would have had to start on the uphill task of explaining the Labour party's defence policy. It is no wonder that he shied away from that. The right hon. Gentleman took his lead from television, radio and most of the papers, where there has been barely any mention of the defence implications of Westland plc, but much discussion of the fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence. That was done no doubt because it was considered to be more sensational and stood a better chance of improving ratings. The right hon. Gentleman was of the same opinion.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was good enough to say that the third report of the Select Committee on Defence was valuable and interesting. I am glad that he devoted much of his speech to it. For those of us who care about and are interested in Britain's future safety and the future of British undertakings, technology and skill, that is the most important report.
The House will remember that the Select Committee started its inquiry into the defence implications of the future of Westland plc before Christmas last year. The company's future, and whether it had a future at all, had for many weeks been very much in the balance. Its outlook at that time was, to say the least, obscure. The then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was not the

351
sponsoring Minister, but he was Westland's main customer and he would have been the Minister most affected if the company crashed.
On 18 December 1985, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley was asked to give evidence to the Select Committee on Defence about what was going on in the company and about its future. All his evidence and all the subsequent evidence given to the Committee was published and is before the House. There are more than 420 pages of it. I shall not go through it, but I shall make one comment on it. My right hon. Friend's main anxiety, which emerged from his evidence to the Select Committee on Defence and in his subsequent actions, was that the financial link-up between Westland plc and United Technologies Corporation and Fiat, which was supported by the directors and which was about to be put to the shareholders and was finally approved by them, would jeopardise relations between Westland plc and other European helicopter manufacturing companies and would damage the prospects of collaboration on joint projects.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley said to us, in terms, that he believed that the EH101 project could continue, but that the NH90 and light attack helicopter projects would not. Only a year has passed since he said that, but events so far have shown that he was wrong. The Government's policy that the Westland shareholders should decide their future was followed. They decided to link their company with United Technologies Corporation and Fiat, and all three collaborative projects with other European helicopter manufacturers are going ahead unhindered. From a defence point of view, that is excellent news.
Furthermore, the company's affairs seem to be in much better shape than they were a year ago. Westland has a restored capital base, and no net borrowing. It has strong international partners, with one of whom it has been working closely for more than 40 years. Over the first half of this year, Westland's profit performance has been markedly better than for the corresponding period last year, and in all, it continues to employ well over 10,000 people. It must be noted that that turnaround has been achieved without a penny of taxpayers' money. That must be a cause of satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Of course there are problems ahead, just as there are for any business. Some, if not all of them, arise because the Ministry of Defence is by far the largest customer of Westland and the company's life or death virtually depends on what it does or does not do.
That leads me straight on to the first point about our third report. It was well known for some years that Westland was in trouble. Some of its difficulties had nothing to do with the Government, such as the company's decision to try to expand into a rapidly contracting civil market. But the Government's action—or, to be more accurate, inaction — in one area did nothing to ease the company's problems. I refer to the Government's inability to make up their mind about what they needed by way of a light support helicopter as a successor to the Puma and the Wessex, which is now 30 years old. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State devoted part of his speech to the famous, or infamous, air staff target 404, which was endorsed, as he said, in 1978.
A broad based feasibility study was undertaken. The possibility of European collaboration was considered. Two further studies were commissioned and completed, yet in December 1985 my right hon. Friend the Member
352
for Henley told us in evidence that he lacked "clear military advice" about what was wanted. Of course, by that time air staff target 404 had been withdrawn. That length of delay — eight years now — by Westland's principal customer can only have added to Westland's difficulties. I think that the House will therefore understand why, in paragraph 67 of the third report, the Committee said:
"These matters must be resolved quickly."
In paragraph 68 of our report, we noted the evidence given to us by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), that he hoped that Ministers would be able to take a firm view of their requirements for support helicopters by the end of this year. I hope so too. Eight years should surely be long enough to reach some conclusion.
Paragraph 8 of the Government's response says that the Government accept that a decision must be reached quickly but it does not specifically repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, which I just quoted. It is clear that, if there is much more delay, there is a real risk that in two or three years' time this country's only helicopter-manufacturing company will once again be in severe difficulties. We shall be faced with these problems all over again.
It is only fair that I should give the Government notice that the Defence Committee will return to this matter when, at the latest, we examine the statement on the Defence Estimates next year.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as he has drawn attention to the need for an early decision. Does he not also feel somewhat depressed, if not dissatisfied, because the Secretary of State clearly implied that that decision would not he made in the autumn, as the Select Committee recommended, and would be left until, I think he said, some time early next year?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: It is our business to keep up the pressure on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, as I have just implied, I propose to do so.
My other point about the third report involves the ownership and control of defence contractors. We examined in some detail two important questions. One of them involved the restrictions which prevent control of a company passing outside the United Kingdom. Indeed, the House will no doubt remember that the Libyan Government were involved in the UTC-Fiat proposal. The other question involved the anonymity of a purchaser of shares.
The Government's response, in paragraphs 22 to 24, deals with one of those questions, but not with the other. We are told that the powers available to the Government under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Industry Act 1975 and the Companies Act 1975 are sufficient to prevent a foreign buyer from acquiring not just control but even material influence over a defence contractor. That is all well and good, but it does not deal with the question of anonymous or mystery shareholders.
The House will remember that on 12 February 1986, at the emergency general meeting of the shareholders of Westland at which the company's future was decided, there were six such shareholders, who between them owned one fifth of the shares. That is what led our Committee to say, in paragraph 143 of our third report:

353
"The Government cannot know that there is a need to exercise that power without knowing when the effective control of a company is a matter of concern."
In this context, of course, we mean national concern. In paragraph 144, we went on to say:
"It is, therefore, the responsibility of Government to satisfy itself that the ownership of shares in defence contractors of national importance has no implications for national security."
In other words, the Government should not wait to be told that something undesirable may be going on, but should monitor the situation so that they know at once and can, if it seems necessary, use their powers to prevent it. That point is not addressed in the Government's response. I hope that that does not mean that it will not be, because, although I recognise that the subject may fall more within the ambit of the Trade and Industry Committee, where defence contractors are concerned, it is clearly of great importance to our Committee and, as we have said in the report, we plan to return to it.
I turn to our fourth report. An enormous amount has been said and written about the matters contained in the report, and no doubt a lot more will be said by some hon. Members tonight. I do not regard it as my business to elaborate on that report in what I have to say to the House. I shall give the reason. Our Committee examined the matters covered in the report in great detail over many weeks. We took a large amount of evidence, which has been published and which anyone may read. We considered that evidence and have said what we make of it in our report, which contains 240 paragraphs.
None of us — I know that I can speak for all my colleagues on the Committee— wishes to add anything to what we have written or to subtract anything. To the best of our ability we have sought to fulfil the task laid upon us by the Standing Orders of the House, which in this case were reinforced by a resolution of the House on 15 January 1986. How well we have done our job is for the House, and not for us, to judge. Hon. Members will no doubt say exactly what is in their minds, and that is as it should be, because that is what we are all here to do. But I remind the House that every word in both of the reports was agreed by everyone on the Committee.
There are 10 of us on the Committee. We are a diverse lot and we do not all sit on the same side of the House. Nevertheless, the evidence was given to us all and we all spent many hours deciding what to make of it. The outcome was this unanimous report. Furthermore, as can be seen from its text, our report was based solely on the evidence before us. The conclusions that we drew, and the reasons for them, are set down in black and white for all to see.
Dr. David Owen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I wrote to the Clerk of the Committee on 6 March 1986, drawing his attention to the fact—appendix 12(xii) on page 352—that it is hard to understand why the Prime Minister does not feel that there was any breach of the disciplinary code by her civil servants if they had not consulted her in any way. I said that I hoped that members of the Select Committee on Defence would consider examining the Prime Minister in detail on that important point, particularly as, in a letter to me dated 17 February, the Prime Minister had replied as head of the Civil Service addressing a disciplinary issue,
354
saying that the discharge of their duties in that as in other respects was within the general responsibility of Ministers to Parliament for the policies and management of their Departments. In the light of that, will the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of that Committee, explain why the Select Committee did not question the Prime Minister in the interest of pursuing the truth?
Sir Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do exactly what I have said that I will not do. We have produced our report and all the evidence, including the extracts to which he referred, and we are content to be judged by the House as to whether or not we have done a good job. I also said that anyone can say what he likes. That is so, and the right hon. Gentleman no doubt will. We sought to do the job with which we were charged, and the result is there for everyone to see.
The Committee was unanimous. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with what we have written—and anyone is entitled to do that—is disagreeing not just with one or two people or even with people who take a different view about the merits of the present Government but with all 10 of his fellow Members. Of course we may be wrong. None of us claims any infallibility. But I for one will need a certain amount of convincing that we are wrong.
The last six paragraphs of the Government's response deal with what we said towards the end of the fourth report about accountability and the position of civil servants. I say at once that I have no quarrel whatever with the Government about what they have said about the basic principles. A civil servant is the servant of, and responsible to, the Government — to the Minister who is his superior. Each Minister is responsible to Parliament for what he does and for what civil servants do in his name. He is also accountable to Parliament for these matters and has a duty to explain to Parliament what is done by him or his civil servants. Furthermore, I agree that if a civil servant has done wrong it is normally his superiors in the service—and if necessary his Minister—who have the responsibility to take action, including disciplinary action if that is appropriate.
All this seems perfectly clear and, I imagine, is accepted by everyone. But the final sentence of the Government's response says that they propose to give a general instruction to civil servants not to answer questions put by a Select Committee that are concerned with their conduct, and in that regard I am less happy. I want to make two or three observations about it.
Let me make it clear that I am speaking only as Chairman of the Defence Committee and in no way on behalf of any other Committee whose Chairman and members will no doubt have views of their own. The Defence Committee considered this proposition briefly at its meeting last week, and a number of points arose which it is only right that I should communicate to the Government at this, the first opportunity.
First, unlike some commentators, I do not regard the Government's proposal as a constitutional innovation. We are perfectly accustomed to a civil servant, giving evidence to us, being asked, "Why did you do this?" or, "Why did you write that letter in those terms?" and replying, "Because my Minister told me to," or, "Because I was carrying out the policy of the Government as enunciated to me by my Minister." Naturally, we accept that, and do not ask any further questions on it, although of course we may well pursue it with the Minister.

355
We are also accustomed, although it happens less often, to receiving the reply, "My Minister has told me that he would prefer to answer questions about this himself"—in other words, "I have been told not to answer this." Therefore, there is nothing constitutionally new in the Government's proposal. What is new is that the proposal as worded is for a blanket instruction covering all civil servants at all times. This, even in our first consideration of the proposal, has posed to us a number of questions about how we could work in the future. I shall tell the Government of three.
First, this proposal as worded specifically applies to civil servants. In the course of our work we frequently take evidence from military personnel. Is it intended that we should be debarred from asking Navy, Army and Air Force officers or other ranks what they do, how they do it and what they did in a particular case? This may seem to be a minor point, but it is important to us and, I think, to the House because quite a proportion of what we report to the House is the result of evidence given to us by the military.
Secondly, as the House knows, the Government intend to privatise the operations of the royal dockyards, and consortia are being put together to submit tenders for the management contracts. More than one of these consortia include civil servants and naval officers. What they do as members of a consortium is not, of course, the responsibility of Ministers. However, one can easily see the possibility of a conflict of interest that would relate directly to their conduct as officials and serving officers. Is it intended that this area should be barred to the Committee?
Thirdly, there is the matter of executive responsibility budgets. These were introduced into the Ministry of Defence last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and provided that senior civil servants should have the responsibility for managing the employment of sums of public money allocated to them. Paragraph 506 of the Statement on Defence Estimates 1985 described them as
"enhancing the accountability of individual managers."
We are told that executive responsibility budgets cover £3 billion of annual public expenditure and, as the White Paper says, are to be a matter not for the Minister but for the individual civil servant. I really cannot believe that the Government intend to prevent a Select Committee from inquiring into how its servants discharge their duty in relation to these enormous sums of money.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is even more difficult than that, because the accounting officer, who is a civil servant, has statutory responsibility to Parliament and through Parliament, to the Public Accounts Committee. It is not the Minister who has those statutory responsibilities, it is the accounting officer, and our work, which has lasted for more than 100 years, would be wound up if this were carried out.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committe, as I well know. I said that I was speaking only on behalf of the Defence Committee. I thought that, had the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make that point he would have done so in a speech. But he has made it in an intervention which no doubt has been just as well noted.
356
I have given three examples that occurred immediately to the Defence Committee. There is, however, a more important general question. The Standing Orders of the House establish all the Committees to examine
"the expenditure, administration and policy"
of the relevant Ministry. I know that the Government would not wish to prevent us from carrying out one third of the task that the House has given us—administration — but on a wide interpretation the Government's proposal in paragraph 44 would do just that. I suspect that much hangs on the precise definition of the word "conduct", and it is my belief that this requires much further consideration.
I should therefore like to make a suggestion to the Government that I hope my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to accept. It is, "Stay your hand. Do not issue this instruction immediately. First consult the House and its Committees before deciding whether to go ahead and, if so, in what precise form." A direct clash does neither the Government nor the House any good. This way, I believe, it can be avoided.
5.48 pm
Mr. David Steel: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) as Chairman of the Defence Committee. I begin by congratulating him and his Committee on the report that they have produced. Even though he did not say why they had not questioned the Prime Minister, I place it on record that the report so far as it goes is a masterly document. We are all grateful to our colleagues who spend so much of their time on the often unrewarding task of serving on these Select Committees in general, and on this one in particular.
I note the way in which this report is eminently readable. This would be welcome in all official publications. For example, in referring to the apparent straying from the conventions on collective responsibility of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), paragraph 4 states:
"the steps that were taken within. Government to counter and even to discredit his view could only with great restraint be described as merely unorthodox."
That is a masterly piece of draftsmanship and understatement.
Again, in referring to the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter, paragraph 151 states:
"Sir Robert Armstrong told us, a trifle euphemistically, that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell 'accepted' that the DTI should make the disclosure."
In addition, in referring to the reasons why the disclosure remained unattributable, paragraph 168 states:
"Sir Robert Armstrong told us that the extracts were released unattributably because the Department of Trade and Industry did not want to disclose at that stage that there was disagreement between one Government Department and another."
The Committee then tells us:
"We do not doubt that Sir Robert accurately reported what he was told in his inquiry, but we do hope that his credulity was as sorely taxed as ours."
Any report written in that vein is truly to be welcomed by the House.
I deeply regret that we are mixing in this one unsatisfactory debate both the serious issue of the future of helicopter production and the constitutional issues which the right hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned at the end of his speech. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

357
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), in whose constituency the bulk of the Westland operation lies, hopes to speak about the third report from the Defence Committee. I shall therefore say only a brief word on that. I believe strongly—the Select Committee report bears this out — that the basic trouble into which Westland landed itself stemmed in 1984–85 from the Government's hands-off approach to manufacturing industry in general.
The report says that as late as 8 August the now chairman of the Conservative party, then still the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was telling the company to find a market solution. A month later he was replaced by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) who gave what Sir John Cuckney called "the cold shoulder" to the company.
There are two lessons to be learnt, one of which was pointed out in the Select Committee's report. First, the 1978 helicopter agreement between the four European Governments was never pursued with adequate vigour by any of the Governments. The Committee draws that conclusion clearly. It describes the general approach by the right hon. Member for Henley to the subject as being "compelling" but, of course, rather late in the day. The report implies that this lack of concerted effort on helicopter procurement among the European Governments is only too typical of our defence procurement policies generally.
The second lesson relevant to Westland which the report highlights is that none of our competitors, whether in Europe, the United States or anywhere else, adopt such a hands-off approach to their industries, especially when defence is concerned. Certainly the United States Administration, the high apostle of the free market economy, are highly interventionist in relation to the defence industry.
Westland is simply one casualty among many, part of the one fifth of manufacturing capacity which has been lost since this Government came to power through the dedicated application of what the right hon. Member for Spelthorne described in a masterly understatement, as "inaction" by the present Administration.
I shall deal mainly with the fourth report in my brief speech. I blame the Government for the way in which the debate has been handled. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Defence has left the Chamber, because I wanted to tell him that I have long been an admirer of his. I have watched him for many years at the Scottish Office, and no member of the Government is as able as he to indulge in such deadpan, stonewalling and buck-passing with such effect. He did that beautifully this afternoon.
I blame the Leader of the Opposition for allowing a debate such as this to occur. Why is he not leading on the important constitutional and political issues involved? He has allowed the Prime Minister to get off the hook and to remain silent again on the major issues. We should be debating the Government's conduct as well as Westland interests. The Leader of the Opposition should take an interest in the conduct of the Government.
In paragraph 109, the fourth report states:
"The … assumption that, if Mr. Heseltine's resignation was not to be required, he could be thwarted by any means, cannot be justified."
That is a serious unanimous finding by the Committee.
358
As we have already heard, on Saturday 4 January the Prime Minister herself asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get hold of the Law Officers to check what the Secretary of State for Defence had written. That Saturday evening the Solicitor-General gave his preliminary opinion and received the response from the Prime Minister that, in the words of the Select Committee,
"the matter could not be left there."
It was she who instigated the Solicitor-General's letter to the Secretary of State for Defence.
By Monday afternoon, 6 January, copies of the letter had gone to No. 10 and to the Department of Trade and Industry. It is interesting to note that the Select Committee says that the Prime Minister's excuse for this matter being brought into the public domain was the 4 o'clock deadline of the Westland meeting. The report finds that reason "flimsy." Why is the Prime Minister not here to answer that telling criticism?
Paragraph 144 of the report states that, when the letter arrived at the Department of Trade and Industry, Miss Colette Bowe was among those present. The Committee states:
"The fact that she was alerted to the receipt of the letter and was present at that stage suggests that before consulting the Secretary of State and before speaking to No. 10 the officials had in mind that some public use of the information contained in the letter was indicated."
Who indicated that? The implication is that the indication must have come right at the beginning when the letter was sought from the Solicitor-General. Otherwise, there was no point in asking for the letter. Then the leak to the Press Association was arranged. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, in his evidence to the Committee, says throughout that it was all to be subject to the agreement of No. 10.
Mr. Dalyell: What was Miss Bowe doing there at all, unless the whole point was to leak the letter? Surely Law Officers' letters in No. 10 Downing street in any Government are handled most gingerly, because of their effect in the courts. The question has never been answered as to what on earth the press officers—either Miss Bowe or Mr. Ingham—were doing with the letters in the first place.
Mr. Steel: The Select Committee says that the only reason why she was there was that her presence was to be required. In other words, it was previously arranged that the letter was to be put into the public domain. That was the whole point.
In paragraph 155 the Committee tells the House:
"As far as the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter was concerned, however, Mr. Ingham undoubtedly realised the implication of what was about to take place and wished to distance No. 10 and the Prime Minister from the consequences."
That appears in bold type. The Committee continues:
"The method of disclosure that was adopted, the unattributable communication of tendentious extracts from the letter, was disreputable."
The Committee uses the word "disreputable", yet the Prime Minister is not here to answer for "disreputable" conduct or for "flimsy" reasons.
Paragraph 160 of the report states:
"The officials who reached the judgment on 6 January that giving information to the Press Associat.ca was the only way of making it public at the time made a wrong decision."

359
Who is to carry the can for that "wrong decision"? We are told that no civil servants are to be subject to disciplinary procedure for wrong decisions, so the responsibility must be that of Ministers.
I have examined the Select Committee's evidence. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks refused to answer many questions. As he is no longer a Minister, he is not answerable to the House under the constitution. In a sense, the bird had flown the minute that he resigned. We have not been able to pursue the real questions.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for Defence rested on the conclusion in the Select Committee report that what was done was
"without the Prime Minister's direct authority".
Many people have wondered how that could be. How could it be that over that whole weekend and the following week, before setting up the Sir Robert Armstrong inquiry, the Prime Minister never bothered to ask Leon, Robert or Bernard what actually went on? That is straining our credulity, but I believe it. I do not believe that she asked.
The right hon. Lady never asked because she knew that if the ball of wool was unravelled it would come back to her. One does not ask questions if one is determined to remain in studied ignorance of what happened. That is why she never asked. She knew what the answers would be. That is why the bogus inquiry was set up and why, when it was reported to the House, I said that if the Prime Minister was living in the real world outside she would find herself on a charge of wasting the time of the police. That conclusion is reinforced by the descriptions of the Select Committee on Defence.
I now turn to the final points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, especially with reference to the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. I am extremely disturbed, as I am sure he must be, by the proposed debar of Select Committees to question civil servants in future. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee said in paragraph 3.17:
"If Crichel Down is dead and Ministers are not accountable to Parliament for some actions of their officials, then who is?"
If not Ministers, it can only be officials. I believe that the Committee is correct, and that is why this issue is of far greater constitutional, parliamentary and political importance then we have allowed it to assume so far.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Crichel Down. Is it not a fact that the civil servants involved there were very remote in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that Sir Thomas Dugdale could not have been expected to have much firsthand knowledge? However, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell were as close to the Prime Minister as Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were to Richard Nixon.
Mr. Steel: That is true. Without side-tracking, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that since the Dugdale case we have all accepted that there is a much greater responsibility on the part of civil servants. That is one of the reasons why parliamentary Committees must be able to cross-examine civil servants. We no longer maintain the fiction that Ministers must be so knowledgeable and know every detail of their Administration. The Civil Service has grown, and the complexity of a Minister's work has grown. Nobody is pleading the Dugdale case as being the standard by which we should operate. That is all the more
360
reason why we must reject the Government's reply to the Select Committee and the paragraphs mentioned by the Chairman.
My criticism of the Government and the way in which this has been handled is that it goes to the heart of the way in which the Prime Minister runs the Government. It is much more like a court than a Cabinet, including the divine right of monarchs to rule. The way in which the Government have been conducted and the Prime Minister's style of government reminded me of Torn Lehrer's lines in the song about the John Birch Society:
"There's no one left but thee and me and I'm not sure of thee."
That is the Prime Minister's attitude to government and, as it turns out, to Select Committees. She is not sure of them any longer, so their powers must be curbed.
The truth is that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks has been made the fall guy in this affair. Presumably we will not know for some time whether it was done willingly, or whether he was forced. I am concerned about what we used to call liberal democracy. I am concerned that the unwritten rules of our liberal democracy are being strained. That is why I strongly favour a Freedom of Information Act. If the unwritten rules are to be strained in this way, we should have some written rules.
This whole episode has diminished the Prime Minister and the Government. It is in danger of diminishing Parliament if we leave this rather facile Adjournment debate as being our sole response to what I regard as an attack on our Select Committee system. The scar of this shabby episode will remain long after the Prime Minister and the Government have gone. We who are concerned about the reputation of the Parliament should give a clear warning that we will stand together across the Floor of the House against any further erosion of the powers of Parliament to call the Government to account for their deeds, misdeeds and failures.
6.4 pm
Mr. Leon Brittan: Since I last spoke in the House about these matters, three days after my resignation, much has been written and spoken about the Westland affair and more has been added today. What I want to do today is to draw what seem to me two important conclusions for the future arising from it. But before doing so, I also want to make it clear that I stand by what I said to the House in my speech last January.
In that speech I said that I made it clear to my officials at the Department of Trade and Industry that, subject to the agreement of No. 10, I was giving authority for the disclosure of the Solicitor-General's letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence. In saying that, I was confirming what the Prime Minister herself had said to the House the previous Thursday. Consent to the disclosure was of course given by Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham and that disclosure duly took place. I told the House that I therefore accepted full responsibility for it.
I also said to the House last January that I accepted that the disclosure should not have taken place in the way that it did, and I profoundly regretted that it had happened. I reiterate today both my acceptance and responsibility and my regret at what occurred.
Since last January the detailed events of those days have been considered by the Select Committee, and it has placed its own glosses upon them, upon which I shall not

361
comment. But if anything of value for the future is to result from those unhappy events, it seems to me that we should be concentrating on the long-term lessons to be derived from it.
The first relates to the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility — the doctrine that, once a decision is taken within Government, it is the duty of all Ministers, as long as they remain within the Government, to be loyal to that decision, whether they agree with it or not. Until the Westland affair it might have been tempting to regard that doctrine as one only of importance for constitutional purists and not one that really matters in today's world. The Westland affair has illustrated beyond peradventure that the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility is, and must still be, very much part of our constitution. If it is ignored, the result is likely to be, and was, disaster.
In the Westland affair, in the words of the Select Committee, the Government were
"treated to the unusual spectacle of one of its number, supported by the resources of his Department, pursuing a policy which was diametrically opposed to the Government's stated policy."
To pursue that policy, relentless media briefing and tendentious disclosures and revelations took place on a daily, if not hourly, basis. That was bound to put the Government as a whole, and in particular the Minister whose departmental responsibility it was to implement the Government's policy, in a position of unparalleled difficulty. It led to things happening which unquestionably should not have happened, and for a while public conflict replaced coherent government.
Why was that allowed to happen? It was understandable that there should be a desire not to force out of the Government someone who had been a great source of strength to it, and a reluctance to silence a voice which, when used in support of Government policy, had been so eloquent and persuasive. But after the Westland affair, I have no doubt that any future Government, whatever their political complexion, will and should insist that the decisions of the Government should have the support of all Members, and should not be undermined from within.
The second conclusion that I draw from the Westland affair relates to helicopter policy. Was the Government's policy towards the alternative offers to rescue Westland the right one?
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brittan: No, I will not.
Has Westland, as a result, been able to continue to play its role as an important helicopter producing company? I have no doubt that events to date have totally vindicated the Government's policy and it is quite clear that Westland has been strengthened, rather than weakened, as a result. That view was fully supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), who is Chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Brittan: At the time of the controversy it was strongly argued that the Government should use their power to force Westland to accept the offer of the European consortium. The main argument in favour of
362
that policy was that if Westland went ahead with the Sikorsky-Fiat offer, collaborative programmes involving Westland and European helicopter companies would be gravely imperilled.
So central a feature was that in the argument that, when the Prime Minister's letter to the chairman of Westland did not contain all the material relating to that threat that the then Secretary of State for Defence wanted included, the Ministry of Defence solicited a letter from the bankers of the European consortium, requesting further information. The Secretary of State for Defence then sent a reply, including much of the material which had been excluded from the Prime Minister's letter, after the most careful consideration. That reply was not cleared or even discussed with other members of the Government. But, although the argument about co-operation between Westland and other European helicopter companies was regarded as so crucial as to justify that conduct, one thing is now abundantly clear: the threats that were held out — some would say manufactured — that European cooperation would be withdrawn if the Sikorsky-Fiat offer were accepted, have proved wholly unfounded.
Westland was at the time collaborating with Agusta of Italy to produce the EH101 helicopter, about which the Secretary of State has spoken. The Select Committee concluded last July that
"the EH 101 is now the most secure of all the collaborative helicopter projects in Europe … we have received no indication that this development has been or will be put at risk by the association of Westland with UTC."
Work was also beginning on the possible development of the A129 helicopter. The Select Committee concluded:
"The association between UTC and Westland does not appear to have had an adverse effect on this collaboration. Indeed, in evidence to us, Agusta did not seem perturbed about the possibility of the involvement of Westland, through UTC, in the Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX) project, and in fact saw mutual advantages in a closer relationship between the A129 project and the LHX."
Indeed, a few weeks after the Select Committee report was published, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told us, agreement was reached between Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain to begin work on a new anti-tank helicopter. This will involve studying the feasibility of developing the A129 into a helicopter able to carry out missile attacks on enemy tanks.
Reporting the signature of the memorandum setting out the arrangements for this project, the defence correspondent of The Times stated:
"During the controversy over whether Westland should seek financial help through links with European companies, or through the American company, Sikorsky, supporters of the European solution argued that if Westland made a deal with Sikorsky it might be shut out of European projects."
Nevertheless, it is one of the four companies now part of a new company in Italy, Joint European Helicopter.
With regard to the possible development of a joint battlefield helicopter programme, the Select Committee concluded:
"We do not believe that the association between UTC and Westland has had any effect one way or the other on the possibility of a joint battlefield helicopter programme."
It is understandable that Westland's European competitors wanted to stymie the Sikorsky-Fiat approach, and the threat of the collapse of co-operation between Westland and the European companies was an obvious card to play in that game. But the events of the past few months have completely vindicated the Government's decision not to force Westland to pursue a solution to its

363
problems contrary to the wishes of its directors and work force alike. Westland has continued to co-operate, unimpeded, with other European helicopter companies. It will continue to do so and the cause of European cooperation, of which I am as great an enthusiast as any hon. Member, has not been damaged one jot or tittle by Westland's choice of partners.
I make no apology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for devoting so much of my remarks to helicopter policy. I have not shirked, nor do I shirk, my share of responsibility for what went wrong with the handling of these issues in Government. But I hope I am also entitled to put these matters in their proper context, which shows a Government reaching a considered view on their policy, finding the implementation of that policy thwarted at every turn by one of their own members, but emerging with the essential rationale of that policy amply vindicated by subsequent events.
6.15 pm
Dr. John Gilbert: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) in this debate. He and I exchanged words several times across the Floor in the Defence Select Committee, and I want to take this opportunity, which I have not had before, to say before the House that I admired the right hon. and learned Gentleman's courage. He did not have to come before the Defence Select Committee, and it must have been an ordeal for him. I did not think that his answers did his reputation the credit that they could have done, but it must have taken a great deal of courage and he could have walked out at any time. He appeared of his own free will.
I should like to pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues on that Committee. It could not have been easy for them to agree to our fourth report, which makes the most stinging references to senior members of the Conservative party, but they did agree to it. It is a tribute to the integrity and courage of individual Conservative Back-Bench Members that they were prepared to put their names to such an independent report which would, obviously, be extremely embarrassing to the Government.
I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House today by discussing the Committee's third report. It is far less contentious than the fourth report, and the Government's response was welcome and much better considered than their response to our fourth report.
Our fourth report deals with an extraordinary state of affairs. Not only had two senior Ministers resigned, and we did not know whether either of them would ever resume senior ministerial office, but at least one more nearly resigned. The Government tripped from shambles to shambles during the hearings and the negotiations that went on behind the scenes, many of which have never come into the public domain. The right of the Committee to certain documents was questioned, and I am glad to say that the Committee was resolute, won hands down and was allowed to see every line of every document that it, not the Government, decided was relevant to the inquiry. That victory was won, not only for the Defence Select Committee, but for all Select Committees.
Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend talked about Ministers resuming office. If the whole story had been about a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who for 14 long days deceived senior civil servants, his Cabinet
364
colleagues and his Prime Minister, how could that Prime Minister, in that unique resignation correspondence, express the hope that he would return to high office soon and resume his political career?
Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and no doubt he will make his own speech on the subject if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not a question for me.
Subsequently, this extraordinary new doctrine has appeared. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) on this, because I believe that the Government are trying to erect a new constitutional doctrine in paragraphs 42 to 44 of their response. I shall come to that shortly.
We also had the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister's behaviour. Opposition Members could see that she was grinning from ear to ear immediately after the leak. She was delighted with the consequences, until we got a little further down the road when, suddenly, she rightly became very apprehensive about the security of her position. She then had to endure the humiliation of having a speech that she had prepared for delivery in the House crawled over by several members of the Government to ensure that it was internally consistent and truthful, arid would stand up to the scrutiny of the House.
Before making that speech the Prime Minister had a reputation, whether we liked it or not, of credibility. It was widely thought in the counry that, although one might not like what the Prime Miniter said, one could at least believe it and that she was telling the facts as she saw them. In the middle of the affair, public opinion polls showed that no fewer than 70 per cent. of the British people did not believe the Prime Minister. As the leader of the Liberal party said, that is not good for the Conservative party, not good for the Government and not good for the country.
If newspaper reports are to be believed, it is clear that the Prime Minister still lives in fear of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene, if he likes, to tell me that the newspaper reports are inaccurate. I have heard that he had an opportunity to advise on the Government's response to the Select Committee report and was responsible for the deletion of a couple of paragraphs in it. If that report is inaccurate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can intervene to say so now. He chooses not to do so.
The Prime Minister comes out of the affair cutting a pretty pathetic figure. There are still a great many unanswered questions. There are a great many questions yet to be asked—for the simple reason that the Select Committee did not interview five named officials. It decided not to interview those officials because the Government told it, "You may have these officials before you, but they will be instructed to say nothing at all." If that is not part of the arrogance of power and an abuse of the Executive's power over the House, I do not know what is, but that is what the Select Committee was faced with.
It is inevitable that I should consider the role of certain civil servants in the affair. At one stage in our cross-examination of Sir Robert Armstrong I put it to him that at least five officials—everybody knows who they were —were in it up to their necks. Sir Robert Armstrong replied that that was an utterly unfair remark and that the

365
officials had ministerial authority. The Committee commented on that at paragraph 173 of the fourth report. I shall refresh the House's memory. It reads:
"The Prime Minister told the House, and the Secretary of the Cabinet told us, that the officials in the DTI were confident that they had the authority of their Secretary of State and 'cover'—whatever that may mean—from No. 10. 'Cover' is used in distinction to 'authority'. The only authority given was that of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We do not believe that such authority is sufficient, or would be regarded by senior officials in key positions as sufficient, to make public parts of a document

—which was classified;

—which did not originate in the Secretary of State's own department;

—which contained the advice of a Law Officer;

—which was to be disclosed without the knowledge or permission of the Law Officer."

Either they had that authority, or they did not. If they did not, their careers should have suffered. If they did, the person who gave the authority should suffer accordingly.
We all know that there is only one Minister capable of giving ministerial authority to Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell — the Prime Minister. I have recently written to the Prime Minister asking her whether, in view of the comments that the Government have made in paragraphs 42 and 44 of their response, she would be prepared to give evidence to a Select Committee — I did not say the Defence Select Committee—if it at any time wanted to inquire into the actions of members of her Private Office or the press secretary at 10 Downing street. Something tells me that I shall not get a reply before 10 pm tonight.
The most serious impact of what happened in the Westland affair was its impact on Civil Service morale. It must have gone wide and deep. We had the spectacle of the private secretary—this all comes out in the Select Committee's evidence — to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry apparently putting to the Secretary of State over the telephone the possibility of the course of conduct which was subsequently followed. We had Miss Bowe, who seems to be the least blameworthy of the officials: apparently telling Mr. Ingham, "I do not want to do it, it is wrong," more than once, but to no great avail because, knowing that it was wrong, she ultimately did it. She was clearly under intense pressure. One of the people applying the pressure was Mr. Mogg, but Mr. Ingham and Mr. Michell were involved too.
I should emphasise that I know none of these officials personally. I am told that Mr. Powell is a much liked and much respected official at the Foreign Office. He must have known that what he was doing was wrong. One does not get into the Prime Minister's private office without being a high flyer. One has to be a civil servant of the highest quality to arrive at such a position. We all know that high-flying civil servants pride themselves on their political antennae. They think of themselves as being more political than politicians. Mr. Powell must have known perfectly well what was going on.
People come to me and say, "Do not be too hard on Mr. Powell, he is a very nice chap." With respect to Mr. Ingham, I have to say that there are no doubt some people who think that he is a very nice chap, but I have yet to meet one. No doubt such people exist outside his family. Mr. Ingham is quoted in Sunday's papers as replying to Miss Bowe's saying, "I do not want to do it, it is wrong", "You will expletive well do as you are expletive well told." I have
366
no idea whether such language is typical of Mr. Ingham. Irrespective of whether he used such language, it produced the desired effect.
There is an interesting interface between Sir Robert Armstrong, Sir Brian Hayes and the Attorney-General. In my view, it is absolutely not to be believed that Sir Brian Hayes did not know, within minutes of returning to his Department, what had happened. I was in government for only about five years, but I got to know quite a few permanent secretaries. I refuse to believe that a permanent secretary was not told by his own officials. He would have had to inquire as soon as he got back to his desk what had happened and about the trouble that was brewing.
I refuse to believe that Sir Brian Hayes did not communicate to Sir Robert Armstrong as quickly as possible the thunderstorm that was brewing for them all. It follows from that — and the Select Committee has virtually said it—that Sir Robert Armstrong must have known that the inquiry was a charade. To be fair to Sir Robert, he did not want to have an inquiry, and he was right not to want to have one, because he knew perfectly well what the inquiry would produce. However, that is why he resisted the Attorney-General's pressure.
The question in my mind, which is one of the more interesting unanswered questions, is whether Sir Robert Armstrong told the Attorney-General the full reason why an inquiry was not necessary. Did he just say, "This poor girl has been put under intense pressure," or did he say that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had been part of the pressure? If he followed the second course and told the Attorney-General that the instructions to Miss Bowe had come from the Minister, her own Secretary of State, the Attorney-General was an accomplice in the charade. That is an interpretation that I am reluctant to accept, because I have a high opinion of the Attorney-General and his reputation. So if one follows the line that Sir Robert did not tell the Attorney-General the full reason why an inquiry was unnecessary, why did he not do so? Surely it can only be because he did not trust even the Attorney-General with the knowledge that either the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Prime Minister had authorised the disclosure. That is one of the most remarkable parts of the commentary on how business was then being conducted in the Government.
Part of the effect on the morale of the Civil Service was the sorry spectacle that the head of the Civil Service presented before our Committee. Let me say straight away that there is no criticsm whatsoever of him in respect of any events until the time that he agreed to the inquiry, but from then on I am afraid that his position is not one that has done his career or reputation any good. He knew the whole story before he started the inquiry. He could not, in answer to a simple question by our Committee, even bring himself to say whether the actions of officials were improper. He never interviewed the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. He refused to answer questions about named officials. He pleaded his charade of an inquiry in aid against the Committee interviewing the Civil Service witnesses whom we had already said we wanted to interview. He said—not us—that their lives, careers and reputations were in jeopardy and it would be unfair for our Committee to put them through such an ordeal again, when he had put them through such an ordeal, on his own evidence, knowing perfectly well that it was not necessary because, according to him, their actions had been covered by ministerial authority.

367
I am afraid that I do not see that it is possible for the head of the Civil Service's reputation to recover from the mauling that it received as a result of his appearances before our inquiry. Again, that can be to nobody's good. It is not to the good of the Government, and it is certainly not to the good of the Civil Service. It is not to the good of the country.
Finally, we have the extraordinary response from the Government, particularly paragraphs 42 to 44. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, to point out that if one takes the words of the response literally, the work of the Public Accounts Committee will become impossible. The Committee could not do the job that is statutorily laid upon it, nor could the Select Committee on Defence.
The right hon. Member for Spelthorne gave a couple of examples. I could give some more. For three years I was responsible for defence procurement. At that time it amounted to about £4,000 million a year. I cannot remember what the exact floor level was; I think that it was about £25 million. I never looked at any expenditure under £25 million, probably a higher figure—it would have been impossible for a Minister to do so—but the civil servants were involved in day-to-day decisions on such matters. The idea that all that civil servants do is give advice to Ministers is fiction. They are engaged in the day-to-day exercise of executive authority. They place contracts. They have to see whether the public get value for money. They have to see whether contracts are executed on time. They have to see whether the goods that are supplied are of the standard that the Department requires. Those are all Executive decisions, taken not by Ministers, not in consultation with Ministers, but on the responsibility of civil servants.
If the Government's extraordinary response were taken at face value, it would be impossible for the Select Committee on Defence to scrutinise the activities of civil servants with respect to the execution of their responsibilities. I find it difficult to see how the work of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration would be carried out if the response were taken at face value. But it is not for me to talk about the work of other Select Committees. I merely note that the response by the Government to our fourth report apparently will be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure, the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service and the Liaison Committee. I hope very much that all Select Committees will consider the Government's response, particularly paragraphs 42 to 44, and come to a view so that they can give guidance to their Chairmen when the Liaison Committee, which I gather will also consider it on 20 November, takes a view on it. I hope that the overwhelming corpus of hon. Members who belong to Select Committees can present a united front to the Leader of the House on the matter.
This line of the Government's is new. It is simply untenable. I hope that all of us, as parliamentarians, will resist it strongly. We are here to protect people against maladministration and injustice. If we cannot scrutinise the work or responsibility of individual officials, our task will be made impossible.
As I said, there are three possibilities for the Government. They can openly repudiate the document,
368
which is asking a lot of any Government. They can quietly not enforce it, which I suspect is what will happen, or perhaps we shall have from the Leader of the House tonight one of those elegant clarifications for which he is widely known and popular. However, the response was brought about by pique and fear, largely as a result of the Government's realisation of the power of a determined Select Committee to investigate cases of malpractice in government.
I only wish that we had occasion today to vote on the Select Committee report, because I believe that it would have had the overwhelming support of the House. I doubt very much whether the Government's response would have had very much support. I suspect that that is why we are discussing the matter on an Adjournment debate rather than, as is more normal, on a debate to take note of or to approve either the Select Committee report or the Government's response. The Government's response is the last shabby, untenable outcome of the affair. It is an attempt by the Government to gag Select Committees, which means also a high proportion of Members of the House, in the exercise of their constitutional duty. I hope that when the time comes the House will have none of it.
6.39 pm
Mr. Keith Speed: I share with the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) a dislike for paragraphs 42 to 44 of the Government's response. I think that I am the third member of the Select Committee on Defence who has taken part in the debate. It is an unsatisfactory debate because it is in three parts. The Committee's third report is quite separate from the fourth report. Then there are what I regard as the grave constitutional implications of paragraphs 42 to 44 which affect all Select Committees and, I think, Parliament and our relationships with our constituents and outside bodies.
The third report has been clearly and well dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins). However, I shall pick out one or two points in the Government's response to the report. I was delighted that paragraph 27 of the Government's response said that there were excellent working relationships between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, both formally and informally. Those excellent working relationships have not always been apparent to members of the Select Committee or, I suspect, to many people outside the House. We believe that the possibility of a ministerial aerospace board, which has been suggested in the past, should have been considered further. Quite clearly, it was communications, among other things, and, dare I say it, a lack of manufacturing industrial strategy in the DTI that precipitated some of the problems that we are discussing today.
Paragraph 9 refers to the Air Mobile Brigade. I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State for Defence said. I urge him to give sympathetic consideration to the Select Committee's proposal. To the best of my knowledge, all our allies and partners are pursuing that capability. It would be odd if we were the only member of NATO to go in the opposite direction. That capability would give us maximum flexibility and would allow us to make a rapid response. If we were to disband the Air Mobile Brigade, it would lose a lot of expertise and experience. I hope that there will he a positive response, notwithstanding the resource implications that are always with the Ministry of Defence.

369
Paragraph 10 mentions the responsibility of the Army as users of support helicopters. I am bound to say that I am not convinced by the replies of the Secretary of State and the Government. The arguments used by the Secretary of State could apply to the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is a user and is responsible for a helicopter programme. One of the reasons the EH101 is a success story, is going ahead and is far advanced is that in 1980 the Navy as a user identified what it wanted and went ahead with it. The same is true of the sonar links, the strike links and various helicopters in the Navy's arsenal. I do not say it in any anti-RAF terms, but having a divided responsibility between the Army and the RAF is not to the benefit of either. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider how the Royal Navy's responsibility, both from the point of view of user and of taking it through, has worked extremely well over the past few years and should, in my view and in that of the Select Committee, apply to the Army.
I was disappointed with the dampening effect of paragraph 6 and the fact that the Ministry of Defence poured cold water on the Select Committee's suggestion to fit Sea Eagle to the EH 101. That would significantly increase the surface-to-air strike capability of our frigates in the early 1990s; otherwise they will rely on links with the Sea Skua. Later, the type 23 frigate will not have links; it will have the EH 101. I remind the Ministry of Defence that, if the Indian Navy can have Sea Kings fitted with Sea Eagle, it should not be beyond the capacity of the Royal Navy to have EH101s fitted with Sea Eagle. I hope that that matter will be considered and that the Minister will be slightly more enthusiastic about it.
I think that the Government's response to the fourth report was a pretty thin gruel. I endorse everything that has been said by most hon. Members who have spoken. The Government argued, at paragraph 32 in their response, that the head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Robert Armstrong, is not the direct superior of officials in the Department of Trade and Industry. The Select Committee's report never said that he was. The Government went on to say:
"The Head of the Home Civil Service does not supervise, and has never supervised, the day-to-day work of members of the Prime Minister's office: he is their superior only as a result of the Prime Minister's office being treated for 'pay and rations' as part of the Cabinet Office".
The whole point that we made in our report, which came out in the cross-examination of Sir Robert Armstrong by myself and others, was that Sir Robert Armstrong said that he was responsible for pay and rations.
However, when he was questioned earlier about whether Mr. Ingham, the senior information officer at No. 10, should have known the rules governing the release of Law Officers' advice, he said that of course there were rules—a special category of Law Officers' advice. Later, he said that he was responsible; he was Mr. Ingham's boss, in Civil Service terms. When I said that it would be his responsibility that Mr. Ingham should be aware of advice issued to people at his level, Sir Robert Armstrong said that it would.
That goes far beyond the question of pay and rations. It is unsatisfactory, as the Committee said, to have a person who is Secretary of the Cabinet and head of the Home Civil Service taking part in an investigation of one of the key people, Mr. Ingham, who is his immediate
370
subordinate and is responsible for seeing that he is properly briefed on a matter such as the Law Officers' advice. Yet the head of the Home Civil Service carried out the investigation. If such an investigation were conducted in the services or in a police force, a person from outside would be chosen to head the investigation, not the immediate superior of the person who may have some responsibility. That is just one example. I believe that there are many others. If time allowed, one could consider why the Government's response to the Select Committee's report was unsatisfactory.
The most unsatisfactory part of the Government's response concerns paragraphs 42 to 44 on the question of accountability. The Government's reply fails to state that two important conditions were made prior to the recommendations of the first report—the 1977–78 report of the Select Committee on Procedure. The first was that the Select Committee should have the power to order attendance of persons to give evidence and, second, that Select Committees should have power to order production of papers and records by any Minister. It is significant that those two conditions are not in the Government's reply.
I do not need to remind the House of the difficulties that the Defence Committee had: indeed, the right hon. Member for Dudley, East reminded the House earlier. If the Government's prohibition had been in force, Sir Robert Armstrong and Sir Brian Hayes would not have been able to give evidence. It is difficult to see what evidence the Committee could have taken unless the Prime Minister had been called before it, and that would have been most unsatisfactory.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East and others referred to the position of accounting officers and that of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration — the Ombudsman Committee —privilege, and the fact that this Government, quite rightly, have followed their predecessors' practice and have increasingly given more power and management responsibility to civil servants. Whatever words one may use—I use the words "financial management initiatives"—the fact of that matter is that government is big business. We delude ourselves if we think that Ministers in any large spending Department whose expenditure runs into billions of pounds are au fait with all the details.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East gave examples of his experience in the Ministry 10 years ago. I can speak with slightly more recent experience of the same Ministry, and he is absolutely right. I encourage that practice if we are to get the right men and women into the Civil Service. It is a charade to expect Ministers to be responsible for accounting officers, and so on, and for management development, if the Government cut off those people from giving evidence to Select Committees and accounting for their actions.
Five or six years ago the Government—all credit to them — increased the number of Select Committees. Government then became more open and more accountable. If paragraphs 42 to 44 are adopted by the Government and become the future norm, not only will we turn the clock back but the Civil Service may not respond well. It will make total nonsense of trying to get more management experience and more financial accountability in the various Government Departments. It will be a bad day for the House. We will not have accountability from Ministers unless, from time to time, there is a plethora of ministerial resignations, and I do not think that anyone

371
wants to go back to the days of Crichel Down. We will have more secret Government and more investigations of the type seen in this affair. That is not satisfactory. That cannot be in the interests of good Parliament, good Government or good democracy.
6.50 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). In his latter remarks he mentioned some of the difficulties that Select Committees, especially the Select Committee on Defence, would face if the Government's strictures in paragraphs 42 to 44 of their response to the report of the Select Committee on Defence were adopted.
There are some further difficulties. Is it the intention of paragraph 44 that a person such as Mr. Peter Levene, who is responsible for expenditure of about £9 billion, should not be questioned by a Select Committee about his conduct? A few days ago my hon. Friend for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I met the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement who, through no fault of his own, was not up to date on matters concerning the royal dockyards, but it was obvious—I hope that I am not disclosing anything confidential—that Dr. Harte, who is responsible for the day-to-day deliberations on the contractors who are likely to take charge of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth, and the information going to Ministers, was fully conversant with what was involved. If the recommendations in paragraph 44 are followed, it will not be possible to question Dr. Harte about his conduct in the negotiations. That would be reprehensible.
The Secretary of State for Defence, when responding to the Committee's report on helicopters, mentioned some of the problems associated with foreign ownership. He should consider the fact that some of the bidders for the dockyards are directly owned by United States companies, particularly Foster Wheeler, which I understand will be the favoured contractor in Devonport if the policy comes to fruition.
I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) about collective responsibility. Paragraph 177 of the fourth report—I recognise that it is easy to quote out of context — deals with the behaviour of individuals. It states:
"In the unusual and sometimes bizarre reasoning which has been put before us, a justification has been given for each step taken. Although those involved must carry blame for what occurred, what seems especially reprehensible is a manner of doing business where the direct and honourable course does not present itself to the exclusion of all else."
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to rest much of his case on collective responsibility and the resuscitation of collective responsibility, a direct and honourable approach ought to present itself to the exclusion of all others. It is bizarre that, from 3 to 6 January 1986, in that inter-relationship between the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, no one thought of telephoning the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to ask, "What are you up to?" The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks did not think of saying to the Prime Minister, "Why should we not go to the Solicitor-General and ask him to write a letter? Why do I not ring Michael and have a talk?"
That would have been a direct and honourable approach. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Member
372
for Richmond, Yorks had direct departmental responsibility, he could have said to the Cabinet at some stage—perhaps he did; we are not privy to Cabinet minutes—"It is very odd that a campaign is being conducted in the press by the right hon. Member for Henley. It is extremely embarrassing to me. I am the Minister. Will you. Prime Minister, call us together and sort this out?" That approach would have been direct and honourable. I do not know why that was not done.
I have never been a member of a Government, and I am unlikely to be. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not all cheer. There have been Labour Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South (Mr. Callaghan) is one example. I cannot imagine these matters being ventilated in the press on a day-to-day basis without some calls for an honourable approach. I cannot imagine the former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, not following a similar approach. If collective responsibility is to be reintroduced, we should have in mind a more direct arid honourable approach to these affairs.
The Secretary of State for Defence sought some succour from paragraph 183 of the Select Committee's report, which effectively lets the Prime Minister off the hook. The paragraph states:
"The evidence is that the action of the Prime Minister's office on 6 January in relation to the disclosure was without her direct authority. She has stated that she had no knowledge on 6 January of what was taking place."
That statement practically lets the Prime Minister off the hook. Those words were carefully chosen. The disclosure was without her authority. The words deal with 6 January; they do not deal with 4 January or any other period.
The leader of the Liberal party has put his gloss on that episode. The Select Committee used that phrase. Let us consider the consequences if we did otherwise. If we do not accept the Prime Minister's words, in effect we have to say that she was lying, that she was not telling the truth, and we would have to prove it. The only way to do so would be to summon the Prime Minister and ask her or her civil servants to give evidence on oath.
The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) laid great stress on the importance of having a unanimous report. As a Select Committee member, I agree. I do not think that we would have done a service to the House if we had produced a divided report.
Therefore, we spent a long time on the report. I make no apology for that, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), and in particular the Tory members of the Committee, on undertaking this arduous tasks of achieving a unanimous report. We saw ourselves, individually and collectively, as servants of the House performing a task. Although we had embarked on an investigation, the task was placed on the Select Committee by the House of Commons and we had to discharge that duty. I repeat that the words chosen, particularly in paragraph 183, were designed to keep the Committee united. I make no apology for suggesting that these words do not completely — nor can they — exonerate the Prime Minister from her activities or her responsibilities over her civil servants.
We probed Sir Robert Armstrong, and it was an interesting experience to see the head of the Civil Service come before a Select Committee. He is a slick operator and a skilful man, and there came a point in our proceedings when he knew very well that he was round Tattenham

373
corner and into the home straight, and he sat back and began to tell jokes about the pig and the hen, and a bacon and egg breakfast. He was completely relaxed then.
Despite the Government's response to the Select Committee, particularly in paragraph 44, we should not kid ourselves that these people are shrinking violets and have to be protected when they come before Select Committees. They are well armed and highly educated men and women, as they have to be. Therefore, it is nonsense for the Government to suggest that they need a great deal of protection. These people often have a responsibility for considerable budgets, and Select Committees should be able to probe them.
We come now to the activities of the Attorney-General. This is not the first debate that we have had on these affairs. I was most interested in the remarks made in an Adjournment debate on 24 July by the right hon. and learned member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). He spoke in defence of the Attorney-General's actions in granting immunity and in defence of the phraseology used by the Attorney-General when he said that there was no reason why he should pursue anyone in the courts because of his actions in this affair.
To clarify the actions of the Attorney-General, we need a clear statement from him on exactly what was said to him by Sir Robert Armstrong before he granted immunity. Was the Attorney-General told that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks was taking full responsibility, and was the right hon. and learned Gentleman named in these conversations, thus enabling the Attorney-General to give clearance?
Mr. Dalyell: Some civil servants, one of whom, if The Times is to be believed, is Miss Colette Bowe, have stored away in bank vaults their version of events. If the civil servants' version did not differ significantly from that of the Government, why did they go to the trouble of doing that?
Mr. Douglas: That is a matter for Miss Colette Bowe or anybody else, perhaps my hon. Friend, to comment on, if he thinks fit. However, it is clear that Sir Robert Armstrong's notes will be available, or could be available, to the House if it presses the matter of these investigations. It would be worth while for the Select Committee to probe exactly what procedures he undertook on the inquiry.
The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, to the best of my knowledge, in his remarks to the House, did not repeat what the Committee said in a press release a week ago. He said that we saw no reason to modify anything that we had said in the report. Therefore, these reports in totality, and particularly the fourth report, are an indictment of the Government's approach to Select Committees and how they behave towards the House. In particular, they are an indictment of the Prime Minister's form of government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation, and I appeal for the co-operation of those right hon. and hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called.
7.5 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: In its earlier stages the debate concentrated on defence matters, but increasingly it has concentrated on the Government's reply to the report from the Select Committee on Defence and, in particular, its conclusions.
I feel it important that the content of those paragraphs should be correctly analysed, for they deal, in the widest possible terms, with the question of accountability. The reply concludes by saying:
"the Government proposes to make it clear to civil servants giving evidence to Select Committees that they should not answer questions which are or appear to be directed to the conduct of themselves or of other named individual civil servants."
It is unfortunate that that statement should be made in reply to this report because, as the House knows, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee reported on these issues in May and the Government's reply to that report was published on the same day as the report on Westland from the Select Committee on Defence. At that stage, there was no mention of the introduction of this idea, and to introduce it now and muddle it up in this debate is wrong.
It is right that we should be discussing this matter on the Adjournment, but I make it clear—I believe this is the view throughout the House—that the vote should in no way be taken to endorse those final paragraphs of the Government's reply. If that is not so, the Government most assuredly must make that clear—and if it were so, they would be defeated.
This sudden proposal has been made at short notice, with no consultation, and raises matters of the greatest interest and concern to the House, and in particular to the Select Committees. The right way forward is for the Treasury and Civil Service Committee to consider not only the Government's response to its report but the broad-ranging issues, and report again to the House. In due course, as appropriate, the Liaison Committee can consider what the implications are for the Select Committees, because they are serious. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will accept that this is not a satisfactory way to proceed. It is described as a proposal and should be treated as a proposal, and carefully reconsidered before anything further is done about it. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance about that. There must be further discussion and analysis of this matter.
I stress the extent of common ground. In their reply to our seventh report, the Government endorsed the Committee's two basic propositions on accountability—that Ministers and not officials are responsible and accountable for policy and that officials' advice to Ministers is, and should remain, confidential. There is no dispute about that, and Committees operate well on that basis. If it is a matter of policy, the civil servant can say, "I am very sorry but I cannot answer that — it is a matter for the Minister." If the civil servant is asked what advice he gave the Minister, he can reply, "I am sorry, but I cannot tell you." All Select Committees accept that. The disagreement lies on the very narrow, but extremely important, point of whether civil servants should answer for their actions—or what the Government described in their response as their conduct. I believe their conduct and their actions are the same. Clearly, that is something that the House has a responsibility to investigate.

375
I want to comment on one or two of the arguments — if such they be — in the Government's response. Paragraph 41 states:
"Select Committees exercise their formal powers to inquire into the policies and actions of Departments by virtue of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament."
If we consider that carefully, the sentence is nonsense. It continues:
"Civil servants who appear before them do so as representatives of and subject to the instructions of the Minister."
That is a non sequitur. In any case, however we read those sentences they are wrong. That is not the reason why the House had authority to look into these matters. Select Committees exercise their formal powers to inquire into the policies and actions of Departments because Parliament is sovereign and it has established Select Committees to monitor Government Departments, and has given them the traditional powers to send for persons and papers. It is presumptuous for the Government's reply to be couched in the terms that were used.
There are conventions on the way in which those powers should be exercised. If a witness refuses to appear, he may be formally summoned to do so by the Committee. If that does not succeed, the Committee must come to the Floor of the House. The proposal before us is wrong. It is likely to be ineffective because it would not have changed the way in which a Committee can operate. It can still come to the Floor of the House and insist on calling that witness.
We can trace cases of this kind back over the centuries. There is no way in which a reply as an obiter dictum to a Commitee report can undermine that position. The reality is that Committees act sensibly in their use of privilege. There is no modern instance of a Select Committee using its formal powers to force a civil servant to answer a question. Even if the powers were abused, Ministers can still defend their case on the Floor of the House. There is no argument to support that statement in the reply to the report of the Select Committee on Defence, and that should be recognised.
We should also note the final sentence of the motion in the previous debate on 15 January 1986; which states that the House
"recognises the competence of departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons to consider the issues raised by these developments."
That clearly includes the actions of civil servants. How can we now be told that the Government do not
"believe that a Select Committee is a suitable instrument for inquiring into or passing judgment upon the actions or conduct of an individual civil servant."
I am severely restricted by time; it is difficult to deal with these matters in 10 minutes. I endorse what has already been said. Clearly, the proposal would undermine the work of the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Privileges Committee. Is it seriously suggested that this doctrine should apply to the Privileges Committee if it wished to investigate a specific matter? There should not be two classes of Committee, some with rights to examine and others without.
It is very important that we should stress that the Government, in referring to a recommendation from the report of the 1977–78 Select Committee on Procedure that it would not be appropriate for the House to go directly below the level of Ministers, ignores the context in which the statement was made. The context was that the
376
Committee should have the right to send for Ministers without returning to the Floor of the House. We should not go around making selective quotations of that kind. I do not know who was responsible for drafting the reply, but it was badly drafted and the whole matter must be reconsidered.
Finally, much reference has been made to Crichel Down and there is a great deal of misunderstanding about that. That doctrine was largely set out by the Home Secretary in the debate on that matter. He distinguished various cases: the case where the official is directly under the instructions of the Minister; the case where the official is dealing with the policy as enunciated by the Minister. In those cases, the Minister must defend and protect the official. There is a third case, in which the individual may have done something wrong which was not too serious. In that case the Minister explains and takes the necessary action. It is stressed in the Crichel Down doctrine that the action of a civil servant which is outside the policy or disapproved of by the Minister, of which he knew nothing, does not mean that the Minister must defend him. In those circumstances there is no reason why he should not be named.
As was stated in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report, we must ensure that there is accountability to the House. I believe that that important argument must be considered by the House. Given that latest development, it is important for the House eventually to express a view on the matter—I hope with the Government's agreement.
It is curious that paragraph 44 of the reply sets out various reasons why it might be a mistake for named officials to reply to questions about their affairs and about specific civil servants. I do not believe that it is true that in the present circumstances the reputation of the civil servant concerned has been protected by an internal inquiry that has not been made public — a bland statement by Ministers that there is nothing to worry about and disciplinary action will not be necessary. Nor do I believe that that constitutes accountability to the House. It is vital that that accountability should be maintained and that the rights of Select Committees be preserved.
I commend to my right hon. Friend paragraph 3.18 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report, which states:
"We are not satisfied that a private internal inquiry which is not fully reported to Parliament constitutes accountability … We do not find this a convincing argument. The officials concerned might well have welcomed an opportunity to explain their actions in public (which would not, we stress, have been in conflict with the confidential nature of advice to Ministers). It would also have enabled Parliament to consider who was responsible for any mistakes and who ought to have been held accountable."
The Committee's conclusion in paragraph 3.19 is clear. In addition to accountability, it states,
"We invite and recommend that the Government and other interested parties should produce for reconsideration specific proposals on how the crucial question of accountability should be dealt with in future."
I believe that that is the right constructive response to accountability, rather than the kind of response to accountability that the Government have produced. I hope that my right hon. Friend will succeed in ensuring that that is the way in which matters will proceed.
7.18 pm
Mr. John Morris: I want to express my gratitude to the Select Committee on Defence. I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate on two questions that remain unanswered. In my view they are, and remain, the key questions.
I put these questions to the Leader of the House in the course of his reply to a debate on 27 January. I hope that he will answer my questions now. First, did the Prime Minister canvass, with her advisers or any Minister, before she requested through her office, that the Solicitor-General should write his letter and the possibility of the letter being put into the public domain?
I believe that the closely drafted replies given by the Prime Minister as to her state of knowledge after the letter was written do not deal with her state of knowledge before the letter was written. If two Ministers, and more so a Minister and his servants, or the Prime Minister and a Minister, contemplate and agree one course of action, short of some dramatic change of circumstance, it would be improbable for the inferior in rank to go back to the superior for reaffirmation of the authority already given. Hence I venture to suggest that frequently the wrong question has been put to the Prime Minister. She had already agreed to what was to be a flagrant breach of constitutional properties before the Solicitor-General was requested to write his letter. It was a put-up job, as far as the Solicitor-General was concerned, the moment the idea was conceived and agreed upon.
Following a negative reply from the Prime Minister to my questions, I sent a long letter to her setting out my assertion that she had not answered my questions. I gave detailed references from Hansard. The letter is published in the evidence that is contained in the Select Committee's report. The Prime Minister replied that she had already given a full account of the circumstances.
I now put to the House additional matters to demonstrate why I believe that the Prime Minister had agreed beforehand the course of action that was taken. The Solicitor-General signed the letter at 11.15. The Department of Trade and Industry officials, including the head of information, first saw the letter at 1 pm. The Select Committee reported that the fact that the head of information had been alerted suggested that before Ministers were consulted, officials had in mind some public use of this information. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) who said that it should go into the public domain and that No. 10 should be consulted. It had to be subject to the agreement of No. 10.
As for the differences in understanding between four officials at No.10 and the DTI, the Select Committee says that it is not impossible that four such officials should have been capable of identical misunderstandings. The Prime Minister repeated that the reason for disclosure was to get accurate information into the public domain.
At 2 o'clock Miss Bowe gave details to the Press Association. It was the Government's view that the giving of extracts of the Solicitor-General's letter was the only way to correct inaccuracies. No wonder the Select Committee found that it was quite extraordinary that five senior civil servants accepted this, apparently without demur. Westland had been told by telephone, in any event,
378
and Sir John Cuckney stated that it made no difference to his press conference. No wonder the Select Committee says:
"the reason given by the Prime Minister for releasing the information to the Press Association begins to look flimsy, to say the least."
It is odd that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was not asked about it on either Saturday 4 January or Sunday 5 January, or invited to correct the misinformation that apparently he had provided.
The Select Committee found that the Government's reasoning was "unusual and sometimes bizarre." I agree with its finding. It is strange that nobody rang the Solicitor-General to explain the compelling need to correct the misinformation. He might have said that he could not reach a firm conclusion. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks would not say why the Solicitor-General had not been told. The question remains unanswered. If, as the Government suggest, they are satisfied that those concerned acted in good faith, surely there can be no objection now to answering the question.
I make five specific points. First, in evidence Sir Robert Armstrong said that he had spoken to the Prime Minister and to the former Secretary of State and that he was in a position to confirm that there had been no prior clearance. He said that he had made other inquiries but he refused to state what they were. Apart from that, there is no other evidence to contradict my assertion.
Secondly, the value of Sir Robert's evidence is undermined first by the former Secretary of State's evidence—he clearly skirts around the issue and he has refused to answer specific questions on this point—and secondly by the Prime Minister's refusal to answer at all.
Thirdly, is it likely that Miss Bowe would have been present at a meeting without there being a clear presumption that there would be a public interface? Would officials, or even the Minister in particular, in view of his legal experience, have contemplated using the letter without prior authority from the Prime Minister?
Fourthly, the Prime Minister's considered replies do nothing to rebut this inference. She said:
"I was not consulted at the time."
That leaves open the implication that she was consulted at an earlier stage.
Fifthly, other than as part of a plan that was conceived to discredit the right hon. Member for Henley, why was the Solicitor-General's opinion obtained in the first place on what was essentially a simple question as to whether or not two letters were or were not consistent? Any DTI official could have answered that question. The ability to read is not confined to lawyers. The inference must be that the Solicitor-General was used to provide clout, and that clout had to be delivered in public. The evidence seems to suggest, or at the very least does not controvert, the suggestion that the matter had been canvassed before the wheels were set in motion.
My second question was, and is, this: when the Prime Minister agreed to the setting up of the inquiry, did she know at that stage, or have reason to believe, that it was an official leak? Was it a bogus inquiry from her point of view? Was it a put-up job on the Prime Minister's part from the beginning? Was it something to buy off the Attorney-General?
This question is also outstanding. Despite telling the House on numerous occasions what she did not know until the inquiry reported, she has repeatedly failed to say what

379
she did know when she instigated the inquiry. In particular, she has never clarified what the communications in "general terms" between her office and the DTI were.
The Select Committee expressed surprise that, despite the fact that Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham knew what had happened, the Prime Minister was not told. Furthermore, they expressly assert that Sir Robert knew that the disclosure had been authorised when he commenced his inquiry. It is a little hard to believe that the Prime Minister was not told that until 22 January when she said:
"An enormous number of the facts were not known to me until yesterday".—[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 455–456.]
Details, yes; the broad statement that it was all along an an official leak, no. The reality is that the Prime Minister could not answer, and that she cannot answer, the second question without prejudicing her position on the first.
If all acted in good faith, why should there not be a full and fresh disclosure now? To repeat the parrot cry that she has given a full account to which she has nothing to add is the repetitive denial, so often experienced, of someone who has no answer to make to a charge. The failure to answer these basic questions is a blot on the honour and integrity of the Prime Minister. Paragraph 183 does not exonerate her. It limits her to the knowledge on 6 January of direct action and what her office was doing on that day. It is a very limited conclusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. and learned Member to end his speech.
Mr. Morris: Is it too late, in the face of the evidence, to ask for an answer to these questions?
7.29 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I speak as a member of the Select Committee who has taken a very close interest in the inquiry. I attended all 39 of the evidence-taking and deliberative sessions, save one on the day that my daughter was born. Therefore, I have a deep interest in the future of the Select Committee system. I speak also as one who was not consulted on the creation of the Select Committees in their present form because I was not a Member of the previous Parliament. Therefore I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal mainly with the constitutional points that have been raised today.
It is an attractive crusade that represents indignant Back Benchers against a recalcitrant and secretive Executive and is about the rights of Back Benchers to receive the fullest possible information from civil servants. However, there are some difficulties in this rosy scenario and I should like to outline them. Our legislature is very different from the United States Congress or from any parliament created by a written constitution. Like our common law, it has evolved slowly by precedent into what is largely an adversarial affair conducted on the Floor of this Chamber. It is conducted in the full blaze of publicity and before all Members of Parliament if they choose to attend.
Some people have argued that such notions are outdated and too partisan and shallow for the work of Parliament in overseeing the complexities of modern government. In that context I am thinking of what Shirley Williams said in her book. Despite that, our Parliament is a uniquely exciting and vibrant assembly, though admittedly the competition from our sister
380
democratic assemblies is rather abysmal. Anybody visiting parliaments abroad or staring down from the public gallery at the sheer tedium of the United States Congress would bear witness to the peculiar character and dramatic effect of this House in full cry. In the debates about Westland and in the questions and statements, we saw that side of the character of the House brought out to full effect.
The tradition which sustains the cut and thrust in this House is based on the necessity of Ministers to be accountable in the fullest sense as Members of this House or of the other place. Nothing bore this out to more effect than the dramatic resignation of two Cabinet Ministers at the height of the Westland affair. We do not have a bane des ministres as in the Assemblie Nationale in Paris, filled with dry technocrats recruited from the universities or from big business and brought in to make formal orations from some tribune of the people in front of a semi-circular assembly.
Unlike the United States, we do not have a chief executive who comes down once a year from some Olympian height to give a state of the union address. Ours is a remarkable achievement nurtured by long centuries of development, tradition and precedent. It is all too easy to destroy those long years of achievement in the span of one Parliament. In that context I rely on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) that there is nothing innovative in the Government's response to the report that I signed.
Let us look again at the campaign for Parliament's rights that we have heard about in this debate. We are told that those rights are encompassed in the alleged wrongs inflicted on Select Committees by the Government's response to the Defence Committee's report. That response is contained in paragraph 44 and I shall not repeat the wording of the paragraph. Civil servants should not be required to answer questions about their conduct. If we look at the Government's response we will see that we are not being asked to question whether civil servants should be answerable for administrative affairs or policy. We are simply dealing with matters of conduct.
As I have said, the tradition that gives our Parliament so much of its colour and vigour is based on the concept of ministerial responsibility on the Floor of the House. Anything that detracts from that duel of wits over the Dispatch Box detracts in a real sense from Parliament itself. To the extent to which some Members who happen to be members of a Select Committee are given an even larger role, so is the role of all Members diminished.
Sadly, the role of this Chamber has already been diminished. We know the reasons for that and many of those reasons are inevitable. We should hesitate carefully before attempting to turn Select Committees into the kind of powerful instrument that they are in the American Congress, because that would hasten the flight of interest from this Chamber. However, Select Committees have a role to play. It is to question and dig away at the kind of detail that we cannot possibly scrutinise on the Floor of the House. Select Committees fall down in attempting to tackle items of acute party political controversy. That is not a criticism of the members of Select Committees because, as in the Committee that looked into the Westland affair, there is no choice. The duty is placed on the Select Committee by Parliament as a whole.
Inevitably, in inquiries into areas of acute controversy, the members of Select Committees, once the evidence has

381
been taken, are faced with three kinds of report. They can support the Government line outright, criticise it but not too much, or oppose the Government line outright and support what the Opposition parties have said in the House. The first and third courses serve no purpose; they would simply result in the Committee aping what has been said in the House. All the pressure on Committee members, and the only sensible approach, is to devise a report that mildly criticises the Government and suggests some mild reform or other, perferably a little to the left or right of what one side or the other is saying. That is the kind of report that a Select Committee usually signs.
The result of that is that the newspapers are pleased and the headline writers can say, "All-party report criticises Government". That is news. The Opposition are pleased because they can go along to the Tea Room and tell their colleagues that they have persuaded Government Members to hammer the Government. Government Members of the Committee are pleased because they can say to themselves that they are men of conscience and principle and perhaps that is why they have not been promoted. The result is that everybody is pleased.
As we have heard, in many respects the Westland report was masterly, but of course it fell into that category. I make no apologies for that. We had no less than 24 prolonged and hard deliberative sessions. I have no intention of reporting to the House what went on in those private sessions but a shrewd observer might conclude that some Labour members of the Committee might have wanted to go further and that I might not have wanted to go so far. Politics being the art it is, we made compromises. I put my name to the report and I stand by that because it is a well balanced attempt to set out in great detail the history of the Westland affair.
Perhaps that provides me with an opportunity to depart from the constitutional issues at stake and to emphasise the significance of paragraph 183. I need not labour the point about the paragraph because it has frequently been made during the debate. That paragraph exonerates the Prime Minister from any blame or involvement in this affair. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to dig away and to say that perhaps we did not discuss that matter. The hon. Gentleman put his name to a report containing paragraph 183 and that absolves the Prime Minister from any blame. In that sense I view the report as satisfactory. Like all reports from Select Committees to which everybody puts his name, I accept that it is necessarily a compromise.
By giving Select Committees more power we would wean power away from the Chamber and I would regret that. Select Committees are best advised to deal with matters that are not central to the party political stage of the moment. We should take care before dramatically increasing the powers of Select Committees, because that would bypass the traditional responsibility of Ministers to the House. To allow them to interview civil servants in their Departments or perhaps in their private offices, not just on matters of administration or policy but on their competence, would be a dangerous step. That is why I welcome the Government's response to the report.
7.38 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
382
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), because I found his speech somewhat convoluted and generalised. Perhaps it was designed to take attention away from the embarrassing details that have been so cogently and perceptively illuminated in speeches by hon. Members from both sides.
I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that I wish to speak rather more to the third report than to the fourth. I shall do so, wishing now, as I wished throughout the Westland crisis, that the probity of the Government and the future of Westland could be separated. The problems of Westland plc and the effect that they have on my constituency and on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) are worthy of discussion in their own right, and that has all too frequently been obscured by the broader constitutional debate.
I agree with other right hon. and hon. Members that Westland's position is now—it has to be said, and I am glad to say it—immeasurably stronger than it was earlier this year. The capital base of the company has been restored, an excellent working relationship has been established with its new partners, Sikorsky and Fiat, the licence to produce the Black Hawk has been negotiated, and the first Black Hawk aircraft produced in Yeovil will roll out of the aircraft hangers next year.
Contrary to the dire prophecies made by those who wished to give strength to their own positions earlier this year, European co-operation on helicopter production has proceeded without check and apace. The profitability of the company has risen and continues to rise, and morale among the work force is improving, even if communications within the company have not always been as good as many of us would have liked.
In short, Westland has now taken steps which should assure its long-term viability, without a single penny of cost to the taxpayer. It would be wrong to say that this has been done without cost to jobs, production and morale, and to the ability of management to control the situation. One cannot threaten the whole future of a company, as the Government have done, without doing some damage. However, the strength of the company has prevailed, not least because of its excellent leadership and the unity of purpose and commitment of its work force.
Westland has therefore fulfilled its part of the bargain, despite an almost criminal level of neglect of its problems by the Government in the latter part of last year, and despite being treated as a political football by some of the most powerful in the land in the early part of this year. I wish I could say bluntly that the Government had fulfilled their part in the reconstruction of Westland's future, but I can make no such statement. The future of helicopter policy in Britain, and with it the future of Westland, remains shrouded in uncertainty. None of that has been lifted by the opaque and vague speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, who merely rehashed statements made in the past and did not provide the signposts that we need for the future.
We are told that the helicopter review now in progress should be completed by the end of November, at which time it will be considered by the Secretary of State. If I welcome that review, it is not without a degree of scepticism.
The Secretary of State said that we should not rush into these matters, but we have been trying to formulate a helicopter policy for this country for 17 years. During this period Westland has had to muddle through as best it can,

383
without a clear idea of what the Government wanted in the long term. The Select Committee on Defence called for the present review to be completed by the autumn so that the Secretary of State could take a view by the end of the year. It appears from the Secretary of State's speech that that will not happen. I repeat the view of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) who said that if it were to appear late, and especially later next year, that might prove too late for thousands of jobs and for the future viability of Westland as a major helicopter manufacturer.
All those in the know are indicating that the current review will offer nothing substantial about future helicopter policy and will be bland in its recommendations. The most likely proposals put to Ministers are, it seems, to run on the Wessex and Puma aircraft—something at which the Secretary of State hinted — and to order no further helicopters until the EH101 is in production. I must say to the Secretary of State in the clearest terms possible that any such recommendation will be bad for Her Majesty's forces, a severe blow to Britain's aerospace industry and damaging to exports and could be potentially devastating for Westland.
The decision for the Secretary of State is essentially a political one. He will, first, have to consider what is best for the armed forces. The central issue is to clarify the Government's policy towards helicopters in the land battle. The Government must fulful the requirements stated in AST 404 and not dodge them. I accept, and Westland accepts, that there may be a number of solutions to that problem — the Black Hawk, the EH101 or the Lynx. The only decision that is wholly unacceptable is that no decision be taken, and the future once again be fudged.
With the United States and the USSR both taking steps to expand their air mobility through the increased use of helicopters, it cannot make sense for Britain to be moving in the opposite direction. The United Kingdom armed services helicopter fleet has declined by nearly 8 per cent. since 1979, while all other armed forces are increasing theirs. United States sources have calculated that the British Army on the Rhine is now 100 helicopters light on its actual needs within the mobile war which NATO is planning to fight. The Government seem to fail to recognise what all other Governments have seen so clearly, that with diminishing manpower resources, and in the face of a numerically stronger Soviet force, helicopters have a unique role to play as a force multiplier.
With current helicopter resources, it takes four to five hours to airlift a British Army battalion, whereas the USA and USSR can airlift a whole brigade in much less time. The problem with our helicopters on the central front is not just with their quantity, but with their quality. The Army still depends on ancient RAF Wessex, the oldest helicopter fleet in the world. If it was right to replace the Royal Navy Wessex 5 with the new Sea King 4 for the Royal Marines, why is it not right to replace the Wessex on the central front also?
Next, the Secretary of State must consider the impact of his plans on the British aerospace industry. There is discussion about the possible purchase of the Boeing Chinook heavy lift helicopters. Has the Secretary of State no idea of how damaging that decision would be to the United Kingdom helicopter industry and its aerospace suppliers? How could such a decision line up with the Government's previously declared support for the EH101? Why are the Government continuing to equivocate on the
384
NH90 project? Given the amount of taxpayers' money already sunk into this future aircraft, the Government must recognise that re-inventing the Super Puma as a collaborative venture would throw away investment, waste export opportunities and undoubtedly destroy jobs.
Let me turn, finally, to the impact on Westland itself. I should remind the House that Westland is the provider of 9,000 high technology jobs, not just in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and in that of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), and also in other areas. As 70 per cent. of the value of a modern helicopter is brought in from outside, Westland is the purchaser of a large amount of aerospace equipment from up and down Britain. As such it is a key component in Britain's aerospace industry, as well as being our nation's only helicopter manufacturer.
What Westland needs most at present is a decision. It is the uncertainty imposed by Government shilly-shallying and indecision which has so sapped morale and created difficulties for management. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to give a clear decision as soon as possible so that Westland's future can be planned. We do not need the £1 million which the Government seem prepared to put into Rover, or the kind of money which they were prepared to use to bail out their friends in Johnson Matthey. Indeed, we are not asking for any money. Westland is not asking for charity—we never have. We are asking only for a clear idea of what the Government want, so that we can get ahead and plan how best to meet the nation's needs. Surely that is not asking too much?
Above all, my plea to the Secretary of State is to give us a decision and to be clear about it. It would be wrong to suggest that there are not some decisions that are preferable to others. While the long-term future of Westland is now assured with the EH101 project, the short term remains a cause for considerable concern.
The worst scenario of all would be no decision, but the second worst would be a decision where the Government sought to run on our decrepit and ancient helicopters for the Army without replacement. It seems that this is what the Secretary of State is considering. If we were to do that, we should have to lay off, in the face of the trough in the work that Westland has until the end of this decade, one of Westland's most priceless assets—its design teams. We should not only have to pay for those redundancies, but we should have to re-recruit that staff in the early 1990s. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members must know that, with the present technology skill gap in our country, that would be very difficult.
In short, what is at risk is nothing less than Westland's survival, not as a company—as the Secretary of State has said, it is strong enough to diversify — but as a major helicopter manufacturer in its own right.
We all know the difficulties which the Government are facing over this matter. Trident is causing this cut in defence expenditure. We all know that Westland may be a casualty of that. That obsession has caused the current situation.
Westland has been dealt with ill by this Government over the past three years. It was first ignored and then treated as a political shuttlecock. It now deserves better from the Department of Trade and Industry and from the Government. Westland has played its part, and I hope that the Minister will now play his.
The shilly-shallying, indecision and mismanagement which have been the chief characteristics of the

385
Government's approach to this great company must now stop. The future prosperity of the community which I represent, thousands of jobs and the defence of this nation now depend upon it.
7.49 pm
Sir Edward du Cann: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoilt his speech with such political rubbish at its end. However, I agree that the nation needs a clear helicopter policy. The nation and Somerset both need a strong and prosperous Westland company and I am sure that, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that is exactly what we have and will have.
Limited for time, I rise to make a single point. The Government's response to the Select Committee's report adopts an astonishing position in relation to accountability. It proposes, in effect, that it is for the Government, not Parliament, in future to decide the scope of Select Committees inquiries into their work. Such a doctrine in our democracy must be promptly rejected.
The political division in Britain and in the House between Socialists and Conservatives — the political battle, indeed — part ideological, part practical, is whether the state's involvement in our national life should be greater in extent or less. What unites us, or at least the Back Benchers, is the duty, whatever the extent of that involvement may be, to ensure that the actions of the Executive — the Government — are brought under an effective and continuous scrutiny. That is what the electors trust us to do. They also trust us to establish methods by which we can, in this modern complex age, achieve it.
Before the 1979 general election, the Conservative party pledged itself to
"seek to make it"—
Parliament—
"effective in its job of controlling the Executive."
Thereafter, the new departmentally related Select Committees were established, approved and supported by the whole House. It was the intention, the then Leader of the House said, to
"redress the balance of power between Whitehall and Westminster".
Full co-operation was promised in the name of the Government. The Leader of the House said that
"the objective of the new Committee structure would be to strengthen the accountability of Ministers"
He went on:
"Each Committee will be able to examine the whole range of activity for which its Minister or Ministers have direct responsibility."
Thus, full co-operation was pledged on the part of the Government. The Committees were given wide powers to send for persons and papers. On those clear, specific assurances the Government now, apparently, seek, almost casually, to renege. That is unacceptable.
It is generally agreed that the Select Committee system has been a success. Daylight has been brought into the decision-making process. There has been a new career opportunity for Members of Parliament away from the dominance of the parties. There has been a platform for Ministers and civil servants to explain, debate and discuss policies. There has been more information for Members of Parliament and our debates have been better informed in consequence. In sum, the establishment of the Committees
386
has been an important constitutional advance. We still have some distance to go. Control of money is what we must take in the House; when we first refuse to vote money, we shall have begun to exercise real authority.
But suddenly now the Government say that they intend to change the rules of the game with regard to all Government evidence to all Select Committees. Yet the words they use at the end of their reply to the Select Committee on Defence simply do not stand up in the case of the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and so on. It is charitable to assume that the reply simply has not been thought through. I particularly regret it because, until now, the Government's attitude to the new Select Committees has, on the whole, been exemplary.
The creation of the Committees in 1979 will always be looked back on as an historic decision, from which the House and the country have benefited greatly. There have been many cases since then when there have been disagreements, and perhaps friction, between the two sides, but by and large they have gradually been settled in a sensible House of Commons way with compromise on both sides. In my experience of four years, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will allow me to say so as his predecessor, the first Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Liaison Select Committee, I do not recall one instance of real difficulty. It is against the grain of that happy experience that the Government have now acted so rashly, and they have done so on the basis of a single case which cannot be considered typical of Select Committee work.
What is to be done? Frankly, the report must be withdrawn. Nothing else will do. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing is right to arrange for the Liaison Committee to consider the situation and I hope that the Procedure Select Committee will do so also. I hope that both Committees will publish their views and that they will be strong and clear.
Make no mistake 'about what is at stake in this matter. It is of the utmost importance. The Government have given in the paper their reply to the modest observations of a Select Committee of the House — that they will henceforward limit the effectiveness and authority of Parliament. "Be damned if you will," would be my comment. "And so say all of us," I hope will be the echo in all quarters of the House. Any Government are the servant of our people and never their master. Parliament, the people's elected representatives in the House, must be sovereign in its own House. The scope of the authority of Parliament is for Parliament to decide, not for some ministerial diktat to propose.
Who wrote this anonymous rubbish? Which Minister or Ministers approved it? They should come here and apologise to us. Nothing ever should interrupt or curtail the right of elected Members of Parliament to criticise, to inquire, to investigate, to expose inefficiency, waste, incompetence or corruption, or even to praise when praise is due, as it so often is.
If the debate, curtailed as it has so unfortunately been, refreshes and re-emphasises that constitutional right, that constitutional duty, it will have been well worth while.
7.56 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 18 November 1985 I visited Westland at Yeovil. Taken round by Bill Gueterbock and shop stewards, I was told of the

387
company's plight and its need for orders and of the lack of interest from Ministers. Therefore, I shall be acquitted of lack of concern about the British helicopter industry and the charge of simply making political mischief. When I was in Yeovil in November last year, the company was desperate to get Ministers to look at its problems.
If I concentrate on the Law Officer's letter, it is not, to borrow Brian Redhead's dismissive phrase this morning, about "Westminster shenanigans"; it is about the integrity of the British Government.
Like the rest of us, I am a party politician. But, above that in certain matters, I am a child of the House of Commons and party can come second. I care about how the House is treated by Ministers, however exalted they are. My Front Bench knows that I was critical of the shadow Cabinet for not asking the shadow Attorney-General to open the debate and requiring the presence of one of the dramatis personae to answer—the Attorney-General himself.
I begin with a direct question which I hope will he answered when the Minister replies or in response to the first oral question on Monday.
Under the byline of that careful, well-informed and trustworthy political correspondent, John Lewis, known and held in respect over the years by many of us, on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph on 27 July 1986 there appeared the words:
"Havers threat to call police to No. 10."
The Attorney-General was compelled to warn Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, at the height of the Westland affair that he would have the police on the doorstep of No. 10 Downing street next morning unless he agreed to an immediate leaks inquiry. Is Mr. Lewis writing the truth, or is it without foundation? I believe it to be true. If so, what is the explanation of the senior Law Officer of the Crown threatening to bring the constabulary to No. 10?
On 14 July 1986, I asked the Attorney-General:
"Surely the usual practice is that Law Officers' letters are treated with extreme discretion and most gingerly by the Downing street machine. Why did the Solicitor-General's letter ever go near Mr. Ingham and the press office, unless there was a prime ministerial instruction that it was to be leaked?"
The answer was:
"I am quite certain that there was no such instruction." —[Official Report, 14 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 675.]
I believe that the Attorney-General was telling the truth in his own mind when he gave that answer. Does he still believe that to be true? At column 851, on 25 July, I had the lucky opportunity in an Adjournment debate to set out for 30 minutes my detailed concern about the Law Officer's letter. In reply, the Minister's answer was bland and anodyne. But in three months, no attempt has been made to answer my questions.
For more than 24 years as a Member of the House I have seen Ministers of Governments of both major parties go. Some of the resignation correspondence has been sad and pained as between old party colleagues, some has been curt, bordering on the acrimonious; but never, during a quarter of a century in the House, have I read of such correspondence as that between the Prime Minister and her departing Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Daily Telegraph of 25 January 1986 printed a letter from the Prime Minister to the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which ended:
"I hope that it will not he long before you return to high office to continue your Ministerial career."
388
How could the Prime Minister say that, if the complete picture was of a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who had deceived his senior civil servants, his Cabinet colleagues and his Prime Minister for 14 days? She said that because it was a negotiated correspondence. Had such a letter not been forthcoming, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) might have refused to carry the can and act as a prime ministerial scapegoat. He could negotiate. He could spill the prime ministerial beans. He held the ace, king, and queen of trumps.
I make no apology for quoting from Mr. Peter Hennessy's article in the New Statesman because I have some sympathy for the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. It states:
"Pressure from Conservative Back-Benchers forced Leon Brittan to follow Heseltinc out of the Government, not the requirements of Ministerial responsibility. The need to preserve the position of the Prime Minister, and not constitutional doctrine led the Conservative majority on the Commons Defence Committee to 'clear' Thatcher."
Simon Jenkins' article stated that passages had to be negotiated with Leon Brittan, lest he step out of line in the debate.
Parliament should not be content with being given a line. Hon. Members are entitled to the truth. If we are content simply to be spun a line, we are not doing our jobs properly.
I set out the narrative in columns 851 to 858 on 25 July. The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond. Yorks could show that before 6 January — before an unsuspecting Solicitor-General was prompted by No. 10 to write the letter—the Prime Minister had set down the guidelines for the strategy. Perhaps there was no need for consultation. Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell knew exactly what they had to do before the innocent Solicitor-General ever put pen to paper. If the civil servants were not carrying out the Prime Minister's orders, they should be punished. If she is not prepared to punish them, the Prime Minister should admit that they were carrying out her orders.
Sir Robert Armstrong's subsequent refusal to discipline any of the civil servants directly involved must be wholly unsatisfactory. The only reason for not disciplining them was that the Cabinet Secretary knew full well that it was not the more junior civil servants but the politicians that were guilty. Mr. Ingham refused, under orders, to give evidence to the Select Committee, and he is criticised for his central role in masterminding the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter. If he masterminded the leak of a Law Officer's letter, he should be sacked; he should not bask, as he is doing, in prime ministerial favour.
The Prime Minister has always claimed that her officials acted without her knowledge and that she did not know the full circumstances of how the leak occurred until nearly a fortnight after the event. Anyone reading the report of the Select Committee on Defence must regard that as a fairy tale. The raison d'etre of the letter was to leak it to discredit the former Secretary of State for Defence. The only reason for persuading the Solicitor-General to write the letter was to leak it.
Adam Raphael, quoting, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, said:
"It is a perfectly simple story of straightforward dishonesty"
I do not know Mr. Raphael's source, but I give the House my word of honour that three Conservative Privy

389
Councillors—I shall not betray their names—who are political opponents but friends and colleagues of mine for more than 20 years, have separately said much the same thing.
When pressed, the Prime Minister blames the professional competence—"misunderstandings"—of civil servants. But paragraph 15 of Cmnd. 9841, the Government's response to the seventh report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, states:
"The principle is clear: Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policies and actions of their Departments."
Pressed further, the Prime Minister authorises an inquiry, but it is an inquiry into that which she herself has set up.
Simon Jenkins states that the Prime Minister is protected by adopting the doctrine of proportionality—that whatever blame might attach to her for the leak, a prime ministerial resignation would be out of proportion. But the truth is the truth is the truth and lies are lies are lies. If the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Defence laid down their political careers, why is it disproportionate that the Prime Minister should lay down hers?
Paragraph 198 shows that on 23 January I asked:
"When did the Prime Minister's press office first tell her what it had done?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"I have said that I was not consulted at the time."
She said that she had given a full account. That is not true. At column 856 on Friday 25 July the narrative of how the Prime Minister organised the Law Officer's letter is spelt out. There was no full account. To say that the Prime Minister did not take part in the leak is a sustained, brazen deception. It is straightforward dishonesty. The House of Commons cannot continue to operate on that basis. Truthfulness in the House is the fulcrum of our system. The Prime Minister is a sustained, brazen deceiver now hiding behind cynical performances.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that and that he must withdraw that remark about the Prime Minister.
Mr. Dalyell: I say that she is a bounder, a liar, a deceiver, a cheat and a crook.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he cannot say that. He must either withdraw his remarks or I must invoke the powers invested in me and my responsibilities to the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, will withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to take up my colleagues' time. Let us carry the matter no further. I stick to my remarks and I know what you must do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In those circumstances, I have no alternative but to exercise the powers vested in me under Standing Order No. 24 and order the hon. Gentleman to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this sitting.
The hon. Member, having used a grossly disorderly expression, was ordered by MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER to withdraw the same, but he declined to comply with that direction, whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Disorderly conduct), ordered him to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting, and he withdrew accordingly
8.6 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The speeches by the Opposition remind me of a psychic research society desperately tramping round some old haunted house looking for a ghost. The only ghost that could be found was found by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). He is perfectly correct to state that the problem which started this whole sorry affair some 17 or 18 months ago is still with us. The House knows of my interest in the affairs of Westland plc. It is the largest employer in Weston-super-Mare and it has a crucial role to play in the economy of that area.
Only 30 to 40 per cent. of the modern helicopter is constructed in Yeovil and Weston-super-Mare. The rest of the machine, by value, is built in various parts of the west country and in the industrial centres of Britain. When we previously debated this matter, Westland plc was financially unsound. The Government were not clear as to whether they would assist it. Now, Westland plc is a busy, financially prosperous company. This morning on the wireless, the vice-chairman of Westland plc said that the company was profitable.
I do not wish any of my remarks to be interpreted as casting any aspersions on that aspect of the affair. In the helicopter division, there will not be enough work to maintain the present work force unless orders are received to sustain those factories in 1988–89. The anomaly, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, is that, having laid off many men from the west country, the company will have to reemploy them, if it can get them, so that the EHI01 programme, on which the Royal Navy is so rightly pushing ahead, can proceed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been kind enough to see me and talk about the matter, and I very much appreciate that. This afternoon, he used friendly words, but took no action. He shelters behind studies. When I was at the Ministry of Defence and asked whether it was morning or afternoon, I was told, "Minister, we'll have to do a study on that." That is a wonderful defence against making a decision. Officials go off and study the matter, and find out what the senior officer wants. That research is then translated down the line into a complicated answer saying just what the senior officer wishes.
After Exercise Lionheart, AST 404 was torn up as if the Army had suddenly discovered that in modern warfare, moving around in large helicopters was a good way of putting troops on the ground. The Americans learnt that in Vietnam and some of us have been advocating it for years. Yet "the experts" are doing a study that has already lasted some months. It will probably overrun, and its conclusions may not support the view held by many of us, that the Army is nowhere near well enough equipped with helicopters. The Royal Navy has led the way, but I shall say something later about the division of responsibilities between the services.
What is the reason for the lack of helicopters? There is unquestionably prejudice. Moreover, those trained in armoured vehicles often believe that that is the only way to fight. The military has displayed a poor flexibility of approach. Thus, the politicians must intervene, because there is no other way of resolving the issue. I remind the House that when Winston Churchill was first First Lord of the Admiralty he invented the tank. During the last war many people went to war on horses and found that after

391
having the machine gun for nearly 50 years, it was not a frightfully good way of tackling the problems of modern warfare. We are making the same sort of mistake.
I come to the ownership of helicopters. I cannot believe that anybody who has operated helicopters thinks that such a division of responsibility is good. In the Falklands, a company commander needing helicopter support had to apply for it by 5 o'clock the day before. From my amateur knowledge of warfare, I would say that that was an impossible proposition. Indeed, it proved impossible to provide the necessary service.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will probably say that it is all very well for me to say such things, but that what we need to know is where the resources are to come from. I suggest that he should look at the armoured personnel carrier programme that he has just instituted at a cost of nearly £500 million, and at his research budgets. From my experience at the Ministry of Defence I know that where there's a will there's a way. But I share my right hon. Friend's view that it is not the Ministry's job to support British industry. British industry looks to it as its customer, and Westland has constantly emphasised that it will do whatever the Government want it to do. It is not for that company to dictate to the Ministry of Defence.
If the Government believe that the British helicopter industry should be abandoned — I am sorry that there has been no statement to the contrary—the Department of Trade and Industry should dig into its relatively deep pocket and use some of its aid money to get over this temporary aberration. It uses large sums of money for launch aid in aviation projects, assists the car industry, and so on. But the sums that we are talking about are relatively small and would enhance British forces. The challenge would then be for the Ministry of Defence to find the men and the money to run these machines. However, that should not be difficult.
I very much support the Select Committee's recommendation of an aerospace board. In many areas there is conflict between the Ministry of Defence as a purchasing agent and the Department of Trade and Industry as a sponsoring Department, and that leads to confusion within the Government. The Westland affair is a particularly blatant example of that.
I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in the absence of firm assurances that the philosophy in the Ministry of Defence and in the Department of Trade and Industry has changed, I cannot support the Government tonight, for two reasons. First, there is a serious deficiency in the defence equipment provided to our Army. That is my prime reason for not joining my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight. Secondly, my conscience would not allow me to let a policy—or lack of policy — proceed that would lead to the laying off of many highly skilled people in an important part of the world, embracing not only my constituency but the west country as a whole. That would go very much against the grain.
8.13 pm
Mr. Jim Spicer: It is surprising that so far the Opposition have not said a word about the problems of the helicopter industry or what they propose to do about it. It is even more surprising, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) said, that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who
392
opened for the Opposition, should say hardly a word about Westland, but should address his remarks almost entirely to the fourth report.
It will come as no surprise when I say that those of my constituents who work at Westland have no interest in that fourth report. They work hard at Westland and are doing a good job. With the help and support now given by Sikorsky, they will do even more in the years ahead. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, we all knew about the two-year gap. It still exists, and the Government should address themselves to the question of how best to fill it through orders and overall support. In that way Westland could retain its skills and capacity, which will be needed in full measure one the EH101 goes into production. Moreover, what could be more ludicrous than the possibility of thousands of skilled men going off to the four corners of the world where their skills are in demand and then to have to cobble them together again in 1990–91 for production of the EH101? We should not tolerate such a ludicrous state of affairs.
Some hon. Members have looked at the larger picture and called for orders on a big scale. I do not disagree one iota with that. Used with skill, the helicopter massively increases mobility and provides unrivalled hitting power right across the battlefield. We lag behind in making imaginative use of that flexibility. We do not use helicopters properly, and others have led the way instead. The Germans, Americans and even the Russians have done it, yet we lag behind. That is sad, because this Government took the imaginative step of turning the 5th Infantry Brigade into the 5th Airborne Brigade. That was a sensible move and should have been followed by providing more modern helicopters for that brigade and for the other air mobile brigades.
We need decisions, but what more can we do to help? In March I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what helicopters were in use with the Queen's Flight and when they went into service. I was told that there were two Wessex helicopters in service with the Queen's Flight and that they had entered service in June and July 1969. Given the age of those helicopters, there must be a strong case for the Government placing an immediate order for two new helicopters for the Queen's Flight. That would have a dramatic effect on the company. First, it would give it an order worth about £5·5 million involving some 100,000 man hours of work. That is not to be sneezed at in the present climate. Secondly, and more important, the Wessex could be replaced by Sea Kings or Black Hawks, provided that the latter were built in this country, and that would be a clear sign to the world that our Government have complete confidence in Westland and are determined to help in any way possible. What better advertisement could there be for such excellent British products?
As a result of such a decision, confidence would increase and orders would flow in from abroad. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that we were in the business of trying to build up confidence and of helping the export market. Nothing could do more to help Westland than if it received an order to build and fit out two Sea Kings or Black Hawks for the Queen's Flight. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider this possibility as a matter of urgency.
8.18 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I hope that the' employment prospects for those employed at Westland in Yeovil will be secure. I noted, in particular, the remarks made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and I should stress that anything that undermined that security of employment would be of the utmost concern to Labour Members.
I want to concentrate on the fourth report of the Defence Committee on the Government's decision-making. Emerging from it is a picture of deceit and dishonesty at the very highest level of this Administration. Paragraph 36 of the Government's response quotes the Prime Minister as saying:
"Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry approached officials in my office who made it clear that it was not intended to disclose the Solicitor General's letter from 10 Downing Street; but, being told that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had authorised the disclosure, they accepted"—
that is, No. 10—
"that the Department of Trade and Industry should make it and they accepted the means by which it was proposed that the disclosure should be made."
That seems very bland, and if one compares that account with what appeared in The Observer last Sunday, one gets another picture altogether. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us whether the report by Adam Raphael is accurate. He wrote that Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minister's press secretary, put considerable pressure—and used certain words that would not be allowed by the Chair—on Miss Colette Bowe to ensure that the leak took place. Clearly there is a discrepancy between the Government's response and the feeling in the media about what occurred on that fateful day.
It is to the credit of Miss Bowe that she had such reluctance to do what she knew must have been wrong. Paragraph 174 of the Defence Committee's report speaks of the reluctance that Miss Bowe undoubtedly felt. She had doubts about the propriety of what was being done. I can respect the doubts and reluctance that she had at the time to leak extracts from the Solicitor-General's letter. It is also understandable that in all the circumstances Miss Bowe later sought immunity from prosecution, and that immunity was granted by the Attorney-General.
Apart from all the other shameful conduct in this whole wretched business, the Government also bear responsibility for placing a public servant such as Miss Colette Bowe in such an invidious position. No apology has been made to her about the position in which she was place by being forced to leak the letter. It is clear that Mr. Bernard Ingham must also bear responsibility for the excessive pressure that he exerted on her.
As the Defence Committee report makes clear, it may well be that other pressure was put upon her by her seniors in the Department of Trade and Industry, but Mr. Ingham's role does not come out very well. He seems to have a great deal of power. One wonders to whom he is really responsible. He is obviously responsible to the Prime Minister, but he has more power and authority than perhaps any other Prime Minister's press secretary has ever had. We should compare the power of Mr. Ingham with that of any hon. Member of this House—
Mr. Sheldon: Or the Cabinet.
Mr. Winnick: Indeed. That is a good comparison. He probably does have more power than a member of the Cabinet. Is that a healthy position in a parliamentary democracy?
The Secretary of State for Defence smiled when I made that point, but he no doubt knows the position far better than I do, and privately would probably confirm what I have just said
Inevitably, there will be a comparison between what happened in this case and what happened to Miss Sarah Tisdall, who responded to her conscience and leaked a certain document. I was one of the four Labour Members who visited her in prison. I continue to have a great respect for her. One of her tormentors was the then Secretary of State for Defence, who in the Westland affair did not hesitate to leak and so on to his advantage, quite regardless of the view of the rest of the Cabinet.
The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Britian), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, today made some remarks with which I entirely agree. He emphasised the need for collective Cabinet responsibility. We would all agree with that. I am not here as the apologist for the then Secretary of State for Defence. Undoubtedly the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) acted in a way that could not possibly be justified. If the Cabinet — I have no reason to believe otherwise — made a decision and the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept it and conspired to undermine that decision, that is extremely serious. I would not wish to minimise it for a moment.
If the Prime Minister was of the view that the right hon. Gentleman was not acting in a proper way, it was up to her to act accordingly. She should have warned him, and had he been unwilling to accept the warning, she should have sacked him. But she did not do so. Was the Prime Minister reluctant to sack the right hon. Gentleman because she feared that he would be far more of a nuisance outside the Cabinet than inside, or was he being rewarded for his excellent work in trying to discredit the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Those are interesting points which only the Prime Minister can answer.
Instead of acting as a Prime Minister should—and as previous Prime Ministers undoubtedly would have acted —by sacking the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Lady did something quite different. She got the Solicitor-General to write a letter. Here I come to the crux of the matter. When Conservative Members say that the Prime Minister was innocent of the leaking, certain questions are bound to arise. Would her officials at No. 10 have acted as they did unless they knew that she would not disapprove of what they intended to do? Would they have acted as they did had they believed that they would get into serious disciplinary trouble? The officials at No. 10 acted as they did because they knew that the Prime Minister wanted them to act in that way. It is difficult to believe any other version of the facts.
The Defence Committee's report rightly refers to the disreputable way in which the leak occurred. Perhaps one can express some surprise at the fact that the Solicitor-General did not resign. That is entirely a matter for him; I have not seen him in the Chamber so far.
The Prime Minister has become far too powerful. She has a style which many peopole find offensive. She has a domineering style and is intolerant of any critics, both inside her party and in the Cabinet. She now has a Cabinet composed of members who are too scared to speak out,

395
and we all know what happened to the Leader of the House when he made certain remarks. Mr. Bernard Ingham let it be known to the press lobby that the right hon. Gentleman was a semi-detached member of the Cabinet. That is the sort of way in which certain members of the Cabinet are discredited.
Compared with the Cabinet in 1979, we now have one that is dominated by the Prime Minister, and very few members are willing to stand up to her. That is unfortunate. The country is sick and tired of a Prime Minister whose style of leadership is so dominating, and it is sick and tired of this Government.
The Westland affair has demonstrated once again how this Government conduct their affairs. It is a wretched, shameful business, and any self-respecting member of the Cabinet would have resigned rather than stay in the Prime Minister's Government.
8.30 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall confine myself to one aspect of the debate—paragraphs 41 to 44 of the Government's response— not least because the Trade and Industry Select Committee of which I am a member has not yet reported on its own examination of certain aspects of the Westland affair.
The first important fact of which I wish to remind the House is that the quotation from the Procedure Committee report, which appears at the bottom of paragraph 42 in the Government's response, is not from a paragraph of that report which the House of Commons has accepted. One would not guess that from reading the reference to it, but it is very important.
The report from that Select Committee was debated by the House on 19 and 20 February 1979 on a motion to adjourn, not on a motion to accept or to approve. The distinction is real, because when it came to setting up the departmental Select Committees, the House gave specific approval to specific recommendations by the Procedure Committee to which this refers. The content of the quotation which the Government are praying in aid has never been accepted or approved by the House. It is important to place that on the record.
This is a matter of importance because it must not be said after tonight's Division that the House has approved the Government's response to certain reports by the Defence Committee. It will have done no such thing. This is a motion to adjourn, and that must never be confused with the House giving its assent to the propositions contained in the document concerned.
Paragraph 41 contains a wholly untrue statement of fact. It states:
"Select Committees exercise their formal powers to inquire into the policies and actions of Departments by virtue of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament."
It is not by virtue of that at all. It is by virtue of the terms of the motion passed by the House of Commons to set them up.
Moneylenders in general are not accountable to the House of Commons, but when a Select Committee was set up to inquire into the practice of moneylending the terms of the motion setting it up made moneylenders accountable to the House. When a moneylender refused to answer questions by the Select Committee he was brought to the Bar of the House, reprimanded for his misconduct and ordered to answer, not such questions as
396
the House might think fit, but such questions as the Select Committee thought fit to put to him. That is an important precedent that we do well to bear in mind.
There are three reasons why a civil servant may be present before a Select Committee. I make particular reference to the departmental Select Committees, but this applies to others. The reason is that, first, a Minister appearing before that Select Committee may want civil servants to supply him ad hoc with advice or information so that he can answer the Select Committee. That is a reputable reason.
The second reason is that when a Select Committee has notified a Department of the spectrum of questions which it wishes to put to the Department, the Department will decide which witnesses to send, whether Ministers or civil servants. The Department sends a witness with a competent knowledge of the facts. If the Department happens to choose a civil servant, the civil servant is just as answerable as a Minister. That I do aver. It is very important.
The third reason why a civil servant may be present before a Select Committee is that the Select Committee has specifically requested or, in extremis, ordered that he should be there. There can be a good reason for that— that first-hand evidence is always preferable to secondhand evidence. If that which is being inquired into is not advice given by a civil servant to a Minister, it is proper for a civil servant to refuse to say what advice he has given or for the Minister to refuse to reveal what advice he has been given. However, if the inquiry is into the action of a civil servant, first-hand evidence is in many cases preferable, not least if no Minister knows first-hand what action the civil servant took in the particular circumstances being investigated.
The doctrine that only the Minister is answerable is unacceptable because the Minister is only guessing. He is not giving evidence from his own knowledge. That is crucial when the purpose of the Select Committee is to inquire into events and facts. Paragraph 41 of the Government's response is wholly inaccurate and must not be allowed to stand.
I have commented on the defect in the quotation. It is an opinion taken out of context from a Select Committee report which no Government of the day, and no Government since, has put to the House for its approval. That is possibly wise.
The end of paragraph 44 contains a triumphant announcement. It states:
"Accordingly the Government proposes to make it clear to civil servants giving evidence to Select Committees that they should not answer questions which are or appear to be directed to the conduct of themselves or of other named civil servants."
If the word "conduct" is intended to mean advice that they gave to their Minister, that is proper and does not need to be said because there is nothing new in it. But if "conduct" means the actions of a civil servant in a series of events into which an inquiry is being held and which action is at the nub of the inquiry, that cannot be accepted.
If "conduct" means "actions", of course the Select Committee must be able to inquire at first hand into those events from the only person who knows first hand exactly what happened. If that civil servant is not the only person who knows, it is still advisable for that civil servant to have the opportunity to state to the Committee whether the

397
version of events given by another witness is correct. Otherwise the civil servant cannot protect himself against a garnished version, given, for instance, by a Minister.
Just as it can be unjust for a civil servant to be pressed on matters which he cannot properly reveal to the Committee, so there is nothing improper in a civil servant revealing to a Committee his own actions. If those actions were improper, it is for the civil servant's Minister, not the Committee, to punish him formally. It is most certainly correct for the Committee to enforce its authority against civil servants if only they have first-hand knowledge of the events into which the inquiry is being held. Never is that more true than when a Minister specifically, on the Floor of the House, invites a Select Committee to look into a given series of events.
That is the contribution that I want to make tonight.
8.38 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: I wish to focus on one issue. There has been speculation—with justification—whether the Prime Minister knew about the leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter. I shall concentrate on one of the known facts. What was known and accepted by the Select Committee and by the Armstrong inquiry was that Department of Trade arid Industry officials did leak the Solicitor-General's letter — and leaked it with the knowledge of officials at 10 Downing street. Indeed, the Armstrong inquiry — this was repeated by the Select Committee on Defence— found that the officials from 10 Downing street accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry would leak the Solicitor-General's letter.
I want the Leader of the House to answer two specific points surrounding that. Surely it was the duty of the officials, especially in circumstances where they knew that the Department of Trade and Industry was going to leak the letter, not to be indifferent to that and, still less, in the words of Armstrong, to "accept" that it was being leaked. Surely their clear duty was strenuously to object to it being leaked. That is not merely an abstract or theoretical duty.
If, during the telephone conversation and the meetings between the Department of Trade and Industry and officials from No. 10, those officials had said that the letter must not be leaked and that it would be grossly improper to leak the letter in that way, the practical consequence would be that the letter would never have been leaked. Therefore, they had a serious duty to object to the leak. I would like the Leader of the House to say whether he agrees that they had such a duty. If they were under such a duty, why does the doctrine of ministerial responsibility not mean that the Prime Minister must be responsible for the breach of duty of her officials? Why has that doctrine been junked so unceremoniously by a Prime Minister who is so acutely involved in it? I would like the Leader of the House to say whether he believes that the doctrine applied in those circumstances and that the duty of the officials existed.
There is an area of fact in this case which comes so close to the line between speculation and certainty that we should not leave a discussion of the Select Committee report without mentioning it. The inquiry that was set up under Sir Robert Armstrong was crucial to the Prime Minister. It was crucial that when the inquiry was established she had no knowledge of involvement in the leak of the Department of Trade and Industry or No. 10
398
officials. It was crucial because the way in which the inquiry was being presented to us—I remember it being announced in the House—was that she, like us, was an innocent searcher after the truth surrounding the leaked letter. The Prime Minister's statement that she had no knowledge of the connivance of the Department of Trade and Industry or No. 10 officials prior to the inquiry being established is vital.
Our credulity is stretched to breaking point when we consider the events of 7 January. On that day, as the Select Committee said, and the Prime Minister has conceded, there was a meeting at Downing street about the Westland affair between the Prime Minister and members of her office. That was the morning after the leak of the letter. We can cast our minds back to the headlines in the newspapers on that day. They were all about the leaking of the letter. We well remember the headline in The Sun about the then Secretary of State for Defence. Is it seriously being suggested that during that meeting on 7 January none of those officials, even though they knew what had happened to the leaked letter, sought to mention the source of the leak? The Select Committee thought that that was difficult to understand. However, it is even more difficult to understand why the Prime Minister did not even ask whether they knew. We are expected to believe that perhaps she was too timid or lacking in curiosity to ask.
This afternoon we heard from the Secretary of State for Defence a speech that he was perfectly entitled to make. It was about the importance of the helicopter industry, the technical details of the industry and important defence implications. However, he was not entitled to ignore completely the other issue in this matter—the integrity of the Government and of the Prime Minister. Until we get an answer to some of the serious and unanswered questions that have been raised this evening, the integrity of the Government will remain in doubt.
8.45 pm
Mr. Michael Marshall: As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I welcome the Government's response to our third report. I wish that I could say the same about the Government's response to our fourth report.
During the short time available I want to concentrate on paragraph 44 of that report. The matter is urgent, because I do not believe that any hon. Member tonight has mentioned a fact which greatly concerns me, and I have heard all the speeches but two. I am advised that permanent secretaries have already advised all civil servants who are likely to appear before Select Committees about paragraph 44. That being the case, it must be assumed that civil servants who are about to come before a Select Committee or are in the process of coming before a Committee will take that paragraph as their guideline.
Underlying the Government's response is an extension of the "going over the top" syndrome that we have seen running through the Westland affair. I do not understand why the Government felt that they had to respond in the terms that they did in paragraph 44. Indeed, the idea that one can define how civil servants should respond to Select Committees seems to be fraught with danger. There are some conventions and, as one of my hon. Friends said, there are some precedents built up over the years, which

399
tend to allow the House and the public to get a reasonable view of what is going on. However, to define and confine what civil servants may say to hon. Members is dangerous.
Underlying paragraph 44 appears to be the suggestion that there is some form of total ministerial responsibility for all activities of Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) rightly touched on the way in which that does not stand up with the complexity of government, the degree of decentralisation and, in the Ministry of Defence, on matters of defence procurement, where there are whole areas in which civil servants have to act under their own responsibility and must, necessarily, be responsive to questioning from hon. Members and Select Committees.
In paragraph 44 the Government seem to be implying that Ministers can speak on all issues. That is not only a fallacy, hut does not address itself to the genuine problem of continuity. I would argue that greater exposure of civil servants to examination by hon. Members increases public confidence in the administration of this country. The vast majority of civil servants who appear before us are people of ability and obvious integrity. That comes through in many of our proceedings. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) said, we are naturally vigilant to see whether there is evidence of error or anything that might in any way be regarded as fradulent. We are also conscious of creating a climate of confidence where we see work carried out faithfully and with ability.
One problem that comes out in the third and fourth report is the Government's assumption that in the present situation. where Ministers move around, there is some way by which we can overcome the difficulty of continuity. I want to highlight the relationship between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. I served in the old Department of Trade and Industry for two and a half years and was fully conscious of the extreme concern over the problem of liaison between 1979 and 1981. It has to be said that the Westland saga has been a classic illustration of a major rift between those two Departments.
When we look to the assurances for the future and recall some of the evidence given to us in Committee, I must remind the House of the evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)— I have given him notice of my intention to name him — who was then the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. At that time he properly argued that the fact that he had been in both the Department of Industry and Ministry of Defence meant that he understood both aspects of the debate and that liaison was never at a better level. That was reassuring as far as it went, but now he is a Minister in the Treasury, so his argument was shown in all its weakness.
In reality, continuity in Government Departments is provided by civil servants. Over recent years, Select Committees have increased in strength. Partly to overcome that lack of continuity with Ministers, many Select Committees have begun to establish a knowledge and understanding of particular civil servants and the way the system works. Greater continuity and stability within the Civil Service would also help in some areas. The ministerial problem is a genuine one.
A further aspect of this recent development should concern the House. I remind the House that this Government, through a motion which the House carried,
400
gave the Defence Select Committee the substantial responsibility, on behalf of the whole House, of carrying out this inquiry. The Select Committee was perfectly willing and, I hope, has shown itself able to discharge that duty. None of us could have envisaged a recommendation at the end of the report which clearly said that civil servants, in this case Sir Robert Armstrong, could not be asked on another occasion to do what was done on this occasion.
The Government put forward an argument of expediency in referring the matter to a Select Committee, but now they seek to renege on the implicit deal, which I and, I suspect, others took to be part of the understanding, that this sort of activity was likely to be a natural extension of the work of Select Committees if we were faced with these problems. The Government may say that they hope they will not have this particular drama again and that lessons have been learnt within the Government. That may be so, but the House is entitled to assume that in giving responsibility to Select Committees the Government a re prepared to live with the implications of that and not seek to move the goal posts later.
As a member of the old Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, I recall vividly the great argument about access to persons and papers with regard to Sir Charles Villiers and the British Steel Corporation's corporate plans and long-term planning. As a member of the Opposition, I felt able to go along with the majority view, recognising that Labour Members were prepared to join forces to do what we thought was right for Parliament. That was an important step in the development of increased powers for Select Committees and I believe that these inquiries will be seen as a further stepping stone along that way. I hope that tonight the Government will say that they are not irrevocably seeking to turn back the clock, because that would be to their loss and a loss to the House and the country.
8.53 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: To the general public our proceedings will have seemed arcane, esoteric, far removed from the problems of the Westland helicopter company and far too little preoccupied with the problems associated with our country's defence and the important role which the helicopter plays in both the land-air battle and maritime warfare. Perhaps it was the fault of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who was at his most engaging, in starting us off on a great whodunnit which will probably continue until 10 o'clock.
The third report of the Defence Select Committee makes some important observations on helicopter strategy. The absence of a helicopter strategy has undoubtedly led considerably to the commercial problems of the Westland company and the subsequent political furore of which we are all too well aware.
I am lucky in that I serve as a Committee chairman and rapporteur in the Western European Union. As such, for the last few weeks I have been visiting European capitals and talking to defence staffs and companies, including Agusta, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm, Aerospatiale and Westland. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was expatiating at length on the importance of a European helicopter strategy when events were unfolding in December 1985 and January 1986, we

401
have heard remarkably little about it tonight. Nevertheless, it remains as important for the future of the industry now as it was then.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) was absolutely right in saying that the board of Westland was justified in its commercial decisions and that the Government's policy was sound. I said so at the time, and such evidence as I gave the Select Committee was to similar effect. However, I refer the House to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who said, with regard to the light support helicopter for our armed forces, that there was no absolute cut-off date for the replacement of the Wessex and Puma aircraft currently in service with the RAF. I am sure that this was a sound technical observation, but for the people at Westland, whose jobs are at risk, in that the work on EH101 will not start for some time yet, it is a statement of considerable significance.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that he wished the company well with its full range of products—Sea King, Lynx, the EH101 and, interestingly, the Black Hawk. Black Hawk has not yet been built by Westland. It is undergoing flight trials with the RTM322 engine, which we all believe is critical to the helicopter's future. It is noteworthy that nobody mentioned the important RTM322 Franco-British engine programme, which will be important for Leavesden, Pau and other places associated with it, and, perhaps, for the future of the EH101, if the RTM322 is specified, rather than the GE700 engine which will power the prototypes. There could be merit in a mix of aeroplanes for the light support helicopter requirement. In battlefield conditions a number of helicopters of different sizes could be needed to meet the tactical situation.
It will be difficult for Westland to launch the Black Hawk with the RTM322 on the basis of a small order of aircraft for the RAF; for example, for a Wessex replacement alone. But if the Wessex and Puma were both replaced by the Black Hawk, then when the EH101 in its transport variant becomes available in the early 1990s, which is earlier than the naval variant, it could be considered whether that aeroplane was necessary also. It has a 28 troop lift capability, which is in line with Army thinking, or so one is led to believe. If there is a need to top up the RAF's medium-lift capability, extra Chinooks could be ordered as and when required.
A flexible and adaptable policy is available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he has the courage to take it, and if the Treasury allows him to do so. The feasibility study for the NH90 will land on my right hon. Friend's desk in two or three weeks' time. It is a five-nation programme with two roles. The first is the naval role, in which we are not participating, for the new NATO frigate for the 1990s. The second is a light support helicopter role. It would not be the end of the world if we withdrew, hut, if we do not withdraw, we should try to shift the programme to the right—we should try to have it come into service later rather than sooner, so that we can fill the gap in capacity at Westland with the Black Hawk now. The trouble is that the Black Hawk and the Super Puma are similar in dimensions and capability to the type of aeroplane which the NH90 might become.
402
I hope that my right hon. Friend has the courage of his convictions and persuades the Treasury to spend the money that Westland has long needed. It is under good management and deserves the Government's support.
9 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: This has been a serious and wide-ranging debate, as the subject matter undoubtedly deserves.
It is not altogether surprising that those who have concentrated on the Select Committee's third report have tended to come from the Conservative Benches. That is not because there is disagreement between the two sides of the House about the importance of the future of the helicopter industry and of the livelihood of those who work in it. Rather it is that, in spite of its complexities and importance, it is, in the context of today's debate, a far less controversial matter between the two sides of the House than the rocks and shoals in the fourth report.
It was therefore no surprise to me that the Secretary of State for Defence spent 25 minutes on the third report and, on the fourth, contented himself by repeating the bromide of paragraph 28 of the Government's response. That said:
"Full accounts of the matters with which the Fourth Report is concerned have already been given by Ministers in statements in Parliament, speeches in debates and Answers to Parliamentary Questions, and by the Head of the Home Civil Service in his evidence to the Committee. The Government stands by those accounts, sees no reason to qualify or add to them, and no point in repeating yet again the sequence of events and decisions covered by the report."
Life would be very simple if the House were prepared to accept such bland statements which, if the Government had their way, would close down the debate on the important issues that are raised in the report.
It is no surprise that the Opposition should for the most part have concentrated on the fourth report and the important constitutional issues raised in it. I have heard all but one of the speeches that have been made, and that one was reported to me. Two features have been quite outstanding. The first is that nobody has challenged the contents of the fourth report. Nobody has challenged one sentence of it, yet it is one of the most dramatic and controversial reports ever to have come out of a Select Committee. That is quite remarkable.
The second feature, which has united the House, is the sense of shock at — I can put it no lower — and of rejection of, paragraphs 41 to 44 of the Government's response to the Select Committee's third and fourth reports, especially the fourth. The rejection is extremely important.
I was grateful to the right hon. Members for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), with their special Select Committee experience, for saying so strongly how unacceptable the new restrictions on Select Committees would be.
I can assure them that, as far as we in the Opposition are concerned, if the motion is carried, in no sense will it be interpreted by us to mean any approval for paragraphs 41 to 44 of the Government's response.
What needs stressing at the start is that the Select Committee's controversial fourth report is unanimous. Since the majority of the Committee's members, as is customary, are drawn from the majority party, there can be no question of any party bias in what it had to say.

403
Moreover, as the Committee records in the opening paragraph of its report, its inquiry was specifically endorsed when, at the end of the debate on 15 January 1986, the House accepted a Government amendment to the Opposition motion containing these words:
"That this House … further recognises the competence of departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons to consider the issues raised by these developments." —[Official Report, 15 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1174.]
The Select Committee properly sought to examine the history of the crisis that befell Westland from 1984 onwards, and central to this debate, the process of Government decision making and the parts played in it by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Law Officers, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and the senior officials at No. 10 and the Department of Trade and Industry who were directly involved.
The report of the Select Committee on Defence raises questions of the utmost importance—the standard of conduct of Government and Ministers, the use and misuse of civil servants and the accountability of Ministers and officials to the House of Commons. At the centre of this complex story and at the peak moment in the struggle between the then Secretary of State for Defence and the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was, as others have already stressed, the deliberate leak of the Solicitor-General's letter, designed to discredit the Secretary of State for Defence, and the subsequent inquiry into that leak by Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary.
Let there be no mistake or misunderstanding that the leak was a flagrant breach of the Official Secrets Act and of the rules and practices that have long established a special confidentiality for Law Officers' advice, rules reaffirmed as recently as 11 August 1983 and circulated to all Departments. The leak raised at once the central question of who was responsible and, on the insistence of the Law Officers, led to the setting up of an official inquiry undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong. As the House knows, the leak occurred on 6 January and Sir Robert completed his report on 22 January.
In exploring those important matters, the Select Committee on Defence laboured under several handicaps, to which it drew attention. As the Committee put it,
"We sought oral evidence from three officials of the Department of Trade and Industry: Mr. John Michell, Under Secretary, Air Division; Mr. John Mogg, Private Secretary to the Secretary of State; and Miss Colette Bowe, Director of Information."
The Committee's request was turned down. It also sought oral evidence from Mr. Bernard Ingham, Chief Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and from Mr. Charles Powell, a private secretary to the Prime Minister. That request was also refused the Select Committee. Furthermore, Sir Robert Armstrong, who appeared before the Committee, was not prepared to name any official involved or to give details of what officials had told him during the inquiry. The former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refused again and again to answer important questions put to him by the Select Committee.
Nevertheless, in spite of those grave handicaps, the Select Committee's report is a remarkably thorough record, analysis and critique of what took place. In particular, its report brings out again and again the central
404
and decisive role played by the Prime Minister herself and No. 10 in the whole affair. It is upon her role and that of the officials that I intend to concentrate.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the Prime Minister instigated the Solicitor-General's lettter in the first place. On 27 January, she told the House:
"I asked that a message be sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as the sponsoring Minister for Westland, to suggest that he should ask the Solicitor-General to consider the Defence Secretary's letter and give his opinion on whether it was accurate, and consistent with my own letter to Sir John Cuckney."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 10, c. 652.]
Many people think that that in itself was an extraordinary proceeding. The obvious course was for the right hon. Lady to call in the Secretary of State for Defence and, if the letter had contained material inaccuracies, to instruct him either to make a further and corrective statement or to resign.
However, the right hon. Lady preferred a different and more devious route. Having got the Solicitor-General to write a letter, it was the Prime Minister's self-confessed wish that its contents should be made known, and without delay. On 23 January, she told the House:
"it was especially important in this situation for statements made on behalf of the Government on which commercial judgments might be based, to be accurate and in no way misleading.
That being so, it was a matter of duty that it should be made known publicly that there were thought to be material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected" —[Official Report, 23 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 449.]
in the letter of the then Secretary of State for Defence.
When speaking in the House four days later on 27 January and dealing with the approaches made by the DTI to her office about authority for the leak, the right hon. Lady said that her office was accordingly approached. It did not seek her agreement. It considered that she should agree with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3 January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected should become public knowledge as scion as possible and before Sir John Cuckney's press conference.
Also on 27 January, the right hon. Lady said that the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, in her judgment, right in thinking that it was important that the possible existence of material inaccuracies in the letter of 3 January by the then Secretary of State for Defence should become a matter of public knowledge.
On the same day, she said:
"I told the House on 23 January—it was accepted—that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3 January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected, and that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the disclosure should be made in that way it was."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 656.]
Nothing could be clearer. The Prime Minister agreed with the leak. She agreed not only with the leak but with the timing of it. It all had to be before Sir John Cuckney's press conference. She accepted that the disclosure
"should be made in the way it was".
I find that shocking. I find her conduct demeans both I he Prime Minister herself and the great office she holds. A highly selective leak was duly made by the DTI, but the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it absolutely plain to the Select Committee, and repeated

405
today, that the leak would only be authorised by him subject to the agreement of No. 10. Paragraph 152 of the Select Committee's report states:
"Mr. Brittan was emphatic about the need for the Prime Minister's office to approve the disclosure: 'I would particularly stress, it all had to be subject to the agreement of No. 10.'"
Nothing could be clearer. Mr. Mogg of the DTI talked to Mr. Powell at No. 10, Miss Colette Bowe of the DTI press office and Mr. Bernard Ingham, chief press secretary at No. 10. Far from there being any veto from No. 10, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, on this utterly improper and outrageous course of action, it was during the conversation between the two press officers that the method of disclosure was agreed.
Sir Robert Armstrong told the Select Committee:
"The Prime Minister's office was consulted about the method of disclosure; they did not give instructions, but they agreed that the only practicable way of getting the fact that the Solicitor-General had written and the gist of what he had said in this letter into the public domain within the time constraint of the 4.00 pm deadline was the method that was eventually adopted. The evidence given to my inquiry does not suggest that any other method of disclosure was seriously considered, given the time constraint".
As for No. 10's press office not giving instructions, it is clear that Miss Bowe of the Department of Trade and Industry was extremely worried and tried unsuccessfully to contact her permanent secretary to seek his advice and protection. It is clear that she was ordered to leak.
In last Sunday's edition of The Observer, as has been pointed out, Mr. Bernard Ingham was directly quoted as saying, "You will … do as you are … well told." That is a direct challenge from a leading newspaper. If it is untrue, honour and reputation oblige Mr. Ingham to issue a writ. If it is true, he has committed an unacceptable deceit and should resign. It is plain that without No. 10's clearance or cover and without the urging of Mr. Bernard Ingham, the leak would never have taken place. As the Select Committee commented, the authority of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry alone would not have been enough. The Committee stated:
"We do not believe that such authority is sufficient, or would be regarded by senior officials in key positions as sufficient, to make public parts of a document

—which was classified;

—which did not originate in the Secretary of State's own department;

—which contained the advice of a Law Officer;

—which was to be disclosed without the knowledge or permission of the Law Officer."

The Prime Minister's disclaimer that, when her office was approached by the Department of Trade and Industry, her officials "did not seek my agreement" is irrelevant. They knew that it was not necessary. They knew that it was what she herself wished to be done. Indeed, if a Prime Minister thought, as the right hon. Lady put it in her own words, that it was "a matter of duty" that the information be put in the public domain, it would be impossible to reach any other conclusion. Her other disclaimer, that she regretted the exact way in which the disclosure was made, contradicts her own statement that in view of the urgency of the matter, the disclosure should be made in the way it was.
Given the Prime Minister's own statement that it was "a matter of duty" that the Solicitor-General's letter be made known publicly, and having used the Secretary of
406
State for Trade and Industry to instigate the Solicitor-General's letter, her statement that she did not know about Mr. Brittan's own role in the matter of disclosure until the inquiry had reported on 22 January is incredible. Nevertheless, she proceeded to set up a leak inquiry. The Prime Minister may not have known the full details surrounding the leak, not least because she carefully refrained from asking Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Powell about the leak when she saw them the following day. They carefully avoided giving her the information, too.
Significantly, the Select Committee asked the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he had any conversations with the Prime Minister about the fact that he had authorised disclosure of part of the Solicitor-General's letter before the Prime Minister received the report of the inquiry. He refused to tell us. When it was put to him that there was a period after the inquiry had been set up, during which he knew what his role had been but chose not to inform the Prime Minister, he would not comment.
The leak could only have been instigated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, by the Prime Minister's own officials at No. 10 or by agreement between them. The Prime Minister must have known this and deliberately declined to ask either of them who had done what. Again, this is conduct unworthy of a Prime Minister.
Sir Humphrey Atkins: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 183 of our report, which says:
"The evidence is that the action of the Prime Minister's office on 6 January … was without her direct authority. She has stated she had no knowledge on 6 January of what was taking place. We accept this."
Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he does not agree with the 10 Members of the Select Committee, including the three Labour Members?
Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening closely enough to my argument. I accept that statement for what it is worth. She was not told about these matters or consulted by her officials on 6 January. That is what she said and I believe her, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a better look at what I have said, he will see why that statement by the Prime Minister has to be seen in the context of what happened before and after.
The Government's response to the Defence Committee's report glides carefully over the central issue of prime ministerial involvement. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry conveniently carried the can. He resigned, but interestingly, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, not because he had improperly leaked the Solicitor-General's letter but because he felt that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues. The Prime Minister, in her remarkable letter to him, made no reference to the leak of the letter but made it clear that it was her wish
"that you should remain a Member of the Cabinet … hope that it will not be long before you return to high office to continue your Ministerial career."
Not only was no Minister rebuked or punished for this breach of the Official Secrets Act and flagrant violation of the rules of confidentiality surrounding Law Officers' advice, but none of the high civil servants involved were rebuked either. Mr. Mogg has recently been promoted to under-secretary and the Prime Minister went out of her way to tell the House:

407
"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report."—[Official Report, 24 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 588.]
In the Government's response to the Select Committee, paragraph 38 reads:
"the Government is satisfied that those concerned acted in good faith, and remains of the view that, having regard to all the circumstances, disciplinary proceedings were not called for."
The Prime Minister has expressed her regret that the Solicitor-General's letter was disclosed in the way that it was disclosed, but it is clear that she considers the breach of the Official Secrets Act and the flouting of a major convention to be no more than the merest peccadillo.
The Westland affair raises major questions as to the proper conduct of Ministers and above all of the Prime Minister. It also raises, acutely, the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. Referring to the refusal of Ministers to allow the five civil servants directly involved to give evidence before it, the Select Committee says:
"At the heart of this problem lies the question of accountability to Parliament … The fact that Ministers have not made themselves fully accountable to parliament in this matter has called into question the conduct of the Civil Servants involved."
Both the Defence Committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Committee have stated their rejection of the Government's excuse for not allowing civil servants to be questioned, which is that, having been subjected to a full official inquiry, they would be placed in double jeopardy.
In their response to the Select Committee, the Government not only rejected the Select Committee's argument and restated without a single qualification the old basic principles that Ministers are responsible to Parliament and civil servants are responsible to Ministers; they also lay down new and tighter restrictions on what civil servants can do when they appear before Select Committees. As they say in paragraph 41:
"Civil servants who appear before them do so as representatives of, and subject to the instructions of, the Minister."
In paragraph 44, they say:
"Accordingly the Government proposes to make it clear to civil servants giving evidence to Select Committees that they should not answer questions which are or appear to be directed to the conduct of themselves or of other named individual civil servants."
That restriction would neuter the work of the Select Committee on Defence, would have made the existing report of that Committee impossible and would have neutered the work of all Select Committees. That has been the testimony of all the Chairmen of Select Committees who have spoken in this debate.
The Government's response to the Committee is extraordinary. It is perhaps even more extraordinary when we recall, as I did at the beginning of my speech, that Select Committees were expressly recognised through their competence to consider the issues raised by the Westland developments. I refresh my memory of the debate which took place on 25 June 1979 when the new system of Select Committees was proposed by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), and endorsed by the House. The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his speech with the statement:
"It has been increasingly felt that the twentieth century Parliament is not effectively supervising the Executive, and that while the power and effectiveness of Whitehall has grown, that of Westminster has diminished.
408
The proposals that the Government are placing before the House are intended to redress the balance of power to enable the House of Commons to do more effectively the job it has been elected to do."
Later in his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Government will make available to Select Committees as much information as possible, including confidential information for which, of course, protection may have to be sought by means of the sidelining procedure … There need be no fear that departmental Ministers will refuse to attend Committees to answer questions about their Departments or that they will not make every effort to ensure that the fullest possible information is made available to them.
I give the House the pledge on the part of the Government that every Minister from the most senior Cabinet Minister to the most junior Under-Secretary will do all in his or her power to co-operate with the new system of Committees and to make it a success." — [Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol 969, c. 36–45.]
We have moved a long way from June 1979 when those statements were made. The new restrictions which the Government are now placing upon civil servants giving evidence to Select Committees will greatly reduce their effectiveness and must be rejected by the House.
The Westland story has revealed, as the Select Committee on Defence reports and the Government's response have revealed, that whatever degree of accountability there may be for Ministers to the House and its Select Committees, there is no such accountability for the Prime Minister and her servants in No. 10. Prime Ministers have appeared before Select Committees.
Mr. Spencer Batiste rose—
Mr. Shore: Most recently, Mr. Neville Chamberlain appeared before a Select Committee in 1937 on the interesting question of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the alleged breach of that Act.
However, this Prime Minister does not appear before Select Committees and she refuses to allow her officials at No. 10 to appear. No. 10 is surrounded by an iron curtain of secrecy and within it deception, half-truth, manipulation and evasion are free to flourish. It cannot be penetrated even when flagrant abuses of legality and procedure have been committed. That is bad For Government, for the House of Commons and for democracy. If we are to achieve proper accountability and redress the balance of power between Whitehall and Westminster, it is our duty to tear those barriers down. I applaud the persistence of the Select Committee and I urge the Committees in renewed hearing to complete the task which they have so successfully begun.
9.28 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It is now just five hours since the debate began. The matter has been closely argued and seriously debated. Little has been given or sought. However, the one point which binds all of the speakers, has been the thanks that they have expressed to the departmental Select committee on Defence for the third and fourth reports which have provided the heart of this afternoon's debate.
One thing which has also emerged from the debate and the considerationof the many aspects is how many facets are contained in this single topic. In those circumstances, the appropriateness of debating the motion for the Adjournment has been illustrated. Nobody doubts that a motion for the Adjournment can be devastating in its

409
consequences. Neville Chamberlain managed to win a motion for the Adjournment and resigned shortly afterwards— [Interruption.] I was happy, Mr. Speaker, to cast the fly, not realising just how many lazy trout there would be on the Opposition Benches.
The fact is that the only discussion about the motion for the Adjournment that there has been this afternoon has related not to the melodrama to which I have just referred but, very properly, to the question of the Government's relationship with Select Committees. The great virtue about this motion for the Adjournment is that the debate, discussion and dialogue can proceed unimpeded by anything that happens at 10 o'clock this evening.
Understandably, a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the fortunes of the Westland helicopter industry. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) told us about his anxieties. They were reinforced by my hon. Friend the member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). To secure an appropriate ordering base for the company is obviously a matter of concern. However, the Government are entitled to observe that during the last few months there has been a most happy record of developing international collaborative deals. That must lie at the heart of the future fortunes of this company—a point that was scored by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Whatever its discord in other directions, one thing that unites the House is that the future of this company should be secured and that the very considerable recent improvement in its fortunes should be further sustained.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) made a speech that will long be remembered about the issue of collective responsibility. One of the consequences of this debate, and of the whole issue, will be that the importance of collective responsibility as a canon of government has been underlined. All too often institutions and conventions become accepted and almost dull in their familiarity. Only when one experiences their absence does one realise how vital they are to the proper working of government. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend upon the forceful eloquence with which he put his case.
The Select Committee point has been urged upon me by speaker after speaker, beginning with the right hon. Member for Llanelli. The Westland incident has illustrated the importance of Select Committees and the nature of their relationship with the Executive. There have been several references to these matters in the debate and, as Leader of the House, it is appropriate that I should address myself to them. The leader of the Liberal party was one of several speakers who expressed great anxiety that there may be in prospect an evolution of the powers and practices of Select Committees that would be detrimental to their relationship with Parliament generally. I hope that by the end of the debate he can be persuaded at least to have an open mind on that topic.
Before discussing these issues specifically it would benefit the House if I were to say a few words about the development of departmental Select Committees so that they can be seen in context. I welcomed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). He treated the House to an exposition of the origin of the Select Committee system
410
and expressed a view which constantly needs to be expressed about the importance of maintaining a balance between Select Committees and the Floor of the House.
The House will recall that the present structure of Select Committees dates only from 1979. The present system was set up then by the House on the initiative of this Government following the comprehensive recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure in its first report of the Session 1977–78. While there had been Select Committees of the House since long before then, the present deparmental Select Committee structure was a new creation and has proved its effectiveness. Indeed, departmental Select Committees have become a familar and established part of our parliamentary procedure.
This Government took the initiative in setting up the departmental Select Committee. We have no intention of seeking to hinder or impede their effective scrutiny of the Executive. This follows an undertaking given by the then Leader of the House my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about that. My right hon. Friend said that the Government would do all they could
"to co-operate with the new system of Commitees and to make it a success."
He went on to say:
"I believe that declaration of intent to be a better guarantee than formal provisions laid down in Standing Orders".—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 969, c. 45–6.]
The new system of Committees inherited the longstanding powers of earlier Select Committees. These are set out formally in Standing Orders and are far reaching and without condition. The powers of departmental Select Committees specifically are set out in Standing Order No. 99. Among other powers, this clearly says that departmental Select Committees can send for persons, papers and records. These powers are unqualified.
However, in practice these formal powers have consistently been exercised with discretion and by convention. As is the case with other aspects of business and procedure in this House, convention has been accepted as appropriate for many years — certainly before the departmental Select Committees were created. While Standing Orders must necessarily deal in absolutes, conventions enable the many considerations and factors affecting the work of Select Committees to be taken into account.
The purpose of these conventions is to allow the development of a way of working which is satisfactory to the Committee and to the Executive. In addition, the operation of the conventions has sought to preserve two generally agreed principles of government. The first of these is that each Minister is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of his Department and for the actions carried out by his Department in pursuit of Government policies or in the discharge of responsibilities laid upon him as a Minister. He has the duty to explain in Parliament the extent of his powers and duties and to give an account to Parliament of what is done by him in his capacity as a Minister or by his Department. The second principle is that civil servants, in turn, are responsible to their Ministers for their actions and conduct.
The House would not wish this clear line of ministerial accountability for Departments to be weakened in any way by seeking a new and separate accountability from

411
officials. The House will wish to note that this was the view of the Select Committee on Procedure in its 1978 report.
It said:
"it would not, however, be appropriate for the House to seek directly or through its Committee to enforce its right to secure information from the Executive at a level below that of the Ministerial head of the department concerned … since such a practice would tend to undermine rather than strengthen the accountability of Ministers to the House."
I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the status of that report.
Sir John Farr: I am following my right hon. Friend carefully, but am I right in saying that the decision of the House was that investigations should be conducted by a Select Committee in relation to a specific Department and that one of the difficulties has been that Parliament never gave authority for, say, a Select Committee to investigate matters relating to the Department of another Minister? Has that not been one of the difficulties in this matter?
Mr. Biffen: I can think of rather more formidable difficulties in this case, but my hon. Friend has made a valid point. That is a matter of some concern for those working with the Select Committees and I know that it constantly requires the attention of the Liaison Select Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Would it not solve all the difficulties if we were to establish a Select Committee to investigate the workings of No. 10?
Mr. Biffen: One would need heroic imagination to suppose that the work of No. 10 has not been undergoing tremendous scrutiny over recent months. The truth is that there are some Labour Members for whom this exercise knows no end. They are on an eternal pilgrimage of trying to discredit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to undermine the Government. The idea that they are out to secure some nice constitutional balance is wholly mistaken. I ask my hon. Friends not to be too generous in the judgment of some.
Mr. Batiste: Cannot the bogus nature of the Opposition's indignation on this matter best be measured by how few Back Benchers there are on the Opposition Benches?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I was hoping to proceed in a calm atmosphere rather than one which was needlessly excited. However, my hon. Friend makes a point which can well be seen when one compares the Benches on either side.
There have been times when the Government and the Select Committees have had different perceptions of how the traditional conventions should be applied in a particular case. Those difficulties are inevitable given the different standpoint of the Select Committees and the Executive. Although there is a mechanism of last resort for resolving those disagreements by putting the matter before the House, the practice has always been to seek the kind of resolution which is generally acceptable by using the flexibility which the conventions afford.
The Government sought to find such a resolution in relation to the Defence Select Committee's inquiry into Westland. In the debate on 15 January, the House had
412
endorsed the Government's recognition of the competience of departmental Select Committees to consider the issues raised by Westland. That did not, of course, mean that the usual conventions should be set aside.
Among those conventions is the long-standing practice of the Prime Minister not appearing before Select Committees to give evidence. That point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who made a formidable speech detailing criticisms of the Government's reactions. In particular, I have noted his comment that it would not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to appear before a Select Committee.
There has been a tradition that the Prime Minister should be answerable only on the Floor of the House. In this instance, my right hon. Friend has already made a statement to the House on 23 January this year and taken part in two debates on the incident on 15 and 27 January. She has also answered orally and in writing a number of questions on the matter. That, Mr. Speaker, is entirely in accordance with the practice of the House and of successive Administrations. A Prime Minister, by convention, is accountable to the House rather than to individual Select Committees.
That aside, there were two areas in which difficulties were experienced in finding an appropriate way forward. The first occasion is discussed by the Committee in paragraphs 218 to 224 of its report. This concerned the production of two documents which the Committee believed were material to its inquiry. This incident was referred to by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). The Government were reluctant to release the documents themselves, since they included material of a classified and commercially confidential nature. But summaries of the documents were provided at an early stage, and certain parts of the original documents were submitted to the Committee in full. Paragraph 224 of the Defence Select Committee's report states the view that the efforts of the permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry to furnish it with summaries as full and accurate as possible
"were both conscientious and successful".
A second area, one of greater difficulty, has been the provision of oral evidence from certain named officials: three from the Department of Trade and Industry, and two from the Prime Minister's Office. The convention in this area is that it is for Ministers to determine who should represent them before Select Committees. The power to call for the attendance of individually named persons is, of course, formally unqualified as the Select Committee was right to assert in paragraph 228 of its report.
Yet it has always been acknowledged that, with regard to civil servants, that power must be limited in practice so that the principles of ministerial accountability are not undermined. In this instance, the officials concerned had already been questioned by the head of the home Civil Service in the course of his inquiry, to which the Prime Minister had agreed. They had given him full accounts of their parts in the matter. The Government took the view that it would be unreasonable for them to be subjected to a further round of detailed questioning by the Defence Select Committee. But the Government were anxious to be helpful, and the Secretary of the Cabinet therefore offered to give evidence to the Committee on the basis of the information which he had amassed in the course of his

413
inquiry. I appreciate that, notwithstanding its formal powers, in the event the Committee decided, albeit reluctantly, to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary.
I recognise at once that differences between Select Committees and the Executive are not confined to the Westland inquiry. I realise that the Trade and Industry Select Committee investigating the tin crisis found it unsatisfactory that its investigation had to be carried out under that constraint. The Government were acting in accordance with established conventions, which form the basis on which civil servants give evidence before Select Committees. But what the Committee sought would have implied a change in those conventions.
The Government believe it is important that the conventions should continue to obtain and to be observed in the present form by Ministers, officials and Select Committee.
Mr. Douglas: Surely the clear implication is that the Government should withdraw paragraph 44 of the response.
Mr. Biffen: I shall come to that point, because it is the Government's view that paragraph 44 is intended to sustain what they believe to be the existing position — [Interruption.]
Sir Edward du Cann: I am sure that it does not.
Mr. Biffen: I hope that I can proceed with my speech so that I can persuade my right hon. Friend that this is a matter on which there can be genuine discussion.
Within the conventions the Government have sought to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement in all their dealings with Select Committees. So far, I have shown how, in disagreements with Select Committees, the Government have sought to act helpfully within the traditional conventions. They have not altered those conventions, nor do they seek to do so. Despite that, it has been suggested in Fleet street in past days that the Government's response to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Defence is in some way breaking new ground and that it seeks to weaken the entire Select Committee system. This is as damaging as it is untrue.
Attention has been directed especially to the final sentence of paragraph 44 of the Government's response, to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred. It says that the Government propose to make it clear to civil servants giving evidence to Select Committees that they should not answer questions which are, or appear to be, directed to their conduct or that of other named civil servants. It has been represented as a way of making any future Select Committee inquiry ineffective. It does not, and is not intended, to do anything of the sort. Instead, the Government's response to the Select Committee on Defence seeks to restate the principles of accountability and to reinforce the conventions which support and give effect to those principles.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Public Accounts Committee does just that week after week. Parliament votes money and the accounting officer is responsible for its expenditure. His conduct comes before the Committee. Less than two years ago, after careful consideration, I had to rebuke an accounting officer in strong terms, having
414
given him in private session the opportunity to withdraw. He did not withdraw. I rebuked him and the Secretary of State had to dismiss him. That can be the result of such an examination, but such an examination will be impossible if that last sentence remains.
Mr. Biffen: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is putting an entirely different interpretation upon it. I hope that by the end of my speech I will have convinced him either that he is mistaken or that it is still a matter that we can discuss.—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am sorry if I have shot the fox. Sometimes things happen that way.
I should explain why I believe that this restatement of principles and the setting out of their consequences is necessary. The work of departmental Select Committees is of relatively recent origin. The Committees are bound to try to develop their roles so as to fulfil their responsibilities as they see fit. Even so, we judge that there are signs that Select Committees are looking to assign responsibility to individual named civil servants. That would cut across the principle that it is Ministers who are answerable to the House. On account of this, we have put down the marker contained in paragraph 44.
Many factors have led us to the view that Select Committees should not act as disciplinary tribunals. The first is the weakening of overall ministerial accountability. There is also already a comprehensive and detailed disciplinary system for the Civil Service.
Mr. Reg Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are putting down a marker with this sentence in paragraph 44. Will he give an undertaking to the House, in line with what he said, that the matter can be further discussed and that no instructions will be issued to civil servants until the discussion has taken place and it has come before the House again for a decision?
Mr. Biffen: By the time I have finished my speech, I hope that I shall have satisfied the hon. Gentleman and made him unhappy, because I can give him that assurance.
Select Committees could not properly be grafted on to that system, however carefully it is carried out. Examination of conduct by Select Committees must necessarily contain an element of unfairness. The civil servants appearing before them are still subject to Ministers' instructions in answering questions and are without the safeguards and rights attached to the disciplinary procedures.
To some extent, this debate could not exist without Bernard Ingham, to judge by some of the speeches made this afternoon, but the speech of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East was redolent of hostility towards that civil servant.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, almost grudgingly, that he believed that Mr. Ingham had more power than a Member of Parliament and, indeed, a member of the Cabinet. All I am saying is that this is hardly the atmosphere in which to expect these people to be subject to the processes of any disciplinary implications of a Select Committee. It is all too easy to resort to the naming of individuals on the Floor of the House and elsewhere, but conventions govern these things and it is proper that the House should try to strike a realistic balance.
Given these arguments, the Government's proposal in paragraph 44 of their response to the Defence Select

415
Committee was designed to underline the intractable problems that would arise should Select Committees involve themselves in disciplinary matters. Unfortunately, however, the Government have been represented as meaning that no official would in future answer questions about any course of action followed by himself or any of his colleagues. There is no question of this.
As now, if something has gone amiss, a Select Committee will be free to seek an account from the Minister concerned or from a senior official representing the Minister. This could cover what has gone amiss, why it went amiss, what has been done to correct and remedy what has gone wrong and to prevent a recurrence. In short, we do not seek to prevent Select Committees from pursuing their inquiries into the expenditure, administration and policies of Departments.
As for departmental expenditure, the Public Accounts Committee has the special function of examining the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament. The Government are fully aware of the unique position of, and the conventions surrounding, the Public Accounts Committee. It is not the Government's intention to alter in any way the basis of the accountability of accounting officers to the Public Accounts Committee. It is, of course, also the case that although the accounting officer answers personally to the Public Accounts Committee for the aspects of his Department's activities which concern that Committee, he himself remains ultimately responsible to his Minister in all things.
Mr. Barry Porter: As we grind inexorably and somewhat boringly to the end of this peroration, may I ask whether it would not be proper for the Government to give some time to debate the relationship between the Government and Select Committees rather than to relate it to this subject? I had hoped to hear something about helicopters, but I have heard nothing.
Mr. Biffen: I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of the debate was about Select Committees, and it would have been exceedingly remiss had I not answered in these terms.
As for the work of other Select Committees, I imagine that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee may well wish to consider further the role of civil servants in relation to Select Committees. I hope that what I have said will be helpful to the Committee in such consideration.
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that the Government will seek to contribute constructively to the Committee's work within the general principles set out in the Government's response and in what I have said this evening. I look forward to seeing the result of its inquiry.
My right hon. Friend has another interest in this area as well as being Chairman of the Liaison Committee. This Committee will, of course, have a special role in looking at how in practice the work of Select Committees evolves in the context of the Government's response and the new guidelines for officials which will be drawn up. These will be intended to sustain — not undermine — existing practices. Even so, I can assure the House that they will not be finally and formally issued until the Liaison Committee has had a chance to see and comment upon them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) will at least take that as a token of good intent.
416
We have debated exhaustively the defence implications of Westland and have looked in detail at the decision-making connected with it. Technically, this is a procedural motion on the Adjournment. Many hon. Members have no desire to adjourn and no desire for the 10 o'clock rule; they just want endless debate on the Westland topic, not to try to find better ways of accountability but to use the debate as a lever in their political objectives.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 342.

Division No. 302]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Fisher, Mark

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Flannery, Martin

Alton, David

Forrester, John

Anderson, Donald

Foster, Derek

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foulkes, George

Ashdown, Paddy

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Freud, Clement

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Garrett, W. E,

Barnett, Guy

George, Bruce

Barron, Kevin

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Godman, Dr Norman

Beith, A. J.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bell, Stuart

Gould, Bryan

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gourlay, Harry

Bermingham, Gerald

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Blair, Anthony

Hardy, Peter

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Boyes, Roland

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Heffer, Eric S.

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Bruce, Malcolm

Home Robertson, John

Buchan, Norman

Hoyle, Douglas

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Janner, Hon Greville

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Cartwright, John

John, Brynmor

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Thomas

Kennedy, Charles

Clay, Robert

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clelland, David Gordon

Kirkwood, Archy

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Lambie, David

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Cohen, Harry

Leadbitter, Ted

Coleman, Donald

Leighton, Ronald

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Litherland, Robert

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Livsey, Richard

Craigen, J. M.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Crowther, Stan

Loyden, Edward

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McCartney, Hugh

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

McGuire, Michael

Deakins, Eric

McKelvey, William

Dewar, Donald

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Dixon, Donald

Maclennan, Robert

Dobson, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Dormand, Jack

McTaggart, Robert

Douglas, Dick

McWilliam, John

Dubs, Alfred

Madden, Max

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marek, Dr John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Eadie, Alex

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Eastham, Ken

Maxton, John

Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Fatchett, Derek

Meacher, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Michie, William

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mikardo, Ian

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

417

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Skinner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Snape, Peter

Nellist, David

Soley, Clive

O'Brien, William

Spearing, Nigel

O'Neill, Martin

Steel, Rt Hon David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Stott, Roger

Park, George

Strang, Gavin

Patchett, Terry

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Pavitt, Laurie

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Randall, Stuart

Tinn, James

Raynsford, Nick

Wainwright, R.

Redmond, Martin

Wallace, James

Richardson, Ms Jo

Wareing, Robert

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Weetch, Ken

Robertson, George

Welsh, Michael

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

White, James

Rogers, Allan

Wiggin, Jerry

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Woodall, Alec

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Chris Smith and

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Mr. Allen McKay.

Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Aitken, Jonathan

Carttiss, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Cash, William

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Amess, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ancram, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Tom

Chope, Christopher

Ashby, David

Churchill, W. S.

Aspinwall, Jack

Clark, Hon A. (Ptym'th S'n)

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Cockeram, Eric

Baldry, Tony

Colvin, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Conway, Derek

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Coombs, Simon

Bellingham, Henry

Cope, John

Bendall, Vivian

Corrie, John

Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

Couchman, James

Benyon, William

Cranborne, Viscount

Best, Keith

Critchley, Julian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Crouch, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blackburn, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dover, Den

Bottomley, Peter

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dunn, Robert

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Durant, Tony

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dykes, Hugh

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Eggar, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Emery, Sir Peter

Bright, Graham

Evennett, David

Brinton, Tim

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fallon, Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Farr, Sir John

Browne, John

Favell, Anthony

Bruinvels, Peter

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Budgen, Nick

Fletcher, Alexander

Butcher, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Forman, Nigel

Butterfill, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forth, Eric

418

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lilley, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Franks, Cecil

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lord, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Gale, Roger

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Galley, Roy

Macfarlane, Neil

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Maclean, David John

Goodlad, Alastair

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Gow, Ian

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Gower, Sir Raymond

McQuarrie, Albert

Grant, Sir Anthony

Madel, David

Greenway, Harry

Major, John

Gregory, Conal

Malins, Humfrey

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Malone, Gerald

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Maples, John

Grist, Ian

Marland, Paul

Ground, Patrick

Marlow, Antony

Grylls, Michael

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hanley, Jeremy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Harvey, Robert

Mellor, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Merchant, Piers

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Hawksley, Warren

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Hayes, J.

Miscampbell, Norman

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hayward, Robert

Moate, Roger

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Heddle, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hickmet, Richard

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hill, James

Mudd, David

Hind, Kenneth

Murphy, Christopher

Hirst, Michael

Needham, Richard

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Nelson, Anthony

Hordern, Sir Peter

Neubert, Michael

Howard, Michael

Newton, Tony

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Nicholls, Patrick

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Normanton, Tom

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Norris, Steven

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Onslow, Cranley

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Osborn, Sir John

Hunter, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Jackson, Robert

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Jessel, Toby

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Jones, Robert (Herts W)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pawsey, James

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Key, Robert

Pollock, Alexander

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Porter, Barry

King, Rt Hon Tom

Portillo, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Powley, John

Knox, David

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Price, Sir David

Lang, Ian

Prior, Rt Hon James

Latham, Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

Lawrence, Ivan

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Raffan, Keith

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rathbone, Tim

Lester, Jim

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Renton, Tim

Lightbown, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

419

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Speed, Keith

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Speller, Tony

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Spencer, Derek

Roe, Mrs Marion

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Rost, Peter

Squire, Robin

Rowe, Andrew

Stanbrook, Ivor

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Ryder, Richard

Stern, Michael

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Sumberg, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Shersby, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Sims, Roger

Terlezki, Stefan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

420

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Watson, John

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Watts, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Thurnham, Peter

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wheeler, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Whitfield, John

Tracey, Richard

Whitney, Raymond

Trippier, David

Wilkinson, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Winterton, Mrs Ann

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Winterton, Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wolfson, Mark

Viggers, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Waddington, David

Woodcock, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Walden, George

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wall, Sir Patrick

Waller, Gary

Tellers for the Noes:

Walters, Dennis

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Ward, John

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Commercial Agents
10.16 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4554/79, Amendment to the proposal for a Council Directive on the co-ordination of the laws of the member states relating to self-employed commercial agents, and of the Explanatory Memoranda by the Department of Trade and Industry, dated 13th March 1984 and 4th July 1986; and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this directive.
This proposal deals with the legal relationship between a principal and his "commercial agent", who is defined in the latest text of the draft directive as
"a self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person … or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that principal."
The directive is proposed under article 57(2) and article 100 of the treaty of Rome. Its main purposes are to reduce differences in the existing laws applied in member states and to strengthen the position of commercial agents in relation to their principals. As now drafted, the directive would require a principal to provide specific documentation and information to the commercial agent, impose various requirements relating to the commercial agent's entitlement to commission, require written contracts on request with minimum periods of notice, and give commercial agents a right to compensation at the cessation of a contract.
I should emphasise that we are now concerned only with self-employed agents negotiating the sale or purchase of goods. The directive does not apply to services, so the wide range of service agencies — travel agents, literary and theatrical agents, advertising agents, stockbrokers and so on—are not affected.
Sir John Page: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Clark: I will, but before I do I should like to say that we are dealing with something the technicality of which makes it essentially arid. I am always delighted to engage in an exchange of views with my hon. Friend, but I hope that my giving way to him will not be regarded as a general precedent—[Interruption.] I hope the House will acknowledge that I am always ready to give way in normal circumstances, but I feel that it is desirable to proceed as expeditiously as possible today. With that cautionary note, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Sir John Page: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Realising the aridity of the subject, I wish to dip my mug into the oasis of his great knowledge. My hon. Friend referred to "stockbrokers and so on." As the author of what is known as the Page Act, the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, I should like to ask whether insurance brokers are "and so on".
Mr. Clark: I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Yes, they are.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance. I was going to proceed. Although I do not know, and I could not give a categoric assurance—and "categoric" is the right word—none the less it looks as if "and so on" would include insurance brokers, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance on that.
422
Furthermore, the directive includes an option to exclude persons whose activities as agents are deemed by national law to be secondary. Thus, we can make provisions to ensure that the many part-time agents selling goods from mail order catalogues will not be affected. Also, there are some specific exclusions—for example, for company directors, as agents of the company, for receivers, operators in the commodity market, and contracts of unremunerated agency.
In this country there are different opinions on the need for the directive. The principals, represented by the Confederation of British Industry and other trade organisations, together with bodies representing lawyers, remain opposed in principle and to certain detail. In contrast, the manufacturers' agents, represented primarily by the United Commercial Travellers Association section of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, and the Manufacturers Agents Association continue to support its early adoption. Indeed, they would like a directive with stronger provisions.
Estimates suggest that there is a total of about 20,000 manufacturers' agents in the United Kingdom. It is believed that a very high percentage operate as one-man businesses, although some agencies are handled by major international business houses. Those making a case for manufacturers' agents say that small agents find it difficult to obtain written contracts and to get all the information they need to verify that they are being paid the correct amount of commission, and that some suffer because their commission is not paid when it is due. They have complained that agents can be used to build up sales in an unpromising market and then put aside, without compensation, when the business has reached a level where the principal can set up his own sales organisation. About half the member states now have laws concerning the relationship between agent and principal, but in the United Kingdom the absence of a legal requirement for a formal contract incorporating basic safeguards has led to insecurity and uncertainty for a group of people who are doing a useful job, particularly as regards helping in the establishment of new and usually small manufacturing businesses.
Against that, the CBI and other organisations representing the principal continue to regard the directive as unnecessary. They have commented that the agent is not necessarily the weaker party and that the directive might not be in the best interests of small companies which use agents. Concern has also been expressed about the requirements of the directive regarding the provision of information to agents, carrying the risk of disclosure of commercial secrets.
Throughout the discussions with the Commission and other member states we have continued to refer to the problems caused for the United Kingdom by this directive and we have maintained a general reserve. Many of these reservations related to the original draft of the directive, which has since been heavily modified during lengthy negotiations within the Council working group.
I am glad to tell the House that, in recognition of the United Kingdom's problems, I have obtained the proposal that the United Kingdom should be granted a transitional period of four years, in addition to the three-year period provided for in article 36(1), for implementation into national law. The effect would be that there would be a seven-year period before any implementation in the United Kingdom was obligatory as regards new contracts.

423
The proposal under consideration is complex. The objective is to strike a balance between the needs of the agents and the concern of the principals. We now have a draft which addresses itself to the limited area of the activities of manufacturers' agents and we no longer need to worry about its implications for agents' activities operating in many other areas. Also, much detail has been eliminated and the drafting improved. In particular, the United Kingdom has been offered, as a concession, a significant additional transitional period which will give us time to consult about the ensuing adjustment to our agency law.
On balance, and given the differences of view within the United Kingdom itself, my conclusion is that the present draft, with a specific derogation for us, represents a reasonable result, which I recommend to the House. Subject to securing a specific derogation, I propose to lift our general reserve and seek adoption of the draft directive by the Council at its next session.
10.26 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: This is a somewhat curious parliamentary occasion, in the sense that the Minister for Trade has proposed legislation. Normally, I imagine that when legislation is proposed by the Government a substantial case is made, some enthusiasm is displayed, and some sign is given that the Government have put their weight and hard work behind a measure. I think that I was not alone in detecting a certain lack of enthusiasm by the Minister for the measure.
There is a powerful case to be made, although the Minister did not make it. It is a British case rather than an EEC case. It has been made over many years by ASTMS, among others — in fact, my own union has done so—and I am sure that it will be developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). I propose to do no more than summarise the case.
In many of the relationships between principal and agent with which we are concerned, the agent is the weaker party. Very often, the agent has great difficulty in getting written confirmation of his contract.
Mr. Alan Clark: I said it.
Mr. Gould: The Minister says that he said it. However, he read from a brief, rather than investing it with his personal authority and enthusiasm. Very often, agents do not get written contracts, and they have difficulty in enforcing the terms of the contract. Sometimes, they have difficulty in receiving their commission. Often, they are left with responsibility for bad debts. Sometimes when they have worked long and faithfully for a principal and have built up an unpromising business, they are discarded at the moment the business becomes more attractive and profitable. Therefore, the agent is left in a position of great uncertainty and insecurity.
If the Government had truly believed the case and had adopted it as their own, the Minister would not have dragged his heels for so many years. He would have stood at the Dispatch Box proposing some British or United Kingdom legislation to deal with that mischief. If he had done so, I think that all hon. Members would have given the legislative proposal a much more enthusiastic and warmer welcome than is possible given the form and the manner in which the Minister put his case tonight.
If there were a piece of British mischief to be dealt with, we should have had British legislation to do that. In that
424
way we would have overcome a number of the difficulties that arise because we are now required to endorse in what has hitherto been a matter of private contract the application of a continental code which in many respects is inappropriate and far too rigid for the purpose.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does not this instrument have a double advantage in that it helps weaker agents vis-a-vis stronger principals not only those acting within the United Kingdom but those acting between the national frontiers of the member states?
Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman is right, but of course that would apply whether or not we were legislating along these lines. If we had our own legislation which achieved a more British and therefore a more appropriate system, we would have the harmonisation which is desirable. Equally, principals operating through agents in the EEC countries could take advantage of the provisions in the directive. Few people would disagree — even my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North would agree —that some aspects of the proposal are inappropriate and should he changed, and that there are difficulties in applying to the British situation the very rigid concepts of a continental code.
I remind the House of the history of this matter. The legislative history begins in a sense in 1976, although the campaign began well before then. On 2 May 1978, in the debate eventually held on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, the Minister's predecessor stood at the Dispatch Box and argued vehemently on the Opposition's behalf against any such measure. He put a powerful case. Since the Conservatives arrived in office, as far as I can tell they have devoted all their energy to cutting down, holding back and frustrating the measure in various ways. Some of the proposals they have succeeded in implementing are to be welcomed. The fact that it is now possible to limit the ambit of the measure so that it does not cover part-time mail order agents is helpful.
There are still substantial doubts, which the Minister did not fully allay. There are doubts as to whether we really need this law, and as to whether the absence of total harmonisation on these matters throughout the EEC truly has in any real sense operated as a barrier to trade. Even those who oppose the measure — the principals, represented by the CBI, and the chambers of commerce — are already using agents in EEC countries under this body of rules. In a sense this meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is not immediately clear why, for our own internal purposes, we should change law which in many respects has worked perfectly well, is suited to our conditions and is in the interests of harmonisation, and have to comply with the EEC directive.
It is worth pointing out—this point has been made in recent years, although perhaps not in the earlier debate —that when the Commission looked at the directive in an earlier form it commented:
"The substance, presentation and drafting contained defects such as to render it unsuitable even as a basis for negotiation."
It is hard to conceive of a more damaging stricture. Doubts remain as to the measure's legal basis in the treaty and the case for harmonisation. There are questions about whether this is not just harmonisation for harmonisation's sake.

425
Even at this late date in the saga, when the Minister, with all the reluctance which he demonstrates so charmingly, is prepared to say that he will let the measure pass under various conditions, the Government's position is that their approval is conditional on the derogation which gives them not just the three-year transitional period but an additional four years. In other words, the Government are recommending to the House a measure that will not take effect for another seven years—when, I am glad to say, they will long since have departed from the scene.
That means that so little confidence do the Government and the Minister have in this measure that he is not prepared to say that the Government put their authority behind it and so will see it into law. The Minister is instead saying that the Government do not like this measure but they have been compelled to yield by all sorts of pressure by our EEC colleagues, but they will yield in such a way that it will be their successors — I do not suppose the Minister hopes that they will be successors of a different party, but he must at least recognise that possibility—to pick up the pieces.
That raises the real question—if the Minister and the Government are so unenthusiastic about this measure that they are not prepared to make a United Kingdom case for legislation, and if they put all their energies into frustrating what the EEC proposes, and even now will defer implementation of the measure for seven years, why is the Minister recommending the directive in the first place? The answer is shameful. It is that this is not legislation by conviction and commitment, but legislation as a result of pressure—legislation by proxy. It is not the Minister putting forward these proposals.
We deserve a case to be made by somebody who believes in this measure, and whose auhority is behind it, and the Minister has not put such a case. That is not good enough for the House of Commons, and I think that I know that the Minister in his heart of hearts agrees. He must concede that, in that great mish-mash of pressures such as the British presidency and the internal market, this is yet one more of those comparatively small issues that, one by one and reluctantly, we concede and concede. That is no way to proceed with a legislative programme, and the Minister has not done the House a service in bringing the measure forward in this way.
10.37 pm
Sir John Page: I am honoured to be given a second helping on this important debate. Earlier, I showed paternalism for insurance brokers, who I now understand are excluded from this measure. From a constituency point of view, I have something further to say. In my constituency there is a magnificant Edwardian building in which I know that my hon. Friend the Minister would take a great interest, which used to be known as the Royal Commercial Travellers' School. For many years, until seven or eight years ago, it was the headquarters and the ethos of commercial travellers. They are also Conservative travellers, because to a man they support the ideas of private enterprise that I embrace. The Conservative commercial travellers had their base in my constituency.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), and I was surprised
426
that he bothered to chide my hon. Friend the Minister for saying that there should have been United Kingdom legislation. I cannot imagine anything more stupid or more wasteful of time, energy and work in the Department than to reproduce United Kingdom legislation that might, at any possible time thereafter, be subsumed or inhaled by EEC legislation. It is much more sensible to go straight from the present loose agency arrangements to embracing the EEC idea.
Mr. Gould: That is an interesting doctrine. As the EEC now has legislative power over the whole spectrum of governmental activity, what limits would the hon. Gentleman place on his doctrine?
Sir John Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman has lost the thread of my argument already. I was trying to follow his criticism that there should have been United Kingdom legislation of a different nature first. That seemed to be an unusual route. It seemed to be an unusual way of adopting an EEC position on this matter.
Wearing the hat of the commercial traveller in my constituency, and supporting his interests, I was rather disappointed at my hon. Friend the Minister's lukewarm reaction to the proposals. The time has long past when more careful legislation was needed to clarify the relationship between the self-employed agent and the principal. Although I have not studied the new legislation in depth, I understand that those on whose behalf I speak tonight, the commercial travellers organisations, welcome and support the proposals, although the CBI and the chambers of commerce are against them. Seven years is a long time for the new legislation to take effect, and I hope that it will not be necessary for the full seven years to pass before the ideas behind the legislation and the new responsibilities of companies towards their agents are recognised by both sides.
10.41 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I must first declare an interest as president of ASTMS. There are many commercial travellers in the outer sections of the union. They are extremely concerned about the length of time involved. If many of them were present tonight—and some are—I am sure that they would be extremely disappointed with the way in which the Minister presented the proposal. He did not appear to have mastered his brief, and he did not appear enthusiastic about the proposals. This issue is no laughing matter to my members.
The year 1976 has been mentioned already, but this matter dates back to 1961, before we joined the EEC. When we were due to join the EEC in 1972, there was great hope that a conclusion would be reached on this directive, but that was put off as new members joined the Community.
My members have been waiting a long time for a measure which they believe will strengthen them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly said that we understand why the CBI and chambers of commerce are against the proposals. However, the agents are in a weak position.
I should have thought that Tory Members would welcome the proposals. After all, the agents are the kind of people that the Tory party is trying to encourage. These people go out and try to get business. They stimulate

427
enterprise. I am not sure that many of these agents will vote for the Tory party after the way in which the proposals were presented.
Having said that my members welcome the proposals, I must go on to say that there are some ways in which they believe they could be strengthened, because that would help them. My members need to be given a measure of security. The agents are in a precarious position. Often they go out, build up the business and then find that their agency has been terminated, after they have done all the hard work. The manufacturer tells the agent that his business is no longer needed.
We welcome the proposal for the contract. However, it is important that, instead of that contract being on request to defend the agent, it should be mandatory. Article 5 refers to complying with regional instructions given by a principal. When they are conducting their business, many of these agents do not have only one agency. They have several in order to make a living. Consequently, if they obey one principal, that might be in contradiction of the other agencies that they represent. It might not be in their interests. We must ensure that what an agent is asked to do is not in direct contradiction of his other agencies and is not detrimental to him.
Article 11 refers to remuneration tied to the place where an agent carries out his activities. Everyone knows that agents go out and about. Indeed, often their business is done, not in a building or office, but in a territory. The article should be widened to include an agents's territory.
Article 12 refers to commission on transactions. Anyone who has been involved in selling—as I have been — knows that one of the difficulties with commercial transactions is that often people place orders direct with the manufacturer. The agent does not then receive commission. Rather than referring simply to commission on transactions, the article should refer to all transactions, taking into account the work done by the agent in his territory. He should have the benefit from that work, even if the orders are placed direct with the manufacturer. That would be welcomed by many of my members.
Article 30 refers to giving entitlement to indemnity to the agent, but that can be reported upon to the Council only after eight years. That is far too long—it should be one year. If it is thought that that is too soon—and I noted the Minister's general reluctance about the directive—the period should be a maximum of three years.
Under article 32, relating to competition, an agent has the right to be consulted, and to be part of the agreement on the extent of the competition. If the contract is terminated, the agent should not be deprived of a living because of a restriction on competition. The agent may have been selling a particular article, and he may be prevented from going into his territory. That is not the right way to go about matters.
Article 36 says that the measure should come into force in 36 months' time. We are talking, not about 36 months, but about seven years to bring in the directive. That is ludicrous. Either it is to be brought in, or it is not. This is typical of the approach to the directive. Anything can happen in seven years. It is far too long a period. Surely after all the time that we have been waiting for the directive —I referred back as far as 1961 — to achieve some measure of security for these hard-working people, to wait another seven years is far too long. It should be a maximum of 12 to 18 months.
428
The directive would not affect existing contracts. There is lack of security, because the contracts could be removed at any time and the agent deprived of all the work that he had done. Again seven years is far too long in this case. It is nonsense. The maximum should be three years.
The Minister must at long last grasp the nettle. Instead of waiting for seven years, this directive ought to be brought into force at once. It is important to ensure that contracts are mandatory, then justice will be done to the agents who have had to wait for far too long for this directive. That would provide security for a very hard working bunch of people. They are doing all that they possibly can to do what the Government are always talking about.
The Government say that they want to encourage small businesses, but in this case they are acting against the best interests of those who go out and sell the goods that they have produced. The Minister should give them some encouragement and bring this directive into force as soon as possible—not after seven years, but within 12 or 18 months.
10.52 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
There were certain inconsistencies in the argument of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He repeated some of the arguments that I used in recommending this directive to the House. He said that a powerful case had been made out for it and that it had been needed for a long time, but he also said that perhaps, after all, we did not need it, that we ought to have our own legislation and that this was not the right way to approach the matter. I do not want to trade guarded reproaches with him, but the inconsistencies in his argument betrayed a certain lack of enthusiasm for the directive.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not having congratulated him upon his election during my opening speech. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and I shared certain attitudes towards some of the elements in this whole affair when we were on the Back Benches. It is ironic to the highest degree that those two hon. Members, for whom I retain a high measure of personal respect, should be arguing for the speedy implementation of a Community directive and saying that there should be no delay.
The proposed derogation is highly satisfactory. It will give us time to listen to representations and to hear what the interested parties have to say. However, the hon. Member for Warrington, North says that, because this is a Community directive, it must be implemented soon. Is this not a rather unusual role for him to be playing?
Mr. Hoyle: The Minister is quite right. As colleagues, we have opposed many EEC proposals, but that does not mean that we should oppose all of them. Sometimes some good comes out of the EEC. It is not often that I find it, but I believe that there is some good to be found in this directive. Surely we have already waited for far too long. We understand the arguments on both sides. I appeal to the Minister as a reasonable person not to make us wait for another seven years. I ask him to bring this directive into operation as speedily as possible.
Mr. Clark: Seven years is the maximum period. Many of these contracts could be dealt with well within that

429
period. Every hon. Member who has spoken — I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Sir J. Page) who has a historic centre within his constituency—has done so from the point of view of the agents. I hope that in my introductory remarks I made it quite clear that the Government recognise the need to afford a measure of protection.
This directive in its new form has to represent a compromise between the interests of two essentially conflicting groups—the principals and the agents. We think we have that compromise at about the right level. There have been considerable changes. The hon. Member for Dagenham quoted the Law Commission strictures, but these changes, both in drafting and in content, have been made in the light of those strictures.
I hope that the House broadly agrees that the derogation is helpful. It will give us time to consider other representations, because there are other views on this, even though in this debate we have had the view of only one side. Given the general acceptance of the need to make progress in the internal market, the substantial improvements that have been made in the substance of this directive, as a result of negotiations at official level, enable it to be viewed as such a substantial move away from its predecessor that we can give it our full support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4554/79, Amendment to the proposal for a Council Directive on the co-ordination of the laws of the member states relating to self-employed commercial agents, and of the Explanatory Memoranda by the Department of Trade and Industry, dated 13th March 1984 and 4th July 1986; and supports the Government's intention to agree to the adoption of this directive.

Warminster Bypass
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Dennis Walters: Although to me the importance of the Warminster bypass is of almost unique and unrivalled importance—it is engraved on my heart — I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister has many bypasses to contend with. No doubt they are all of equal importance to him and none is engraved on his heart.
The Warminster bypass saga has gone on for so long that it merits a debate in the House. I have held meetings about it with Ministers in different Governments since 1966. It suffered, as did many other projected routes, from changes in the road development plans of successive Governments, and I will not weary my hon. Friend and hon. Members who are listening to this important debate with a historical account of events since 1966.
In 1979 the bypass was firmly programmed and since that time I have had meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), all of whom have been Transport Ministers. I have not had a meeting with the present Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), but we have corresponded on the subject. It is precisely because I found his last letter of 14 October in reply to my letter of 30 September quite unsatisfactory that I am raising the matter in this debate.
Throughout the latter part of 1984 I emphasised to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, who was the Minister for Transport at that time, the importance of an announcement being made about construction of the bypass not later than mid-December 1984. On 20 December, I received a letter from my hon. Friend, together with a press statement, announcing that construction work could start at about the end of 1985. I went to see him again in January 1985 and stressed how essential it was that there should be no delay after the statutory period for consultation had passed. There had been too many unfulfilled promises and local opinion had, understandably, been sceptical about assurances emanating from my hon. Friend's Department.
For the next six months I was in regular contact with my hon. Friend in the House of Commons and with his officials in the private office. I was repeatedly told that the final decision letter and line orders were being considered as top priority and confidently assured that the mid-May deadline would be met.
Although that was not the case, on 5 June 1985 my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South wrote to me stating that the further consultations about the route of the Warminster bypass had been successfully completed. He enclosed a copy of the press notice announcing that the bypass would be constructed incorporating the alternative route A put forward by the objectors.
Shortly after that, I was informed that the line orders had been made. The statutory challenge period would finish on 9 August 1985 and no objections were expected. Side road orders and compulsory purchase orders were also being made, and then advertised in the local papers with a six-week challenge period. Again, I was assured that

431
no problems were anticipated over that. Supplementary side road orders were being looked at by the legal department and would be published in September with objections finishing at the end of October. Work would start in May 1986 with a two-year construction period envisaged.
When a legal challenge to the validity of the orders relating to the bypass was unexpectedly made, I was again assured that, although there might be a slight delay, it would he only slight as other statutory procedures had to be carried out which would be done at the same time.
I therefore found it surprising that in his letter of 10 September my hon. Friend the Minister suggested that the High Court action was entirely responsible for the delay. In that letter my hon. Friend concluded by saying:
"We hope to get work under way by around the turn of the year."
Bearing in mind the history which I have been recounting, I did not much care for the use of the word "hope". Also, I felt that "around the turn of the year" opened up endless possibilities for further procrastination. My interpretation of "around the turn of the year" would be the end of December, early January. Did the Minister share my interpretation?
In order to clarify those points, I wrote to my hon. Friend on 30 September asking for a final and irrevocable date. The concluding sentence of his reply dated 14 October was as disappointing and non-committal as the one in the letter of 10 September. He said:
"We expect that the successful contractor will start work early in the New Year, unless really bad weather causes him to postpone his operations."
I have been told by my hon. Friend that all the statutory procedures have been completed. What I want now, after 21 years of talk about the Warminster bypass, is a firm date from him when work on the bypass will start and a specific assurance that that date will not be changed. I do not think that in the circumstances it is unreasonable to ask for that.
11.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First, may I acknowledge the persistent efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) on behalf of his constituents in relation to this much-needed bypass. There is no difference between me, my predecessors and him on that.
I have always tried to avoid giving assurances about dates when things would happen. Building and planning roads is very much like dinghy sailing. One can make mistakes or things can happen that blow one off course, and there are few ways of accelerating the process except by joining the construction of a road oneself. If it is of any comfort to my hon. Friend, I should say that the building of roads is normally completed before the planned date, while the planning of roads and going through the procedures often takes longer. There is a temptation for someone in my position always to give the best possible estimate and then have to disappoint an hon. Friend or a colleague in the Opposition when something intervenes.
I am well aware of the urgent need to provide relief to the residents of Warminster from the increasing nuisance, inconvenience and danger arising from the passage of unnecessary traffic through the town. I share my hon. Friend's wish that a bypass be provided at the earliest possible date. As he knows, the provision of bypasses is a
432
top priority of the Government, but it is not practical to undertake the provision of all those required at the same time. We try to work out a system of priorities to ensure that the towns in greatest need receive their bypasses as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend will know that the bypass for Warminster was shown in the report "National Roads: England 1985", which was published in June that year, for a start of construction in the period up to March 1987. We intend to meet that commitment. I am confident that this can be achieved. As my hon. Friend knows, tenders for the construction of the Warminster bypass were invited in September this year and are due to be returned on 2 December. I am to award the contract by Christmas, so a start of work in January should he possible, depending upon the weather. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's final question as to when we intend the work to start. I hope that that is near enough to the turn of the year. I recognise that this is not as early as my hon. Friend wished, but an earlier start is not possible.
My hon. Friend also knows that the scheme has had its share of difficulties, and he mentioned some of them. Draft orders were first published in November 1982. In the light of objections then received, various changes were made, leading to the publication of modified orders in July 1983. A public inquiry was held towards the end of that year. In response to representations made at the public inquiry, the inspector subsequently recommended that the route of the bypass should be amended to reduce its impact on Norton Bavant. That recommendation required careful consideration, and it was not until December 1984 that the decision of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport to adopt the revised route was announced.
Consultations then took place with those affected by the revised route. Objections were received, and it was June 1985 before the relevant order could be made. The associated side roads and compulsory purchase orders were made in August that year. New orders in respect of the alterations required to the existing road network in the vicinity of Norton Bavant, as a consequence of the change in the route, then had to be prepared and published. This was achieved before the end of the year, and the orders were subsequently made in May 1986.
Under normal circumstances, we would then have been able to proceed with the remaining preparatory work, to have final discussions with landowners and others and to invite tenders. If that had been possible, the work could have started in the autumn. Unfortunately, however, a local farmer, who was dissatisfied with the inspector's recommendation and the decision of the Secretaries of State over access to some of his fields after the bypass was built, decided to challenge in the High Court the validity of the side roads and compulsory purchase orders made a few months earlier. The making of this challenge effectively prevented the Department from completing the remaining preparatory work and, of course, the preparation and issue of invitations to contractors to tender for construction of the bypass. For the Department to have continued with such preparations would have been to attract, at best, accusations of arrogance. There is a long waiting list of cases to be heard in the High Court and the Department had to take its turn. It was not until July this year that the challenge came before the court. Fortunately, this was determined in the Department's favour, but the time taken up by waiting for the hearing could not be recovered.

433
Two months later the Department had completed the final preparatory stages and tenders were invited in September. The Department has done all that could be done, within the limitations imposed by the statutory
434
procedures and the legal processes, to bring this scheme to fruition in time to allow a start of work before March next year. Work should start in January.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  County Courts (Hearings)
  County Courts (Hearings)
  BBC (Libel Action)
  BBC (Libel Action)
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  South Africa
  South Africa
WALES
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Highways Act 1980
  Highways Act 1980
PRIME MINISTER
  Service Communications (Report)
  Service Communications (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EEC (Interest on Payments)
  EEC (Interest on Payments)
  Northern Ireland (Territorial Block Formula)
  Northern Ireland (Territorial Block Formula)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Debt (Householders)
  Debt (Householders)
  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Infrastructure (Expenditure)
  Infrastructure (Expenditure)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Public Services (Funding)
  Public Services (Funding)
  North Sea (Oil and Gas Revenues)
  North Sea (Oil and Gas Revenues)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
  Commercial Representatives
  Commercial Representatives
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Investment
  Investment
  Tripartite Business Ventures
  Tripartite Business Ventures
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Schools and Industry
  Schools and Industry
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Merseyside Enterprise Board
  Merseyside Enterprise Board
  Crafts (Exhibition)
  Crafts (Exhibition)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  House and Parliamentary Papers
  House and Parliamentary Papers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Paul Fitzgerald Smyth
  Paul Fitzgerald Smyth
EMPLOYMENT
  Restart
  Restart
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  YTS
  YTS
  Jobs Start
  Jobs Start
  New Workers Scheme
  New Workers Scheme
  Wage Levels
  Wage Levels
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Stallite Batteries, Barnsley
  Stallite Batteries, Barnsley
  Long-term Unemployed Persons
  Long-term Unemployed Persons
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Women Prisoners (Pregnancy)
  Women Prisoners (Pregnancy)
  Janice McKinley (Inquiry)
  Janice McKinley (Inquiry)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  BBC Scotland
  BBC Scotland
  Citizenship (South Africa)
  Citizenship (South Africa)
  Mr. John Stalker
  Mr. John Stalker
  Visas
  Visas
  Visitors (Detention)
  Visitors (Detention)
  Queensland (Elections)
  Queensland (Elections)
TRANSPORT
  Dalton-in-Furness Bypass
  Dalton-in-Furness Bypass
  Airmiss, Stanmore
  Airmiss, Stanmore
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
ENVIRONMENT
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Crime Prevention Grants
  Crime Prevention Grants
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  Development Commission (Budget)
  Development Commission (Budget)
  Merseyside Enterprise Board
  Merseyside Enterprise Board
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Portsmouth (Housing)
  Portsmouth (Housing)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lyminge Forest
  Lyminge Forest
  Healthy Foodstuffs
  Healthy Foodstuffs
  Fishing Fleet (Decommissioning Scheme)
  Fishing Fleet (Decommissioning Scheme)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Civil Service
  Overseas Civil Service
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Contadora Peace Process
  Contadora Peace Process
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  East-West Relations
  East-West Relations
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Palestinians
  Palestinians
  Chile
  Chile
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  European Community Structures
  European Community Structures
  Drugs Liaison Officers
  Drugs Liaison Officers
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Mr. George Shultz
  Mr. George Shultz
  Central America
  Central America
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  European Community (Foreign Policy)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Latin America
  Latin America
  EC (Co-operation)
  EC (Co-operation)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Romania
  Romania
  South Atlantic (Fishing Regime)
  South Atlantic (Fishing Regime)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  State Terrorism
  State Terrorism
  Anglo-Austrian Relations
  Anglo-Austrian Relations
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  US Nuclear Weapons
  US Nuclear Weapons
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Visas (Soviet Union)
  Visas (Soviet Union)
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Visas
  Visas
  DNA Testing
  DNA Testing
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Appeals Tribunals
  Appeals Tribunals
  Health Funding
  Health Funding
  Cancer (West Cumbria)
  Cancer (West Cumbria)
  Local Office (Bloomsbury)
  Local Office (Bloomsbury)
  Nurse's Cottage, Aylesbury
  Nurse's Cottage, Aylesbury
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Sugars
  Sugars
  Electoral Statistics
  Electoral Statistics
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Irradiated Foods
  Irradiated Foods
  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act
  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Local Office Staffs
  Local Office Staffs
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  McColl Report
  McColl Report
  Under-fives' Initiative
  Under-fives' Initiative
  Radiotherapy Department (Southend)
  Radiotherapy Department (Southend)
  Regional Health Authorities (Gifts)
  Regional Health Authorities (Gifts)
  Southend Health Authority
  Southend Health Authority
SCOTLAND
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Chairs of Medicine
  Chairs of Medicine
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Road Passenger Transport (Jobs)
  Road Passenger Transport (Jobs)
  Ferries
  Ferries
  Buses
  Buses
  Airports
  Airports
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Inverclyde District Council
  Inverclyde District Council
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
DEFENCE
  Maralinga (Clean-up Costs)
  Maralinga (Clean-up Costs)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons

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

Dangerous Drugs: Control
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage all the countries in the EC to raise and train voluntary constabulary or auxiliaries, to enable them to back up their regular police forces, and in particular to help in the control of dangerous drugs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we encourage all chief constables to recruit a reserve force to help the regular force. These are known in this country as special constables. Each country in the Economic Community is responsible for its own police force, and if a government seek our advice we will gladly help.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, so far, the noble Earl has gone a short distance, but he has not shown any great interest in the international side (which I mentioned in my Question) or in the co-operation, or, particularly, in connection with the control of dangerous drugs.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the House will be aware, there is considerable co-operation between the police forces throughout Europe on the matter of drugs. Whether special constables have a role in combating drugs offences is, we think, questionable because of the high specialist requirements that the drugs squads and the regional crime squads need.

Acid Rain: EC Discussions
2.39 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Molloy, and with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.
The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether during the British presidency of the Council of the EC they will initiate discussions with all countries concerned on the question of acid rain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, proposals for tackling the problem of acid rain have been under discussion within the European Community for some time. No agreement has been reached because of the widely divergent views of
710
different member states. As the Presidency, we hope to advance the discussions with a view to promoting agreement on a package of measures which would be generally acceptable to member states.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Now that the Government admit the link between sulphur emissions and acid deposition, perhaps I may ask him whether they will bring forward their target for reduction in line with other European countries.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to whether or not the United Kingdom should join the "Thirty per cent. Club". We recognise the importance of the club as a symbol of international concern about acid rain. However, being a member of the club does not necessarily mean that one is doing more than a non-member. The House will know that we reduced our sulphur dioxide emissions by 24 per cent. before the club's starting date, which was in 1980. We are now over 40 per cent. down on the peak levels of 1970. Therefore we have already done more than some members of the club which were still increasing their emissions during the 1970s. However, we are keeping the possibility of membership of the club under continuing review.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that emissions of nitrous oxides from vehicles are probably as important as sulphur emissions from power stations; and, if he agrees, will he therefore ensure that this problem also is taken into account in any discussions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. That is why the Central Electricity Generating Board, for example is doing an enormous amount of research work into low nitrogen oxide-producing grates and other ways of heating water to make electricity.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it the opinion of the Government that alleged pollution by acid in Galloway is due to emissions from power stations? If so, which power stations; and, if not, to what do they attribute it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there has been a very long-term experiment in the lakes in Galloway. I understand it has been going on since about 1909; so we know that the water is becoming more and more acidified—in fact, by one degree on the scale over that period. It is certain from those experiments that this has been a long-term problem which has been building up and which started with the industrial revolution.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact, despite the progress that the Minister indicated in answer to a previous supplementary question, that we still have the reputation of being the biggest polluter in Europe in our production of acid rain? Can the Minister tell us when we can expect substantial progress towards eliminating acid rain entirely?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have a reputation which I believe to be somewhat undeserved. In fact, we produce 66 kilograms of sulphur per person per annum. That is 25 per cent. less than Spain and the United States and 15 per cent. less than Finland and Luxembourg. This is something which we have continued to reduce and it is our firm intention to carry on doing just that.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, apart from the fact that the generating board has been somewhat unfairly accused of adding seriously to acid rain by its emissions, the major factor is undoubtedly lead emissions from motor car exhausts? Therefore will not the Government's campaign—in fact, their programme—to reduce lead in petrol make a major contribution to reducing acid rain?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There is also the fact, which has nothing to do with the Government, that more and more people are now driving diesel cars, which of course are lead-free.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the previous question? He did not mention the Russian satellite countries, and my information is that they are using coal with 5 per cent. sulphur and that they are the major polluters in Europe, particularly in Germany where the forests are dying.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. I did not add that a staggering 240 kilograms per person are emitted from East Germany every year.

Nuclear Incidents Emergency Plans
2.44 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to ensure that local authorities, fire services, police forces, emergency planning teams and others with responsibility for protecting people from the effects of peacetime disasters, are fully prepared, equipped and trained to deal with radioactive fallout caused by power station accidents at home or abroad.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, detailed plans exist for dealing with emergencies at civil nuclear power stations in this country. Regular exercises are held involving organisations concerned. Following the accident at Chernobyl, the Government are conducting a thorough review of contingency plans and procedures for nuclear incidents both in this country and overseas. We will ensure that all the implications are properly addressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply? May I ask him whether it means
712
that the Government accept that there could be another Chernobyl-type disaster on the Continent which could badly affect London and other places in this country? Can he say when it is proposed to publish the report of the inquiries which he is holding?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to the results of the Government's inquiries, I cannot give the House a firm commitment on this. We are keen to make rapid progress, but I am sure that the House will realise that there is a great deal of work involved. It was only at the end of August that the Soviet Union provided full technical information about the accident to the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think it would be wrong for me to comment on my noble friend's question as to whether or not we thought there would be another Chernobyl.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what machinery exists for liaising with the local authorities (other than sending out circulars) in order that they may be kept up to date with the necessary research and the necessary activity, from their own point of view, should such an incident occur?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are two aspects to that question. The first is, what would happen if there were an accident in this country. It is of course up to the operator of the plant to provide a suitable scheme to take account of any accident, and preferably of course to prevent the accident from happening. The nuclear industry in this country has a very good safety record on that front. With regard to an accident overseas, that is one of the matters that we are addressing in our work at the moment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one who lives in part of the Lake District which was exposed to the Chernobyl cloud at a time of very heavy rainfall, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that what we want to know is to whom we should apply for information about whether or not our water supplies or our land have become radidactive? My wife insists that our vegetables and fruit have been "Chernobyled". I cannot dispute that with her unless I have the necessary information. I asked the Ministry of Agriculture about this weeks ago and have heard nothing. I could ask my friends at Sellafield to do tests, but that would be hardly fair since they did not cause the cloud. Who should we ask?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord was right to write to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that human error is often an element in these accidents and it is the fact that human error is not confined to any particular part of the world that makes it impossible to say that such a disaster might not occur in this country? In the light of that, ought we not to view the development of further nuclear energy with very grave doubts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is rehearsing questions and arguments that are well known to the House. As he will of course be aware, the

713
design defects at Chernobyl are not found in United Kingdom installations.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some years ago when I was chairman of the Devon Emergency Volunteers (in which we were trained, inter alia, to do the things mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton) we had a meeting to discuss what we had done to help the floods in Newton Abbot, and the local CND came and broke it up because we included in our training the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton? Would it not be a good idea to get over to the nuclear disarmers this thought: what we are trying to do to replace the old Civil Defence is to our mutual benefit and is not an argument for doing the things the CND have suggested?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate that there is a small body of people wishing to prevent us making progress on all aspects of civil defence. Indeed, we have been able to make considerable progress and that is in large measure due to the Bill which my noble friend Lord Renton piloted through the House earlier this Session.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he had written to the Ministry of Agriculture and had not received a reply. When is he likely to get one?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall consult my noble friend Lord Belstead. The letter may have been mislaid in the post, and no doubt the noble Lord would like to send a reminder.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to go a bit further in relation to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mishcon regarding foreign nuclear power stations? He will be aware that only 30 miles away in France, and in Gravelines in particular, there is a huge body of nuclear energy in nuclear power stations. Are there arrangements, with France in particular, that British authorities should be informed of any accident to those power stations which may affect this country and particularly the East Coast towns?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, there is a formal agreement between the United Kingdom and France to exchange information about emergencies in one country with radiological consequences for the other.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the protection of the people of this country depends upon co-operation in the arrangements made by the Home Office and by all local authorities, whatever their political complexion? Can he give us an undertaking that that is being brought to the notice of all local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it is up to all of us, including the local authorities, when it comes to matters of this importance. I assure the House that in July proposals
714
were announced for a rolling three-year planned programme for implementation of civil defence regulations. That will set priorities and a timetable for systematic monitoring, providing a framework for more rapid and consistent progress. The programme will be issued to local authorities very shortly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply that he gave to my original supplementary question, even though it was not a reply to the question I put. Will he kindly indicate to the House what organisation exists so that all local authorities join in the information that is available and in planning the necessary activity so far as they are concerned in order to deal with the matters raised in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton? Does he deem the matter to be of sufficient importance for a proper Statement to be made in regard to these matters in this House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, detailed plans exist for dealing with emergencies at civil nuclear power stations in this country and regular exercises are held involving the organisations concerned. With regard to an accident that could happen abroad, we are looking at that possibility to see whether the information can be improved and whether liaison can perhaps be made better than it is at the moment. I take the noble Lord's point and we shall note what he says.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I refer to my noble friend's point about co-operation? Are there now detailed plans between the French and British police?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, there is a formal agreement between the United Kingdom and France that covers all aspects, including the use of police as and when necessary.

Drug Trafficking Confiscation Orders
2.54 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any order has yet been made under Section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and whether they intend to extend this process to any further offences, and if so, which.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the provisions of the Act empowering the courts to make confiscation orders are not yet in force; we expect to be able to bring them into effect by the turn of the year. We would wish to take the opportunity of a future criminal justice Bill to empower the courts to confiscate the proceeds of other serious crimes where the offender has profited substantially.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware of the excellent presentation that his honourable friend Mr. Mellor gave to the EC Interior Ministers at a recent conference in Lancaster House? Can he tell the House what results came from that conference?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I endorse his statement that it was a very successful conference. In addition to the confiscation powers, the Act creates offences of laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking and of prejudicing an investigation. It also provides for reciprocal enforcement arrangements to be concluded with other countries in due course, and that is what we are doing with a number of EC countries.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister how many other European countries have such legislation and whether Interpol will be helpful when the legislation comes into force.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to answer my noble kinswoman. Perhaps I may write to her on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while no one wishes to forecast legislation which one day may be before us, will the noble Earl have it firmly fixed in his mind that when we dealt with the penalties and possibilities in regard to drug offences we were dealing with exceptional matters, and that they must not always be used as precedents in our criminal law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have read with interest our discussions as the Bill progressed through your Lordships' House. Not all the powers contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act will be appropriate in a wider context. However, we believe that some of those powers could he usefully used to stop offenders enjoying the profits of their crime when they are released from prison.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the South Atlantic Fisheries.

Aberystwyth Harbour Bill
London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill
Pontypridd Markets Fairs and Town Hall Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise for yet another Motion enabling Private Bills to be carried over from this Session to the next. These three Bills are Commons Bills which are now in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with them, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
716
That, if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords. I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill (98) as first printed by the Lords.]
[Commons amendments etc. are printed in italics.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of local authorities with respect to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) it does not provide the ordinary facilities of a residence and it is inappropriate for his needs, or it is unreasonable for him to continue to live in it."
(3) In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall be defined as either—

(a) a separate dwelling house that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and shall meet the tolerable standard as defined in section 14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974, or

(b) in exceptional circumstances where a separate dwelling house as defined in (a) above is not appropriate to the needs of an applicant accommodation that is appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances." ")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
2 Because the Amendment would give rise to problems of interpretation and would impose excessive additional duties on local authorities.
MOTION MOVED IN CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
2A The Lord Tordoff rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of local authorities with respect to persons who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
.—(1) The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
In section 1(2) (homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) it is overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and may endanger the health of the occupants."
In section 4 (duties of housing authorities to homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where a local authority has a duty under subsections (4) and (5) above "accommodation" shall be defined as accommodation that shall not be overcrowded as defined in section 89 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 and which does not pose a threat to the health of the occupants.".")
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the said amendment in lieu thereof. The amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who offers his regrets to the House that he cannot be here as he had to attend a family funeral. I am sure that your Lordships will understand. In moving—
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me for a moment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate at this point that in the light of events the Government are disposed to accept Amendment No. 2A on the Marshalled List, which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is moving on behalf of his noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wish that my noble friend could be here to relish this himself. I am most grateful to the Minister. That will save the House a considerable amount of time.
I think the Government should be credited with taking a rational view of the relationship between the amendment which is on the Marshalled List today and what happened in your Lordships' House last night. There is no doubt that the principle lying behind this amendment is precisely the same as that which lay behind the amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill which your Lordships carried last night. Were this amendment to have been defeated this afternoon, the Scottish legislation would have been set in concrete and there would have been no opportunity for the Government to have further thoughts about the matter.
I hope this means that the Government are going to take note of what was said yesterday. I do not intend
718
to rehearse any of those arguments in the light of what has been said. I merely thank the Government for the statement which has been made, and I beg formally to move this amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons disagreed for the Reason numbered 2 but propose the said amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Tordoff.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, although the sincerity of the purpose of this amendment is wholly accepted, it is an avowedly interventionist amendment in the affairs of local government and, even more, is based on the misconception which permeated the proceedings last night on the effect of Puhlhofer. The amendment is open to objection on the ground that the import of the statutory minimum standard on overcrowding, which could well become the norm, would preclude the exercise of any more generous approach, and the lot of those living in substandard accommodation could well be worsened rather than improved.
The import of the other concept of endangering health will give rise assuredly to conflicts of evidence between the medical experts and other experts. At the end of the day, the local authority will have to resolve those questions and those decisions of the local authority will not be subject to judicial review. In the present situation under Puhlhofer, the noble Baroness, Lady David, appeared with the greatest respect to her—she is not in her place, but perhaps I may say this—to be labouring under a misapprehension that the judgment in Puhlhofer did a wrong and did a violence to the intention of Parliament. With respect to her, such is not the case. It is a satisfactory judgment, if one accepts that this is a matter which lies within the judgment and discretion of a local authority and it is not appropriate for the judgment and discretion of a local authority to be subject to judicial review, save on bad faith, ultra vires, procedural irregularity or manifest absurdity.
The decision in Puhlhofer, which was mentioned by the noble Lord as the basis on which your Lordships should accept this amendment, in view of the fact that it was accepted, as I respectfully suggest, under a misapprehension last night, is simply this. Your Lordships' Appellate Committee held quite simply that accommodation must be capable of accommodating the applicant and all other persons living with him. Then the committee went on to hold that there are no other rules—none—which ordain. It is a question of fact for the local authority in every case, so that in some circumstances overcrowding or danger to health—the matters with which this amendment is concerned—might disqualify and in other cases they might not. In this context, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House rejected the concept that the statutory definition of overcrowding had no relevance and ought to be disregarded.
Furthermore, as noble Lords may appreciate, the trigger clause which introduces these provisions—"shall have regard to"—by judicial interpretation lacks legal efficacy as affording any right of appeal or any access to judicial review, save on the Wednesbury principles to which I have referred. It was held in Puhlhofer—and rightly held, your Lordships

719
may well think, bearing in mind the attitude on all sides of the House when the functions of local authorities came up for consideration, albeit in other contexts—that it is not appropriate that the judgment and discretion of local authorities in the discharge of these and indeed other statutory duties should be monitored by the courts. Those were the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and indeed they were wholly apt.
Furthermore, there is another problem in that Puhlhofer is a decision of general application in the realm of public administrative law as affecting the exercise of discretion by local authorities in the discharge of their duties. It would hardly be appropriate—indeed, it would be premature; even perhaps not necessary—to seek to erode the reasoning of that important decision, so to speak, piecemeal. If this amendment were to be carried, in some cases—just some, I agree—harsher standards would apply than those which obtain now, and in the result, although such is not the intention, I know, the lot of those living in substandard accommodation could well be worsened rather than improved. This amendment, if carried in these circumstances, could well create difficulties and indeed anomalies rather than resolve them. I know that such is not the intention. It is for those reasons that, with respect, although I understand fully and sympathise with the objective of the amendment, I oppose it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I have not had an opportunity to speak before on these matters which have arisen under both the English Acts and the Scottish Acts, but as Master of the Rolls I was involved in nearly all the cases arising under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and I can tell your Lordships of the great difficulty of interpretation which has arisen because of the wording of it, the ambiguity and so on.
I agree with the House of Commons in rejecting the amendment and I should prefer to restore altogether the decision of the House of Lords in the Puhlhofer case. I am afraid that most of those cases which came before us were sponsored by an organisation called Shelter. Let me give your Lordships two or three examples of those cases.
First, an Italian couple, aged 21 and 23, came into Gatwick with their baby children. Now that we are in the Common Market, there is freedom of movement. People can come into Gatwick if they please, without getting permission; and so they did. They were in Naples in not very good accommodation and could not get work there. They had a relative living near Gatwick who said, "Come over to us", which they did. They came over to Gatwick. They were with the relative for a few weeks and then the relative said to them, "I have not got room for you any more. You must go." They said, "That's all right. We will go to the local council. They are under a duty to provide homes for us. We are now homeless."
That was the point which came before the court over which I presided, and the court held that in leaving Italy, as they did, where they had a home and coming over to England, as they thought, to put upon
720
us they had rendered themselves intentionally homeless. The local authority took the view, "We have hundreds of young married couples on our waiting lists, with two small babies" or whatever it may be. "Are we to give these people from Italy priority over our own couples here?" So in that case the Court of Appeal did not allow the couple to obtain accommodation here against the will of the local authority.
The next case was from Bangladesh. There was a man who had been in England for some years and had his work here and had settled here. He used to go home for holidays to Bangladesh, where he had four children by his wife. "Oh", he said, "I'll bring them over to England". And so he did. He brought his wife and four babies over to England and put them up with a relative for a few weeks. But then the relative said, "I haven't room for you any more; out you go". There it was. What was the local authority to do? In that case, the Court of Appeal held that they were intentionally homeless in leaving Bangladesh as they did. But I am afraid that the Court of Appeal decision was reversed by the House of Lords, and so in a way they managed to come here. Hillingdon is close to the airport and Hillingdon people had to find accommodation for them.
Then there is the last case, which came to the House of Lords—the Puhlhofer case. It is awfully difficult to spell. Let us consider the facts of the case. It involved a young man of 17 or just coming up to 18. He had been over to America for a time and then he came back, unemployed and homeless. Hillingdon council found him room in a guesthouse. In that guesthouse was a young woman of about his age who had a baby already. As you can imagine, the couple joined forces, and before long she was pregnant again with another child and they moved in together, the guesthouse being paid for by the local authority. So there they were—this boy of 17 or 18, the girl about the same age, and two small babies in one room with which they had been provided at the beginning by the local authority. They had no work, of course; they were living on state benefits and the like.
Hillingdon council was faced with a problem—a young couple and two babies in one room. They were in awfully crowded accommodation and things were very difficult for them, but they were managing. Hillingdon council said, "You have accommodation. We cannot put you in another house and put you above our young married couples here who are waiting. If you have one child you will not get a house here. You have to have two; everyone knows that". But at all events there they were—a young couple of 17 or 18 years of age, unemployed, with two babies in one room.
The local authority looked at the position as best it could and, interpreting the Act, said, "They have accommodation. They are not homeless". The case was taken—I am afraid that Shelter takes up all these cases—first to the judge, who said that this was not proper accommodation for them. The Court of Appeal said that it was, so the case went to the House of Lords. This is the case that has given all the trouble—the Puhlhofer case in the House of Lords.
I should like to say from a distance, because I am not sitting there any more, that the judgment of the

721
House of Lords sitting judicially was completely right. They said that it was a question of fact for the local authority, that it had to decide, whether or not it was a question of accommodation. Looking at this particular case, it said, "This young couple is accommodated. We really cannot buy up other accommodation and put them into a hotel or anything like that. They really must carry on as they are". The local authority said that that was the case. The House of Lords said, "In questions of this kind do not interfere with the local authority. Local authorities have the big problem imposed on them by statute of housing the homeless on one side and dealing with all the priority needs of our young couples on the other. For goodness sake, do not interfere with the local authority's decision on a question of fact".
That is the first thing the House of Lords said. The other thing they said was, "Do not extend this interference by the courts too much". In recent times we have developed extraordinarily a system called judicial review where we review the decisions of local authorities and others if they have gone wrong in law or have been totally unreasonable. The House of Lords said, "For goodness sake, do not carry this system of review so far that you are challenging the decisions of local authorities all the time; please restrain the system of judicial review". That is what the House of Lords said.
I have said so much because this is an important question of whether or not Parliament should uphold the unanimous decision by the House of Lords on Puhlhofer. I was not able to speak in the earlier debates but I entirely agree with the House of Commons and say, "Do not reverse that case, but let it stand as law. Do not go tinkering with it by making amendments because you will get into all sorts of trouble. I am afraid that if the next amendment is accepted you will have lots more trouble; but that is only my word. I understand that for reasons of practical politics the Government are prepared to accept it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. It has been an interesting tour d'horizon. It is perhaps a pity that the noble and learned Lord did not give us the benefit of his experience at an earlier stage of the Bill. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me that his speech and to a certain extent the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were speeches against the 1977 Act. Indeed, some of the references of the noble and learned Lord snowed that that Act could be made to work for those people who were, at least in his opinion, trying to abuse the Act.
I do not think that we are at that position today. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, wishes to say a few words on the intervention by his noble friend; but I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to accept that this amendment may be nothing more than a device to keep the options open for the Government to have another look at the workings of the 1977 Act in relation to this Bill and the Bill that was before your Lordships yesterday. It is on the basis that I formally move what I said before, and I hope that the Government can work on it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here at the earlier discussions. There are occasions when one cannot be here, so I am a little late. I have said what I have said only because I see difficulties ahead.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for their remarks. I could equally have deployed many of the arguments that were deployed by my noble friend Lord Campbell had these been different. On this occasion I hope that I am trying to be helpful in view of the fact that your Lordships' House expressed a view yesterday. The Government were unable to agree to Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List for the reasons set out—that it would give rise to problems of interpretation and would impose excessive additional duties on local authorities. I accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is intended to meet most of the objections that were raised to the earlier version. I am also aware of the strong feelings of your Lordships which were evident in our earlier discussions and indeed in the amendment that was carried last night.
The Government's position is well known. We believe that the amendment is premature. However, I accept that on the whole your Lordships feel that we should act now to pre-empt possible adverse consequences of the decision taken by the Law Lords rather than wait to see if the decision has the effect feared and then respond to it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for his willingness to bring forward an alternative amendment to try to meet some of our concerns about his earlier version. I have to say that there remain one or two areas where we fear that his new amendment might still give rise to difficulties of interpretation. I believe that to be the same point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell. For example, as he said, there is no definition of the phrase,
"may endanger the health of the occupants".
However, I believe that the spirit of the amendment is clear, and that is why the Government are prepared to accept the alternative version.
My noble friend raised the matter of judicial review and I accept that this amendment could open local authorities to additional grounds for judicial review, but I believe it is less unsatisfactory in this respect than the earlier amendment to the Bill which was carried. In indicating that the Government will not oppose this, I recognise the clearly expressed wish of the House that the Act should be amended now; but if problems emerge we of course reserve the right to return to the matter at some future point.
I could go on to explain in detail how we propose to monitor the possible effects of this change. However, may I simply say that we will monitor the position, as we undertook to do earlier, through the regular quarterly statistical returns submitted to the Scottish Development Department by district and island authorities, which are known as the homeless household case returns. In addition, we are about to launch a research project which will look at differences between local authorities in Scotland in the way they

723
operate the homeless persons Act. The second stage of the research will make contact with a sample of applicants to establish what their experience of the homeless persons Act has been and to assess how the system has met their needs.
Finally, as we said we would, we are in addition prepared to consider any evidence which Shelter or other organisations might provide. However, I stress that if it emerges from this study that the amendment which the noble Lord moved is giving rise to technical difficulties of the sort which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway explained, we might return with alternative proposals at some point in the future.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his remarks and I think we all accept the fact that we are still groping with a great many uncertainties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, pointed to some of the problems.
As this is a Scottish Bill perhaps I should add that, far from it merely being Shelter, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I can assure the House that the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church in Glasgow and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, with their very great experience and following the decision in the Puhlhofer case, are extremely worried. We all know that there can be abuses of the definition of "homelessness". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave some very hard cases. I know that the bodies I have mentioned who are very much involved in the Scottish scene can give equally hard cases to show how the Act operates badly for them. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Minister has accepted this amendment.
There is only one question that I wish to put to him. I have a copy of the department's homeless household case returns, compiled from form HL1 (revised). I urge the Minister to have a look at that form. I have considered it very closely and people who know about housing statistics have also looked at it. It appears to me, at least—unless the Minister can correct me—that it is almost impossible from that form to obtain any idea of the actual status of accommodation. It is a small but important point. It would be terrible if we had three months of these forms and no real results at the end of the exercise. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider that point.
Having said that, and realising the difficulties, we are very grateful for what we have obtained from the Minister. I support him in his acceptance of this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that point.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and particularly to the noble Lord the Minister. We have made tremendous progress this week, through the activities of this House, on the subject of homelessness. It is an important subject. After being unfed, being unsheltered is the worst thing that can happen to a human being.
724
We on these Benches view the 1977 Act with particular pride because it was introduced originally by my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, but feel it was being undermined by the statement handed down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and others. It was to prevent the original meaning of that Act being changed—the original intention of Parliament—that these amendments have been brought forward. Of course they are likely to be imperfect. All amendments from Opposition Benches are imperfect in the eyes of parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers' advisers. However, the message we always wanted to get across, and which I believe we now have got across, is that it is the principle we are worried about. No one is more delighted than I am, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the principle has now been accepted by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 3. In the first line the figure "3" should be deleted.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 1, page 21, line 37, at end insert—
( ) where a landlord so mentioned has at no time let (or had available for letting) more than 250 dwellings; or".
The Commons agree to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4 Line 3, leave out ("250") and insert ("100").
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.
The Government felt that the limit of 250 houses was too high. That figure was agreed at an earlier stage by your Lordships. We had to balance the possible difficulties faced by smaller associations in dealing with sales against the understandable desire of their tenants to exercise their right to buy. We came to the view that it was only in the early stages of an association's formation, or where an association chose to remain at a very low level of stock, that there would be difficulties posed by the right to buy. Therefore, we proposed an amendment in the other place which reduced the limit from 250 houses to 100.
We think that is a reasonable compromise and I understand that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations is of a similar view. The effect of this change is to extend the right to buy to about a further 1,700 people. Associations with a stock of fewer than 100 houses tend to be very small and the 22 such associations in total hold 400 houses.
On that basis I commend to the House the Commons Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think we should be grateful for at least being given the 100 houses owned by a housing association, although we would much rather have had the figure of 250 dwellings included in the Bill.

725
I am sure that the Minister will have read the Committee stage of the Bill which took place during the earlier part of the summer. At that time all the arguments were put forward about the efficiency of 250 against 100. I felt quite elated when I received a reply on 10th June from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who was at that time most efficiently carrying out his duties on the Government Front Bench. It is a mystery why he is not still on the Front Bench, but that is no disrespect to the extremely able noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
In his letter the noble Lord, Lord Gray, implied total acceptance of the figure of 250 houses. Referring to the amendment proposed by the Government he said:
"The amendment we propose therefore provides that once an association has entered the right to buy, by its stock achieving 250 dwellings let, or available for letting, it remains in the right, even if its stock subsequently reduces".
That is quite fair, because it would be difficult if the figure went above 250; the association would then come out. The noble Lord added:
"I am sure you will see this as within the spirit of the original amendment but tempered by practical considerations".
I agree with that but I am rather sad that the practical considerations have meant such a drastic reduction—from 250 to 100.
However, as the Minister said, it seems to affect rather fewer associations than perhaps we originally thought, and since I have had little correspondence—certainly not very angry correspondence—from the associations in Scotland, I take the opportunity of welcoming at least what we have and hope that later, when the housing associations become rather more widespread and perhaps bigger, we may look at this figure again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Schedule 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 22 and insert
("is, by virtue of section 360(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (special exemptions for charities), exempt from tax; or")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof:
6 Page 22, line 1, leave out ("3 October 1980") and insert ("14 November 1985")
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do not agree to the Commons Amendment No. 6 proposed in lieu thereof.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the Commons Amendment No. 6 in lieu thereof—(Lord Glenarthur).
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I shall now call Amendment No. 6A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 6
6A At end insert (", or from the date of first being registered by the Housing Corporation (whichever is the later,")
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A which stands in my name and in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Perhaps I may go back a little in history. As soon as I learned that the amendment that we passed at Report stage on May 13th—which was a memorable day for me—had been amended in another place, I thought the right thing to do was to seek a compromise which still allowed new charitable housing associations to be set up in Scotland in the same way as they are in England and Wales, but only after November 1985, which is the date inserted by the other place. In other words, I am proposing an addition to the other amendment and not an alternative.
Having decided that it would be good to seek some way of reaching a compromise, I consulted the Public Bill Office and my amendment is due to the work done by the officials there. I gave them a general idea of what I wanted and they put it into terms. I am quite clear that without their help I should not have got it right—I am not even sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would have got it right—and I want to thank them very much for their help. During the past several months, I have also had the opportunity of talking at great length on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and Mr. Michael Ancram. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was with me on both occasions. I am sorry to tell your Lordships that we did not feel persuaded by what they wanted us to do and hence we tabled the amendment as you see it.
The amendment is very simple. It allows new charitable housing associations to be set up in Scotland in the future—that is, after November 1985—if the charities have been approved by the Housing Corporation and by the Inland Revenue. I feel very strongly that it is right that this should be allowed for the future in Scotland in exactly the same way as it is allowed in England and Wales or not exactly but nearly the same way, given that Scotland has a different form of charity law. However, the different form of charity law should not mean that in the future there cannot be charitable housing associations.
As your Lordships will have heard—I certainly have—the Government have objected to this amendment on several grounds. I shall mention only two of them. First, they say that it is not necessary because certain defined charitable categories have already been exempted and that ought to be enough. It is worth while recalling what was said in the debate at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, which can be found at col. 1088:
"We are anxious to protect the legitimate interests of the charitable housing association and we believe that the Bill does so for the great majority".
I emphasise the words "the great majority". In other words, in this statement the Government recognise that the measure would not cover all of them.
Their second argument is that it will cause a great deal of extra work to vet what will anyhow be few cases, because they have already said that what they are doing will cover the greater part. All I can say is that if there are very few cases—and I believe that is right—it will not mean a great deal of work. You cannot have it both ways. There are either a lot of cases and a lot of work or very few cases and little work. Frankly I do not think that argument is a good one.

727
I have been asked what type of charitable housing I have in mind for the future which is not covered by the existing exemptions. I do not know. I do not know what a philanthropist or philanthropists' group might wish to establish in the future in the way of charitable housing. But I know—and I stress this—that if somebody was considering making a gift for this charitable housing purpose and possibly seeking finance not only from the Housing Corporation but from private sources, and if he knew that therein lay the threat that the right to buy would be exercised after a period of time resulting in a considerable loss to his gift, he would be deterred from even considering it.
It is for that reason that we must try to work out something which, as I have said already, is an addition but not an alternative to the amendment of the other place. In this amendment I am seeking with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I hope with the support of your Lordships, to find something which will give Scotland a parallel very close to that pertaining in England and Wales and will ensure that if in the future someone wants to set up such a housing association he will be enabled to do so. 1 beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister seemed to indicate when moving the earlier Motion that he was not likely to accept this amendment. Let me say that I am very surprised at the Government's attitude. I regret to say that in Scotland the Labour Party generally and Labour-controlled authorities in particular were much slower than the Conservative Party to recognise the benefits of housing associations. It was due very much to Conservative government activities that the housing association movement in Scotland got off the ground. Today housing associations are not a matter for partisan argument in Scotland or anywhere else. Therefore it seems to me amazing that the party which did so much to create the opportunities in Scotland should apparently be setting its face against the creation of new charitable associations along the lines mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is not asking for a wide open door, because with this amendment there are two conditions which must be satisfied before this new charitable association is accepted. It has to be accepted by the Housing Corporation—that is the first vetting that has to take place—and, secondly, it has to be accepted as a genuine charitable organisation for Inland Revenue purposes. There is not to be a great mass of fly-by-nights coming in pretending to be charitable housing associations.
I beg the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. The only difference from what the Government are doing is that, in so far as they changed attitude, the first position was that any new associations set up after 1980 were not to get through. Then the Government gave way to the extent that they said that any set up before 14th November 1985 should get through. All that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is asking is that genuine bodies set up after that
728
date should also be allowed to function. I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, two very delightful, very appealing speeches have just been made by two very experienced politicians, one noble Lord from the Cross-Benches and one from the Labour Benches. From what they have said, one would think that the proposal that is now being made to alter what the other place has said is really nothing—just a wee addition; that it is having very little effect on the people of Scotland and means very little to them.
The discussion on this part of the Bill, the two speeches that have just been made and the copious lobbying that has been going on among your Lordships in the past week or two, if not the past month or two, is, if I may say so, entirely from the point of view of charitable housing associations, the people who run them and the work they do. The wonderful work that the charitable housing associations in Scotland do has been pointed out. It has been demonstrated that they are somewhat different. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, they came at an earlier stage. One notable difference is that there are far more general needs houses in Scottish housing associations than there are in England. As your Lordships will be aware, at present, we are discussing only general needs houses.
We have heard of the wonderful work that has been done in providing rented accommodation, and some tenants can buy houses at the valuer's price. It is being said: why should this wonderful work be wrecked by the Government when it is endorsed now by the other place, which wants the tenants of those ordinary needs houses of housing associations to have the right to buy? In this House, let us think of the tenants, the customers, for whom the housing associations exist. What about those tenants? The tenants of houses built for general needs by charitable housing associations cannot buy at a discount. The tenants of local authority houses can: they have the choice to buy their houses at a considerable discount. Local authority houses and charitable housing association houses are built with public money. A little private money goes into Scottish charitable housing associations. My information is that it is under 1 per cent. of the total, so that the total is 99 per cent. and that is the only difference.
Why should the tenants of charitable housing associations in Scotland be penalised when their houses are built by public money—they are to all intents and purposes public sector houses—and not be given the right to buy? It is about that that your Lordships must think. Of course rented accommodation is needed, and much more of it, in Scotland. The way to arrive at that, now that we have the right to buy local authority houses in Scotland, is a quite different mechanism. The situation for charitable housing associations has totally changed. The situation in Scotland is not the same as it is in England. We should be thinking of the customers, the people for whom these houses are built.
To hear the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, say from the Opposition Front Bench on an earlier amendment that we must be grateful for

729
having got 150 more houses regarding which the tenants are precluded the right to buy seems to me the most extraordinary happening. I hope that we are going to uphold what the elected House has said on this matter, uphold its defence of the people who are the tenants of these housing associations and look to other ways of providing rented accommodation for people who need it in Scotland.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am drawn to my feet, if that is the right expression, by the extremely appealing speech of the noble Baroness to whom we have just listened. She spoke of the customers. I must say once again (because it has often been said before) that many of the customers in Scotland want rented accommodation. There is an enormous demand for rented accommodation. If we want a mobile labour force, we have to ensure that there is rented accommodation, or else people cannot move. The noble Baroness, I know, appreciates this, and indeed she mentioned it; but she said that the situation should be met in other ways.
It may be that there will be other ways of providing this accommodation, but at present one of the best ways is through the housing associations. To destroy that advantage which has proved so useful in Scotland would, I think, be a great mistake. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that among the customers, and very prominent among them, are people who want houses to let and who cannot buy houses.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this point. I am very aware of the importance attached to it by the noble Earls, Lord Perth and Lord Selkirk, and they have been very faithful in following their beliefs on the importance of charitable housing. In re-reading the debate, I was reminded of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a special journey on his birthday to be present for this series of amendments.
I fail to see how the Government can justify the case that they have put. It seems to be a very simple case which will affect a number of houses of a very special kind. Perhaps I may correct the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she said that I was enthusiastic about gaining another 150 houses. I think that she could not have been listening with her usual acuteness. In fact, I was lamenting the fact that under the amendment we had lost a total of 150. Originally in the small housing associations the number to allow for exemption from purchase was 250, and the Government tabled an amendment to make 100 exempt.
One of the important things about housing associations is the enthusiasm that they engender in an area and the fact that people give a great deal of time. That is one of the reasons that we felt that 250 houses represented about the right figure. With regard to 100 houses, the enthusiasm of the group trying to build the houses is important; and much more so, I suggest to the Minister, in the case of charitable houses.
One is aware of the enthusiasm of the people who are willing to raise the money to fund a charitable organisation, almost always for a special purpose. These people have a particular knowledge of the special needs of groups in the community and,
730
whatever their reason for deciding to help such a group, that help is given with great enthusiasm. It may be that for historical reasons they are anxious to preserve a small community. It may be that they wish to preserve particular types of houses or blocks of houses. We are getting that more and more in Scotland. I do not suggest that these are appropriate, but we are having conversions in our cities, especially in Glasgow, where some fine old buildings have been preserved and have been or are being successfully divided into flats.
I can foresee a charity coming along and saying that a building is particularly important; that it is an 18th century building and one that should be preserved. It may say that it can pre 12 or some other number of houses, and, "Let us raise the money and do so." I know that 12 houses would be exempt under the concession that the Minister has already made. There are many factories in Glasgow—there is one in Monklands Canal area now—which are likely to be converted. They will almost certainly have more than 100 flats. If that were done by a charity, the people who raised the money would rightly be annoyed if a few months after its own screening process, when it looks for the type of people that it wants in the houses who perhaps have a connection with the area, all its efforts and the money spent were nullified because the houses began to change hands and a different type of person came into them. They may be either upwardly or downwardly motivated. They would not be the people that those who spent their time and money starting a housing association wanted.
I hope that the Minister will be as generous with this amendment as he was with the first one, especially in view of the people who have spoken and who feel passionately about this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, made an important point about rented accommodation. No matter how many houses are sold or how high the discount is, there will always be a need for rented housing in Scotland. I know that that is something about which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is concerned. All of us who live in Scotland and see the mobility problems realise that rented housing is vital. Charitable associations, such as the New Lanark Housing Association, want to provide housing for rent for a particular type of person. I hope that the Minister will have those points in mind when he replies.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for what he said. There is and there will continue to be an enormous demand for rented houses in Scotland. The story of housing associations goes back 12 years. They were the result of an agreement between Mr. Crosland and Mrs. Thatcher that they would build up rented property through housing associations. It was a common policy. The Bill directly overrides that. The contract whereby a corporation let houses for rent to housing associations has been directly overriden by the Bill. The Bill makes it obligatory for housing associations to sell houses to people if they are asked to do so.
We are only asking for a small thing: that outside the limit there should be charitable housing associations

731
which will not have to sell houses. For some reason—and I cannot tell your Lordships why—a block has been put on charitable associations. Some of your Lordships may have seen the Prince of Wales on television last night. I feel great sympathy for the observations that he made.
Over the past 20 years we in Scotland have increased the number of our council houses by about 10 per cent. We have increased owner-occupation by some 30 per cent. That shows that the scheme is going extremely well, as it is at present. We have lost 75 per cent. of our private rented property. That must be made up somehow. At present, housing associations have 40,000 applications for houses. The Bill will reduce the number of houses available. That is serious.
I am only asking that rented property should be allowed to go on. It must be. This is an important period. Building societies have just been given wider powers. They will have £5 billion to spend on houses. Are we going to get that in Scotland or not?
The Government proposed to the Treasury, and succeeded in getting its agreement, that a charity could sell its houses below market price. It is generally regarded as a pretty definite rule that a charity does not sell below market price. They are allowed to do so. No charitable donor will put his money into a property which will possibly be sold at nearly half its market price. As long as that rule continues, no charitable money will come into housing.
I want the Government to collect as much of that money as possible. Building societies can perfectly well form charities. There is no reason why they should not. I believe that they will do so. I believe that this provision will result in a great loss to Scotland. My noble friend Lady Carnegy talked about the customers. Who are the customers? Where are the queues for houses? They are with local authorities and housing associations. There is no queue for owner-occupation. There are plenty of houses for people to buy.
I believe the idea in the Government's head is that everyone wants to own a house. They do, but not all will succeed in doing so, especially at the time when they want to. There will always be between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the population which will not be able to do so. Those are the people whom we are seeking to provide for.
I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen housing associations in operation. In my opinion, they are doing a remarkable job. They tackle problems with originality. I know that in Glasgow and Edinburgh they have tackled the problem of the big stone houses built in about 1890. Local authorities have been afraid to make the change; but housing associations have adapted the houses to provide proper and good accommodation. That is a great achievement.
There is another even more important achievement. Housing associations have worked extremely closely with tenants and landlords. Their relationship has always been a great problem, but the housing associations have succeeded. They have set up tenants' committees which meet the managers. I believe that is of tremendous importance. I should like to see housing
732
associations increase rapidly and extensively. They can play a big part in Scotland's housing history.
I do not know how your Lordships regard housing. I think it is the basic social requirement. If you are not brought up in a proper house, especially in your early years, are you likely to be able to benefit from education or to have a healthy life? However, those matters are subordinate to the basic requirements of housing. I am asking for a very little, but I beg the noble Lord to agree to it.
4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for their pursuit of the protection, as they see it, of housing associations. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, called this a simple amendment. I would say that it is really rather complicated. It is intended, as they have explained, to provide that the right to buy should not apply to new charitable housing associations which may form in Scotland. Indeed, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to my noble friend for giving me some idea in advance of the thinking that lies behind their approach.
I have to say that at first sight the amendment appears to be useful. It appears to be attractive. There are indeed many who are attracted to it. I am far from convinced, however, that the amendment is necessary in order to achieve the encouragement of philanthropic donations, such as those suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to housing associations. I respect of course the fervent way in which the noble Earl supports them. Nor am I convinced that it is fair to the tenants of such associations that they should be denied the right to buy when their neighbours in what may be very similar houses but belonging to a different kind of housing association will have that right.
At one time, in the early months of the progress of this Bill, there was real cause for concern about the compatibility of charitable tax status of housing associations in Scotland and the right to buy. I must stress to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who brought this into his remarks, that the Inland Revenue has considered its position carefully over many months. We have heard that the right to buy will have no effect on the charitable status of new associations. As that is so, there is no reason to treat them differently from other new associations. The tax advantages which accrue to charities and charitable associations will be available to any charitable housing association in Scotland, and, perhaps even more importantly, from the point of view of the philanthropist, the tax advantages to the donor will be equally available. In other words, where the donor gives money over a period under a covenant, then the tax that he has paid will be available to the receiving association.
But the noble Earl and my noble friend have suggested that philanthropists may not give their money to associations if they think that tenants of those associations will be able to buy houses at substantial discount. We have to remember that in considering this matter there are other exemptions—indeed, the noble Earl referred to this—from the right to buy than those of the association itself. For example, if a philanthropist

733
gives his money for the building of sheltered housing or housing adapted for the disabled, then those houses are in themselves exempt from the right to buy. The Bill, and the Act it amends, the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, contain a variety of exemptions which we loosely describe as exemptions for special needs housing. These also include houses in small groups for people who are mentally or physically handicapped; those who have recently come out of prison or other institutions; those suffering from addictions; or young people leaving the care of local authorities.
In addition, the Secretary of State has power to add further classes to these exemptions. So many, if not most, of the houses which charitable housing associations would be interested in providing will be exempt from the right to buy. If there was a risk that any association might have other activities, it would of course be open to the donor to specify that his money be used only for purposes beyond the right to buy such as these exempt houses or for the provision of common facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the question of new houses. The cost floor provisions of the Bill and the 1980 Act are likely to limit the number of newly-provided houses that are bought by their tenants.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I hope that I did not give the impression that I was speaking about totally new build. I was almost totally concerned—I thought that I had made this clear—with alterations and the adaptation of existing buildings.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I apologise if I got the noble Lord wrong. I took it that he was referring to new buildings. My noble friend Lord Selkirk raised the matter of the importance of philanthropic donations to this business. Yes, I am the first to agree that they are important. But we have to bear in mind and keep in context the relative figures. So far as we can tell, looking at the accounts of a number of charitable housing associations in Scotland—they include Key, Ark, Whitedale, Kirk Care, Bield, Govanhill, Hanover, and Pollockshields—these associations in one year received only £32,000 in charitable donations compared to total funding, almost entirely from the Housing Corporation, approaching £20 million. This demonstrates, I believe, that while charitable funding is important to those who make the donations—any money that comes in is of course welcome—the two figures have to be borne in mind and kept in context.
But philanthropy, important as it is, is not the only source of non-government funds for the housing association movement. It is now clear that the building societies, banks and other investors have a significant contribution to make. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, that these investors do see problems. But these problems do not have their root in the right to buy. It is more that the rental income from housing association properties falls short of what is required to produce a useful return for this investment. We are giving close consideration to how this difficulty may be overcome and there are various methods under examination. In England and Wales, forms of
734
tenure which do not lead to a fair rent being imposed are already in use, and it may well be that some adjustment of the rent regime is what is required. But I cannot anticipate what changes, if any, will emerge from this work and I do not believe that a tinkering alteration in a Bill which is only marginally related to the subject would have the beneficial effect that some think it might have.
What I can say—this perhaps answers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and that was the main burden of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selkirk—is that the Government are determined to increase the diversity of housing provision. My noble friend described how he felt that the rental sector was the most neglected sector. We need to expand the range of tenures available and the variety of sources of housing. The housing association movement certainly has a central part to play in this expansion. The introduction of schemes involving both public and private funding will be a component. It is true that the private rented sector, meaning houses rented from private landlords, has declined. But the housing association movement in Scotland has made some rapid strides and now provides over 3,000 houses a year which are in many ways a part of the private rented sector.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the right to buy requiring mobility, a person, I would suggest, is much more likely to be able to move to another area, for example, for job reasons, if he owns his house rather than if he rents his house.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot really believe that. Does the Minister not realise that a great problem in the South of England is that the price of houses is so great that the unemployed who come to look for jobs go home again? One can buy a house in the North-West or the North-East for a price at which one could not buy a hen coop in this part of the country. It is the need for rented accommodation to give mobility that is the whole point.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I accept to a limited degree what the noble Baroness says. If, however, the noble Baroness extends her view a little further north to the North-East of Scotland, she will find that there the situation has been rather different over the past 10 or 15 years. I accept that there is a need for a variety of different housing availability. That is the point that I made in my earlier remarks. The diversity of housing provision is something with which we need to deal. We need to expand the range available.
I should like to pick up one point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The Government have given tenants a range of rights: security of tenure, the right to a written lease and the right to carry out repairs, as well as the right to buy. The intention in this Bill is to extend the right to buy as widely as possible, making exemptions only where the house is needed for a specific purpose which cannot be met by any other means. If this amendment were passed we should be creating a group of tenants who have only second-rate rights. I am sure that that is not what the proposers of this amendment seek to achieve.

735
I have to say also that the scope of charitable associations in Scotland is different from that of associations in England and Wales—a point made by my noble friend. Scottish associations often provide a very wide range of houses. Many of them also have a spectrum of stock not all that different in proportional terms from that of a small district council whose tenants have the right to buy. In England and Wales associations which are registered charities have a much narrower range of activities. If the right to buy is not to apply to their sister associations in Scotland, Scottish associations will have to accept a similar narrowed range. I doubt whether they would wish that, and nor would we.
I am afraid that this amendment opens the way for abuse of exemptions to the right to buy. It is easy to see that any association wishing to avoid selling houses to its tenants, for whatever reason, might well look to setting up a new charitable satellite and perhaps transferring houses to that association. To avoid that kind of abuse tighter control of the registration of new charitable associations in Scotland will be necessary.
Also if a new charitable association is set up it will be necessary to ensure that it builds houses only for its prime purpose and does not gradually evolve into an association providing houses whose tenants would fairly expect to be able to buy them. This is not by any means a threat. It is simply careful management to ensure that the resources available are used to the benefit of tenants and that exceptions provided by Parliament are not misused.
I know that no thought of this lies with either my noble friend or the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who both acknowledge that there is a place for the right to buy. But the amendment has that problem. It denies tenants the rights they will expect. I therefore cannot commend the amendment to the House. I hope that the noble Earl will see the force of those arguments and feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I must urge your Lordships to resist it.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask this question? I understood him to say that where a tenant does not have the right to buy, that would prevent him from going into the home buying market. Does the noble Lord not accept the case that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that some tenants who have had the right to buy have bought at a discount price and then carried out the obscene practice of going into the private selling market? They can make excessive profits and move that way into the home buying market. There is nothing to stop a person—or does the Minister suggest that there is?—who is in a property which he does not have the right to buy voluntarily leaving and going into the private market if he so wishes.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord must accept that the number of houses for people in a wide range of walks of life in the public sector which have been made available over the last few years has been an enormous success. I do not think anyone would deny that. If the noble Lord wishes to claim that it has not been a success, that is all very well, but I do
736
not believe he can do so. We are here talking about a fairly small number of people who are catered for by the exceptions that already exist within the Bill. I hope I have explained adequately that that is what covers the situation, and for this reason I have also been able to explain to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the philanthropic argument he advocates is met.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not deny at all—
Noble Lords: Order! By leave, my Lords.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not know I was out of order. I do not deny at all that if one measures the success of the home buying market by the number of houses sold, it has been a success. But there are other people who have paid the price and those are the people who cannot afford to go into the buying market.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is also true to say that those who buy, although they may need to move for some very good reason, on the whole do not move. The reason they buy their houses is that they like them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: And a nice profit, my Lords.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, first I want to thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who helped me in supporting this amendment. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, there has been only one (namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy) who argued against it. In listening to her argument I felt that she was confusing what we are trying to do. Neither the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, nor myself nor many people who support this argument are against the right to buy; far from it. We have seen that happening and we think that that is fine. We are trying to establish in a very limited field that where a charitable organisation (a housing association) has got over two hurdles—the hurdle of the Inland Revenue, and of the Housing Corporation—is therefore genuinely for charitable purposes, will not cheat, as was suggested in one way or another, but in this limited field wishes to go ahead and set up a new establishment, I am clear in my own mind that as a matter of principle it should be allowed to do so.
It is all very well to say, "We are covering everything". I do not believe that anybody can cover everything. This is therefore an attempt to cover cases that could arise in the future. As I have already said, I believe very strongly that people who have been contemplating such charitable housing will be undoubtedly deterred if they feel that they will see some of their capital disappearing as a result of the right to buy in this limited case. Therefore, much as I appreciate the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I feel that no other course is open but to ask the House to support me in moving my amendment.

737
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6A), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 6, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144: Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Amherst, E.

Kintore, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brightman, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Monson, L.

Brockway, L.

Moran, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Chitnis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Craigavon, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Parry, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denning, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Devonshire, D.

Porritt, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reilly, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Renton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gibson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gray, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vernon, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vickers, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

738

Willis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bauer, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Knollys, V.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caccia, L.

Lothian, M.

Caithness, E.

Lovat, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cayzer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mersey, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigton, L.

Newall, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dormer, L.

Portland, D.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Reay, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Romney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gormanston, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Young, B.

Holderness, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 6, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 6B to 6D:
LORDS AMENDMENTS
[As consequential amendments to the Bill]
6B Page 22, line 6, at beginning insert—
("Where such exemption has not been claimed and granted in respect of all periods from the said date of registration.").
6C Page 22, line 8, leave out from ("at") to ("were") in line 10 and insert ("that date;").
6D Page 22, line 12, leave out ("the said date of registration") and insert ("that date").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

South Atlantic Fisheries
4.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on South Atlantic fisheries which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Sir Geoffrey Howe. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government are today taking steps to establish a Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone (FICZ). It will be generally of 150 miles radius from the Falkland Islands. At the same time we are declaring the entitlement of the Falklands, under international law, to a fisheries limit of 200 miles, subject to delimitation with Argentina. We are also confirming our rights to jurisdiction over the continental shelf up to the limits prescribed by the rules of international law.
"The necessary legislative measures will be introduced shortly in the Falkland Islands. Our action is taken in agreement with the Governor and his executive council. We are informing the fishing nations, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, our allies and partners, the European Commission, the United Nations and other governments concerned, including Argentina. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The House will know that the rapid increase in fishing in the south-west Atlantic, with its serious impact on fish stocks there, has aroused widespread concern. The Government share that concern and have been active in trying to meet it.
"From the outset, the Government took the view that the problem would best be solved on a collaborative basis. Accordingly, as a result of a British initiative in March 1985, a study was launched last November at the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We gave it every support. We saw this as the first step to agreeing multilateral conservation and management arrangements under FAO auspices. In public, and directly to the Argentine Government, I made clear our view that a solution without prejudice to our respective positions on sovereignty could and should be found.
"However some fishing nations have not co-operated fully with the FAO study, and its preparation has been delayed.
"Pending completion of the study, we took steps to reduce by voluntary means the impact of the fishing effort in the 1986 season. We had hoped to extend these voluntary arrangements into 1987.
"Argentina has pursued a different course, and her actions have undermined the multilateral approach. In particular, Argentina has embarked on aggressive patrolling more than 200 miles from Patagonia and within 200 miles of the Falklands. Unlawful use of force by Argentina led in one case to loss of life and the sinking of a vessel. Argentina has concluded bilateral fisheries agreements with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. Through these agreements Argentina purports to exercise jurisdiction that is as a matter of international law the
740
entitlement of Falkland Islands. These agreements are incompatible with the multilateral initiative.
"In sum, the Argentine Government's recent actions show an indifference to conservation needs and a preference for obstruction rather than co-operation.
"The Government are determined that there should be adequate protection for the fishery. In view of the failure of Argentina to co-operate in a multilateral approach, we have therefore decided to establish unilaterally a conservation and managment regime. We remain, however, ready to work for a multilateral arrangement which would still be our preference, just as soon as that can be achieved. I have made this clear to the Argentine Foreign Minister and suggested to him that we should review how Britain and Argentina can co-operate to support conservation on a regional basis.
"The legislation to be introduced by the Falkland Islands Government will take effect from 1st February 1987. Its aim will be to preserve the viability of the fishery. Fishing within the conservation zone will be licensed by the Falkland Islands Government. Licensing will reflect conservation needs. The Falkland Islands Government will use its own civilian fisheries protection vessels and a surveillance aircraft. Revenue and costs will be for the Falkland Islands Government. The conservation zone for most of its circumference will be co-extensive with the protection zone. Our forces stationed at the Falklands will continue to deter Argentine aggression and maintain the integrity of the protection zone."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully recognise the need to organise fishing in these waters with a view to proper conservation and we have noted with concern the evidence of over-fishing to which the Statement refers. As the House is aware, we have had several exchanges here on this subject over the last few months and we are also conscious that we still await the FAO report.
The establishment of the new zone—the FICZ referred to in the Statement—is an important departure, although we do not necessarily dissent from it. The noble Baroness has often reiterated the Government's adherence to a multilaterial agreement based upon the FAO report. Indeed, in March she said that she was convinced that a multilateral arrangement offers the best prospect of meeting all needs. On 2nd April in this House she said that she thought that the FAO report was an essential preliminary to the imposition of a multilaterial regime. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness why the Government have decided to change direction now. Why have the Government decided to act unilaterally at this point before the publication of the FAO report? Furthermore, is the noble Baroness able to say when the report is likely to be published? When it is available will the Government then propose to move towards consultations with a view to a multilateral agreement?

741
Does the noble Baroness think that this unilateral action could create difficulties with the USSR and the Eastern European fishing nations whose fishing fleets are operating in these waters? We note that the Falkland Islands Government will use their own vessels and aircraft in these waters. Does the noble Baroness think that that is adequate, or is there a possibility of confrontation and some danger to the ships and the aircraft? I understand—and perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm this—that two ships are involved and of course those ships (as again I am sure the noble Baroness will confirm) are quite unarmed.
Given what the Statement says about the aggressive patrolling which is now going on, I assume that the Government will be prepared to defend the ships and the aircraft if that becomes necessary. Finally, will the noble Baroness tell the House how it is proposed to use the licence fee money? Is she able to give some estimate of what it might amount to? Will it be used to establish a company in the Falkland Islands to supply the full needs of the foreign fleets operating in the area?
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to obtain some multilateral agreement and regret that that has not been possible. I should like to ask further questions about the new fisheries zone. Has it been drawn up largely for reasons of international law or are the actual fishing conditions in the South Atlantic taken into account? It seems to me to be very much the same kind of zone as we have heard a good deal about in the North Sea. I should like to be assured that such matters as the migration of fish in the South Atlantic and the type of fishing—whether it is industrial fishing or whether we hope to establish some kind of in-shore shipping there—have also been taken into account.
It is a very large area indeed and it presumably runs from the heads of the land and will be extremely difficult to patrol. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, in addition to what has already been asked, what ships and aircraft the Falkland Islanders have at their disposal for this purpose. It is not enough to have aircraft, because some of the ships—clearly the Argentine ships—will not obey orders and may have to be boarded. It would be interesting to know what vessels the Falklanders have at their disposal other than those of the Navy for carrying out this task.
I remind your Lordships that the total population of the Falklands is about the size of a large village. Even by Orkney standards it is very small indeed. If Orkney had to enforce a 200-mile limit it would be hard put to do so.
First, are there courts in the Falkland Islands to try those who have been carrying out illegal fishing and are they empowered to enforce the very heavy penalties which are the only effective ones? The value of fishing catches is now enormous and unless the courts are empowered to levy very heavy fines or imprison skippers they will simply take no notice.
Finally, as regards licensing, are foreign nations to be allowed to apply for licences? I take the view that licensing is the ultimate solution to most fishing difficulties and that zones are very difficult to enforce. However, may I take it that other South American nations—and, indeed, other world nations—will be
742
entitled to apply for licences? If so, to whom do they apply and on what conditions?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for their response to this Statement. I confirm again to both noble Lords that we have been very concerned about the conservation of fish stocks. I have been conscious that this point has been raised on many occasions by noble Lords from all parts of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a number of quite specific points on the Statement. First, he quoted what I had said about the Government's hope that we would achieve a multilateral regime—a point, which the Statement itself makes. As again the Statement makes clear, the unilateral option was always available to us. We hope that we may move towards a multilateral regime, but in the meantime we have, as the Statement makes clear, proposed the arrangement of an interim zone.
The noble Lord asked me when we thought the FAO report would be published. So far as we know, it should be published by the end of the year. It is a technical study of the state of the fish stocks. We had hoped to receive it this summer and it is unfortunate that it has been delayed. Our latest information is that it is expected by the end of the year. The noble Lord then asked me whether we would be having consultations about this matter. Of course we would have to discuss the report, but the fact is that the fishing fleets would now be preparing to go to the South Atlantic because the fishing season starts early in the year, January-February, and therefore it is necessary to have something in place before the next season.
The noble Lord asked me specifically whether we thought there might be any difficulties either with the USSR or with the Eastern European fishing nations. Again, if I may repeat this point, we believe that it is in the interests of all fishing nations to ensure that the fishery remains viable both ecologically and commercially. We therefore look to all the nations that fish there to comply with the licensing regime which will enable that to take place.
The noble Lord then asked me whether we thought there might be some confrontation and possible danger to our ships. I do not think that this would be the case if the other fishing nations behaved lawfully. It is important in this connection to note that only two days ago there was a Brazilian proposal at the United Nations to establish a South Atlantic zone of peace. It was co-sponsored by Argentina with Brazil, and we supported it at the United Nations. I think that this indicates that Britain and Argentina can vote in the same way when we have a common interest, and we hope that all the fishing nations will recognise that there is a common interest in the preservation of the stocks.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about defending our ships and aircraft. The fact is that we hope there will be two civilian ships and a civilian aircraft. We hope that this will not be something that we are called upon to do; and certainly not if the fishing nations behave lawfully. But of course the fact of the matter is

743
that it is open to us to use armed forces should this be appropriate. However, it is our hope, for the reasons I have given, that this will not be necessary, and it is going to be patrolled by a civilian force.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked me about the ships and aircraft, and I hope he will accept that I have answered that question. He then went on to ask me whether there would be courts in the Falkland Islands able to try those fishing illegally. The answer is yes, there would be. There would be a magistrates' court. An ordinance is to be passed in the Falkland Islands early in November laying down the penalties.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will warmly welcome her Statement today, because the previous policy of the Government, although well-intentioned, was taking much too long? In the meantime, the long-distance fleets from far away, such as Japan and the Soviet Union, were making serious inroads into the stocks of fish in that area.
As regards the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will my noble friend accept the congratulations of at least one Member of this House on having taken this decision now, because it was I who pressed in a Question and supplementaries at the end of July, just before the Recess, that the Government should make such a change? I am sure that many people will welcome the Statement today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his warm reception of this Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness and tell her that there is another Member of your Lordships' House who is pleased. The recommendation that I made four years and two months ago is finally being implemented. This has been a subject of continuous pressure on the Government, since those of us who knew about what was going on at the FAO had no belief that the Government would succeed in their multilateral approach, desirable though it was.
I believe that the Government were right to play it slowly and make every effort to get an agreement, notwithstanding the great pressure from the conservation world, which will greatly welcome this step to implement protective measures at this stage. I think that the reaction of the Argentine to the Government's efforts is very depressing indeed. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would agree, but there is still the danger of a cod war with unfortunate international implications in view of the attitude of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a fishing base in the Argentine, and the Soviet Union's indifference to our complaints about the agreement they had entered into, in our opinion illegally, with regard to fisheries in that area.
Would the noble Baroness also accept—and I speak as somebody who was until recently chairman of the East European Trade Council—that I have no doubt that East European countries, and particularly the
744
Poles, are only too eager to have a sensible regime, which this envisages? I also congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that the Government have achieved this, so far as I can tell, with no cost at all to the British taxpayer. I just hope that the Falkland Islands will get some benefit financially from this.
Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness—and again I say this in the warmest and most congratulatory way—whether we shall have to wait another four years before we put fishing limits around South Georgia? This is also an area that we recommend should be protected in this way. South of the Antarctic convergence in particular is in danger of very heavy fishing.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his warm welcome of the Statement, It is even more welcome because, as we know, he recommended such a zone in his report published in 1982, and no one has been a stronger advocate of it. I am glad too that he believes that it has been the right policy to play it slowly. We have tried hard to achieve a multilateral regime. I am particularly pleased to hear from him that conservationists will welcome this, because it is such an important part of the argument.
The noble Lord asked me about the reaction of the Argentine Government. Of course, one does not know. They have been informed of this decision, and we hope that they too will see the argument about conservation. As I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we believe that the fact of the Brazilian proposal at the United Nations on a zone of peace should make people think carefully about settling any differences other than peacefully, and we are pleased that we were able to support this proposal as well as Argentina.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about Eastern Europe. We hope that if the Polish ships wish to continue to fish there they will apply for licences. So far as concerns the cost of the scheme, of course it will be run by the Falkland Islands government, who will issue the licences and will therefore collect the revenue. That will depend on the number of licences issued and how the cost works out. They clearly will need to look at this carefully, and I would not in any way want to overestimate the amount of revenue that might be achieved for the Falkland Islands government. What is most important is that the fishery should survive in the conservation area.
So far as concerns the water around South Georgia, the fishery is subject to existing international agreement—that is, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. We continue to regard this agreement as having the potential to develop into a truly effective conservation regime. We shall continue to work with other like-minded commission members at next year's meeting, which takes place in October 1987. So far, the CCAMLR has introduced a ban on all commercial fishing within 12 nautical miles of South Georgia.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, the agreement to which she referred is still not a very successful one. I hope therefore that she will agree that at the next meeting of

745
the Antarctic treaty powers (or the SCAR meeting) they will press strongly for more action; but there will still be the problem of enforceability.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall certainly note the important point that the noble Lord has made.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend could clear up a small point which is bothering me. She said the conservation zone was to be of the same radius as the protection zone. When I was last in the Falklands, in July, the protection zone was only about 150 miles, whereas the conservation zone is to be 200 miles. Therefore, will the protection zone—or FIPZ, which I think is its exact name—have to be extended?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. The interim conservation zone is co-terminous with the Falkland Islands Protection Zone. We have claimed up to 200 miles but the actual area that will be licensed and will be patrolled will be of 150 miles radius. This is because most of the fishing is done within 150 miles radius and because it is coterminous with the Falkland Islands Protection Zone.

Public Order Bill
4.53 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 11 [Advance notice of public processions]:
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) Notice must be delivered to a police station—

(a) in the police area in which it is proposed the procession will start, or

(b) where it is proposed the procession will start in Scotland and cross into England, in the first police area in England on the proposed route.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name and in those of my noble friends. This is the third amendment in what I might call a procession of amendments. We discussed the matter at the earlier stages. It concerns the notice of a procession which is required to be given under Clause 11 by the organisers of it. If one assumes that there is to be a march from, let us say, Caithness to Dulwich, possibly to visit the Prime Minister, under the clause as it stands it would be necessary for the organisers to give notice in every police area through which that march would travel.
We thought that that was an unnecessary burden upon the organisers and, moreover, one which might very well bring them into conflict with the criminal law simply through ignorance, because failure to comply with the clause is a criminal offence. We pressed this very hard and I am extremely glad to have received from the noble Earl the amendment which is now on the Marshalled List—one very much better than its predecessors in the procession, having come from the source from which it has come; and it is one that I am very pleased to accept. I assume and hope that the Government will accept the amendment as it now
746
stands, catering, as it will, both for the situation in England and also for the situation which I posited a moment ago of a procession which begins in Scotland and ends in England.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, rightly says, we have had a couple of bites at this cherry already. But we are persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's arguments and are very happy to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Public performance of play]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, line 31, after ("circumstances") insert ("(and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that an amendment very similar to this one was moved by me at the Committee stage. The reason for wishing these words to be in the Bill was very straightforward. It was that they appeared in the equivalent section of the Theatres Act which was repealed by this Bill. In this clause of the Bill they had been replaced simply by the words,
"having regard to all the circumstances".
It seemed perfectly clear to all those who had anything to do with the theatre that the vital words,
"taking the performance as a whole"
were crucial when considering matters of racial hatred in a performance of a play.
Your Lordships will remember that much was said about "Othello" and "The Merchant of Venice". The noble Earl was kind enough to say that he would take the matter away and give it further consideration. There has been further consideration; there have been consultations and I gather that now the Government are prepared to accept the words of this amendment which differs in the addition of the words "in particular", so that it reads now,
"and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole".
With reference to the "Merchant of Venice", I ventured to say at the Report stage that I hoped that I would obtain my pound of flesh. I understand now that the happy position is going to be that I have obtained my pound of flesh without one jot of Christian blood being spilt.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for his dogged pursuit of this particular point. I am glad to say that in all the circumstances and taking the amendment as a whole, I am pleased to commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to direct trespassers to leave land]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 25, line 36, after ("than") insert ("—(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move this amendment and to speak to Amendment No. 4. At the Second Reading and also at Committee stage I expressed deep concern at the lack of protection against aggravated trespass on our ancient monuments. May I first thank the noble Earl for the constructive discussions which his department had with English Heritage and for the undertaking he gave during the Report stage to consider further the question of the desirability of bringing buildings which are scheduled monuments into the ambit of Clause 39, thereby enabling action to be taken by the police to direct trespassers to leave such buildings.
The amendment I am moving is intended to achieve that objective. I think the House will agree that it is an amendment totally within the spirit of the clause. Indeed, I would say that it is a serious omission that it is not already included, particularly as the provision was taken as a result of the abuses in recent years at or in the area surrounding one of our greatest scheduled monuments, Stonehenge. I am confident that there will be unanimity in the desire of this House (and, I think, in the country as well) to protect the most important of our treasury of ancient monuments; that is, those that are scheduled by virtue of being of national importance.
There are about 13,000 such monuments. They are scheduled by the Secretary of State for the Environment and we at English Heritage are charged by Parliament to protect them. Some of them are of such importance that the Government have already accepted them into ownership or guardianship—places like Whitby Abbey, Launceston Castle and Kenilworth. Those are just a few examples.
Since 1882 Governments have recognised the need to identify them and to protect them by scheduling, since they are part of the fabric of our history. It would seem odd, if having done so, we did not grasp the opportunity, when it arises, to carry that recognition to its sensible conclusion and give the additional protection provided under this clause—protection we feel they need. In practice, many of the monuments would already fall totally within the ambit of Clause 39. They are scheduled monuments on which no buildings stand and they include ancient hill forts such as Maiden Castle and many other earthworks and standing stones, such as Stonehenge itself.
However, it seems to me to be a serious weakness that some scheduled monuments may be outside this provision simply because they are buildings. A great many scheduled monuments have buildings with floors and roofs, and could certainly be used for the purpose of residing, even if in a pretty rough and ready way; but they are still very vulnerable to damage. That applies to many ruined castles and abbey ruins: yet all such buildings are excluded from the provision. In my view, this is a serious weakness and provides an easy loophole in a provision which otherwise I fully support.
The abuse which this clause remedies has so far affected land to a greater extent than buildings but I do not think we should confine our thinking to past abuses. We should think ahead to those which may
748
occur in the future and we must remember the determination and ingenuity of certain groups to find loopholes. By accepting this amendment the Government would help to provide further protection for an essential part of our heritage and would, I think, earn the nation's gratitude. They have already shown themselves sympathetic to, and supportive of, the preservation of the heritage. I hope that the way is now clear for them to demonstrate once, again their goodwill for the sake of future generations. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while we on these Benches have made it quite clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we do not like criminal trespass to be included in it, it now appears beyond doubt at this stage that it will remain in the Bill. In this case it would be quite wrong if, while agricultural buildings are to be given protection, scheduled monuments are left to take their chance against vandalism and all the other things which can occur to this very fragile part of our heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has put the case so well and extensively that there is no need for me to repeat it. I certainly got a very strong impression when I spoke on Report that the noble Earl was very favourably disposed to this amendment and that we are now probably pushing at an open door. I hope he will be able to confirm this.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, having accepted two amendments, is now going to achieve his hat-trick!
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, may I briefly support this amendment? It seemed completely illogical, having got so far in the Bill, to leave these buildings without protection. I would go so far as to say that without it they might become more of a prime target than they have been previously, if they were so left out. Perhaps I might add my thanks to the Government for their help over this very vexed Clause 39, and to my own thanks I would add those of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. I would strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are indeed sympathetic to, and very supportive of, our heritage. We realise its very considerable importance and I am particularly grateful that the noble Baroness, with her vast experience in these matters, was able to take part in our debate this afternoon. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I am very happy to accept this amendment on behalf of the Government and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for pressing this particular point. As the noble Baroness said, this was in any case a fairly open door, and it was logical that this should be in the Bill. As I have been able to accept the hat-trick I would note that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is a cricketing supporter and that his average has come down from 1 for 20 to 2 for 22!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25, line 38, after ("1967") insert (", or
(ii) scheduled monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we certainly will not let it pass without a word. While today all has been sweetness and light, it is a sombre thought that discussion of this Bill began way back on the 13th June last. It has dragged its slow length along during the whole of the summer months. It was introduced following a series of grave public disturbances and riots in our inner cities at a time of mounting crime.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill in both Houses—whose debates have, I think, improved the Bill a good deal since it was introduced, particularly in your Lordships' House—there has always arisen the problem of maintaining a balance between, on the one hand, the necessity of maintaining public order and, on the other, the need to preserve and protect the classic civil liberties of the subject: the right to freedom of speech and of lawful protest, the right of public assembly and of procession, all the hallmarks of a democratic society.
We have stressed also in the debates the importance at this time of maintaining and improving co-operation between the police and the public who they serve. On the Opposition Benches we have questioned strongly whether some of the Bill's proposals may not be more likely to alienate than to win public support. However, we must acknowledge—and I readily do so—that in another place the Under-Secretary and in this House the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and following him the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, took away some of the Bill's proposals and accepted the advice offered to them from time to time from the Opposition Benches.
We won an early concession from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he agreed to drop the proposed maximum penalty of life imprisonment for riot and to accept instead 10 years' imprisonment. I fear, however, that we achieved no further victories during the reign of the noble Lord, but we have done rather better under the ministrations of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, no doubt due in part to the fact that by then time was running out for the Government, quite apart from the noble Earl's own excellence and his intelligent anticipation that he should adopt our proposals.
We are grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the Government side for their courtesy, their ability and their willingness to look again at some of their proposals. The debates have indeed shown that the government mind, like a parachute, works only when properly opened. Have I got it quite right? I think I have.
750
We readily welcome the changes in the law, above all by Part III of the Bill which is directed against acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. When I was an attorney, I was frequently up against the difficulty of proving intent to stir up racial hatred. No doubt my noble friend had the same difficulty. Some extremely unpleasant racists got away by simply saying that nothing was further from their minds than the alleged intent. The Bill in Part III adds the alternative and very useful and valuable provision,
"having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby".
I shall not attempt at this stage to list either our victories or our defeats. We are sorry to see the introduction of criminal trespass, as my noble friend Lady Birk has indicated, and we regret some other elements in the Bill. Perhaps I ought to mention the most controversial part of the Bill which has survived attack from all quarters on the Opposition side. That is Clause 5 which creates the offence of disorderly behaviour. We tried to get rid of that in Committee and on Report but, alas, to no avail.
I must also record our regret at the refusal of our proposal to set up an appeal system to allow for appeals to be made against conditions imposed by senior police officers on assemblies and processions under Clauses 12 and 14. Another misfortune that remains in the Bill is the inclusion of the dangerously wide words "serious disruption to the life of the community" as one of the elements in Clauses 12 and 14 of the Bill.
We end with our gratitude for what has been conceded and in particular for Part III. We think the Bill has been improved by reason of the deliberations to which it has been submitted in this House. We think it might have been even better if all our proposals has been accepted.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I welcome in every detail the passing of the Bill? I should first like to thank the Law Commission for their excellent report which has restated in statutory form the common law as to riot, affray and unlawful assembly. Previously the position was vague and indeterminent, depending entirely on the dicta of judges. Now these matters have been brought into proper form and are clear and intelligible to everyone.
I welcome the additional provisions concerning harassment or disorderly behaviour. That is very necessary today. Of course we have our fundamental freedoms of speech, of assembly and of demonstration; but we must always realise that those freedoms must be exercised with regard to the freedoms of others. Indeed, they must be exercised without violence, disorder or anything of that kind. It is a matter of keeping the right balance.
As regards provisions concerning harassment and disorderly behaviour, how much we need them today in regard to freedom of speech when one who goes to universities to speak to students may be disrupted by violent disorder. It is a good thing that we have this new clause to deal with disorderly behaviour of that kind. That is the position under common law but how good it is also that processions and the right to demonstrate should be controlled. If I may I should also add the new offences dealing with new matters,

751
whether that be trespass, racist behaviour or whatever it may be. On the whole, I should say this is a very good Bill all the way through and everyone should be grateful for its passing.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, also pay tribute to the noble Earl the Minister and express our admiration for the way that he has guided this Bill through the choppy seas (stirred up largely, I am afraid, by a battery of lawyers), and for the way he has managed to bring the Bill to harbour having come to the steering wheel in the middle of the voyage. We appreciate and are grateful for his co-operative and helpful attitude throughout the time he has been in charge of the Bill.
Having said that, I would express my sadness that we have not been able to amend the Bill in any fundamental way. In a Bill of such paramount importance for our civil rights and liberties, it is also sad that we have divided along party lines. In Committee there was at one moment some support from two or three distinguished noble Lords opposite, some of whom I see here today. That support faded away on Report and the Divisions were of that kind.
The Bill starts well, and, in so far as it follows the Law Commission's report in rationalising the common law (as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just said) it is in many ways an admirable Bill. However, I should like to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that regarding Clause 4, when read with Clause 6, the Bill really has been left in what one can only describe as a real mess for the courts to deal with in regard to the states of mind of accused persons and of victims.
Equally, in Clause 5 the concept of disorderly behaviour and harassment, alarm and distress is so wide and of such catch-all phraseology that I fear that this part of the Bill will be abused when it comes into force. I suggest that the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that this part of the Bill is an unwarrantable extension of criminalisation of people's behaviour is a view which is nearer the truth than the view which has just been expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
I find Part II of the Bill verbose and loose with the concept of serious public disruption and such wide power being given to the police and the court to interpret. Again, one cannot help feeling that this part of the Bill will be open to abuse. One can only hope that the concern of those of us on this side of the House with regard to those parts of the Bill will not be borne out in future years. Otherwise, we give this Bill a fair wind and hope that it contributes to this very serious matter of our fundamental rights of public meeting and procession. We sincerely hope that our concerns will not be borne out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, in contrast to some of our earlier proceedings this afternoon all has been sweetness and light. Indeed, the proceedings on amendments did something to convert me—who, having come from the Commons, always regarded
752
amendments on Third Reading with some suspicion—as to their value. With due deference to those who put them down, on this occasion they were just the sort of amendments that justify being put down on Third Reading; whereas on certain other measures the constant reiteration of highly controversial issues which had already been fully debated at earlier stages sometimes struck one as an abuse. But certainly this afternoon's proceedings have shown the value of this procedure, provided that it is, as it has been this afternoon, properly used.
I think at this moment your Lordships will also want to cast your minds back to the circumstances in which the Bill was introduced and the circumstances with which it was intended to deal and I hope will deal. It was introduced against the background of very grave disorders indeed, of riots, of serious injuries to policemen, of intimidation of individuals, of a great deal of damage and of a great deal of alarm. I think that the Government had no option but to respond to the very strong demand for a strengthening of the law to deal with situations of that kind. Whether they have the answer completely right is a matter on which there may be, as has been expressed this afternoon, reservations, but the need to legislate on this subject was, I think, very strongly felt by the public as a whole.
After all, the preservation of law and order and the security of the citizen to go about his life and work free from interference and violence is the basic duty of government. Indeed if one casts one's mind back, it was largely for that purpose that at the dawn of history governments were formed at all and societies came together for the protection that that would give.
It is in that context that I have my own reservation. I was disappointed when my noble friend Lord Glenarthur gave way to the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on Clause 1 and accepted the diminution of the sentence for riot from life to 10 years. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur had the support of noble Lords on this side of the House for maintaining that sentence, and, in my view, the offence of riot is so serious that the maximum penalty should be a great deal higher than 10 years. That must be even more the case where there is a second or subsequent offence.
Riot, as so defined, endangers the whole structure of society and it is—I say it at this stage with regret—a pity that a Bill that does much to strengthen the law for the protection of order and the stability of society should now open with so relatively weak a penalty for that most serious offence, particularly in the case of second and subsequent offences. I hope that our experience in the next few years may not be such as to cause us to regret this decision. But it is at least possible, if that hope is frustrated, that my noble friend may well find himself under considerable pressure to restore the Bill to the position in this respect in which it started.
On other matters I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, with respect—as I always do with respect—on criminal trespass. I am glad that the Bill seems to deal in considerable measure with the habit which developed this summer of people arriving and squatting on other

753
people's land and property and refusing to move. The Bill, which gives the power to a policeman to order them to leave, with penalties if they decline to carry out that order, should make a repetition of that kind of thing in the future impossible, and I very much hope that it will turn out to be effective.
On the whole, I should like to give my good wishes to the Bill. I share the high regard which most noble Lords have already expressed for the way in which it has been conducted by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—with the one exception to which I referred a moment ago—and by my noble friend Lord Caithness, both of whom have shown patience, consideration for the House and clarity of thought in handling difficult amendments. That is all the more astonishing in view of the fact that there they were as, from the legal point of view, laymen competing with, among others, a former Lord Chancellor. Many people would have thought that was grossly unfair to them, but there were moments when I think the former Lord Chancellor was rather inclined to think it was unfair to him, and no higher compliment can be paid to my noble friend and his predecessor than to say that. In this connection, we have been fortunate with the Scottish connection.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, let me briefly say that I dislike this Bill very much indeed. My role in it has been to follow my noble friends through the Lobbies in their endeavours to make it less bad than it otherwise would have been. As my noble friend has shown, we have not, alas, been as successful as we should have wished on all occasions.
My other purpose in rising is, perhaps unusually, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, because he has succeeded in protecting the special interests of the theatre. The Bill could have made a total fool of itself in that area and I think noble Lords on both sides of the House feel that a considerable improvement has been made. We have been in association with each other on this matter and my name is not on the amendment on the Marshalled List through sheer inadvertence. I am as enthusiastic about it as the rest of your Lordships. We are very happy with that outcome, much as we may regret some aspects of the Bill itself.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, I, too, thought everything was brightness, light and general contentment, especially when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, say that he approved today of the behaviour both of the Government and of the Opposition. This is indeed a unique day in the parliamentary history of this generation. But I saw very soon a slight cloud, a slight darkness—almost a reactionary darkness in that cloud—over our general enjoyment when he objected to a sentence of 10 years only for the offence of riot. I do not claim any monopolistic right on behalf of my noble friends in making that suggestion. It was indeed the suggestion of the Law Commission itself that it should be only 10 years, and when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, finds himself even behind the Law Commission in its thoughts about matters, maybe we can return to a spirit of complete contentment.
754
I go on, if I may, to make just a few brief remarks on matters which I hope your Lordships will agree have not so far been touched on. We realise that legislation of some kind was necessary in order to deal with the difficulties of our time, which all of us regret wherever we may sit in this House. I hope that a message will go out from your Lordships, wherever you may sit, that on the passing of this important Bill the police, whose relationship with the community is so important, will realise that Parliament, from all parties, expects them to be opposers of violence but also protectors of the proper civil rights of the citizen.
I also hope that in any circulars or directives that go out from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs the position of the police will be made abundantly clear; that is, that those who peacefully wish to exercise the age-old free traditions of which we are so proud in this country are to be protected when they do that and that those who offend against those rights by using violence and improper and illegal means will be punished as they deserve to be punished.
I almost said that I wanted to move from here to trespass, but that sounded rather funny, even in my mind, before I uttered the sentence. But what I wanted to do in that connection was not to repeat any of the things that have been said in arguments as to the difficulties of criminal trespass but to say this. I regret that in connection with a matter which does affect our criminal law there should now be an offence which makes complete nonsense to anybody who reads it—that of 12 vehicles entering upon land perfectly peacefully; nobody insulting anybody, nobody perpetrating any damage.
Anyone who is the cause of those 12 vehicles—and indeed the 12 vehicle drivers themselves—will be guilty of an offence if they do not obey a police direction. But if they be only 11 vehicles they are as innocent and as free in connection with our criminal law. If Parliament passes such a measure, as it now will presumably, Parliament must be prepared for some rather extraordinary remarks from our courts and for extraordinary remarks from those who will have to be in charge of prosecutions in the future.
My closing remarks are in connection with the race relations clauses of this Bill. I want to say only this in regard to it. I tried from these Benches on behalf of my noble friends and with the help of others on this side of the House to see that a duty was cast upon local authorities to remove racially offensive graffiti as soon as practicable. I was unsuccessful when trying to take this through the Division Lobby and this is my last attempt. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will understand me when I say that I think it is a proper last attempt. I hope that when saying goodbye to this Bill and to those who have discussed it, as he will do in a moment, he will be able to say something helpful about that matter in regard at least to a wish to be expressed to the local authorities that they will carry out this work, because it is so offensive and so damaging to our national life.
In my last sentence perhaps I may join those who have paid tribute to the noble Earl, to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who has sat by his side assisting him with, I am sure, great ability, and to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I recollect that the noble Earl

755
was thrown into the middle of this Bill by a sudden appointment to the "Ministership", if I can use that dreadful word, that he know adorns. I think he is especially to be congratulated on the way in which, if I may continue the cricketing metaphor, he picked up the ball when the captain threw it at him, and he has bowled rather well.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is now a number of months, but months well used, since my noble friend Lord Glenarthur recommended this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading. We have spent some 35 hours in consideration of the Bill. The other place will need to consider about 40 amendments made to the Bill by your Lordships during its various stages. That only goes to prove that the Government mind has been shown always to be open and that there has never been a need for a parachute. Some of the changes we have made to the Bill have been technical and have improved its form rather than its substance. Others, on some of which I shall comment further shortly, have added new important measures. Your Lordships have done sterling work on this Bill and we return it to another place strengthened and burnished by its passage through this House.
The Public Order Bill achieves a necessary balance. It protects cherished democratic freedoms such as the right to demonstrate and march peacefully, while strengthening the protection afforded everyone to go about their business free from disorder, intimidation and unnecessary disruption. The Bill is designed to give important new protection to ordinary people from the hooliganism and violence than can destroy their peace and tranquillity. It aims above all to preserve order, on which depends the rights and freedoms which characterise a democratic and civilised society.
We have made important changes to the Bill. In the course of its passage through this House we have agreed to a number of points made by noble Lords opposite. In Part I we accepted an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to reduce the maximum sentence for riot to 10 years' imprisonment. In Part II we have provided for banning orders under Clause 13 to be made in writing wherever possible, in response to another amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We have just agreed that in relation to marches which pass through more than one police force area, notice need be given only in the police force area where the march begins—an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich. In addition in response to a commitment given to the Opposition in another place we have substantially improved Part III of the Bill by bringing broadcasting, films, video tapes, sound tapes and other media within the incitement to racial hatred provisions, and in response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, we have made clear that the theatrical performance needs to be considered as a whole.
Part III of the Bill is of course mainly concerned with protecting against threats to public order. Our
756
debates have also looked at wider issues and touched on the need, especially for those in positions of authority, to work for a society in which all our people have equal opportunities and in which sections of the community do not feel themselves under attack because of their racial origin.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised many matters of importance during our debates. In particular, he gave the House the opportunity to discuss the problem of racist graffiti. Although we were not able to accept the particular amendments he moved, we all share the distaste and abhorrence which he expressed so eloquently. Our debates on this problem served to underline the harm which racist graffiti can do. I can assure the noble Lord that this has already been noted by at least one local authority and I am sure that the others have taken note of what your Lordships have said on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said on Second Reading, racists have few friends anywhere and certainly none in this House. Part III of the Bill contains the strongest measures against incitement to racial hatred to be proposed by any Government. They prove in a way which mere speeches cannot that we will not tolerate the incitement of hatred of anyone because of the colour of his skin or the nature of his ethnic background.
Your Lordships have also accepted two important new measures. First, Clause 38 of the Bill strengthens the law to deal with those who cause so much mischief by contaminating consumer products or by issuing threats or claims. The message of your Lordships' House is absolutely clear: in a democratic country, no matter how strongly views are held, this can never be an excuse for endangering the lives of others or causing public alarm by what amounts to cowardly blackmail.
Clause 39 gives the police a new power to deal with aggravated trespass. Our debates on this have been full so I need not dwell on this important new power at any great length. Your Lordships have reacted swiftly to ensure that the disgraceful scenes we witnessed this summer including the abominable harassment of farmers by the hippy convoy shall be met in future with a swift and effective response. In particular, I should like to mention the unflagging work of my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in helping us to make sure that Clause 39 is a sound, sensible and workable provision.
I shall not delay the House by listing the many other improvements that we have made to the Bill. Suffice it to say that your Lordships have yet again proved to the full the worth of this House as a revising chamber. The Bill returns to another place in much better order than it arrived.
Before I conclude I wish to place on the record my appeciation to all your Lordships. Because of the pressures of business and the importance of the measures the Bill now contains, work on the Bill has placed particularly hard demands on noble Lords. These demands have been impressively coped with, with unflagging courtesy and a deal of good humour. For their advice, help and criticism I am grateful to my noble friends: in particular, my noble friends Lord

757
Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, but I do not forget the others although time prevents me from mentioning them by name.
I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite. As is right and proper our detailed debates have been hard-fought with strong views held on both sides. I shall not disguise the fact that when I took over this Bill halfway through its passage I did so with some trepidation. However, while the intellectual battle has raged, the personal courtesy shown to me by noble Lords opposite has never wavered, and I am grateful to them. They always listened to my arguments with care, notwithstanding that they have profoundly disagreed with some of them; and they themselves are owed respect because of the rich experience that they bring to our debates.
I hope that Members in another place will appreciate the work we have done on this Bill and will give the amendments we have made a fair wind. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Developing Countries: Health
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent health and family planning are considered as part of development projects, bearing in mind the high rate of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in asking this Question I am conscious of the fact that the time is not quite what we had anticipated and as a consequence I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who is chairing an important meeting which she originally expected to be concluded before this debate began.
The linked subjects of health and family planning in the third world arc not, regrettably, items to arouse a great deal of interest. It seems that it is only when an issue can be dramatised that our imaginations and consciences are aroused. For example, witness the magnificent response during the past two years or so to the efforts inspired largely by Bob Geldof in order to bring relief to the famine-stricken areas of Africa. Yet the more pervasive problems of infant and maternal mortality do not of themselves evoke such a response.
At a conference of European parliamentarians at The Hague earlier this year, sponsored jointly by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations Children's Fund, Doctor Inayatullah, Pakistan's Minister of State for Population, said:
"Every year some 17 million children die from simple preventable diseases—more than those dying from the famines which have been brought to many of us so vividly on our screens over the past year".
She said that in some African countries infant mortality rates reach over 200 per 1,000 live births. She then went on to deal with maternal mortality. Again, I quote:
"The maternal mortality rate in Sweden is near one per 100,000 live births; in the developing world as a whole it is around 400 for every 100,000 live births, and as high as 1,000 per 100,000 in some
758
sub-Saharan African countries where a woman has a one in 50 lifetime chance of surviving her six successive child births".
Those are appalling figures, and they represent human lives. Imagine, for example, if every six hours, day in day out, a jumbo jet crashed killing its 250 passengers, who were all women, who were all pregnant or who had just delivered a baby. That is how the World Health Organisation described the situation in the poorest countries of the world at its first international conference on the prevention of maternal mortality in November of last year. What horrifying pictures would fill our television screens if that were how these women died. What an immediate response there would be both from governments and from individuals. As it is, these women and their babies die unseen and largely unnoticed by the rest of the world.
The immediate cause of the disastrous famine in Africa was drought. But, as we all know, that is only part of the problem. Another and perhaps more fundamental cause is the pressure of the growth of population on the resources and on the environment of the region. In many of the African countries the population is set to double in the next 20 years. Dr. Fred Sai, senior population adviser to the World Bank, said to a recent meeting of the British Parliamentary Group on Population and Development that there was nothing that we could do to prevent a doubling of the population of Africa over the next 20 years. The problem was whether we could prevent it quadrupling thereafter.
On 15th May this year the Herald, a daily newspaper in Harare, described the situation as "Africa's time bomb". The paper referred to figures which indicate that, for example, Zimbabwe's population of 9 million is growing at 3·5 per cent. per annum and is likely to be 14·9 million by the year 2000 and 38·3 million by the year 2100. Kenya, with a population of 21 million, growing at the rate of 4·2 per cent. per annum, will have 35·8 million people by the year 2000 and 116·4 million by the year 2100. In Nigeria the population of 105·4 million, growing at 3 per cent. per annum, will reach 159·2 million by the year 2000 and 508·8 million by the year 2100. Those are horrifying figures.
But, one might ask, what is that to do with maternal and infant mortality rates? The two problems are integrated. On the one hand are the economic and social problems—that is, malnutrition, lack of water, lack of sanitation and hygiene, inadequate health care, inadequate housing, inadequate education, bad farming and forestry methods. Those represent one side of the problem. The other side is population growth. This population growth involves, in particular, infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in high risk areas. The high risk areas are usually described as those areas which include women who are too young, too old or who have too many children too close together; that is, pregnancies before the age of 18 or after the age of 35, pregnancies after four births and pregnancies less than two years apart. The greatest risk of infant deaths is found among those high risk pregnancy groups. Some of those groups are prevalent in the developed countries, too, and they were certainly prevalent during the Industrial Revolution, just as they are prevalent in the developing countries today.
Among the factors influencing these high risk groups is the age of marriage. Girls who marry before the age of 18 and have babies before that age are at very high risk, and so are their babies. Another factor is education and literacy. This is particularly important for women, because women's education is an important factor in their status in society, and their status in society often influences the state of their health. The third influence is the use and knowledge of family planning. Here I would say that it is important that women should know of, and have available to them, family planning services. It is important, too, that men should be aware of the services and be aware of their importance, in particular when they are linked to the health of their wives and babies; so there is a great need for more to be done in that area.
Family planning is a difficult and delicate issue for us in the West, with our different culture. Yet family planning is not new to African countries. Especially is it not new in the sense of spacing the birth of children, which is a most crucial element in the health of mothers and babies. But the cultures in Africa and in developing countries which very often led to the spacing of children are now crumbling and one is left with a new situation.
However, all is not entirely gloom. It is encouraging to note that there are changes in the attitudes of government. For example, there is a growing political realisation that the health and wellbeing of families, and thus of communities, rests not on the number of children that a woman bears but on their healthy survival and on the ability of couples to choose the number of children that they will have and can support. In other words, it is increasingly recognised that family planning must be part of development. International conferences throughout the world have indicated this and the United Nations Women's Conference in Nairobi this year added its weight to this commitment. In May this year, too, an All-African Parliamentary Conference held in Harare was described by Charles Morrison, MP, who is chairman of the British population and development group, as one of the most encouraging that he had attended.
So we are not dealing with a situation in which the developed countries are foisting unwanted policies on developing countries. As I say, there is a growing recognition in these countries themselves that uncontrolled population growth is disastrous. Therefore I think it is more than ever appropriate that a family planning component linked to primary health care should be an integral part of Britain's aid to developing countries, and I should like to ask the Minister a number of specific questions on this subject.
First, what is the Government's policy on integrating family planning into all appropriate development projects? I understand that the Government issued guidelines on this matter in 1979. In view of the increased awareness of the relationship of family planning to the health of mothers and children, will it be possible to review those guidelines, which may now not be so relevant as perhaps they were then?
Secondly, the Government have generously increased support for multilateral agencies such as IPPF, UNFPA and WHO, but it is a fact that within
760
the whole of the overseas aid budget only about 1 per cent. is spent on population activities. I ask the Minister: is this enough? Thirdly, I understand that the ODA offers expert technical advice and assistance on health and population matters to those countries lacking a proper health infrastructure. Again, I ask the Minister: is this technical expertise adequate to meet the growing needs of developing countries?
We know from the world fertility survey and other research that women would like more family planning services and that they will use appropriately offered and accessible services. We know too that governments in developing countries are increasingly committed politically to population policies. Therefore, as I have said, it is not a question of imposing our values on them but of assisting them to overcome those gigantic problems.
This is a moral question. The morality lies in protecting the health of women and children. The question of the right to life arises here. It is the right of women to continue to live and not face death through continued childbearing, and it is the right of children to survive and to live a healthy life.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her Question and for her eloquent speech. My remarks will focus on the linking of aid to birth control.
The heavy toll of infant, child and maternal mortality in LDCs must arouse compassion and concern. But we should be wary of trying to influence people to limit their families. The reason for this was epitomised in this House by the notably compassionate noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, exactly two years ago to the day, on 29th October 1984. Rebuking other speakers, the noble Baroness said:
"What right have they to tell other people how exactly they are going to have their families—whether large or small?".
This is the heart of the matter. Do we have the right to press people in their most vital private decisions? People in the third world do not procreate heedless of consequences. They know about birth control. Traditional methods of birth control were widely practised in societies that were far more backward than the high-fertility contemporary LDCs, where moreover, people have access to cheap Western contraceptives and where for many years now cheap Western-style goods—hardware, cosmetics, soft drinks and cameras—have been ubiquitous. Yet the use of condoms, the Pill and interuterine devices has spread only slowly, even when they are subsidised. Western-style contraceptives are often absent when sophisticated articles of feminine hygiene are on sale, as in Nigeria. All this suggests that people do not want to restrict their families or prefer other methods.
In LDCs, as in the West, the great majority of people want the children that they have. Children give satisfaction; they provide an outlet for affection; they enable people to project themselves into the future; and much more than in this country, they contribute significantly to family income and serve as a support for old age. They often also bring prestige and influence. In all these contexts, the benefits to the parents outweigh the cost and the benefits from one

761
highly successful child exceed the cost of the others. Most of these benefits are not registered in the national income, which, though useful as an accounting concept, does not measure welfare.
Thus in the third world the children who are born are generally desired. They are certainly avoidable. To deny this amounts to saying that third world parents are both ignorant and driven by uncontrollable sexual urges. This treats people with unwarranted condescension or even contempt. Intense pressure against prevailing mores induces insecurity and tension. Morevover, in LDCs more than in the West, advice, education and persuasion shade readily into coercion. The notorious compulsory sterilisation campaign in India in the 1970s and the brutal forcible abortions in China are only extreme cases. In India, allocation of trading and taxi licences, access to subsidised housing and promotion in the civil service have all been used to force people to limit their families.
It is often said—it was clearly suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and had been said here in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell—that without pressure by the West the population in LDCs would be unmanageable by the year 2000. This is unwarranted. To begin with, these forecasts are normally wildly out. In the 1930s, the population scare meant the prospective depopulation of the world. If the numbers really threatened people's welfare in LDCs, they would modify their reproductive habits as people have done in the West.
The linking of foreign aid to birth control also arouses political suspicions. I was told repreatedly in Africa that Western insistence on birth control there reflects Western fears that larger numbers inevitably bring greater political influence. Such suspicions are understandable, even if unfounded.
Genuinely voluntary family limitation will, however, come about through external commercial contacts for people at large. These bring about uncoerced changes in attitudes. They have already resulted in voluntary family limitation in much of the third world, and will result in more if they are extended. On this ground, as well as on others, the aid programme, while and where it operates, should be directed towards governments who foster economic advance through humane leadership, effective limitation and personal freedom. Linking age to birth control works in the opposite direction.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am glad to support the Question which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has tabled and the way in which she presented it.
The subject of the Question is similar to and partly stems from a conference that I attended in February this year organised by the United Nations in The Hague for parliamentarians in Europe. This has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
The full title of the conference was "European Parliamentarians' Forum on Child Survival, Women and Population: Integrated Strategies". The reference to integration was to emphasise the connected aspects of those subjects as well as being a reminder of the
762
integrated efforts of the three arms of the United Nations, which had joined together to organise this forum—the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
As well as the conference being addressed by the heads of those organisations, the main speakers were mostly from developing countries offering their own experience and feedbacks, on the basis of which discussions took place in groups consisting mainly of European MPs. From those groups recommendations emerged for political action and progress in terms that politicians use and can understand.
Needless to say, there was no one simple or unitary solution to the problems posed in these varied fields, but it was a most useful and successful conference, and one which concentrated on the need for the integration of efforts in these fields of child and maternal health, and population.
While being mindful of this relatedness, I should say that my particular field of interest is population, as I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on population and development, a group that was originally conceived and nurtured into existence by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who is currently its president.
The report of the forum is now available from any of the sponsoring UN agencies, and I recommend it to the Government and to anyone else interested in this subject. There is also a copy in the Library of the House of Lords and in the Library of the House of Commons.
I should say that the report is not some manifesto imposed by the UN, but a practical attempt by working politicians to suggest how parliamentarians can contribute in these areas. The report of the conference is far too detailed even to begin to sum up here, but part of what I will be saying tonight derives from my experiences there.
I hope that the Government will support the integrated approach advocated at the conference as well as encouraging UN agencies, in particular UNFPA, by their wholehearted support—support not least to UNFPA financially—following pressures and effective withdrawal of funding by the American Government. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister can comment on this. I would hope that we could now increase our funding to UNFPA as soon as possible, not only to give a lead to other countries, but to show that we do not share the reasoning of the United States in this. I believe that the Netherlands and, indeed, Finland have already given a substantial lead in that direction.
I would also advocate increased funding, if I may say so at this point, for the IPPF—the International Planned Parenthood Federation—which, following similar American vicissitudes, has been extremely energetic in trying to obtain alternative funding. Again we should continue to recognise those increased efforts and encourage its excellent work financially even more.
To return more directly to the question on the Order Paper, one thing particularly that became clearer to me at the European conference was the scandalous level of maternal and infant mortality, much of which

763
could be prevented at minimal cost by the right integrated approach and organisation.
Family planning elements can form part of that approach, and are extremely cost-effective in reducing mortality. This is particularly so in contributing to effective child spacing, which allows the mother and children time to become stronger, and for the mother to avoid pregnancy at times in her life when she is most at risk. Family life must be enhanced by strong mothers with strong children.
It has been estimated that in the developing countries today 5.6 million infant deaths and 200,000 maternal deaths could be avoided if women were able to choose to have their children within the safest years of their lives, and with adequate spacing between births and completed families of moderate size. This represents half of all infant and maternal deaths now occurring.
For detailed argument on this very important area, which is central to Lady Lockwood's Question, may I refer anyone interested to just one remarkable paper given at this European forum, and mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that by Dr. Attiya Inayatullah, who is Minister of State for Population in Pakistan. It is printed in the report and is entitled, "Child Spacing, Child Survival and Maternal Health".
If understanding and appreciation of the problems referred to in the Question is increasing, as I believe it is, slowly and inexorably, what can we in this country do, and what can the Government do? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will note that I am not here asking for more money, but for a redistribution in emphasis to this area, particularly family planning components. By that I mean within the ODA and the effect that department has on its development projects.
Without expecting answers tonight, and in view of the increasing importance of population matters, I ask whether there are enough staff within the department allocated to that area? Do staff generally have training so that they are aware of the population aspects of whatever they are doing?
Externally, the ODA obviously has great experience in responding to and assessing requests from other countries. It clearly would not push family planning and health components in inappropriate circumstances. With the often desperate needs of today's developing world, many requests must be for projects showing immediate or short-term results. I believe that we have a duty also to encourage the longer term thinking and benefits involved in some health and family planning projects. We should find ways of encouraging countries to come forward for funding in this area.
We know that the world fertility survey has shown the massive unmet need for modern contraceptive methods in the developing world. That is from those who have said that they would want to use such methods if they were available.
We are now, for example, aware of the desperate and immediate problems in Africa. Last June, The Times, in a leading editorial entitled "Africa: Help for Self-Help" used the words "frantic" and "frightening" to describe Africa's population growth. That was
764
echoed during the same week in a letter to The Times from the chairman of the all-party group on population and development as he had recently returned from a conference in Zimbabwe. I shall quote three sentences from the letter where, after giving some examples of stresses caused by rapid population growth, he said:
"There is keen awareness among African parliamentarians of the stresses that rapid population growth places on national development and a growing recognition of the part that family planning services can play in reducing some of these stresses. These perceptions were very much in evidence at the All-Africa Parliamentarian Conference on Population and Development held in Harare last month and attended by parliamentarians from 31 countries in Africa. It is vital for developed nations to respond positively to help the Africans to help themselves in the long-term task of slowing down population growth."
Finally, it has always struck me as a poignant paradox that so much of the thought in this area has been about numbers: numbers surviving or merely existing—the quantity of population. We should always bear in mind that in the long run the quality of life that people lead is also important. I hope that what I have said ultimately points in that direction.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend has chosen one of the most important topics in the modern world today. She should be congratulated on that. She is right to link the problems of rapid population growth in the developing world with the problem of excessive child and maternity mortality. I have been interested in this topic for a number of years. Last year I was fortunate enough to be the United Kingdom observer at a IPU-WHO conference in Thailand on health and development.
For many hears it was thought that where there was a problem of a rapidly expanding population, equalling or outstripping the growth in national income, it was illogical to spend resources on lowering the mortality rate of children, as increasing the chances of child survival would only exacerbate the problem. Some of us who were concerned with lowering excessively high child mortality and suffering in the third world feared that we might not be helping the problem in the long term but might even be exacerbating it by increasing the population.
In fact, experience over the years has shown that those countries that have been the most successful in improving the position of women and children and in lowering their mortality rate have shown the greatest progress in reducing their fertility rate. It is not difficult to see why that has been the case. Countries which have high child and maternal mortality rates are, paradoxically, the ones in which at present the population increase is the greatest. That applies especially to Africa, south of the Sahara, South Asia and parts of Latin America. In those countries it makes economic sense for families, as the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, pointed out, to have as many children as possible for several reasons. Where there is no social security system parents expect children to provide for them in their old age. They are an economic asset to them even in childhood.
In one study it has been calculated that a child can, by the age of 15, have repaid all the expenditure on it until that age. In such an economy, from the age of

765
seven a child can start to be useful around the house and on the farm by, for example, caring for younger children; by the age of nine, by fetching water, caring for goats and cattle, cutting crops and harvesting or transplanting rice; by the age of 12, if there are jobs available, children are capable of working for wages and adding to the family income; by the age of 13, they may be useful tilling the land. Those activities have been observed in a study in Java. That is paralleled in many other countries.
Where one child in four dies on average, there will be many families where two, three or even all the children in a family die and so for insurance the desired family size will be over four and perhaps six, seven or even more children. However, in those countries which have succeeded in reducing the number of child deaths, there is a decline in the birth rate within one generation. Once parents have confidence that their children will survive, the need to have many children declines. The Oxfam field directors' handbook puts that well:
"Most people will choose to have small, well-spaced families only when they have sufficient economic and emotional security not to have to depend on their offspring".
Until the second half of this century, it took one or two generations for the birth rate to fall after the fall of the child death rate. Now it takes less than a generation. A fall in child deaths has been found time and again to come before a fall in the birth rate. Paradoxically, if more children survive now, the world population will eventually be lower; in other words, a stable state such as the industrialised countries now enjoy with low mortality will be reached earlier.
Demographic trends over the past few hundred years have had three phases. First, there is a stable phase with a high birth rate and a high mortality rate. That existed all over the world until the Industrial Revolution. It still exists in some of the most remote communities. In Europe, slowly during the 19th century, with increasing prosperity, mortality rates began to fall and the population began to rise quite dramatically. We had our own population explosion in the last century. The population more than trebled in Britain between 1800 and 1900.
That is the unstable phase, with decreasing mortality but persistently high birth rates. It is the phase through which the developing world is passing today. Even after the birth rate comes down, there is still an increase of population because of the large proportion of young people after a rapid population increase. Even if we were able to bring the birth rate down to two children per couple, there would be a continuing increase in the world population well into the 21st century.
Until the third or stable phase is reached, with low birth and death rates balancing each other, the increase in the population of parts of the third world, especially Africa, is occurring now at a much more rapid rate than in the industrial North a century ago. Equally, and luckily, there are signs that a decrease in birth rate is occurring more rapidly in some countries than it did in Britain, Europe and the United States. I would emphasise that the situation is far from hopeless. We have seen quite dramatic decreases in fertility in some countries over the past two decades, with China leading the way and Cuba in second place.
766
Many other countries, particularly in South East Asia, have also been quite successful in reducing their fertility rates. In parts of some countries success in reducing the birth rate has been greater than in the country as a whole. In the State of Kerala in South India, for instance, total fertility fell from 4.1 per 1000 in 1972 to 2.1 in 1978—after only six years—despite that state being very poor.
It is worth looking at those three places—China, Cuba and the State of Kerala—and asking why they have been more successful than some other countries, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara. In all three there has been a positive policy on the part of the government to upgrade the state of the rural peasantry by actively promoting community development and particularly by encouraging literacy among girls as well as boys. One of the most striking correlations throughout the third world is between female literacy and both a low infant mortality rate and a decreasing birth rate.
The better educated a woman becomes the less is she content to spend the best years of her life raising a very large family. She is more able to see the possibility of other activities, such as engaging in small cottage industries, thus increasing her income, and she is better able to understand any health or contraceptive advice which is given to her through her primary health care clinic or health post. That applies both in the rural situation and in the many urban shanty town conglomerates. In the rural areas lack of such facilities may result in a continuing high birth rate but in the cities it is quite likely to lead to a high abortion rate. In those circumstances that will lead to hight mortality among women because of the complications of illegal back-street abortion.
Because there are signs of some success in certain countries, it does not mean that the situation is not urgent in a large part of the developing world, where child mortality rates are still alarmingly high and half of all deaths may occur in children under 15. Most governments in developing countries now recognise the need to do something about this, but the will, I would suggest, is not enough. There is a tremendous amount of experience and expertise throughout the world, but especially in this country, on how to tackle this problem both tactfully and effectively. Family planning activities are nothing like as effective if they are sporadic and not part of a continuing primary health care coverage. That is what the World Health Organisation's call for "Health for all by the year 2000" really means.
Aid from the industrial north, if it is to be effective in this area, should be channelled so that it reaches the very poorest people in every country—the majority. If it reaches only a few the demographic impact will be minimal. Primary health care provision is much more effective if it can be simultaneously linked to programmes which increase education and encourage small communities to become more self-sufficient and self-directing by the provision, for instance, of help with improving agriculture, developing local water resources and in marketing of agricultural or industrial products. The setting up of rural industries with appropriate technology should be part of these schemes.

767
Some of these activities are as applicable to the shanty towns as they are in rural areas. I think that many noble Lords are aware that much excellent work is being done throughout the world and much of it through non-governmental agencies. I would encourage the Government to collaborate closely with these non-governmental organisations and to help them perhaps by even more than the "pound for pound" assistance which they now give. I also feel that this country's expertise could be used far more in bilateral assistance programmes than it is at the moment. It is often easier to see that money is well spent in this way. Our expertise in this country, which has been developed over decades, needs to be used. It is rather disappointing to see that the proportion of government aid that is devoted to population activities seems not to have changed over the years.
Perhaps I have over-simplified the case. It is enormously complex. My basic point is that the measures which are most effective' in reducing infant, child and maternal mortality rates are the very same as those which lead parents to aim for smaller families. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. It is the wish of parents to reduce the birth rate which matters, rather than the wish of governments. The measures necessary in order of importance are these: education, especially of women; the provision of basic health care and improved nutritional education; and a degree of economic stability and progress. Many of these measures depend upon a new deal for third world countries, such as lifting or limiting the debt burden, stable prices for commodities and some protection for and investment in local industry and agriculture for local consumption. This is a small price to pay for averting the kind of disastrous situation we see in parts of Africa today.
Over many years of involvement in the development of tropical countries this country has built up an impressive battery of expertise. But we hear at present of staff cuts and the closing down of units financed by the Overseas Development Administration across the whole range of technical assistance. We have the most enterprising publishing houses in the world in the United Kingdom. What are the Government doing to aid and encourage the flow of books, for instance, and teaching materials to satisfy the tremendous thirst for knowledge which exists in the third world? I think that this, as much as the provision of contraceptives, would help the world to reach the third and stable demographic state which I mentioned earlier.
The Government should take the long-term view and not penny pinch now. The kind of investment that I have outlined would reap benefits of good will, and later of trade, which would greatly ontweigh the small extra that it may incur at the moment.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I want to approach this important subject from a slightly different point of view from that of those who have already spoken, though our objectives are no doubt much the same, except for the views and objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who seems, when he hears
768
the words "development" to salivate like Pavlov's dog and becomes almost rabid. The truth is, I think that the noble Lord would have addressed Dr. Jenner in the 18th century in much the same terms as he addressed the House this afternoon. I think that is probably the short answer to the noble Lord, though I shall refer to him later in my speech.
My point of view is that which was taken in the debate in this House on 14th May on the importance of the prevention of disability. Thus the ill-health associated with ill-planned or unplanned pregnancies and the disease and disability of children born as a result of those pregnancies should, in my view be looked at as preventable and avoidable disabilities. In those developing countries that have proved unresponsive to family planning, perhaps the most persuasive way of winning acceptance and consent is to present it as an essential part of any primary health service which includes, as a matter of course, preventive medicine. We have been pioneers in preventive medicine in this country. The rest of the world has benefited accordingly. One cannot promote health without taking steps to avoid disability by the prevention and by the alleviation of disabling conditions.
The noble Baroness Lady Hooper, replying to the debate on 14th May, said:
"Developing countries in particular can now be expected to do more to prevent disabling conditions arising from, for example, poor perinatal care, malnutrition and infections. A net result should and we hope will be a reduction of new disability among children and infants".—[Official Report. 14/5/86; col. 1185.]
I would add the words "among mothers as well" as, indeed, did Mr.Tim Eggar at the end of a debate in another place on 25th July. He said that,
"we must recognise that family planning is a key preventive health measure and that in poor countries it is a real force for improving child survival and maternal health".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/86; col. 848.]
Those two ministerial statements, one in either of the two Houses of Parliament, are immensely encouraging. But we should press the Government to step up, if possible, the proportion of aid spent on population activities and family planning. Most of those who have spoken in this House feel, I believe, that the percentage is at present too low. The specific earmarking or dedication of funds within the total aid programme should ensure that those funds reach their intended destination.
We have all talked about developing countries. That is a useful concept. I was particularly struck by the leading article in the Economist last week entitled "Richer than you" stating that it is, in economic terms, better to think of a four-way split instead of a two-way split among the non-comunist countries. In the first category, the article put Japan alone, and, in the second category, North America and Western Europe, those categories comprising what we normally call the developed countries. The third category consisted of the NICs, or newly industrialising countries—so called because their economies are moving so fast—pre-eminently South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. However, according to the Economist, most of Asia and Latin America are within that group, or soon could be. Last, there was the fourth category, the Continent of Africa, where

769
movement is hardly discernible. This concept of a four-way split can be useful when considering the distribution of resources, which are the subject of the Question.
It can be argued that the newly industrialising countries will, as they develop and grow richer, accord greater respect to women and increasingly provide Western standards of preventive medicine, including family planning and, where necessary, abortion. There is considerable evidence that as a country prospers, so also does its health improve and its population stabilise. On that argument, although the newly industrialising countries need every penny they can get now, we hope that they will increasingly be less dependent upon us. By contrast, those in the first two categories, the developed countries, should be concentrating their greatest efforts on the Continent of Africa which does not look as if it can pull itself up by its own bootstraps unaided.
A recent issue of a magazine called People, published by the IPPF, was devoted entirely to Africa, including the Francophone areas. I should like to paraphrase if not exactly quote a number of considerations put forward by black African men and women in that magazine. The first comment was that population policies must be based on specific African social and cultural features. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, might agree with that. Another comment was that family planning can only be introduced as a support for traditional child spacing and the other needs of the people. Here again, I would hope to carry the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, with me in respect of that statement made by an African person.
Another comment was that a particular effort should be made to integrate the anthropological dimension into research and programmes concerned with population, health and development in African societies. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would, I hope, agree. A further comment was that we need to carry out better research into the social situations when considering the introduction of family planning. I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she agrees with those sentiments put so recently in People, issued under the auspices of the IPPF.
The most notable observation was made by the Togolese director of family health for the United Nations in South Africa. I recommend what she says, as an African woman, as being more important in this debate than the remarks of a European man who has contributed words to a contrary effect. She says that West African women may not be directly aware of the social and economic arguments for reducing the high fertility rate prevailing in most of the region. She is saying that they may be ignorant, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, of the benefits that are available. But she goes on to say that these women definitely want help in spacing their families.
If they want help in spacing their families—we are told by an African woman that they do—who are we to deny it to them? She goes on to say:
"Family planning in Francophone countries has usually been integrated with other developmental improvements, which lays firmer foundations for the future".
That is an expression by a highly experienced African woman with which we can all agree,
770
Finally, I should like to quote from WHO's regional director for Africa, Dr. Monekosso, who is another African expert, speaking on this subject. He said:
"A lot of countries in Africa have shifted their approach to family planning and quite a few countries are now requesting programmes of family planning, particularly if these are integrated into maternal and child health services".
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Bauer: if these countries are requesting such programmes for family planning who are we to deny them if we are capable of delivering what they are asking for?
In conclusion, I should like to repeat what I said at the outset: that these matters are best considered as part of a health package of aid—primary health care—which if necessary can be separated from other forms of aid such as food aid. However, in my view and the view of the Africans whom I have quoted, it is best presented as part of a total package of primary health care.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, like other noble Lords in this debate, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has raised some very important issues in the question that she has asked. These are issues which are all too often swept under the carpet because on the whole politicians are unwilling to face up to the implications of unrestricted population growth in the third world. This is largely because the effect of such growth will not be felt for several years, and several years is a long time in politics. Also, there is a body of opinion in this country, perhaps represented by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who believe that in any case the third world should be left to their own devices and we should not interfere. On the other hand, I believe that we are a single world now—
Lord Bauer: My Lords—
Lord Vernon: My Lords, did the noble Lord want to interrupt?
Lord Bauer: No, my Lords.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I believe that we are a single world now, and we cannot escape our responsibility to help others less fortunate than ourselves, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, when they ask for it.
While I was very interested to listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, I found that I could agree with very little that he said.
Before I continue, perhaps I should declare an interest. I am the chairman of a UK charity called "Population Concern". Our aims are to raise funds for population and development programmes around the world, and also to raise awareness about the nature, size and complexity of world population, especially as it affects the social and economic development of mankind. We work in close co-operation with the IPPF, with the ODA and with the United Nations fund for population activity.
The high rate of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries is one of the more disturbing symptoms of our exploding population growth. To

771
give a single example, in Bangladesh, which is the most densely populated country in the world excluding island and city states, and where the present population of 104 million will double in 26 years, one in seven of the children will die in their first year. Eighty-one per cent. of women are illiterate. That refers back to what my noble friend Lord Rae had to say on the subject of literacy.
I sometimes wonder what people like the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would think if we were told that the United Kingdom population of 56 million was going to double within the next 26 years. Would we do anything about it? Of course we would.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, it is not a question of the population of the United Kingdom, or the population of Bangladesh. The question is what parents decide about the number of children they want to have. I tried to introduce my remarks by directly referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell said on this subject. It is not an abstract concept such as the United Kingdom or Bangladesh. It is the decision made by parents about the size of their families. This is what matters.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I understood that point perfectly when the noble Lord made it. However, I was talking about Bangladesh. If one allows every woman in Bangladesh to have as many children as she wants, the result is going to be absolute disaster. I quote Bangladesh as one of many similar examples because it is a country where Population Concern has helped to bring health and family planning services to 42,000 couples in the slum areas of Chittagong. We have done so partly as a result of the tireless efforts of the well known actress Susan Hampshire who has personally raised more than £30,000 for the project, but also because of the substantial grants which we have received from ODA. I should like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for this very welcome government assistance.
The health of mothers and their babies is only one aspect of the rapid rate of population growth which is taking place in the third world. It is a little difficult to grasp the scale of the crisis in human terms with which we shall be faced within the next three decades. There will be twice as many people on the face of the globe as we have today. The increase coming almost exclusively from the poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is not just a question of how they will be fed—they probably can be fed—but in what conditions they will live, and how, if at all, they will be employed. It is not the fact of population growth which is so disturbing, it is the speed with which it is happening. There is an important distinction here which is often overlooked.
Then there is the effect of people on the environment. The United Nations Environmental Programme Report of 1985 stated that population growth was outpacing the capacity of a number of developing countries to provide for their economic and social well-being. The pressures thus generated were depleting natural resources faster than they could be regenerated. Some of the more visible consequences
772
of this degradation are to be seen in the deforestation, desertification, soil erosion and slum proliferation which is already taking place.
On the subject of deforestation, I should like to read something to your Lordships. This quotation is from the World Bank report. It says that in Gambia and Tanzania the population growth has made wood so scarce that each household spends 250 to 300 worker days gathering the wood it needs, that is in addition to the commercial timber which is being felled.
In a speech to the United Nations special session on Africa on 28th May this year, the Foreign Secretary said that safeguarding the environment and facing the problem of population growth were two issues where the lead has to come from government. He also said that government would give any help that they could. I should like to ask the Minister, when she comes to reply, whether, in the light of those encouraging remarks from the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office will reconsider—and this question has already been asked by the noble Baroness—the proportion of overseas aid allocated to population and family planning. I am not asking for more funds for overseas aid as a whole; I am merely asking that there should be a redistribution of the existing funds.
In view of the present serious situation which the Foreign Secretary himself recognises, surely the existing tiny proportion of 1 per cent. could be substantially increased. If the ODA were able to make more funds available for these purposes, then organisations like that which I represent would be able to respond positively to some of the many requests which we now have to refuse.
These are complex issues and there is no simple solution. However, we know that appropriate and accessible family planning services reduce the toll of infant and maternal mortality and slow down the destructive rate of population growth. If no further action is taken or if it is taken too late, one of two things is likely to happen: either coercive measures of an unpleasant kind to restrict population growth will have to be undertaken by the governments of the countries concerned—rather like those measures which the Government of China have already introduced, which no one would like but which are very necessary in the circumstances in which they find themselves—or more likely, the job will be done for us by nature, and nature does not always act very kindly.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he consider the third possibility; namely, that people will modify their reproductive habits if numbers threaten their welfare?
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite catch the beginning of the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I am so sorry. Has the noble Lord considered the third possibility: that if the growth in numbers genuinely threatens people's welfare, they will modify their reproductive habits in the third world in exactly the same way as they have done in the West?
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I think that they may do so to some extent, but evidently the Chinese, who have great experience in this matter, did not think that it would be effective.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, first, I should like to join with others who have spoken in this debate in complimenting my noble friend Lady Lockwood not only on the nature and purpose of her Unstarred Question, and, indeed, on the speech with which she introduced it, but also on her perseverance in bringing this important matter to your Lordships' attention. Your Lordships will recall that she tried to do so last June when she first tabled this Question, but unfortunately at that time she was a casualty of a very congested timetable in your Lordships' House. It is still congested, but at least we seem to have come to discuss this Question at a more reasonable hour than was possible when my noble friend first raised the subject.
My noble friend and others—notably, my noble friend Lord Rea—have dealt in detail and specifically with the problems of maternal and infant mortality in developing countries, and there is little that I need add in a statistical or analytical sense on that aspect of the matter. I should like to make some more general comments which are prompted by the nature of my noble friend's Question.
My noble friend's Question was urgent last June; it is urgent now; and unfortunately it will continue to be urgent for the foreseeable future because the interrelated problem of ill-health, on the one hand, and rapidly increasing population, on the other, needs to be constantly brought to the attention of the public. I am glad that my noble friend is taking this opportunity to do so.
Sometimes when we face this and similar problems in the third world the problems are so immense that one wonders whether debates such as this do any more than add one tiny drop in an ocean of compassion. However, I am sure that this kind of debate produces results. My mind goes back 20 years to when I had the privilege, together with my right honourable friend Barbara Castle, of establishing the Ministry of Overseas Development. I recall that my right honourable friend was very keen and very forthright in identifying the population problem as one that needed firm action from the new ministry and vastly increased resources. I also remember that when she brought up the subject she encountered quite a bit of diffidence from the officials. It was considered to be a subject of some embarrassment at that time—perhaps one that ought not to be discussed in front of the children or even in front of bashful civil servants. However, she persisted and ever since then, under governments of both complexions, it is true to say that the ODM as it was then, and the ODA as it is now, has had a good record in matters of population control.
Today the whole question of family planning is much more openly and frankly discussed in government and other circles, and, indeed, in international circles. I recall that when I went to conferences in those days, especially those in Africa, I was advised to be very cautious when raising the
774
question of family planning in the hearing of representatives of African governments.
However, we have heard this evening that that picture has considerably changed. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and, I think, my noble friend Lady Lockwood, told us about various conferences which have come under the auspices of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Population and Development. In particular, there was a reference to the attendance of Mr. Morrison at an African conference in that series. He reported that the conference was attended by 40 African countries. The noble Viscount mentioned the figure of 31. I think that there were 31 countries with parliamentary governments and another nine which did not have parliamentary governments, so there were 40 African governments at that recent conference.
As I recall, he reported in a debate in another place that those African governments were now quite forthright in having a strong commitment on matters of population control. The opinions which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has brought forward from African spokesmen seem effectively to contradict the views which the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, said he picked up from contacts in Africa. Certainly there is a real change in the atmosphere in which these matters are discussed and dealt with.
I very much welcome the way in which in her Question my noble friend links concern for health and family planning with economic development. In that connection I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, took part in the debate this evening not only because of the effective speech to which we have just listened, but because he will recall that he and I were together a decade ago at a conference held at St. Ermin's Hotel which initiated this series of all-party parliamentary groups on population and development. I recall, as I am sure the noble Lord does, that at that conference and in Berlin a few days later we insisted that it was not enough just to direct our attention to family planning and population questions, but we should indicate the essential link between health, education and other development matters and the question of size of family and other family planning questions. That is why I was pleased to find in my noble friend's Question stress put upon the interaction between population programmes and development.
But I should like to point to a danger which can emerge from this stress on economic development. The danger was highlighted only a few minutes ago by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. The emphasis on the need for development is seized upon by opponents of programmes of population control who say that the special provision of contraceptives and family planning advice is not necessary. They say that we should simply concern ourselves with development, with uplifting the living standards of the people of the third world, and then the population problem will go away much as it did, so it is asserted, in the European and North American scenes. They point to Western economies where increasing standards of living have brought about smaller families and slower increases in population.

775
That thesis I believe to be entirely misguided. In the present world, in the present situation in the third world, it is the staggering pace of population increases and the way in which resources are being outstripped that is so devastating. We are faced with rapid increases in population in many third world countries which are far exceeding the resources available for feeding those populations.
For example, if we can, as I think we should, take the African scene as of crucial importance in these matters, the growth in Africa's food supply compares favourably with that in the world as a whole, but its increase in human numbers is far more rapid. Plagued as Africa is by the fastest population growth of any continent in history, as well as by widespread soil erosion and the spread of deserts, Africa's food production per person has fallen by 11 per cent. since 1970.
That is the sad illustration. But fortunately recent experience has shown that countries with broad-based but inexpensive health care systems, and well-designed family planning programmes that encourage small families, can bring fertility down even without a widespread economic gain similar to that in industrial societies. The outstanding example, which has been referred to by a number of speakers, is China. As part of the post-Mao reassessment Chinese leaders projected future population size based on the assumption that couples would have only two children. Even under that assumption, given the country's youthful age—and I have been to China a number of times recently and the youthfulness of their population strikes one—China would add another 300 million or 400 million people before growth of population ceased.
Therefore, the leaders in China, after relating these projections to the availability of economic resources, concluded that they had no choice but to go further than the two-child family. They went to the one-child family, and through that means over the last decade they have reduced the birthrate by 41 per cent. All that in one decade. But it shows that direct family planning programmes are necessary and that it is not sufficient to reply solely on the indirect effect of economic development.
This brings me to the point that it is necessary for us to do all that we can, as others have said, to back up the work of such organisations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund For Population Activities. I am sure that the Minister when she replies will be able to give us information of the good record of the Government in support of those two organisations. As I think my noble friend Lord Henderson, or another speaker, said that is particularly welcome in view of the contrary policy that was pursued by the United States in respect of financial support for those two organisations. We were glad that the British Government resisted the example and the advice of the United States in these matters, and I feel confident that having resisted that advice from the United States the Government will resist the advice coming from the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, in these matters.
776
I nevertheless point out—and here I echo my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton—that though we are glad about what has been done, the resources in relation to the size of the problem are inadequate. I hope that the Minister has been listening to the pleas from speakers in this debate that more should be done and more resources should be made available. In that connection I repeat what I think my noble friend Lady Lockwood said. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the ODA continues to implement, and indeed update, the undertakings given some years ago now that all its development projects would be vetted to ensure that, wherever possible, population control methods should be linked with development projects in an integrated way.
The great value, as I see it, of the wording in my noble friend's Question is to put stress on that point. The provision of family planning advice and the physical resources for contraception need to be seen not as projects in isolation. They need to be integrated with other programmes, particularly in relation, as the Question suggests, to health and the care of mothers and children.
On that note, perhaps I may quote again from the publication that my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton quoted from, although from a different edition, because I came across a pertinent illustration of this at the grass roots. It was a question being asked of a Chinese family planning worker. She was asked what changes she had seen recently. She replied:
"Because maternal and child health care and family planning came to be carried on side by side, the attitude of the residents towards us softened and today they greet us with a smile".
That I believe to be the most important aspect—that integrated projects have a much better reception from those to whom the message is directed. I hope that the Government agree with this, as I feel sure they do, and that they will do all that they can to ensure that that is the way our population programmes are implemented.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for raising this important issue this evening. The link between health and family planning is an important one. Family planning raises fundamental questions about family life. Large families are customary throughout the developing world, especially in rural areas where a person's status is often measured by the size of his family. In Africa, the population is rising particularly fast. The tragedy of Africa's immense human and economic problems has undoubtedly made population growth an important part of the development agenda. In the past decade governments have increased support for family planning programmes, particularly in Africa. Zimbabwe, Kenya and Botswana have already put programmes in place to provide family planning services to all couples and individuals. Other governments are following, often with help from aid donors such as ourselves.
We certainly recognise that family planning is of particular significance as a preventive health measure. High levels of infant mortality are a major factor in the desire of many people in developing countries to have large families. Each year more than 15 million

777
children die for simple and often preventable causes such as poor nutrition, pneumonia of measles. Children born into large, closely-spaced families are at particular risk. Yet parents will not want smaller families until they are confident that their children will survive. Maternal mortality is also influenced by the number of children a woman has had. Family planning is therefore acknowledged as being a major force for improving child survival and maternal health. The Hague Conference, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood and by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, highlighted these issues. I have read the report with great interest.
The Overseas Development Administration is taking positive measures in this area. Bilateral and multilateral contributions in the health, population and nutrition fields, have risen from £20 million in 1981 to over £30 million in 1985. ODA officials make special efforts to ensure that all new aid projects take into account population implications wherever possible and appropriate. I hope that that answers the first of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and confirms the point that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made in his winding-up speech. Clearly there are some areas such as engineering or transport projects that do not by their nature accommodate population components, but I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that social and environmental factors are taken into account in bilateral aid projects. The noble Baroness went on to ask me whether expert advice that is given is enough.
Professional advice on health and population is vital and the ODA use both in-house specialists and outside sources for advice and expertise. However, it must be remembered that such programmes can only be implemented with the co-operation of third world governments backed by their own health professionals. Moreover, basic decisions on the focus of programmes must be left to the recipient governments. I was also asked a number of questions about resources. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked me about multilateral population activities, in particular, the support for the IPPF and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the United States Government decision to withdraw support to the IPPF and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities reflects a domestic decision to withdraw from all programmes in which abortion or abortion-related activities take place. Our understanding is that the decision does not reflect an assessment of the ethics or value of the work of either organisation. The ODA intends to continue its support for both programmes. Indeed, we have substantially increased our contributions to both organisations in recent years, and we shall take account of this loss of income in planning our contributions for 1987.
I should also comment at the same time on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, about staff and say that ODA has an agreed complement of a chief medical and health services adviser, two medical advisers, two nursing advisers, two population advisers and a part-time nutrition adviser, all at headquarters in London. There are a number of
778
vacancies at present although all except the senior posts are being filled on a temporary and, in some cases, a part-time basis. We are currently recruiting new nursing and medical advisers and we hope that the posts will be filled early this next year.
On this point on resources, finally, may I comment on the point raised by both the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, on the percentage of aid spent on family planning. In recent years, spending on population activities; that is, family planning, maternal and child health, has represented about 1 per cent. of gross total public expenditure on aid and we are hoping to increase this figure.
Our bilateral health assistance programmes attach particular importance to maternal and child health. For example, in Kenya, a country which is estimated to have the world's fastest-growing population, we are working with other donors on a project which integrates rural health and family planning. This is designed to create an interest in family planning services as well as improving the availability and quality of services offered at rural health and family planning clinics. In India, we are helping to improve the health of members in a dairy co-operative in Gujarat through mobile teams and by training a woman from each village to provide basic health care to mothers and children. We have developed health and population activities as part of other projects such as slum improvements, sewage disposal and water supply. We are currently evaluating the health impact of these improvements and working with local authorities to provide basic health services including mother-and-child health and family planning. These programmes will become more important as people in the developing world drift from the villages to the cities.
We are financing a number of multilateral programmes in both the health and population sectors. Much of this assistance is channelled through multilateral organisations to which I have referred, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. These contributions have more than doubled from £5·5 million in 1980 to just over £12 million in 1986.
In addition, about 40 per cent. of our total aid programme is channelled through the major multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, the European Community and the United Nations. All these organisations fund health and population projects. Under the European Community, health and population programmes are at an early stage of development and my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Developments intends to take this forward when he chairs a meeting of the Development Council next month.
The ODA also tries to improve financial and management practices by placing emphasis on increasing the effectiveness of health services in poor countries. This depends on two main factors. First, an ability to make widespread services affordable; and, second, to provide enough trained staff to run them. In response to shortages of health service staff, we finance a programme designed to strengthen health services, policies and strategies in poor countries. This is

779
complemented by a British training programme under which trainees can undertake courses either in this country or elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, referred to non-governmental organisations and I was grateful for the acknowledgement that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, paid to ODA help over the project in Bangladesh. But we value the role of NGOs in improving the wellbeing of mothers and children and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own health. We provide a considerable level of support for these organisations; £7.7 million will be given this year, which will help to fund the over-1,000 volunteers working in developing countries. Assistance to the poorer sections of the community is very effectively achieved through the joint funding scheme under which the ODA provides matching contributions to projects run by 24 charitable agencies. This scheme involves £5.5 million this year, the bulk of which is dispersed through Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund, CAFOD and Christian Aid. Current projects include a corrective surgery and rehabilitation and vocational training for handicapped children in India by the Save the Children fund, a rural health population project in Nigeria by CAFOD and a project devoted to the training and education of women in Tanzania by Oxfam.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, perhaps I may say that the ODA would certainly be prepared to consider requests from Population Concern for new activities. We are in a position to influence our multilateral expenditure, which takes the form of voluntary contributions to various multilaterial health and population programmes. Our record is good in this area. In 1985, we increased our contributions to multilateral population organisations by almost 50 per cent. over the 1984 levels, and in 1986 by a further 10 per cent. Spending on the bilateral programme is variable because the pattern of ODA's aid is broadly shaped by the demands from aid recipients.
We recognise that programmes under all these schemes must be implemented with care. Here I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, that individuals, couples and communities must not feel coerced. The links between child spacing, child survival and maternal health are now relatively well known in the third world. We must therefore educate people about maternal and child health and family planning and we must reassure them about its relevance to their lives and the lives of their families. In this respect, it is also important to remember the broad aims of our overseas aid programme. We want to help relieve poverty, raise living standards, improve the status of women and raise the standard and number of effective managers.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Henderson, to whom I listened with great interest, that yes, we agree with the points that he read out. I hope he will accept, from the figures that I have given and the points we have made, that we agree with the general thread of his argument on the correlation between family planning and maternity and child health.
780
Achieving the objectives which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, outlined in her remarks and the objectives of our overseas aid programme will of course have a significant impact not only on the health of individuals but also on families and communities and will also lead to smaller, well-spaced families.

Great Yarmouth Outer Harbour Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.

  BBC CHAIRMAN: APPOINTMENT CONSULTATION
  BBC CHAIRMAN: APPOINTMENT CONSULTATION
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH PAPERS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH PAPERS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: REPORTS OF USE
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: REPORTS OF USE
  CANADIAN ARCHIPELAGO: SOVEREIGNTY
  CANADIAN ARCHIPELAGO: SOVEREIGNTY
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: FELLING APPLICATIONS
  FORESTRY COMMISSION: FELLING APPLICATIONS
  ECC: OFFICIALS
  ECC: OFFICIALS