House Of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 1977
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Death Of A Member
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Peter Kirk, Member for Saffron Walden, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers To Questions
Education And Science
School Discipline
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with standards of discipline in primary and secondary schools.
I doubt whether any Minister has ever been wholly satisfied about this. I do not underrate the serious difficulties which can be caused in particular schools by a tiny minority, but we do not believe that these problems are widespread. Teachers accept their professional responsibility to maintain order and discipline, and we have held discussions with them and the local education authorities about what can be done to help.
Does the hon. Lady appreciate that most teachers find it more difficult to keep order now than they have ever done, and that in some schools the classroom more nearly resembles a battlefield? What practical steps does her Department intend to take?
I am not sure that I accept that most teachers are finding it more difficult than ever to keep order. I accept that some are. As to practical steps that my Department intends to take, I think, as the hon. Lady must appreciate, the fact that these difficulties, such as they are, arise in the classroom means that they can be solved only in the classroom. Whether that is done initially in the classroom or by the use of special units, or something of that kind, what we are trying to do is to find out which practices local authorities and schools are using that are most helpful and to make sure that knowledge of them is more widespread.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that Sladebrook School, which received a large national Press coverage, is in my constituency of Brent, South? Is she also aware that it is consistent with the traditions of this House that if another Member, in this case the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), steps into a neighbouring constituency he extends the courtesy of informing the sitting Member before he makes national Press statements?
Further, is my hon. Friend aware that this school is in a typical inner city area, suffering from not only education but housing, employment and many other problems? To isolate education by sensational publicity of this kind does a great disservice to many devoted teachers, to a headmaster who was appointed only three years ago, and to many parents who are trying to make Sladebrook a school of which to be proud.I accept that my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is frequently not helpful to parents, teachers or children facing enormous problems of this kind if people seek not to help but merely to use them for their own advantage. Much of what has been said about Sladebrook is both inaccurate and singularly unhelpful.
Is the Minister aware that I did not make any statement on Sladebrook, despite a dossier being in my hand showing that 40 of the 52 children in the second year there did not know how many days there were in the year, and that only one of the 52 children knew how many yards there were in a mile? I did not make any statement until the director of education in Brent herself agreed that seven out of the nine attacks on teachers in the last three months, two of whom required medical attention, were known to the authority.
The chairman of that governing body said that when things went wrong in that school they could be "b … awful". Only at that point did I appeal for a public inquiry, because I believe that if half the things said in that dossier—of which I should gladly send copies to the Secretary of State—are true it is a disgrace for any children to have to go there and for any teachers to have to teach there, at the moment.I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would send copies of this anonymous document to the Department. I am aware that there is a strong possibility that less than half of the docu- ment is true. As to the hon. Gentleman's name being associated with it, if it was without his knowledge, I am sorry, but this is a matter for the Press.
Industry And Higher Education
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations she has had on strengthening the links between industry and higher and further education.
I raise this important subject whenever the opportunity occurs in my frequent meetings with representatives of industry and the education service.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a very serious problem here? The situation seems to be that the great mass of students seem still to be attracted to courses that have little or no meaning outside the academic walls. Will she accept, with me, that something must be done at school level to improve the present links between schools and industries, and perhaps make more teachers conscious of the nature of industry itself
Yes, Sir. We are already taking a number of actions in this field. I remind my hon. Friend, first, that we have increased the amount that students can receive in the form of sponsorship by industry without their losing mandatory grant. Second, we are discussing the possibility of an industrial scholarship scheme. Third, we are vigorously pursuing the possibility of local links between schools and firms, and, fourth, we are considering the possibility of more work experience for teachers in the course of their training and induction work.
Would the right hon. Lady care to make a statement about the progress that has been made in the company teaching experiment as a means of improving the relationship between people involved with students in higher education and in industry? Will she, in particular, give consideration to extending this experiment by increasing the number of companies involved, since the present very limited amount will, I believe, have hardly any impact in improving the relationship between such students and industry?
Yes, Sir. I understand that already there are five pilot schemes which link universities with associated firms, and very shortly another three universities will be announcing their own proposals. This is not a slow development; it is in fact rather rapid, since the whole matter started only a few months ago.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important ways by which her Department can help industry is to help train business men in languages that they need in selling our exports abroad? Is it not rather regrettable that her Department seems to have no information on the number of courses available to business men who might wish to acquire a foreign language? Will she investigate this matter with a view to encouraging the training of business men and also obtaining some information on what is already being done?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It raises some difficulties, because most of these courses are what are called full-cost courses, which are not run by the Department of Education and Science. I assure him that one of the matters that we are discussing very urgently with the Business Education Council and the Technician Education Council is the possibility of combining foreign languages with studies of engineering and technology, so that the new generation of business men may be better equipped than the present one.
What encouragement is being given to get graduates to go out into the world for, say, three years before going on to post-graduate courses?
One of the matters that is presently being vigorously pursued by the University Grants Committee is a project for four-year undergraduate degree courses combining an area of practical work in industry with academic studies. I understand that there will be further announcements about this shortly.
Student Grants
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on increases in student grants in relation to the effects of the introduction of the child benefit scheme.
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on student grants, in view of the reduction in child tax allowances in 1977–78.
The parental contribution scale announced by my right hon. Friend on 28th March, which will apply from next September, incorporates an adjustment to compensate parents of students for the loss of child tax allowance. In addition, there will be a minimum grant of £80 towards maintenance.
That statement on 28th March and the one by the Chief Secretary on the following day were very welcome, at least in the sense that they were better late than never, but does the Minister not agree that the whole affair has shown up even more clearly the grave injustices of the parental contribution system? Will he take another look at the matter before further stages of the transition to child benefit?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the making of the statements. We are looking at the whole question of parental contributions, but I remind the House that it would cost £120 million to abolish the contribution system at present, and £55 million even taking into account the full extent of the loss of the child tax allowance. Surely, at a time when they are asking for greater restraint in public expenditure, the Opposition are not encouraging me to do that.
Is the Minister aware of the grave difficulties faced by students receiving discretionary grants? What assistance is he prepared to give to such students who live in their family home and do not receive a proper parental contribution, though they receive something in kind? Many of these students are now in grave danger of not finishing their courses.
The discretionary award system, as the name implies, is a discretionary system dependent upon the local authorities, though I very much hope that local authorities will make adjustments to their parental contribution scales similar to those for mandatory awards. With regard to the individual amount that is given by local authorities and the extent of discretionary awards—this arises on another Question—I can tell the hon. Lady that we will be monitoring the position.
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has recently raised with representatives of local education authorities the subject of discretionary awards for students; and whether she will make a statement.
My officials met officers of the local authority associations on 23rd March. The first step is to establish to what extent, if any, local education authorities are cutting back on discretionary awards, and arrangements are being made to monitor the position.
Does my hon. Friend accept that monitoring is one thing and effective action is something entirely different? Is it not necessary to look closely at the question of the range of discretionary awards, bearing in mind the Government's declared priority of advancing the education opportunities of those in the 16 to 19 age group in particular?
I think that my hon. Friend would agree that before one takes action one should know what the position is. That is why we shall be monitoring the position first. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the provision of education for the 16 to 19-year-old group, but I think it would be wrong to speculate what local authorities are doing until we know the exact position.
Does my hon. Friend accept that the discretionary grant system is a complete jungle? Does he also accept that the people who suffer most under discretionary grants are the children of poor parents, the disabled, and mature students seeking to obtain retraining? Would it not be better if he gave top priority to obtaining social justice for these deprived classes by reviewing discretionary grants?
I think that we should monitor the position before any action is taken. In the recent announcement on student grants, we have included a relaxation of the rules relating to previous study or late application, the introduction of age-related dependants' allowances, and improvements in mature student grants. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at the discretionary award system. That is what we are doing, but we want the information first.
Languages
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with present levels of attainment in modern languages in local authority schools.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate's recent discussion paper, based on a survey of 83 comprehensive schools, indicates some weaknesses in the teaching of modern languages. I hope that its findings and recommendations will encourage local education authorities and others concerned with language teaching to consider how improvements may be effected within the resources currently available.
For a country as dependent on world-wide trade as we are, is not Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report that only one comprehensive pupil out of 10 obtains an O-level pass in any foreign language thoroughly alarming? Is it not a direct consequence of the political imposition of comprehensive education on local authority schools?
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No, it certainly is not". I agree with him that it is a great pity that far more children do not attain adequate standards in a modern language, but perhaps he is not aware that under the previous selective system no pupil in most secondary modem schools had any opportunity to study a modern language, let alone get a qualification in it.
As the younger one starts learning foreign languages the easier it is to get as much comprehension of them as possible, what prospects does my hon. Friend see of pushing the starting of learning languages back into primary schools more generally?
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, this was tried on a limited basis a few years ago and there was a considerable amount of dispute about the results of the experiment and the value of it. However, what we intend should follow from the Inspectorate's survey is a thorough study of what is happening in modern languages and a consideration of how modern language courses can better be planned, which will take into account the full range of schooling.
Is the Minister aware that many language teachers think that one of the reasons for the mediocrity of teaching that was brought out in that report from the Inspectorate is that English grammar is no longer taught in certain schools? Consequently, foreign language teachers spend much of their time teaching grammar from the beginning before they can go on to a foreign language. That does not enhance the enjoyment of that language, and it cuts into the time available for teaching it. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would help the teaching of foreign languages if all our schools returned primarily and secondarily to the teaching of at least the basic standards of grammar?
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations. It may be that an inadequate understanding of grammar in all languages is a factor, but there are many factors that affect this problem, such as the lack of enough teachers of languages. Certainly the Inspectorate's report highlighted the lack of proper planning in language studies. It is difficult to single out one factor rather than another.
Regional Conferences
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals she has for improving the standard of secondary education, in the light of her recent conferences.
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the results of the regional conferences; and if she will make a statement.
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement in the light of the series of regional educational conferences.
20.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is to be the next stage of the great debate on education.
The regional conferences stimulated a great deal of interesting and thoughtful comment. I am now discussing the questions that emerged from them with those organisations whom I met last November and December. Following this, the Government's proposals will be set out in a Green Paper, which will be published during the summer.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, welcome as her conferences are, it is essential that parents, who are most intimately concerned, should have more say at those conferences? Will the right hon. Lady take steps to ensure that parents' views are expressed to her even more vigorously? Furthermore, does it not show that one of the most crucial aspects is that where there is an area in which parents in general are satisfied that a school is a good one, it should not be destroyed merely for the sake of experiment?
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that this was the first attempt ever made by the Department of Education and Science to involve parents. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that where there are effectively no organisations representing more than a small minority of parents it is difficult to set up a structure for the representation of parents.
The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that we take into account very carefully the objections of any group of parents to a Section 13 notice. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there may be differences in parental opinion in a certain area, especially, for example, about comprehensive reorganisation.rose—
I shall follow the usual custom, when several Questions are answered together, of calling first those whose Questions are being answered. Mr. Tom Arnold.
What steps has the Secretary of State managed to take to allay fears that these conferences were largely cosmetic?
I can only say that, regrettably, although we issued an invitation to the Conservative Parliamentary Party we did not have any of its representatives present at the conferences.
That is not true.
Yes, we did. We invited the Chairman of the Parliamentary Education Committee to nominate those who wanted to represent him at the conferences, and nobody came. I know that this was put in hand, so we can dispute it later. I will give the hon. Gentleman a chance to dispute this, but I am saying in all good faith that such an invitation was issued and I am sorry if, perhaps, it went to the wrong quarter. I made it quite clear that the invitation was to the Chairman of the Education Committee of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, not the Shadow spokesman.
I simply say to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) that 1,471 people were present at the conferences. It is vital to point out that invitations were issued, not to those nominated by the DES, with the exception of a small handful of experts, but to those nominated by all the organisations that approached us, including parent organisations, the CBI and the TUC. Therefore, if the conferences were cosmetic it was the decision of the many organisations that we approached to make them so. I do not believe for one moment that the criticism is justified.Does the right hon. Lady agree that part of her consideration arising out of the regional conferences ought to be whether it is right that the Department of Education should have quite a different rôle from that which it has had hitherto? It is adopting a fairly aggressive posture in putting forward policies of its own, which may be a good thing, but should not this be considered as an important factor in the way that we deal with the education in this country?
I think that the hon. gentleman has a fair point, but the whole purpose of having a Green Paper—which I very much hope there will be an opportunity to debate in the House before it moves forward to becoming definite regulations or, certainly, before there is any change in legislation—is to enable all parties including, primarily, the House, to give their opinions about what the proper rôle of the Department of Education and Science ought to be in future.
May I tell the right hon. Lady that I forgive her for her inaccuracy, because she has been misled by the erroneous statement made by the Under-Secretary during the last Question Time on education? Will she accept that I was pleased to receive from her an invitation to appoint representatives of the Conservative Party to attend the conferences, that I wrote to her and accepted that invitation, that I appointed representatives to attend every conference, and that all of them attended and made a contribution to the proceedings? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady withdraw what she has said?
In view of what the hon. Gentleman said, of course I will. However, having myself chaired two of the conferences, I can say that the Opposition were singularly both invisible and inaudible, because no Member of Parliament spoke at either of them.
May we have this point clear? The invitation was to representatives of the party, and we were represented by councillors, educationists and others who were specifically appointed as members of the Conservative Party. That was the invitation. It was not an invitation to appoint members of the Conservative Parliamentary Party.
In that case, let me say straight away that there has been a perfectly genuine misunderstanding between us. We had assumed that the invitation was to the Conservative Parliamentary Party since many councillors attended in their rôle of local authority representatives. I repeat my regret that there were no Members of Parliament present at the conferences.
Was it not one of the most encouraging features of the great debate that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were both invisible and inaudible?
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the good suggestions that emanated from the conferences was that centres of educational excellence should be established where intensive training could be given on Saturdays? If she believes that that is a good suggestion, will she do nothing to destroy the existing excellent centres of educational excellence in my constituency, which are known as grammar and high schools?
The hon. Gentleman is clever enough to know the distinction. The point that was made in the regional conferences about centres for additional tuition on Saturdays was, as I recall, directed particularly towards those who required remedial and additional teaching. As a Department, we have strongly supported the idea of additional periods in which schools might be open for community uses, for homework, and so on. With respect, that is a separate question from the question whether selective education is the best system. I do not believe that it is.
Sixth Form Centres
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance she has given to local authorities or what statements have been made by her Department on the establishment of sixth form centres as an alternative to schools for pupils aged 11 to 18 years.
I have issued no guidance on the establishment of sixth form centres. I have mentioned in several speeches the need to use our limited resources effectively for 16- to 18-year-old pupils, especially in the light of the future decline in the school population.
But is it not a fact that when local education authorities had a choice between creating sixth form centres and 11 to 18 all-through schools, the latter were set up with the express approval both of the Department and of the Minister's predecessors? Therefore, is not the review, coming out of the blue, typical of the worst aspects of the Department, which sometimes tends to be excessively mechanistic and bureaucratic, creating uncertainty where uncertainty in the education system should not exist?
No, Sir. I am grateful for the opportunity that my hon. Friend has given me to clear up what is obviously a misunderstanding. There has been a discussion between my Department and the local education authorities about the ideal size of a sixth form. That is in no sense a statement of policy. The statement of policy is the one that I made to the National Association of Schoolmasters and to other conferences in the past week, to the effect that as the size of the post-16 age group falls, as it will dramatically by the middle 1980s, thought should be given to what provision can be made to offer a reasonable range of courses, both academic and non-academic, to those studying in the sixth form. I put it to them that there are three possibilities: first, the linking together of existing all-through schools; second, the sixth form college, and third, the tertiary college concept. It is for local education authorities, in consultation with teachers, to decide what suits them best. A great many of the articles that have appeared in the newspapers, including the Evening Standard today, are based upon a totally misleading misconception.
Will the Minister make clear that in expressing enthusiasm and support for the sixth form college principle, which in appropriate cases I share, she is not inviting those local authorities which have only just completed major secondary reorganisation to embark upon a further reorganisation within five, eight or even 10 years?
Absolutely. The whole position is bound to be based upon the local pattern of the provision of education. All I am trying to say to education authorities is that if they decide that they do not wish to reorganise further—I quite appreciate why they may not want to—they should now start considering how provision can be made, between groups of schools, to offer minority subjects, which might otherwise disappear from the curriculum, to any child who wants to take them.
May we take it, then, that the Secretary of State is repudiating as false the reports that she is carrying on any sort of vendetta against the traditional sixth form, and that she is prepared to encourage a variety of sixth form provision in which sixth form colleges will have a place but in which the traditional sixth form will have an honoured and guaranteed place as well?
I think that that is broadly fair. The only point that I should make to the hon. Gentleman, which I think he will accept, is that where a school's sixth form is so small that it is unable to mount more than a narrow range of courses, both academic and nonacademic, that sixth form must link with other sixth forms in order to enable minority subjects to be offered. The House will be aware how great is our concern about such subjects as Italian, Russian and Spanish, which may well disappear unless arrangements can be made in local authority areas to enable all boys and girls who want to take those subjects to take them, although they may be offered by a single school.
Although I disagree in no way with my right hon. Friend, is it not possible that the dramatic fall in sixth form population that her Department expects may be much less than is feared, since there is at least a possibility that voluntary staying on at school after the age of 16 may grow remarkably during the 1980s?
I take on board my hon. Friend's point. We are projecting everything that we say on the assumption that about one-third of boys and girls will choose to stay on after 16, as against about one-quarter at present. But my hon. Friend will know that quite a number of youngsters decide to move to further education colleges because they want a more vocational type of training. In this situation, the House must consider how best we can offer a range of courses at sixth form level in all our schools.
Dale Abbey Primary School, Derbyshire
11.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has given any further advice to the Derbyshire Education Committee on the proposed closure of the Dale Abbey Primary School.
Not since my Department wrote to the authority on 30th March. The hon. Member will have received a copy of that letter.
Will the Minister explain why she approved the closure of Dale Abbey school without first ensuring that the closure would not take place midway through an academic year? Will she further explain why, when she discovered that the local authority intended to close the school with indecent haste this Easter, she did not use her powers to defer the closure?
When a local authority has been given permission to close a school, after careful consideration of all the factors involved, it is always for that authority to decide when the closure should be implemented. Derbyshire had indicated in its initial proposals that it was thinking of closing the school this Easter. It is a matter within the discretion of the authority. Once the decision to allow the authority to close the school has been made, the timing is up to the authority. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that we have power to order the authority to defer the closure once we have given permission for the school to be closed.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Schools (Derbyshire)
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps she is taking to assist in replacing nineteenth-century schools in Derbyshire.
My right hon. Friend is anxious to resume, and maintain, a programme for replacing old and unsatisfactory school buildings in Derbyshire, as elsewhere, as soon as the economic circumstances permit.
The Government seem to be finding plenty of money for other things. Should not the great education debate be not so much about the question of what the syllabus ought to be as about how much money we should put into education, into providing better education facilities and replacing some of the out-of-date schools, particularly in Derbyshire, where there are, I believe, more than 200 such schools? Will my hon. Friend follow the example of the Labour group in Derby—which will be fighting like hell to retain control of the county council during the next few weeks—by fighting the Tories on the question of education expenditure and not seeming to agree with them, as has been the case with this Government during the past two years?
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need an increase in education expenditure—there is nothing that Ministers in the Department would like to see more—but I differ from him in not thinking that this makes the great debate irrelevant. It seems to me that as part of arguing for more resources one also argues about where they are most needed.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem, at least in Derbyshire, is one not merely of replacing outdated nineteenth-century schools but of providing supplementary accommodation in some cases for nineteenth-century and twentieth-century schools? Will she ask the Derbyshire County Council to provide figures on the amount of overcrowding that now exists in schools, notably in my constituency, where there are primary schools for which supplementary accommodation really should be provided?
I shall write to my hon. Friend about this. As he knows, since resources are scarce they tend to be concentrated in areas where there is a need for roofs over heads. But, of course, Derbyshire, like other counties, has a problem of school provision, and it may be that that is why his constituency is not receiving the priority that he would like.
Industrial Needs
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals her Department is intending to put forward with a view to seeing that the education system takes full account of the needs of British industry.
My right hon. Friend intends to publish a consultative document containing her conclusions and proposals in the light of the regional conferences and other recent consultations about education in the schools. In the field of higher and further education she is in touch with local education authorities, the University Grants Committee, the Council for National Academic Awards and other bodies with a view to ensuring that young people are given the best possible preparation for industrial careers.
Notwithstanding the recent evidence of a partial swing back towards engineering and the applied sciences, at least at university level, is the Minister satisfied that his Department is doing everything necessary at all levels in the education system to ensure that industrialists and employers are getting the quality of young people that they are looking for?
Yes, Sir, we are doing everything possible.
Is the Minister satisfied that British industry is taking advantage of opportunities that exist already in the education system, particularly in the context of new industries and the need for research and development? Will he give particular attention to the possibility of experimentation and research and development in the offshore oil industry as it exists in Scotland leading to a situation in which the country could be a dollar earner when the offshore oil industry moves into mid-ocean?
I think that industry is increasingly aware of using the opportunities of the education system. I agree with the hon. Lady that there needs to be more liaison, both in England and in Scotland, between schools, universities and industry, for the very reason that she has given.
My hon. Friend mentioned further and higher education. Does he agree that one of the greatest needs is for basic manipulative skills in secondary schools? Will his document cover the shortages that exist among teachers in these sectors? Does he agree that it may be possible for some mature entry teachers to teach pupils skills, now in short supply, which are becoming of increasing importance?
My right hon. Friend announced recently the training and retraining provision, particularly for teachers of science, mathematics and crafts, where there is a shortage of teachers.
We are looking at the question of basic skills in schools from the point of view not only of higher and further education but of schools as well, trying to increase liaison between individual firms and individual schools. For example, the Schools Council, in co-operation with the TUC and the CBI, is mounting a project to provide material for schools and colleges dealing with the structure of industry and the complexities of industrial society.Comprehensive Reorganisation
16.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have now replied to her request under the Education Act 1976 for comprehensive reorganisation plans and which authorities have not.
My right hon. Friend wrote to eight local education authorities on 24th November 1976, a further 26 on 17th January 1977, and a further one—Walsall—on 14th April 1977, requiring them to submit, within six months, proposals for the completion of secondary reorganisation in their areas. No proposals have yet been received from any authority or from the governors of any voluntary school.
Has my hon. Friend received any approaches from any of the authorities involved about the availability of resources for reorganisation, and is she in a position to give the House an assurance that comprehensive reorganisation will not be further delayed in areas where it has been held back for long enough because of a lack of resources?
Some local authorities have commented on the difficulties that they expect to face. However, until we receive full proposals for reorganisation from any of these areas we are not prepared to make any decisions. We wish to see the proposals as a whole. The question of resources—as with other questions—will then be taken into account.
Does the Department have any recognised way of measuring the academic or educational change following reorganisation?
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by that question. If he is asking whether we monitor closely the progress of individual schools, the answer is "No", but local authorities may do so.
Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the consequences of the reorganisation proposals that she has called for is that some good schools have been threatened with closure, particularly in my area of the London Borough of Sutton? Is she satisfied that that should be a consequence of her policy?
No, we are not satisfied, and we have made efforts to see that a number of schools are kept open and that they offer their facilities to a wider range of children than has been able to experience them in the past. We greatly regret the loss of any good school, but some, unfortunately, have preferred to withdraw rather than become part of the State system.
Arts Council (Grants)
18.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what she estimates will be the actual average increase in grants that the Arts Council will be able to make to its subsidised activities during 1977–78 after taking into account the demands arising from the new enterprises that have recently been launched or are planned to come into operation, such as the National Theatre.
The council's grant for recurrent expenses has been increased from £36 million last year to £41·2 million for 1977–78—an increase of 14·4 per cent.
Far too much.
It is for the council to decide how this increase is distributed among its clients.
We all appreciate that there has been a considerable increase in the Treasury grant to the Arts Council, but is my right hon. Friend aware that a significant part of that goes to new enterprises, such as the National Theatre and the new Bromley theatre? That means that unless compensatory action is taken existing enterprises—musical and dramatic—will suffer a significant cut in their Arts Council subsidy this year and that quality will suffer accordingly. Is that my right hon. Friend's policy, or is she prepared to take action to prevent this serious cut in the artistic standards of the organisations that are helped by the Arts Council? [Interruption.]
I shall ignore the backwoods hoots from some of the Opposition Benches and say straight away that the increase in the grant for the Arts Council compares favourably with that for other aspects of education. However, I do not think that it would be right totally to exclude the arts from any of the constraints and severities of our present financial situation. We give the arts a certain preference, but I do not believe that they can be wholly exempted from as rigid a view of their priorities as the rest of education and science, nor do I think that that would be right.
If I may give a Front Bench hoot in general agreement with what the Secretary of State has said, does she agree also that it is as important for the Arts Council to have adequate notice of what it is to receive as of the amount that it is to receive? As, this year, the council received notice only a few days before the opening of the financial year, will the right hon. Lady set about remedying the situation so that in future the council receives six months' notice at least? Better still, why not go back to the old system of making triennial grants to the council?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, from the parallel of the universities, we are trying to move back to a longer-term approach to the financing of bodies such as the Arts Council, but there were particular difficulties this year. I also add, however, that some new ventures are supported from outside the Arts Council. The point raised by my right hon. Friend about the National Theatre is a good example. The National Theatre is supported, in capital terms, by a direct grant-in-aid from the South Bank Theatre Board and not by the Arts Council.
Nursery Schools
22.
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authority nursery schools provided as a result of the urban programme are to be closed as a result of the cuts in public expenditure.
Local education authorities are not obliged to inform my right hon. Friend of their intention to close maintained nursery schools. My Department knows of only one such closure, and the school concerned was not provided under the urban programme.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does she agree that schools and classes made available under the urban programme were provided because of a desperate need in areas of special provision? Will she say how she intends to ensure that the statement in the 1976 public expenditure White Paper, that areas of special need will continue to have provision, is carried out?
We are hoping that that statement will be carried through and that provision will be maintained. Whether it is done through the urban programme or in some other way is another matter. At the moment, I am not aware that nursery schools provided under the urban programme are under threat; nor, I hope, will they be.
Government-Liberal Party (Joint Consultations)
Q1.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with the Leader of the Liberal Party pursuant to the arrangements announced to the House on 23rd March.
Q5.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with the Leader of the Liberal Party since 23rd March.
Q6.
asked the Prime Minister when he last had a meeting with the Leader of the Liberal Party as a result of his announcement on 23rd March.
Q7.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with the Leader of the Liberal Party in accordance with the recently announced arrangements.
I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 5th April.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party has yet tumbled to the fact that since his party is keeping the Government in office it must share responsibility for the present alarming rate of price increases? Will he offer the Leader of the Liberal Party at least a crumb of comfort and say that he agrees with the forecast of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection that the rate of price increase on an annual basis will fall to 12 per cent. to 13 per cent. by Christmas?
I have not discussed this matter with the Leader of the Liberal Party and therefore I do not believe that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question arises.
Do not bother.
It would be unfair not to bother about it. As for retail prices, inflation is of course the major problem that this country has still to overcome. [Interruption.] I should be delighted to have some help from the Opposition. It is to this problem that the Government will continue to direct their attention.
What is quite clear is that in its discussions the Liberal Party is placing the national interest first. I hope that the Conservatives will do the same.As the purpose of the coalition is to keep the Government in office longer than the electors want and longer than the national interest can afford, why is the Prime Minister putting up Labour candidates against his Liberal partners in the local elections?
It would be a bad day for democracy if the advent of the Gallup Poll, or any other poll, meant that the Government, half way through their term of office, should yield office on the basis of temporary unpopularity. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not temporary."] It is temporary at the moment.
What is quite clear is that it would be unfair to expose the country to a General Election until the Opposition have made up their minds what their policies are in relation to incomes or, for example, the future of Leyland, on which there was some difference during the recess, or, indeed, until they have made up their minds as between China and Russia. It would not be fair to ask the country to decide on these issues until we know Conservative policy in some detail.Does my right hon Friend recall that in 1975—on 20th March, I believe—when we were on to free collective bargaining last time round, the Government introduced legislation that provided the Liberal Party, along with some other minority parties, a sum of £33,500 to oppose the Government? Now that the Liberal Party is rendering support one day and seemingly withdrawing it another, should it not go on half pay? Does the Prime Minister think that the taxpayers are getting value for their money?
Yes, Sir. Not only am I certain that the taxpayers are getting value for money; I think that the Liberal allocation should now be doubled. After all, the allocation was given to the Liberals not to oppose the Government but to assist them in their work. Their work has now improved, and the quality has now improved. However, if there is to be any easing in the pay policy, clearly differentials should apply there.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Liberal Party supports the efforts, difficult though they may be for the Government, to get wage inflation and price inflation under control? In any meetings with the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister receive similar support from that quarter?
I have grave doubts about that. If the right hon. Lady came on her own I might, but what I fear is that she might be flanked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) popping up between the two of them. It really is time the Opposition told us what their policy on future incomes is.
Japan
Q2.
asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Japan.
I have no immediate plans to pay an official visit to Japan. Meanwhile, I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Finance Minister of Japan at the Downing Street Summit on 7th May.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for him to visit the Far East to offset some of the damage done by the Leader of the Opposition, who spent her time in Japan running down the British worker and British industry and her time in China stimulating a third world war by furthering a Russian menace phobia?
If I went to Japan—I should be very happy to do so—I should have better things to discuss than the animadversions of the Leader of the Opposition on these matters. As for the representation of our interests, I was very glad to read the robust speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade yesterday, which I thought formed a very good coda to the previous visit.
As my right hon. Friend has just visited Japan in her capacity as Leader of the Opposition, should not the Prime Minister defer any visit he has in mind for a few months so that he can go in a similar capacity?
I am told that
I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is going to be feeling awfully queasy for a long time to come."Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Lady's time would have been better spent criticising Britain's investment strikers, who have so let this country down? For example, the Japanese car worker has about 12 times more power to his elbow than does his British equivalent. Is not this the major factor in Britain's low productivity record?
It is a partial factor that investment in this country has not been sufficiently high. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us why."] Not in the course of a supplementary answer; it is a matter for debate.
It is also the case that we have not made sufficient use of the investment we already have. It is no use trying to pin blame on one aspect of Britain's problem. It is a wide-ranging and deep-seated problem, which involves increased productivity, better use of our machinery, better and more activity by middle-management, and the removal of trade union restrictive practices. All of these come together. I do not accept that one can isolate one element and say that that is the only thing that one has to remedy, and then the whole situation will come right.Prime Minister (Engagements)
Q3.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 19th April 1977.
In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.
While on the way to Windsor will the Prime Minister stop off at Heathrow Airport and endeavour to do something to resolve the two-week dispute amongst British Airways engineering workers, which is costing the taxpayer millions of pounds and causing immense inconvenience to many air passengers?
That is one visit that I should certainly think was very relevant in some ways, but I fear that I shall not be making it. I think that it would be better left to the Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, who has called a meeting today of all the parties to the dispute. It would be better if I refrained from comment at this stage, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is costing British Airways, at a favourable time for the corporation, a substantial sum, which comes out of the taxpayer's pocket.
On his way to Windsor, could my right hon. Friend visit the headquarters of the Building Societies Association and ask it why, as the minimum lending rate has been reduced 12 times since its peak of 15 per cent., the rate for mortgages has been reduced by only 1 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend not think that the building societies could have reduced their lending rate by a greater percentage than they have?
It is true that the minimum lending rate has been substantially reduced and is now at 9 per cent.—a fall of 6 per cent. since last October, and 3½ per cent. lower than when the Opposition were last in office, which is a substantial reduction. As for future building society rates, I hope that the societies will continue to review their rates carefully, because they can both help to make a difference to the rate of inflation and ease the burden on the house owner. I trust that they will make a further reduction as soon as they can.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the credibility and seriousness of his intentions regarding devolution have been seriously undermined by the decision to discontinue some of the work on the Royal High School building in Edinburgh? Will the Prime Minister tell us when he has arranged to meet his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and other members of the Unionist wing in his party who are preventing devolution from coming into effect?
It is my view that the Government's credibility on devolution has been substantially improved as a result of our arrangements with the Liberal Party, and I hope that this will enable us to move ahead with some of this legislation in the not too distant future. Whether work on a particular building is continued is not germane to that.
Yes, it is.
No, because the Government intend to press ahead with the devolution proposals as soon as they can secure a majority for them, however changed or amended they may have to be.
European Parliament (Direct Elections)
Q4.
asked the Prime Minister if he will initiate discussions with the Prime Minister of Belgium, after the Belgian elections, about the progress of direct elections to the European Parliament.
I have at present no plans to do so.
Apart from having discussions with the Belgian Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government's intentions are regarding direct elections? Will he tell the House today, so that we may be fully informed before the debate, whether the Government propose to allow a separate debate at an early date on the system to be used for direct elections, so that the House may come to a clear decision about that before the Second Reading of the Bill, in order to avoid confusion for the House and to allow people to make a decision knowing which system of election is to be used?
I shall discuss this with my right hon. Friend. It is an interesting suggestion. It was not our intention to do that now. We assumed that tomorrow's White Paper debate and the one on Monday next would be sufficient for the purpose. However, my right hon. Friend has heard what has been said, and we can consider these matters. I do not rule it out.
Has my right hon. Friend seen yesterday's announcement by M. Marchais, the leader of the French Communists, that they were not now opposing the principle of direct elections? This means that only the most reactionary elements of the Gaullist Party are now opposed to the principle. Will he urge this unanimity upon our own party, in the hope that we shall not follow the Gaullist path?
I noticed that M. Marchais had, for electoral reasons, I understand, decided to support the idea of direct elections. Opposition to them in this country is not limited to our own party. I believe that some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches oppose them. Nevertheless, I say to hon. Members in our own party and in the Conservative Party that the country decided this issue in the referendum—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Those who shout "No" must look the facts in the face.
We say "No", because it is not true.
My hon. Friend does not make it not true by saying that it is not true. It is contained in the treaty. All this will be debated tomorrow. I know that we shall never shift my hon. Friend, but the Government's position on this is clear. When we acceded to the treaty, we said that we would introduce the Bill, and we shall do so. My hon. Friends will have to make up their minds about it. I shall use my best endeavours to get the Bill through.
rose—
Order. Mr. Secretary Owen—statement.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Prime Minister has referred to some of us directly, will you not allow further opportunity for comment on this important question?
Order. I understood that the Prime Minister was referring to a group, not to any individual.
Rhodesia
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on my recent visit to eight countries in Africa. My main purpose was to see whether it would be possible to resume progress towards a peaceful settlement of the Rhodesian problem. As the House knows, violence has been increasing and, while a long and bloody struggle might, in the end, produce an independent Zimbabwe, it will do so only at grave cost. Many lives will be lost, the economy will be destroyed, there will be severe damage to the stability of the neighbouring States and it will leave a legacy of lasting bitterness between the races. We are all well aware of the immense difficulties of resolving this problem.
I was encouraged to attempt a new approach by the support of the United States Government, with whom there has been the closest possible co-operation. It is our joint determination to work for reconciliation in Southern Africa, on the firm basis of majority rule, the fullest regard for human rights, and the ending of racial discrimination. The starting point for the present initiative goes back to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22nd March 1976 and to the crucial achievement of Dr. Kissinger when Mr. Smith spoke of majority rule within two years. It is true that Mr. Smith's speech mentioned other conditions which were not subsequently realised, but I believed that his statements then and since suggested that he might be persuaded to accept the objective of majority rule in 1978. The Geneva negotiations stalled, not over majority rule, though there were doubts as to the extent to which this had been agreed by the Rhodesian Front, but on the powers and composition of the interim Government who were to draw up the independence constitution. In March, on my visit to Washington with the Prime Minister, I suggested to the United States Administration that we should work jointly on a strategy to promote a peaceful transition to majority rule and this they readily agreed to do. On my visit to Africa I was able to discuss the possibility of the United Kingdom and the United States co-sponsoring a conference to develop a clear timetable for achieving majority rule in 1978. Such a conference would draw up a constitution protecting basic human rights and define an acceptable democratic process for an automatic transfer to an independent nation. It would also discuss the rôle of an international development fund to help promote the economic stability of an independent Zimbabwe and encourage the minority white population to stay and contribute to the country's future. The constitution would aim to be broadly acceptable to 6 million people, black and white, who would actually live under its provisions but, as chairman of the conference, I should retain the final responsibility for bringing any constitutional Bill to this House for its approval. The British Government's proposals of January for an interim Government remain open for discussion. It may be that there is more likely to be agreement to a caretaker Government, who would be responsible for the conduct of elections prior to the granting of independence. If Mr. Smith's Administration did not accept the constitution and the arrangements leading up to it, no immediate progress would be possible, sanctions would continue and so would the war, but I suspect at an increased tempo. If there were agreement, Mr. Smith's Administration would resign, the caretaker Government would supervise the elections and anyone participating in the election would have to forsake violence; sanctions should also be lifted. I am convinced that many of the Africans who currently believe that the armed struggle is the only way forward are essentially men of peace. It is not difficult to understand the motives of those who feel that they have no recourse but to arms. Much as we all wish violence to stop, we cannot immediately expect it to stop while the wall of scepticism and disbelief, which I met all over Africa, remains about the intentions of the Smith Administration. Until those who currently carry arms are convinced that they will have majority rule, I regret that it looks inevitable that violence will continue. The reactions to this strategy have been sufficiently encouraging for me to feel it right, in close consultation and co-operation with the United States Government, to continue discussions with the various parties. I hope to be in a position soon to inform the House whether we and the Americans feel that it would be worthwhile to co-sponsor a conference. My visit to Africa lasted only eight days. But I am convinced, even more than before I left, of the urgent need to end the war in Rhodesia. Genuine concern about the dangers of the continued confrontation was clearly expressed to me by the five front-line Presidents, by Mr. Vorster and by the Rhodesian leaders, black and white. I found a widespread belief in the necessity for a nonracial majority Government. There is, however, a desperate lack of trust which must now be rebuilt.In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I first offer him my sincere congratulations on the success of his exacting and rigorous mission? We on this side of the House greatly welcome the whole visit, particularly to Rhodesia, which we thought was essential. We welcome his continued adherence to the breakthrough achieved by Dr. Kissinger. We particularly welcome his own personal involvement, both now and in the conference which he seeks to call. All these are matters which we on this side have long advocated, and we are indeed glad to see them fulfilled.
The change in the attitude of mind of the United States in so firmly offering its co-operation to the Secretary of State and to the Government is very welcome. It is one which has moved from simply backing whatever judgment might exist on the Government side to active participation. That, too, is greatly to be welcomed. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the conference has our good will in principle, but we shall need to know much more about its terms before we can reach a real judgment on its purpose. Meanwhile, may I put three questions to the Secretary of State? First, is he not concerned that the continued deferment of any reference to a consultation of the people of Rhodesia as a whole is bound to lead to doubts about whether we still adhere to the fifth principle, to which we were all earlier parties? Secondly, does he not think that the time has come for the installation of a permanent mission in Salisbury in order that the Government, and perhaps the whole people, should be better informed on a day-to-day basis of the developments in that country and able to reach a more sound judgment as to its future? Thirdly, will the Secretary of State clarify his position on the continuation of the guerrilla warfare? In an emergency debate we had some time ago on the subject of the disappearance of some children into Botswana, I referred to the undertakings we gave under the United Nations Charter. The condonation of violence in the settlement of international disputes is a matter from which we have deliberately debarred ourselves and any participation we might have. It is desirable that the Secretary of State should make further reference to this matter in order that there should be no doubt that we still adhere to the firmness of those principles.I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I note and appreciate his welcome to the United States involvement and active participation. When and if the decision is taken to convene a conference, I shall, of course, explain all its aspects to the House.
I come to the three questions I was asked. On the question of consulting the people of Rhodesia as a whole, an integral part of the whole strategy is that there should effectively be a General Election. The question of the franchise is one which, clearly, will be dealt with in the constitution, but I believe that it ought to be the broadest possible franchise. As to the question of a permanent mission, the House will know from answers to questions on this subject some weeks ago that I said that I was completely open-minded. It very much depends on whether one decides to go ahead with the conference. Certainly, if there were a conference, there would need to be intensive consultation prior to the opening of any formal conference. Much of that consultation would necessarily have to take place in Rhodesia. As to the guerrilla warfare, the House should be under no illusion. I never spoke to anyone who advocated armed force without making it quite clear—I thought I spoke for the whole House—that we condemned guerrilla violence. We believe that there could be a peaceful transition, but that does not exclude one from understanding why people not offered any political dialogue or any hope of a peaceful transition have taken to violence. The determination of people to use violence is, I fear, very strong when they are faced with what they see as the failure of the West to deliver majority rule in Rhodesia over the past 13 years.Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he is wholly right to be extremely cautious in view of past experience and present bitterness in Africa? I congratulate him on the way in which he has appeared to be changing the climate of opinion in all quarters in a constructive direction. He has certainly achieved far more than his sceptics in this country thought possible when he set out.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept that the co-sponsorship of the United States is regarded by many of us as of extreme importance? Can he confirm that what is at stake is that the only hope for a peaceful settlement is if Mr. Smith genuinely accepts both the principle and the time factor involved in majority rule? Finally, did he have any talks about the whereabouts of Mr. Edson Sithole, who disappeared long before Geneva?I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I can only reiterate that I am under no illusions about the difficulties and can offer no guarantee of success. The prospects, however, of not even attempting to achieve a peaceful transition are, in my view, extremely dire.
The co-sponsorship of the United States is a crucial element, and there is no question of doubt about that. As to Mr. Smith's intentions, this is the key to the whole issue. I have made it clear that in conducting any negotiations I am forced to conclude that he believes what he says and that he means what he says. But I have explained to Mr. Smith that there is considerable doubt about his intentions and that it would greatly ease the anxieties and the doubts, and might help to reduce the present level of violence, if his Administration in the next few months—when negotiations might possibly be started—would start to remove some of the racial discrimination legislation that is on the statute book in the illegal Government and many of the practices which have taken place over the last few years which are found to be abhorrent by many people on both sides of the House.Although there are continuing doubts about whether the Rhodesia Front and Mr. Smith can be trusted, would my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the success of his mission and, in particular, on the fact that it is his aim to bring about majority rule in Rhodesia next year? With this end in view, would he make yet a further appeal to my old friends, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, to give the maximum help to make this possible, thereby avoiding unnecessary bloodshed and suffering to all Rhodesians?
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose experience in this matter the whole House knows. I think that his scepticism is shared by many Members. But as to the question of the Patriotic Front and the two nationalist leaders, I attach immense importance to their full co-operation, were we to call a conference. This was one of the reasons that I not only saw them early on in my own mission but went to see all the five front-line Presidents, including a visit to President Machel in Mozambique and President Neto in Angola. I believe that we have shown that what we are interested in is a peaceful settlement in Africa, and I hope that we have removed some of their anxieties that we were in any way trying to introduce Western or super-power politics into what is essentially a freedom struggle for black national opinion.
Is it too late for the Foreign Secretary to avoid involving the United Kingdom in a rôle which implies power, influence, and, consequently, the responsibility in Southern Africa which we do not possess and of which the result could be only humiliation for this country and even further bloodshed and confusion for others?
The right hon. Gentleman's consistency on many issues is well known to the House and he has consistently taken this view. I must tell him, however, that I think there is a greater humiliation: it is when a proud country with a great record of colonial rule, faced with the choice of trying to achieve a peaceful transition, at considerable risk, ducks out of it and allows violence to triumph, and also to see the possible destruction of democracy going far wider than the boundaries of Rhodesia. There are major issues involved. Great struggles are taking place in Africa. If we believe in democracy, we should be prepared to fight for democracy.
Will my right hon. Friend say how far the Anglo-American plan for progress back to constitutional rule in Rhodesia has the assent and support of the five front-line Presidents?
Although the front-line Presidents made it utterly clear that they would continue to support the armed struggle until they were convinced that majority rule was a reality, they supported this strategy as giving some hope of a peaceful transition, but they raised many objections on the problems that we would encounter. They showed considerable scepticism about the intentions of the Rhodesian Front and Mr. Smith.
But, on the issue of representation where there was a difference with the Patriotic Front, claiming that they were the only people who should be consulted, they understood that a constitutional Bill that would come before this House could not possibly pass if we had restricted the consultation to only one sector of black nationalist opinion. They were quite agreeable to our consulting as well not only Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Sithole, who were consulted along with the Patriotic Front in Geneva. I believe that we shall have to go wider in our consultations, even though not formally, perhaps, in a conference.If the opportunity for progress which exists is to be seized, is it not clear that the two essentials are that the nationalist leaders should be prepared to work together more closely than they have done in the past and that the white Rhodesians should have some assurance about their future in an independent Rhodesia? Since it is relevant to both points, can the Foreign Secretary say whether the offer of an aid and guarantee fund, which was put forward at the time of Dr. Kissinger's tour of Africa, is still valid?
I made it clear that an international development fund would be part of the agenda of any conference were one to be called. As the United States Government would be one of the major contributors to this fund, this explains in many ways why this is not just a constitutional conference. I think it would be appropriate to have wide consultations. In Rhodesia I saw black and white trade unionists, and representatives from public sector unions also had the right to be consulted about issues of this sort as well as the black nationalist leaders. It is essentially a fund about the economic stability of an independent Zimbabwe and to help that country in its early years of its independence, which is often the most fragile period of a country's history.
When my right hon. Friend met Mr. Ian Smith and indicated to him that he expected or hoped to see some indications from him in relation to good will, did he discuss with him the future of the political detainees in Zimbabwe and the rôle that they are expected to play in any negotiations that take place towards a transition?
I made it clear to Mr. Smith that, just as the racial discrimination legislation was offensive to people in the Western world generally, I also thought that he ought to look at the whole question of detention and that, particularly if the climate improved prior to an election period, it would be very helpful if normal political activity could take place again. I hoped that it was an indication of Mr. Smith's feelings on this that when, in Cape Town, before I went to Rhodesia, I made a specific request, but not a demand, to see some of Robert Mugabe's supporters and, in particular, the Reverend Banana, who was in detention, he agreed to allow out of detention two of these people, who came to see me and I had consultations with them and their other colleagues in Rhodesia. I look on this as a hopeful sign of Mr. Smith's intentions to live up to what he has been saying.
May I, too, welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's efforts have led to this new and more hopeful stage? As it is the desire of everyone in this House that there should be an ending as quickly as possible to violence and bloodshed, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any representations are being made to Moscow as one of the principal sources of the supply of arms to those who are waging terrorist campaigns?
I made it clear throughout Africa that I did not believe that the West resented the Soviet Union's presence in Africa. They have the right to be there, as we have the right to be there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. They have the right to help. I said it was wrong that their help was almost entirely confined to the supply of arms and not to development. It would be a great mistake for the House to think that Africa was something in which only the West could be involved. Many nationalist countries are genuinely non-aligned. They attach importance to this. It is important that, as my visit to Mozambique and Angola made clear, the West is not taking sides in individual nationalist aspirations.
What is wrong is that the Soviet Union's overall aid budget is extraordinarily low. Attention was drawn to this fact in the Rome European Council. Most of the Soviet Union's money is spent on supplying arms to guerrilla activities and on fomenting discontent against democracy.May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his arduous visit to Southern Africa? Would he reaffirm that the object of the exercise is to achieve majority rule on the basis of "one man, one vote" and that there will be no legislation passed through this House and that sanctions will not be lifted until such majority rule is guaranteed?
Could my right hon. Friend also say how quickly the inquiry into oil sanctions-busting will begin and when the results will be published?On the question of the constitution, one cannot rule out any aspect of the constitution, and the franchise is an important aspect. As I have already made clear, I consider that the franchise should be on the widest possible basis. In any constitution it would be wiser to consider safeguarding the fears of minority groups by other mechanisms than by restricting the franchise. I made it clear to Mr. Smith that the Western world will look at the question of majority rule as meaning what it says. It means a genuinely elected black majority Government—as it undoubtedly will be. I hope that, as many other African countries have done, they will have enough sense to incorporate whites within the Government and that some whites will hold governmental posts. The franchise, however, should be on the widest possible basis. Clearly, that is one of the subjects which would be discussed if a conference were called.
May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman particularly on having taken the trouble to visit Rhodesia? This gives many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches the greatest of pleasure.
I note from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has reserved the Government's position on an interim Government in Rhodesia. Could he tell the House now whether that is the route preferred, and, as a result of the forthcoming negotiations, what effect will this have on the timing? Will it still be possible, if there is an interim Government, to achieve majority rule by 1978? Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman follows that route, what arrangements will he be making to ensure that there is a reference to the people so that the Africans can decide which leaders are to play a part in that interim Government?The question of an interim Government requires possibly more trust at an earlier stage than the strategy which I have indicated. It may be that that trust will be established after early discussions on a constitution and it would be possible to go to an interim Government. That is why I have not excluded it. But the trouble was that a trust certainly did not exist in Geneva and it is my view that it will be difficult to establish that trust because the interim Government proposals were dependent on violence ceasing and sanctions being lifted and, in the view of many black nationalists, it did not give them the absolute guarantee of majority rule which they wished. But it is on the table and it certainly can be considered.
The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the black majority and the white minority. But would he not agree that, in emerging African countries, there have also been problems with other sorts of minorities? As, in particular, Presidents Kaunda and Nyerere have pointed out these facts, does my right hon. Friend expect that this aspect will be discussed in the consultations leading to a new constitution?
Yes. There is no doubt that we would have to look at all the minority groups. There is a significant coloured minority group which, at the moment, under the racial legislation, tends to be separately represented. Indeed, I saw a group of coloured representatives when I was in Salisbury.
Regarding a constitutional conference, is the Secretary of State aware that, in my own visit to Rhodesia a week before him, on which I have reported to him, many people expressed to me the view that it would be unwise to proceed on that basis at present and that further bilateral negotiations were necessary before any such step was taken?
The hon. Gentleman's impressions may have been formed a little early, in that the full extent of the proposals and strategy had not been developed. However, I have no doubt that any steps forward that we take need to be carefully prepared. I have already made clear that I do not believe that one can go straight into a formal conference. There will need to be some months of the most careful preparation and bilateral discussions, as he has indicated.
Would my right hon. Friend elucidate the meaning of the phrase "widest possible franchise"? Does it mean "one man one vote", or not?
Clearly, the widest franchise is one man one vote, one woman one vote. My hon. Friend ought to know that in Rhodesia at the moment there is not a wide franchise for women—in fact, it is very restricted. I personally think that that is the sort of world in which we are now living, and I told Mr. Smith that. But it would be wrong to call a constitutional conference on important issues like that and to rule out any discussion of other issues. There is a tradition of restricting the franchise in some respects in some post-colonial independence constitutions, but I think that it is important to recognise the general feeling in the Western world.
I believe that the objective of giving confidence to minority groups can best be achieved through other mechanisms—possibly white Members of Parliament in the first initial years, possibly a blocking mechanism for the first few years on constitutional change. There are many different ramifications of confidence-building measures for minority opinions, rather than going for a restriction, still less a restriction of the franchise. These are issues that will be discussed.Arising out of a question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), to the last part of which the Foreign Secretary did not reply, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own recent statement that an inquiry is to be instituted into the supply of oil to Rhodesia, could he indicate what form that inquiry will take and could he ensure, as the Government themselves are one of the major shareholders in a large oil company, that the inquiry will be completely independent?
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance of a totally independent inquiry. It is because we have been at great pains to follow the strict legal interpretation that we chose to use the form of inquiry that was envisaged as a possibility in the original sanctions order. We hope to be in a position very soon to announce the name of the chairman of the inquiry, in which case it can start work very early.
I agree that there is a need to get the inquiry under way. What follows then is entirely, as I understand, a judicial procedure, and the question whether there has been any breach of sanctions would eventually involve probably the Director of Public Prosecutions, if he wished to make a judgment. There will be no political interference whatever in this issue. It is particularly important, because of the Government's shareholding in British Petroleum, that that is made clear.In adding my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, may we ask him, whether, in his conversations with the front-line Presidents or with the black nationalist leaders, any desire was expressed for a concrete British presence on the ground in Rhodesia—quite apart from any diplomatic mission—during the period up to majority rule, and what his own feelings are on this matter?
I made it clear that the British Government had no intention of committing troops in any major way in this area because I do not believe that we would contemplate such a situation.
In the proposals that we tabled for an interim government there occurred the suggestion of a resident commissioner. It may be—this is certainly one of the issues that will have to be most extensively worked out, particularly jointly with the United States—that this could provide some stability for the short period of a caretaker government who would only supervise an election. The question of providing stability and a fair election is one of the important issues which the conference must look into. There is no doubt that black nationalist leaders would not accept an election that was supervised by the current Smith Administration. Therefore, with some form of caretaker government—who might be for only a short period and who would not have to make very many decisions—the problems that arose over the interim government would not come in such an acute form.rose—
Five hon. Members have been trying to catch my eye. I shall call them before we conclude.
Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary avoid confining his scepticism to Mr. Smith without questioning the motives and reliability of such leaders as Mugabe and Nkomo? Will he avoid giving the impression of constant bias against the British? Will he also have in mind the danger which some of us foresee of a settlement being arrived at which is not that wanted by the majority of people in Rhodesia but which is acceptable to the so-called front-line Presidents and the leaders of the American nationalist movements? The order in which things happen in Africa is very important and the fact that there will be a General Election will not cure the errors of an initial settlement.
I am quite clear that one of the problems will come in 1978. If one has achieved agreement on a constitution and on an electoral process, one will have to ask Mr. Smith to give up the powers of government to a caretaker government, and one will have to ask the Patriotic Front to give up the armed struggle. That may be difficult.
Therefore, when I spoke to the five Presidents, I warned them that I could envisage a time when I would ask them to withdraw their support for the armed struggle on the guarantee of majority rule and of the need for a peaceful election. I think that is an absolutely essential principle, and I will stand by it.Will the Secretary of State agree that the welcome and, indeed, indispensable assistance of President Carter is in striking contrast to the unhelpful meddling of the Russians which the Prime Minister was right to condemn?
On the American understanding, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States Government are now pressing the front-line Presidents to stop supporting guerrillas? Does he expect that they will be represented, perhaps only as observers, at any conference he is able to call, and will he not rule out the possibility of perhaps persuading the United States to be involved in some form of guarantee of the frontiers of an independent Rhodesia?The last question is purely one for the United States Administration. But, as regards the conference, I want to make it clear that the United States is co-sponsoring the conference, it will attend the conference in its own right and, unlike as in Geneva, it will attend the plenary sessions and will speak and question with the same access and facilities as the United Kingdom. The only difference in our relationship has been that we decided that I should chair the conference. However, I should tell the House that I shall chair the conference only for those parts of the conference that have a political content. Much of the conference, if it is called, will be on a technical and legal level.
May I congratulate the Secretary of State not only on his energy and comparative open-mindedness, which he clearly brought to these frequently over-simplified and immensely complex problems in Southern Africa, but also on his endorsement of the proposition, which I put forward as long ago as 1966 in Salisbury, that there would be no solution of this problem until there was something equivalent to Marshall Aid? I very much welcome that.
Since the right hon. Gentleman places so much emphasis, again understandably, on the question of majority rule, and since he now has some personal experience of Africa, may I ask him to define more clearly how he will avoid some form of tribal majority emerging in Rhodesia and say what form of rule it will be? Will it be similar to that in Mozambique which has followed the achievement of so-called majority rule there, and, if so, for how long?The hon. Gentleman should have made it clear that what they achieve will be democratically elected by the people of an independent Zimbabwe, a black government. That is the inevitable consequence of giving majority rule. The question of the franchise has been extensively discussed, but I have made it clear that it should be on the widest possible basis. I have always held that it should be "one man, one vote", but that is an issue to be discussed at the conference.
As to the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of an equivalent to Marshall Aid, he should recollect that Rhodesia at present is relatively well off compared with many African countries. On the question of a development fund, we have to see that we help an independent Zimbabwe, but not at the expense of other African countries. In looking at the fund one is looking at the infrastructure of society in Rhodesia which has made it a relatively prosperous African country, one important ingredient being the white skills and technical abilities.The Secretary of State mentioned his visit to Angola. What is the British Government's attitude to the recent invasion of Zaire from Angola, possibly with Cuban support? Will he now turn his attention to trying to achieve better co-ordination of policy in the European Community towards this vital part of Africa?
That question goes a good deal wider than the subject, but I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement made public yesterday by the Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting to discuss the question of Africa. It had an extensive discussion of the complex issues that underlie the severe problems of Zaire.
In adding my congratulations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, may I ask whether he would care to comment further on the emergency motion of the Rhodesian Front yesterday, that the rights of all minority groups must be meaningfully guaranteed? Will he agree that such guarantees extend beyond purely financial rights? In view of the failure of the Geneva talks, partly because of the question of the institution of security administration, what are his views on a possible security council for an interim government, or the administration of adequate security and protection for minority groups after the introduction of majority rule?
I must tell the House that if anyone believes that guarantees can be built into constitutions, or into statements, he is living in a fool's paradise. The best guarantee of stability for an independent Zimbabwe and of good relations between the races will be the way the present Smith Administration carry through, over the next few difficult months, the transition to majority rule, the way they build up confidence again between black and white Rhodesians—I am sure that it can be built up again—and the way they try to ensure a constitution that will be seen by the rest of the world to be a fair interpretation of majority rule. The more they are seen to restrict the franchise to resist any form of effective black Government, the more doubts will be raised in people's minds about the seriousness of their intention.
Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill Lords
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. HARPER and Mr. COLEMAN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Water Charges (Amendment)
4.11 p.m.
I beg to move,
The purpose of this Bill is to change the legal basis for payment for the disposal of sewage from those domestic properties, nearly all in rural areas, that are not connected to main sewers. Sewage from such properties usually flows into cesspools or septic tanks buried at the bottom of the garden, and these have to be emptied from time to time and the contents taken away. Before local government reorganisation, the emptying of cesspools and septic tanks was generally undertaken by rural district councils, most of which provided this service financed by the rates, although I understand that there was no legal obligation for them to provide the service free of extra charge. When reorganisation took place, responsibility for sewerage and sewage disposal passed to the new water authorities, which are distinct from local authorities, and it appears to have been the general intention, in applying the provisions of the Water Act 1973, that all domestic ratepayers should be liable to pay the general sewerage charges of the water authorities, irrespective of whether their properties were connected to the main sewers. Whether that was the policy of the Government of the day who brought in the Water Act is not for me to say, but what has become clear is that the wording of the Act has not achieved the objective that was generally intended in regard to sewerage charges. When the rate demands went out in 1974, including amounts for general sewerage charges, some ratepayers with properties not connected to sewers challenged the validity of the charges in their case. The eventual decision of their Lordships in the Daymond case was that no liability imposed by the Water Act 1973 for general sewerage charges extended to ratepayers without sewerage, so no general sewerage charges have since been levied on those ratepayers. However, their sewage still has to be collected, and most district councils have continued to provide the collection and disposal service for ratepayers without sewerage. But, as they have not been paying for the service in any other way, these ratepayers have found that local authorities have devised their own charging schemes for the collection and disposal of sewage, and in many areas these charges came into effect only this month. The pattern of charges varies considerably from one area to another depending upon the policy of the local authority, but I have the impression that most authorities doing this are charging a set fee for each visit to collect sewage. Such schemes bear particularly heavily on those ratepayers who have cesspools rather than septic tanks, because cesspools allow for no liquid seepage into the ground and therefore soon fill up. Septic tanks, on the other hand, need emptying much less frequently, in some instances only once every two or three years. The problem for cesspool owners has recently been clearly demonstrated in that part of my constituency which lies in the Doncaster metropolitan borough, particularly in the rural communities of Fishlake, Sykehouse and Hatfield Woodhouse. Because that area is low lying with a high water table, property owners without sewerage must have cesspools rather than septic tanks. The borough council, when first devising a charges scheme for cesspool emptying, proposed a fee of £7 for each 1,000 gallons collected. For some of my constituents this would have produced an annual bill of some £400 to £500 per household—an intoler- able burden. Not unnaturally, they made strong protests. I have received more letters on this subject than on any other single problem since I first became the Member for the constituency six years ago. As a result, I feel duty bound to press for a change in the law on this question so that all domestic ratepayers will become liable for the general sewerage charges of water authorities, whether or not their properties are connected to main sewers, and that they should then have no other liability for charges levied by district councils for the collection and disposal of sewage. That is what this Bill aims to achieve. In terms of general principle it seems right that all citizens should pay for the removal of their sewage on the same basis, whether that removal is through pipes into main sewers or by the emptying of the contents of cesspools or septic tanks. I ask the House now to approve that general principle by giving leave for this Bill to be introduced.That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the liability to pay general sewerage and sewerage disposal charges levied by water authorities to all domestic ratepayers in their areas whose hereditaments are without sewerage and to remove from such ratepayers any liability to pay other charges levied by local authorities and water authorities in respect of collection and disposal of the contents of cesspools and septic tanks.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Richard Kelley, Mr. John Mendelson, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Michael Ward, Mr. John Watkinson and Mr. Alec Woodall.
Water Charges (Amendment)
Dr. Edmund Marshall accordingly presented a Bill to extend the liability to pay general sewerage and sewage disposal charges levied by water authorities to all domestic ratepayers in their areas whose hereditaments are without sewerage and to remove from such ratepayers any liability to pay other charges levied by local authorities and water authorities in respect of collection and disposal of the contents of cesspools and septic tanks: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th May and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
Orders Of The Day
Supply
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]— considered.
The Army
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Frank R. White.]
4.18 p.m.
In this debate on the Army it is certainly not my intention to attack the energy or the enthusiasm of Ministers who have been responsible for military affairs in the course of the past year. They have been put in their present position to implement the Government's general defence policy, which seems to be based on the hope that the meek shall inherit the earth, while doing their best to ignore every bit of evidence that the strong are intent on contesting the will.
One inevitable result of this policy is that ministerial defence posts tend to be inherited by those who lack independent political strength. It suits the Prime Minister well enough to staff the Ministry with men whose resistance to defence cuts would attract scant attention and whose resignation would cause little stir. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army has done his best to protect the Army from the economic storms that have blown in the course of the past year, but looking across the Dispatch Box at him I am reminded of the devastating school report received by a friend of mine whose son finished near the bottom of the form and whose report contained the comment "I am sorry to say that Robert is trying." Let me first turn to the good news. Recruitment seems to be going well. In the early 1960s, the principal feature of Army debates centred on the question of whether we could get sufficient officers and men to match our commitments. We can now leave that particular subject in a few sentences, partly because our commitments have been cut to bedrock and partly because of unemployment. When he was Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was an indifferent recruiting sergeant, but as Chancellor of the Exchequer he has been the best friend the recruiting authorities have ever had. For reasons we need not go into this afternoon, the high level of unemployment that affects so much of this country is concentrated with tragic force on the age groups from which the Army traditionally recruits most heavily. That has meant that the Army can afford to be highly selective in those it recruits. Towards the end of the recruiting year, I visited my local Army careers office. A substantial number of potential recruits were still being processed. But in the past 10 months, while 61 recruits have been accepted, 58 have been rejected, mostly for educational reasons. This is in an area well above the national average in educational standards and rather below average as regards delinquency. There are, however, still causes for concern in recruiting, particularly as regards officers. I am particularly worried because almost every bright young middle-ranking officer I have talked to during the past 12 months has been seriously considering leaving the Army. The reason that they invariably give is that they see little worthwhile future in a contracting force where petty restrictions seem to mount daily. And the long process of military withdrawal continues. This month, the military element in the Commandos is withdrawing from Malta. At the end of last month, the Royal Air Force relinquished control of airfields in Oman, at Masirah and Sallallha. There will, in the course of the coming 12 months, be a substantial reduction in the number of seconded Army officers and men in Oman. Paragraph 258 of the Defence White Paper states:This seems to be a deadpan way of recording that British forces have made a major contribution to the victory of the Omani army in a nasty little war fostered by the People's Democratic Republic of South Yemen, one of the world's major havens of terrorism. The Sultan of Oman has treated our seconded and contract forces very fairly—one could say generously. I hope that in his speech the Under-Secretary will feel able to pay a rather more eloquent tribute than that which appears in the White Paper to those British officers and men whose skill has achieved a substantial victory in an important small conflict in a vital area of the world. There is yet another reference, in paragraph 219(a) of the White Paper, to the fact that"The gradual reduction of our military assistance to Oman will continue, now that hostilities in Dhofar have ceased and as Omanis are trained to occupy positions now held by British personnel on secondment."
The Sultan of Brunei, as we know, pays for the whole of this particular force, and if as a result of Left-wing pressure this battalion is needlessly withdrawn the effect on the whole Gurkha Brigade will be exceptionally damaging. I believe that it would need a dramatist of the tragicomic force of, perhaps, Tom Stoppard to do justice to the whole absurd story of the negotiations for the withdrawal of this battalion. Meanwhile, we must all hope that inertia and common sense will help to preserve the status quo. Nearer home, our forces in Cyprus have been cut to the bone. May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for an assurance that there will be no further withdrawals in the foreseeable future from that sensitive and vital island? There is, however, one part of the world—indeed, a part of this country—where we are all pleased to note that Ministers have reiterated their determination to preserve the Army's rôle. That, of course, is Northern Ireland. It has in the last seven years been something of a ritual to pay tribute to the conduct of our Service men there. The danger continues and the death toll mounts, and now there is the awful frustration of soldiers going back for a sixth or seventh tour and finding that there has been little visible improvement in the security situation. We have had a number of debates on security in Northern Ireland in recent months when we have been able to discuss the strength and level of activity of the Army in Northern Ireland, so this afternoon I wish to confine myself to three brief points on Northern Ireland. First, there is, I believe, substantial agreement between the two sides of the House that more of the war against terrorism should be undertaken whenever possible by the inhabitants of Northern Ireland themselves. From both sides of the House there has been agreement that the Ulster Defence Regiment should be strengthened. The IRA clearly recognises the strength of the threat from the Ulster Defence Regiment, because, out of the 29 soldiers who were killed in Northern Ireland last year, no fewer than 15 were members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. As we know, that tragic toll has continued this year. Early last year the Government set up a ministerial committee to examine the forces required to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland for the next few years. As a result, it was decided to increase the number of full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Government, however, seem to be thinking in terms of an increase of some 200 to 250 men. We were hoping for an initial increase of 800 or 1,000 full-time Ulster Defence Regiment men. Is a further increase in the full-time strength of the UDR contemplated? If so, by how much? This is a matter to which we attach substantial importance. Consideration must be given to the vital question of Army pay and conditions in Northern Ireland. For years I have argued—sometimes against Conservative Ministers—that no one posted to Northern Ireland from a safer and more comfortable billet should be worse off financially. However, over the years thousands of Service men posted on emergency tours from BAOR have been out of pocket as a result of their transfer to Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see that the Daily Express and The Guardian have taken up the plight of the families of soldiers in regiments and headquarters who are doing extended tours. In one regiment in Northern Ireland, no less than 46 per cent. of all privates and 23 per cent. of all lance corporals living in married quarters are receiving rent rebates. In other words, they are considered to be below the poverty line. That is a scandalous situation that has split up families. Service wives with children in Northern Ireland live in a security situation that is not normal. The wives cannot get outside to work. The cost of living is abnormally high for many items. The one benefit that most people in Northern Ireland enjoy—namely, cheap housing—is denied to them. This is one area in which the military salary system is doing harm. The remedy lies in the Minister's hands. Let him cut the rent of married quarters in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman could do this if he persuaded the Treasury that it should be done. This is an abnormal situation. Very well, let us charge an abnormal rent. Better still, let us waive altogether the rent demanded from lower ranks. I ask the Minister to take emergency action on rent and heating and lighting charges and then to consider at greater leisure the discrepancies in pay that have arisen between the different sections of the security forces. Men doing the same job and facing the same dangers have enormous discrepancies in their take-home pay. That is not good for morale, and it is one of the difficulties that has bedevilled the sensible experiment of mounting joint patrols of military policemen and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That experiment has run into considerable difficulties because of the enormous differences in take-home pay between the two groups going out on the same patrols. I turn to another suggestion that I have pressed on earlier occasions, which would cost virtually no money. It is generally accepted that the most hazardous rôle in Northern Ireland is played by the bomb disposal squads. There have been suggestions that they should have a special allowance. When they were asked, the squads were divided on the issue. I understand, however, that a special clasp on the Northern Ireland Medal ribbon would be very welcome. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us why that simple honour cannot now be conferred on the bomb disposal men? Let us remember the continuing strain that the men are under. Last year they had to deal with more than two bombs every day of the year. This year the strain is no less. I turn from Northern Ireland—"Consultations continue on the withdrawal of the Gurkha battalion from Brunei."
Before my hon. Friend leaves Northern Ireland and the financial dis- advantages of Her Majesty's Forces in the Province, may I ask whether he has in mind the additional handicap that they suffer—namely, that insurance companies require heavier premiums from those serving in Northern Ireland than from others? Although this is understandable and although there is not an easy answer, is it not something that we should have in mind and a matter that the Minister should take up?
I am sure that my hon. Friend has raised a most valuable point. I hope that it will be borne in mind by the Minister and the pay review body, which has recently been spending some time in Northern Ireland.
I turn from Northern Ireland to the Government's main claim in defence matters—namely, that they are concentrating all their strength in the NATO area. Our contribution to the southern flank has been slashed. Our ability to help the northern flank has been reduced. It is true that the commandos are concentrating more on Arctic warfare. To offset the reduction in amphibious capability, the number of commandos specially trained in Arctic warfare is to be increased from 1,000 to 2,500 in the next two years. The commandos will receive Arctic clothing worth £350 per man, but it seems that there is not enough money left in the kitty to equip them all with skis. The extraordinary colour of my face is due to my assiduous attention to my duties as Vice-President of the Lords and Commons Ski Club during the recent recess. Therefore, this is a subject on which I feel strongly. Surely we can afford skis for our commandos in the Arctic. We have rented foreign ferries to carry our forces in the past. Perhaps we should ask the Norwegian Tourist Board to hire us skis in an emergency at a reduced rate. It is the Army's strength on the central front of NATO on which Ministers have particularly asked to be judged. They have been judged by the all-party Expenditure Committee and they have been found wanting. The Expenditure Committee, in investigating the effect of recent defence cuts, was worried about the Army's air defence system and the fact that our excellent Rapier SAM system was not equipped with the blindfire radar system, which would greatly increase its capability. The Committee was rightly concerned with the cancellation of the long-term RS80 artillery project, which leaves the Army without an area weapon system that can disrupt enemy supply columns, except, of course, for the nuclear Lance missiles. Once again we see the weakness of conventional forces leading to a reduction in the nuclear threshold. The Committee is concerned about the deferment of a replacement for our ageing armoured personnel carriers and the seemingly indefinite deferment of the medium-lift helicopter. Above all, the Committee is concerned about our wholly inadequate anti-tank weapons in the face of an ominous mass of Soviet armour. The long-delayed date for the introduction of the Milan anti-tank missile has slipped by another year. Then there is the extraordinary story of the evaluation of the helicopter-borne Hawkswing replacement. There are two systems—the Franco-German HOT and the American TOW, which have been under evaluation since 1969. I note that the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy was a professor of economics at Drew University in New Jersey when this evaluation began. If things continue at their present pace, I have no doubt that he will be a professor again, at the London School of Economics, before this evaluation is completed. I can only conclude from the snail's pace at which the evaluation has gone that the Government do not want any new anti-tank helicopter system. Meanwhile, the Expenditure Committee has been doing much valuable work in the areas of reserves and reinforcements. Even if we do not yet have the Committee's report, much of the evidence is already available. We all know that before it can become a fully efficient fighting force BAOR needs massive reinforcements, both of Regulars and reservists. Indeed the Committee, in its preliminary tour of Germany, found that for various reasons many battalions are now at only 70 per cent. of their authorised strength. Anyone who reads the evidence given by those responsible for the mobilisation and reinforcement plans of the Ministry of Defence must be impressed both by their enthusiasm and by their faith. Everyone agrees that for the plan to work at all there must be some warning time, and the politicians concerned must be prepared to act decisively when warning of an attack is received. Even their worst enemies would agree that the Israelis have the most efficient reserve mobilisation system in the world. But in October 1973 Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir and the Israeli High Command hesitated for too long. If Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir were half caught on the hop, can anyone seriously believe that our Cabinet would act with speed and resolution? Who knows, perhaps there is some secret protocol in the Lib-Lab pact that says that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) must be consulted as well before the reserves are called out.Where are the Liberals?
It is equally true that the Americans, who have made a substantial study of these matters, have come to the conclusion that the Warsaw Pact would have to give only a few hours' warning before launching a mass attack. I am not by nature a betting man, but, after studying the evidence given to the Expenditure Committee and the American Defence Report for the financial year 1978, I would have thought that the chances of one-third of the necessary reserves for BAOR actually getting to the right place at the right time must be less than the chance that Red Rum will win the Grand National in both 1978 and 1979. The limitations of our reinforcement plans do not in any way reduce the importance of TAVR. The spirit of the men in the Reserve is superb, and in these depressed days it is marvelously cost-effective.
If and when reservists reach BAOR, they will find that a certain degree of reorganisation has taken place and that the new divisions that they will join do not look quite like the old divisions. But the field exercises carried out in the autumn of 1976 thoroughly justified our criticisms two years ago of the plan to do away with brigade headquarters altogether. This scheme, put forward in the defence review, might have worked in 1980 if the right communication equipment were available then. It could never have worked with the signals equipment available now. Therefore, brigade headquarters are back under a different name. Paragraph 215 of the Defence White Paper provides a tongue-in-cheek obituary of the great defence review reorganisation when it says:This is, no doubt, to get away from any possible idea that they might be brigade headquarters. The paragraph continues:"The results of these trials have generally validated the reorganisation plans although a number of modifications have proved necessary, chiefly in the arrangements for command and control within the division. Each new armoured divisional headquarters will be given the capability of deploying, when required, two tactical command posts to exercise direct operational command of battle-groups. The command posts will be known as Task Force Headquarters when they are deployed."
The weakness of the new plan will be lack of training. The old brigades exercised together. The ad hoc battle groups with their garrison commanders will not—unless there is, as I hope, another change of plans. The possibility for confusion is thus greatly increased. The probability of confusion on the central front has also, alas, been increased by tragic errors on the part of those responsible for NATO tactical communications. In the course of the next two years, no fewer than seven NATO countries will be introducing new battlefield communications systems. Only two of those seven systems will be inter-operable. These systems are likely to survive until 1995. We can look forward to at least a dozen years of confusion on the potential battelfield. It is true that black boxes can be devised to make these various systems inter-operable. There is one important snag: no one has yet invented the black boxes that will be needed. The chances of those black boxes being invented and produced in sufficient quantities and being available in the right numbers in the right place are as probable as the appointment of Lady Falkender by the next Conservative Government to advise on administration at No. 10 Downing Street. In other words, it just will not happen. I understand that there is some overcapacity at the moment in our signals and radar research establishments, particularly at Malvern. I ask the Under-Secretary whether we are undertaking any research into the development of the black boxes that are so necessary if NATO is not to suffer from a nervous breakdown in the signals area. Indeed, when we look at the Government's plans for research and development we see the usual cut-back. As usual, however, we have not been told where or how this is to be done. I suppose that it will be an across-the-board cut with equal misery for all. However, I hope that the Army establishments dealing with artillery and small arms will be spared from the common axe. It is enormously important as regards arms sales that the improved 120-mm tank gun should be ready for tests in America by November. In the small arms sector, the new British 4·85 mm weapon development is clearly of enormous importance with great foreign sales potential. It would be folly to impose cuts on this research at this time. When I look at our research budget of £123 million, which is included in the £826 million for research and development as a whole, I thank heaven that the Americans this year are planning to spend $11·1 billion on research, development, testing and evaluation. That is more than our total defence budget for the coming year. Finally, I turn to the welfare side of the Armed Forces. I am delighted that it was mainly Conservative votes that rammed through a maverick Labour amendment cutting the tax on war widows' pensions. Our next priority in this field is that of the pre-1950 widows who get no Service pension at the moment. Then there is the problem of housing for the Service man when he leaves the Army or when he is posted away. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has repeatedly drawn attention to these problems, which are caused primarily by the 1974 Rent Act. There has been no visible improvement here, although we live in hopes. Then there has been the publication of the Spencer Report, which advocates the establishment of an expensive Army welfare service. Clearly, Ministers are in no financial position to implement that report at present. However, there is talk of running a pilot scheme, which consists, as I understand it, of employing one more trained social worker in the Greater London area. I declare a partial interest as I am a member of the council of SSAFA, which deals with the social problems of all three Services. It is with some regret that, following the Seebohm and Spencer Reports, we find Service welfare unity, presently embodied in SSAFA, coming apart at the seams. If senior staff at the Ministry of Defence spent a little less time arguing against tiny increases in allowances for SSAFA social workers in Germany, we might not need some of the expensive new systems proposed in this important field. The Spencer Report uncovered a number of grumbles about conditions. I am not surprised. I have talked to soldiers from the highest to the lowest ranks, and in the past 12 months grumbling has been the keynote of today's Army. As one senior general recently said to me:"They will be headed by brigadiers who in peacetime will be garrison commanders."
A junior training officer put it more vividly when he said:"Everything is getting progressively harder to do"
There is grumbling about the present and real apprehension about the future. As the Under-Secretary knows, a grumbling appendix can quickly become acutely inflamed. This year's cuts were bad enough, but if next year's cuts are allowed to go forward irreparable damage will be done to our whole defence system. Unless present plans are discarded, this Government will be guilty of dismantling our own defences at a time when the capacity of our potential enemies is growing every day. I hope that an early General Election will see the return of a Government who recognise that the defence of the realm is the overriding duty of any proper Government. I fear that this one does not recognise that fact."Do you think that you could do an effective job as an MP if you were given one biro pen at the beginning of the year and told that it would have to last 12 months? That is the sort of position the Government are putting me into."
4.56 p.m.
It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). He has a longstanding interest in defence, and particularly in Army matters. The House listens to him with interest and respect on these subjects. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal with all the points—some valuable and some not so valuable—that he raised.
I am delighted that hostilities in Oman have finished. I am happy to join with the hon. Member for Beckenham in paying tribute to the contribution that our forces made to the cessation of hostilities. I am particularly happy to mention what I think is the most satisfying activity that our forces undertook there—normalising the situation by drilling wells, building medical centres and providing aid to the community to settle. This is the most valuable thing that we have contributed in Oman. The hon. Member asked for an assurance about our future plans on Cyprus. We have no plans to withdraw from Cyprus. Indeed, any such proposal would be likely at this time to complicate further the delicate political situation in the island. Nor have we any plans to reduce our force levels there in the near future. When I spoke in the defence debate of 22nd March this year I made the point that the efficient management of defence resources was as important as the overall level of those resources. I should like to tell the House a little more about what this, in my judgment, responsible and serious approach means for the Army. First, because it is of the greatest importance, I should like to report to the House what further progress has been made with the planned restructuring of the Army since I described the concept in the debate on the Army on 6th May last year. I make no apology for returning to this subject, because it is fundamental to the careful planning that the Government believe to be right for the Service. It may help if I recount briefly the main features of the plan. In the United Kingdom, with the elimination of the brigade level of command, Regular and reserve forces will come under the command of 10 district headquarters. Three of these will provide a new kind of formation to meet our war-time commitments. These formations are to be known as field forces, each of which will have five infantry battalions and support arms appropriate to its rôle. By April 1978 each of these formations, the 6th, 7th and 8th Field Forces, will be operational; indeed the 8th Field Force, which has a home defence rôle and is located in South-West District, is already operational. The 6th Field Force, to be located in South-East District, will take over the rôle of the land element of the United Kingdom mobile force. The 7th Field Force, which will be located in Eastern District, will constitute the major formation required to place BAOR on a full war footing. The action needed to achieve this reorganisation is proceeding well to plan. In BAOR the restructuring of the 1st British Corps is also well in hand, and in one or two areas we now expect to improve on the original timetable. Because we are committed in advance of MBFR to maintain our Brussels Treaty force level of 55,000, the object here is not so much to save manpower as to improve the weapon-to-man ratio within broadly the present manpower levels. When the reorganisation is complete the 1st British Corps will consist of four armoured divisions, each rather smaller than the three that exist at present, an artillery division, and a new formation in the shape of the 5th Field Force. The 5th Field Force is now operational and one of the BAOR divisions, the 2nd Armoured Division, has completed its reorganisation. As I said in the debate last year, the restructuring timetable has provided for a carefully phased programme of trials to test the planned organisation. These trials have yielded valuable results, and where changes to the plan have been shown to be necessary they have been made. I see nothing wrong in that. If one is developing a new concept one must surely by trial and error improve it as one goes along. In particular, we have decided to provide divisional commanders with the ability to deploy up to two task force headquarters or command posts to take control of particular operations or parts of the battle. Hon. Members will know that we held a major exercise in BAOR last autumn, code- named Spearpoint, involving 18,000 men. The report of the exercise has yet to be fully evaluated, but I can say that the outcome was generally satisfactory. This is the new structure with which the Army will undertake its NATO commitments. What of equipment? We hear much comment on alleged deficiencies in our equipment programme. The Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee made this a critical point of its recent report. I would just say that it is our aim to ensure that the Army continues to receive the most modern equipment available. I should like to respond to some of the adverse public comment on the degree to which we have succeeded in this field by mentioning some of the decisions that we have taken during the past year with the purpose of ensuring that this aim is met. In October of last year we signed the memorandum of understanding with the French and German Governments for the procurement of the Milan crew-portable anti-tank guided weapon. In order to ensure that the system is in service as soon as possible, initial deliveries, which are due later this year, will be from the Franco-German consortium, Euromissile, although the bulk of the requirement will be manufactured in the United Kingdom, providing employment for several thousand people. Last September formal acceptance and approval of the 155mm towed field howitzer, FH70, was agreed with our German and Italian partners. Main production has now begun and the system is expected to enter service about the end of the decade. We shall be procuring 71 guns. Meanwhile, development of the self-propelled version, the SP 70, continues. As my right hon. Friend announced in the defence debate, we have agreed with the Federal German Government not to proceed with a collaborative solution for the next generation of the main battle tank. Studies are already in hand on the best way of meeting our requirement while ensuring that a new tank enters service by the late 1980s, but meanwhile a number of improvements to Chieftain are under way to maintain its effectiveness into the 1980s. A laser sight and muzzle reference system are already in production and further improvements to the fire control system are planned. As part of our continuing studies on ways of countering the mounting Warsaw Pact threat, it has been decided to form a regiment with an electronic warfare capability. This regiment will take its place in the order of battle of the 1st British Corps from 1st July this year. Hon. Members will not expect me to go into details, but I can say that this decision is only the first stage, and a long term programme to improve our electronic warfare has been identified and will be carried out as resources permit. A number of new equipments are entering service this year. Deliveries of a blindfire tracking radar for Rapier, which will enable this fine anti-aircraft missile to operate in all weathers by day and night, have already begun. This will be followed later this year by the Striker tracked reconnaissance vehicle which carries the Swingfire anti-tank guided missile. I hope that these examples will illustrate our determination to have a well-equipped and well-organised Army. I believe that there is widespread recognition of the first-class quality of our Army's personnel, equipment and professional standards. Whenever I make an overseas visit, I hear compliments on our Forces from those foreign countries with which, and in which, they serve. These indicate to me that the military men and the people whose judgment one respects in these countries, both NATO and others, do not share the excesses of pessimism or disparagement which one sees from time to time displayed by commentators in this country. It appears to be a national British pastime to talk down our national coinage. Last week I visited our forces in Cyprus. I saw the troops in our own sovereign base areas and some of those who make up our contingent in the United Nations' peace-keeping force on the island. In both cases they seemed to me professional, versatile and thoroughly strongly motivated in their work—a stabilising influence in an uncertain environment. All ranks showed a well-articulated understanding of their tasks—incidentally, in the most horrible weather I have experienced for a long time in Cyprus or anywhere else. Our military contingent with the United Nations Force is the largest one amongst the seven nations participating. In addition, we provide, from the sovereign base areas, logistic support for the whole force. The United Nations officers and others to whom I spoke had the highest praise for our contribution. As an example, my attention was drawn to the case of one young corporal in a regiment about to leave the force whose work in the demilitarised zone between Greek and Turk was so highly esteemed in keeping the temperature down that the local communities on both sides asked that he be retained beyond his normal tour. I mention this simply to illustrate the high quality of achievement which I know the House will have expected from the Army in this unusual and tense situation. It is typical of the contribution which we are making not only there, but wherever the Army is to be found stationed—one of military efficiency tempered with discretion and humanity. I know that other hon. Members have also experienced this for themselves. In the light of what I have said about the standards being achieved by the Army the House will not be surprised to learn that recruiting during the last year has been very encouraging, both in number and, perhaps even more important, in the quality of those joining the Army. There are some areas where there has been a shortfall against the recruiting target, and during the coming year we shall be devoting an increased proportion of our recruiting effort to these areas. Nevertheless, the general level of recruiting is highly satisfactory. The number of officers recruited for the major arms and Services was 677, an increase of 22 per cent. over the previous year's total. The short service limited commission has continued to increase in popularity—70 were awarded last year, an increase of 25 per cent. over the previous year. The number joining Sandhurst on the standard military and graduate courses during the year was, however, below the annual officer target, and officer recruiting is one area where increased effort will be made during this year. An encouraging feature was the record number—no fewer than 118—of university cadetships and bursaries awarded. The holders of these will be entering Sandhurst in about three years' time, after graduating. The House will also be interested to know that some 37 per cent. of Army officers are drawn from the ranks. This reflects credit both on the high quality of our soldier entrants and on the open-minded and flexible system of man-management that enables the Army to spot the talent available and to make the best use of its manpower resources. I hope that this will continue and that the percentage of Army officers rising through the ranks will be in excess of 40 per cent. next year. The general improvement in officer recruiting can be attributed largely to two factors. The current economic climate has meant a reduction in recruitment by certain industries and professions, and there has also been a discernible change in the attitude of young people towards the Services as a career. Turning now to soldier recruiting, the adult and young soldier recruiting requirement for 1976–77 was reduced in January 1977 because the number of serving soldiers terminating their engagements was lower than expected. The reduction in the requirement was made by suspending the young soldier entry, and the reduced target was met almost exactly. We do not expect to have any difficulty in the coming year in achieving our targets for soldier recruiting with the exception of a few specialised technician employments. It will, in fact, be necessary to continue the suspension of the young soldier entry and to apply a high degree of selectivity in accepting recruits. Recruiting for the Women's Royal Army Corps was also very satisfactory, particularly for officers, where the supply of excellent candidates is far in excess of the number of vacancies available. The size of the recruiting organisation is being kept under review—a number of military and civilian posts were abolished, and further studies are in progress with a view to financial savings and the redeployment of military manpower into operational units. The number and location of careers information offices are also kept under continuous review, and a number of unproductive offices have been closed or are planned to close. Wherever possible, the offices of two or all three Services are co-located. Expenditure On recruiting has borne a share of the reductions in defence spending. Because of, the present buoyant level of recruiting, we have been able to reduce considerably the expenditure on television and national Press advertising. A certain minimum level of advertising is, of course, necessary to support the recruiting effort, and, as I have said, we shall be concentrating effort in the coming months on those areas where there is still room for improvement in the level of recruiting. To summarise, therefore, there is no doubt that young men and women today regard the Army as a worthwhile and stimulating career. It is the Government's intention that our policies and use of resources shall be such as to reinforce and promote this attitude. The efficient management of resources means good housekeeping, too. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to report to the House the progress that we have achieved in implementing the proposals of the Defence Lands Committee. I know, of course, full well the continuing interest—shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House—in the defence estate and the purposes for which it is used. That is evident during Defence Questions each month. It remains our aim to dispose of all land and property for which no defence requirement is foreseen so that it may become available for recreational or other use for the public good. Hon. Members will recall that the Defence Lands Committee reported in 1973 and the Government's views were published in August 1974. In short, we then agreed that 22,500 acres of defence land would be given up, and already more than 17,500 acres on 90 of the sites considered by the Committee have been released for disposal. Of that total 3,300 acres were formerly occupied or used by the Army. We have, for example, given up more than 500 acres of land on Dartmoor, more than 200 acres at Manorbier in South Wales, 380 acres at Sennybridge near Brecon and more than 100 acres at Barry Buddon on the Tay Estuary in Scotland. The reviews of defence expenditure that have been conducted over the last two or three years have inevitably meant that we have had to look again at exactly where our needs will lie in future. As a result, some land planned for disposal will now be retained—particularly where its disposal would lead to heavy capital expenditure in replacing facilities elsewhere—but we shall be able to release additional land previously recommended for retention. I have every hope that we shall reach the total acreage promised in 1974, if we cannot surpass it. I should like, if I may, to turn now to the subject of Northern Ireland. Some aspects of the Army's presence there have received considerable publicity recently, and I feel it right that the House should know the Government's view on these. In the defence debate last month I paid tribute to the work of the Armed Forces there, and I am glad to do so again today. Theirs is an exacting and often dangerous task, carried out in difficult circumstances with skill, determination and resourcefulness. I very much regret that so far this year six Regular Army soldiers and five members of the UDR have lost their lives in the service of peace in the Province. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our deep sorrow at their deaths. It goes without saying that, quite apart from the toll of death and injury, the continuing commitment to the Province imposes a heavy burden on the Army. In financial terms the additional cost of the commitment is now running at more than £60 million a year. Operationally, less time is available than would be ideal for training for the Army's wartime rôle. For families there is the continuing problem to be faced of separation at all too frequent intervals. These are strains that naturally, the Army would rather be without—I make no bones about that. I want to take this opportunity of making it clear once again that there is no truth whatever in the rumours that have been prevalent lately to the effect that there either have been or are about to be further reductions in the force level in Northern Ireland. The Armed Forces are there for a purpose—that is to assist in the establishment and maintenance of law and order. Until that purpose is achieved they will remain in support of the RUC, and they will remain in the strength that the level of violence requires. Despite the problems and strains that the commitment imposes, I am confident that not a single member of the Armed Forces would wish it to be otherwise. The Armed Forces have a job to do and they want to see it through to a finish.Is the Minister aware of the persistent rumours that circulate in Northern Ireland—they may be malicious in origin—that the strength of the Army there is grossly overstated at the figure of 14,000? Will the hon. Gentleman say something to assist those of us who are engaged in attempting to dispel such an absurd but damaging rumour?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it underlines the point that I am trying to make—that there has been no reduction at all in the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland except that which was announced earlier this year.
As was stated in the defence White Paper, there are at present 12 major units serving in the Province in the infantry rôle. In addition there have for some time been two armoured reconnaissance regiments, making a total force level of 14 major units of the combat arms. There are also SAS, engineer, signals, aviation, transport, military police and administrative and logistic support units. Numerically, the total Army strength is about 14,000, excluding the UDR. The Government have no plans to reduce the present force level for the time being. Our forces in Northern Ireland naturally have the highest priority when it comes to new equipment required for operations, and there are special procedures for ensuring that new operational requirements are met as quickly as possible. The range of equipment available to our forces in the Province is extensive, including riot control weapons, protective clothing, devices for night vision and observation, and special equipment for the dangerous tasks of neutralising bombs and incendiary devices. In the research and development programme every advantage is taken of advances in all fields of technology, applying them to the development of equipment designed to help the forces in their task of supporting the police. Automatic data processing has, for example, been used successfully for some time to assist the security forces in checking suspect vehicles—a straightforward application of modern technology to an essential security task. As the House was informed last year, a new information system, based on automatic data processing, is being introduced in the Province to handle the existing records on terrorist activity. I underline that point for people who have expressed fears about the data processing. We are dealing only with information which is already on the files. The advantage of automatic data processing is that we can get a response at the flick of a switch rather than having to sort through the files. This is a tremendous advantage in the maintenance of law and order. Our security policy is based on the detection, arrest and conviction through the courts of those responsible for terrorist crimes, and the provision of accurate and timely information to the security forces is a fundamental requirement if this policy is to be successfully pursued. The use of automatic data processing enables this vital information to be processed and acted upon more quickly—and I am sure the House will recognise the important contribution that this improvement will make to the fight against terrorism in the Province. On another issue, I have read the reports of the measure of dissatisfaction expressed by Service families in Northern Ireland. I emphasise that the problem is mainly about the families of Service men who serve in Northern Ireland for longer than the roulement period of four months. It is the resident battalions about which these reports have been dealing, that is, five out of 14 major units of the combat arms. On my last visit to the Province I visited the resident battalion stationed at Omagh and discussed some of its problems with its commanding officer. All of us have been concerned about the problem over costs and lack of job opportunities for wives, but this is not, of course, peculiar to Northern Ireland. There is also the problem of the security of families and the effects on families of separation. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee have visited Service men in Northern Ireland in recent months and these problems were brought to their attention, as they have been to mine whenever visiting the Province. Some of the problems are not easily remedied, because they arise from the security situation in Northern Ireland. The present rate of unemployment and the dangers mean the job opportunities and social contacts are made far more difficult. There is also the problem of the costs of heating and lighting in Northern Ireland, which I understand are certainly higher than the average in Great Britain, but we are about to start a programme of improving the insulation of married quarters in the United Kingdom and I have instructed that the first priority of this programme should be Northern Ireland and other parts of Great Britain with similar problems.The Guardian article of the 14th April quoted average council house rents in Northern Ireland as being about £4 per week, whereas Service men pay accommodation charges of between £7 and £8 per week. This is broadly correct, but it must be remembered that married quarters charges include, as well as rent and rates, elements for furniture and household equipment and extra maintenance, which are not provided for council house tenants. Rents for Service married quarters are based on average council house rents, which means in practice average rents in England, where most council houses are. There are wide local departures from the average. In some areas Service rents may be a good deal higher or lower than council rents in those areas. In Northern Ireland they are unfortunately higher. I am aware of the disparities in Northern Ireland in rents and, indeed, in many other respects and I have called for a full report. When I have received it, I shall consider what further action could and should be taken.How long is that likely to take—a month, six weeks?
I have called for an urgent report and I hope that it will be weeks rather than months.
Can the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I raised about insurance?
That point has not been brought to my notice on my visits to Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it and I shall certainly look at it.
Northern Ireland is a subject in itself, yet in many ways it illustrates the burden of the message which I have sought to make to the House today. I hope that all hon. Members will take every opportunity to acquaint themselves with the reality of the Army in the field. They will find it in good order, well equipped, well led—a volunteer, professional force which continues to do us credit wherever it serves and which is a first-rate element in our contribution to NATO. On 7th July Her Majesty the Queen will herself see the Army in the field in Germany. She will review a representative parade of the British Army at Senile-lager in the Federal Republic of Germany as part of the Silver Jubilee celebrations. This will provide an excellent opportunity for Her Majesty to see the work of our troops in the British Army of the Rhine. His Excellency President Walter Scheel, President of the Federal Republic of Germany, will also be present at the review. Some 3,800 troops will take part in the review, including elements of the 4th Division and the 6th and 20th Armoured Brigades. The armoured regiments taking part will be the 16th/5th Lancers, the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars, the Royal Hussars and the Blues and Royals. The infantry battalions on parade will be the 1st Battalion of the Queen's Regiment, the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the 2nd Light Infantry and the 2nd Royal Irish Rangers. Others on parade will include elements of the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Corps of Transport, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The massed bands of the regiments of the British Army of the Rhine will also take part. The vehicles and equipment taking part in the review will include the Chieftain main battle tank, the FV430 series of armoured personnel carriers and recovery vehicles, Scimitar and Scorpion reconnaissance vehicles, Stalwart vehicles, the Abbott self-propelled gun, the M107, M109 and M110 guns, the Lance missile system, Cymbeline radar, armoured bridging equipment and helicopters. After the review, the Queen will meet informally a representative number of British soldiers and their families, and will visit a number of displays by units of the British Army of the Rhine. Certain hon. Members will similarly have the opportunity to witness this review at first hand. I should be interested to hear their views afterwards. If they are not impressed by what they see, I shall be very surprised. I refer not to the pageantry but to the quality of the military fighting force which will be on parade before Her Majesty. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make this report to the House this afternoon. I have sought to paint a positive picture. I do not pretend that there are no problems or that everything in the garden is lovely, because it is not. These are difficult economic times for us all, and defence has had to take its share of the burden of national economic recovery. However, I believe that our policies have been found by experience to be well-judged and effective. The character of the Army in the field is the proof of this and it is a matter of pride to me that I have the honour of speaking for the Army in this House and taking ministerial responsibility for such a fine Service.5.31 p.m.
It would be presumptions of me to try to answer the points he mentioned or to take up what the Minister has said, but I congratulate him on what he said about recruiting. He said that it is good at the moment. I have always thought that it is much better to get a man who is in the Army already to sign on for a further period than to have any raw recruit. This information about recruiting is therefore a very good sign.
I wish to deal with a few points that have struck me during the last year in the course of visits that I have made, either with my Committee—the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee—or individually, to various centres of the Army. They may be rather disjointed but I should like the Minister to take note of them. I mention first the Marchwood port. In case you feel that I am out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have had an aberration in referring to a Royal Navy depot, I point out at once that this is not so. I did not know where March-wood military port was until I went there, but it is fairly close to Southampton, and until 1968 it was used particularly as a training establishment. Since then its rôle has undergone a considerable change. It now provides logistic support for operations, exercises and routine re-supply to various parts of the world. According to Ministry of Defence figures, nearly 54,000 tons of freight, vehicles and explosives were handled there in 1975. In the light of these considerations, and in the context of our inquiry into the movement of reinforcements, the Committee visited Marchwood last December, and was greatly impressed with the efficient manner in which the port is operated. We were all the more concerned, therefore, to hear of some of the physical limitations that have been brought to light by the increased burden that Marchwood is now bearing. We were told, for instance, that inadequate berthing facilities and deep water channels restrict the use of the port to landing ships and logistic and other relatively shallow-draught vehicles. Moreover, the narrow 35-year-old jetty constricts the working area and leads to uneconomical double handling. Secondly, the port has only one roll-on/roll-off terminal. The steadily increasing number of tanks and vehicles handled and the use of the roll-on/roll-off container trailers demonstrates the need for improved roll-on/roll-off facilities. Thirdly, the port lacks adequate covered facilities. I understand that a comprehensive three-phase development plan, costing £13 million—not a vast amount—has been drawn up, based on the assessment of operational requirements and a development study by the Property Services Agency. These proposals were first submitted to the Treasury, I understand, in January 1976. I shall be grateful if the Minister, when he makes his winding-up speech, will give some indication of the stage that consideration of the plan has now reached, and say whether there is any likelihood of approval being given perhaps to a phased improvement scheme. The Army's need for an all-military port to avoid reliance on civilian facili ties cannot, in my view, be stressed too strongly, and I hope that these much-needed improvements to Marchwood have the highest priority in the spending plans of the Ministry. We have to remember that, as compared with what happened in the last war, there would be a longer sea passage across the Channel, either to Belgium or to Holland, which are our allies, in NATO, because we cannot know at the moment what the situation in France will be. We are committed to getting our reserves across to the central front—this is the whole importance of Marchwood, in my Committee's view—so that they can play their rôle during the time of tension, which may be a good deal shorter than many of us have been led to believe. Next, I should like to mention the TAVR, particularly as a result of what we saw when the Committee made a visit to Scotland. The Committee feels that it is essential to pay other visits, and we are trying to arrange them. We hope to visit the South-West in July and the North-East in October. When we were in Scotland, demonstrations were laid on by small groups of men of different units in the Edinburgh area during the afternoon, and in the evening we visited them in some of their drill halls. It was probably not their normal night to go there but they were so keen that they turned up and we were able to speak to many of the commanding officers and men. My Committee was greatly impressed by the obvious dedication and enthusiasm of both officers and men, and also by the enthusiasm of the women. As an old Territorial soldier, I was surprised to find them volunteering and training with the men. The reliance that we place on the TAVR and, indeed, on our reserve forces generally, is not generally appreciated in the country as a whole, or possibly even in this House. Money is often mentioned in these defence debates, and I have always maintained that the Territorial Army, or the TAVR as it is now called, is the cheapest form of Army that we can possibly have. The cardinal rôle that it has to play on the outbreak of war—which none of us wants to see—is as a reserve to our Regular forces in the BAOR and elsewhere, should that emergency arise. I am sure, from what I have seen and heard, that the TAVR will give an extremely good account of itself, provided that it is furnished with adequate supplies of modern weapons and equipment. The TAVR is now called upon to play a rôle that it has never undertaken before. Many battalions know their expected rôle in war time, which will take many of these young men straight from civilian life and put them in the front line of the central front, right into the battle area. This is completely different from the position when we trained 40 years ago, when we had a longer time. I am glad that this is reflected in the better equipment and vehicles that are given to the TAVR, particularly those whose rôle is to reinforce on any front of war immediately. I suggest that whenever hon. Members see men on leave in their constituencies—constituents or others this applies to all three Services—they should say "We are very pleased with you. You are doing a jolly good job." By showing themselves resolute and prepared for all emergencies, those men help to keep peace in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) made a number of points. If I repeat them, it is because they are important. First, I should like to refer to the Milan anti-tank guided weapon. When my Committee paid its last visit to BAOR, every general impressed his view upon us that it was imperative that the Army had that weapon. One might have thought that it was a British-made weapon. One almost felt that they had some ulterior motive in pressing for it, but I suggest that they were thinking of having the best for the Army. I understand that we are to build that weapon under licence in this country. That will provide much-needed employment. It is essential that any troops who may have to engage in battle should be supplied with that weapon. I was a little disappointed when the Minister said that the Army would be getting it by the end of the decade. I hoped that it might be before that. It seems that a slippage has occurred.I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman misheard me. I said that the Milan would be available later this year, not at the end of the decade.
I obviously misheard the Minister. I put the best possible front on it. I though that he meant by the end of 1980. I am glad that it is to be available later this year. I presume that it will go first to the Regular troops on the central front. I hope that it will then go to the TAVR units, which will have an important rôle to play if everything goes wrong and we are engaged in war. It is essential for them to give a good account of themselves in battle if they have to take part. Therefore, they should have that weapon as well.
I should like now to mention our visit to Norway. We saw the commandos training in the Arctic Circle north of Narvik, in all the snow. It was good to see the enthusiasm of those men. Since 1969 45 Commando has been designated the Mountain and Arctic Warfare Commando and has been earmarked primarily for support of the northern flank under the command of the Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces, Northern Europe. We were particularly impressed with the high morale and general proficiency of the men. We were also struck by the high degree of co-operation that obtains between not only the Marines and local Norwegian commanding officers but the Marines and men of the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps. Dutch units constantly train with their British counterparts. Common tactical doctrines have been evolved and progress has been made towards standardising equipment and vehicles. This is a fine example, on a small scale, of the potential that exists for military co-operation and interoperabiliy, which, sadly, is followed all too rarely in the rest of the Alliance. We also visited Northern Ireland. We had perhaps been unnecessarily worried by what we had been told in Germany about the reluctance of troops to go for a fifth or sixth visit to Northern Ireland. We did not find that that was so. We were told that as soon as the men arrived, because they were there for a fifth or sixth time, they knew the job and what had to be done and they carried it out extremely well. There was no sign of their not wanting to be there. A soldier goes where he is told to go and carries out the job that he is assigned to do. However, there is one grave matter that I should mention. The Minister has this point in mind and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham also mentioned it. I refer to the difficulty of the pay of men in Northern Ireland. They seem to be getting less than their counterparts carrying out similar jobs in emergencies elsewhere. We had a long discussion with various staff officers. I asked them to submit a paper to us so that we could get it right and give the right views to the Ministry. I am glad that the Minister has also called for a report. I am sure that the report for which I have called will go through his Ministry before it gets to me. If not, I shall be delighted to give it to him with any comments that the Committee may make. We are extremely worried about this matter. Men should not be financially worse off because they go to a trouble spot for which we have responsibility. I went into one married quarter and met a soldier's wife who had a three- or four-year-old boy and a small baby. She could not get out to the shops in one of the local towns and she complained bitterly about the NAAFI. As an old soldier, I have heard this complaint quite often. Will the Minister see whether the NAAFI is doing the job that it normally does so proficiently for the Army in Northern Ireland? I know that it supplies everything and that it may have only small sales, but there must be some give and take. I should like to know that it is doing its job properly. No one likes to think that the men doing this dangerous job in Northern Ireland—the Minister gave the figures of those who had been killed and wounded—and their families, are suffering financially as a result. I should like to think that our visit to Northern Ireland added some weight to what the Minister saw and that what I have outlined will be considered in any review on pay or allowances. Soldiers have a dangerous job to do in Northern Ireland. One has only to open a newspaper or listen to the wireless to know that that is so. Such conditions must have an effect on the soldier and his family. When their husbands go out wives do not know just how they will come back. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider that point. I assure him that he will have the support of my Committee in any attempt to achieve better financial conditions for our men in Northern Ireland.5.50 p.m.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) made a very helpful contribution to the debate. As Chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, he has special experience of these matters. I agree with all that he said about Northern Ireland—a topic that was also dealt with in great detail by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that he is to have a full report on the problem of housing for our soldiers in Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will look into all their economic difficulties. Not only are there the problems of housing, of the high cost of living and of the inability of their wives to obtain work; it seems quite wrong that soldiers serving in such hazardous conditions should suffer economic penalties that are not suffered by soldiers serving in other parts of the world.
My hon. Friend said that the charges for soldiers' accommodation were based upon council rents in most parts of Britain. I should have thought that there was room for some flexibility in the Army's charges for accommodation. There is no reason why they should be exactly the same in Northern Ireland as they are in other parts of Britain. It may be that my hon. Friend's Committee will suggest some improvements from that point of view. The hon. Member for Beckenham also suggested that there should be more recognition for our soldiers in Northern Ireland, and he referred specifically to bomb disposal squads. I think that there is a strong case for their being allowed to have at least a clasp on their ribbons as a minor recognition of their hazardous and responsible duties. The hon. Member for Beckenham went into considerable detail. I was astonished to hear him go so far as to say that commandos should be equipped with skis. This seems to be a detailed point of military equipment, though there may be some force in it. I was waiting to hear the hon. Gentleman recommend some form of après-ski equipment as well, but that did not materialise. The hon. Member for Beckenham made some lugubrious comments about the morale of junior commanding officers in the Army. I was rather surprised to hear that he had met junior officers who were so unhappy about their life in the Services. For various reasons associated with my equestrian hobbies, I meet junior officers in the Army quite frequently. I am always impressed by their high morale. Admittedly, they do not like the idea of cuts in defence expenditure, but they have had cuts in defence expenditure ever since the days of the Conservative Government, who first introduced them on a substantial scale. They have grown to live with them and they take them as a matter of course. Any suggestion that morale in the Army is impaired by the action of this Government is quite wrong and a slander on the high morale and efficiency of the officers and soldiers in our Army. In the latter part of last summer, with some of my hon. Friends, I had the advantage of visiting Northern Ireland and I was very impressed by the high standard of efficiency with which duties were carried out there. I was especially impressed with how well the junior commanders carried their burdens. It has to be remembered that they are isolated in decision making. They have to make on the-spot decisions about matters involving life and death and the possibilities of provoking riots and of creating grave ill effects. They have the spotlight of television and radio reporters on them the whole time. Despite a very close examination of their conduct by the media, they carry out their duties in an excellent manner. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give us some idea of the way in which he envisages the future of operations in Northern Ireland. Despite the excellence with which the Army is carrying out its duties, there is no escaping the fact that, year after year, several hundred people are killed and about 1,500 people are injured. We know that at present there are about 1,500 Provisional IRA activists at large. It is a war of attrition. But is there any real sign that that war is being won? I cannot see it. We know that about 1,000 gunmen are charged every year, but such is the effect of intimidation that only a relatively small proportion of those charged are actually sentenced. The Catholic and Protestant activists have a Mafia-like grip on the areas that they control. The facts seem very prejudicial to the success of any military operations carried out, bearing in mind the restrictions that are imposed upon them. How long will the Government accept this stalemate? How long will the Army accept it? No one can pretend that there is a steady flow of success. There is nothing to show that it will end. Some time ago, I carried my worries to a general officer, who has since retired, who had a very large part to play in Northern Ireland affairs. I asked him when he expected the Army to be able to terminate its duties in Northern Ireland. He replied "In, say, about 100 years' time." He may have used an element of hyperbole in saying 100 years' time, but he was no doubt conveying that no immediate termination was in sight. I wonder what the Government think about the future. Are they thinking, for instance, of enabling the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC to take over more from the Army to a greater extent? Are they thinking in terms of the people of Northern Ireland becoming more and more involved in looking after their own security? Are they thinking in terms of reducing—not now, nor next year, but some time in the future—the commitments of the Army in Northern Ireland? Clausewitz said that war was the pursuit of policy by other means. It is true that this is a guerrilla war. Will the policy justify the methods of pursuing it? I should like to have some idea from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Devolution has become a very popular word, if not construed into parliamentary action in this House. At a time when we are thinking so much of giving increased responsibilities to the Scottish and Welsh in their own affairs. I wonder whether it would be possible to give the people of Northern Ireland more responsibility for maintaining order in their own Province and thereby decreasing the very heavy burden on the British Army. I appreciate that there are immense difficulties about that, and I do not expect my hon. Friend to give a detailed and comprehensive answer—It would be strictly out of order if the Minister attempted to answer the last part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin).<