Lords Sitting of 11 December 1974

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER
Robert Wilmer, Lord Bishop of Worcester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD
Kenneth John, Lord Bishop of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Bristol and the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION CONFERENCE
2.34 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their influence to ensure that the comunique issued after the end of the Conference on Security and Co-operation includes in full the assurances which have been sought and obtained from the Soviet Government regarding the criteria and practices that will henceforth govern emigration from the Soviet Union.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the final documents of the Conference will represent agreements applicable to all 35 participating States. But we are working for texts on the freer movement of people which reflect our own view of the need to
636
improve present practices in some of the countries concerned.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, taken at their face value, the promises made by Mr. Brezhnev to Dr. Kissinger, and incorporated in his long letter to Senator Jackson, are obviously of historic importance and could be of great comfort to many Soviet citizens? But are there not two tests of Soviet sincerity here: first, that these promises should be clearly incorporated in the communiqué at the end of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and, secondly, and more important, that they should be widely publicised in the Soviet Union itself? Otherwise, what value do they have?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. On the other two points raised, I can say this. The final documents will, if we succeed, incorporate both the thinking and the negotiations which will lead up to decisions on agreements. However, we hope to phrase them so that they do not prejudice the continuing dialogue and the continuing machinery for improvement, about which I believe I spoke last week in your Lordships' House. On the second point, we will seek to ensure that all participating countries give the widest possible dissemination to the reports of the Conference in their own countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate the replies given and while I am entirely in favour of freedom of movement and information, may I ask whether it is not the case that the Soviet Union has now made a number of concessions on this point, including the free exchange of newspapers and other matters? Would it not be desirable that the Helsinki Conference should be followed by a continuing commission which could extend the freedom of movement and ideas as confidence grew?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have just said that we look to a continuing dialogue, possibly backed up by continuing machinery. As to the recent proposals of the Soviet Union and its associates, we have been studying these very carefully, always looking for improvements in the standards of freedom in certain countries.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government why, basically, the question of emigration from the Soviet Union should be of any concern to them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that human rights of that description are of concern to everybody.

FLOODLIGHTING PARLIAMENT AND GLC BUILDING
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual cost of floodlighting the Houses of Parliament and the GLC Building.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the annual cost in respect of the Palace of Westminster is estimated to be £2,270. I am unable to supply the information in respect of the Greater London Council, for which Her Majesty's Government are not responsible.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that partially illuminating reply, may I ask him whether he will confirm that, on the basis of the figure he has given and assuming that the GLC's cost is at least as much as that, there are in addition a hundred or more floodlit buildings in London and the total cost of floodlighting in London alone is in the order of a quarter of a million pounds or more? Would the noble Lord draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Energy to this figure in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has said that he does not propose to ban floodlighting at the present time? Furthermore, would he agree with me that, unless the Government and the GLC set an example, it is hardly likely that the ordinary citizen will heed the request to "put out that light"?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on the estimate of a quarter of a million pounds or on the number of buildings which the
638
noble Lord suggests are floodlit. However, I can say that the Government do all they can to conserve electricity and that measures have already been taken, by the use of high-pressure sodium lamps in lighting the Palace of Westminster, which have dramatically cut the cost and the amount of power consumed. It has been decided by the Government not to ban floodlighting of buildings, bridges and statues at this time, because it is the Government's view that this would make life unnecessarily austere. However, the whole energy situation will be closely watched and if more severe measures are required, Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate to take them.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that this is still a great tourist centre and that one of its attractions is our beautiful floodlit buildings?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would it not have been possible for the nobe Lord to have obtained this information before he came into the House? The noble Lord had bags of notice of the Question. Could he not have asked the GLC how much it spent and then produced the information for you Lordship's House?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have already said that Her Majesty's Government cannot answer for the GLC.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, just as directions. instructions or advice would be conveyed to the GLC, they would be similarly conveyed to all county councils and other authorities throughout the United Kingdom which would, therefore, fall into the same ambit as the GLC? Why ask the GLC for such figures but not the other authorities throughout the country?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that I would agree with that point. In his Statement which was repeated in this House on Monday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced that the Government will be asking all those concerned in the New Year whether the lights used for floodlighting are really necessary outside the hours when they have maximum impact.

INVALID TRICYCLE: MODEL 70
2.57 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of tests carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association and the Cranfield Institute of Technology on the Model 70 invalid tricycle, they consider this vehicle safe or suitable enough for use by physically handicapped drivers.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer is, Yes, provided it is driven with proper regard for its limitations and special characteristics, and bearing in mind that it is a tricycle and not a car. A number of design changes have already been made; others are in hand and we are continuing to study further ways of promoting the safest possible use of this vehicle.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that there will still be 14,000 of these tricycles on the road which will not be adapted? How long does he think they will be able to continue with safety? Has not the time come, in view of the unsatisfactory situation which exists as regards invalid carriages, for the Government to accept the unpalatable facts, which have been compiled by MIRA, that these vehicles are unsafe and that it would be better to have a gradual transfer to four-wheeled vehicles, which are not only safer but more socially acceptable, as well as being cheaper?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that every mechanical vehicle has an element of unsafety. There are a large number of users of the three-wheeled vehicle that we are discussing who have written to us expressing the view that it should not be taken away. As noble Lords will know, it is the intention of the Government to make mobility allowance available to disabled people in the next financial year and, as a result of that, a vast number of people who do not at
640
present enjoy easy mobility will be able to do so.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the Minister quite satisfied that the exemptions currently granted to exclude this kind of vehicle from the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations are in order, particularly in view of the increasing number of accidents that have taken place with this type of vehicle?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I apologise, but I do not really understand the noble Lord's point.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not quite understand my point. Perhaps I can put it more simply. Is it right that the exemptions which this vehicle has from the Construction and Use Regulations, are valid, particularly in view of the number of accidents caused by this type of vehicle?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having regard to the number of vehicles on the road, the number of accidents is comparatively small. I think noble Lords must bear in mind that the fact that all repairs are done by the Department of Health and Social Security means that every accident, however minor, is reported. There are no grounds for saying that simply because there appear to be a large number of accidents this type of vehicle is not serving a useful function.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying, therefore, that, because of the small number of accidents compared to the number of vehicles, those vehicles should be excluded from the Construction and Use Regulations?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords; what I am saying is that when this vehicle is examined from time to time and adjustments or additions are needed, they are then put into operation and, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, 12 such modifications have so far been made and five are in the process of being made.
Baroness SHARP: My Lords, does the noble Lord really deny that the three-wheeled vehicle, however carefully driven, is in some degree more dangerous

641
that a four-wheeled car in some conditions of wind and weather? Does the noble Lord further deny that the great majority of drivers of three-wheelers would very much prefer a four-wheeled car which is cheaper?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know upon what the noble Baroness bases her statement that the majority of owners of three-wheeled tricycles would prefer a four-wheeled car. I emphasised that, so far as the three-wheeler is concerned, it is specially adapted to meet extreme needs among disabled people and it would be very difficult to do this with certain types of cars.
Baroness SHARP: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the amount of evidence which has come from the majority of disabled drivers to the effect that they prefer a car? Further, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that among the war pensioners who have a choice, 95 per cent. would prefer to have a car? Is not this evidence?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am fully aware that the noble Baroness undertook an inquiry into this matter, but the Government have to face the fact that there are a vast number of disabled people, and what one wants to do is to make available to the greatest number of people some means of mechanical propulsion. This is precisely what the Government are trying to do. I have to point out to your Lordships, and to the noble Baroness in particular, that if we took the advice contained in her Report we should be restricting the use of a car to those people who wanted to use it for work purposes. We are trying to make available to a much larger number of people the means of mobility over a greater area.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would my noble friend perhaps agree that the simplest way out of this difficulty would be to say to each disabled person: "Do you want a three-wheeled vehicle or a four-wheeled vehicle?"
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it may be the simple way out, but one has to take into account the question of cost. What we have done so far, and what previous Governments have done in the past, is to make available to dis
642
ables people a grant for a car for the purpose of getting about.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept the fact that when I was a Member of the Minister's Advisory Committee in 1947 we were given the same sort of answers as we have been given today; and that the preference expressed then was for the four-wheeler as against the three-wheeler?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, may I suggest that this is a subject of great interest to your Lordships, and that in view of the number of speakers who wish to participate it may be better to take it further on another occasion and move now to the next Question? We have a long list of speakers for our later business.

CYPRUS: REFUGEES
3.2 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind that under Cmnd. 5712 (with reference to Cyprus), "Military personnel and civilians detained as a result of the recent hostilities shall be either exchanged or released ߪ within the shortest time possible"; (a) what is the present position regarding refugees, and (b) what assistance they are giving to ease the plight of these people.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, all prisoners have been released but few displaced persons have been able to return to their original homes. Her Majesty's Government have contributed well over £1 million for their welfare.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, I should like to ask him what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure the implementation of the Security Council's Resolution 361 of 30th August 1974, within the shortest possible time—particularly in respect of the expressed grave concern at the plight of refugees—while urging the parties concerned to permit persons who wish to do so to return to their homes in safety. May I ask the

643
Minister whether he is aware—and I am sure he is—of the unanimously adopted Resolution of the General Assembly on 1st November last, by 117 votes, which included those from Turkey, Cyprus and Greece, and which called upon all parties concerned to undertake urgent measures to that end?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are doing everything in their power to forward the purposes of both Resolutions. The latter was all the stronger for being unanimously approved, and for having included votes from both Turkey and Greece. I have indicated the extent of the help we have already given in practical terms.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that during our Question Time last Thursday when I raised this matter the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said that a review was being conducted on the possibility of taking a census of refugees who had arrived in the Sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and that he would let me know what were the possibilities? Is the noble Lord further aware that if such a census were taken, and if the names of the people concerned were published in this country, it might give some reassurance to many of their friends and relatives who have been unable to trace them since the emergency? Could I ask the noble Lord whether he would be kind enough to look into this as a matter of some urgency?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will myself look into this at the request of the noble Lord. I believe that my noble friend is on the point of writing to him on this matter.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I further ask the Minister whether, in effect, the Government are well seized of the fact that the refugee problem, apart from its grave humanitarian aspects, is also wrecking the economy of the island? May I also ask the Minister whether the Harbottle Report has been brought to his attention?—because it suggests that the economy of the island, if it is to be restored to health, will need a prodigious injection of foreign capital.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, a wide range of reports, including that mentioned by the noble Lord, have been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend and myself, and they are the subject of practical suggestions in the right quarters. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the number of displaced persons in Cyprus represents a very serious economic problem as well as a serious humanitarian one.

BUSINESS
3.8 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about changes in tomorrow's business. As the House knows, we shall be debating the subject of capital punishment and terrorism on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The list of speakers has grown extremely long and if there should be a vote it would probably take place in the early hours of the morning. It has been suggested to the Government that this would not be in the best interests of the House or of the extremely important subject that we shall be debating. Discussions have therefore taken place about the difficulties involved. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has agreed that the best solution may be to move his Motion in a different form. Accordingly, he proposes to introduce a Motion for Papers in the following words:
"To call attention to capital punishment as a means of combating terrorism."
This revised Motion will be put on the Order Paper tonight. I hope that this course will meet the wishes of the House.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, am I in order in asking a question on that statement? Does that mean that no vote will be taken?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, does that mean, in turn, that the country will not know the views of the House of Lords on this important subject?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there will be 37 or 40 of your Lordships making their

645
views very well known. I think the country will be very well aware of the views of your Lordships' House.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, if there is no provision here in the practice of this House, perhaps it could be generally agreed that a vote should be taken at, say, ten o'clock. I suggest that the position of this House will be absolutely derisory if the other House takes a vote and we do not.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I could not accept that the position of this House would ever be derisory. What might be derisory would be for a very small and extremely unrepresentative vote to be taken in the early hours of the morning, and this is the danger which all sides of the House have had in mind in considering this question. It is precisely to avoid what my noble friend has suggested that we are putting forward this proposition.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making this statement. I see her difficulty. It is important, if this House should come to a decision on this very important matter, that it should do so with votes of proper proportions. I hope, therefore, if there is not a vote tomorrow, that at some later stage during the Session it might be possible to have a two-day debate so that all noble Lords who wish to take part may do so, and that a decision can eventually be reached at a reasonable hour when the right numbers are present to make this decision.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite would never expect me to promise a two-day debate on anything, I am sure. But of course I entirely accept the proposition he makes. If it is felt at a later date, obviously after Christmas, that there should be a fuller debate, after nearly 40 noble Lords have already expressed themselves, of course the Government will consider this.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I again make a simple suggestion with a view to solving this problem? Could we have our full debate tomorrow, with the 32 speakers, and then on Tues
646
day of next week have the two winding-up speakers at the opening of the day's proceedings, and take a vote with a full assembly of your Lordships present?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend is, as always, helpful and practical. Unfortunately, it is not 32 speakers but 37 plus. The business for next week is, if I may use a slang phrase, "chock-a-block". I do not think we can manage it this way; and this is why we now put forward this proposition.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, without wishing in any sense to torpedo any arrangements which have been come to, it is important that the House should realise that the business is in its own hands. If your Lordships wish to have a Division, it is perfectly proper and right that any noble Lord can put down an Amendment on which a Division could take place. Furthermore, as the noble Lord opposite has said, there are no rules about ten o'clock and it is always in your Lordships' hands to divide, whether the debate has come to an end or not, should the majority of the House wish to do so.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is entirely true. Those of us who discussed this matter together—which included his own representatives—felt that in the best interests of the House it would be better to have a representative and proper vote.
Lord HALE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say why, in view of the fact that the House is not sitting on Friday, the debate could not be adjourned at a convenient hour on Thursday, and we could then sit on Friday and have the opportunity of taking a vote? In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, any noble Lord can force a vote. It seems we are going to be left in an unhappy situation if we proceed on the Motion as it has been drafted.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we considered sitting on Friday. This was an obvious matter to consider, but we felt that as noble Lords would have made totally different arrangements, we should still get a small and unrepresentative view even on the Friday.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain how, if 37 speakers are going to give their opinions tomorrow, we can have a fuller debate after the Christmas Recess?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think your Lordships' House is capable of almost anything.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that when faced with this problem the General Synod of the Church of England promply moves, after the first two speakers or so, that other speakers should be limited to five minutes in which to make their speeches. I cannot see how the majority of the 37 Members will be able to speak for more than five minutes, without duplicating exactly what other people have already said.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have already tried that, and have been very severely reprimanded as a result.

EDUCATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DUMBARTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

FUTURE OF THE RAILWAYS
3.15 p.m.
Lord SOMERS Lord SOMERS rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the future of the railways; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I happen to be one who believes that the railways have a very great future. Looked at from many points of view, they are by far the most satisfactory means of transport. One example, for instance, concerns the consumption of energy,
648
which, after all, is a matter to be considered nowadays. This makes the railways extremely efficient because with the use of steel wheels on steel rails with the minimum of friction, very gentle gradients and as straight a run as possible making for a steady and high speed, it is possible to be far more efficient than by using other methods. In that connection may I quote from a paper entitled Transport 2,000. Some copies have been available in the Printed Paper Office for the past week or so for those who are interested in the subject. I quote from Section 6, a reprint from an article in the American magazine entitled Railway Age of 10th December 1973:
"The railroads could, in fact, bail this country out of the fuel shortage jam it is now in and which it probably will continue to be in for a long, long time. Purely and simply, the railroads are more efficient and more flexible in the work they can do and places they can go than other forms of transportation. This is no hollow statement; the facts are there to back it up.
The evidence. Several research organizations, and individual railroads themselves have conducted tests to determine which forms of transportation make the most efficient use of fuel. Battelle's Columbus Laboratories made a study for the Association of American Railroads in 1972 to determine the energy requirements for the movement of intercity freight."
My Lords, the results are as follows for fuel measured in British thermal units per net ton mile: the railway 500 units; a 5-axle heavy duty diesel highway truck, 1,800 units. And for net ton-miles per gallon: the railways, 280; the diesel truck, 77. In another study, Missouri Pacific's Traffic Research Division sought to identify the btu requirements on the average to move a ton of freight one mile by rail, motor carrier and water. The results were: rail, 536 to 791; barge, 540 to 680; motor, 2,518 to 2,800. If that is not convincing evidence, I should like to know what is.
Then one must look at the railways from the point of view of safety. They are by far the safest means of transport. This morning, from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I obtained some figures for 1972. Fatalities on the road numbered 7,700; on the railways, 99. Serious injuries on the road were 9,130; on the railways, 685. Slight injuries on the road were 260,600; on the railways, 11,300. From the point of view of safety, therefore, the figures

649
prove that the railways are far ahead of other means of transport.
I should first like to deal with goods haulage. I do not think there can be many people today who will not agree that it is very desirable to get long distance heavy goods haulage off the roads and on to the railways, but up till now, of course, there have been certain objections to that so far as time and money are concerned. However, I am going to suggest a scheme which I believe, though it may sound over-simple and perhaps rather fantastic, would be workable. I am going to suggest a scheme to limit road transport to, say, forty miles. One must allow short-distance transport to go on—that is the only practical method—but if heavy lorries were limited by regulation to forty miles, and if for greater distances than that it were necessary to get a special licence, that would imply that there must be a rail connection within forty miles of wherever one happened to be.
That, of course, will take time. I must also admit that this scheme will need a fairly good expenditure of money, and the question today is: do we have it? On the other hand, this scheme could be implemented in small stages, one at a time, until it is finally complete. It would mean, of course, that goods depots should not be more than eighty miles from one another, but they could be of the simplest possible design—only three platforms on a loop line connection with the main line. They need not even be covered, because my idea is to use the roll-on/ roll-off system and carry the lorries complete without unloading and reloading. The lorry drivers could either remain in their cabs or relax in a passenger coach at the front of the train. Have I said anything which amuses the noble Lord opposite?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I just wondered what would happen when the lorry plus the train came to a tunnel.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry I did not get that, but, still, never mind. Rolling stock would consist of flat bogey trucks fast-coupled and with through brakes, to make for greater speed. I think this would eliminate the two great objections which have been made to goods transport by rail: the excessive time that it takes for goods to arrive at their
650
destination, and also the great waste of time and money in loading and reloading while this sounds a very simple, but perhaps to some, not a very practicable proposition, I think one could make a beginning and see whether it worked.
As to passenger transport, I think the Beeching Commission in their Report in 1963 they did more damage to our railway system than they themselves realised at the time.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord SOMERS: I am not blaming them because they were merely acting in accordance with their terms of reference. The trouble is that neither they nor those who appointed them realised that although a branch line may not, if taken in isolation, be a paying proposition, it does not necessarily follow that it fails to add to the profits of the system as a whole. These branch lines are just like the tributaries of a river; they all bring traffic to the main line. Furthermore, they encourage people to travel much more by train because instead of having to motor about 20 to 30 miles before one finds a station one will find one much closer to hand.
Now, of course, after many years of having relied on the road for transport one will have to encourage the public to use the railways, and that will mean more than just issuing advertisements saying "Travel by train. It is quicker", or something like that. What is needed is a very careful analysis of what the average railway passenger wants. I am all in favour of high speed. I think it is a very good thing. Certainly we are making great strides in that direction; but quite frankly, I do not think that that comes first on the list of priorities of the average railway passenger. What comes first of all is comfort, and with it, perhaps, a sense of being looked after. A passenger should feel that he has staff around who will answer questions which he asks, who will see that he goes to the right place, and so on.
My Lords, the only two London termini that I use a great deal are woefully lacking in both those respects. They are Waterloo and Victoria. Neither of them has a waiting room. Waterloo had one some years ago but it was destroyed in order to make way for a

651
splendiferous ticket office with, I think, some 12 or 14 positions, of which I have only once seen more than 2 manned at a time. That seems a little unnecessary. One does need somewhere to sit. At Victoria there is nowhere to sit on the platform if one is waiting for a train, not even in the open.
Then, from the point of view of being looked after, passengers are very often uncertain as to the platform from which their train is going or which part of it they should get into, and it is not very helpful, when you ask a man at the ticket barrier where you should go, to get the answer "I don't know", coupled with a shrug of the shoulders. Good manners mean a great deal, perhaps more than ever today, because they are becoming rather a rarity. They mean a great deal to the railway traveller and, what is more, they cost nothing. Porters, too, are becoming a dying race. Of course, we are expected to do everything for ourselves these days, so we have things known as self-help trolleys. The other day at Victoria I was interested to see a notice saying: "Self-help trolleys here." Not a single trolley was to be seen.
Then, my Lords, waiting rooms. Is there any necessity for waiting-rooms to be as bleak and comfortless as a prison cell? Why is it that in the larger ones, at any rate, we cannot have a few upholstered chairs and a table with a few magazines and ashtrays on it, or something of that kind? I know there is always the danger that hooligans will destroy it all, but if there were a small bar in the waiting-room, with an attendant, they would think twice before doing so, especially if they knew that the attendant had only to press a button and all their exists would be blocked.
I come to the food one gets at stations. The other night when I had a little time to wait for a train, I was foolish enough to go into what I suppose one would call a cafeteria by Platform 9 at Victoria and ask for a cup of coffee. I cannot tell your Lordships what it was made of. It tasted rather like yesterday's washing-up water. At any rate, it was one of the nastiest things I have ever drunk, and for that I paid 11p. Eleven pence in our old coinage is 2s. 2d. That is a bit much to pay for something of that kind. Then, is it not possible to have the windows of
652
rolling-stock washed and cleaned after a wet journey? One of the simplest pleasures to be got from travelling is looking out of the window. But how can one look out of the window when it is so dirty that it cannot be seen through?
One last word, about punctuality. If only one knew, could tell for certain, that one's train was going to arrive at the time stated in the timetable, a journey could be planned with the minimum waste of time. The trouble today is that we never can be quite sure of that kind of thing. Once our railways were famous for punctuality. Why not try to revive it? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he reply to the intervention of my noble friend behind me about loading limits? What happens to these enormous lorries which are loaded on to a train when the train has to go through a tunnel?
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I omitted to say that of course lorries would have to conform to British Rail loading gates.
3.33 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for giving us yet another chance to return to the subject of the railways. I should like at the outset to ask the House and, in particular, Her Majesty's Government, whether we think that British Railways are receiving sufficient long-term guidance from the Government. It is no good just saying, "Look at all the money we are pumping into the railways!" It has to be directed to the correct long-term needs of this country, both as to the passenger side and of course as to the freight aspect of the picture. The Guardian worked out that the maximum subsidy that the Government are proposing to pay would amount to some £2,800 million spent over the next five years. That is £560 million every year, or just over £10 annual levy on every man, woman and child in this island.
Although this £2,800 million is, indeed, a vast sum, are the British Railways Board receiving enough support from the Government for their long-term investment plans? I suggest that they are not. We have just had the Report of the

653
London Rail Study Group, which was under the chairmanship of Sir David Barran, and that recommended plans for the spending of £2,710 million over the next 25 years in the London area alone. We also have the various passenger transport executives—the PTEs—around the country planning to deal with their own local urban transport problems. Some of these PTEs are planning very grandiose schemes indeed. But are these schemes which are locally planned necessarily right in the context of the overall national transport system of British Railways? Should not British Railways Board have a larger voice in this field to try to avoid this piecemeal type of planning? Above all, there is the uncertainty in not knowing for sure which of their long-term investment plans may have to be delayed or cancelled.
Take for example the great electrification of the London/Manchester/ Glasgow line along which in some four years the exciting advanced passenger trains—APTs—will be running. I suspect that the Railways Board would like to receive some firm indication of long-term planning from the Government as to whether or not the East Coast route to the North should receive the same treatment. Electric trains are more efficient, and that is a proved fact. As your Lordships may be aware, the electric engine does some 27,000 miles before it begins to give teething troubles, whereas the diesel engine starts having troubles after 18,000 miles. With the energy crisis, to which the noble Lord referred, all round us, electrification would not only make a more viable policy possible for the Board but also help to conserve imported fuels. There may be some need for fairly speedy thinking on these matters, since I am told that when the present electrification works are completed, BICC, who do most of this work, will have to disperse their specialised workforce unless they are found new work. We all know what happens when these specialised forces are dispersed. They vanish, and then if it is wished in future to introduce an electrification programme one cannot find the experienced team with which to do it. That is another point upon which I should like the noble Baroness the Minister to let me have the views of the Government.
654
Another aspect of the lack of a firm programme of investment could, I am sure, mean that British Railways lose valuable and profitable opportunities in the export field for locomotives and rolling stock. If they are kept to a very tight amount they do not have the opportunities to produce enough to sell over and above their needs. This production is profitable as well as useful for our trade balance.
Let me now turn to the freight side. At the moment we have some 200 million tons carried on rail as opposed to some 1,700 million tons on the road. Of these 1,700 million tons on the road, only 200 million is carried, British Railways claim, distances over 50 miles. I believe it is a fact that the average freight load journey in this country is only 25 miles. But only 200 million tons are carried over 50 miles on the roads. British Railways claim that these 200 million tons represent almost 50 per cent. of the road-ton miles—this is the weight/distance equation—of everything carried over 50 miles. So, my Lords, British Railways would only have to double their present load from 200 million to 400 million tons, which with planning and investment correctly directed could easily be organised. British Railways themselves are convinced that given the right investment here they could do this.
One of the points which I did not like in the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was the hint of compulsion and perhaps the lack of freedom of people to choose. I firmly believe that, given the right incentives, British Railways would be able to attract passengers and freight on their own merits without compulsion and without forbidding people to do this, that and the other. Apart from the higher tonnages carried, the productivity of transport systems is also very important. For example, in 1970 British Railways carried some 20 million tons in 19,000 privately owned wagons; in 1973 they carried 38 million tons—which is very nearly double—in only 18,000 wagons.
I am also very impressed with the way in which British Railways are tackling the opportunities presented by bulk transport. In 1965, only 62 million tons were moved by bulk trains, whereas in 1973 the figure had risen to 150 million tons. What the noble Lord said about bulk

655
transport by rail is already happening. Bulk carriers are very much easier, because they are designed to deal with tunnels and so on. This is a field where progress and increasing business is regularly occurring, and private industry is now investing more in privately owned wagons for specific traffic. British Railways are also about to bring into operation an improved high-speed wagon-load service between the potential demand areas, in a connecting network. This highspeed wagon-load service would, of course, be for commodities which were unsuitable for bulk load treatment.
While talking about freight, I must express my regret that the Government seem to be cooling off on the Channel Tunnel. Although I know that many of our friends in Kent will not be averse to seeing the shelving of the whole project, it would be very sad from the railway angle. The long-term prospects and possibilities, in both the passenger and freight fields, were very exciting. If the cost of the new railway line which would be needed in Kent was frightening the Government, I wonder if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could tell me whether there has been any thought about trying to get our EEC partners to consider the prospect of a tunnel as an EEC project, with the possibility of substantial contributions being forthcoming for the new rail link. As a lot of the profitable business engendered by the tunnel would be carried by our European partners' railways and rolling stock, I should have thought they might well consider this idea if approached. The prospect of through-traffic from Glasgow to Barcelona, from Liverpool to Milan, or Newcastle to Marseilles would be very real, and would enable British Railways to play a much more significant part than they would be able to do without the tunnel.
So far I have talked only about railways, but I would emphasise that of course railways are only one of several forms of transport, and without the most careful long-term planning of a balanced policy which harmonises the nation's social needs—with the needs of safety and the environmental angle all taken into account—this country will not be getting what it should. I therefore end by once again expressing the hope that with the
656
railway unions and British Railways both co-operating, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport will indicate some good long-term guide lines on some of the matters on which I have touched. Given this leadership, the long-term prospects for the railways will be as exciting as was the advent of Stephenson's Rocket to our Victorian forefathers.
3.46 p.m.
The Earl of DENBIGH: My Lords, while welcoming this debate on the future of the railways, I should like to remind noble Lords that the debate on urban transport last Wednesday brought out a considerable amount of discussion and comment on the railways. Various Members of your Lordships' House voiced the opinions of thousands of British railway users—regrettably most of them not very complimentary. The future of British Rail must, as I see it, be linked with an overall transport policy, and I am glad to see that this is now being implemented. On their own, the railways can be of little use without a comprehensive system of road transport to the stations for bringing people for the passenger trains, and of lorries and vans for delivering freight and containers and dispersing them at the other end.
It now appears that many more medium and long distance journeys will be undertaken by rail rather than road. In the last two days, we have heard that the private motorist will be bearing the brunt of the new oil restrictions, with speeds limited to 50, 60 and 70 mph, depending on the category of road used. Coupled with further increases in the cost of petrol which are likely to come, this will make the railways an even more attractive proposition than hitherto. To my mind, inter-City services run by British Rail arc first-class and a vast improvement on the services of a few years ago, with frequent trains connecting the main centres of the country. These are a real boon to the medium and long distance traveller. However, as I have said, good communications at both ends of a journey are essential if the railways are to attract more passenger traffic.
There is also the problem in making the required train connection that there are many stations to which it is possible to get only by private car, and cars have to be parked. I often find, even now,

657
that the car parks provided by British Rail, or those in close proximity to a station, are too small. This is particularly so in commuting areas—and remember, my Lords, that London is not the only city or town with a commuting problem. A long walk, particularly in bad weather and with a heavy suitcase, is not a very attractive thought to the existing or the potential rail passenger. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, told us last week that the GLC are to provide 25,000 more parking places at suitable underground and rail stations on the periphery of London, to encourage people to park and ride. This I welcome, as I feel that the inability to park near a station deters many people from using the railways.
As I have said, in my opinion the inter-City services are excellent on the whole, and with electrified lines and modern rolling stock which is extremely comfortable I, for one, will be making more use of these services than I have done before. However, my Lords, as we heard in the debate on urban transport, the suburban and medium distance commuter does not appear in many instances to be getting the services that he or she expects. It is extremely difficult to persuade people to travel by train when standing room only, and frequent cuts in schedules resulting in even more over-crowding, are the order of the day. From a passenger's point of view this is the area where British Rail must concentrate their efforts for the future.
Many of the problems facing British Rail, as with many other public service industries, are connected with staff shortages, and while this state exists it is quite understandable that trains cannot run to the full scheduled capacity. This puts an increasing strain on existing staff who will have to bear the brunt of irate passengers' feelings. If British Rail could arrive at a position where passengers knew that trains would leave and arrive on time, this would be a great step forward. British Rail must be in command of the facilities now offered, before embarking on any new proposals.
To turn to the freight side of British Rail, here is hope for us all. With the greater use of container freight, let us hope that the railways can pick up the extra 200 million tons which was mentioned by the noble Lord. While realising that an enormous quantity of goods
658
delivery is local traffic, and that many goods are of a perishable nature and cannot be sent by rail, it would be pleasant to think that there could be fewer juggernauts on the roads if more freight were to go by rail.
Finally, my Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I do not feel that a comment on British Rail would be complete without some reference to their catering. Here there really is room for improvement. British Rail tea has been a music hall joke—the noble Lord had coffee, but I had tea—for years. In most cases, something could be done to improve this situation.
3.51 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for having initiated this debate. His interest in railways has been unabated over the years. Today he has chosen a topic upon which from time to time he questions me—normally on technical matters regarding which I find myself in difficulty when answering him. I welcome, too, the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, has just spoken in a transport debate. We shall look forward to hearing him again because his is a new voice in the list which we have before us today. I am also glad that my noble friend Baroness Birk will be answering this debate today. Already she has shown her competence in speaking for the Department of the Environment, and I am sure that she will do justice to the Ministry of Transport.
In his passage on passenger travel, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, placed great stress on the comfort of travellers, and of course I accept that. But I place even greater stress upon regularity of service, and upon trying to ensure that passengers obtain a reasonable assurance that when they go to the station in the morning there will be a train to carry them to their destination. I am an old signalman who served for many years in one of the most responsible and then very much underpaid jobs on the railway. I am bound to say that I deplore the action of a small group of signalmen which is causing so much difficulty and distress to so many people who have to rely upon rail transport to get them to and from their place of work. If their grievance is basically against the National Union of Railway-men, the union that caters for their grade,

659
then the problems which arise between them in connection with differentials or anything else ought to be worked out within the union itself and not between the signalmen and the travelling public.
My Lords, there can be no doubt at all that one of the main causes of the decline of the railways over the past half century has been the loss of passenger traffic to the private motor car. In recent years we have seen a check to the movement away from the railways. Indeed, in their report for 1973 the British Railways Board tell us that,
"The value of the railways to the nation is borne out by the fact that in 1973 passenger business increased".
That was undoubtedly due to fast intercity trains, improved coaching stock, park-and-ride stations, and, to some extent, road congestion. If, however, the railways cannot provide a regular and reliable service, then the movement towards the individually controlled form of transport will inevitably again gather momentum—this despite road congestion, increased petrol prices and motoring costs generally. And my Lords, who is to blame the man or the woman, fed up to the back teeth with an erratic service which is made intolerable by wildcat and unofficial strikes, who becomes one more oil user or road congester? Certainly not me, my Lords, for in like circumstances I should do exactly that.
Providing a service is the job of the railways and railwaymen. Over recent years it has become recognised as a social service and less of a commercial undertaking. In the passage on nationalised industry prices in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"Revenue support for the nationalised industries is running at over £1,100 million a year. These subsidies are of two sorts. First, there is help for the continuing expenditure which is necessary for primarily social reasons—mainly, but not exclusiveley, in support of the railways. The remainder is compensation for price restraint. It is the escalation of this latter type which we must set out to reverse."
I think it is obvious from that passage that the Government have no intention of going back on the policy which is embodied in the recent Railways Act. That Act was the result of the Government's review of the railways which accepted the fact that the railway network is basically unprofitable. The Act dealt realistically
660
with the pressing problem of the railways' inability to meet their social obligations and pay their way.
That Act solved the immediate problem, but what of the future in the accelerating energy shortage? The experts tell us that we are inexorably moving into a situation where growing world demands for oil cannot be met. I suggest that the preparations for meeting that situation must be made now or they may very well be too late. Quite clearly, petrol rationing for the private motor car will soon be a "must" and the movement back to rail its inevitable consequence. Back to steam, my Lords, is not the answer, despite a nostalgic longing in many of us for the sight of mighty engines emitting a plume of white steam and, in the darkness, the colourful glare of the fire on the face of the fireman when the firebox door is open. I accept that today steam is not a contender for a place in the railways' future; but there is a very strong case for an extension of railway electrification, and that case does not only and solely arise from the oil crisis.
My Lords, the justification for rail electrification has been there for many years, but the desirability of it has been enormously heightened by the energy crisis and by the obvious fact that the whole economy is dependent on the will and pleasure of outside bodies and interests. There is nothing at all reassuring in the latest news that oil producers are demanding from us payment in dollars for the oil that they supply.
What are the known facts? Research into the problems of energy consumption by the main forms of transport shows that there is very little difference between the energy consumption of rail and the water carriage of freight, but the difference between those two forms and motor trucks is very great. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave the detailed figures. However, I can summarise the position by saying that it is a fact that motor trucks need four times as much energy to move freight as do the railways.
Our rate of conversion to electricity on our railways has been a very low one, averaging, between 1958 and 1969, some 200 track miles per year. This, by comparison with most other countries, is a pretty poor showing. In the European

661
electrification league table we hold the 16th place with only some 17 per cent. of the rail total converted from steam or oil to electrification. More electrification is essential, not merely desirable in the developing energy situation. This means a pretty massive injection of capital—and here I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said about the necessity for such a massive injection of capital. That is something over and above the grants for which provision was made in the recent Railways Act. The decision on this electrification is needed now, otherwise even the small teams at present engaged on this will be disbanded and this will in turn affect not only future railway electrification but also the strong export market that we at present enjoy—and here again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
The noble Lord, Lord Stokes, speaking in the debate on the economic situation on the 26th November said:
"I have only to remind your Lordships that the motor industry alone suffered seventeen changes of Government policy from 1960 to 1970. This made planning well-nigh impossible, and produced a stagnant market. No wonder the industry in the past had little confidence invest substantially in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26/11/74, col. 1301.]
That problem seems to me to have been trifling by comparison with the problem of the railways, for the motor industry until very recently was an expanding one.
Since the railways came into public ownership they have had six separate Acts of Parliament and as many changes of policy as there have been Transport Ministers, and I am bound to say that I have lost count of the number of Transport Ministers that we have had over that period. In addition, the railways have had to deal with a declining industry in which the number of railwaymen has been reduced from 455,000 in 1962 to 200,000 in 1971. At the same time, I am bound to say for railwaymen that their productivity has been vastly increased, partly as a result of this and partly as a result of the change in methods brought about by railway management.
For some time our railway hopes have been buoyed up by the prospect of a rail-orientated Channel Tunnel with a rail link to it of virtually a new railway. This held
662
out the hope and expectation of through traffic between the main towns of Britain and those of the Continent of Europe. It seemed to usher in the dawn of a new railway era. Now, it seems the rail link has "gone for a Burton ", and I half fear that the Tunnel itself is in jeopardy under the pressures that are building up from other interested forms of transport and from the difficulties of our present economic situation.
To permit those pressures to kill this long overdue project would, in my opinion, be not only a railway but also a national disaster. This decision on the Tunnel rail link is only one of a long series of changes of policy with which the railways have had to cope. Understandably the Railways Board says in its 1973 Report:
"It would be foolish in the extreme to underestimate the size and complexity of the economic problems facing any British Government today, but no organisation can cope efficiently with such abrupt and frequent changes of policy. There has been too much uncertainty for far too long over the future of the railways."
That is a plea for the ending of the uncertainties surrounding the future of the railways which I heartily endorse. Give the railways the necessary capital for an increased rate of electrification; firmly confirm our intention to proceed with the Channel Tunnel and we shall go a long way towards solving our transport and energy problems.
My Lords, in my view this debate is worth while and I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to tell us something about the future possibilities of investment in this great railway undertaking, and I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Somers, once again for initiating this debate today.
4.6 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I echo the last remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in a tribute to my noble friend Lord Somers for initiating this debate. In my opinion the subject is of such importance that the short debate procedure is scarcely appropriate to do it justice. We could well spend a whole day of debate, no doubt with thirty-seven speakers or more, doing justice to this subject. However, it is a short debate and we must do our best with it.
I have been accustomed in the past to address your Lordships on transport

663
matters, wearing a variety of hats from time to time, but I hope your Lordships will disabuse your minds of the idea that I should now be wearing any hat such as you may in the past have observed. I am not doing so; if I were wearing one at all it would be as chairman of the International Road Federation, and I should only wear that because of the extremely useful opportunity I have been given to know much more about the transport scene in many other countries as well as our own.
It seems appropriate, and perhaps a little ironic, that this debate should have been tabled for a day on which the BBC radio gave us two interesting items of news. One was that this was the day on which British Rail would begin tests on its new high speed advance passenger train. That would be frightfully good news, were it not for the fact that it was also announced that the Japanese have found it necessary temporarily to withdraw their similar trains from service because of the unsuspected and rather dangerous faults that were developing. There must be some kind of message there, if your Lordships care to burrow about and sort out just what it is.
In his opening speech my noble friend Lord Somers gave us a number of figures, and if I appear to criticise those figures I hope he will absolve me from any personal reference to him because I know perfectly well that he did not compile them himself. While it may be said to be critical, I would say that the figures he gave us were, to use a contemporary expression, "a load of old cobblers ", and if your Lordships do not understand that and think it is an un-Parliamentary expression I will explain it as being figures as to the accuracy of which some dubiety may be attached. I notice that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton rather tended to fall into the same trap, as I thought did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in the figures that he gave. Superficially attractive they may be, but are they complete? My Lords, they are not complete, and the reason they are not complete is because they do not include the factors of cost or time.
If I can be corrected, or if anybody likes to produce evidence after this debate, I will willingly accept it, but I do not
664
believe this will be done. It can be superficially claimed, as it has been by British Rail public advertising, that rail shifts a given weight of goods over a given distance at a greater economy of energy than does road. Does it do so, when you take into account the cost and the time? Are we better off in sending it that way? I am simply asking, but I believe that this is a question that very urgently needs answering.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, speak so often on this subject. Will he be honest with his figures? Will he say that in his comparisons between sending goods by rail and sending goods by road he has taken into account a figure for road travel which includes repairs, leasing, or something like that, of the roads?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is still sitting, may I interject one question. Does the noble Lord deny British Railways' claim that in comparing fuel costs of road to rail, the rail has an advantage of 1: 3½?
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not deny that. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that he has not heard me on anything at all for six years. Therefore he could not have heard me on this subject quite so frequently.
Lord POPPLEWELL: Oh yes I have, my Lords.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I am gratified at the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. Are we talking about superficially clever arguments with figures, or are we talking about efficiency for industry and the consumer? I maintain that efficiency to industry and the consumer is what is important. Let me say to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton that it may well be that he can produce some beneficial figures of this kind, but three weeks ago at extra cost I sent a consignment the size of a small portable typewriter—it was not, in fact, a small typewriter but it was about that size—from Preston to Southampton, a distance of 260 miles; it took eight days and it arrived smashed. To send a consignment by rail from Birmingham to Southampton, about 120 to 130 miles, apparently takes just over three weeks. It is not cheap, either, although a consignment that I sent did actually arrive in one piece.

665
My Lords, having said that, I will freely and willingly acknowledge that a large number of consignments are regularly delivered, in one piece and on time. I also acknowledge that a large number of people travel on trains which usually arrive punctually. It is not all bad. One swallow does not make a summer. But it all too often happens that things arrive late and broken. Unless one can include factors of cost and time in the calculations, I do not believe that the figures which we have been given today are truly accurate and in the interests of the nation. That is my only point there.
My Lords, if there is to be the kind of vast investment which has been hinted at—which has been more than hinted at, because from somewhere I have an idea that it is the intention of the Government, or the hope, the plan, the dream (I am not quite sure which) to make an investment over the years of, I am told, some £1·5 billion, whatever that may mean, because it has more noughts than my mind can cope with—this will be a very large investment indeed. At the end of it all, having made that investment it may or may not work. I would hope it would. Wearing my hat again, we have always thought and acknowledged that modes of transport other than roads had a very important part to play, modes such as rail, sea, air, water, et cetera, but perhaps more believably and easily rail rather than the others. It has never been denied or contested. People have merely queried what it can do. I hope it can do it, and will do it. It might work better if it were conducted in an operational spirit more applicable to 1974 than 1874. It might work better if there were restrictive policies such as were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Somers; for instance, restriction of road transport, which sounded remarkably and suspiciously like outmoded Labour philosophy of 15 or more years ago. I rather expected, when the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said that, that there would be a rousing round of "Hear, hear" from the Labour Benches. I can only assume that there were so few people on them at the time that they could not make that much noise.
My Lords, I am not arguing this. It is an argument for today, but we really have no time to argue it. All I am saying is that it may or may not work. But just for the sake of the interesting argument,
666
let us assume that it does work. As my noble friend Lord Somers again correctly pointed out, the railways do not actually go everywhere. The fact remains, whether or not we like it, that having been sent by rail, everything—perhaps not everything because such statements are questionable, but 99 per cent. of everything sent by rail—reaches its destination by road. This is an inescapable fact, because man has chosen, by and large, to live in densely populated areas in which he demands highly efficient services of every kind. He demands that supermarkets, stores and shops shall be well stocked, that everything he requires shall be provided; and everything he requires reaches him by road, even if it has come part of the way by rail. If your Lordships would like me to put it another way, I believe I am correct in saying that if one looks at the present system, there is a rail depot per thousand shops in this country. I believe that it is right that there is a rail depot per 600 factories in this country as things are at the moment. Therefore, road has an enormous part to play to supplement or to serve—whichever way you care to look at it—the increased efforts of the railways.
My Lords, now I come to the real point of what I am trying to say. I have seen that, not only in this country but in a number of other countries, Governmental thinking is tending to swing away from the natural, logical and, indeed, I would regard it as essential development of a carefully planned road system—not roads at all costs—in favour of a swing back to rail with occasional sops thrown to the waterways; a swing away from logical and sensible road development to complement it. I am not asking the noble Baroness who is to reply for any kind of answer today, because that would not be right, but I would ask her to accept, and the Government to accept, that at this stage, as thinking and popularity, if you like, swings away (as it particularly does in the case of urban transport) it should swing back again. If there is a case for carrying much more by rail, then automatically with that goes an absolute basic necessity to improve urban transport systems to distribute all the goods by rail. I believe from what I can see and hear that there is a great danger that this is a matter which is being overlooked. All public announcements of public thinking

667
on this matter indicate the opposite. It is swinging away from this. I ask Her Majesty's Government to devote their attention to swinging back to it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for introducing this debate and producing so many interesting arguments. If this debate is to run to time, then I believe at least I should be very brief. My Lords, there must be a future for the railways. I do not entirely agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, because I believe the railways offered a very large network until it was cut back. If sufficient money were invested in the railways, a really efficient system with many technological advances could be introduced which would make the railways far more economic. I will not go into the arguments with regard to the various figures as to fuel costs of railways and diesel lorries. I should like to centre my argument on the need for investment.
Costs are always going up, and one of the major costs in rail, as in other transport, is maintenance. Therefore, I feel it absolutely essential that we now concentrate on investing in items which will reduce maintenance costs in the future. Already some of these points have been taken up. One of them must be the expansion of electrification. This vastly reduces costs. It has many other advantages as well: environmental cleanness and also flexibility of fuels. Hydrocarbons are going to get scarcer and at some point Lord Chesham's lorries are going to find it difficult to get hydrocarbons; perhaps, as we heard the other day, they will be working on methanol instead. Another item which must reduce costs is laying new concrete lines. This can be done quite simply. The technology is there. British Rail have the equipment and they have laid experimental lines. It reduces costs vastly.
Here I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He talked about the closure of the Tokado line in Japan. This railway had to be closed down for one simple reason; it was designed incorrectly. It was designed on the basis of brute force. The engines are extremely heavy. They are
668
travelling at about 130 mph, but they are capable of travelling at 180 mph. The trouble is that the weight of these trains has shattered the special concrete lines. These were laid on special tracks, specially built to withstand these strains. The answer is obviously in a new suspension system, and the APT has this. Therefore, one area which would vastly reduce costs would be to spread the APT suspension system on to eventually, hopefully, all equipment which goes on the railways. We know that the track wear would be very greatly reduced. On the Tokado line they had teams of men out at night trying to keep it going. In the end the damage was greater than the repairs that could be effected. My argument is that the APT would save costs in reducing wear and tear on track.
There is another area where I feel we ought to be investing at the moment. This is the self-propelled, unmanned single freight truck, slightly different from what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was talking about. But it is a system which British Rail have already pioneered. It does work. It can be set up and it can run on small lines. Obviously, there is an enormous investment cost in setting this up. That brings me to another area where we ought to be investing and that is in computerised train control. All these things are there; they have been developed by British Rail. The engineers have done a great job. I want to come to the engineering side in a moment.
There are so many other spinoffs that have come from what has been developed. For instance, there is the taperlite suspension, which makes the small trucks very much safer and able to be run at much higher speeds. This has come from the APT programme. What is happening at the moment is that with the cutbacks—I stand to be corrected here—we are going to be left with 27 high speed diesels and only 3 APTs. I think this is very sad, because the high speed diesel is again the old dinosaur approach of brute force. We are to have only three APTs which are now not going to be run on the gas turbine principle but on electric, because the other engines were not practicable.
A further point is that we are advancing only very slowly on the electric side. We have not got it on the North-East line. I have said that we ought to

669
be investing and investing. At this moment what is the answer? My solution is promptly and actively to market our technological developments such as the APT. There are tremendous markets the world over for this. I believe that we can sell them. The only problem is this. British Rail was set up originally on a different premise; the engineering and the design side were set up to service only British Rail's requirements. I believe that we must radically change our thinking and move over to a selling operation, to a marketing operation. On this basis, we must not look at it as servicing British Rail, but should look at it like the aircraft industry, but not make the mistakes of the aircraft industry whereby they built a plane like the Trident which was to be used only by one airline, BEA. We need to look at the railway developments so that they can be sold worldwide, perhaps not selling the individual trains and making them here, but at least selling the technology so that they can be manufactured under licence elsewhere.
At the moment the problem with the system we have in British Rail is that we have a limited design force. In fact I know that so far as draftsmen and designers are concerned there is a chronic shortage. Obviously, there must be greater incentives to bring people into this industry. It means spending now to get revenue later. The closure of the Tokado Line is a perfect example of the need for this technology, and we can sell it.
There is another point which is much closer to my mind; that is, that although we have a considerable amount of technology, at the moment British Rail are only playing at selling. This does not require a vast investment plan, but the setting up of a really professional and really active marketing team to go round the world. I know that we have had teams going abroad and they have done a good job, but it has been terribly limited. They have not had the backing, and, most important of all, they have not seen the will on the part of British Rail. This goes back, of course, to Government and changes in Government. Therefore, it is very hard for them to have the enthusiasm given to them which is needed to mount a really effective marketing campaign worldwide. But, my
670
Lords, I feel that if we did this we could produce enough revenue, which could then be put back into our rail system so that, in the end, we would have the most advanced and most economic system.
I wish to return, my Lords, to a point concerning transport on the roads. This matter goes back to a previous debate which we had, when I raised the subject of the extremely dangerous loads that are carried on the motorways. I have in mind, for instance, tankers carrying highly toxic matter or highly corrosive acids, travelling at relatively high speeds along with family motorists. It does not take much to cause a crash. We have seen what has happened in the past when people have suffered horrible burns due to tanker crashes, and I feel that many more similar accidents could happen. We are very lucky that there have not been more accidents of this sort. We ought to aim at getting dangerous loads off our roads, and putting them safely and effectively on to the railways.
My Lords, the noble Baroness is always so very courteous in her replies, as I found the other day, and it would be rude of me to ask her something without giving prior notice. However, I ask her to consider the need at the moment for developing our manufacturing capacity, our design capacity and our marketing capacity in British Rail, so that we can have a real railways industry—with manufacturing and the selling of technology—which will be the pride of the world and which can be channelled back into developing our own rail system.
4.31 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I, like other noble Lords, thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for bringing this matter to our attention for further debate? We had a debate on transport in March, which covered a rather wide field. The only point on which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who has just gone out of the Chamber, is that this matter could have been more fully ventilated if there had been a whole day to debate it. This is a big subject, and so much is taking place that it is difficult to embrace the main points in a debate lasting two and half hours.

671
I want first to echo a little what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said with regard to the trouble on the railways involving signalmen. It is a rather disconcerting situation. I speak as a signalman with something like thirty years' service before I came into your Lordships' House, and I very much deprecate the industrial action by a small group of individuals who have been an irritant for some forty years, and who have never made any real progress, but who now seem to be jumping on to the bandwagon of saying: "If you are a little difficult you can get results", which I think is extremely unfair.
Bearing in mind the recent settlement in the railway industry—the biggest settlement ever known—of some £50 million, and taking into account the further negotiations taking place, I sincerely hope that this small group, who undoubtedly upset and irritate people, will not be taken as representing a fair balance of railwaymen as a whole. They are very irritating to our customers, the general public, and their case—in my opinion and in that of the union that has been negotiating for a long time—is entirely unjustifiable.
Although we are having only a short debate on rail transport today, great interest in it is again developing in the country. Naturally, this is being exemplified by the shortage of oil and the difficulties that have arisen. I know from my postbag that there is some need for a re-think in relation both to the convenience of people who want to get from A to B, and to the general strategy of our transport development.
I trust that your Lordships will not object if I weary you once more with a favourite theme of mine, that I have expressed on several occasions; namely, the difficulty that has arisen from Governments in general refusing to look upon transport as a whole. In the latest Act passed by a Labour Government we have different lines of approach with no coordination at top level. I believe that in this small, densely populated island of ours we must have a co-ordinating scheme which makes the best use of the available resources. It has been the practice since the 1947 Act to look at the various transport undertakings as individual enterprises, and not as part of the whole. The
672
noble Lord, Lord Chesham, spoke quite a lot about cooking figures. He was expert at cooking the figures which he wanted to give to us this afternoon. Anyone who takes the trouble to read his speech and to break down the figures will see which hat the noble Lord was wearing very well this afternoon.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he really must be accurate. I did not give any figures this afternoon, so the noble Lord cannot cast doubt on something that I have not given. I merely cast doubt on other figures which have been given.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the only figures that the noble Lord gave referred to rail travel. We want figures for road travel in order to make a comparison. I said that the noble Lord was cooking the figures because he was not making a fair comparison. But, of course, this is usual, because since the noble Lord left the Ministry he has made several observations which had a similar bearing. I do not blame the noble Lord if his interest is in road transport—and he declares his interest to be there—but the House as a whole will assess his figures accordingly.
Judging by some of the speeches that we have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, particularly the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who spoke from the Government Front Bench, one would think that transport was something new. Noble Lords have been talking about small developments in transport as if they were new. However, if we take the history of transport in the postwar years we find that long-term planning—the need for which has been mentioned—has been tried times without number. People who really understand rail travel, and who look at transport as a whole, tried to co-ordinate transport in the immediate postwar years.
Then the change of Government took place, and Lord Robertson preferred to resign after two and a half years of his second period of office as chairman of the Railways Board because of the changes in Government policy of Marples and of the other Ministers of Transport—as my noble friend Lord Champion says, too numerous to mention. They changed policy to such a degree that Lord Robertson himself even then knew that

673
we were heading for real transport trouble.
Some part of the trouble that we are in today was specifically mentioned in a debate in the House of Commons on 27th June 1962, when the Beeching Plan was being prepared to utilise road services and curtail rail development by stopping electrification and the installing of tracks for diesel locomotives. At that time it was distinctly said:
"That was a common sense approach with the utilisation of the nation's resources—coa] to produce the electricity, and the electricity to give us cheap running power. But the "—
Government of the day have now—
"stopped that development. They turned completely from electrification to dieselisation."
Thousands of pounds were spent on ensuring that bridges and overhead structures on the East Coast line from King's Cross to Newcastle were prepared for overhead cables.
"Thousands of pounds were spent on work which is no longer necessary because dieselisation is replacing electrification, and dieselisation depends on imported oil. Heaven knows where we should be if there were a war or other crisis! We are pinpointing our economy on oil."
That was said on 27th June 1962, at column 1214. Many more things were said during that debate, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
We have dieselised our railway lines. I think that the railways are one of the largest users of imported oil. The last figures I saw made them about the fourth largest user of diesel oil. We could have been using our own resources of coal to produce the electricity. In addition to that, as you travel along the railways you will see factories on the line side that used to have rail connections. They are now taken up, and all the products have to go by road—road, with a service dependent upon imported oil! As I said earlier, we are now reaping the consequences! In reply to my noble friend Lord Somers and the noble Lord opposite, one must remember that it was the deliberate policy of the Government, in closing down railway-connected places from something like well over a thousand to scarcely a hundred, or just over a hundred, at the present moment, to make it more difficult than ever for goods to travel from the place of production to destination point.
One also knows full well—the noble Lord opposite mentioned it, and it is frequently referred to in this House—the difficulty
674
that has been created by closing down so many branch lines. We are pressing now for them to be reopened, and some are being reopened, but we must remember that it was deliberate Government policy that brought this trouble about. We hope that the appointment for the first time of a Minister for Energy—charged with the task of looking at all forms of energy and seeing how they can best be harmonised—is a step in the right direction. It is quite a contrast to the years and years of continuously changing Tory policy. This is what actually made the railwaymen themselves in charge—the chairmen of the respective Boards, apart from Dr. Beeching—despair. Of course, Dr. Beeching knew where he was going all right. He was following a city-to-city line for passenger services, and so far as other transport needs were concerned he was quite prepared for all of them to go on to the roads, so long as we had a city-to-city service.
So far as the number of plans is concerned, I have a whole list of them here—1954, 1962, 1962, 1963, and one could go on. The men who actually understood, and could run the railways, have never had a chance at all because of the constant interference that took place at Government level. Investment policy has been laid down on quite a number of occasions, and each time they have tried to work that investment policy the Government have stepped in again and refused to admit the full implications involved. In 1971 and 1973 they cut it back £67 million. The railway people who believe in railways, and can give a service at the behest of the Government, have not been able to do so.
I sincerely hope that, as a result of the change that is now taking place—some of it brought about through the difficulties resulting from depending on imported oil—that pressure will be kept upon this Government to really look at transport as a whole. Remember that inland waterways, the roads, the railways, air and coastal shipping, are all an integral part of our transport needs. Under this new Ministry of Energy, I hope that many of these factors will be co-ordinated with one point very clearly in mind, and that is not to waste oil, not to waste our resources, but to ensure that we get efficiency of use irrespective of what the profitable end might be.
4.50 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, it is now my turn to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for inaugurating this debate. I certainly support those noble Lords who say that this subject should be debated over a much longer period, which I hope may be possible in the future. I wish to add my expression of praise and gratitude to those noble Lords who have praised the achievements of British Rail in the past and given it encouragement for the future. For my own part, given any choice, railway travel is what I prefer, although a number of your Lordships know that aviation and certain developments of that industry are an especial interest of mine. My chief use of British Rail at the moment is travel by Inter-City to the North of England or into Scotland. In Inter-City we have a service to be proud of: fast and comfortable, and with the possibility of even better service to come. Our national pride is quite in order because many travellers from other countries, including railway experts, have expressed genuine admiration for the service.
Last year I had the great privilege to be a passenger on the trial run of the latest high-speed train. It was both fast and very comfortable while almost uncannily quiet and smooth. The smoothness was first noticeable when rising from my seat and not having to brace myself against any sway. As to the quietness, I took a tape recording of parts of the run. When playing it back I found that conversations between people at the very far end of the coach, where I sat, were definitely audible, even though those persons were not actually discernible. I am pleased to relate that I have heard favourable reports from foreign visitors, and from my own experience of travel in other parts of the world I certainly believe that in British Railways we have a service equal to none. Possibly the nearest to it would be a train called the "Metro Liner," on which I travelled from New York to Washington.
Regarding our suburban services, I am in no position to offer any real comment. My daily life does not involve commuting. Nevertheless, I hear numerous rumbles from colleagues in my office, one of the basic factors of which is, I believe, a knowledge of what our railways can and have achieved and, naturally, any short
676
comings are immediately noticeable. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned various points relating to passenger comfort and safety and the necessary staff to look after them. I certainly support his comments. Often a handicap at the station is in not knowing where to go; and it is not always easy to find out. The problem of trolleys exists. I personally once wrote a complaint to Glasgow Central when I could not find one, and I received the assurance that trolleys would be provided in future. People are on the train and it is nice to know that trolleys are available, if one can see them.
While I have no complaints about catering on the trains—I cannot say that I have used the cafeterias very much—recently I was travelling South from Darlington. I did not take lunch, but I went into the buffet car for a beer and a sandwich and had to wait a considerable time for service because, owing to shortage of staff, the barman had to go into the dining room to help serve lunch.
As to seats on trains and in waiting rooms, I would mention a station that I use in Scotland—Arrochar and Tarbet—on the Glasgow-Fort William line. It is one of those lines for whose retention I have pleaded and which I think will remain with us for some time, for which the many passengers up there will be thankful. While waiting for the Southbound train with sleeper to return to London I was all alone on this very attractive station with nice scenery around, with masses of seats to choose from, and even a waiting room to go into to ensure that I should keep warm. If a wayside station can provide that kind of service, why cannot a London terminal? I have heard that Waterloo Station, which I have visited a number of times and which I remember had vast rows of seats, had those seats removed on the excuse that so many tramps were coming in and "dossing" down.
From tributes on passenger services, I now turn to the matter of freight. Here I hope I may have some encouraging news for noble Lords who, like myself in recent years, and in this debate have noted the concern which has been expressed about the environment and transport, particularly concerning heavy goods vehicles on the roads. This problem is likely to find at least a part solution by

677
the modernisation of British Rail's freight system. British Rail are producing a book for the public to read—I have been fortunate enough to obtain an advance copy—called British Rail Today and Tomorrow. If any noble Lord would care to see it later I should be delighted to show it to them. In it is mentioned a service called "Tops", meaning Total Operations Processing System. When complete this system will have details by computer—here I refer to the speech of my noble friend—of every locomotive and wagon of the British Rail freight fleet. Some of the advantages that it is hoped the system will provide are:
"Empty wagons available to customers with least delay. Accurate information flow as to whereabouts of rolling stock. Easy disposition of empty wagons. Control of rolling stock for priorities. Maintaining an even flow of wagons. A minimum effort when there has to be any change in traffic patterns. No wagon should even remain idle once it has been emptied."
With my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton I certainly continue to support any possibility of the Channel Tunnel scheme continuing. In a debate on the Tunnel last year I expressed concern that there might be a bottleneck of freight if this computing system, which British Rail hopes to provide, cannot also be provided on the Continent, particularly among the European Community. With an international network I think that we can avoid such blockages of traffic should our Channel Tunnel finally be built.
Finally, as your Lordships probably all know, next year will be important for British Rail. It is the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Stockton-Darlington Railway. I mention an interest because I shall be slightly involved in the celebrations merely as a result of the past connection of my family with railways, and in particular my ancestor, Edward Pease of Darlington, who saw how George Stephenson's steam locomotive could revolutionise transport. This was not "The Rocket" which my noble friend mentioned earlier, nor was it the famous locomotive No. 1 which can be seen at Darlington Station. It was named "Blucher" and it pulled trucks at Killing-worth Colliery. There will be much railway history brought to public notice, and anyone who has any connection whatsoever with railways can be justly proud of what has been achieved. Let us hope that these achievements of the past will
678
create inspiration for the future, so that the country may continue to have pride in its railways and the will to provide the resources which will result in that high-quality rail system which this country really needs.
5.0 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I have the leave of your Lordships' House to intervene in this debate—although my name is not on the list of speakers—with just a very few sentences, knowing that this is a short debate and that time is pressing this afternoon? Everything that I have heard this afternoon has confirmed me in my view that the logic of the railway truck as opposed to the road truck is unassailable, and in my view the reason why the road transport system is able to take so much freight and so many passengers from the railways which ought really, to our advantage, to travel on the railway is the question of cost. The question of cost was explained in his intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, who pointed out that the roads are provided by the public purse at a very modest fee to road transport whereas the railways have to raise the whole cost of providing, maintaining and operating the permanent way, the signalling and every other thing which has to do with transport on the railways out of the individual freight quotation or the individual ticket. Therefore, I long for a Government which has the courage to consider that railways are trunk roads and should be treated as such and provided as such for the benefit of the community, and that British Railways should be asked to run a service upon such trunk routes.
If this were done, then the sort of co-ordination to which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, referred could take place in the provision of services for oil development in Scotland. For instance, sections of about nine miles or more of the A9 in the centre of Perthshire and Inverness-shire are being turned into dual carriageway at enormous cost, when all that would need to be done to carry the freight which it is necessary to take over the Pass of Drumochter would be to replace the other railway line which was lifted. If we could only think in terms of providing once again the services which, in certain areas of the country, the railways successfully, usefully and at

679
reasonable cost once provided, then we should go a long way towards providing the infrastructure in areas where development is taking place.
I refer also to the area around Aberdeenshire, where there is great oil development taking place at the moment and where railways were almost totally removed—passenger services were totally removed—by the Beeching axe. I refer also to the great amounts of capital expenditure which are being incurred, and are about to be incurred, in bridging various firths North of Inverness, going up towards the oil developments in Orkney and towards the various developments around Nigg, providing oil rigs and eventually refineries, and so forth. The firths are to be bridged for roads, saving 15 miles of road. If, at the same time, they were bridged for railways, too, it would be cheaper than doing it separately, and would provide a great deal more transport and very much more efficient co-ordination of transport in that rapidly-developing area.
Again, I hope that a third bridge will go across the Kyle of Sutherland between Tain and Dornoch, and that when that happens it will be very largely causeway, which, consistently made wide enough to carry a railway track, can save another 11 or more miles of railway track and can bring the whole East coast of Sutherland into the commuter belt of Tain and Nigg. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that a case is being clearly made out for the railway system; that we need a railway system for this country; that we need to give it a fair crack of the whip, and that we need to put it back where it is wanted—as part of the infrastructure where great and important developments are taking place.
5.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, together with the other speakers who have taken part in this extremely interesting and, for me, highly-educative debate, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for initiating it, and also to other noble Lords who have spoken for their valuable contributions. Trans
680
port is a subject on which everyone is his own expert. I think we saw that last week when we discussed urban transport, to which the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, referred; and today we are discussing the railways. I think my noble friend Lord Popplewell was so right when he said that we should be looking at transport as a whole, and today it seems more necessary than ever that one should take this overall look rather than have what I might call battles on the sidelines between road and rail. There was one moment this afternoon when I thought the whole debate was rather like a private discussion among the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and my noble friend Lord Popplewell. I was about to jump up and say, "May the rest of us join in?" However, the points made were, I think, all very valuable and interesting.
Whatever the differences between us—and it is quite clear there are differences in approach and method, and also as to finance—I think there is wide agreement on the valuable, and indeed irreplaceable, contribution that the railways make to transport needs. This was confirmed in the debates on the Railways Act, to which I think practically every noble Lord who has spoken has referred—a measure which was given a welcome here, as it was in another place. Again, I think almost every noble Lord who has spoken today has stressed the importance of new investment to improve services, and we should all like to see an even faster rate of rail improvements. But we have to be realistic. It is true that the railways have suffered from a very inadequate investment for a very long time, and although passenger services have been speeded up on the electrified West Coast main line, and further improvements will come as high-speed diesel trains come into service, to attempt at a time of severe economic difficulties to remedy all the neglect of years would not only be quite wrong but would have quite unacceptable effects on other public expenditure programmes which are equally desirable socially (and some even more so) at this time. We must remember that railways compete for resources not only with other transport, but with hospitals, schools, pensions—in fact, with programmes right across the public sector.

681
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in his extremely interesting and experienced contribution to this debate, asked me about the long-term guidance which is being given by the Government to British Rail. I can tell him that we shall be discussing plans with British Rail in the light of the forthcoming White Paper on public expenditure and their corporate plans. But British Rail cannot expect to be exempt from the restraints which apply to all public expenditure, and I am afraid that this has to be the theme of any honest discussion of the railways problem that we have at this time and of the future of the railways.
The high-speed trains, the diesels, were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. British Rail have started to test the high-speed diesel train on the London to Bristol route, and ultimately this will travel at up to 120 mph. But, if I may point this out to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, this is still conventional technology. The Japanese, to whom he referred—and I also heard it reported on the radio this morning—have been running very fast trains, but only on a specially built line with no curves. Whether this affects it—I am no technological expert—I do not know, but it is quite clear that they are experiencing very high failure rates. In this connection, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put in a very strong plea for the Advanced Passenger Train. This will come later on. Till now, British Rail have asked only for three or four prototypes. There are no more problems, I think, about production because the designs are going ahead; and although it will take some time, there is no question of progress being delayed at the moment for any other reason.
My noble friend Lord Champion, who asked me to apologise for his absence because he had a meeting to attend, referred to the railways as being a service. I can only reiterate that rail has to compete for financial support with the other services that I have mentioned and with many that I have not mentioned. Therefore we must choose carefully the areas in which to concentrate the available resources, areas where rail is most effective; and, as I think all noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, pointed out, freight is one of
682
those areas, for only rail can carry the heaviest flow of bulk freight efficiently without severe environmental disruption. The other area is that of commuter services. Again, only rail can handle the heaviest commuter traffic and therefore the programme of improvement on Southern Rail will be continued as well as new schemes in other major urban areas.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about environmental damage is also relevant and where possible we are trying—and I shall come to this matter in a moment when referring to the grant system—to deal with freight carrying in this way so as to reduce the environmental damage to which he referred caused by lorries carrying heavy loads of dangerous materials.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, in stressing the importance of freight, argued for forcing long-distance freight on to rail. I must point out that this would mean departing from the long-established practice of giving consumers freedom of choice in transporting their goods. Moreover, although I hate to tread heavily in other people's fields, there is the point about how this ties up with the whole concept of free enterprise supported by noble Lords opposite. It could also lead to much higher transport costs and therefore to higher prices in the shops; because we have to face the fact that small loads are expensive to handle by rail and that many places are not, and could not be, served by rail. There will still therefore be the need for lorries to transport goods. If we take what I call the rather strong line of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, we have to accept that we shall be paying a great deal more for goods in the end. This really is the practical outcome of what he was saying. Quite fairly, at one point, he asked, "Have we got the money?" I am afraid that the answer is: No, we have not—which is why a number of the points that he made which, when taken in rail isolation, are good points are really not economically viable or feasible at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, made reference to a number of figures and figures were quoted by other noble Lords. I think I will leave this argument as it is. I have tried to use as few figures as

683
possible. A number of noble Lords referred to the closure of branch lines. It is true that in November 1973 the Conservative Government announced that no further significant closures would take place. This policy has been endorsed by the present Government and although some minor closures may have to take place, as far as possible major closures will be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, my noble friend Lord Popplewell and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, all referred to the question of reopening branch lines, mainly rural branches, to improve transport in other areas. As I am sure they are aware, such reopenings would be very expensive and in the majority of cases transport needs could be satisfied more cheaply and efficiently by buses. And if branch lines are re-opened people may have to travel some considerable distance from where they live in order to get to the nearest station.
My Lords, I now turn to a point which caused a great deal of discussion and which generated a considerable amount of heat: the question of the electrification programme. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, led off with an argument for a major electrification programme. My noble friend Lord Popplewell unfortunately turned out to be not just a prophet but a Cassandra when he quoted what he said in another place. Of course this is so. It is also true that taking this particular argument and looking back at decisions made in the past, one could argue that to have run down the coal mines (which was a policy at a particular time) now appears to have been the wrong policy. But at any time when decisions are taken, they are taken on the basis of the facts known at the time and projected into the future as far as is reasonable. They may be difficult to justify when later events occur. Perhaps the answer is that it may be that we were all not as wise as was my noble friend over the question of oil.
Nevertheless, it is simply unrealistic at the present time to aim for a programme of the size proposed in Transport 2000. It would be stupid of me to deny the operational advantages and fuel saving in electrification but the capital cost is simply enormous. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was right when he
684
referred not only to the financial cost but also to the question of timing. Here, too, is an area of individual choice in the matter of personal transport as well as of freight transport.
My Lords, we are talking about fuel and fuel consumption and I must point out that comparisons between different sorts of transport are extremely complicated. In fact the Transport Road Reseach Laboratory have written several books on the subject. It is probably true in the case of two trains fully loaded and covering the same journey that the diesel engine would use more fuel than the electric engine; but the situation is rarely as simple as that. One does not have equal amounts of load and there are other factors to be taken into account. Even if it could be shown that electrification always saved fuel, we must remember that the cost of the fuel is only a small part of the total cost of the railways. In financial terms, one cannot argue that fuel costs savings would pay for the heavy capital costs of conversion to electrification. This I am afraid really cannot be over-emphasised. I must say there are no firm proposals for new schemes at present; although the Board have more plans for electrification and these will be carefully considered when they are submitted but they will be considered in the context of the current economic and energy circumstances.
As has already been pointed out by many speakers, investment is a long-term matter and the Government want to see a great deal of traffic transferred from road to rail as quickly as possible.
My noble friend Lord Champion referred to the Railways Act and to the power of the Secretary of State to pay grants towards expenditure for providing private sidings for freight where he considers this to be in the interest of a locality or its inhabitants. The £1,500 million referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is, as I understand it, a grant covering the next five years. The next year's basis of Government support will be different from that of previous years, but I do not want to go into that subject in great detail because it is long and complicated. The object is to encourage industry to send goods by rail which would otherwise go by road, and these grants will also contribute to reducing the environmental damage caused by

685
road transport to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred and which is, in my opinion, an extremely important consideration.
The new grants system will also, I hope, give satisfaction to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. These grants will mean that his suggestions about trunk roads and railways and all the new track and signalling can be included in the grant claim. In addition, in May this year my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport invited about 100 of the country's leading firms to discuss with British Rail how to increase the use of rail for freight. We hope that these talks will indicate how firms come to choose a particular mode of transport and what action will attract industry to send goods by rail where it is economic and sensible to do so. That is, after all, the only basis on which this can really be discussed.
The Government are well aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on manufacturing capacity and exports and this, again, is a problem that the Government will be discussing with British Rail. British Rail themselves have achieved a great deal. Much more use is now made of each wagon than was the case a few years ago and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the computerised wagon control system which is in operation should lead to further improvements.
Several noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, referred to the Channel Tunnel and asked me whether it would be possible to turn it into an EEC project. It would be quite premature to make any statement or even to hazard a guess or opinion on these lines, because at the present time delicate negotiations are in progress following the Statement of my right honourable friend on the Channel Tunnel on 26th November. There is really nothing more I can add to that. As the House is well aware, British Rail are now urgently examining a range of lower cost options which arc intended to achieve the greatest possible volume of through traffic, including freight, while at the same time avoiding the adverse effects on the existing Southern Region system.
686
My Lords, I think the point that disturbed most noble Lords considerably was the question of quality of service on the railways. We heard about the shortages of guards and signalmen and the problems with ticket offices—though I would point out that the question of whether or not all offices are manned depends very much on what time noble Lords travel. If it is the rush hour on a Friday night or a Thursday night, this makes a considerable difference. I think noble Lords will find that ticket offices are usually completely manned during rush periods. It is perfectly true that many stations are grim and grubby and there are certainly waiting rooms which are not places of beauty or joy in which one would want to linger long. On the other hand, I must point out that there are some extremely clean and good stations; there have been new buildings in many areas and the service is not always as bad, and certainly the punctuality does not uniformly descend to the standard suggested this afternoon.
We know that there is a staff shortage and also an insufficient amount of money to employ the numbers of staff that would be needed, particularly to do some of the things mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. To be able to have the bars manned as suggested would need a large number of staff and, even if they were so manned, it could happen that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford told us—and he was quite justifiably annoyed about it—the barman had gone into the dining car when he wanted to use the bar. Seriously, this would mean a large increase in staff, and here we must not underestimate the conditions in which railwaymen work. We must remember how railwaymen and their unions have co-operated with management in reducing manpower demands, and hence rail costs. Over the last decade, railway manpower has declined by about 40 per cent. Many railwaymen work unsocial hours, though they have had a new pay structure which is an attempt to compensate for the unattractive conditions of railway employment. If one were to make a positive effort to increase the number of railway staff to the extent that would be needed to provide the services which some noble Lords have asked for, the cost would be almost prohibitive and very few of us would be able to travel by rail.

687
My Lords, I think we were very lucky to have in this debate the contributions of two signalmen, my noble friends Lord Champion and Lord Popplewell. While the negotiations are going on, British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen are doing all they can to solve the present problem. I shall therefore not add anything to what the noble Lords have said about a matter about which they know very much more than I do. However, I would point out that the quality of railway life also depends on passenger behaviour. This is not a one-sided matter: to accept ugliness is bad enough but to create it is appalling. It becomes extremely depressing after a time for even the most enthusiastic managers of stations—or whatever the phrase is today—to find things disappearing and to see places that have been clean and tidy dirtied up almost immediately.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was unfortunately quite right when he explained why the seats have been removed; that is, that the stations were becoming unofficial lodging houses. This may be a right use for them, but I think that is a matter which must be discussed in another context and on another occasion. To spoil and even to destroy their own and other people's environment is unforgivable, and this is unfortunately what is happening today. Vandalism of this order can affect the very high standards of safety on British Railways and the chief inspecting officer, in his recently published report on railway accidents, points out that, although train accidents which had been maliciously caused dropped from 225 in 1972 to 167 in 1973, the figure is three times higher than ten years ago. Here we are in the area of personal social responsibility and education.
There is an added sadness about this desecration and neglect, for it is quite clear—and my view on this has been reinforced by the debate today—that the railways are very romantic. Fathers take over their children's toy train sets and there is a deep nostalgia for the old "huffer-puffer". This is mainly a male nostalgia which is perhaps demonstrated by the fact that I am the only woman speaking in this debate—but speaking in it has increased my affection for the railways. I find, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, pointed out, that it is an
688
extremely peaceful way to travel. There is no telephone, thank goodness!—at least not so far—and one can read in peace. I do not know whether I should like to travel on the same train as the noble Lord if, as he says, he takes along a tape recorder recording things that happen on the train.
To summarise, the Government are committed to maintaining the railway system and to improving it as fast as finances allow. The system requires a large amount of financial support and we are providing as much as we can afford. I accept that, ideally, many aspects of the railway should be improved, but I think we all appreciate that there must be a limit to what we can do in the country's present difficulties.
5.31 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate and I think we are still within our time limit. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part, and in particular of course the noble Baroness who has just replied. I must confess I was a little disappointed when she said that there is not much hope of re-opening some of the branch lines that have been closed. But the thought has occurred to me that if British Railways do not feel they can run a branch line themselves, why do they not sell it or rent it to a private company who will operate it for them?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way. Yes, this is done; we are always prepared to do this. However, a line has to be sold at a commercial price and what has usually happened in the past is that when one has been bought, it has been bought for the land and not used as a railway. So although it may produce more money which can be used for the railway in other ways, it does not usually mean a continuation of a branch line.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what the commercial price of a railway branch line would be if it were not running?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is the value of the land concerned, as my noble friend knows very well.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I can quite see that, of course. But I should have thought it was possible to sell it on condition that it was operated as a railway

689
line. A nationalised railway system and privately owned branch lines have operated in Switzerland very satisfactorily for years, and the Swiss Railways are among the most efficient I know. So I think it would be a possibility.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Chesham—I must call him that, despite the fact that we no longer sit on the same Benches—that I was not trying to stage a war between road and rail transport. I quite realise that road transport has its place and indeed, certainly for short distances, I do not think anything can replace it. But I was thinking of heavy, long-distance goods transport which might be more efficiently carried by rail. Of course, it cannot be done in this way until we have easier conditions on rail, as he said. Once again, my Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MIDDLE EAST
5.34 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD rose to call attention to the growing need for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and to urge Her Majesty's Government to use all their influence, in conjunction with the other members of the European Community, to this end; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad that I was lucky in the ballot, as it has given me an opportunity to raise a question which is both topical and urgent. I shall do my best to start the debate in as low a key as possible and avoid all unnecessary controversy, because I am only too well aware of the passions and emotions which can so easily be aroused by this subject. The interest taken in it is quite clear from the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. I shall do my very best to limit myself to 20 minutes, which I hope will be thought reasonable. I am sure that when the noble Lord, the Minister, replies he will need 20 minutes. Unfortunately, this means, even if I waive my right to reply or limit myself to perhaps 60 seconds, that if every noble Lord who wishes to speak actually takes part
690
each speech will have to be of no greater length than 10 minutes. I hope I am not saying anything "cheeky" in drawing attention to this fact.
My object in raising this matter today is to try to extract from Her Majesty's Government a much clearer statement than has been given since last February on how they view the prospects of a renewed peace initiative in the Middle East. I should also like to emphasise the paramount importance of the European Community as such, formulating and energetically pursuing a common policy to this end. It would be both provocative and abortive to argue the toss about the agonies and difficulties of the past, to which British policy, unhappily under successive Governments, has all too often contributed. Nothing would be gained by apportioning blame to Israel or the Arabs for past acts of folly and violence, whether committed by the Stern Gang or Black September, which have so often been born of despair and desperation. I think the Arab-Israeli dispute started as a tragic outcome of great Power politics. This imposes an undeniable duty on those same Powers to make a supreme effort to find a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and not to give up until they have succeeded.
Wherever our sympathies lie—and surely they must lie with all the victims of this prolonged and senseless conflict—we must regard past events as so much water under the Allenby Bridge. Today I want to look forward with hope and feel there are some quite good grounds for doing so. I feel confident that that will be the spirit of this debate. It is undeniable that the United States holds the key to the door to peace. It is equally undeniable that Dr. Kissinger has made energetic and highly imaginative efforts this year to turn that key. Yet the door to meaningful negotiations that could lead to peace remains obstinately and tightly shut. Perhaps too much has been left to the Americans—I do not know. At any rate, where the Soviet Union is concerned, it is fairly clear that they are unable, and perhaps unwilling, to take an impartial initiative. Whether or not Moscow has a vested interest in what is often called "no peace, no war", I cannot say. But it is probably true to say that they have little or nothing to lose from the continuing deadlock, however

691
inconsistent that may be with their constant and recent protestations that the cold war is over.
All this points, in my view, to the urgent need for the European Community to give a fresh and strong lead. I have no doubt whatever that there is renewed hardening of attitudes on both sides, and even a mood of resignation towards the prospect of yet another eruption into war, which would be for the fifth time since Partition. I fear that a growing number of Israelis already favour a pre-emptive strike against a heavily re-armed Syria—re-armed, of course, by the Soviet Union—and that even in isolation such a move, though it might be militarily successful, would be politically disastrous. At the same time, I see a growing frustration in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, which plays into the hands of the militants and those who urge them on, sometimes for ulterior motives. That means that there must be a serious risk yet again of a concerted Arab attack on Israel or, at any rate, that such an attack cannot be ruled out.
Despite this gloomy analysis—also, in some ways, because of it—I in fact see some good reasons for hope for the future if two basic conditions are met. Both, I frankly admit, pose very grave problems indeed, though not insuperable ones; both may only happen gradually—they will certainly not happen overnight, as is inevitable when conflict springs from long and deep-seated fears and grievances. But that both conditions will have to be fulfilled before these negotiations are successful I am sure is correct.
The first condition I suggest, with respect, is that the Palestinians through the PLO, and following their dramatic, almost worldwide, diplomatic success in recent weeks, must show magnanimity and statesmanship. They must learn to reject extremism and violence which can only jeopardise their own legitimate hopes. The PLO must state unequivocally that Israel has the right to exist in peace with her neighbours within secure and guaranteed frontiers. This would mean changing Article 6 of their Covenant and accepting fully, without reservations, United Nations Resolution No. 242. The PLO must not only condemn, punish and discourage, as they have, terrorism in neutral and friendly countries by men and women purporting to be their agents, but
692
also, I suggest, terrorism in Israel and the occupied Arab territories against civilian targets. That would be a very helpful move in the right direction. In other words, and to round off this first condition, the PLO itself and Israel's Arab neighbours, must learn to regard the nation of Israel as a potential friend and neighbour. Israelis must no longer be seen as individuals—this was a mistake in the United Nations Resolution No. 242 about the Palestinians themselves, though it has since then been corrected.
So much for what I humbly suggest is perhaps the first basic conditions that has somehow to be met. What is the second condition? I suggest the second condition for successful peace negotiations is equally demanding but just as vital. Israel must acknowledge the PLO as representing the Palestinian people if there is to be a real prospect of living at peace with her neighbours. Your Lordships will recognise the immense problem this poses for any Israeli Government, not least the present one. But such agonising decisions have had to be made in the past. I can think of Her Majesty's Government and the Mau-Mau; I can think of the French Government and the FLM and, most recently, the new Portuguese Government and Frelimo. These things have had to happen in the past. They are incredibly difficult. But, in this instance, it is something which has to happen again.
I am glad to say that I see some signs of a shift in this direction in Israel. This is encouraging. For instance, Dr. Nahum Goldmann. President of the World Jewish Congress, gave a welcome lead in an article in the Jewish Chronicle of 29th November. The heading was "Time to take risks", which was sub-titled by the editor as,
"Dr. Nahum Goldmann … urges Israel to take risks now in an effort to secure peace with the Arabs including the Palestine Liberation Organisation".
The article continued, that he was highly critical of the Israeli Government's—
"… refusal permanently to recognise the PLO, especially after practically the totality of the peoples of the world, with the exception, for the time being, of the United States—and I would not take any bets as to how long this attitute will last—have recognised it ".
Only a few days previously the Jewish Chronicle, in two editorials, expressed broadly similar views. On 8th November

693
under the heading "Israel and the PLO" the Jewish Chronicle editorial said:
"By rejecting any contact with this organisation on any terms, Israel is driving herself into a corner in which she is becoming increasingly isolated."
They suggested that a readiness to negotiate on clear-cut terms would be preferable to a refusal which alienated world opinion, and which may have to be revised under pressure at a later date. Two weeks later, in the Jewish Chronicle of 27th November, the editorial urged on Israel,
"the necessity for a searing and fundamental reappraisal of Israel's policy ".
Of course they express every sympathy for the terrible dilemma this poses for any Israeli Government; and, indeed, they are right.
Those are brave and statesmanlike sentiments coming from such sources, and I am glad to have an opportunity of drawing attention to them. Similar sentiments were expressed in Israel by the Minister of Information, Mr. Yaryf, last July. Admittedly, his speech caused a great furore, and he came under extremely heavy attack as a result of it. None the less, he had the courage to say quite clearly that it should be possible to talk with the PLO if only they would acknowledge the right of the State of Israel to exist and would renounce their intention to overthrow it by violence. It was saddening and worrying for me, and for many of your Lordships, when that very courageous man, Dr. Israel Shahak, Chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, who dared to criticise the present policies of his own Government, was subjected to a campaign of such violent abuse and threats in the Knesset and Israeli Press. This was extremely disappointing and it runs counter to the hopeful note I have been striking.
In a word, what is desperately needed, surely, is peaceful coexistence in the real sense of those words (and not in the way they have sometimes been distorted by others) between Israelis and Palestinians. There may appear to be an unbridgeable gulf between the PLO's avowed aim of what they call a "unitary state in partnership" on the West Bank and in Gaza, and Israel's avowed aim to maintain the status quo. These two points of view can be brought together, and it was envisaged
694
in the Balfour Declaration and, for that matter, in the United Nations Partition Plan—something of which we may remind ourselves at this moment—that both nations should exist side by side.
I have every reason to believe that I am pressing at an open door where Her Majesty's Government are concerned in urging them to use greater influence to achieve peace in the Middle East. I was immensely encouraged by the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place (which I understand I am allowed to paraphrase) when he said that there were three fundamental needs if a settlement were to be reached. First of all, Israel must have satisfaction of her need for recognition by her neighbours of permanence as a State and of her legitimate security requirements. He said, secondly, that Israel's Arab neighbours must have satisfaction on the withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces. Lastly, he said that provision must be made for satisfaction of the needs of the Palestinians, by which he said he meant not only the rights of individual Palestinian refugees, but also the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. I welcome that most warmly. It is a major step forward of which we should take most careful account.
What alternative is there to reopening peace negotiations? There is one: another war—a war probably far more terrible than the last one. I see a real danger of such a war next spring. I think it is brewing. Ultra-modern weapons would be used; civilian targets for the first time would be very likely to be attacked and very great damage done. There would be a very heavy cost in lives and an intensification of bitterness which would postpone the chance of settlement for many more years to come.
In terms of self-interest alone, grave economic damage would be done to the United Kingdom's already shaky economy and the economies of our Community partners, not to mention the disastrous effect on the developing countries. There would be no victors in such a war. All would be losers, not least the oil-bearing countries who would lose heavily from deflation and massive unemployment among their best customers, resulting from the almost inevitable oil embargo. Hawks in America might well again urge

695
military intervention in the Arab oil States, something which, if it occurred, would make the Suez campaign look like a picnic. A fresh outbreak of war would again raise the terrifying spectre of the spread of conflagration beyond the Middle East.
My Lords, I have said something about the problems and warned about the slow pace at which we can expect progress towards a comprehensive solution, but what constructive suggestion can I make now towards that end? This, I realise, is very far from easy. I can make only one suggestion today, and that is that the European Community, of which the United Kingdom is a member and, I think, highly likely to remain one, could have much more influence than is realised provided an initiative were to be taken.
I know that it was very difficult for the Community to reach agreement on the resolution adopted by the nine Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen in November last year, but it was this resolution that laid down such excellent guidelines and expressed such admirable sentiments. It is very disappointing that the follow-up has been so inadequate. For example, what real thought has been given to the kind of international guarantees that would make a settlement on the basis of Resolution 242 possible? What part would the Community be willing to play in the "despatch and maintenance of a peace-keeping force" to the demilitarised zones which will surely have to be set up? What pressure, if any, has been brought to bear on Israel to take account of "the legitimate rights of the Palestinians", which is another quote from the same Resolution. What steps have been taken by the Community to persuade the PLO that Israel has the absolute right to "sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence", which is another quote from the same Resolution.
There are many other questions which will spring to your Lordships' minds, but I would ask only one more before I come to my conclusion; it is a question which has arisen only recently. It is, perhaps, very controversial, but I think the question should be asked. Is it the intention of the Community to recognise the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people? I myself think that they must do this if they are really
696
to influence events. I assume that it is the intention because M. Sauvagnargues, President in Office of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine recently met Mr. Arafat and one hears, although one cannot be sure, that the talks went well. I hope that they did.
If there are answers to these questions they really seem at the moment to be somewhat shrouded in mystery. If precise plans and preparations are not being made along these lines one can only regard the Resolution passed on the oth November 1973, as somewhat meaningless and I am sure it was never intended to be that. So, in conclusion, I would say that we have had enough of words. What is needed now is some fresh action if disaster is to be avoided. The fact that the machinery for political co-operation in the European Community is less than adequate is no excuse for not taking the necessary action.
I ask the Minister when he comes to reply to be good enough to do his best to answer the questions which I have put to him about the extent to which Her Majesty's Government is pressing her partners in the Community to translate words into action. I am sure that he will not tell me that all these matters must wait on the Euro-Arab dialogue which is still in its preparatory stages. The action which I should like to see taken obviously has to be taken in conjunction with the United States in order to bring about an early resumption of the Geneva Peace talks.
My Lords, both Israelis and Palestinians have already suffered tragically and for too long through this appalling conflict. Both sides rightly demand security and national identity. Both could have it. That is the only basis for the peace that we could and should help to ensure. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to give your Lordships an assurance that they will take all possible steps to reach that objective in conjunction with the United States and our partners in the European Community. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for initiating this debate, and I should like to say how much I personally am looking forward to the maiden

697
speech of my noble friend Lord Fisher of Camden. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, the Middle East is a subject on which passions inevitably run high, yet emotive language and extremism can contribute nothing to the search for peace. There can be no question of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East without an appreciation on all sides of the genuine fears of the Israelis. The population of the Arab States is 125 million, while Israel's is a mere 3 million, 55 per cent. of whom have lived in Arab countries. The increased wealth available to Israel's enemies for military purposes through the unleashing of the oil weapon has turned the tables in favour of the Arabs. This situation contrasts sharply with Israel's feelings of isolation, and her growing fears of Western appeasement and of a willingness to sacrifice Israel as the West once sacrificed Czechoslovakia. We must understand Israel's fear of being sacrificed on the altar of oil.
The United States and Russia may talk of détente, but in the Middle East they are clearly on different sides. Détente, as the Israeli Prime Minister has said, does not extend to the Middle East. America supports Israel. Russia pours the latest sophisticated weapons into Syria. Since last year's war, two designs have been vying with each other. The US-Israel-Jordan-Egypt idea of a stage-by-stage progress towards a settlement was one such concept; another was the Syrian-Soviet aim of blocking any progress towards overall or partial settlement. Israel has made considerable concessions. Israel has made it clear that it no longer insists on political settlement with formal renunciation of belligerency. It is prepared to agree to further disengagement provided Egypt makes concessions by undertakings to the United States.
Israel's Foreign Minister has said:
"There is room alongside the State of Israel for an Arab State, of whatever name, which will give expression to the Palestinian identity."
Syria's attitude remains the chief stumbling block to peace. Israel cannot be expected to accept an imposed settlement. Until Syria is prepared to honour a separation of forces agreement, and not to subvert it by encouraging Palestinian guerrillas and building up massive stocks
698
of arms, the threat of war in 1975 must continue to loom large. The cardinal aim for all who seek peace in the Middle East must be to prevent Egypt from being driven back into the arms, in both senses, of the Soviet Union. The prospects of Jordan and Egypt participating in a stage-by-stage settlement are greatly to be welcomed, but Syria and Russia must cooperate.
It is conventional to accuse Israel of being the sole instigator of the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian Arabs. But the Arab nations have done little for the 700,000 refugees in United Nations' administered camps. These displaced people are supported on an 88 million dollar budget, largely underwritten by the United States, which contributes 29 million dollars a year, and the Economic Community, which contributes 24 million dollars. The oil-rich Arab States, which at the Rabat Summit voted 2·3 billion dollars to the fight against Israel, including 50 million dollars to finance PLO terrorism, provided last year the pitiful sum of just 2 million dollars to the upkeep of refugees. With a thousand times that sum spent on attacking Israel, we may well query the sincerity of Arab concern for Palestinian families.
I believe that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the long overdue rights of the Palestinian people and the self-appointed Palestinian Liberation Organisation. The PLO was founded in 1964 with the express aim—I quote its founder—of "driving the Jews into the sea". The murderous exploits of the six organisations it embraces are too widely known to require detailed mention. Yet this organisation is now welcomed at the United Nations. I believe it is unfortunate that, at the United Nations, Britain acquiesced in the granting of observer status to a man who has no more right to it than the Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA. For while the tactics of terror persist in the Middle East, in Ireland or in this country, there cannot— and, indeed, there should not—be any political esteem for their perpetrators.
My Lords, to conclude, I should like to say that we all hope for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I hope that we shall all take into account the fears of Israel as well as the rights of the Palestinians. I hope, too, that we shall recall, when the PLO speaks of dis

699
mantling the Jewish State and replacing it with a secular democratic entity, that there has never been an Arab State; that is, an Arab State either secular or democratic. Above all, my Lords, let us remember that no certitude of righteousness justifies violence. To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine; it is to kill a man.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, this debate is short on time but long on urgency. If inflation is "the" domestic issue of our moment of history, then the need, surely, for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East must be "the" concern of British foreign policy. With clarity that only comes from experience, my noble friend has brought this home to us this afternoon, and we are grateful to him and delighted that his Motion was chosen for debate. I myself am particularly grateful because my job is to speak from these Benches on economic affairs, and my noble friend's Motion gives me the opportunity to say how closely the economic crisis of inflation and stagnation, with its threat to our livelihood and to our ability to live peacefully together within our own national borders, is welded to the crisis outside. The twin pillars of this crisis are the Middle Eastern unrest over the Israeli and Palestinian questions, and the most rapid and radical shift in the balance of power that has occurred in my generation's lifetime.
There are welcome signs that at long last the degree to which this country's economic crisis is linked to the shift in power I have mentioned is being brought home to our people. Much the greater part of 1974 has been taken up with politics of a provincial and depressing kind. There was the desire, which I quite understand, of a minority Government—a new experience for us—to achieve majority support. During this time the energy crisis—as the Middle Eastern question is sometimes called—was consistently represented as something primarily to do with the previous Conservative Government's so-called policies of confrontation; as if trying to establish a flexible but orderly wages queue at a time of growing inflation was anything other than an attempt to contain that inflation while at the same time protecting employment. Now that the Government have won their
700
majority, conservation has suddenly become a concern again.
Then there was, indeed there is, the desire, which I also understand but find less forgivable, for Government to make the principal platform of their foreign policy, not the Middle East, but renegotiation of our terms of entry into the European Community. This platform had to be erected because of the Labour Party, and the show enacted upon it has little or nothing to do with the all-important issue. Of course I believe that British financial contributions to common European funds should constantly come under review. But the questioning of the European principle by men who are in reality committed to it continues to distract our attention from the more powerful world beyond and the issues being debated this afternoon.
I fear that the Government are being outstripped by the Daily Mirror which today decided to give its huge readership a crash course in the Middle Eastern question. This, in my view, is of the very greatest value and I congratulate the Daily Mirror. Economic as well as purely political questions were presented in plain and graphic terms. Government and Parliament are also in the communications business. I acknowledge the superior potential of the present Government's powers of communication to our own for the time being. I do not like doing this, but I do so. It is all the more needful that they turn their back on distractions and concentrate all their efforts on explaining the new facts of our industrial and political lives and in getting the support of our people as they learn to cope with them.
My Lords, the stark facts are these: at a time when all the Western economies were wrestling with the currency inflation caused by external factors such as drought, the world commodity price explosion and the like, and internal factors such as the political difficulties generated by any significant change in the rates of unemployment, the oil weapon was unsheathed by the Middle Eastern Powers. That this came about was in my view somewhat less of a surprise to the Western Departments of State than is generally claimed: witness the rather unfairly named "Arab Legion" in our own Foreign Office. But we must remember, I think, that the world has got

701
used to all major initiatives in foreign policy being settled, being imposed even, at super-Power level. We must remember that one of the limitations of the American system of executive control of foreign policy is that the overseas arm of government can choose to ignore what the economic arm is up to. We must remember that in the wise words of Professor Coral Bell,
"Europe at the moment is less than the sum of its parts: its members have not yet learned act as an ensemble, but have lost their old capacity to act as sovereign states."
All this, I acknowledge is so much water under the bridge, or perhaps I should say, so much oil burnt and lost for ever in the wastes of atmosphere. Our people acknowledge that cheap energy, like cheap food, has also been lost for ever. The miners, indeed, have been saying so for a long time. Unfortunately, this did not prevent them from bringing down a Government which recognised that the October 1973 war in the Middle East changed their position, even as long before that war it had pumped more money into revitalising the coal industry than any Government since 1945. The last few days indicate, too, that there are other lessons which they believe can be learned at the knees of the oil sheikhs.
Be that as it may, it is less certain that our people recognise that there is another sword in the Middle Eastern sheath, the money weapon. The blade is already visible as is shown by the impossibility of any significant lowering of interest rates, even were inflation to be reduced. Of the two weapons I confess that I fear the money weapon most. By conservation, by sacrifice, by rapid and undoctrinaire exploitation of the North Sea, this country could survive the increased cost of oil. We could even recognise the painful justice of the situation. After all, only a year ago too many of us thought of the Middle East as just another part of the undeveloped Third World. But the present very precarious viability of the British economy depends on our invisible earnings, and the City of London is living on money which in some cases can be called in after only seven days. We desperately need long-term investment in our own sense of the phrase and we are not getting it.
What should the Government do? They must, as my noble friend said, try to help forge a common European policy
702
towards the energy producers. In the few moments left to me I shall try to outline what I believe such a policy should be. It has been suggested that a common European front should be primarily economic: saving existing energy use: exploiting and sharing new sources—oil from the sea bed, new coal mines, nuclear developments and the like; meeting the oil sword with a shield of tariffs. As I understand it, Dr. Kissinger favours this policy, at least as a bargaining weapon. I knew Dr. Kissinger in his professorial days and I share the almost universal respect for his ability. But I do not myself believe that this economic approach is on, except as a last resort. In the first place, the political difficulties are too great. Europe as an entity is immature. I happen to believe in a common energy policy, but our debate the other day demonstrated that there are powerful forces, not least in Scotland, which do not. Failing such a policy and the means to enforce it the French, who are dependent on the Middle East for almost all their requirements, would not, in my view, risk their supply. In the second place, the money weapon which I mentioned greatly weakens the tariff shield. The West could freeze assets, but in the long term they need those assets to continue coming in.
Finally, the common front could not be realised without America. The structural differences between America and Europe are very great. As a recent report of the International Institute of Strategic Studies wisely said:
"One is a military superpower, the other a union and an economic competitor struggling to be born. The US has raw materials, Europe needs to buy them."
Failing this common resistance to the frightening new powers, in both energy and money fields, of the Middle Eastern oil-producing States, the alternative must surely be a programme of European common co-operation with those States. Here, of course, is where the Israeli and Palestinian questions become so desperately sensitive. The oil-producing countries are our friends—they bank with us, they have a long history of working with us—but we have a special relationship, too, with the Israeli people through the Balfour Declaration, through our own Jewish population and through our natural admiration for a brave and gifted nation. This special relationship leads also to a

703
special responsibility. We were in large part responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinian people, and the fact that a criminal hijacking force of guerillas would like to blackmail us into formal admission of this does not, alas, prevent it from being true.
Our role in a common European policy presents formidable difficulties but it is a role we must start to learn. I believe that the main thrust of European diplomacy must be directed towards the oil-producing powers themselves. They are not, after all, in the front line of the territorial dispute. In spite of their colossal wealth they need Europe or America, or both, for the utilisation and development of their resources. They recognise that Europe and America are committed, under Resolution 242, not only to the pre-1967 territorial national integrity of Israel but to Israel's security. This, in effect, must involve internationalised or demilitarised zones or both, and to be effective it must involve Israel in access to energy supplies. Even the Egyptians, who have great oil potential in the Western Desert, recognise this. Israel will never be a rich country in the sense of oil surplus, but she must have sufficient for her military protection. Europe and America could not and should not abandon her. Unless her security is protected in this way, her fellow-Western democracies must make it clear that whatever the difficulties they would have to gang together to make themselves far more independent of Arab oil or Arab money.
The second thrust of diplomacy, no less important, must be directed towards Israel herself. She must be persuaded to return Jerusalem, not to its old position as a tragically divided city, a Middle Eastern Berlin, but as an international city, a larger Middle Eastern Vatican, policed by neutrals. One does not need to be a theologian to point out the appropriateness of this course to a city which is a symbol of love and justice and redemption to all the occidental and the Near Eastern religions. Israel must, in my view, be persuaded that the consequences of her going nuclear in the military sense would mean that the Arabs would use their oil and cash levers to purchase parity—and do not think, my Lords, that that could not be done. The French alone could do if, and given the prospect of a certain
704
level of unemployment, I believe they would have to.
The final thrust must be directed towards the establishing of a national home for the Palestinian people. This is the hardest question of all. On the one hand it would mean that several States would need to surrender part of their sovereignty; on the other, there are, as we know only too well, large intransigent groups of Palestinians who will only be satisfied by the destruction and repossession of Israel as a State. But ironically, my Lords, the oil and cash weapons of the wealthy Arabian hinterland are the guarantors here. Vast surplus wealth can compensate for sacrifice; also it can isolate extremism from moral and financial support. Continued Middle Eastern tension threatens the world as well as the region. We have evidence that the newly-rich Powers would rather protect and enjoy the world than bring it to its knees.
In sum, my Lords, I believe that there can be no solution to the Middle Eastern question until the Western democracies and the oil-producing States recognise that their economies are interdependent. We can only go without their oil by returning as a continent to a predominantly agricultural standard of life. They can only fully realise their assets by participating in, and not destroying, our economies. This interdependence can grow fruitfully only with peace, and both the old and the new rich have, if they wish, the power to impose peace. They must start the job together and they must start it now.
6.21 p.m.
Lord FISHER of CAMDEN: My Lords, this is my maiden speech and some may question the wisdom of choosing a subject which has been described in other places as a "hot potato". Who will quarrel, however, with anybody who has a genuine desire to help towards a real, permanent and secure peace in the Middle East! Thus I claim that in this sense the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is non-controversial.
At this point perhaps it would be fair for me to explain and to declare my interest, for I have the honour to be the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This was established in

705
this country in 1760–214 years ago—and is the representative body of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom. Therefore it will be of little surprise to noble Lords to appreciate that my sympathies, while overall for humanity, lie specifically in a certain direction.
I was interested in the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on the Palestinians. If I were he, I would not completely identify the Palestinians with the PLO. Most of the Palestinians live in Jordan. The PLO, as a terrorist organisation, is based in the Lebanon from where they organise their attacks on such strong points as schools and railway waiting halls and specialise in assassinations. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, says, we talk about the recognition of the PLO. We have to bear in mind, too, the situation of our ally Jordan and her position and also that of King Hussein whose personal position, in my view, would become untenable if the PLO were to be recognised as an official political entity. Again the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, talks of recognition and of giving up terrorism. It is for the terrorists to give up terrorism, and it would be delightful if the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, could persuade those terrorists to say publicly that they have given up their activities. This, surely, is a pre-requisite of any kind of association in the modern world.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to the Palestine refugees who lay for many years in filth and squalor in concentration camps, and, it could even be worse described, deliberately placed there and allowed to rot there—to be retained as hostages for some time in the future. When I tell your Lordships that the Arab lands, with their 125 million popuation, cover 5 million miles of ground, surely there is sufficient space for the Arabs to have taken care of the Palestinians and seen to it years ago that their condition was put right—indeed, exactly in the same way as 800,000 Jews were driven from Arab countries and are now completely integrated in the land of Israel.
I will not enter into a dispute with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, but at one point he referred to terrorism and I will leave him to the tender mercies of the Government spokesman. However, I must say
706
that, in the eyes of all impartial observers, people who can be trusted to be completely neutral have stated that Jerusalem has never been so well cared for in the whole of its history. Israel is punctilious in ensuring that every religion which is associated with Jerusalem has its place, has its care, and is being looked after. I believe that we must give much thought to the matter before we propagate the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, when Jerusalem is being recognised not only as the religious centre of the world, having seen the commencement of so many important religions, but as a city which has an important part to play in the life not only of Israel but of many races and religions.
My Lords, there may be different views about how peace can best be achieved, and discussion and constructive argument fairly put can only do good. In this context, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for a moment, for I should like to quote a brief extract from the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission of 1937. The Chairman of this Royal Commission was a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Peel. The Report says:
"In the twelve centuries and more that had passed since the Arab conquest, Palestine had virtually dropped out of history. One chapter only is remembered—the not very noble romance of the Crusades. In economics as in politics, Palestine lay outside the main stream of the world's life. In the realm of thought, in science or in letters, it made no contribution to modern civilisation. Its last stage was worse than its first. In 1914 the condition of the country was an outstanding example of the lethargy and maladministration of the pre-war Ottoman régime…. Oranges were grown near and around Jaffa, but most of the maritime belt was only sparsely populated and only thinly cultivated. Esdraelon for the most part was marshy and malarial. Eastwards, beyond the Jordan, nothing remained of the Greek cities of classical times, save one or two groups of deserted ruins. Southwards, in Beersheba, once the site of several prosperous towns, all trace of urban life had long lain buried under the encroaching sand".
My Lords, I have referred here to the names of cities and towns which are still being used, some of which are in Israel. I hope that noble Lords will take the opportunity to visit that country, particularly that part about which I have just read, and see for themselves how people with energy and muscle who can work and who give no thought to time have made those deserts bloom and have turned sandy wastes into thriving towns.

707
My Lords, may I now present some facts. There are 20 Arab States, the majority of them formed after the Second World War and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, they cover vast territories, about 5 million square miles. They are underdeveloped and, in spite of a population of about 125 million, are still very much underpopulated. In contrast, there is the tiny State of Israel—the only place in the world where Jews are in a majority, and even then Israelis, Jews and others number only about 3 ¼ million in total—with an area of only about 35,000 square miles.
This little State with its remarkable pioneering achievements is a democracy, the only one in the Middle East and one whose institutions are largely modelled on our own. There can be no question but that the interest of our country lies in peace and stability in the Middle East. If the other members of the European Community are prepared to support our policy based on Resolution 338 as interpreted by the British Government, a Resolution which calls for negotiations between the parties themselves, then the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, can play an historic part. Unfortunately, as we know, France, one of the members of the European Community, has clearly committed herself in one direction and, as a result, it is difficult to see how the European Community can command at this time the confidence of both sides.
The ideal aim is a final peace—permanent and without interim arrangements—and this can be achieved only by Israel and the Arab States sitting down together, without preconditions, in a spirit of good will. Such a result would bring incalculable benefits to the whole region and remove once and for all the greatest danger spot from which a world conflagration could arise. Israel has stated constantly, and as recently as last weekend—and this was said by its Prime Minister—that it is ready for immediate talks and also for territorial concessions. However, one must recognise that, unfortunately, this permanent peace is unlikely of achievement at this moment, but it must inevitably come sooner or later; sooner, if the Soviet Government were genuinely to lend its efforts in this direction.
708
The alternative to direct negotiations is to continue a step-by-step method, and achieved the separation of forces on the Egyptian and Syrian fronts. It was Dr. Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy which prepared the ground for that agreement. It seems to me that we must continue at present to support the United States' initiative; for in its efforts lies the best chance of achievement in the short term. Let us, however, continue to hope and to work, for there is no substitute for a permanent peace which can be based only on good will and, hopefully, a growing realisation of the tremendous benefits in which all would share. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for initiating this debate, because any action that is taken along the path to peace can only be applauded.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, upon his maiden speech, especially as I agree with every single word of it, and I hope that he will continue to address this House on the subject, on which he is clearly an expert, on many future occasions. It was an admirable maiden speech, brief and to the point.
I rise to speak only briefly in this short debate, but I want to say that this country, above all others, has a moral obligation towards Israel. The Balfour Declaration was a turning point. We accepted the mandate for Palestine and we promised a national home for the Jews to Chaim Weizmann, and that was binding. The mandate and the national home we can never abandon. Dr. Weizmann's evidence to the Peel Commission in favour of partition was conclusive, and that is what the Peel Commission recommended.
Then came the terrible time under Ernest Bevin, when we threw up the mandate, and abandoned the Jews to their fate at odds of about 12 to 1. We hoped then for the dissolution of the national home and perhaps for the establishment of a system of cantons on the lines of Switzerland. On the whole—and this is odd—Bevin had the House of Commons on his side. The late Dick Crossman and myself fought a forlorn and rather lonely battle against great odds when it looked as if the Jews were going to be exterminated. But in the end the Jews

709
won the war of liberation, and the State of Israel was established.
Now in my opinion Weizmann, who was a very close friend of mine and one whom I venerated and loved, was a man, of all the men I have known, of commanding genius, who had certain essential qualities of greatness which I never detected in any other. He was a very remarkable man and he concentrated upon this country because then this country had the necessary power. We had conquered Palestine during the 1914–18 war; we were the mandatory Power; we had the power to establish the Jewish national State. He brought it off. It seemed to many of us at the time that it was a miracle; but he achieved it, he succeeded, and all I want to say now is that appeasement does not pay. We found that out in the 1930s—some of us to our bitter cost. Some of us fought hard against appeasement. I smell the smell of oily appeasement at the present moment on the part of the Western Powers.
Europe is not behaving well in the face of this Arab blackmail—because blackmail it is. If we had co-ordinated more closely with the United States of America I think we could have done a much better job, but we have all gone off, one by one, to the Arab countries to do the best deal possible. That is not good. It is not good for the whole of the Middle East, and it is not good for Israel. The Western Powers at the moment are in disarray. We are not working closely with the United States of America; we are not working closely together in Europe. We are working, on the whole, against each other; and that works against Israel.
I do not think that the problem of Israel is as complicated as might appear to be the case. Jerusalem must be made, and must continue to be, the capital city, but an open city with free access to the holy places. This the Jews are readily prepared to accord to members of all faiths. In my opinion, the Golan Heights should be policed by a United Nations force which would keep the parties apart and prevent Israel from being under constant threat, the Kibbutzim in particular, from these Heights. I think there should be a substantial withdrawal by Israel from the Sinai Peninsular. Ben Gurion once said to me after the 1960
710
war, that he would be prepared to concede this. Finally, there should be viable frontiers for Israel which could be defended. All these things can, and should be, negotiated at Geneva.
My Lords, the State of Israel must be preserved. We betrayed it at one moment; we must not betray it again. As I have already said, we have a moral obligation to the State of Israel which we did much to create and which, with the co-operation of Weizmann, we in fact created. Weizmann dreamed a dream. I repeat to your Lordships, he had elements of greatness that I have never found in any other man I have ever met. Weizmann made that dream come true in terms of real life, and that can be said of no other man of our time, except Lenin. He was an artist who worked through the most difficult of all the media—human beings—over whom he cast a spell, the like of which I have never seen in my life. Lloyd George, Balfour, Churchill and Amery all fell under him. Because of this, the State of Israel exists today, the only democratic State in the Middle East. But Weizmann ended his life with a note of warning, and I think his line now would be one of caution. In his last words to Meyer Weisgal, his great friend, and mine, he said:
"I have loyal friends, more than I deserve. Tell them not to permit the destruction of the thing that we have laboured to build. We Jews can do something very good, and something which can be an honour to us and to mankind, but we must not spoil it. We are an impetuous people, and sometimes we spoil and destroy what has taken generations to build up."
My Lords, I believe there is a good chance of a settlement in the Middle East if we do not indulge in a policy of total and rabid appeasement towards the Arab States—and I have seen signs of that lately. I conclude my speech by quoting the words of a Psalm which all of us sing:
"Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep".
6.44 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, it is rather interesting to hear in the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, the words of the Psalmist of and in the national home of the Jewish people. I would invite some of our friends over here to have another look

711
around the Houses of Parliament, and to visit the room where those of us who are Life Peers and others originally robed ourselves. There one sees the picture of the figure of Moses bringing down the Ten Commandments, which unhappily now are being shattered by certain elements in the UN. He enjoined Joshua to take the Israelites into the Jewish homeland. For thousands of years the Jewish homeland has been in existence, and, consequently, the natural result of the continuance of that is Israel—the Jewish homeland of today. There are few who realise that.
In the same room there is a painting of Daniel and, on the staircase walls leading to the Terrace, Hezekiah and Judas Maccabeus. It is perhaps interesting today to realise that the saviour of civilisation, the person who wrested Jerusalem from the Pagans, from the idolators, was Judas Maccabeus, the anniversary of whose bravery and whose rescue of Jerusalem to which I have referred, happens to be this week, and is celebrated by Jews throughout the world. It would be interesting for some of our friends, who attempt to deny the right of Israel to be the Jewish national home, to think about that. Perhaps they should also walk into the inner Lobby of the House of Commons and see the statues of the people whom we regard as being worth commemorating—the Zionists, Balfour, Lloyd George and Churchill. These are matters which might be of interest to some of those who for years have been attempting to belittle the idea of the Balfour Declaration and the re-creation of the Jewish national home.
My Lords, I have been saved a considerable amount of what I would otherwise have said by the excellent speeches already made. May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, with whom I have worked for many years, and who holds an office which I held some years ago, on the extremely excellent speech he made. I am quite certain that noble Lords, even if they hold views contrary to those expressed by my noble friend Lord Fisher, will want to hear him speak on many occasions in the future in consequence of the way in which he presented his case. I would say to my noble friends Lord Sainsbury and
712
Lord Boothby that they have admirably presented a case which, in my humble way, I have endeavoured to present over a period of years.
But, in addition to what they have implied or expressed in their speeches, I am concerned that the lights have gone out at the United Nations. They have gone out because the UN have allowed a declared assassin—who has practised every conceivable kind of attack on human beings, who has sent his people to shoot children one by one in a schoolroom—to speak. I would say this to my noble friend Lord Chelwood, whose speech was an interesting one. We have no time, and I do not propose at this stage to go into details by answering some of the points of the noble Lord, but, in the main, he has obviously presented us with a Motion which everyone would like to come into effect—if it could be achieved. We should try to achieve it; there is no question about that. He has done us a service by introducing the Motion.
I have lived through some terrible experiences. Arafat is an assassin, a declared murderer, and even when delivering the speech he made which defiled the United Nations Assembly the other day, he took a gun with him and threatened that he would have whatever he wanted by any means. How can we deal with a man of that description? How can we deal with an organisation of that description? I have with me dozens of quotations from speeches he has made, from the declarations that came from his organisation. Let us have no doubt about this. They intend to do what, horrifkally, Hitler did, but perhaps in a different way. I hope your Lordships will forgive me, but it just so happens that these matters have left an imprint on very many of us.
I remember when people stood up, I believe some in Parliament, and said that if Hitler was returned he would not carry into effect what he had declared in Mein Kampf. But Hitler did carry it into effect and killed 6 million Jews and the predecessors of Arafat, under and with the Grand Mufti, were there in Germany with him helping to arrange to kill those 6 million people. And we are told, apart from anything else, that there is no responsibility to be attached to the Arab world, even for doing something for those

713
who survived that holocaust, in spite of the Grand Mufti's efforts to destroy them. I wish some of our friends who are considering this position would realise that there is a moral obligation not only on Germany, but on the Arab world to deal with the effects of that matter.
Israel has shown itself to be an example to the world by the way in which it has carried on since 1948. Indeed before then, I remember taking Members of Parliament on the first Parliamentary delegation that went out, in order to show them what Jews are. I took them, with my wife, in 1934 to see what the Jews had done in fighting against the ravages of nature, the erosion which had taken place there, and to show them what Jews really were and are, so that they would understand that Hitler's propaganda was based on falsehoods and semi-truths. I want to say this: for Heaven's sake, do not let us today forsake the moral standing that we hold in the world. Morality is as important to us as it is to any nation in the world.
Today the United Nations presents to the world not an image of the original United Nations with its Charter, but a distorted figure as represented in a funfair of convex and concave mirrors. It is our duty, I think, to try to bring a moral outlook on the position. If we look at it in that way we will see that the PLO, which is the instrument of the Devil, should not be a participant in discussions even on behalf of the Arabs themselves; because it is a disaster to them as it is to the rest of the civilised world. There can be no question about it—they should not have the authority, nor should they become the people to tell the other Arabs what they are to do. I think the Arabs have fallen into a very serious mistake by the foolish action that they took at the United Nations.
And what is going to happen to Israel supposing their plan comes about? The PLO are out to destroy Israel. They want the land surrounding Israel, and by gradual steps, to take back land, to positions to which even some of the noble Lords in this House would have the Israelis pushed back, surrounding them in that way so that within seconds they could achieve, if not this year in years to come, their evil purpose of destroying Israel. Not only is their purpose to destroy Israel; their State so-called requires every
714
single Jew and Jewess who was not there in 1917 to become an alien and to be thrown out. But where?
My Lords, I do appeal to the Government and the Opposition not to sell their souls for a mess of pottage; it is not worth it and nothing will be gained by it. Rather they should direct their attention towards the civilised world coming together in order to solve the energy problem, and to solve the terrorist problem, and to follow the directives which were set by the great prophets of that land.
I conclude with one other thought. The disgrace that has come to UNESCO by its resolution against Israel at the present moment is sufficient to bring us to a real understanding of the position. Israel, a land which stands for culture, for giving all its citizens education, for building universities, for all that we commend, a land that takes into its fold every Jewish immigrant who comes there from oppression and gives him or her a decent living and dignified citizenship, is attacked in UNESCO of all organisations. I think it is a lesson to us all. I pray that we will encourage the parties' coming together to work out a solution, as was started by Kissinger, and that we will not fall into the terrible error of supporting assassins as being the persons to direct the welfare and the future of the Middle East.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I remind the House that the speeches will have to be very much shorter. The average now, if your Lordships want a reply from the Government, is 7 to 8 minutes per noble Lord.
7.0 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I shall try to do my best. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, even although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I am not in agreement with him. He put over his point of view so nicely that it was a pleasure to listen to him, and I hope that we shall hear him again. In the last year or 15 months we have seen the revival of Arab power to a position that it has not held since the early Middle Ages. Every Arab from Agadir to Abu Dhabi realises this. He also realises that the Arab world can at last do something about the injustices imposed upon them—I regret to say most of them by the British, followed by the Americans and the French

715
in that order. I think it is worth recalling the asininities of British policy during and after World War I.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting may I ask what injustices we have ever imposed upon the Arabs? We conquered the Turks, and released them all and gave them all the power that they have at the present time. What injustices has Britain ever imposed upon the Arab world?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, if the noble Lord had had the civility to wait until I had said what I was going on to say, I would have gone on to tell him. It might have worked if we had followed one of them, but I think it must be obvious that they were all mutually contradictory, and they were the seed bed of our present difficulties. The Sykes-Picot agreement was a straightforward 19th century carve-up of the Ottoman Empire. The promises of the Foreign Office to Emir Feisal, made before the Balfour Declaration, of a re-united Arab world were probably the course of action we should have followed. But we broke those promises. Not only did we break them after the war, but we broke them during it. The India Office was supporting Ibn Saud against Emir Feisal. Finally there was the idiocy of the Balfour Declaration—and, incidentally, when the Prime Minister says that Britain stands by it, he is wrong. It was partially revoked by the Peel Commission.
Also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, says, the Declaration never promised a Jewish State. It promised a national home for the Jews without prejudice to the rights of the existing inhabitants, and without giving foreign Jews extra privileges. Those are the words of the Balfour Declaration. I could go on, but I conclude that this was a way of absolving Christianity's guilt over its treatment of the Jews at the expense of others. The Muslims have hardly ever been anti-semitic—the Christians have frequently. Mohammedanism, as your Lordships know, is an extremely tolerant religion. After all, in the fourth most holy mosque in all Islam, the Hummayad in Damascus, there is a Christian shrine—the place where John the Baptist was killed.
716
We have heard a great deal recently of Ma'alot and Kypioim Shamona, but we have forgotten the "Patra", a ship carrying banned Jewish immigrants to Palestine, blown up by Haganah, later to become the regular Israeli army, when 240 Jewish people were killed. We have forgotten that Irgun and the Stern gang killed, according to the Red Cross, 254 men, women and children at Deir Yassan in 1948. We probably never knew that on 8th September 1972 the Israeli air force bombed villages in Syria and killed 200 people. We hardly realised that the Israeli army systematically destroyed what was left of the habitable bits of Kuneitra before it withdraw.
My Lords, I do not produce these random examples with any sense of relish or delight, but just to try to redress the balance a little. I also produce them to show why there is so much bitterness in the Arab world. The Arab case has tended to go by default in the Western world, partly because we are all brought up in the traditions of the Old Testament, and partly because of our guilt over our treatment of the Jewish people; partly also because Arabic is a very flowery language, and when translated tends to sound extreme. Why, for instance, has Senator Jackson worked so hard to allow the Jews free emigration out of their Russian homeland where they are now privileged citizens—and I say "privileged" advisedly. The Crimea Tartars are not even allowed to their own homes in Russia. Why has he not worked equally hard for the right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland, where those who remain are second-class citizens? I think we know. Zionism has votes in the United States.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Will he give the House the benefit of evidence that Palestinians living within Israel are not better off, in terms of employment and remuneration and democratic rights, than they are in many Arab countries?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think I could do that, and I will do it later if the noble Lord wants. I do not have it with me now. Also, I do not think it can be denied that the Palestinians still in Israel are second-class citizens compared to the Jewish immigrants there. What should we be aiming

717
at as a just solution? Obviously, we cannot have another diaspora, or another Massada. Massada, with Israel owning atomic weapons as she has just admitted, is, as has been printed in the Press, akin to Samson pulling down the Temple on top of himself as well as the Philistines, only this time the Temple could easily be full of English, French, Russians, Americans, and others, as well as those same Philistines.
Since last year, the situation has become far more dangerous. If the Arabs can see no prospect of peace, and a just one, they have not only the oil weapon for the next round, if it were to come next spring, but, above all, they have, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has said, the money weapon. They are now sitting on 80,000 million dollars. What happens to the world's monetary system if, because of Western aid to prop up an intractable Israel, they dump that amount of money, and more (because the sum will go up between now and next spring) into the world's money markets? There will be complete chaos. We would be hurt far more than the Arabs. This factor together with Israel's possession of atomic weapons, makes the Middle East time bomb one of the most dangerous since World War II.
Yet there are signs of hope. Yasser Arafat has come in from the cold—and I say this because of the reaction shown by the PLO over the recent Tunis hijacking. The Israelis really must not say that they will not negotiate with terrorists, because if they carried that to its logical conclusion they could not speak to half of the Knesset. Ygal Allon commanded the Palmach, Sharom was a terrorist, as was Menacheim Begin, the former leader of Irgun Zvei Leumi. Arafat, whom I have met, is a very tough and rather unpleasant man. But I am convinced that he wants to settle. Somehow, Israel must negotiate with him.
Several Palestinian high-ups in the PLO whom I have met have this attitude, and I quote one of them,
"Peace must come within five years, and a great many people on both sides will have to give up some of their most cherished beliefs".
I would suggest to Israel that if she were to suspend the law of return until after the Palestinians have been allowed home, this would be such a major concession that Arafat could in return say, "I will,
718
with immediate effect, stop any terrorist or guerilla action", call it what you will.
He now controls the PLO. There is, after all, enough money in the West and in the oil States to subscribe massively to a fund for resettlement. There is enough technical brilliance in Israel—and no one more than I admires the technically brilliant things that Jewish immigrants into Israel have done—to make the desert flower; and think, my Lords, of the arms bills that could be cut.
Our aim should be to make sure that all the people who at present inhabit the Levant shall live in peace and prosperity and after the Palestinians have been properly resettled there should be a home for the persecuted Jews, in the words of the Balfour Declaration,
"Without prejudice to the rights of the existing inhabitants".
But I do not think it right that an Englishman of the Jewish religion, as Edwin Montagu described himself, as Secretary of State for India at the time of the Balfour Declaration, should have special privileges. After all, my Lords, the Balfour Declaration also said that if something along these lines could happen then, in the words of the 105th Psalm, Egypt could be,
"glad at their departing for they were afraid of them".
This quotation shows that the problem has rumbled on for 3,000 years. The Book of Samuel is full of battles for the Golan Heights. It also shows that it was difficult then. It is certainly no simpler now, but solve it the world must, without injustice to either side, or we shall end up in a bankrupt radioactive waste land.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, in this short debate I do not wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and others have already said so well. But the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has in some of his remarks brought out something which we must not ignore in considering this grim and dangerous subject. There is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view and no such thing as a monolithic Jewish point of view. We must look rather more closely at the facts of the situation. There are different voices in the Arab world, different points of view expressed in the

719
Knesset. We axe all seeking, not just for the sake of the citizens of Israel, or of the Arab world, but for ourselves as well, and the whole world indeed, to get down to the realities of the Middle East situation. One reality, as has already been stated, is that there are 125 million Arabs and 3 million Jews; there are 20 Arab States to one Jewish State.
In recent years—even in recent months—there has been an addition of such enormous wealth to the Arab world that it can buy techniques, weapons, allies to such an extent that, if the situation in the Middle East was simply a confrontation between Israel and the Arab world, Israel could be driven into the sea. Let me say at once to my Jewish friends that I am not suggesting that they would not fight to the last man. Of course they would. But who for one minute would try to say that Israel, with all its bravery—and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has paid tribute to its technical skills—could save itself if the numbers, the wealth and the new techniques of the Arab world were consolidated and moved in against it? It would be impossible.
I want to give a parallel illustration. There are some matters that lie heavy on our conscience. I have no time to deal with these in detail. Spain I mention in passing. Then who asked, "Where is Czechoslovakia?" I pass—to illustrate what I have in mind—to the position of Yugoslavia immediately after the Second World War. Marshal Tito was threatened by Soviet Russia. The Soviet Union threatened Yugoslavia that if it did not toe the line then Soviet Russia would march. One day the full minutes of the British Cabinet of those days will be revealed, but enough is already known.
There was an agonising argument inside that Cabinet, deciding what would be the policy of our country. Remember, my Lords, we had just emerged from the Second World War with cities blitzed and all the other drastic consequences. Nevertheless, the decision made by the British Cabinet of that day—firm, clear and unequivocal—which was stated from the Front Bench of the House of Commons by my husband Aneurin Bevan (speaking not for himself but for the whole Cabinet) was that if the Russians
720
moved we would be involved. The Yugoslavs are a brave people and would have fought to the last man. Of course it was a very dangerous and difficult decision to make, but we made it. I do not think that anyone looking back would say that we made the wrong decision. I give that parallel illustration, because I think we have to stop talking in generalities.
I believe that the greatest contribution we can make to peace for our own future, as well as for the future of all the peoples of the Middle East, would be a clear, unequivocal statement that if any Arab Power tried to carry out the threat, which some of them are making, to drive the Jews into the sea, that if Israel——
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Baroness name me one Arab State that has ever threatened to drive the Jews into the sea?
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: Yes, of course, my Lords—the whole of the terrorist movement, Syria and the rest, have said it again and again. This is part of the trouble. It would be easier to reach a settlement if we could get a clear statement from Syria and from the terrorist movement that they recognise the right of the State of Israel to exist, but they will not give it. Therefore, I am saying that the 125 million Arabs should not be betrayed into a holocaust which would destroy them as well as the rest. Something, then, has to be done in order to restrain the impossible terrorist groups, and those who are still not prepared to say that the State of Israel will exist. Israel's frontiers can be guaranteed only if Britain and, I hope, America and other countries will say, "Right, if there is any move to invade Israel we are involved."
My Lords, I have the memory—I am watching the time—to go back 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was talking about his friendship with Dr. Weizmann, Weisgal and the rest. I, Aneurin Bevan and many others, were closely associated with the idealistic beginnings of the State of Israel and how they gathered the poor people of every race to give them a home. Also, I remember how, immediately after the Second World War, we were very conscious of 6 million men, women and children, stripped naked and thrust into

721
the gas chambers of Hitler. In fact, we owed a debt to the Jewish people. Forget the Balfour Declaration and everything else, my Lords. We owed a debt, that there should be some place on earth for the State of Israel and, more than any other country in the world, it was our decision which was responsible for the beginning of the State of Israel. So we were involved.
But the tragedy is that it would have been so much easier to decide this issue 20 years ago. I remember going to Egypt, Jordan and then down into Israel. I have a letter sent by Colonel Nasser to my husband in December 1953. Colonel Nasser said:
"It gives me great pleasure to avail myself of this opportunity to welcome you to Egypt, as it is well known that you always take a particular interest in the welfare and raising of social standards of the people. I enclose here two pamphlets concerning the land reform in Egypt, a copy of a Press conference with the members of the higher committee, and a report on the new social projects in Egypt".
That was 20 years ago. We went first to Egypt. We talked to Nasser and to General Neguib. We discussed with them not only their problems, but Israel's problems. I have the report here from The Times when General Neguib replied. These are his words:
"You need have no fears about the Egyptians. They will never attack Israel. Fifty thousand Jews live secure in our country."
That was Neguib. There was no doubt that Nasser, who was a younger man, wanted to come to terms with Israel.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was talking about the late Richard Crossman. He was a dedicated Zionist, more than I and others were. He was one of the people who made our contacts with Nasser and other Arabs. That is why I say there is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view. There were Arabs then and there are Arabs now who fervently want a settlement on the basis of recognising the right of Israel to exist. On the Israeli side, there is at the present moment as Foreign Secretary of Israel, Ygal Allon. Even 20 years ago, Ygal Allon was making us welcome in Israel and was very close to us in his point of view. There he was, ready to make concessions. It would have been very much better for Israel if he had been the Foreign Secretary during the last ten years instead of his predecessor. But this is not something new. I am
722
stressing the fact that there are different Israel points of view as well as different Arab points of view, and we are fortunate in having, in Ygal Allon, a Foreign Secretary who was born in Israel and who has many Arab friends.
Indeed—and, because of the time, I must finish on this—the moment of greatest hope for Aneurin Bevan and myself was the evening when we crossed from Jordan into Israel, because in Jordan we were the guests of a residential school for Arab boys aged from 13 to 17, and when we crossed on to the Israeli side again we were taking messages to the same kind of residential school. There were the Arab boys on one side and the Israeli boys on the other. They were children who had become destitute or who were orphans. They were being brought up in identical atmospheres. They even looked like one another! There were wonderful people on both sides who were looking after those adolescents, who knew one another very well and who were in continual communication. Those boys whom I met twenty years ago, and who were then in their teens, will now be in their thirties, of course, or about 40. The tragedy of history is that the best of the Arabs and the best of the Jews have been out-voted, out-talked, out-manoeuvred by other types, so that we have now to get back into communication with those on both sides who will make a sensible compromise with one another.
When we talked to Nasser, to Neguib, to Ygal Allon and to all the others, they all knew that a settlement would be a compromise, but the essential of that compromise is that Israel must be secure. Because if, instead of all this heartbreaking wealth being spent on arms, that wonderful technique of the Jewish people could meet with the growing technique of the Arab world, they could make a paradise. They must remove the poison of those camps, which were deliberately kept there with people living in them in foul conditions in order that hatred should never die. That is why I said there is no such thing as a monolithic Arab point of view. One thinks of the wealthy Arabs. Wealth has come to some Arabs recently, but there was great wealth in some States among some Arabs and then the nobles and the wealthy moved out, leaving the poor Arabs to rot and as fodder for their hatred. It is that poison and that hatred

723
with which we have to deal. I believe they can be dealt with. I believe there is a Government in Israel at the present moment which is willing—indeed, fervently concerned—to make a just settlement, and I know that among the Arab people (because I have my friends there, too) there are many of them, civilised and compassionate, who have no more wish to see a holocaust in the Middle East than any of us has.
7.24 p.m.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, one of the advantages, perhaps, of our short debates is that it is made unnecessary for us to follow all the previous speakers in what they have said. In the short and lessening time which is allotted to us I wish to speak positively about the future. Many years ago I went to my first post in Jerusalem and spent many years in the Middle East; subsequently, more recently, at the United Nations, I have also been concerned with the problem of the Middle East. I would therefore ask your Lordships' permission, in the few minutes we have, to speak very briefly, first of all, of the dangers which exist and then of the requirements for a lasting peace, after which I should like to say something about the procedures and the methods by which we can hope to move in the direction of such a peace.
I do not think we need say much more about the dangers: the dangers of the continuing miseries of the refugees, certainly; the dangers of mountains of armaments on both sides; the dangers of the two super-Powers now on a conflict course which could involve so easily and so rapidly the whole world; and the dangers of the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike, which can lead to fighting at any time with no notice at all.
Yes, my Lords, those are all dangers, but I sometimes think that the greatest danger of all—and I felt it very strongly when I was on both sides of the Jordan a month or two ago—is the tremendous gulf which exists between the attitudes, the ideas, the conceptions of the two sides. There are those on one side who believe that they can recover territories now occupied by Israel without any expectation or assurance of a lasting peace. That is a delusion. There are those on the other side who believe that they can win peace by military domination. That is
724
an utter delusion. There is a further delusion that I hear sometimes from one side or the other: that delay may be to the advantage of one or the other. I think that may be the greatest delusion of all, because delay now will mean, as I believe, that there is a certainty of conflict, bringing bloodshed and devastation greater than we can imagine. Thus there is an urgency in dealing with a problem so explosive that it behoves us to be very careful what we say and which makes it very necessary for us to think carefully as to how we can proceed.
I would speak for a moment about the requirements, as I would see them, for a lasting peace. First of all, I think that it must be comprehensive. We do not want any piecemeal attempt. A piecemeal peace is a contradiction in terms: there has to be a determination to see the whole picture. No-one will give anything up until they can see what they will get; and it is necessary now for all of us to review the whole situation and to see how a peace can be secured which can give to all concerned some reasonable expectation of a life without fear and the threat of force. The second requirement is that the peace must be international. We hear this evening—and I respect what is put to us—that a European initiative is necessary. I hope that Europe can act, and can act together; but I do not think that is sufficient. There has been too much of an attempt on one side or the other, with the United States supporting the one side and the Soviet Union supporting the other. It is far too serious a situation to be dealt with by the super-Powers scoring off one another. The place at which we must seek to obtain agreement is in the Security Council of the United Nations, where, as in 1967, we worked to obtain the agreement of the Russians and the Americans—and we got it. It is only when one obtains that agreement that one can look forward to a real, lasting peace.
I would go on to say that the principles upon which we decided in 1967 are still effective. Despite what has been said by some in this House this evening, the principles were fully accepted, repeatedly accepted, by Egypt and Jordan, and by the Lebanon; and they were accepted, too, by Israel—for purposes of negotiation, at least. These principles which were laid down are fully accepted by the

725
principal participants. The third requirement is that we must not abandon what was done at that time, when every country represented in the Security Council voted for this unanimous result.
The fourth requirement is a recognition of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people. To deny that right, to speak as if these people have no right to be heard when, whatever we say about the history and however we differ about the record, they surely must be heard; for they are concerned and concerned deeply. When I go to their camps I see them in mud and misery. Therefore, it is necessary that we should accept that self-determination for the Palestine people is a purpose that we must know must be satisfied if there is to be peace.
I remember a statement made long before the Rabat Conference by King Hussein. He said:
"Israel has stated that it will not tolerate an independent State of Palestine on the West Bank. Israel has no right to make such a decision. Neither have I. No one has the right to make that decision save the Palestinians."
That was King Hussein speaking, long before the decision at Rabat. It must surely be accepted now, it is a commitment, it is a right, that the Palestinian people must be heard and must have a right to decide their own future. I do not wish to get into controversy with what has been said today, but when there has been a denial to all the Palestinians now in occupied territory to undertake any political activity in these matters, I do not think we can be told that we can select who is to speak on their behalf.
I now turn, my Lords, to what may be an even more important point. What can be done now, what stage can we reach, what process can we adapt to escape from a deadlock that no one wishes to see continue? I would suggest that there must be as rapidly as possible a return to Geneva, a resumption of the Geneva discussions which were instituted at the end of last year. I would suggest, too, that there should be two stages perhaps in this resumed Geneva Conference. The first would be to bring together those who came to the discussions at the end of last year and they would resume where they left off. There would be a great deal of preparatory work to be done by a series of independent Commissions, headed by
726
people of an international stature to work on boundaries, work on the refugees and work on the future of Jerusalem, for instance. Let them put that work in train and in going to such a conference again they go, I would suggest, with an assurance that would have to be worked out by consultations—for that is what the United Nations system is for—that the Palestinian rights and claims would be fully considered at the peace conference, and that at the second stage of this conference they would be welcome to come and to speak to their claims.
That would mean that those who went before could go again. And it would not be a decision of any one country but a decision of the United Nations' sponsors of the Conference. It would be known that at the second stage the Palestinians would come and would be welcome and would be heard and that their rights would be fully considered. I believe that that might be a method of escape from the deadlock that no one wants and which could otherwise prevent the advance that we all wish to see.
My Lords, I wish I could follow the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—my noble friend, I may call him—in speaking about the future of Jerusalem. I believe that it may be, as he suggests, the core of the whole problem. It could be that you have an Arab Jerusalem and an Israeli Jerusalem in an undivided city on a basis of equality with freedom of movement both ways. Could it not be that this could be the beginning of a new relationship of mutual respect and equality and justice? It may be that he was right in his generous imagination in thinking that Jerusalem could provide not a barrier but a gateway to peace.
Finally, my Lords, I hope it will be that our Government is not lacking in initiative. We have seen in Cyprus recently our failure to act when it was necessary to act, and the disastrous consequences. We in Cyprus and we in the Middle East have an historic responsibility. We also have an urgent, pressing obligation. I hope that as we acted once before there is no reason, it seems to me, why we should delay in Cyprus any longer. There is no reason why we should not be prepared to take the initiative in the Middle East. All the speeches tonight indicated our historical obligation. We did it in 1967 and I hope that not much

727
time will pass in 1975 before there is another British initiative to show the way to working towards a lasting peace.
7.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, because as a diplomat with unique experience in this field he sees with great objectivity the entire subject with which we are concerned this evening. It is a truism that this subject arouses the deepest passions, but if I may be allowed to state my interest in the first instance as one of the vice-chairmen of the Standing Conference of British organisations for aid to refugees, my interest throughout the Middle East area is with the refugees themselves. Your Lordships will be aware that it is just over 12 months since we in your Lordships' House considered the world refugee situation.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what was said in a very important debate in March when, in a rare and exceedingly interesting speech, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said in his closing remarks:
"Toleration and co-operation is what the world needs if it is to survive; and it is what we need at home, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Col. 168; 14/3/74.]
Those sentiments were very well reflected on the other side of the House in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who in the same debate, said:
"Aid to the sick and sad and poor of the world must surely be one of the priorities of foreign policy of any civilised Government."—[Col. 188]
Therefore I claim your Lordships' attention in this particular field because I consider—and I am sure that this is shared on all sides of the House—that the relief of suffering is one of the very important aims of foreign policy with which we should concern ourselves rather than solely the polemics of the situation.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to three particular spheres. The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, drew our attention to Cyprus, not for the first time this afternoon because, as your Lordships will recollect, a Starred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned the position of refugees, both Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot on the wrong side of the truce line in the island. I should
728
like to ask Her Majesty's Government—I do not expect a reply this evening, but possibly at a later date—whether they have clearly in mind the specific problems of those two ethnic groups, and whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will lend their best endeavours to the tracing agency of the British Red Cross Society and kindred bodies in the league to trace the whereabouts of relatives of both communities in the island.
My Lords, I turn to the Palestine Arab refugee situation. I have been concerned in works abroad as my noble friend Lord Gowrie has been concerned in a personal capacity in years past in Jordan; but I make no particular claim to greater knowledge than he or any Member of this House. I have merely had contact with UNWRA over the last 20 years and it was with great sorrow that I read this year of the likely deficit increasing from 3·9 million dollars to a fantastic 39 million dollars. The change in a decimal point will make a world of difference in the budget of this organisation which has struggled from year to year in the most remarkable way. It is perfectly obvious that the organisation will be in a most parlous position for the next 12 months.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to a figure, which I noted most carefully, of 88 million dollars, which is approximately the budget for this year, but in 1975 it rises sharply to a total of 110 million dollars. This is a very substantial change. The cause is undoubtedly the rate of inflation in all the territories adjoining the problem. Your Lordships will be aware that Israel's inflation has been no less than 47 per cent. during the period dealt with in the Report of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, that is, 1st July 1973, to 30th June 1974. During that period, the rate of inflation in Syria has been 11 per cent. This has had a very marked effect on the purchasing power of UNRWA itself in the particular categories of goods which it requires.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the agency's problems in the purchase of flour, one of the basic ingredients of the daily ration. The cost has increased extremely sharply. It has enormously reduced the feeding programme and has been due very largely to the dollar devaluation and to a number of other

729
factors. I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the most urgent need of the Relief and Works Agency and to stress to both colleagues and partners in the EEC, but most especially to the OPEC and AOPEC countries, the vital need for an increased budget during 1975–76. It is surely the OPEC and AOPEC countries which should make a further contribution, as several noble Lords have heartily recommended. What does this budget mean? It means that the most dramatic cut in the services will be inevitable unless this need is met and I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, would feel, with all those concerned with UNESCO, how unfortunate it would be if the higher grade of education being conducted by the Agency were eliminated altogether, as would almost certainly be the consequence of a reduction in the budget.
My Lords, my time is limited and I must draw to a close with one specific problem which has not been mentioned by your Lordships; that is, the situation in Northern Iraq. It is almost entirely thanks to a British freelance journalist, Andrew Murray, who paid a visit there from mid-August to early September, 1974, that this has received any attention in the British Press. I feel that he deserves the warmest congratulation on going to a forward area at great personal danger to himself. The economic blockade of foodstuffs which took place in Iraq to prevent the Kurds from obtaining both a livelihood and medical supplies is a matter which all sides of the House will most heartily condemn. After the breakdown of talks on 11th March, when the KDP—the Kurdish Democratic Party—found it necessary to reject the Iraqi Government's offer of limited autonomy (and I stress that word "limited") there followed the inevitable sanctions against the Kurdish people. But far worse than that, there was bombing of the Kurdish population in Kirkuk, Mosul and Zakho, where the Iraqi Forces pushed Kurdish tribesmen out of the area into the Northern and most mountainous regions. In the first two months of fighting, 1,534 civilians were killed in the bombing by Iraqi Forces and 3,500 injured.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at about 20 mintues before the end of the debate, whoever may be speaking is expected to give way to the Minister, so that the House may hear the Government's reply.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am more than ready to sit down in about 30 seconds, if I am permitted to do that, and I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said. I should like to close by drawing your Lordships' attention to the very substantial casualties which have taken place and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be drawing the attention of the Security Council to this important problem in a remote area.
7.45 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I rise with very great reluctance at this time because I am conscious of having been the unwitting cause of my noble friend Lord Brockway being unable to take part in this debate. However, like him and every other Member of this House, I am bound by the rules—if one may call them that—which truncate the Back-Bench debate at the time mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jacques. We have listened to a number of extremely distinguished speeches on the Middle East, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who set the tone of the debate with a speech which was notable because it combined clarity, cogency and restraint. The noble Lord indicated his natural sympathies, but in such a way that those who did not always agree with him readily accorded him credit for a sincerity and a readiness to discuss with them their own points of view in a constructive fashion.
As the noble Lord and others pointed out, the Middle East is an area in which Britain has important interests at risk. First, there is the humanitarian interest which we all share; an interest in preventing the personal tragedies which each successive war has brought to both sides. Then we have the specific interests of maintaining the peace. There is always the danger that a new war in the Middle East might not be limited to the States immediately involved, but could draw the super-Powers into a conflagration which would surely overwhelm us all. Then there are our large and legitimate economic interests. The energy resources of

731
the area will long continue to be of crucial importance to this country and the Western world, and we should not forget that the whole of the Middle East is a market of growing importance and interest to us.
At this point, may I say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on one point he made; that is, the need for us to seek co-operation not confrontation with the oil producers. I am sure that he would join me in emphasising that any such co-operation must include recognition of the rightful interests of Israel. Against that background, I wish I could say that an outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East was unlikely at present. I wish that I could say that with certainty, but. unfortunately, neither I nor anybody else can do so. Dr. Kissinger has succeeded in negotiating the disengagement of Israeli, Syrian and Egyptian forces, but the past few months have shown how difficult it will be to achieve a full negotiated solution as called for in Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338. These would involve Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, full recognition of Israel as a sovereign State within secure and recognised borders and a place for the Palestinians. Only a month ago, it seemed that fighting was about to break out on the Golan Heights.
That is a crisis which seems to have passed, at least for the moment, but there was only one day in hand when, on 29th November, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which separates Israeli and Syrian Forces on the Golan Heights, was granted another six months lease of life. The respite which has been gained is brief and it is most important—indeed, it is vital—that this time is not wasted. Here I join with my noble friend Lord Caradon in saying that in the next few weeks and months there must be initiatives conducted by one country or by a group of countries, which will take advantage of this brief respite and bring the parties together, so that we may start on the business of building a just and lasting peace in the area, and thereby avoid the dreadful timetable of calamities which noble Lords on both sides of the House have felt it necessary to mention during the debate. We have our eyes fixed on a very few months ahead when the worst might happen.
732
Therefore, we must work doubly hard in the next few months to avoid that happening.
The Government continue to believe that the best hope for a solution to the problem, and for the maintenance of peace in the area, is the American Secretary of State's tireless and skilful diplomacy. Three noble Lords touched on this point during the debate, one of them being the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I would say to the noble Lord that while there certainly will be room and opportunity for a intervention or an initiative by the Nine, I do not think that he, I or anybody else would wish such an initiative to cut across the continuing American attempt, which certainly has yielded unexpectedly good results in the past and shows better promise so far than any other possible initiative of achieving the kind of settlement we all want.
My noble friend Lord Fisher of Camden, in an admirable maiden speech—the kind of compliment I should like to have paid to him has already been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in his own inimitable way, and so I should like to say "count me in on that"—referred with some emphasis to the point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. If I have his words right, I believe my noble friend Lord Fisher emphasised the need to work with the United Stales and, indeed, to support their efforts in this matter. This was trenchantly restated by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with the full agreement of the Government and of myself, in the very powerful speech he gave us tonight. We shall continue to give Dr. Kissinger's mediation our full support. Of course, we are ready to give a hand if the parties concerned wish us to do so but I am sure my noble friend Lord Caradon will agree that to intrude in an area where one or other of the partisans might resent our intervention, or see it as an intrusion, would hardly help the fairly promising procedures which are now on foot. Unless and until this comes about, we believe the best thing we can do is to give our support to the negotiations now in progress, but this is not to say that we have no views on what the outcome of those negotiations should be.
I can give my noble friend the fullest assurance that we remain committed to Security Council Resolution 242 as the

733
cornerstone of a peace settlement. It must not be altered or eroded. Of course, it has become clear over seven years that Resolution 242, which I agree has held the stage and received the support of all parties concerned—and, indeed, the support of the entire world—has nevertheless shown itself capable of being added to rather than eroded, because while in 1967 that Resolution necessarily spoke of "refugees", today, as noble Lords on both sides of the House have pointed out, we have to speak of "Palestinians". That is not a derogation of 242, but is rather a necessary addition to it and a reinforcement of it. We believe that no settlement devised for the Middle East will have a chance of lasting, unless it provides a means whereby the Palestinian people can exercise their legitimate political rights—rights which, I hasten to add, must be wholly compatible with the continued and assured existence of Israel as a State.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made a reference which perhaps I did not fully grasp. I thought he said that the United Kingdom had acquiesced in granting observer status for the PLO at the United Nations. I can assure him that we did nothing of the kind—we voted against observer status for the PLO. At no point in regard to any other resolution did we vote for the PLO. We abstained on some of the questions because of the need to keep a balance between our recognition of the importance of the Palestinian question and the need to reaffirm our desire and our determination that the continued existence of Israel as a State should be part of any settlement. I do not think there is anyhing in the record of this country at the United Nations in regard to the four or five resolutions which came up on the question of the PLO which need divide us in this House or, indeed, in this country. A settlement, as several Members of your Lordships' House have indicated, must cater for three basic factors: Israel wants recognition of her right to exist in peace and security; her Arab neighbours want back the occupied territory; and the Palestinians want to be able to express their identity as a people.
I do not think there can be any fundamental disagreement with any one of those three points but, as my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge reminded us, we are operating in an atmosphere
734
where the broad middle consensus, though numerically and certainly intellectually the more important sector of the field, nevertheless seems to carry less weight than the perimeters of friction, which exercise a greater threat. It will be a hard task to mobilise, as my noble friend urged us to do, this very wide consensus of constructive moderation which exists throughout the Middle East, in Israel and in every Arab country. It will not be easy. We are operating these days, I sometimes think, in an era where there is a premium on demented prejudices, national and religious. The task of drawing up blueprints of agreement are immeasurably easier than the task of persuading prejudiced minds to do more than accept formally such unexceptional proposals. There is a revolution of mind necessary before there can be an evolution of reason.
The Motion before us urges Her Majesty's Government to use all their influence to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in conjunction with other members of the European Community. I repeat that we and the other members of the Community have recognised that the Middle East is an area in which the Nine can achieve a great deal by acting together. Our own Government's views—this is broadly shared among the Nine—are that while the American initiative shows the promise it does, it would be inadvisable to start a new initiative, even of the Nine, which might cut across that initiative.
I close without having had time to refer to a number of important points in a number of excellent speeches; but I will refer to a group of speeches with which the debate drew to a close. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is a frankly declared sympathiser of the Arab cause. Nevertheless, as we were reminded, he took pains to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution of the Jewish race and the great potential, technically and artistically, which this famous people can make, not only in the Middle East but indeed, as always, to humanity as a whole. This is the kind of speech, the kind of balance, where legitimate partnership is declared, but where there is the successful effort to pay due tribute to the other side. The speech made by my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge also struck a note of the non-partisan desire to address oneself

735
to the realities; and the supreme reality of which she reminded us is of course that this is not the interest simply of one country, one nationality or one religion—it is a human interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in a most well-informed speech, of which I have taken very careful note, also drew our attention to the realities which are the need to do everything we can to help the hundreds of thousands of refugees, not only in the Middle East as we know it, but in Cyprus and other countries. I have taken note of what he asked me regarding Cyprus and Kurdistan, and the figures he gave us about UNRWA. If I am to accord the courtesy of allowing the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, to add a few words to what he said, I must sit down now, apologising if in your Lordships view I have left out any important points that I should have attended to. I may have a further opportunity in this House to address myself to these points.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, because of the time factor I waive my right to reply to todays debate—a promise is a promise—much as I should have liked the opportunity to reply. I therefore content myself with thanking noble Lords very much indeed for their contributions, especially the Minister, for the typical care with which he addressed the House in winding up the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ATLANTIC SALMON
8.4 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of dangers to survival of the Atlantic salmon through steadily decreasing stocks in salt and freshwaters of Britain they accept the need for urgent action nationally and internationally to conserve the species. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hour is late but the subject is important. Your Lordships are always tolerant to new speakers and therefore I thought tonight the best thing I could do would be to ask your Lordships to allow a salmon to address your Lordships' House from the Bar and tell us a little of her experiences in relation to the issues raised in my Question.
736
After asking for the indulgence of your Lordships' House, the salmon would go on to say this:
"I am a member of a hard-pressed species whose survival is threatened, a species of great importance nationally. From time of hatching to time of departure to the world of fish beyond, I have to contend with enemies of nature and man. Nature I must accept, but man has it in his power to destroy or preserve and it is to man I appeal tonight for action to ensure my survival. You protect wildlife, such as birds, by law; forbid gin traps,el cetera. Why not protect me to the extent that you give the others protection?"
This salmon would tell a harsh history of hard struggle. I can mention only some of the issues with which she would have to struggle, but no doubt other speakers may touch upon different ones. The salmon would go on to say:
"In my fourth year I swam to the feeding grounds of Greenland, and there I and my fellow fish were ravaged by Danish netting depredations."
May I interrupt my salmon for a moment and say that the Danes, who produce no salmon from Danish rivers except one, must be held accountable for much of the Atlantic salmon stock reductions from which we are suffering at the present time. The Danish Government signed a North East Atlantic Agreement giving maximum quotas. In 1972 the Danes exceeded by 20 per cent. the quota they had agreed. In 1973 they exceeded by 43 per cent. the quota they had agreed, and now they are asking for more. It seems to me clear that the Danes have no intention of keeping to the agreements that they have previously signed. Canada and the United States have taken firm steps, but I feel that Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to be firm and tough with the Danes by taking unilateral action, but are wishing to confine their activities to backing up Canada and the United States, whereas I think we should take action ourselves.
Coming back to my fish, she will now continue her history:
"Next, I swam down the East coast of Britain within United Kingdom territorial fish limits. Thanks to the action of your Lordships' House some years ago, I met with no drift netting off Scotland; but when I came to the Northumberland coast I and my fellow shoal of salmon met extensive netting by whole-time netsmen and part-time hobby nets-men in an area where the intensity of netting is virtually unrestricted as to catch or instruments used. Here we had to contend with what should have been, and must for the future's sake be, prohibited—the use of monofilament nets, invisible to the fishes' eyes and

737
terrible in their toll of catch, and in damage to the fish which escape those nets."
My Lords, here is a real and urgent need which can be met by the use of powers already existing. May I remind your Lordships that in Northern Ireland, by the Foyle Area Order of 1966, and in the Republic of Ireland, by an Order of March 1971, mono-filament nets are prohibited. In England, river water authorities already have powers to prohibit under Section 5(2)(f) of the Salmon and Freshwater Act 1972, while in Scotland special powers are needed. Yet when the Salmon and Trout Association sent a delegation this summer to the Ministry, all that the Minister—who was then Mr. Buchan—would say was that his officials were carrying out further researches into the effect of mono-filament nets on salmon and sea trout stocks.
My Lords, that really is not good enough. Our salmon would say, "Please, oh please, let your Lordships have a clear answer today that action shall be taken on this vital safeguard to our future." The salmon would then go on to say, "When I reached the estuary of my river I met too many nets, far too many nets, too long on the water, and these must be reduced if I and my species are to be allowed to survive." She would then say, "Please, please, give the river water authorities more power and freedom to control estuary nets, particularly when either by drought or water extraction the river level falls below a predetermined measure. Barely did I enter the river of my birth when I met pollution, and many of my brothers and sisters turned away from rivers, such as the River Don and other rivers I could mention, where the water is so foul that the fish cannot enter except in a flood." She would say," Please do something.
"My Lords, here I know that there is often a conflict between industrial process needs and purity, but are the Government active, and ruthlessly determined that purity shall have priority when there is that conflict between industry and purity? I admit that much has been done by the Act against pollution, but more is needed and I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us that the river water authorities will receive full support for all measures, irrespective of their immediate industrial effect, to get our rivers cleaner.
Our fish struggles up the river and has to face lure and fly operated by rod
738
fishermen. "I think", says the fish "that this is an acceptable risk, when I remind your Lordships that in England 12 fish are taken by net for every one by rod ". She reminds us that in Scotland seven fish are taken by net for every one on a rod. Finally, our fish will plead for a river properly maintained and policed. Of course, I know that more money is needed for that, but our fish would draw attention to ways in which greater revenue could be obtained. In England and Wales, licence fees average 15p per fish for netsmen. They average £6·31 for rod fishermen. Of course, I admit at once that netting is commercially necessary and is part of rightful culling, but—and I wish no conflict between nets and rods—I ask for greater justice between the two in the interests of the fish.
So at last our salmon reaches her spawning ground to fulfil her natural function of reproduction. Our salmon thanks your Lordships for their attention to her tale. She asks Her Majesty's Government to take note of her difficulties of survival, and of the steps she has just outlined to aid her in her preservation. The salmon leaves the Chamber with a last flick of her tail and quiver of her gills, and with howls of anguish at the danger she has had to face to get here tonight, and pathetically asks for a greater measure of protection in the future.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am very glad this evening to rise to support my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He has been assiduous in raising this important matter of the threat to the survival of the salmon over many years. Indeed, in preparation for this debate this evening I read the report of a similar debate on an Unstarred Question raised by my noble friend in 1971. With the passage of time, the matter has become even more urgent.
I must confess that I rise with very considerable diffidence to speak this evening as the only lay person among a large number of experts, but I do so as one who is concerned about the environment and, in particular, about the conservation of any threatened species of wild life. I believe it to be very important that those people who, like myself, have never in their lives attempted to catch a salmon—and, indeed, are most unlikely to do so

739
in the future—should express their concern at what is happening to the salmon species. For this is a matter not simply for the sportsman and his interest, nor indeed for the wider interest of tourism and recreation, nor indeed for the fisherman and his important livelihood; nor indeed is it important simply because it it a vital source of protein in a world that is short of food—for I believe that the survival of any species is a matter of importance to us all.
At this moment, very many members of the public would be most concerned were they to be fully aware of the facts and of the real danger which salmon are in today. For if there is one issue which is very much in the forefront of public attention at present, particularly of the youth of the country, it is that unless care is taken certain species of wild life may become extinct, just as many historic buildings and beloved landscapes can disappear almost before anyone knows what has happened.
Therefore, I should very much like to support the whole thesis of my noble friend's remarks, but perhaps I might go on to one aspect of this matter which has been drawn to my attention. I believe it supplements the information of my noble friend Lord Balfour about the Danish fishing off Greenland, and the netting of salmon around the coasts and in the river estuaries. As I understand it, Irish fishing vessels have been engaged in drift netting for salmon off the North-West coast of Ireland. The fishing is taking place some 30 to 40 miles offshore, thus well beyond the 12-mile limit. Such fishing is contrary to the agreement of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, to which Ireland is a party, which established a "box" around the British Isles; that is, a line on a map giving a 200-mile radius around Great Britain and Ireland in which fishing for salmon should not be allowed. Such fishing is, of course, permitted within the 12-mile limit, but not in this area between the outer boundary of the 12 miles and the outer edge of the "box".
My Lords, the great fear of those who are aware of all the facts is that it may well be that the Irish fishing vessels have found the feeding grounds of grilse in the Atlantic and are thus killing off the one sea winter fish in their feeding grounds.
740
If this is so, then the future of this species is at stake, for of course there will be fewer each year to go up the rivers to spawn. Again, the situation is made worse because, as I understand it, two and three sea winter fish are caught in very large numbers off the coast of Greenland, and in consequence there are ever-diminishing numbers of salmon in the rivers of Scotland. What cannot fail to escape the attention of someone like myself is that if a species is being overfished it will disappear and then we shall all be the losers—not just the sportsmen or the fishermen or even the consumers of salmon, but all humanity is the poorer because one species has disappeared. Nor do I think this to be simply alarmist talk. Having listened to my noble friend, I am sure that he has given enough statistical information to substantiate these facts.
My Lords, I will not take up more time of the House explaining a case which others far more expert than I am can do more effectively. I would conclude my remarks by asking three questions. If it is a fact that drift netting is taking place off the Irish coast to the extent to which it is said to be. and to the extent to which it is said to be endangering the species of salmon, first, will the Government press the Government of Ireland to stop the drift netting of salmon off the Irish coast; that is, to stop this fishing within the box as defined by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, a body to which the Government of Ireland is a party? Secondly, will they at the same time also ask the Government of Ireland to allow their fishing vessels to be searched, if need be, by the fishery protection vessels, which I believe is not allowed at present? Thirdly, will they recognise the urgency of this problem and make their representations soon, before the next season starts in April? There is an urgency about this, as of course the salmon are most at risk in the summer season. I hope very much, my Lords—and I speak for many others who are interested in the wider aspect of conservation—that Her Majesty's Government will undertake to act quickly on the matters raised by this important Question this evening.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords. I, too. am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has raised this Question.

741
I must begin by declaring an obvious interest which I always declare upon these occasions—that I am interested in the management and, indeed, in the ownership of the Thurso River from source to sea, from the sea nets to the spawning beds. Having said that, I may slightly disappoint some of the angling fraternity by saying that I do not share their despair and do not accept that there is a steadily decreasing stock of salmon in the salt and fresh waters of Britain; and I do not think that this is a situation which applies to the Thurso River—and I can prove that part.
It is over ten years since Lord Hunter was asked to set his Committee in motion to report upon suggestions for change in the law affecting salmon in Scotland. It is over ten years since ulcerated dermal necrosis, or UDN, salmon disease, call it what you will, was first noticed in Eire. It is about seven years since UDN reached its peak, and it is over ten years since the Danish fishery began to bite upon the salmon stocks around the coast of Greenland and in the open sea. If I look back over the last twenty-five years' river catches on the Thurso River, figures for which I have here with me, month by month, I see that the average annual catch during the whole of the 1950s was 739 fish to the rods; the average catch during the 1960s was 1,337 fish to the rods. This dropped slightly in the 1970s, of which, of course, we have had only five years if we include 1970, to 1,102 fish to the rods.
If we look back to 1968 and add into the rod catches on the Thurso the estuary catches, this is the situation—I am not going to tell your Lordships my own personal and professional secrets; I am going to turn the estuary catches into what I am pleased to call fish equivalents, and your Lordships will have to accept that my fish equivalents are reasonable. I can give the assurance that I have applied the same fish equivalent in each year, so statistically they will not make any difference to the figures. If we go back to 1968, when UDN was rife, when the Danish fishery was rife, when sea fishing for salmon off the West Coast of Norway was running at the rate of 300 tons a year, and when all sorts of fearful things were supposed to be happening to the salmon—in that year we caught a fish equivalent on the Thurso River of 1,358. In the following years
742
the figures went up to 3,532 and then 4,248; dropped slightly in 1971 to 2,434; rose again in the following year to 4,305; dropped again in 1973 to 2,831; and rose in the past season, 1974, to 3,884.
I submit that our catches, if looked at as a combined return of the stocks of the salmon species to our river, have not diminished and that they are not, in fact, affected by the operations which are taking place off Denmark. They are not affected, I am glad, lucky and most grateful to be able to say, by salmon disease, which is a great boon and great: blessing to our river, but for which we can take no credit; it is a blessing that comes from Nature to our river. I would conclude from my experience with the catches on the Thurso that by far and away the most important factors are the state of the water, the state of the management within the nursery ground, the fact that one is able to look after the nursery stocks, and that one is able to keep the river clear of pollution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned that if a species is over-fished it will disappear. I would say that it is not so much whether a species is over-fished as at what point it is over-fished. We have to be as careful about where we fish, and how we go about it, as we have to be about the the total amount of fishing effort we put in. The greatest danger to the species, as I see it, is the danger of pollution. We have seen this, I much regret to say, upon the River Don in Scotland where gross and disgusting pollution was allowed to take place, virtually unchecked, and where enormous damage was done to the salmon stocks at the dangerous point—the point of actual return to the river to spawn. On the other hand, so far as the stocks of salmon in Britain as a whole are concerned, I think we must congratulate our river boards, and our river board scientists particularly, on the first-class efforts they have made to clean up the rivers of Britain all the way around our coasts.
I am particularly glad to see a stray salmon nosing her way into the estuary of Old Father Thames, and so pleased am I to see this that I have written this week to the Thames Water Authority offering them a small free supply of salmon alevins which I should be delighted personally to put in the Thames from the Thurso, in the hope that they may return

743
as a stock of fish to this mighty river. I hope that this offer will be taken up. It will at least help to prove some of the good work which the scientists and the Board are doing on the Thames.
However, my Lords, having said all this, I accept that this particular resource for salmon must be guarded most carefully. It is a resource that helps us in many ways, a resource which gives sport and pleasure to anglers—one of the biggest participant sports, we are told, in the whole of the sporting calendar of this country, if not the biggest.
Lord HOY: My Lords, the noble Lord has made this point, and I am not disputing it. But perhaps he might tell us the cost to the angler.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it is a great deal cheaper to fish many rivers than it is to go for a ski-ing holiday. I can offer the noble Lord some fishing if he would like to have it, complete with hotel accommodation and everything else (I have declared my interest) and he can keep the fish he catches, which he can estimate to be anything from 40p to 100p a pound in value, for, shall I say, at a good time of the year, around £40 for a week's stay, which is not excessive by any standards. That would include his hotel, but it would not include his drinks bill. However, I must thank the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to put in such a good commercial "plug".
There are certain areas where salmon fishing is expensive, but it is not an expensive sport in terms of the enjoyment that one gets out of it. It is within the reach of most people who wish to follow it. It is no more expensive, for instance, than taking up ski-ing. Apart from that it provides a source of food, a source of livelihood, to a great many people, and a source of tourism business which brings in foreign currency and so forth, so it has a certain value to us which is worth preserving. Therefore, it is important for us to look after it properly. This means looking at those things which require to be attended to, not getting over-excited, or over-depressed, about what is happening, but looking at it with a long view and trying to improve the assets we have.
Here I would agree that the mono-filament net is a danger which could cause
744
considerable damage. There is evidence that in areas where the mono-filament net is used it does considerable damage, and I would accept that. Luckily, it is confined to certain areas of the coast and I think we should ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this point. I am sure that their advisers will state that the mono-filament net is a danger, and if it is possible to devise a means of banning its use and making it illegal this should be done.
We also have to recognise that a great deal has changed in the decade since the Hunter Committee looked at the problem of the Atlantic salmon. For one thing, salmon are now being reared from birth to commercial stage in cages under control, hand fed, and this will have an even bigger repercussion on the trade in salmon, and, indeed, through the repercussion on the trade, also upon the salmon rivers themselves, than is the Danish fishery. It would be possible for the people who are at the moment undertaking the rearing of salmon on the West coast of Scotland to upset the apple-cart, if they invested the kind of capital in this which they might wish to do. As they rear these salmon and bring more salmon on the market they have to look over their shoulders to find new markets, in case they upset the normal balance of trade in salmon caught off our coasts.
I would emphasise to your Lordships that the salmon which are caught around the coasts and in the estuaries of the rivers are an important part of the whole business of running our salmon rivers. For instance, the netsmen pay towards the district fishery boards which at the moment control what is done upon salmon rivers in Scotland, and many of the people who work in the tourist industry as ghillies and so forth, and indeed on other jobs up and down rivers, find part of their remuneration and employment by working on the sea nets. Therefore it is a hand-in-hand business. The people who derive their interest, their livelihood, their hobby or whatever it is from the river are also interested in the sea netsmen, and the sea netsmen must be interested in the river because that is the goose which for them lays the golden egg.
Therefore, although I do not take quite so gloomy a view as others about the future of the salmon species, I feel

745
that we are at a point where we would do well to look into progress since Hunter reported. If one looks at the Hunter Report today in the light of what we know ten years later, we find that much of what was reported there has been outdated by the passage of time and by the accumulation of new knowledge on the subject. Whatever else Her Majesty's Government may intend to do, before they suggest bringing legislation to this House or any other place they would be well advised to have the Hunter Committee Report updated by a fairly searching inquiry, taking into account both scientific progress and practical progress in knowledge about the rearing of salmon off the West coast of Scotland, and before deciding to change the law in a way that already may be outdated when the change takes place. I feel it is time that we brought a few points up to date with regard to salmon law, but I do not take a gloomy view. Indeed, I take an optimistic view about the salmon species and I hope that I shall be proved to be more right than others.
8.40 p.m.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on initiating this debate. Second wicket down is always a nice place to be in the batting order because we have heard two widely diverging views on the same problem. Both noble Lords are experts in their own field. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, maintains that salmon stocks have not been diminished, while the mover of the Question has made it perfectly clear that they have been diminished. I am siding with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on this matter because I think that the noble Viscount on my right has confused salmon and grilse. It is perfectly apparent to anybody who studies this matter that it is the salmon which are being killed off the South coast of Greenland and that the grilse are probably spawning in some other part of the sea; and so far their habitat has not been discovered. The Danes are obviously taking a hammering in the way of criticism—and deservedly so.
My Lords, I will not blind you with figures tonight; I am not so up-to-date as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inch
746
rye, on this matter. The last figure I obtained was the perfectly horrifying one, that in the 1968 season there were 1,593 metric tons of salmon caught off Denmark, which amounts to 1,350,000 fish. Canada maintains that that is 50 per cent. of the total availability of salmon that formerly ran up the rivers of the New World, in which I include the Maritime Provinces of Canada and certain rivers of the United States. However, I want to confine my remarks to the home front tonight; I think that too often they are getting away with some of the crimes which are committed unseen in the British Isles. For what it is worth, my message is simply this: if you want to catch more, you have to fish less. This is an old axiom and saw, and I think that I might follow it by saying that if we want to have dinner we shall have to speak a bit faster.
On the home front there is a real danger of not appreciating the fact, which is now fully accepted in the world, that every river and, indeed, every country, should be responsible for its own fish stocks. The oceans should not be regarded as limitless seas, but simply as currents of wide rivers running between countries as opposed to rivers running between towns and villages. If one accepts that conception of fish life in the seas, I think that we can do a more realistic job than we are doing at present.
My Lords, I have recently returned from Canada and know something about the big Canadian rivers. They consider that we are doing a wholly inadequate job in backing them up by overruling this small nation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has rightly said, has no rivers of its own and has defied the majority opinion on numerous occasions. We have always won a two-thirds majority in the conferences which have been convened to protect the Atlantic salmon; but Denmark has held out, and for 1975 the quota has been reduced by assurance, with the threat of reprisals from the United States. I hope that we as a nation will support the United States of America and Canada, who are looking not so much for a lead as for firm support. That is my first question of the Government. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, what the Government propose to do in 1975 when there would appear to be the possibility

747
of a showdown on this matter. The word "sanction" is possibly too strong, but I can think of a great many farmers in the United Kingdom who would be delighted to see fewer Danish eggs and sides of bacon coming into the country. However, I am not pressing for that; I am only saying that in passing.
My Lords, the laws of Scotland are different from those of England, but common sense on fish protection is of immense importance and could be applicable to both countries. The speech which the noble Viscount made about his own river can possibly be capped by my own experience, but I do not think I will go too deeply into that. One can only judge by trends in salmon rivers, and one cannot fly off the handle over short periods of time because there are enormously different trends in different rivers. Very briefly, I can tell your Lordships some of the experiences on the Beauly where we have kept records since my grandfather's day; they go back to 1925 and every fish has been recorded. In one of the Jungle Stories Kipling wrote a line of doggerel which I think applies to fishing although the story was about a crocodile. It ran something like htis:
"In August was the Jackal born,
The rains came in September,
Now such a fearful flood as this,
Said he, I cant remember".
This applies very much to fishing in the abstract sense. When my grandfather succeeded to the river which is in the hands of the one family, the Beauly was literally paved with salmon. You could net them, as indeed was done, night and day. My grandfather caught 156 fish in five days' fishing, with, on the best morning, 33 fish being caught before breakfast. Those figures are not realised any longer. My grandfather did not even use waders; he fished with his kilt flowing round him in the cold water.
In those days there was no railway station in Inverness. There were no coastal nets along the Moray Firth and the fish spawned and multiplied without interference. When my father succeeded, the river had already been netted almost to the extent of killing out the fish stocks. When he came back from the South African War he immediately built two hatcheries, one of which has always since been kept in production. The sec
748
ond thing he did was to buy up the estuary nets between Inverness and Beauly and the Inner Moray Firth, which is known as the Beauly Firth, and between those two things the river was entirely restored. I am glad to say that that was the position when I succeeded in 1933. However, it has been considerably damaged by hydro-electric schemes. I am not criticising the Hydro-Electricity Board at all. They have done everything they can to help in getting the fish to the upper water to spawn, but large stretches of spawning beds have been flooded by head ponds and the fish have difficulty in making it up river. However, the river still remains fairly prosperous in the fish sense.
The point that I want to make is an important one, and I come back to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The spring salmon have gone and the spring salmon have been caught in Norway. We do not get spring salmon in the Beauly any more, although we possibly catch more fish than on the River Thurso. Another interesting point about hatcheries—I am speaking against myself here, because I am a great believer in hatcheries—is that you cannot catch spring salmon which breed spring fish. An interesting fact is that if you cannot catch spring salmon you have to catch autumn salmon, and if you catch autumn salmon they produce autumn fish. Therefore you are setting the cycle back the wrong way round. After the Beauly closes, which is in mid-October, you catch them up for spawning in November, and you find November fish are coming into the river two months after the fishing season is over. This is something which all the fishing experts hope will gradually mean, if one lives long enough (and none of us will see the day), that the fish coming back now in December may well be springers in two or three hundred years' time; they may be catchable in rivers by the 1st February or thereabouts. However, this is a wild conjecture. The fact remains, my Lords, that the salmon has disappeared in the North-East of Scotland and this is what the debate is all about. They are being caught somewhere, not only in the South of Greenland but in the Faroes and also off the North coast of Norway. For a long time Norway thought that she had "got away with it ", but now they are being caught there just as badly as anywhere else.

749
My Lords, if I may be critical, the speakers who have spoken so far have possibly not made sufficiently constructive suggestions, and I should like to make one or two which could be noted down for consideration by the Government. The first question I have already asked; namely, whether, as regards restricting the quota, we are going to support the United States of America in the showdown with Denmark which is to take place in 1975.
In Scotland I suggest that the Government should curb and control pollution. After all, if you are looking after your fish it is no good spending money on them if they are not going to get back up the river or the smoult and parr are destroyed in the first and second years of their existence. Here again, Canada are positive that not sufficient intelligence is shown in looking after one's own interests. There are four forms of pollution: first, there is air pollution. Four billion tons of combusion-contaminated air descend on the water in the United Kingdom every year. Then there is riverborne pollution. Several speakers have mentioned that the Don, which was once a splendid salmon river, has been destroyed in recent times. Thirdly, there is dumping at sea, which is the most unattractive thing of all; and finally there is new development of natural resources. I speak particularly of oil in the North-East of Scotland. At Invergordon there is the possibility of an oil refinery, which is naturally very welcome, but just think of the spillage which could happen in the Cromarty Firth when a cargo is being discharged. The whole of the Moray Firth basin would have a film of oil on it, destroying all fish life, and there is probably no true form of protection in a matter of this kind. I am well aware of this because I am a county councillor and the council have continually asked for guidance.
I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the Government might think along the lines of security for salmon affected by inshore poaching. Both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, have referred to the dangers of the monofilament net. This is a very important point, indeed the most important after pollution in the rivers themselves. Salmon used to swim out of nets—they saw them coming—but they
750
cannot do that any more and with fish making £3·50 a pound at Easter there will be a lot of smart fellows going out in motorboats on enclosed waters and picking the fish out of the Moray Firth area and all the enclosed waters of the North-East coast. In fact we know this is going on but no fishery board has the finances to go out and deal with the matter.
Here I will stop pestering the Government and make six points, which are important ones, for proprietors and river boards. None of these points will go down awfully well because they all mean certain sacrifices, but again I think they are full of common sense. Some I have learned from experience myself and some I have learned from Canada. It might astonish your Lordships to know that great rivers like the Oristicute and the Kaskapedi and places whose names have a ring which makes any fisherman's hair stand on end with the immense possibilities of going to fish there, have reduced their rod-caught limits to two fish a day in the Province of Quebec and only four salmon in New Brunswick. This is an extraordinary thing to hear in this country, where we catch as many as we can on all occasions.
On the thinking of Canada, who are now restoring their fish stocks by drastic methods, I would suggest six points for home river boards to consider in regard to our own rivers in this country. I suggest that river proprietors and river boards should do the following to conserve fish stocks and perhaps get back spring salmon into their rivers: first, buy up estuary netting stations; second, if the opening dates were put back on a river there would be a better chance of spring salmon getting back into it; third, to prevent fishing with baits in pools and water where a fly could swim. I am getting a little verbose, but too many rivers have been spoilt by bait slinging. For example, a river like the Spey, which was never fished except by fly is now commonly treated in this way. The best pools are raked with minnows, prawns, sand eels, and so on, and of course the answer is an obvious one. They say, "Oh, we have to pay the rent to you, the avaricious Highland proprietor". That may be true, and it may be that the rent should come down, but there is no justification for slinging a bait into a fast flowing salmon stream. As all your Lordships know, it is very

751
much easier to catch salmon with a bunch of triangles attached to a minnow than it is to cast a fly, particularly when the water is cold. So that is my suggestion, for what it is worth: the date of the opening of the season to be put back.
The fourth point is that hen salmon should be returned to the river after the middle of September. This is something which anyone can do. It is a sad thing to see a fine female fish full of eggs being knocked on the head after the middle of September, but it does happen and it is unsporting and inconsiderate. I am sorry to say that on one of the last days on the Beauly on the home beat this year, I walked down the bank and found the tenants with 17 fish, eight of them being hens. All had been knocked on the head, I suppose to be sold to help pay the rent. In Canada they have a sixth suggestion, and curiously enough it is the one that they reckon serves fish stocks better than any other. Your Lordships will never guess what it is, unless I tell you. It is simply to prevent any rod fish by law being sold across the counter in a fishmonger's shop. That stops the competitive spirit and it probably saves a lot of hen fish in the late autumn.
I see my noble and gallant kinsman Lord Fraser of Lonsdale is due to speak at the end of the debate. He is a man who can catch more fish without the use of his eyes than most of us can with both of them. The other day I read a rather charming poem in a Canadian paper and I should like to read it out to your Lordships because it sums up everything that Lord Fraser stands for, who remembers the great salmon rivers when he was a younger man.
"Cast a fly upon that surface, see the great majestic rise
Shatter air and sky and water as the mighty fish replies,
As the salmon leaps and plunges, every glinting scale ashine;
Then the river plays its music on the taut and humming line.
Still we hear that ringing music, know each day lived with that stream
That enwrapped us in its magic was it real—or did we dream?"
8.58 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I also back the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and my noble friend Lord Lovat for saying that the whole question of salmon is
752
extremely serious. I was very surprised to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, say—if I understood him correctly—that his catches on the Thurso have improved in the past few years. May I ask him whether it is owing to the fact that he has increased his hatchery?
Viscount THURSO: No, my Lords. I can set your Lordships' minds at rest on that point. It has nothing to do with the stock put in the river. In my view, there are only two things which cause fish to be caught. One is a sufficient supply of water falling out of the sky in the form of rain, and the other is a sufficient number of salmon lies over which to cast your lures.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, that certainly has not been my experience. On the West coast of Scotland, on my waters, we do not get very big salmon though we get big sea trout. But recently the fishing has been deplorable and, in fact, I am going to lose most of my fishing tenants. I remember an old stalker telling me that when he was a boy he could remember that the salmon were so numerous that you could look down from the hill on to the sea lochs and the sea would appear like molten silver, and that the salmon were there in hundreds of thousands. In those days, between high and low water, they used to build low circular wall enclosures. You can still see the remains of them. They were all along the shore, and when the tide came in the salmon would come in their thousands. When the tide fell, the circular enclosures held back so many hundreds of salmon that men went down with horses and carts, and shovelled up the salmon. But this season I caught only about 24 salmon, which is a pathetic number. I am not talking about sea trout, but about salmon. I have netting rights along the coast, but I do not use them because there is no point in doing so.
My Lords, what are we going to do about this? We have heard about pollution, but of course the pollution aspect does not affect the North-West Coast of Scotland. We have also heard about the Greenland inshore fisheries, which in the past few years have been very detrimental. I understand that from 1976 the catch will be limited to a certain tonnage, but how this will be done I do

753
not know. Nor do I know whether one can effectively limit the tonnage. I am very concerned about the netting on the Northumbrian coast. This matter has been raised in this House before. We have heard this afternoon about the new nets made of monofilament. I understand that these nets can sometimes be up to five miles or more in length. If these nets are used, no salmon can possibly survive in the area. I wish the Government could bring in a regulation to ban the use of these fine material nets, certainly around our coasts. I do not know whether that is possible.
My Lords, to be fair, I have always thought that one ought to be allowed to catch salmon only in the area of their origin; in other words, in the estuaries and on the rivers where the salmon were spawned. I am very concerned about the tendency today for countries to extend their territorial fishing limits. As noble Lords know, we have had trouble of that kind with Iceland. But it may be that some countries will extend their fishing limits up to even 200 or 300 miles. If that happens, they will presumably net salmon within those territorial limits, and if that comes to pass, the salmon will be doomed. I know we have the North-East Atlantic Fishery Commission, and the NWAFC. I understand that from 1976 any fishing for salmon in the Commission's areas is to be banned, but whether those areas will be capable of being policed is another matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned the Hunter Committee which reported in I think the 1960s. It is a pity that the Government of the time did not take up their recommendation that all salmon netting should be restricted to the estuaries. I should like to see the same law made in England as we have in Scotland, where salmon netting is restricted to the estuaries, or to one mile off shore. I think that that would be a great help. No doubt the drift netters might suffer a little to begin with, but I am sure the stocks of salmon would improve. The netters would do just as well as they had been doing, further out to sea.
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two for the rod and line fishermen, who have been mentioned earlier. We are inclined to forget what a great money-earner this type of fishing is, especially in
754
dollars and other hard currencies. Of course, commercially speaking, one salmon caught by a fisherman is worth a great deal more in money than a salmon caught in the net, because the man who catches it has to pay for the pleasure of catching it. The rod fisherman in this country have been having rather a bad time in the last few years, on account of the disease, the drift netting off Greenland and the high seas generally. But I should like the Government to be very firm on this. It has always amazed me, when we take such a lot of bacon and eggs from Denmark, a lot of it quite unnecessarily, in my opinion, that the Government have always appeared rather weak about telling the Danes to behave themselves off Greenland.
As I have already said, I agree that from 1976 the tonnage caught is to be limited, but I understand it will be a very big tonnage—yet it may help, I suppose. It would really be a tragedy, after having cured pollution in so many of our rivers, and especially the Thames, if owing to greed—and it is owing only to greed; to a certain extent our own greed, but I think more so in other nations—by ruthless exploitation on the high seas, the salmon was relegated to a near extinct species, so that we would have achieved what pollution has failed to achieve. I can only draw a parallel—I do not know whether it is really a correct parallel—by taking the passenger pigeon of America. I remember my grandfather telling me that when they were on migration there were so many tens of millions of them that they darkened the sun. That was only at the end of the 19th century. Quite soon after the turn of the century they were completely extinct. We do not want the same thing to happen to the salmon.
In spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, it is true you can breed salmon and grow them on in cages, but it requires the most enormous capital and I do not think it can ever replace the wild salmon—not from the point of view of fishing. You may be able to replace the salmon by this method to a certain extent from the point of view of food, but certainly not from the fishing angle. Therefore, I would really press the Government to take this matter very seriously, and to do everything they can to stop drift netting around our coasts above a mile from shore.
9.10 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, although I did not put my name down for this debate, I am sure your Lordships will not object to the first sound from this side of the House about the problem of salmon fishing. For a long time it was my job to be more than interested in it. I was told that the subject of tonight's debate was that we had to face up to a problem of fishing off the coast of Donegal. But apparently the occasion has been taken to wage one more attack on the Danes and what they are doing off Greenland. From what I understand the present threat is coming off the Irish coast. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will have something to say about this problem.
I think the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, did a fairly good job tonight. I was interested to hear that you can have a week's holiday in his part of the world with full hotel accommodation and salmon fishing thrown in for £40. I must say it is most unusual, and I have no doubt he will be inundated with inquiries from all over Europe for terms of that kind. I am bound to say to him in reply that I go up to the North of Scotland, if Grantown on Spey is North, and spend a few weeks there each year. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that on one river, not the Spey itself, not in a part controlled by the local authority, but on a private holding not so very far away, you could not get a day's fishing for £40. So there is a very wide spectrum about this. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, speaking about how salmon had disappeared from the Beauly.
Lord LOVAT: They have not disappeared.
Lord HOY: Well, not disappeared altogether, but the noble Lord argued that they were getting fewer and fewer. He was good enough to say that the Hydro Electricity Board had done a reasonably good job. I do not want to be personal, but it is true that the Hydro Electricity Board paid a fair amount of compensation to the noble Lord's family for what it was doing; so that nobody was losing in that process. That is all that I will say about it.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? This is a non-political debate. I think the noble Lord
756
is adopting a rather unattractive line. If you want to get cheap fishing, why not fish on the Grantown water, which is ten shillings a day.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I think I was being fair to the noble Lord. I thought he understood, and that is all I propose to say about it, I am trying to tell the complete story and not leave out half. That is all I say about it. There are certain areas where fishing is extremely expensive, and I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, say that salmon fishing could be had at his price. I would have no objection to that at all, if that is what the noble Lord wants me to say, and I am delighted to hear it.
What we have to do is to protect the salmon. I thought that we had dealt with this a long time ago. We were involved for a long time with UDN in salmon. I once said to the noble Lord that we had to face up to this problem, and when he recounted about it arising in an area in Southern Ireland, this was completely wrong. We thought so too, so that we are in very good company. We had two very highly specialised people from Great Britain who presented a report, and the report has all arisen from the Rainbow Trout Farm at Waterville in Southern Ireland. Of course, as it turned out it was completely wrong. Obviously everybody had got off on the wrong track. The debate has widened considerably, and I should like to know how far the disease has been eradicated, and what remnant there is left inside the salmon industry, and what contribution it might still be making to the lack of salmon in the rivers. We should all be grateful if the Minister could say a word in that direction.
We had to deal with the Danes off the coast of Greenland, and not only the Danes because the people of Greenland were interested in this problem themselves. While the Danes were the protecting power, Greenland had a big economic interest in the salmon fisheries. I thought that steps had been taken at that time to effect some term of protection so far as the fishing was concerned. I thought that the North East Atlantic Conference had taken action along this line. It may well be that the action has not been sufficient. It may be that,

757
despite the decisions and agreements, there was a deficiency in the agreement that was reached. If that is so, I am certain that my noble friend will be willing to tell us what further action the Government propose to take to put that right, because whatever line we might take, either in a personal or corporate interest, whatever interest we have, obviously we all want the salmon to go on living, and providing not only business but sport in our own country.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, perhaps I could interrupt once more. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been to Greenland, but when he said what interest did Greenland have, there are no salmon rivers in Greenland whatsoever, like Denmark, so their interest is to catch as many fish belonging to other people as possible. The Danish Government provide £1,000 a head per capita annually for the Eskimos and all the other inhabitants living in that vast land-mass of Greenland, which is barren tundra and rock.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I did know this. All I was saying is that the people there had an interest in it. Indeed, somebody once said, and I think wisely, that if someone had never discovered where the breeding grounds existed off that part of the coast, the trouble would never have arisen. That is the point I wish to make in this debate tonight.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, it is the feeding not breeding ground.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, is it really in order to have this cross-questioning across the Floor of the House? It makes for a rather curious debate, and I am not sure whether it is the custom of the House.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I have no objection to it, and if noble Lords opposite want to interrupt, I have no objection. All I say, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, is that I am replying to a question, and when the noble Viscount says this he is being a little pedantic, because nothing can breed where there is no feed. This is, in fact, where they were feeding. Of course, without it, they could not have existed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, would agree with me; when this was found this was when the trouble
758
arose and action had to be taken to protect the salmon. The noble Lord does not disagree with me on this point. All I say to the noble Viscount is whether you describe it as feeding or breeding, it has exactly the same effect so far as salmon are concerned. I spent many months of my time in seeking to protect the salmon fisheries of this country. They were not altogether rewarding months, but I thought the job well worth doing, and if I had to do it again, I would do the same.
I never met these talking salmon which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, introduced tonight. They are a very interesting species, and I would love to have them. So far as I am concerned I personally would want to do it. But there are one or two things which we might be able to do for ourselves. One of the great dangers that was raised a number of years ago was the introduction of the monofilament net. I thought action was being taken to deal with this problem. I am certain that instead of going into all the vagaries of it we would be grateful if, in his reply, my noble friend could explain what is happening with regard to this net. It was always said that if people fished with this net there was no chance of the salmon escaping. There was no sport any longer involved. Indeed, it just meant mass murder. If this is true obviously it must apply to every country in the world using this type of net. If that is so, one would normally expect that international action would follow to deal with the problem. So I am sure we would all be grateful if in his reply my noble friend would say two things: on the UDN what stage has been reached for its complete eradication? Secondly, will he say not only what international action is required to deal with this problem, but what action is being taken about mono-filament nets?
9.22 p.m.
Lord STRANGE: My Lords, I was asked by a member of the Front Bench of the Conservative Party whether I intended to speak. I said that I did not think that I would, then I changed my mind and entered my name as a jumper. But I will jump very briefly. All I want to say is that I am very glad to see that the "salmon club" of the House of Lords still exists in much the same form as it always has. I am glad to see the

759
noble Lords making their interesting observations as fishermen in their very entertaining speeches. I am a little worried that the debate has developed into a kind of auction mart for salmon fishing. I do not know how it got around to that, but I have never heard of it before. It reminds me of Tattersalls in the old days—"run her up again, five hundred guineas I bid", and this kind of thing. But it is all rather charming.
I wanted to say something which has not been said. If I had known that I would speak I would have considered my points more actively. I will not be long, because I hate speaking very long, but the interesting fact is that somebody has come to the conclusion that there is some-ing about eels which we do not know. I thought that we knew everything. We certainly know that American eels come here and meet some kind of drift on the way. This is quite important when I get to the point about salmon. The eels come here and eat a great deal in our rivers, they spoil a lot of spawn and get a lot of parr. The point has been raised that they cannot return from whence they came. It is an entirely new idea which I had never realised before. Therefore there is no point in protecting eels, if we do eat eels. They are killing off a great deal of our salmon stock in all the rivers. There is all the young fish and the eggs they get. If they cannot go back from whence they came, because they were on the wrong route, what is the use of keeping eels which are doing so much harm to salmon?
9.24 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject which is, of course, the present state of our native salmon stocks. On several occasions the noble Lord has drawn attention to this question. Both he and other noble Lords who have spoken on the subject have left us in no doubt about the concern they have for the continued survival of the Atlantic salmon as a fishable resource. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I fully agreed with her that this is a concern of importance to all of us, not only to fishermen.
760
The Government fully support the views expressed so cogently in this debate on the need to protect the Atlane salmon species. They are fully aware of economic and sporting importance of salmon to the United Kingdom and especially, of course, to Scotland. Where measures of conservation are required both nationally and internationally the Government are fully seized of the need to implement such measures.
However, my Lords, perhaps we would part company with some of the views expressed concerning the suggestion, first, that the salmon stocks in British waters are steadily decreasing to the extent alleged, and, secondly, that there is any imminent danger of the species becoming extinct. Here, I am bound to agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has said to us about the stocks, and I shall develop that in more detail, if I may, a little later on. But I should like to stress at this point that we are not being complacent. Indeed, there is no room for complacency; and I can assure the House that the Government are watching the position carefully. However, despite the depressing results experienced in some of our rivers in the not too distant past, the outlook may not be quite so grim as is sometimes suggested.
My Lords, what we are primarily concerned with in this debate, of course, is our whole stock of salmon. Over the country as a whole there is no means of accurately measuring salmon stocks, because we do not know how many salmon are returning each year to their native rivers to spawn there. I was very interested in the great divergence of views expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as to the River Thurso, and those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lovatt, as to the River Beauly, where, in contrast to the noble Viscount's river, the stocks have diminished since the noble Lord's grandfather's time, as he told us most interestingly. Nevertheless, there is a fairly reliable indication of the position which can be deduced from statistics of catches. Scottish statistics of catches are collected annually by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland from proprietors of salmon fishings, and the totals are published each year. These records are, of course, not 100 per cent. accurate, but it is probably reasonable to assume that such error as exists is fairly

761
constant, and that, therefore, these statistics will give a truer picture than some other reports.
The figures, indeed, my Lords, are most interesting. The West Greenland Fishery first bit hard in 1964, and salmon disease took its toll in 1967. I shall have a little more to say about both these later on. But despite the undoubted effects of both these factors during the second half of the 1960s, the catches of salmon alone—that is, excluding grilse—in the period from 1964 up to and including 1969 were well within the range recorded since 1952, as I think was borne out by what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has said. Additionally, exceptionally high grilse catches were recorded during the same period. It is true that the 1970 and 1971 catches of salmon alone were exceptionally poor, but short-term fluctuations can occur for many reasons, and it is, perhaps, safer to judge by averages over a period. If we take the average annual catch of salmon alone for the periods from 1966 to 1971, which was 208,167, this proved to be only 7,608 less than that for the period from 1956 to 1961, which was 215,775, when there was, of course, neither high seas fishing nor salmon disease. During the same period, from 1966 to 1971, the average catch of grilse was almost 110.000 higher than the average for 1956 to 1961, and the average annual catch of the whole species of salmo salar in Scottish rivers and coastal waters in the later period was considerably higher than in the former. Perhaps also significantly, the figures for salmon (excluding grilse) for 1972–73 have recovered markedly at 210,570 and 229,417 respectively—higher than any since 1968. During the same period high grilse catches have been maintained.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I hope I am not being rude in interrupting again. One can easily be fooled about figures. I have the Scottish figures here. The noble Lord is right in giving them, but I should like to remind him that the Danish catch in 1968 was 1,350.000 fish as opposed, in the comparable year in Scotland, to 50,000 rod caught and 507,000 fish caught in all nets in Scotland. Of those 507,000, the vast majority were grilse. We were talking about the disappearance of salmon rather than of
762
grilse which we accept are not being caught in Denmark.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, all I can do is to give the figures. In 1968 in Scotland there were 427,872 salmon and grilse——
Lord LOVAT: They were grilse.
Lord STRABOLGI: —and in 1973 there were 520,000. If we go to salmon alone, for Scotland we have in 1968 for both rod and net, 213,993. In 1970 that dropped to 174,000. It went up again in 1972 to 210,000, and in 1973 went up again to 229,000. I do not think the differences are so great as the noble Lord implies. If one goes right back to 1953, 20 years ago, one finds that the total Scottish salmon catch was nearly 212,000. Though less in 1970 it is now 229,000. There is, I submit, not really a great deal of difference, but I will develop this a little later.
My Lords, for England and Wales the general picture of catches is one of steadily rising trends in the commercial catches from 1952 onwards. These reached a peak in 1970 and declined subsequently to a level near that of former years. The rod catches show the same upward trend although on a lesser scale. I recognise that the figures conceal considerable differences from river to river, as we have found in this debate. Moreover, being for the whole year they do not reveal the marked decline in catches that has occurred in spring fish. For reasons unknown to us, there appears to have been a diminution in spring runs of salmon for some years going back to the 1950s before the high seas fishery had started. Some commentators appear to find in this decline of the spring runs a possible danger to the continued survival of the species.
On the other hand, history appears to deny this inasmuch as similar trends in catches can be observed in years past. Thus, for example, as long ago as the final ten years of the 19th century throughout the British Isles, when the noble Lord's grandfather was fishing, runs of grilse were extremely large, as during the past few years. They were followed by large numbers of heavy autumn fish and spring fish were very scarce. About 1907, for no observable reason, the number of grilse fell off sharply and spring

763
fish became noticeable again. This trend continued until by the late 1920s spring fish throughout the British Isles became very abundant once again, while grilse had become a very reduced stock. Autumn fish had almost disappeared.
This situation appears to have continued until the early 1960s when, quite suddenly and for no observable reason, the run of grilse became as large as in the 1890s and has continued to be sizeable ever since. Similarly, the late autumn salmon has also increased steadily in recent years while the numbers of spring fish have steadily declined. It would therefore appear that what we are observing now is part of a large cycle in the salmon runs which appears to take several decades to complete. If the experience of the early 1900s is anything to go by, it may be that the whole situation with regard to spring fish and grilse will be reversed sometime in the future, for natural reasons unknown to us.
My Lords, that is the general situation as the Government see it. Noble Lords have raised a number of very important questions about such matters as Greenland, netting and so on, and I should now like to answer those in some detail. First, I think we must deal with the question of the Atlantic. As your Lordships know, this area is divided into the North-West and North-East Atlantic. Dealing first with the North-West Atlantic, in 1972 all members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission agreed to the phasing out by the end of 1975 of all fishing for salmon in the Commission's area of West Greenland, other than that carried out by local fishermen whose catch would be limited to 1,100 tons per annum, and these were to be taken solely within Greenland's fishery limits. In addition, catches by non-Greenland vessels were made subject to a decreasing quota in the period between 1972 and 1975. Notwithstanding the agreement, the Greenlanders in 1972–73 exceeded their quota of 1,100 tons by as much as 43 per cent. That the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has pointed out. The matter was raised at the meeting of the Commission in June, when the Danish Government asked that the Greenlanders' quota be increased. As noble Lords will remember, this proposal was rejected, being voted against by Her Majesty's Government among other
764
nations. All I can say is that we feel strongly about this, that the United Kingdom will continue to work for the full enforcement of conservation methods based on international scientific advice, and that we shall certainly take very careful note of what noble Lords have said this afternoon.
To turn to the North-East Atlantic, in 1973 the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission's recommendation extending the ban on high seas fishing for salmon, which was already in operation in the boxes off Norway and around the British Isles and Iceland, was extended to all the Commission's area outside national fishery limits as from 1st January 1976. This was accepted by all but two member Governments. One was West Germany, which said that it was not affected and was not interested. The other was Denmark, which is of course one of the main participants in the Norwegian sea fishery. But—and this is something I should like to stress—the fish caught there come mainly from Norwegian rivers. Very few, if any, originate in British waters. We shall of course continue to press for the unanimous acceptance of this recommendation, and we are hopeful that discussions on the subject at next year's session of the Law of the Sea Conference will assist in this direction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hoy, raised the question of the Republic of Ireland. I gave some answer in a reply recently to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Perhaps I might say this in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Young: the position as regards the Republic of Ireland is that they are members of the Commission but have not yet joined the enforcement scheme. Only members of the scheme may board each other's vessels outside territorial waters. The Irish authorities can board their own vessels, but we cannot board Irish vessels until they have joined the scheme, and to do that requires legislation. The Irish Government, in reply to representations from Her Majesty's Government, have promised to bring in this legislation as soon as possible. It is hoped that this will be next year. In the meantime they are, of course, continuing to police their own vessels outside their own territorial waters. I think they are as aware as we are of the importance of this matter, not only with

765
regard to our salmon stocks but also to their own. I know from my own experience what wonderful salmon fishing they have, because as a boy I used to go to Connemara a great deal with my father; so it is as much in their own interests as in ours. That is the position with regard to Ireland and the Atlantic. May I say in general with regard to the Atlantic, that in 1976 it is the intention that both in the North-West and the North-East there will be no fishing at all outside territorial waters.
I should like to deal now with the question of netting, which was raised by several noble Lords. First, there is the question of the drift netting off the Northumbrian coast which was, I believe, mentioned by all noble Lords. I would remind them that the position regarding drift netting of Northumberland is somewhat different from that in Scotland, where drift netting, as your Lordships will be aware, is prohibited; indeed this has been mentioned already. Drift netting for salmon off Northumberland is a traditional fishery, which may be carried on within six miles of the shore under licence from the Northumbrian Water Authority. Net limitation orders restrict the number of nets in the authority's area to 75 in the Northern part and 40 in the Southern part. Because of the statutory requirement that existing licence holders who are full-time fishermen must be given the opportunity to acquire a licence, the number of licences actually issued in the Southern part in 1972 was 91. Through natural wastage this number will drop away gradually until the limit of about 40 is reached. As a result of these measures, the number of fish caught in Northumberland drift net fishery appears to have stabilised at well below the 1970 peak. I may say that a report has been written for the Northumbrian Water Authority on the first year's research into the question of monofilament drift netting, but this report is not yet available. It is hoped that it will be published in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, expressed some concern about the effect of the Northumbrian drift netting on Scottish salmon. Considerable anxiety was expressed by various Scottish interests when the drift net catch rose substantially while at the same time the Scottish catch fell.
766
It is important, I suggest, to maintain a correct perspective in this matter. The total salmon and grilse caught off Northumberland and that area was about 90,000 fish, compared with the total Scottish catch of 360,000. In 1972, the corresponding figures were 48,000 and 404,000. Several noble Lords—in fact I think all noble Lords—mentioned monofilament. We shall certainly pay close attention to what has been said in the debate today. This is a development which we are watching with care. Our concern must of course be mainly with any possible danger arising to stocks because of over-fishing in view of the threatened expansion of methods of fishing using monofilament, and closely akin to drift netting. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering whether he should take further steps to restrict new methods of coastal netting, and he is arranging to consult the different interests concerned.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, am I right in saying the river water authorities already have powers under the 1972 Act to prohibit monofilament nets?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think they do to a certain extent in and beyond the estuaries; but further out would not come under their jurisdiction. Other noble Lords asked about the Hunter Report. The Government accept the desirability of setting up, as recommended by the Hunter Committee, a system of area boards covering all Scotland's rivers properly representative and with sufficient powers and financial backing to achieve their aims. However, it may be some time before we can find a place in our extensive legislative programme for the long and complicated Bill which this would require. In the meantime, the Government consider that the greater scope for development in Scottish fisheries lies in trout and freshwater fishing. The Government propose to encourage anglers to help themselves by providing funds in the early years of any national organisation of anglers which is set up with the object of acquiring fishings when they come on the market and managing other fishings by agreement. I took note of the points the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, raised and the very valuable advice to salmon proprietors, and I am sure we can commend most of these recommendations of the noble Lord to proprietors

767
for the better management of their salmon fishings. After all, it is in their best interests to do so.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked about pollution. In Scotland the action of the river purification boards has been significant and beneficial, especially in the case of the Forth. Of course there are still black spots—in particular, the Don, as the noble Viscount mentioned, and the Clyde. Although the position may not be improving as fast as we should like, it is improving in some places and being held in others. There is still much to be done, and it requires vigilance and the concentrated efforts of fishermen and the purification authorities. I was glad that the noble Viscount also offered a salmon for the Thames—
Viscount THURSO: Several thousand!
Lord STRABOLGI: We shall certainly bring that to the attention of the authorities. The noble Viscount also suggested that possibly the Hunter Report could be updated in certain respects. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, said about the whole conception of fish life in the seas. This is bound up with the whole matter of the law of the sea. The United Nations Law of the Sea Conference was held in Caracas earlier this year. The concept of the 200 mile economic zone was discussed and found a good measure of support. Within this zone, coastal States would have control over fishing activities and would take advantage economically of any conservation or other measures carried out by them. This arrangement adequately covers sea fish within the zone but not migratory species. Salmon-producing countries spend a lot of time and effort in maintaining salmon stocks, only to see the fish caught by other States intercepting them on their migratory routes. The United Kingdom and other salmon-producing countries consider that those countries having measures to preserve salmon stocks should derive the benefit of fishing them. I might tell the House that we are seeking at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference next year to make fishing for migratory species within a country's economic zone subject to agreement of the State from which the fish originate.
768
I was very interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, had to say. He always speaks from great practical knowledge. I am sorry that his salmon stocks are diminishing. He is not as fortunate as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He also referred, of course, to the Northumbria netting and the Hunter Report, with which I have dealt. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Hoy said about the Irish coast and his experience when he was a Minister. He asked me about salmon disease, and, indeed, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso also asked about this. The scientists of the Fisheries Department and elsewhere have continued their work on the disease UDN, but all efforts to determine its precise nature and cause have so far failed, although current scientific evidence suggests a virus aetiology with secondary fungal or bacterial infection as the commonest cause of death, but the disease agent has not yet been isolated. To cure the disease in open waters is not possible, but my impression is that there is more general acceptance now than when the disease first appeared that it will run its course, and indeed there is evidence to suggest that it is at present doing so. There appears to be an increased survival of kelts among Scottish salmon.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked the date of the first outbreak of UDN in Scotland. That was 1966. The year of the highest incidence was, of course, the following year, 1967. It has, as I said, fluctuated from year to year, depending on weather and water conditions. I hope, my Lords, that those are all the answers to the points that the noble Lords have raised. In conclusion I can assure the noble Lords that the Government are certainly alive to the problems and potential dangers besetting our salmon stocks. Although I have suggested that the picture is not as black as has sometimes been alleged, and we agree very fully, as I say again, with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has said, we do not view the problem with complacency. We shall, of course, continue our efforts in every way open to us to safeguard what we regard as a most important and valuable resource.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
Special Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
Fifth Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
First Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, being the Report on the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.