Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 972: debated on Tuesday 30 October 1979

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday 30 October 1979

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[ Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business





Read the Third time and passed.

West Midlands County Council Bill Lords (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [ 28 June], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers To Questions


Arms Sales


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new criteria he has introduced concerning the sale of arms since he assumed office; and if he will make a statement.

We shall continue to consider arms sales on their merits, taking into account the relevant political, strategic, security, economic and arms control considerations. But we shall want to be certain that there are strong arguments against a proposed arms sale before turning it down.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he take this appropriate moment to confirm that, on the question of arms sales, the People's Republic of China is considered to be a friendly power of Her Majesty's Government? Will he also tell the House what the Government are doing to expedite the sale of Harriers to the Chinese Government?

My hon. Friend should know that negotiations for the sale of Harriers to the People's Republic of China continue and that the Government hope that those negotiations will reach a successful conclusion. We have no political reservations about the prospects of arms sales to the People's Republic of China.

Will the Government now follow the example of America and Germany which have refused to sell arms to China but have succeeded in obtaining huge orders for non-military goods?

Many countries are currently engaged in negotiating arms sales to China. Her Majesty's Government, like their predecessors, saw no reason why negotiations for certain arms sales should not proceed, and they are now in progress.

Ex-Service Men (Pensions)


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department over the question of anomalies in the provision of retirement pensions for ex-Service men.

The Government are still examining this very difficult problem. As I told the hon. Member on 12 June, these anomalies affect not only the Armed Forces but all groups of public service pensioners. In its wider aspects this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service.

Does the Minister accept that as inflation increases these discrepancies get wider? We now have the ridiculous situation of a man retiring from the Navy aged 55 and doing four years more service to retire in 1977 than some of his colleagues and getting a pension of upwards of £500 less. The situation cannot be allowed to continue in a fair society. Will the hon. Gentleman do something about this matter more quickly than he has done so far?

As I told the hon. Gentleman, these are complex issues which range widely across the whole of the public service. On 12 June I said that I could not hold out hopes of early remedial action. I regret that is still the situation.

Is it not a scandal that those who retired before April 1977 receive about 32 per cent. less in terms of pension and their widows receive about 32 per cent. less in pension than those who retired after that date because of the Labour Government's action in holding down the pay of the Armed Forces? Is not the sensible way to approach the problem to accept the proposal put forward by the Officers Pension Society of providing a floor below which pensions should not fall?

I have had discussions with the Officers Pension Society about these matters which range wider than the Armed Forces, as I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates. We are looking at various solutions, but I cannot hold out hopes of early remedial action.

The situation of regulars under 55 years of age who were demobbed before 1973 is causing consternation among ex-Service men and their pension associations. I think that the numbers diminish yearly. Therefore, is it not worth while looking into this matter to see whether we can bring these categories into the scales as if they were demobbed after 1973?

There are various options that we can consider, and we are certainly looking at all the options. However, there are complexities, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will know, and there are considerable public expenditure implications too. I am by no means unsympathetic, but I urge hon. Members not to underestimate the difficulties.

Nato Defence Ministers


asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his NATO colleagues.

I shall be meeting some NATO defence Ministers at the nuclear planning group in mid-November and will meet them collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee in December.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his NATO colleagues, will he discuss with them the Prime Minister's recent Luxembourg speech? Will he ascertain from them whether they feel that that speech has strengthened the hands of the hawks or the doves in the Kremlin?

Certainly the issues and facts underlying my right hon. Friend's speech will be discussed at NATO, and I shall take the opportunity of discussing them with my colleagues, the other Ministers of defence. The situation facing the Alliance is of a mounting military capability in the Warsaw Pact, and that is something that the NATO Alliance must consider most carefully and take into account.

I accept that the Government have made it clear that they would endorse the SALT II agreement, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our loyalties in NATO will remain unshakeable, whether or not the SALT II agreement goes through Congress?

I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. On the work that is of most immediate concern to NATO, we believe that what we have in mind is necessary whether or not the SALT II agreement is signed.

When the right hon. Gentleman discusses with his NATO colleagues the speech of President Brezhnev in Berlin on 6 October, will he be urging them to accept at its face value the offer that was made and try to make some small but reciprocal offer so that the move will not be dismissed in the cavalier fashion adopted by the Prime Minister in Luxembourg?

It is not right to say that the offer was dismissed. It has been welcomed so far as it goes, and the Alliance is considering it carefully. However, even if the proposal by President Brezhnev were to be fulfilled, the imbalance in favour of the Warsaw Pact countries would still remain preponderant, massive and most significant.

Contrary to the implications of both questions by Labour Members, is it not a fact that, even if 1,000 obsolete Russian tanks were removed, 20,000 would remain as opposed to the 7,000 or 8,000 of the West, and that if 20,000 troops were removed a short distance away that would still leave a balance of just under 1 million for the Warsaw Pact to 600,000 for the West? Is it not a fact that, happily, among the NATO Ministers at the moment there is complete unanimity of view on the need to modernise and re-equip our forces in Europe?

Yes. It is the case, as my hon. Friend says, that even if this undertaking were fulfilled the preponderance on the Warsaw Pact side would be enormous—about three to one in tanks, and well over 100,000 more troops on the other side. It is the view of the NATO Alliance that, in the face of that situation, which naturally we hope will alter and that a greater balance will be brought about, we should react accordingly and modernise our equipment.

Of course there can be no doubt about our very firm commitment- to NATO, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that theatre nuclear modernisation, which he will be discussing in November and December, must be linked to very positive arms control measures? Does he agree that these will lack credibility if SALT II is not passed by that time? Will he make this clear to the American Administration, and will he consider carefully whether modernisation needs to go ahead in December if SALT II is not then through?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that arms control is a most important element in our defence policy. The objective is, naturally, that the level of armaments on both sides should be lowered, but the trouble at the moment is that the imbalance on the other side is massive, and the Warsaw Pact countries have recently brought into their equipment and their line very modern and technically efficient nuclear capabilities which are not at present matched on the NATO side. We have to take that into account, but that does not alter the fact that arms control is an important part of our defence.

If the Warsaw Pact countries, and particularly the Soviet Union, made a realistic offer of reductions, which would bring the two sides more or less into balance, that would be a totally new situation. However, until that happens, we must be realistic about our capabilities because we believe—I think that our predecessors took the same view—that one cannot negotiate in this vitally important area except from a position of strength. If one tries to negotiate from weakness, one is unlikely to be successful. Therefore, it is important for us to remember the facts and realities of the existing situation.

This question comes up again twice, and I hope that questions and answers will then be brief.

Hydrographer To The Navy


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reductions are envisaged in the work of the Hydrographer to the Navy, in the light of current cuts in public expenditure.

Unhappily, I was not here to listen to that fascinating debate. Will the Minister confirm that the Hydrographer will be given all facilities to discharge his very important functions, particularly in the light of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone which we and other countries now have, and bearing in mind the importance to developing countries of surveys round their coasts, with which we can help?

I cannot give the hon. Member and open-ended commitment, any more than I was able to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) one last night. I said last night that we are reviewing the civil hydrography conclusions reached by the previous Administration. However, I certainly underline the importance of hydrography, both in terms of civil and defence needs. I can say nothing more than that we are reviewing the previous Administration's conclusions.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the work of the Hydrographer is an essential precondition of an effective anti-submarine warfare programme? Does he agree that, far from cutting any work which may have an impact on this area the Government should be carefully considering increasing it?

I affirm that, and of course I affirm that defence is the first priority of my Department.

If the Minister is reviewing the role and the amount of money that can be given to the Hydrographer, will he look into the question of the staff at Bath, particularly the naval architectural staff there, and see whether he is satisfied with the work that they are doing, or whether they are too conservative? Could not some of that work be referred out to private practice?

The Hydrography department is in Taunton, so that issue does not arise on this question.

Nato Defence Ministers


asked the Secretary of State for Defence, when next he intends to meet other NATO defence Ministers.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have given to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans).

Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that certain NATO countries are not honouring the defence obligation in the way that this country is? When he next meets his NATO colleagues, will he draw their attention to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and seek to ensure that the defence contribution made by other countries matches that made by this country?

Yes, I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We attach much importance to the long-term defence programme of NATO with its envisaged 3 per cent. annual increase. It so happens that in recent years this country has not increased its defence as much as some of us in this House think we should have, and therefore we have a certain amount of leeway to make up. However, we attach the utmost importance to it, and we hope that all the allies will adhere to the programme to which they have agreed.

Bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about the build-up of the Soviet defence capability, would it not be preferable to use the moves by the Soviet Union to discuss with that country ways and means of reducing arms in Europe instead of trying to do something which we cannot achieve, and that is to match the Soviet defence capability? That is an impossibility. Would it not be better to be realistic and discuss with the Soviet Union means of reducing the arms in the area?

Naturally the Government are keen that that should happen. Negotiations have been going on in Vienna now for about six years with that objective in mind. Unfortunately the disagreement arises because those on the Eastern side are not prepared to accept that the imbalance is what we know it to be. Our objective is to try to get a reduction.

In response to the President's speech, we are carefully considering the matter with the Alliance. We wish to take any and every advantage it is possible to take of that speech. However, we must not lose sight of the realities of the situation. We hope that the imbalance may be reduced so that we may get more into a position of equivalence.

When my right hon. Friend meets his NATO colleagues will he emphasise to them the relevance today of the so-called geographical guidelines of NATO, with a view to their eventual removal?


asked the Secretary of State for Defence, when next he will meet the other Defence Ministers of NATO.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today to his hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans).

When the offer to negotiate comes, should not the British Government put it to the test rather than kick it in the teeth, as two of their prominent members have done? Secondly, on the subject of the overwhelming Soviet dominance propaganda we heard this afternoon, is the Secretary of State aware that the Institute of Strategic Studies, a neutral body, has this month in its military balance document shown that between East and West in Europe there is

"something very close to parity"
in the strength in nuclear weapons?

It also said that the trend in recent years has been steadily against the West. The build-up on the other side has been greater, unfortunately. We are studying what is said. Any advantage to be taken from it we shall try to take. There are negotiations available in Vienna all the time, where there is a forum already in existence where the matter can be discussed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm—is it not a matter for grave concern?—that since the West has been engaged with the Soviet Union in the MBFR discussions in Vienna since 1971, the Soviet Union has so reinforced its conventional capability that, even if an entire Soviet tank army of three tank divisions were removed from the group of Soviet forces in Germany, there would still be several hundred more Soviet tanks today than at the start of these talks?

My hon. Friend is right. That is the position. For that reason, it is extremely difficult to make progress. The facts must be agreed by both sides. Our objective is to achieve a balance. However, at the moment there is a reluctance on the other side to come anywhere near anything that could be described as balance. My hon. Friend is right in his assessment.

Will the Minister reflect on his earlier answer? Is he not aware that one of the reasons for the disappointing progress of arms control is precisely that both sides insisted that they could negotiate only from a position of strength—a position that is logically unattainable for both of them? While there is no perfect time to come out of an arms race, surely it would be better to talk seriously to the Russians about the proposal before we stuff another 400 missiles into East Anglia—a move to which the Russians will certainly respond in kind.

Serious discussions have taken place and will take place again. When we talk about negotiating from a position of strength, there is a difference between the massive excess of strength on the other side and the capability that exists on this side. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that that imbalance cannot be accepted or allowed to continue from the point of view of the West. We wish to rectify that imbalance. If serious discussions and negotiations can achieve that balance, that is splendid. That is what we want to happen. We shall do everything we can to make it happen.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when he meets his NATO colleagues he will, with them, insist that when SALT II has been ratified we shall be closely involved with our NATO colleagues in the SALT III discussions so that our interests are protected? Secondly, does he not think that the interest shown in these NATO matters deserves an urgent and early debate in the House?

It is premature at the moment to consider any detail about SALT III. Naturally it is important that our capabilities should be preserved.

I welcome a debate. I have already been in touch with my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary in the hope that it might be possible to arrange a debate in the House. I know that there are heavy pressures on the programme. For myself, I should very much like to have a debate on the subject.



asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state his proposal to increase defence expenditure in volume terms.

The Government's White Paper on public expenditure will be published on Thursday.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Is he aware that those of us who attended the defence debates in the previous Parliament were constantly castigated by his Conservative Party colleagues for the modest cuts made by the previous Labour Government in their defence expenditure? We were assured that a Conservative Government would honour a commitment to increase that expenditure. Does he think that an increase in defence expenditure would be politically acceptable when the Government are cutting every other form of public expenditure? Does he believe that that is economically realistic?

The truth is that, unless the security of the nation is adequately protected, it is doubtful whether we shall have a society or a country in which it is possible to have the social environment that we all want. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) once said that once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security was imperilled we should have no houses, no hospitals, no schools.

Since—as I hope —the White Paper will contain provision for the modernisation of our contribution to the theatre nuclear deterrent, will my right hon. Friend consider the advantages of putting out a more popular version so that the public as a whole may understand the essential need for us to accept new missiles, in the light of all the misconceptions that have been mischeviously put out about this, especially in East Anglia?

It is for that reason that I should like a debate in the House. I take what opportunities I get to explain to the country the rationale of the defence policy and the reasons for modernisation. However, Thursday's public expenditure White Paper is not a defence White Paper —which obviously will come later. The defence White Paper will naturally in due course contain a great deal of explanation.

Tornado Aircraft


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected cost of each Tornado aircraft in each variant; what is the total development cost to be borne by Her Majesty's Government; and how much each aircraft is expected to cost for each year it is in service, in terms of fuel, costs of crew, and spares.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force
(Mr. Geoffrey Pattie)

The unit production cost of the GR1 aircraft is £9 million, and that of the F2 £11 million, both at September 1978 economic conditions. It is not the practice to disclose the other costs for which the hon. Member has asked.

I am slightly disappointed but not surprised by that answer. Does the Minister agree that the Tornado has been over-designed to perform far too many roles and, as a result, will be far too costly, so that there are now grave doubts about its safety? Does he accept that it will be far too sophisticated for many of its roles and that it will be rather like trying to put the family milk bottles out using a fork lift truck?

I cannot accept that in the environment in which the Tornado will have to operate it will be oversophisticated—quite the reverse. I reject most strongly the hon. Gentleman's implication that there is any doubt about the Tornado's safety. That is not the case. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should talk in such terms when so many of his constituents depend for their jobs on that programme.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is aware that all variants of the Tornado are much cheaper than the glossy alternatives being offered from the other side of the Atlantic? Will he give a clear assurance that he will not succumb to the seductive siren's songs from the other side of the Atlantic but will stick with the Tornado all the way?

I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have been looking at the so-called fighter gap and at some possible arrangements for leasing or purchasing American equipment. We have now decided that that is no longer a realistic option. We are perfectly content to proceed with both versions of the Tornado aircraft.



asked the Secretary of State for Defence when next he intends to visit the sovereign base areas of Cyprus.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, but my noble Friend the Minister of State has recently visited the sovereign base areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what answer the Prime Minister gave to President Kyprianou when at the Lusaka Commonwealth Conference he asked for £200 million back rent for these bases? Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the British Government have reneged on the 1960 agreement to pay for the facilities in the Republic used by our forces? In view of the great unrest on the island about this, can we make some gesture towards the Cypriot people by, for instance, returning part of the unused areas of the bases for use by the new University of Cyprus?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that any question he has on that should be addressed, more properly to the Lord Privy Seal. I suggest to him that, if he wishes to discover what the Prime Minister said at the Lusaka conference, he should write to my right hon. Friend.

Will the Minister make a point of going to the sovereign base areas himself to see Britain's forgotten refugees who are still in the camps there? Is he aware that the condition of those refugees still causes concern?

I would certainly welcome an early opportunity to visit the sovereign base areas and, at that time, to take account of what my hon. Friend has said.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the present disturbed situation in the Middle East, we would be much better employed in reactivating those bases completely, rather than handing over buildings for use by the university?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It arose on the original question. I would have said to the original questioner that there is no possibility whatever of any land, bases or buildings being made available for the purpose that he originally suggested.

Officers And Aircrew Selection Centre


asked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is still intended that the Officers and Aircrew Selection Centre should be transferred from RAF Biggin Hill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this was one of the most unwise defence cuts made by the previous Government? Is he further aware that there is no space available at Bentley Priory and no money with which to build the centre if it is transferred. Will my hon. Friend reject the idea of transferring virtually the whole of RAF Station Biggin Hill and continue to use that RAF station, and its immense prestige, for the purpose of continuing to recruit the pilots that we so badly need?

My hon. Friend has consistently advocated this, and he is aware that the original decision was taken by the previous Administration. However, in confirming this decision we had to consider value for money. We are convinced that it will be necessary to move the Officers and Aircrew Selection Centre to Bentley Priory and, therefore, we shall have to proceed. I can tell my hon. Friend that the presence of the Royal Air Force will continue at Biggin Hill. In the form of the chaplains' school there will be over 4,000 RAF personnel and their families attending that centre each year.

Bearing in mind what the Minister just said, will he confirm that the previous Government's original decision was the correct one?

Low-Flying Aircraft (Wales)


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints he has received during the past six months concerning low-flying aircraft in Wales.

The hon. Member will be aware that low-flying training is essential to the operational effectiveness of the Royal Air Force and that it is distributed as evenly as possible throughout the whole of Great Britain. Complaints are received from members of the public and local authorities in all parts of the country, including Wales, about the associated disturbance, but these represent a minute proportion of the total number of people affected and, indeed, the indications are that the enlargement of the low-flying system introduced at the beginning of the year has alleviated the disturbance in the areas that were previously most heavily used.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety and there has been a large number of complaints from several areas in Wales—particularly in Dwyfor in my constituency—because of what appears to be an escalating number of incidents of this type? Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to give the American air force permission to fly F-111s and F-4s at low-level in such areas as Dwyfor? In what circumstances would the Minister give the American air force permission to fly below 500 ft?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the American air force is not only stationed in this country but, with the aircraft that he has described, has to train and has the same operational requirement as the Royal Air Force. We have told the USAF that it must at all times observe the same operational limitations on low-flying as the Royal Air Force, and we are satisfied that it is currently doing that.

Does the Minister agree that in the Principality a considerable amount of low-flying is due to the RAF and NATO bombing base at Pembrey in South Wales? Does not the Minister consider that after 20 years the local people deserve a respite from this auditory affront to their environment?

I sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but there are no suitable alternative locations to which we can move the bombing range.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although aircraft noise causes a great deal of suffering to my constituents, when it comes to training people for the defence of our country they would put their comfort and convenience second? One would hope that the people of Carmarthen would do the same.

Has the Minister seen the reports stating that the Royal Air Force might, in future, carry out low-flying training in Canada? Would he like to comment on those reports? Will he bear in mind that, if true, those reports would mean that the British taxpayer would pay a heavy price to protect the eardrums of the constituents of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I recently visited Canada for the purpose of discussing with the Canadian Government the possibility of the Royal Air Force making greater use of Canadian training facilities. It would be wrong to mislead the House into believing that we shall be able to export, so to speak, a greater proportion of our low-flying training. We shall certainly be able to export a certain amount, with some cost penalty. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded that we already have a similar facility at Goose Bay.



asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the review of expenditure as it affects his Department.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).

As the Secretary of State and the Cabinet are busy flogging off national assets as fast as they can, are they considering selling the Army, to Securicor, for example? If that is not so, is it because the Cabinet considers that the Armed Forces are too important a national asset and that private enterprise is neither efficient nor patriotic enough to have this responsibility? If that is indeed so, why does not the Minister apply these values to industry?

I am doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman is wise to treat our Armed Forces with levity. The Armed Forces are, after all, the security of our nation, which is the first responsibility of any Government.

Does my right hon. Friend have any thoughts about the motives of Opposition Members who assiduously press their questions, which must give great comfort to the Kremlin? Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any possibility that there is someone in the Kremlin doing as good a job for the West as Opposition Members do for the Kremlin?

Does the Secretary of State admit that part of the examination now proceeding is a look at the naval bases, particularly Rosyth? Will he ensure that when Professor Smith of PA Management Consultants next goes to Rosyth he has a full and frank discussion with all the trade unionists involved at that base, so that they are properly informed and consulted about the future prospects for employment there?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention and wish to have the fullest consultation with the unions on any matter of that kind. I can also tell him that we have in hand at present a study considering the work of the Royal Navy dockyards. We think it is important, in view of the work that the naval dockyards do, to see whether they are well managed, whether there are any improvements that can be made, and how they can carry out their work more effectively.

In the context of future public expenditure, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reach a decision on whether and, if so, how, to replace Polaris?—a subject, as he knows, of the very widest implications.

There is, of course, no timetable for completing this process, but the Government are already considering options and possibilities. I think that certainly in the course of next year a decision is likely to be reached. However, I could not be more definite than that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.


asked the Secretary of State for Defence what cuts are now proposed in defence expenditure.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).

Is it not a scandalous situation, however, when day by day the Government are announcing cuts in health, welfare, social and local authority services, that the Government should be contemplating increasing defence expenditure? If the right hon Gentleman is not able to contain it, will he minimise the increase in expenditure, because it is at the expense of all other Government expenditure?

No Government, and certainly not the present Government, like spending money on defence for its own sake. One spends it only because of the needs of the situation. The situation with which we are faced requires, unfortunately an increase in defence expenditure. We are committed to that, and we intend to fulfil that. Naturally, we hope very much that by negotiations, and by any means within our power, circumstances will alter and that will not be necessary, but so long as it is necessary it must remain one of the absolute top priorities for this or any Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, particularly for those of the same generation as my right hon. Friend and myself, the price of liberty has been too clearly shown to be eternal vigilance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Naturally, I share that view very much.

If the Warsaw Pact countries enjoy the vast military superiority which the Secretary of State for Defence claims that they do and yet they have not launched any attack on Western Europe—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Yet."]—is not increasing defence expenditure throwing good money after bad?

If the hon. Gentleman would contemplate the fact that the Soviet Unon devotes about one-eighth of its entire gross domestic product to defence, I think that he would appreciate the scale of effort that is going on on that side. If the Soviet Union would alter that policy and pursue its energies and use its resources for more peaceful purposes, I think that it would be possible for us to make progress. But in the meantime, faced with that threat, we have to be realistic about it.

Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his colleagues and with local authorities to see whether it would be possible to offer all of those who are opposing defence expenditure those special standards of living, special freedoms and other special conditions which are enjoyed behind the Iron Curtain?

I have been making a considerable number of speeches in public about defence and the need for it. I am happy to be able to say that my view is that there is a growing awareness of the threat that we face, an understanding of the need for an increased defence expenditure, however regrettable, and a growing support for it so long as circumstances exist in which that increased expenditure is necessary.

Tornado Aircraft


asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress with the development of the air defence variant of the Tornado.

Considerable progress has been achieved in the development of the Tornado air defence variant. The rollout of the first development aircraft took place on 9 August this year, and its first flight took place at the weekend. The second and third development aircraft are due to fly during 1980.

Will my hon. Friend do everything within his power to advance the production programme for the air defence variant of the Tornado, particularly now that he has emphasised in public the importance that he places on this aeroplane for the air defence of the United Kingdom?

We are currently examining the possibility of bringing forward the in-service date of the air defence variant.

Will the Minister challenge the figure of £600,000 for training one Tornado pilot.

I would not challenge the figure. If anything, I would think that the figure is very probably understated.

Arms Sales


asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in Government policy on arms sales since May 1979; and whether there are any plans for such change.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).

Does the Minister accept that the decision of the previous Labour Government to cancel the sale of armoured cars to El Salvador, for example, was highly significant in that it added to the international disapproval which helped to bring about the recent downfall of President Romero's regime? Does the Minister agree that by increasing the sale of arms to such repressive regimes, the Tory Government would be supporting those regimes instead of trying to bring about peaceful change?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. As to the generality of it, of course we consider arms sales on a case-by-case basis. There are sometimes circumstances in which we think it is not appropriate to make arms sales, but where they are appropriate and where the countries concerned wish to defend themselves by weapons made in this country, there is a contribution that we can make to their defence and stability, so we look at the matter on a case-by-case basis. Unless there is a good reason not to make those sales, we are inclined to make them.

Prime Minister (Engagements)


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. Later tonight I shall preside at a dinner in honour of Premier Hua.

After all the hopes that she raised during the general election campaign that she would be successful in significantly reducing Britain's contribution to the EEC budget, does the Prime Minister accept today that she will have failed miserably if she does not return from the Dublin summit with a reduction of at least £750 million in this country's contribution?

I think that it is most unwise to put a figure in advance on anything that we hope to get out of Dublin. We are going for a broad balance between contributions and benefits, a broad balance in our net contribution.

In her meetings with ministerial colleagues today, will the Prime Minister direct them that announcements of Government policy should be made to this House and not to private meetings of the Conservative Party, especially when they are of a discriminatory nature on grounds of both sex and race, as yesterday's announcement was?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was discussing with my hon. Friends promises given in the election manifesto on immigration.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to telephone the Labour leader of Liverpool council and ask him whether the decision of his council to pay 30,000 employees to go on strike for a day in support of a rally against the economies in public spending is Labour policy? If that is Labour policy, costing the ratepayers no less than £250,000, is it that alternative which the Opposition failed to put in the debate last week against the economies in public spending?

If the report is true, I think it a great waste of the ratepayers' money, and I hope that the ratepayers of Liverpool will protest vigorously.

Has the Prime Minister seen the CBI industrial survey today which states, in substance, that business confidence has slumped in the last three months, demand and output are weak, more firms are working below capacity, investment plans are being shelved, export prospects are in decline, and companies' cash positions have deteriorated sharply in the last three months? In view of the fact that this is in clear contradiction to—what was it? —the new spirit that the Chancellor detected last week, what is the right hon. Lady's comment on this, and is this part of the state of affairs that she sees in her industrial strategy?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that survey was taken in the middle of the engineering dispute, which itself has cost this country dearly in both orders and jobs. I note that the CBI survey indicates that one of the greatest deterrents to increased prosperity in this country is increased unit labour costs, and that is partly coming about because of strikes and pay claims which go beyond productivity.

Whilst, however, free collective bargaining is, of course, part of the creed of the Conservative Party and the Government at present, as well as that of some of the trade unions, and we can see the results that are flowing from it, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she can give the country any prospect that this forecast, which is so serious for Britain's future, is likely to be dispelled, and whether the Government themselves have any plans to do anything about it?

We stand absolutely by our strategy of incentives to those who are prepared to work harder, and we condemn totally those who wish to take out more than they put in by increased effort. It is they who are responsible for unemployment, and it will be they who will be responsible for losing Britain orders both at home and abroad.



I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time in the future, because she will be most welcome there. Is she aware that there is a grave shortage of engineering skills in Anglesey and other parts of the United Kingdom? While accepting that training is best done within industry itself, does she accept that every possible encouragement should be given to training schemes initiated by the local authorities and the Manpower Services Commission?

I note that there are areas, both in Wales and elsewhere, where skills do not match vacancies. It is, of course, of very considerable concern that there are parts of the country where we have unemployment but where, nevertheless, we cannot get the people to fill skilled engineering jobs. We are concerned that there should be proper training for these jobs in general, although I cannot promise specific capital expenditure on specific projects.

Prime Minister (Engagements)


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 30 October.

Will the Prime Minister find time to comment on yesterday's speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment which threatened public sector workers with the loss of their jobs if they dared to demand a wage increase of between 15 per cent. and 17½ per cent., although the Tory Budget will probably increase inflation to about 20 per cent. by the turn of the year? Is not the Prime Minister aware that many workers who perform a valuable public service, and who receive less than a £50 basic wage rate, are exceedingly angered by such a provocative lecture from the over-paid, militant Mace bearer of the Tory Party?

My right hon. Friend was trying to put across the line —which is both responsible and moral—that national and local governments have to live within the nation's means. To do anything else would be both thoroughly immoral and reprehensible.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the possibility that Her Majesty's Customs might give special privileges to European Members of Parliament? Will she make it absolutely clear that no Member of Parliament enjoys privileges that are different from any other citizen of this country? Will she ensure that the Government will never give diplomatic status or privileges at Customs to European Members of Parliament or even to Members of this honourable and slightly older House?

I am glad to take the opportunity to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. There are no special privileges either for Members of this House or for Members of the European Assembly. They are treated just the same as everyone else.

During the course of her engagements today, will the Prime Minister find time to attend the meeting of the All-Party Wool Textile Parliamentary Group, which is meeting at 5.30 p.m., in order to assure those Members with wool textile interests that the Government intend to adhere to their election pledges to help the textile industry when it is the subject of unfair and distorted competition?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall have to disappoint him. I have a rather busy day today. As he knows, if ever we get dumping it is the job of the Government and the European Community to take swift action.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider whether she agrees with the Carter administration that failure to ratify the SALT agreement will lead to the disintegration of NATO?

I do not believe that that would lead to the disintegration of NATO. NATO is a very much stronger alliance than that, and will continue to be this country's shield into the future.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

Will the Prime Minister give some thought today to the important question of cutting public expenditure? I am referring not to a few thousand pounds to shut down an old folks' home or something such as that, but to something that is now spiralling out of control and towering above everything else in importance. I refer to the monstrous sum of more than £1,000 million that is being extorted from this country to subsidise richer countries in the Common Market. Is the right hon. Lady aware that she has aroused the expectations of the whole country and that everyone will be behind her in going as an "Iron Lady" to do her duty in Brussels? We have seen the right hon. Lady show her mettle in taking milk from school children. Can we hope that after a few chats with Helmut and Giscard she will show no signs of metal fatigue, that she will do her job, that there will be no here or there, that there will be no ambiguity and that—

Order. I hope to call other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman's question has taken a long time.

and that unless she does some of us in this House believe that we should no longer sign the cheques?

I rather think that for once the hon. Gentleman is following me in what I have said.

Will my right hon. Friend find time during the day to have a word with Mr. Len Murray and to raise with him the topic of the protest march against the Abortion (Amendment) Bill with which he associated the whole trade union movement? Will she remind him that such an overtly political Bill is quite outside the responsibilities that he has for the pay and working conditions of his members, and that it has aroused considerable anxiety of conscience among many ordinary Christian trade unionists who do not like to be associated with this subject?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. This matter has always been thought of as one for us each individually, and not one on which one can commit other people.

Since the right hon. Lady is the first woman Prime Minister that this country has had, will she find time today to explain to all those women who are lawfully settled here, but who were not born here, why they will now be treated as second class citizens and be the victims of both sex and race discrimination under the new proposals?

As the hon. Lady knows, during the election campaign we made perfectly clear exactly what kind of action we would take and we are standing by that promise.


asked the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the disgraceful political game that is being played by some Labour-controlled authorities in connection with the Government's economic policy? Is she aware that councils such as Lothian regional council in Scotland, while threatening to put up rates and cut social services such as home helps for the elderly, are at the same time handing out sums such as £280,000 to build an escalator in a British Rail station?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the example that he has given. I hope that all ratepayers who are faced with greatly increased rate demands will look carefully to see exactly where their local authorities are spending the vast sums of money at their disposal.

If the right hon. Lady is prepared to ignore the report of the CBI to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has referred, has she read the account of the meeting between the British Institute of Management and the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week in which the institute not only fully endorsed the report of the CBI but pointed out that the right hon. Lady's financial measures since the election run the risk of leaving managers worse off and with lower incentives than they had before? What has she to say about that?

I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that if it came to choosing between supporting me or the right hon. Gentleman both the CBI and the British Institute of Management would continue to support me.

Will my right hon. Friend take time off today to read the recently published report by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, entitled "An inspector at the door", which details 252 different powers of entry into private homes and business premises enjoyed by 201 Government inspectors? Will she not agree now to hold a detailed inquiry into every one of the powers of entry, and also consider having a code of practice as to the methods of investigation to be used in the name of the State?

I have seen that report. It is a very valuable one. We must take it very seriously and look at it with a view to finding a means of reducing the numbers of occasions upon which inspectors can demand entry.

The hon. Gentleman has given me notice that he wishes to raise a point of order. It is customary to leave points of order until after a statement.

Legal Services (Royal Commission's Report)

With the permission of the House, I should like to make a brief statement on the report of the Royal Commission on legal services. That report, which was the result of over three and a half years of studied labour by the Royal Commission, was published on 3 October. It consists of two volumes, the first of which—the main body of the report—runs to over 800 pages and contains 369 recommendations. The second volume gives the results of the surveys and studies on which those recommendations were based, and itself also runs to close on 800 pages.

The recommendations of the Royal Commission call for action by a large number of Departments and agencies, both inside the Government and outside. Some of these would entail increased expenditure from public funds and almost all of them would require, if they were to be implemented, a process of prior consultation with, and the co-operation of, a variety of interested bodies, including the different branches of the legal profession.

The House will understand, therefore, that before the Government can commit themselves to any decisions arising out of the report there must be a period of consultation and reflection and, at the same time, a lengthy and careful process of consultation with all interested bodies and sections of opinion. After that, and when the Government have had the opportunity of reaching considered views, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would no doubt be prepared to consider requests for a debate on the report, or on any particular aspects of it, if that is what right hon. and hon. Members desire.

In the meantime, I take this opportunity of expressing our warmest thanks to Sir Henry Benson and his fellow commissioners for their industry and zeal, and for the comprehensive and illuminating report that they have produced. I should also like to express the debt that we all owe to the many bodies and private persons who gave evidence to the Royal Commission or otherwise facilitated the productioun of the report.

May I, also, Mr. Speaker, express my warmest thanks to Sir Henry Benson and his fellow commissioners? Knowing the enormous amount of time the members of the Commission have given, I hope that the Government will give consideration to the problems of the manning of future commissions generally.

Is the Attorney-General aware that, nevertheless, many criticisms will be made of the report, particularly that it is rather pragmatic in its approach and has not tackled the role of the lawyer of the future in society?

Will the Attorney-General accept that we agree that a period of digestion and reflection is necessary, but assure us that it will not be lengthy, and that the House will have an opportunity of giving its views in the early part of the new year?

Will the Government consider the minority views as well as the majority views, as great concern has been expressed about the problem of conveyancing and there will be pressure to consider any further action to reduce the cost of house transfer?

We welcome the praise for the law centres, but will the Attorney-General give consideration to their extension, so that the availability of legal services is widened to cater for the needier members of the community?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a huge report, with many recommendations. I suspect that it will take a very long time to carry out consultations with the various Departments, the Bar Council, the Law Society, and the rest. When those considerations are completed, I should like the House to have an opportunity as soon as possible to consider this very important contribution.

Is it not a fact that after this very careful and lengthy scrutiny of the legal profession the criticisms of it can be seen to have been unfounded and that the legal profession is working well and in the public interest?

I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend said. There are some very constructive suggestions in the report and we must all look at them. I welcome the support that I know I shall gather from my right hon. Friend when we consider the report. I hope very much that we can discuss it in the meantime.

What has been the point of three and a half years of effort and a great deal of money if, at the end of the day, there is not a single positive proposal emanating from the Government's statement?

Does the Attorney-General agree that the weakness of the Royal Commission's report is its failure to find ways of giving the citizen better access to the law without massively increasing the cost of the whole process? Would it not be a good thing for the Government now to try to take a lead in suggesting ways in which that might be done?

When I hear the lion. Member say that there is no positive support by the Government today for any part of the report, I wonder whether he has read it. Bearing in mind the short time since its publication, and with the necessary consultation that every one would agree must be carried out, it would be quite impossible for any Government to make firm proposals today.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that by introducing this statement he has precluded every Select Committee of the House from discussing the Royal Commission's report? Does he not remember that the subjects that come within the purview of his Department were excluded from the Home Affairs Committee by order of Her Majesty's Government? If he wishes to indulge in controversy—and obviously a Royal Commission's proposal must be controversial—he must keep silent, otherwise he must be willing to answer questions before a Committee of this House.

I think that there has been a total misunderstanding by the hon. Gentleman as to the consequences of the procedural rules. The purpose of my statement was mainly to thank Sir Henry Benson and the rest of the Royal Commission for the work that they have done, and to say that if the House wants it there will be a debate. I do not see how any statement that I have made today can possibly preclude any further consideration.

In view of the importance of the report, and the size of it, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider issuing a simplified version, so that it can be discussed generally by the public? Secondly, will he bear in mind that the debate on the report should not be delayed for too long? It is certain that the House of Lords will have one before we do.

I commend to my hon. Friend "Legal services and lawyers", which is a summary published by the Stationery Office shortly after the publication of the report. It is the best potted version that we could possibly have.

Will the Attorney-General agree that by far the most important part of the report is the very great encouragement that it gives to the development of the law centre principle? Will he further agree that that will necessarily cost the public a great deal of money, and that that is something that we have to recognise? Will he use on his colleagues in the Government all the pressure at his command to ensure that those sums are provided?

This is one of the methods of providing legal services more generally. I was very impressed by the argument put forward on that aspect by the Law Commission. I shall be making certain that my colleagues appreciate the importance of law centres.

As the Royal Commission presumably considered the services in the United Kingdom generally, can we assume that any policies arising from the recommendations will be implemented nationwide?

I regret that the hon. Member obviously has not bothered to read the whole report, because part V specifically deals with Northern Ireland and makes various recommendations in respect of the Province, which are specifically designed to deal with the problems there.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why the Royal Commission's report has been criticised is that the Commission carefully avoided accepting some of the intemperate recommendations made to it by certain Left-wing pressure groups about lawyers and their position in society?

On the subject of legal aid, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while public expenditure commitments do not allow any extension of the system at present, it is time that there was a real commitment from the Government to allow legal aid for industrial tribunals, and so on, as soon as funds permit?

This is one of the ideals that all lawyers would like to achieve. However, it must be considered in the general climate of public expenditure. Certainly it is something that I want to see achieved eventually.

Does the Attorney-General accept that there is an urgent need to give greater help to the ordinary citizen who wants legal advice? Will he consider the possibility of developing citizens' law centres? In areas where such centres cannot be developed will he ensure that specialists from citizens' law centres can be deputed to citizens' advice bureaux, as suggested in the report, in order to provide this service everywhere? Also, will he give sympathetic consideration to the setting-up of a council for legal services so that there can be a watchdog at the top level as well as at the grass roots?

These matters will all be considered. Recently I have learned a great deal about citizens' advice bureaux and I should like to pay particular tribute to them, because in the areas where there are no law centres they have been very good at filling the gaps. One must remember that more than 90 per cent. of their work is voluntary, and that they have plugged the gap extremely well for the past 20 or 30 years.

In making any recommendations arising from this or any other report in respect of those who are practising lawyers but who refuse to join the various legal professions, will the Attorney-General recommend punitive damages on that account?

I am sorry, I simply do not understand the hon. Member's question.

Is not much of the disappointment about the Commission's report due to the fact that the origin of the appointment of the Commission arose from a number of false and biased notions about our existing legal system, which the report has refuted?

I think that is right. Speaking entirely for myself, I very much welcome the fact that the report was unanimous.

Is the Attorney-General aware that lawyers in this House and elsewhere suffer a certain degree of unpopularity? Is he aware that much of that is caused by a feeling among so many people that the law and those who are involved in the legal profession are out of touch with the needs of ordinary folk? Some of us have an uneasy feeling that this report does nothing to meet those fears and that that feeling has not been eased by the Government putting off decisions on the report. Can the Attorney-General give an assurance that the Government will take special care to try to increase the availability of legal services to ordinary people by whatever possible means?

I shall ensure that the hon. and learned Member's views are made clear to my colleagues when we consider the report.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for telling us that the report is long, contains a lot of recommendations, and cannot be dealt with before consultation, but may I ask him why he made the statement if he was not prepared to indicate to us in any way the Government's attitude to any of the recommendations? Will he also confirm that one of the recommendations that Sir Henry did not make is that we would help the public greatly if we passed fewer laws and if those that we did pass were simpler and more comprehensive?

The last part of my hon. Friend's question was not within the terms of reference of Sir Henry and his Commission, but I am sure that we would all agree with it, if circumstances allowed. As for the purpose of the statement, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and I took the view that after the enormous amount of work done by Sir Henry Benson and his colleagues it was right that Parliament should express its gratitude to them.

Everyone must appreciate that when a formidable work of this kind is produced, the recommendations —more than 300 of them—cannot be implemented immediately. However, is it not important that those recommendations that can give immediate aid without additional cost to the public purse should be implemented without delay? I am thinking particularly of those that impinge on the issue of conveyancing—the issue that acted almost as the dynamic to establish this Royal Commission. Would the Attorney-General immediately, with the stroke of a pen, put into effect, for example, the recommendation that solicitors can act for both sides in conveyancing? In this way one could rationalise costs—something that would be acceptable to the community in general and the solicitors' profession and would certainly demonstrate that we are moving towards the rationalisation of conveyancing, which is so necessary.

The hon. Member's question demonstrates the problems that we are facing. He said that this recommendation was acceptable to the solicitors' profession, but one would need to consult the Law Society and the profession to ensure that they were satisfied before we put this recommendation into effect. It would be quite wrong to take various items and recommendations and immediately implement them, without prior consultation. Those items which do not involve public expenditure, about which there is no controversy, and which are accepted by everybody involved, can be acted upon quickly. I welcome the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend introduce measures to ensure that the interest accruing on a client's account becomes the property of the client rather than the solicitor who has put it in the account? At present, at the very least there is a strong incentive to delay payment to clients because of the vast amount of money that solicitors earn in interest on clients' accounts.

I do not accept that that is the inevitable occurrence. There are various differences about this matter, but it is certainly an issue that we shall consider as a matter of urgency.

Does the Attorney-General not agree that the issue of conveyancing is one around which there is still a great deal of controversy? Is it not a fact that throughout the country a considerable volume of dissatisfaction exists about the high cost of conveyancing? Is it not also a fact that the recommendation to tighten the solicitors' closed shop still further was nothing short of a disgrace? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that far from tightening this restrictive practice this is the very area, consistent with the Tory Party manifesto, in which there should be more freedom of choice and greater competition?

I know the hon. Member's particular interest in this subject. On the other hand, the advantage of a Royal Commission of this kind is that one can have the pros and cons argued and debated and set out in a report. The recommendations in the report are set out with fairness and a great deal of skill. However, this again is a matter that we must consider. The fact that the report has been made and I have said that it will be considered does not mean that any recommendation will be either accepted or rejected.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's views or the need to extend the work of law centres in order to make the law more acceptable to ordinary people, but does he agree that many of the polemics surrounding law centres would be removed if they confined themselves more to the work of giving advice and less to controversial matters of development?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter has been well set out in the report. The suggestion of the change of name and the various recommendations about the way in which law centres should operate in the future may remove some of the political aspects that should not exist in them. This occurs only in a very few cases.

I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been rising throughout the period of questions on this statement.

Do the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that to have a debate that tried to encompass the whole range of topics that have been discussed by the Royal Commission would be fruitless? Therefore, would it not be better to split up the subjects into sections and ensure that there is an early debate about conveyancing and the solicitors' monopoly in conveyancing?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is sitting beside me, has heard that suggestion.

Does the Attorney-General accept that the disadvantaged people in our society look to law centres and citizens' advice bureaux for the little help they can receive on relatively simple matters of law? Those people will be looking to the Government and will doubtless be anxious about the enormous amount of public discussion that has been centred around local authorities cutting back on expenditure for citizens' advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations. The Attorney-General referred to the citizens' advice bureaux as having "plugged the gap" for a long time. Surely the time has arrived when funds should be made available for those organisations and the others who carry out a similar sort of work in order to protect the interests of the disadvantaged.

The public funding aspect is not great, because over 90 per cent. of the organisations are voluntary. I visited my local CAB last week and found that not only are there lawyers to advise on problems of law but there are people to advise on housing and other problems. Those persons are prepared to give up much of their time to be there by appointment. The CABs become more important as the degree of legislation increases.

We should always provide, as far as is possible, a comprehensive service to those who are unable to deal with form filling and the other problems that bureaucracy presents. The CABs have done a marvellous job. I encourage them and I should like to see them improved —not the reverse.

How rapidly does the Minister anticipate producing action on the recommendations, particularly the note of dissent in the final report? That report suggests that solicitors should be able to appear for clients in Crown courts and that there should be a simpler and better system of conveyancing for property under the Office of Fair Trading. Does the Minister accept that if nothing is done about the arguments that lawyers represent a tiny elitist closed shop, while legislation is brought forward that attacks the ordinary trade unions, the Government will be accused of double standards?

I do not believe that to be the case. The existence of a minority report—on some subjects a substantial minority report—makes it all the more important to carry out the widest possible consultations. The fact that a report is a minority one does not mean that it should be acted upon, but it makes it that much more important that we consult as widely as we can to find where the consensus lies. I agree that there are problems, particularly with appearances in Crown courts. A great deal of research has been done by the Royal Commission and a huge amount of evidence has been published. Much more evidence was not published because it involved personal details from people who did not want them to be published. That gives some idea of the magnitude of the task facing the Government in trying to reach a conclusion.

Will the Government repudiate the Commission's recommendation that the more complicated legal aid means test should be extended to the green forms area, the low income and capital limits should be raised substantially, and the upper limits should be abolished? That proposal will provide the rich with State-subsidised legal aid for tax avoidance, for example, while deterring the poor because of the more complicated form-filling process. Does the Attorney-General accept that law centres for the poor should not, as the Commission recommends, be subject to means-tested legal aid but should be run locally and not under a new centralised quango?

Immigration Rules

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been extensively reported that the Home Secretary has given detailed information about new immigration rules to a committee of Conservative Members. You may be aware that there has been much speculation for some months about when the information on the new immigration rules will be put before the House. It would be wrong for me to comment on the nature of the changes. I consider them to be acts of discrimination, but the matter will be debated at the appropriate time.

I am concerned about the manner in which the information has been given—and that fact has not been denied. I believe that there was a serious discourtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. I have given him notice of my comments. I feel that there should be an apology. If such information on a delicate subject about which there has been much speculation is to be given, it should be given on the Floor of the House and not before a committee of Conservative Members.

Order. Whatever is reported in the press, it is not my responsibility to rule on a point of order about what should be said or not said at party meetings in this place.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has been said for about 18 months on matters of immigration, about registers and quotas, and so on, is of great concern to people in this country, who often do not understand the nature of what has been said. We have been told—not in this place—that the register and quota measures have been dropped. Yesterday we heard something about fiancées. Are we to understand that the policy will not be announced to the House for some months and that there will not be a White Paper on the subject? We deserve that White Paper and we should know when it will be published. The House should be assured that whatever is being said in other places the law is being applied as it is now and not in the way in which it will be once it passes through the House.

Order. I allowed the right hon. Gentleman extra latitude. It is no good raising the question of a debate on this matter out of the blue. As I understand it, the point of order refers to private discussions that became public. It will be a sorry day for this House if the Speaker can rule on what can be said in a party meeting upstairs.

The Minister of State, Home Office, when replying to a debate at the Conservative Party conference indicated to the conference that he was unable—

Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman submit his point of order, and not political arguments with which I cannot deal?

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I have to preface the matter with the background in order to put my point of order. That is all I am doing. The Minister told the Conservative Party conference that he was unable—

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is incorrect. He can raise a point of order with me only on the question whether the rules of the House have been breached. I do not wish to hear about the Conservative Party conference, or, indeed, the Labour Party conference. The House should realise that I can deal only with points of order that are points of order.

I do have a point of order. My point of order is that there is a convention in this House that a policy statement shall not be made outside the House but shall be made to the House. The reason why I referred to the Conservative Party conference and the hon. Gentleman's statement was, as the Minister is well aware, that the hon. Gentleman was reluctant to make a statement to the conference. Therefore, he acknowledged the convention. That being so, I feel that there is a serious point of order. A statement has not only been made to a private party meeting—I accept your limitation of rule on that matter—but has been made public and acknowledged publicly by the Home Office to be a statement of future policy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you would accept that Parliament is the guardian of the freedoms of the citizens of this country, and that that is within your ambit. A function of this Chamber is to hold the Government accountable for policy statements and decisions. If you, Mr. Speaker, have no jurisdiction whatever over the actions and words of Government spokesmen, the accountability that resides on both sides of the House is being eroded, which in turn affects the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country, because we are their representatives. I therefore ask you whether you can emphasise and enforce that admittedly unwritten convention, which is important in order to retain the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country.

Order. I should have thought that the common sense of this House would make hon. Members realise that it would be a big mistake for any Speaker to assume responsibility for things that are reported to have been said in a party meeting upstairs. I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

Bills Presented

Papua New Guinea Western Samoa And Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Sir Ian Gilmour, supported by Mr. Peter Blaker, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the attainment by Papua New Guinea of independence within the Commonwealth and with the membership of the Commonwealth of Western Samoa and Nauru: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Diseases Of Animals (Declaratory Amendment)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, supported by Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Tom Torney, Mrs. Geraint Howells and Mr. David Myles, presented a Bill to declare the status of veterinary inspectors appointed by the Minister pursuant to the Diseases of Animals Act 1950: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

Order. The hon. and learned Member will have heard me say that I am not taking further points of order on the matter that I have dealt with.

Defence Of The United Kingdom (Inquiry)

4.1 p.m.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to examine the improvements that might be made in protecting the United Kingdom by strengthening the auxiliary defence services: and for connected purposes.
I should like to quote from a man who has had a long life and who recently wrote:
"Sadly, this is the third time during my life that the security of our country is in peril as a result of the neglect of our defences in the face of obvious threat. Let us hope our new Government will take urgent action."
Mr. McCullough's words are ominously echoed in Bassey's "Infantry Weapons of the Warsaw Pact Armies" published last week. That states that the Russians are capable of sweeping across Europe at 60 miles a day on a narrow front and that their vehicles are able to cross nuclear contaminated zones with their hatches closed. The threat is indeed obvious not only in Europe but world wide.

I congratulate the Government on the early steps taken to encourage both Regular and reserve forces. The whole country admires the Armed Forces, especially those serving in Northern Ireland, for their work. However, our reserve capacity and its scale needs urgent review, hence the call for a high-level inquiry.

In 1958–59 our official reserve was 893,000 men for all Services. In 1978–79, that figure has fallen to 395,000, which is less than half. Much of our Territorial Army is committed to NATO—and what of our own island if trained men are abroad? We must also consider that we may need to help our friends meet fresh Cuban or other encroachments, not only on land but at sea or in the air.

Last year my Naval Defence (Inquiry) Bill called for an examination of how modern technology could help merchant ships protect themselves and their cargoes of oil and refrigerated goods. Last year also my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), together with Mr. Robin Hodgson, the then hon. Member for Walsall, North, made practical suggestions for better home defence. Recently my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) called for a revival of the United Kingdom Joint Airborne Task Force, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked for Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons to be manned by pilots who left the RAF prematurely, driven out by the Labour Government's defence review. I could give a long list of hon. Members and others outside the House who are deeply worried about various aspects of our reserve forces. There is a need for fundamental review.

We cannot tell what threat there may be in the future, whether from terrorism, major acidental disaster or Russian or Cuban action. If we are to be prepared without undue expenditure we must have the help of volunteers. Only a tiny portion of our defence budget goes on the reserves. At present it is 1·8 per cent. They are not expensive, but to enlarge the volunteer effort we must involve the general public.

The all-party Expenditure Committee's sixth report in 1976–77 said:
"We regard it as vital … that the full implications of the United Kingdom reinforcement policy should be known to Parliament and the public … Reserves are a matter of nationwide policy and the United Kingdom concept outlined above is not shared by all members of the Alliance."
It is not sufficient for studies on the reserves to be made in the Ministry of Defence or by specialist groups. The public must be brought in if we are to inspire substantial new effort. The inquiry should be set up by the Secretary of State and include men and women of distinction in practical applications of scientific discovery, as well as Service men, people in public life and industry and civil servants. They should have the will to extend the size of our reserves.

The inquiry should consider the following matters. First, the whole strategic concept of our reserves is totally different from that of our allies. Secondly, we need substantial increases in manpower, especially in the technical and scientific fields. Thirdly, industry should be more closely geared to defence purposes where that is shown to be economic and effective.

Fourthly, home security and defence should include strategic food and material stores and local defence of specific points such as oil rigs and pipelines. With so many of our forces away from home if the Territorial Army fulfils its NATO commitments, would the United Kingdom be safe from airborne invasion or sabotage from parachutists without additional trained emergency forces, which should of course be fully under Government control? Civil defence should also be available to meet the spread of disease and chemical or radioactive fall-out, whether through accident or hostile act.

Fifthly, the inquiry should also consider threats to seaborne transport around the Cape and how modern technology could facilitate the self-defence of such shipping.

Sixthly, the inquiry should consider the dockyards and other civilian roles. Why should there be a seven months' delay in starting refits for our nuclear submarines? Ought our spare steel making and shipbuilding capacity be put to use, which should not incur great cost for the nation, to strengthen our reserves and at the same time provide more jobs?

Finally, ought a Minister to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the reserve forces and their civilian backup? There is natural rivalry for scarce resources between the Regular and reserve forces.

All that and much else requires fresh thinking. I hope that the Government will bring forward proposals similar to those in the Bill. It is certain that we in the House will never be forgiven if our people have to suffer again from a lack of preparation and forethought.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Julian Amery, Sir John Eden, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Peter Thomas, Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Eric Cockeram, Mr. Peter Emery, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

Defence Of The United Kingdom (Inquiry)

Mr. John Loveridge accordingly presented a Bill to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to examine the improvements that might be made in protecting the United Kingdom by strengthening the auxiliary defence services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders Of The Day

European Communities (Greek Accession) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I must first apologise to the House for two errors that crept into the original text of the Bill. The Greek Treaty of Accession was of course signed in Athens on 28 May and not in Brussels on 24 May as the text originally stated. Those errors have now been rectified and I regret the confusion.

The Bill gives legal force as far as this country is concerned to a most important, welcome, and historic development—important for Greece, important for the Community, and important for the United Kingdom.

The strict purpose of the Bill is clear enough. It is to ensure that, once Greece enters the Community on 1 January 1981, the United Kingdom, for its part, honours in full the obligations undertaken in the treaties of accession between Greece and the Community. The Bill will achieve that by amending the European Communities Act 1972 to provide that Greece's treaties of accession to the EEC, Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community are included among the basic Community treaties referred to in section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.

This is a dry legal summary of what the Bill is about and such a summary fails to do justice to its political and international significance. In fact, the Bill is about welcoming Greece, which has not long emerged from the grip of a military dictatorship, into the mainstream of Western European democracy.

Since 1962, when Greece became the first associate of the Community, the Community and Greece have looked forward to the day when Greece would be able to take up its European birthright and join the European Economic Community as a full member, as provided for in the Treaty of Athens. That objective suffered a temporary setback during the years when the colonels held sway, but when the colonels had been toppled the new Greek Government, led with vision and statesmanship by their Prime Minister, Mr. Karamanlis, whom we welcomed to London last week, was quick to identify Greece's re-emergent democracy with her long-established European vocation and applied to join the Community.

Greece without hesitation espoused the ideals of the founders of the Community, enshrined in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, notably the aspirations:
"to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty … to ensure … economic and social progress … to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe."
Greece's accession is a potent reminder of those post-war ideals upon which the Community is founded. Her accession perhaps also can be seen as a fitting repayment by the Europe of today of the cultural and political debt that we all owe to a Greek heritage almost 3,000 years old.

Greek accession has, as I have said, triple significance—for Greece, for the Community and for the United Kingdom. As far as Greece is concerned, I have already touched on the political significance of accession, the endorsement which it represents of Greece's democratic progress and of her decisive orientation towards Western Europe. But economically, too, accession will be of great importance to Greece. It will be a challenge and an opportunity.

The Community has shown understanding of the problems involved for Greece in agreeing to a number of transitional arrangements to ease adaptation, but Greece's readiness to shoulder the full range of Community obligations reflects her confidence in her ability successfully to do so, a confidence which I fully share.

The absorption of a tenth member is, of course, a significant event for the Community's institutions and mechanisms. Also of significance is the fact that Greek accession is the first stage of the Community's second enlargement. Portugal and Spain are waiting in the wings, both seeking membership of the Community for the same basically political reasons as Greece, and both having recently emerged, like Greece, from a period of repression.

Does the Lord Privy Seal intend to spell out some of the problems that could emerge as a result of Greece joining the Community? For example, will he explain some of the points made by Commissioner Giolitti in the document issued by the Commission last year? That made clear that there would be problems. I am not opposed to Greece joining the Community, but we ought to hear from the Government about their attitude in relation to some of the problems that are bound to arise.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am only at the beginning of my speech. I shall deal later with the point that he has raised.

Absorption of three relatively less prosperous economies, each with a large agricultural sector, will aggravate a number of the problems which are already facing the Community. New strains will be put on the CAP, the regional and social funds and Community policies and institutions generally. It is important to recognise that, but in the Government's view the economic and financial costs of enlargement are outweighed by the political gains for Western democracy of a larger, stronger Europe. Our predecessors in office took the same view. We are fully committed to support for enlargement, and hope that both Portugal and Spain will be able to join within a reasonably short interval after Greece joins in January 1981.

That brings me to the significance of Greek accession for the United Kingdom. In the first place, accession will put our bilateral relations on a new footing, and will create between us even closer links. We have traditionally enjoyed excellent relations with Greece, politically, economically and culturally. Those relations will now take on new strength and permanency as a result of our working together inside the Community.

Secondly, Greece's accession will bring us certain economic benefits. Our exporters will be afforded new opportunities in one of the fastest growing markets in Europe as Greece dismantles its tariffs and other restrictions. At the same time, we shall enjoy improved access to the Mediterranean agricultural produce which Greece exports. Those are worthwhile gains.

Thirdly, there will, of course, be budgetary and economic costs. Our efforts to reduce our contribution to the budget as a whole will, if successful—and they must be successful—reduce correspondingly the budgetary cost of Greek accession.

Is it not likely that we shall import cotton and tobacco from Greece? What estimates have the Government made of the effect on traditional markets in the Third world from which we have obtained cotton and tobacco?

I shall shortly be dealing with that problem.

So far as economic costs are concerned, we must open our markets to Greece just as Greece is opening her market to us. To a large extent, our market is already open to Greece. For some years, tariffs against Greek-manufactured products have been zero. But, in a few sectors, especially textiles and clothing, where certain import restrictions have remained, we must expect to see increased imports from Greece. There is a safeguard clause in Greece's Treaty of Accession, which is designed to ensure that sensitive sectors in the economies of member States and Greece are protected against disruptive upsurges of imports. We hope that we shall never be put in the position of having to invoke the safeguard clause, but it is there if needed.

Any discussion of the significance of Greek accession would be incomplete without reference to Turkey and the problems of the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey is understandably anxious that Greece's acession should not tilt the EEC against Turkey. We and our partners in the Nine are determined that this should not happen and have tried to reassure Turkey on this score. At the same time, efforts are being made to put the present economic relations between the Community and Turkey on to a sounder footing. Inevitably these efforts are now complicated by current political uncertainty in Turkey. But we shall persevere.

If Mr. Demirel should decide, after consideration, that Turkey wishes to exercise her right to apply for full membership of the EEC, what would be the Government's attitude? What advice would the Government give to their EEC partners on such an application?

As the hon. Gentleman correctly implies, Turkey has that right under the present agreement. But the question of timing is of deep importance to both Turkey and the EEC. I do not think that it is for me to offer Turkey public advice on that matter at this point.

I should like to single out the part played by Mr. Karamanlis himself. He set Greece on its European course 18 years ago, and he has been associated with this historic enterprise from start to finish. I invite the House to set its seal on what is, in large measure, Mr. Karamanlis's personal achievement.

4.22 p.m.

This is a small Bill, but, as the Lord Privy Seal has said, it is of major importance to Greece, to the European Community and to Britain. It is also a constitutional Bill apart from having much economic content. I hope and assume that its remaining stages will be taken on the Floor of the House.

The reason that the Bill is small is that the practice with Community subjects is that all matters of substance are excluded from the face of the Bill and thus from the direct scrutiny of the House. But behind the single clause that amends section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 a clause in which, almost incredibly, two mistakes have so far been detected, there lies the whole content of the Treaty of Accession between Greece and the Community, all 250 pages of clauses, annexes, protocols, joint declarations and the like. I have no doubt that a number of matters contained in those pages will engage the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

It is fair to say, however, that both the particular question of Greek membership and the wider question of enlargement from a Community of nine to a Community of 12 have been debated in this House on a number of occasions. In the debates on 17 June 1976, on 12 December 1977, when hon. Members discussed a Definition of Treaties Order, which included two protocols relating to Greece and Turkey, on 2 May 1978 and, most recently, on 14 November 1978 I do not recall a single vote against the principle of Greek membership, or enlargement generally; I recall, rather, a welcome from both sides of the House, although for very different reasons. Although the treaty itself was signed only on 28 May 1979, and although I am aware that there can be a great difference between the approval of a general proposition and the approval of a whole package of detailed arrangements, I find no reason to do other than reaffirm from the Opposition Front Bench the general welcome to Greek membership which Labour spokesmen have strongly expressed in previous debates.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, with his customary candour and detachment, said that the accession of a backward agricultural country to the Community would bring problems but that these would be offset by political advantages. Doubtless, in the interests of brevity, he did not identify these political advantages. As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has also said that he welcomes the political advantages, may we expect to hear from him a brief outline of these alleged advantages?