Lords Sitting of 20 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BATHING AREA CONTROLS
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 how many accidents to bathers or water-skiers caused by motor boats have occurred over the last three years and whether they consider the present controls to safeguard bathing areas are satisfactory.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I regret that we have no comprehensive information about the number of such accidents, although we know of three involving bathers during the period in question, two of which were fatal. There is no reason to suppose that the present powers of control available to local authorities are inadequate, but this is one of the matters now under review by the Working Party on Water Safety which was recently set up by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he can say how soon this Working Party will compute its reports and whether its final Report will be published?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, up until ten minutes ago I have tried to find out when the Report will be avail able, and I am sorry that I can help neither the noble Lord nor your Lord ships. I cannot say whether publication is imminent, or whether it will take some months to be produced. But I can say that once the Report is in the hands of my right honourable friend it will be published.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord advise the House how local authorities can help bathers and water-skiers? Is there, for instance, a code of safety issued by the Department to local authorities?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, my Lords: a guide was produced which gives statutory rights to local authorities to determine speeds, and even to mark out areas where speedboats cannot operate.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned three cases about which he knows. Does he know the number of fatal accidents which have befallen ordinary swimmers who have not been interfered with by these water-skiers?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand that about 700 people are drowned accidentally each year in Great Britain. About 75 per cent. of these deaths occur in inland waters; the remaining 25 per cent. occur on the coast.

COURT LINE LIMITED
2.34 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and to inform the Minister that I am the holder of shares in this company and have therefore a notional or fictitious interest to declare.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made for taking over the assets of Court Line Limited, what is the nature of the assets acquired and what are the figures of the liabilities assumed, and upon what terms.
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, may I first commiserate with my noble friend for his misplaced interest in this subject. Court Line's shipbuilding, ship-repairing and associated interests were acquired on September 19 by the purchase for £16 million of the entire ordinary share capital of Appledore Shipbuilders Limited, Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited, and North-East Coast Ship Repairers Limited. These companies are shipbuilders in Devon and Sunderland and ship repairers on the Tyne, Wear and

1017
Humber. In addition they own a number of subsidiary companies, including a house-building company in Devon, a steel works in County Durham and marine engineering companies in Sunderland and Newcastle. The contract under which the purchase was made does not impose any additional liability on the Government. Almost all of the purchase price was applied to discharge debts owed by Court Line to the companies which the Government acquired, or to meet liabilities, under guarantee given by those companies, of Court Line's obligations.
LORD HALE: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I congratulate the noble Lord on making his debut at the Dispatch Box, and also Her Majesty's Government on the accession of strength which they have acquired? It is sad to have to add that, despite the clarity of his statement, it did not appear com pletely on the modest screen of my own mind with the clarity that it deserved.As I understand it—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I was hoping that my noble friend would have heard one or two cries of "Question!" Will my noble friend please put the question to my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis?
LORD HALE: My Lords, with the greatest pleasure in the world. What I want to ask my noble friend is, whether he can clarify the situation in relation to this company and in relation to questions? Is he aware that on Monday apparently, there is to be a liquidation, some sort of Department of Trade inquiry which has not been explicitly made known, and some sort of Departmental inquiry into holiday bookings and their compensation? Is the noble Lord aware that each of these involves considerations of the right to comment on quasi-judicial investigations and the limitations on our right to make reference to the efforts of this company quite suddenly to take advantage of all the commercial opportunities of the expanding universe?
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I do not know whether I fully caught all the questions of my noble friend. As my noble friend must be painfully aware, the affairs of Court Line and its sub
1018
sidiary companies are in the hands of the liquidator. There are at the moment two investigations being carried out; one by the inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade under Section 165 of the Companies Act who are investigating the affairs of Court Line companies to see whether there is any breach of the Companies' Act; and the other is the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation into the question of whether there was any maladministration on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry. I am of course aware of the liquidation, and the situation to this very day, I believe, is that there is a meeting of the Court Line creditors.
The Government are unable to say what payments will be made to creditors or whether any money will be available to the shareholders. It depends on how successful the liquidator is in realising Court Line's other assets in ships, hotels and aircraft. But the main effect of this purchase was to reduce Court Line's liabilities by £10 million so that money realised from the sale of these other assets would benefit the other creditors, and perhaps the shareholders, proportionately more. If the shipbuilding companies themselves had gone into liquidation, their liquidators would have claimed the £10 million from the Court Line liquidator, and of course the break-up value of the shipbuilding and associated assets would have been a lot less than £16 million.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the shipbuilding assets which have been taken over are likely to prove viable; whether they are still in operation, and how many men are employed?
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the companies will continue to operate as commercial concerns under the existing management. One of the primary reasons why Her Majesty's Government took over these companies was, of course, that the purchase protected approximately 9,000 jobs in development areas. I will not bore noble Lords with a list of the companies involved, but there are in fact 18 employing, as I say, 9,000 people. The biggest employer among the 18 companies is Sunderland Shipbuilders, which employs just over 4.000 people, and the Middle Docks and Engineering Company

1019
Limited in South Shields, employing over 1,000. The rest employ considerably fewer than this number.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the residents in South Shields are very pleased that the Government took over the shipbuilding and the ship-repairing side? Is he further aware that a great development is taking place now, in that the workmen are being taken into consultation in the running of the shipyards?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the principal shipbuilding companies were all solvent at the time they were taken over, that they are now trading profitably and that there will be no continuing liability to the taxpayer to subsidise these firms?
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that when a subsidiary of a parent company goes into liquidation (or, as we say in County Durham, it goes down) then the parent company evades all responsibility so far as its subsidiaries are concerned?
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I would require notice of that question. I am not at all sure; but if the noble Lord really wishes to press this matter, I will gladly write to him.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the reasons why I asked that particular type of question is that we have many of these subsidiaries coming into our areas, that they are built up by their parent companies and that, as I see and understand it, the parent company ought to carry the responsibility for any of its subsidiaries if it gets into difficulties.
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, this is a matter of company legislation, and I am afraid I am not fully aware of it; but I will certainly look into the matter.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if we may move to another activity of Court Line, could my noble friend inform us what steps are being taken to ensure the continued operation of the two important hotels in St. Lucia, bearing in mind
1020
particularly the importance of those two hotels to the economy of the island?
LORD LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would be good enough to put down a Question on the matter. I think it is beyond the scope of the Question set down to-day.

SPEECH THERAPISTS
2.44 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: 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 when they will bring in the new grading structure for speech therapists.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, speech therapists are among eight professions whose pay structure, levels of remuneration and related conditions of service are currently being considered by a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The Committee to which I have just referred is looking at the grading structure of the profession to which the noble Baroness refers in her Question.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, which is not very encouraging because these people have been waiting a long time, may I ask him whether he appreciates that the reorganisation of the National Health Service has been the disorganisation of the speech therapy service, and does he know that there is an appalling drop-out of speech therapists? Only last year, out of 27 who graduated from one school 3 are now working. Does the noble Lord appreciate that this is due, too, to the very frustrations which they have? And can he hold out any hope that conditions in hospitals and clinics will get better?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is quite justified in feeling as she does about this matter, because so does the Department; but I must point out that there are other professional organisations whose structure and pay and conditions have to be considered alongside those of the speech

1021
therapists. I can understand their impatience, but over the last four years there have been financial difficulties—there have been pay pauses and counter-inflation situations—and it is difficult for the Committee of Inquiry to take one profession out and disregard the other seven. The Committee is dealing with the whole lot, and we are hoping that before the end of the year the Committee will be able to report on them.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how long this Committee has been looking into this matter, and when they expect to come to a conclusion?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question I cannot be precise.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: Why not?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Because I just do not know. It is as simple as that. As to the second part of the question, in reply to the noble Baroness I said that it is hoped that a decision will be made by the end of this year.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who know of the excellent work of speech therapists over the last 25 years are grateful to my noble friend Lady Masham for raising this question; and may we ask the noble Lord whether he would make our representations known to Lord Halsbury and his Committee?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of the situation. Perhaps I ought to point out that the current salary scales of speech therapists were increased, by agreement, by from £282 to £513 and back-dated to May 23 last, and employing authorities were notified of the new rates on October 2 last. We are not letting this matter rest. We are trying to deal with it as quickly as possible.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does my noble friend think there is any relationship between the fact that the speech therapists appear to be the Cinderellas of the professions supplementary to medicine and the fact that they have not a State register?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should not like to express an opinion on that except to say, having had some experience myself in the field of professional social work, that I think a good many of these quasi-medical social work groups are at some sort of disadvantage, and I hope that the Committee of Inquiry will be able to redress a good many of the anxieties which are felt in the House to-day.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has in his Department a speech therapist to advise on these matters?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether we have a speech therapist, but I am perfectly satisfied from my inquiries and from my dealings with the Department in all fields of social service that we have some really competent people to advise us in every field.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, in view of what was recommended in the Quirk Report could the noble Lord tell me whether a good deal of research in speech therapy and its improvement is going on now? Further, does he know anything about the Speech Therapy Trust, which was a trust set up to encourage research into speech therapy?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, off the cuff, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer to either of those supplementary questions, but perhaps he will allow me to look into them—certainly the latter, because I am not aware of that trust—and to write to him letting him have what information we have.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a very small but very important profession and that, having had the Quirk Report in 1972, they are very disillusioned that seemingly there has been a very long delay in meeting its recommendations? Can the noble Lord say whether it is intended to appoint an Area Health Authority level organiser, and has this been referred to the Whitley Council as well as the Halsbury Committee?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord—I nearly said "my noble friend", because I regard him as being such—raised the first part

1023
of his question because I did not want to remind him that, as he knows, some of the delay has in no uncertain manner been due to the last Government. In reply to the second part of his question, a notice has gone out to the appropriate authorities about the appointment of area speech therapists. There are already, I believe, two grades of senior speech therapist, and a letter has been sent out about the appointment of area speech therapists. But we are waiting upon the report of the Committee of Inquiry with regard to pay and conditions.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, would the noble Lord please clarify something which I did not hear properly? I thought he said that the rate had gone up from £280 to £500 or so. Is that the salary per month or per year?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I think I made it clear that it was increase in salary.
LORD PLATT: An increase from what to what?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the maximum or minimum salaries of speech therapists.
BARONESS D'ARCY DE KNAYTH: My Lords, does the Minister realise that much of the disillusionment among speech therapists is caused by the fact that as yet there are no area speech therapists? Further, would he agree that it is vital to act rapidly in a matter which would go a long way towards achieving the much-needed career structure which is so necessary to attract recruits and to cut the drop-out rate?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I pointed out a moment or two ago, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services asked Area Health Authorities in April of this year to appoint area speech therapists as soon as was practicable. I realise that it is extremely difficult to do this unless one ', has a structure and the pay scales that go with such a structure.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, have the Government any views on the application of the social contract to this matter and, if so, would they convey them to the Halsbury Committee?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl gives me the opportunity to intervene. I suggest that this question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If I may, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on having stimulated considerable interest in this matter. I hope that she will feel satisfied with the way in which my noble friend has answered. An opportunity will be provided for the matter to be further examined if that should be her wish or that of the House.

BEET SUGAR PRICES
2.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: 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 ensure that British farmers obtain the equivalent price per ton for beet sugar produced in this country next season to that paid for the 1·4 million tons of cane sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries which were guaranteed under the recent EEC negotiations.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the price paid to the United Kingdom beet grower next season will be determined by the Council of Ministers on the basis of proposals by the Commission. These are likely to be related to the conditions that affect Community production, such as production costs or the relative attractiveness of competing crops. The return which the United Kingdom beet grower is receiving this season is already some 30 per cent. above that of 1973–74. The price to be paid to the developing Commonwealth sugar producer, on the other hand, must, in addition, take account of the price obtainable on the world market, which represents an alternative outlet for Commonwealth sugar.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government think this provides sufficient incentive for the sugar beet farmer for next season?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lord, the price increase expected on January 1 will

1025
put the United Kingdom beet grower at least on a par with other Community beet growers. This is extremely important for the United Kingdom because the return to the beet grower has lagged behind that available to producers of competing products—for example, cereals. In addition, a very much increased acreage has been agreed for the United Kingdom from next year. The beet grower, therefore, in the 1975–76 season will be guaranteed the full EEC price on all sugar produced up to a maximum of approximately 1·5 million tons. This compares extremely favourably with the United Kingdom maximum quota of 990,000 tons at the present time. The Government have always been committed to securing a significant expansion of United Kingdom beet and this is now in prospect.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there would be no such wailing about the Common Market and Britain if we had stayed out and does not he now come to the conclusion that the Common Market is the economics of the madhouse?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the difference in price is this year between what the United Kingdom fanner and the Common Market farmer obtains?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the minimum price paid for beet in United Kingdom is at present £8·63 per long ton. This price, therefore, will be increased in the light of the following: it is intended that the United Kingdom should move to the full EEC price for sugar and sugar beet on January 1, 1975. This will bring the return up to £102 per long ton at least, and possibly higher. The annual price negotiations in the Community are to begin in December and a reasonably substantial increase is expected for beet producers throughout the EEC.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that information bears out whatever it was that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the price paid to the beet sugar growers satisfies them and whether the EEC has the authority or the power to impose a limitation on
1026
the production of beet sugar in the United Kingdom?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that I did answer that when I answered the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, but in reply to my noble friend, perhaps I may remind him that the price increase expected on January 1 will put the United Kingdom beet grower at least on a par with other Community beet growers. In connection with the quota, this has now been increased by the present Government to 1½ million tons from 990,000 tons, as I have explained.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend reply to the second part of my question? Are we to understand that the EEC have the power or the authority to impose a limit on the production of beet sugar in the United Kingdom?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord informed the House of the increase which had been received by the beet grower in recent years: can he indicate the increase in the cost of feedingstuff over the same period?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a different question.
LORD DARLING OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is there any way in which the British Government can influence the French, who are rapidly expanding their beet acreage. The growth of sugar cane in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean is absolutely essential to the wellbeing of our friends there and it is falling?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the question of Commonwealth sugar depends on the outcome of negotiations which have still to take place with the developing Commonwealth. Clearly, provided the price is right and the terms of the agreement are otherwise satisfactory, we can expect to receive a great deal of the 1·4 million tons for which the Community has pledged access.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to press my noble friend, but do I understand from his reply to the second part of my supplementary question that we are no longer masters in our own house in the United Kingdom in respect

1027
of the production of sugar beet and is that acceptable to farmers in the United Kingdom?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are now members of the Community, under the arrangements made by the previous Conservative Government, and these matters are questions for renegotiation. My right honourable friend the Minister is negotiating at present and a Statement will be made as soon as possible.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that this is satisfactory, in view of the fact that before 1970 the deficiency in the balance of trade was £69 million and we are now running a deficit at nearly £3,000 million a year?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I believe that since, as my noble friend has said, the Minister of Agriculture is negotiating in Brussels to-day and he will be reporting to Parliament on sugar and beef, it may be that this is an area which we could leave until we have that Statement. We shall then have a clearer know-ledae of what has, in fact, been negotiated.

NHS: SOCIAL WORK REPORTS
3.0 p.m.
LORD REIGATE LORD REIGATE rose to call attention to the widespread concern as to the continued confidentiality of the reports prepared by hospital social workers and other medical workers in view of the new arrangements imposed under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think it is reasonable to say that there is to-day widespread concern about the invasion of privacy and the absence of confidentiality in many aspects of our modern life. The issue which I am raising is a narrow one affecting the National Health Service only, but none the less I think it is of importance for nowhere, surely, is there more danger to privacy and confidentiality than in the doctor-patient relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not be surprised at my raising this issue again, as I gave him notice I should do so when I asked a Question in June. But for those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the
1028
background to this issue, perhaps I might give a few details.
First of all, under the National Health Service reorganisation the social workers in hospitals, both medical and psychiatric, were transferred to the employment of the local authorities, although remaining at work in the hospitals. May I also explain that these social workers are the heirs of what used to be called almoners. I think, and others think with me, that that was a wrong decision, although I recognise it was taken after fairly considerable thought. But although I think it was wrong, I am not of course seeking in this Motion to reverse that policy or even to argue that it should be changed.
The duties of a social worker are manifold, but they are principally, first, to resettle the patient in the community; and, secondly—and this is the gravamen of what I am raising to-day—theirs is a role of great importance, which is to furnish a doctor with particulars of the social background of the patient whom he is treating. To carry out this latter role, the social worker needs to know a number of certain clinical details of the patient's ailments. To meet the doctor's requirement to know the social background of the patient a full file is built up of details of the family circumstances, as well as of correspondence with local authorities and other outside agencies. It is from this record that the quintessence is extracted for the doctor so that he can know the background of the patient whom he is treating.
There are thus two files. First, there are the clinical notes which include the social particulars, where relevant, which are of course filed with the medical report of the patient. The second file contains the social background and social history notes, including clinical particulars and the correspondence to which I have referred, which have always been filed in the social service department of the hospital concerned. It is with the fate of these latter records that I am concerned.
I must point out that until the reorganisation took place the clinician and social worker were part of a united team. Until then both kinds of files were the property—and I repeat "property"—of the hospital; that is to say, they were the property of the board of governors

1029
or of the hospital management committee, as the case might be. No one outside has any right of access, except that I believe that under very exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State has the right to call for those papers; but that right is only rarely exercised. Of course, the doctor and the social worker can, and do, divulge some particulars to others who may be concerned outside the hospital, but they do this only at their discretion, and at their risk as well.
On June 10, I asked a Parliamentary Question seeking an assurance that all these files would remain the property of the health authority and would not be divulged to local authorities without the patient's consent. I received a rather dusty Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but I also had some support from noble Lords on both sides of the House. Perhaps I might summarise the replies that were received. We learned, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that,
"Medical case notes about a patient … remain the property of the hospital authority."
So far, so good. We also learned that,
"The custody of social work reports is under the control of the social worker concerned." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/6/74; col. 235.]
I ask your Lordships to note the change in the wording. We have "custody" and "control", not "property" and "authority".
If I may answer my own question in simpler terms—which the noble Lord rather jibbed at giving me—the files, including the clinical particulars to which I have referred, are the legal property of the local authority and the social worker can be directed to surrender a file to the local authority. If the noble Lord is in a position to contradict me on that, I shall be interested to hear what he says. But that is the advice which I have received and with which I would agree after reading the Acts concerned. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, believes I am exaggerating the risks that are attendant upon this fact.
I may say that because I was dealing with this matter I thought it right to ask those who have advised me to give some idea of the kinds of particulars which might be involved. I have seen certain records—not actual records, and I have
1030
no idea of the source, the hospital or the area concerned; they might, for all I know, be totally fictitious and I do not want to burden the House with any lengthy case histories—and I would be willing to show the kinds of transcripts I have had to any noble Lord who might be sceptical about this issue. I would point out that each file is, or can become, a full social and medical history of a case, or even of a family as well.
In one particular case, of which I have a copy, the husband was a bad heart case; he had angina as well as a coronary. It so happened that the social worker's notes recorded the fact that his daughter aged 15 was pregnant and the mother was very anxious that the husband should not know about this because it was feared that it would affect his condition. The pregnancy was terminated and the girl's father did not know. Later the mother was admitted to the hospital and was a terminal case of cancer. These notes give the sad and sorry history of a family. One particular point that I would make is that no demand was made on any local authority services so that there would be no need at any stage for the local authority to have had the use of that file. If this is typical, I feel that it would not be right to divulge details to anyone outside the clinical team without the patient's consent.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in replying to my question, seemed to assume that everyone concerned would always act in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards. I hope he is right, but I think your Lordships will agree that there are always risks. On June 10 the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, in a supplementary question said to the noble Lord:
"If the noble Lord feels that no professional worker would divulge the information he possesses, what is wrong with making it legal that he should not?"
To which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replied:
"It would be a pity if we tried to deal with this matter by some form of legality."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/6/74, col. 237.]
To me, my Lords, to say that is to miss the whole point of this discussion and to minimise the risks that there are in this matter. When he comes to reply, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will quote the Report of the Working Party on Social Work Support

1031
for the Health Service published in June and since I last raised this matter. It is a good, thorough, painstaking Report on this subject within its limited remit. It is obviously based almost entirely on experience gained mostly before reorganisation. It does not challenge the changes that were made in the Act but neither does it give an impression of enthusiasm.
I should like to refer in particular to paragraph 18 of that Report from which I will quote selectively but not, I hope, unfairly. That paragraph begins:
"An important point in this connection is confidentiality".
It then goes on:
"It is a professional issue with implications going well beyond our terms of reference."
The paragraph continues:
"The information on a social worker's file can be quite as sensitive as that in medical and nursing records."
It also states:
"…at no point in our discussions has it been suggested to us that confidentiality presents any real difficulty in working relationships between doctors and social workers provided there is personal confidence between the professionals concerned."
I think that that must be seen to relate to the days when the social worker and the doctor were part of one clinical team responsible to each other and to the hospital for which they were working, and not a social worker under the employment of an outside authority. I cannot help but feel that the paragraph in the Working Party's report fully justifies this matter being raised to-day because I think it is clear that I am not alone in my misgivings.
I want to return to this matter of legality and to say why the situation in law needs clarifying. Here I must digress for a moment to remind your Lordships that, apart from other matters, we invented, or rather adopted, the Ombudsman. When this suggestion first came forward I must say that I was not an enthusiast for the proposal, being at that time a Member of another place. I now consider the innovation thoroughly justified, being probably biased by the fact that while a Member of another place I succeeded in getting two cases considered by the Ombudsman who in both cases came down on my side. Now, my Lords, we have the Parliamentary Commis-
1032
sioner, the National Health Service Commissioner whose remit does not extend to clinical matters, and, lastly, we have the Local Government Commissioner.
I want to quote from a letter, but before doing so I will recapitulate three points from what I have said: first, the importance of mutual confidence between patient and staff; secondly, the fact that the social workers' notes contain intimate and clinical details; and, thirdly, once again to remind your Lordships that the medical social worker is now employed by the local authority although a member of a clinical team. The letter I wish to quote is from the Director of Social Services of an important local authority and is addressed to all staff including National Health social worker staff. I am told that similar letters are being sent out from other local authorities. The letter reads:
"All staff who are concerned in any way with the use of files, either on individual cases or general policy matters, must be made aware that a Local Government ' Ombudsman ' can call for any file and that anything recorded thereon is not privileged and cannot be withheld. It is, therefore, essential that although reports and notes on files should correctly reflect the facts and opinions of the officer making the report, they should be phrased in a manner which will not be embarrassing in the event of their being disclosed to outside parties or possibly to the person involved in the case in question."
So what, my Lords, becomes of, to quote the Working Party's report:
"the right of the individual to confidential communication with any professional person with whom they are in contact"?
It must mean that the social worker's notes, including clinical particulars, are available to outside parties and possibly to the person involved.
If the instructions in that letter are carried out to the full, it must mean that the social worker's notes will have to be purged of all clinical and personally embarrassing particulars and thereby rendered valueless. That letter could not have been sent out before April 1, because the Local Government Commissioner would not have had any locus standi in the matter. The transfer of medical social workers to local government employment means, as this letter proves, that local authorities now have a legal right of access to information acquired by its employees in the course of clinical duties under the National

1033
Health Service. This must be wrong. That, my Lords, is the case I put forward, and I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS ROBSON OF KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for raising this issue, because this is, as we know, one which has concerned and disturbed the medical profession of this country ever since the reorganisation of the National Health Service. We have in this country been proud of the agreed code of confidentiality practised by the medical profession and medical social workers within our hospitals, but as yet there is no similar code agreed by social workers working within the community. Therefore, I believe it has been almost impossible to reach an agreement between the two on how to deal with the questions that are now raised by the noble Lord.
I am aware that there have been meetings between the British Medical Association and the British Association of Social Workers, covering a wide range of subjects within the relationship of the two professions and I understand that there is a draft report in front of the BMA. But until the social workers and the British Association of Social Workers can agree among themselves about a code, very little progress can be made between the two professions. On the other hand, like, I am sure, your Lordships, I cannot believe that people engaged in the social services within local authorities are less likely than members of the medical profession to observe the confidentiality of their clients and patients. The majority of them, I am absolutely sure, would abide by exactly the same principles.
The danger in the present situation additional to the ones that the noble Lord brought forward is the enormous turnover of social workers within local authorities, which means that a social worker calling on a family may be followed in the next week by a different one. This increases the danger of passing on the information. The noble Lord referred to the personal confidence that existed in the past between social workers and the medical profession working within a hospital. This is tremendously im-
1034
portant and is something which one hopes could be preserved.
I want to raise a point relevant to this discussion, because I believe that what is happening at the moment is militating against this confidence, and I refer to the method of appointment of social workers under the new reorganisation. The workers are appointed by the local authority, and it is possible for the area health authority or the hospital in question to be represented as an observer on the committee appointing a social worker to a particular hospital. But the medical profession and area health authority have absolutely no rights. They are there only as observers and an appointment can be made by a local authority without the agreement of the hospital. It is within my knowledge that some social workers have arrived at a hospital without previously having been seen by the medical profession. They have been appointed and have arrived to do their first day's work. That does not help in building up confidence between the people who are working, one hopes, for the patient in a hospital.
It is a completely different principle that is followed when an area health authority appoints people to work with a local authority. When an area health authority appoints specialists in community medicine to advise the social services department of a local authority, when it appoints child health specialists, when it appoints district community physicians, the local authority is represented on the appropriate committees with full powers, and no appointment would be made which was not acceptable to the local authority. So I would plead that we should have an alteration so that no social worker was appointed without the agreement of the hospital or the area health authority.
3.25 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have always entertained the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, because he and I have met on occasions when matters of public health have been discussed. I have always recognised that he has taken a sincere interest in these matters. We have not always agreed, and to-day I have listened to him very carefully and I must confess that I do not think he has proved his case. From

1035
what the noble Baroness has just said, one might almost think that this debate to-day is about the professional standing of the social worker in the hospital. Indeed, I have read some material on this question which indicates that there is some ill-feeling, which is absolute news to me, between doctors and social workers. But I understand that what we are discussing to-day is simply the question of confidentiality, and I want to relate what I have to say to this aspect.
I think that the noble Lord's anxiety is misplaced. I believe he has overemphasised something which must have occurred to many people over the years, something which occurs to doctors and everybody in the medical profession; that is, whether any confidence of the patient will be revealed to anybody who may make use of it, which is not in the interests of the patient. If there is this widespread concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, states in his Motion, why is it not to be found in, for instance, the British Medical Journal over the past few months and years? Since this debate was put down I have checked through my copies of the British Medical Journal, which I take every week and try to read thoroughly, and to my amazement I find that this matter has not even been mentioned by the doctors. I cannot find any complaint in the British Medical Journal which leads me to believe that this matter is causing great concern to doctors or patients.
The media are always feverishly searching for grievances so that these can be ventilated on the radio or television. Has anybody in this House heard of this question being discussed on the media? That is the kind of subject which they would jump at. The commentators would like to have a little heated discussion between doctors, social workers and patients in order to ventilate this matter. But it seems to be unknown to the media. On further inquiry, I found that an article had been written by a Liverpool general practitioner and a social worker. They sent it simultaneously to the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners and to the journal called Social Work Today. The final paragraph of this very long article dealt with confidentiality and the desirability of exercising vigilance regard-
1036
ing a client's affairs. That is the only material on this subject that I can find. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord should be reassured; I feel that he is distressing himself unnecessarily. He should be particularly reassured when he knows that, as a result of this matter being raised in this House—and, sometimes, civil servants may have discussed it in certain places—the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Health Visitors Association are to discuss the greater use of shared information, which could no doubt include confidentiality.
I want to introduce an analogous case, because it is concerned with confidentiality. Since the inception of the National Health Service, it has been compulsory for patients' reports to be filed by doctors and, consequently, sent to the right authority. If one bears in mind that a single doctor might be responsible for 2,500 patients, it is inevitable that he seeks help with clerical work. Many of your Lordships know that I am a doctor. I was brought up in the household of a doctor, I have about eight near relations who are doctors, and I therefore know this world. When the hard-pressed doctor seeks help he finds, as everybody knows, that it is difficult to get first-rate secretaries—in the old days (as we call them) a doctor could not afford one, anyway—so he will seek a clerical worker. Often he knows an excellent patient who lives in the neighbourhood and who knows the neighbours well, and he asks her to undertake the writing up of his reports. This is the "norm".
I have never heard a patient objecting to this practice. I have never heard one of the former executive committees which controlled the general practitioner objecting to his finding clerical help of this kind; finding somebody who would examine all these reports and who would know precisely what the family next door was suffering from. Also, I have never seen the medical journals condemn the practice. This is the first time I have ever attended a debate in which such strong exception has been taken to anybody other than a medically qualified person, or a para-medically qualified person, seeing these reports.
We must not suffer under the illusion that people with a medical qualification have a monopoly of integrity. I have

1037
heard many doctors reveal confidences, at dinners and so on, which they should never have revealed. But there are people lacking in integrity in many other fields. The fact that a doctor is a good physician or surgeon does not mean he is necessarily always a stable individual. When it comes to his own ego and his own little conceits, he often loves to tell people of the eminent personalities whom he has treated. So I say again that a medical qualification does not mean that the individual possessing it is an individual of the highest integrity.
The average housewife can be relied upon to exercise her discretion concerning a sick neighbour. If the average housewife knows that revealing something about a sick neighbour will not help her, she will certainly respect the confidence. As to this question of confidentiality, when a patient is confined to bed in a house in a crowded road—and, after all, we are talking about all people now, I hope, not only those who live in very select neighbourhoods—and is regularly visited by a doctor and a social worker, her condition cannot be kept secret from the neighbours. I have never had a patient say to me: "I cannot go to that hospital and be in a ward of 20 or 30 beds, because my neighbours will be there and they will know what I am suffering from."
Confidentiality is something which must be seen in proper perspective. I believe the risks which the noble Lord fears are negligible. After all, the one case he quoted—I listened for specific cases—was of a man suffering from some disease, his wife suffering from a malignant condition, and a daughter of 15 who was pregnant and operated on. In the end, the noble Lord had to say that nobody heard about it. The girl was operated on and her condition was not revealed. That was the only case he quoted. The noble Lord must forgive me for saying this, but I know the world of which we are speaking a little better than he does, and I feel that if we are to conduct our social services in an efficient manner in this computerised age, we must exercise common sense.
3.35 p.m.
LORD HUNT OF FAWLEY: My Lords, as a general practitioner this problem of confidentiality affects my patients to a great extent and it also affects me;
1038
just as it does many other doctors and their helpers in what has been so aptly called "the greater medical profession" which includes medical social works of all kinds. In the short debate on this subject at Question Time on June 10, in this House, the term "professional ethics" was mentioned more than once. It is an important component of what we are discussing this afternoon, and I have been invited to draw your Lordships' attention to some general points about medical ethics which concern us all now. Some translations of the Hippocratic Oath, which is older than the Christian faith, speak about "sacred secrets" between doctor and patient. That Oath has served us well for more than 20 centuries. If someone's son picks up venereal disease, his unmarried daughter has an abortion at the age of 16, or his wife has an attack of depression and attempts suicide, neither the patient nor the doctor, nor the patient's family, wants others to know. Secrets between doctor and patient have in the past been kept; and these have included not only what the patient has told his doctor but what the doctor has found out about his patient. And when a doctor has died, he has often left instructions in his will that all his personal notes should be destroyed immediately. A consultant friend of mine did this only last month.
For a general practitioner, it is still possible to keep the secrets of many patients; but only up to a point. Sometimes, the community also now has to be taken into account. Two examples which concerned me not so very long ago illustrate this: an express-train driver seemed to his family at home to be going off his head—in the end it turned out to be from a slowly-growing cerebral tumour—although he remained perfectly efficient for a considerable time at the routine job of driving his train; and a retired Merchant Navy captain, who for many years has sailed up and down the coast of India, who began later to develop leprosy while living in London. In both cases someone else had to be told, for the safety of others, just as so many other illnesses which may possibly have an adverse effect on the community have to be declared, whether the patient has given his permission for this or not. When I qualified as a doctor I had to swear the Hippocratic Oath, or the greater part of it. Few young doctors

1039
are asked to do this now. Had my two medical sons been invited to do so, they say they would have refused because they knew that they could not honour it. As an example of how unrealistic the Hippocratic Oath is at present, one of its sentences reads:
"I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone".
Taken literally that would exclude all surgeons and many general practitioners who do minor surgery.
My Lords, in modern general practice, especially since the introduction of our National Health Service and its reorganisation, with its health centres and large group practices, with so many ancillary services and with the great development of social medicine, this problem is even more important and difficult. Practices vary greatly. In some of them patients see several of the doctors in the group from time to time; their notes and reports are useful to all the partners and also sometimes to others in the team—health visitors, nurses and district nurses, midwives and social workers of all kinds. Many general-practice teams have been growing steadily in size during the past 20 years. "My patient" has become "Our patient", and many members of these clinical teams have acccess, at times, to the medical notes. Some practices insist that all who work in the team sign an undertaking to respect confidential information.
By tradition, necessary medical details which are of importance to a patient's health or wellbeing have sometimes been passed on verbally or in writing from one doctor to another who is in a professional relationship with that patient, with or without the consent, implied or expressed, of that patient or his nearest relative. Sometimes a doctor may have to share his knowledge with a member of another profession—a dentist, chiropodist, physiotherapist, a clergyman or lawyer-—all of whom should agree to be bound by the same ethical rules about confidentiality as those which govern the doctor himself.
When a patient enters hospital still more people are involved—consultants, registrars, house officers, more nurses and secretaries, laboratory and X-ray technicians and highly-skilled and well-educated hospital social workers (who used to be called almoners), psychiatric
1040
social workers and others, including, in some hospitals, medical students. They may all see patients' records, or part of them. The main details of a patient's medical record are sometimes put into a computer where, in some respects, confidentiality can be preserved better than in files.
When a patient leaves hospital, a summary of his medical notes is sent to his general practitioner who may find himself, at times, in a good position to coordinate the work of hospital, psychiatric and local authority social workers, perhaps employing the good offices of a community physician, some of whom were called, until recently, Medical Officers of Health.
The rules about confidentiality for hospital personnel are not always carefully kept. Doctors and even lawyers are sometimes at fault. Page 20 of this year's Annual Report of the Medical Defence Union describes how a young woman driving-instructress was teaching a learner-driver when they were hit by a bus from behind. She had been injured and had been treated in eight different hospitals. She was suing the transport company, and the solicitor acting for that company had written to all these hospitals asking them to send him a copy of the patient's records for his perusal. One consultant offered to submit a medical report, another said he would do so for an appropriate fee, and a surgeon at a third hospital did send the solicitor a summary of the patient's notes—all three of them without the patient's permission. The proper procedure, I understand, would have been first to obtain the patient's consent, and then for the medical details to be submitted to medical advisers nominated by her own solicitors.
When a patient moves his home to a new locality a further complete set of medical and para-medical personnel are involved, both in general practice and in hospital. If he happens to move often, his medical notes and reports follow him round each time. How can proper confidentiality be maintained under these conditions? Even if the patient dies, his notes are kept for three years or more before being destroyed; and someone has access to them.
A friend said to me the other day "I loath; the idea of my personal medical notes floating round a health centre or

1041
hospital". They do lie around sometimes, and by no means all the cabinets in which they are filed are kept locked. One must be able to trust those with whom one works closely, after impressing on them the importance of strict confidentiality. Even in banks many more people know the state of one's credit balance or overdraft than some of us guess. In a bank any unethical disclosure of information should be the manager's responsibility: he would ultimately be to blame. So with modern medicine; it is the doctors who should be responsible. They have had certain ethical standards for centuries. Under modern conditions, some of these are now inadequate, in spite of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Geneva and, with more practical details, its International Code of Ethics. These are helped in day-to-day practice by the excellent work of the General Medical Council, the Ethical Committee of the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges, the Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, and by the recent discussions which have taken place about a possible Code of Ethics for Social Workers between the British Medical Association and the British Association of Social Workers which was founded in 1970.
What is wanted now, I believe, is a review and revision of our own professional ethical code, made necessary by the greatly widened field of modern medical and social care and treatment, and by the special problems for everyone which have arisen from the modern way of life and for parents and their children from the lowering of the age of consent. A general practitioner has, as it were, a foot in both camps—hospitals and social services. The great need now is to close the gap between our medical and social workers, and somehow to introduce the latter properly into group practices for the prevention, early diagnosis and early treatment of social problems which are often so important. This needs continuity of interest between family doctors and the social-worker teams, and increased efficiency without too much duplication of effort. The official attachment of social workers of all kinds to group practices or health centres is helpful, although not essential. Some social workers seem
1042
rather remote at the moment; but Chapter 21 of the Seebohm Report says some very sensible things about the ways in which they can be involved in primary medical care.
The ideal is for family doctors to work in teams with social workers whom they know well, in whom they have confidence, and with whom they can safely share their notes. If a doctor has to work with a series of social workers whom he does not know well, one after the other, he is much less likely to want to share with them his notes and his confidential information about patients. On the other hand, information in a social worker's file may be unknown to the doctor and is often quite as confidential as that in a doctor's or nurse's records. I am told that what makes many people unhappy at present is the possibility of copies of the social worker's notes being sent to the local Social Services Department where they may be seen by other people, including the police who may even take action on the information given to them. In a particular case it may be argued that this is in the best interests of society as a whole: but if it happens often it will not be long before patients will be afraid to tell their doctors or social workers about their personal problems.
This question of maintaining adequate medical confidentiality is one of the greatest difficulties we have to face and try to overcome in our conception of modern scientific and community medicine. It is likely, I think, that we shall have to accept as inevitable a widespread sharing of personal medical information, as the price we must pay for efficient community services. But some patients and doctors will never be altogether happy about this. If a judge, in court, orders a doctor or social worker to disclose information which would break a patient's confidence, and he or she refuses, that doctor or social worker is liable to be committed to prison for contempt of court.
It is a pity, I think, and sometimes unnecessary, for patients' indiscretions to be recorded in their medical notes, for so many eyes to see, for the rest of their lives. If confidentiality cannot be considerably tightened up, it would be reasonable, I believe, for some method to be devised for erasing details which patients do not want to appear on their

1043
permanent records. The recently passed Rehabilitation of Offenders Act affords convicts protection against disclosure of their criminal records. Surely patients should have similar protection against disclosure of shameful details relating to their past medical histories. On the other hand it has been pointed out that, sometimes, these details may be helpful later in deciding on a patient's proper care or treatment; for instance, with a young man going up to university, a previous attempt at suicide should be made known, with his permission, to his college doctor. Details of a patient's past medical story may be useful, occasionally, for medical or social research. His name would come to light during the course of the work, but it need not be published. These details may sometimes be important too, for historical reasons; but how soon after the patient's death they should be revealed is a matter for debate. One famous consulting physician suggested to me just before he died that his notes might perhaps be put into a museum, so that future generations could see what kind of medicine we practised in the middle of the 20th century. The Royal College of Physicians has them now.
However. I myself believe that a patient's wishes and feelings should in many cases be paramount; and that after a lapse of time, if he is concerned about confidentiality, he should be allowed to ask for the removal from his records of any details of which he is worried or ashamed, and to which he does not want others to have access indefinitely. If this proves impossible it is likely that many patients will refuse to disclose important personal information, particularly when they live in small communities where most people know everyone else. Often, at the patient's request even now, the doctor or social worker, or whoever it is who talks to the patient, does not put down in his notes full details of personal matters which have been discussed. This ensures what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, put so concisely on June 10—the "protection of a patient's personal privacy". The interviewer may even keep a secret file of his own which he seals up. Some psychiatrists make their notes in two parts; one solely for their own personal use, while the other, filleted, version can be seen by any who wish to do so.
1044
No one is perfect. It is very rare to find a completely stable person with no undue worries, who has never done anything of which he is ashamed, and who has no neurotic traits of any kind. Shakespeare wrote in Measure for Measure, Act v, scene 1:
"They say best men are moulded out of faults, and, for the most, become much more the better for being a little bad".
Confucius said
"Our greatest glory is not in never failing but in rising every time we fall".
Many of us have private worries which are as often physical as psychological. Only one person can be in really very close personal, almost confessional, touch with a patient at any one time, to help him gain insight into a difficult situation. Once a patient unburdens himself to a confidant, which in itself often requires a considerable amount of moral courage, he does not want to repeat the story all over again to someone else, or for it all to be put down on his records for others to read for years to come.
A person in trouble wants to find an unshockable and unshakeable ally in his doctor, his social worker, a friend or in his padre; someone who will not moralise or judge him, in whose counsel and sympathy he firmly believes, who will back him to the utmost, and not divulge a single word to anyone else without his i knowledge and consent. That is the kind of personal help, my Lords, which so many people want and which they have had in the past. Our problem now is how best to combine this with the splendid community services which have been so greatly developed in this country during the past 30 years, and how we can bring our ethical code up to date so as to include everyone who works in our greater medical profession.
3.55 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for introducing this question of confidentiality which, despite what some speakers had to say, is, I think, an extremely serious issue. It is, of course, serious, as we know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, was saying in one way and another, because once it begins to be doubted then you have lost a patient's confidence and he will no longer come to you, whether you are the doctor or the social worker, to give

1045
you all the knowledge of his case which you ought to have. I often think that the confidences told and exposed to the social worker are more sensitive than the ones exposed to the doctor. It is not usually a matter of great social implication that somebody has gone into hospital temporarily for a heart attack, or something like that, but it has very much greater implication if a woman says to the social worker that the children are not being properly fed because her husband comes home drunk every night. That is the kind of information which a social worker is more likely to have than a doctor.
I was not quite sure that I understood all the implications of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who seems to wish to assure us—and I think with reason—that breaches of confidence are rare. Nevertheless, she seems to have complete faith in the neighbours as to not giving away confidences (faith which I would myself doubt), but little faith in the doctors, especially at dinner parties. But whatever the message was I think the essential point is that there is all the difference in the world between records which are confidential and known to be confidential—which are in the care of one, or possibly more than one, person who knows that they are confidential and who normally will not reveal them unless there is a very good reason for doing so—and the situation where somebody has a right to inspect a record. That is the new situation.
I thought that the extract which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, read to us was really absolutely shocking and I feel sure that this House ought to try to ensure that that kind of situation does not occur, and if this means a "National Health Service Reorganisation Reorganisation Act", well, my Lords, let us have it and put these things right. I do not want to speak for very long because there are other speakers and I must make an apology that I have at 4 o'clock a Committee of this House which I really ought to attend. So, with your permission, I will not stay till the end. I will just give an example from my own experience. Our records at the Manchester Royal Infirmary and other hospitals at which I have worked for a long time were never revealed with-
1046
out the permission of a patient. If the records officer received a letter asking whether somebody could have a copy or a sight of records of such and such a person, and it was a patient who had been in my unit, the records officer would ask me about it but would first inquire whether the patient's permission had been given. The patient's permission had to be given in writing, otherwise we would never reveal any of our records.
One day I received a letter from a Medical Officer of Health of a local authority near to Manchester, stating that a certain person had applied for a job with the local authority; he understood that he had been a patient of mine and would I, as one doctor to another, kindly tell him for what reason the patient had been in hospital and whether this would in any way affect the patient as being suitable or unsuitable for work as a gardener in the public parks. I wrote back, greatly, I am sure, to this man's surprise, to say, "If you were a doctor who was to take over the treatment of this man who had now moved to another district, and I had his permission to reveal his case notes to you, I would be only too glad to do so, but you are clearly acting for an employer. In that sense you are not a doctor at all." I made this quite clear in my letter. I received a letter from this man to say, "I need not trouble you, because your surgical colleague has revealed it all to me". I do not know what lesson one learns from that, but one can learn, at least, that such situations occur because many doctors are not really careful enough about revealing details in case notes. I hope that we will go on pressing; I think probably the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, will.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would reconsider his decision and perhaps try to remain in the Chamber to the end of the debate. We should try to encourage people who have spoken in the debates to listen to the reply of the Government. I suggest that the proceedings of the House are more important than a Committee of the House, of which I am also a Member.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am very pleased to take that advice.
4.2 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I also am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for raising this important subject. I wonder whether the time has not come when we should take a new look at the decision arrived at some time ago to remove from the National Health Service the statutory responsibility for the social and the psycho-social care of sick people. Before the establishment of the Social Service Department and the reorganisation of the Health Service, medical social workers and psychiatric social workers were members of what one might call the clinical team looking after the patient in hospital and there was really no question at all of any breach of confidentiality occurring. Now, that situation has rather changed, partly because of the extraordinary situation that social workers in the National Health Service are not paid as much as those working for the local authority. But that is a minor point.
I think we are all agreed that for the needs of the patient to be fully understood, it is clearly right that the medical and social information about him shall be shared so far as is necessary between those who are sharing the task of caring for him. I do not think anyone would have any objection to that. But one wonders whether it is right and proper that medical information about patients should be equally available when their needs can be no concern of the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, referred to the report of the Working Party of the Department of Health and Social Security, Social Work Support for the Health Service. This Report makes this rather curious remark in paragraph 31, which says:
"This responsibility of the social workers in the clinical team is not incompatible with accountability in other respects of the local authority social service department".
That raises the question in quite a big way of who owns the record of social workers in the Health Service. I am referring to the social record, and not to the social report which can be attached to the medical case notes. It is very important to get the answer to the question: who owns the records held by the social work department? Where they
1048
deal with medical people, is the owner the local authority? This leads to another question: who should decide which social workers, apart from those working in a clinical setting, will have access to cards and files containing medical information about patients? Most hospital social workers deal with medical rehabilitation, convalescence, terminal care, aftercare, and quite a number of things which are very important to the patient. These matters do not need to be referred to the local authority social care committee. But the question is: does the Area Hospital Authority or the local authority hold overall responsibility for the social worker's role in this respect?
I have been talking in a rather melancholy and foreboding way, but I got a little encouragement when I made some inquiries from the hospital where I used to work about their connection with the Social Service Department. They told me that when the Social Service Department first came in, there was very grave anxiety about the confidentiality of material that might be available. There was a series of meetings with the local authority. It would seem that some of that anxiety has been lessened now because the Social Service Department have assured the hospital that they fully appreciate the need to safeguard the privacy of their clients. I may say in passing that this local authority is the London Borough of Camden, which is well known for the good work it does. This borough has always worked on extremely good terms with the hospital to which I referred. But I still think anxiety is there. I was very pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill (I think it was) said that there are talks going on between the BMA and the British Association of Social Workers. In the long run, that can do nothing but good.
It is said that one should get the permission of the patient before passing on information. That again is a very good thing to do if it is possible, but unfortunately it is not always practical, for a variety of reasons with which I will not bother your Lordships at this late hour. What I can say is that if one has a good relationship between the medical profession and the Health Service, and if there is a reasonable amount of respect for the others, it may be possible to find

1049
some way of avoiding the enormous difficulties one can see in the question of confidentiality.
A medical social worker wrote to me about this debate, and I will conclude by repeating what she said. She hoped that we would be able to confine the debate to the dilemma resulting from inappropriate structure following statutory provision, and not drift into recrimination about poor liaison, co-operation and communication. If we can avoid that we might get somewhere, and that is what I trust we shall do in this short debate which has been initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate.
4.11 p.m.
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, I advance like Daniel into the lion's den following, as I do, no less than four doctors. But I am encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, to emphasise that I am one of the most important people here because I happen to be a patient from time to time, and that is what we are really talking about. My starting point is about two years ago when the King's Fund mounted a conference about the reorganisation of the National Health Service, and the duty that would lie on the doctors and social workers to co-operate. To my astonishment and dismay, when the conference was opened for debate, one doctor after another got up and said that nothing would induce him—I say "him", not "her"—to give to a social worker the information that he had about his patients. I think it was perhaps understandable at the time. I hope that this concept is now changing in the integrated Service.
If we can consider it from the administrative point of view, the old-time almoner—and what a delightful word "almoner" is—has now become the social worker, who often has a degree in social science and probably has a diploma in social case work. In this change of status he or she, the social worker, is still accountable to the Director of Social Services of the local authority, but—and this is the point which I should like to emphasise—is not really accountable to any national body. I feel that there should be set up a general medical social workers council to match up with the General Medical Council and the General Nursing Council. Then each of these three bodies
1050
could work hard to correlate this question of ethical standards. One imagines that the social workers would appreciate such a council, particularly the psychiatric social worker who is often in a most difficult position. If such a council was established by Statute it would have to work out for itself the registrable qualifications for the social workers and be responsible for its ethical standards. One imagines that such a council would go a long way to meet the doctors' fears, if fears there be to-day, that there may be problems on this question of confidentiality.
It has been said that, "Change is the process by which the future invades our lives". The integrated Health Service is not only a change, but reflects a general awareness of social responsibility. I am amazed at the contrast that there is in the Hippocratic oath and the Soviet doctors' oath. Let me try to illustrate the problem by an incident in the Midlands some 10 years ago. There, near a psychiatric hospital, a young lady was murdered in most distressing circumstances. It was quite clear that none of the patients in the hospital could have been concerned. But the police came to that hospital and, having first established this point, they then asked for permission to interview previous patients, patients discharged from that psychiatric hospital who might have been living in the neighbourhood.
I do not know what Members of your Lordships' House might have done; I think the right answer was given, and they gave this information. I may say that the results were unfortunate in some ways, because police cars were going to houses of men and women who were thought by their neighbours to be both medically and mentally healthy, in order to carry out these investigations. That is the point to which several of your Lordships have referred; this question of confidentiality about the individual and the responsibility that there is to the public at large.
There seem to be some variations in the translations of the Hippocratic oath, but one paragraph reads:
"Whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I see or hear in the life of men which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge as reckoning that all such should be kept secret."

1051
I hope I will not be accused of being a communist, although your Lordships can accuse me, if you like, of trailing my coat. But what a contrast there is between that, to my mind, outmoded oath and the oath taken by the 30,000 doctors who graduated in 1971 in the Soviet medical schools.
I will read only two paragraphs. The first is:
"To devote all my knowledge and strength to the protection and improvement of the health of man, to the treatment and prevention of disease, and to work conscientiously wherever the interests of society require it."
Then, although there is a reference to medical secrecy, it ends:
"To cherish and develop the noble traditions of domestic medicine, to be guided in all my actions by the principles of communist morality, to remember always the noble mission of the Soviet doctor and his responsibility to the people and the Soviet State."
One can argue whether that is an oath that in British terms British doctors would be prepared to take. But it certainly reflects a change in emphasis on this question of confidentiality.
I do not know whether I should apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. He initiated this debate, which has given us the opportunity of having quite a wide-ranging discussion on confidentiality as a whole. My two points are, first, that we might consider setting up this council, with all that that implies, specifying the duties and responsibilities of medical social workers and making them akin to that of doctors and nurses. Secondly, in our new integrated Health Service, we should ensure that there is a more general awareness among all the senior personnel of the hospitals and in the social services of the obligations that we owe as a team both to the individuals and also to society.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could amplify one point on this very interesting suggestion about a council for social workers. Is that only for medical social workers or for social workers generally, and if the former will it cover medical social workers not only in the hospitals but in general practice as well?
LORD HAYTER: My Lords, my thoughts were for medical social workers only, and I agree that it would be all-embracing within that context.
4.17 p.m.
THE COUNTESS OF LOUDOUN: My Lords, I quote:
"Whatever I see or hear, professionally or privately, which ought not to be divulged, I will keep secret and tell no one."
This as your Lordships have already heard, is an extract from the Hippocratic Oath. Confidentiality is a subject which has been given much attention over the last two or three years by the British Association of Social Workers, among others. Just as much confidential material comes to a social worker, whether based in a hospital or in the local authority, as i information, which is equally confidential, which comes to a doctor or other staff in a social services department. It is true that the question of confidentiality in the early stages of the reorganisation of the National Health Service, and particularly the much debated question of the transfer of social workers from the Health Service to local authorities, was the topic on which many frustrations and anxieties were both legitimately and illegitimately focused. But this concern now seems to have become more of a professional interest in seeing that information is used appropriately, and that the principles of when and when not to share information should be clearly understood by all concerned.
The chief means by which a social worker's service becomes available is through the relationship established between the worker in an agency and the client. Within this relationship the client gives, and is enabled to give, information about himself and his family which is of a highly personal and emotionally charged nature. It is a basic principle of social work that such information must remain confidential and that the social worker has a duty to safeguard the confidentiality. The client must have the assurance that information which he has shared within a relationship of trust, as part of the process of receiving help from the agency, will not be disclosed unless he agrees to the disclosure. If this confidence is betrayed, the relationship between the client and the social worker may be damaged and the service which the agency offers thus destroyed.
The client's right to confidentiality is, therefore, of the highest importance. It cannot, however, always be seen as an absolute right. There are times when the

1053
rights of the individual client are in conflict with another individual or with the rights and concerns of the community as a whole. On these occasions, the social worker has a duty to establish the justification for the right of the client to confidentiality being superseded by another and greater right. Written material, too, is susceptible to misuse and can lead to a breach of confidence.
It is, therefore, essential that agencies should define their reasons for making social work records and should establish an appropriate policy for safeguarding confidentiality for their clients. Issues such as access to records and communication with administrative departments should be regularly reviewed. However, the establishment of study and research on the subject of confidentiality within the field of social work should not be pursued in isolation, but should be related to developments in the older professions in order that a comprehensive code of practice may be established to the benefit of all concerned.
My Lords, I should have been at a Select Committee of this House at four o'clock but, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has pointed out that the proceedings here take precedence over a Committee, I shall wait for the winding-up speech.
4.23 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Countess is to listen to the end of the debate. We shall very much value her presence, as we have valued her speech. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Reigate on having put down this Motion for debate. It is a Motion of immense importance, and one very well suited to a mini-debate of this kind. I do not think that many of your Lordships who have spoken in the debate will have agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, that this is not an important subject. However, I am sure that she is, at any rate, not unused to being in a minority in her views, and she will not change them as a result of anything that I might say. Certainly the debate brought forth a number of extremely interesting speeches, and if I might single out just one it was that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley who gave us from his own highly practical experience as a doctor some of the very real prob-
1054
lems of confidentiality which arise for a doctor.
There was one other point, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kidding-ton, with which I found myself in considerable agreement. If the National Health Service, on its appointment boards by which a person is appointed to take part in local authority activities, has a local authority representative with a voice, on the reverse side of the coin, when a local authority is making an appointment for a person who is to work within the National Health Service, it should be right for the National Health Service to have a representative on that appointment board.
The Motion in my noble friend's name is narrowly drawn, and refers to that aspect of confidentiality which has been affected by the National Health Service Reorganisation Act and the unification of the social work profession. But this is really only one aspect of a problem that has arisen as a result of the increasing role of the community social services in the division of general health care. We have all been aware over recent years of the increasing importance which has been given to the need for preventive community services, and for minimum stay in hospitals. Time and again in debates in this House people have said how important it is that we should use our expensive facilities—and the hospital bed is about the most expensive we have—as sparingly as possible, and that we should increase the provision of social support both to prevent patients having to enter hospital and to give them the support that they need so that they can leave hospital at the earliest possible moment. This is clearly not only of financial advantage but also of benefit to the person himself.
The practical effect of this has been to expand enormously the social work provision and the numbers of people in the social work profession. The Seebohm Report brought the Social Service Department into being, with its Director of Social Services, and with its Department made up of the so-called generic social worker, each ideally able to give support to a family or an individual in social need, whatever that need may be.
So far as the National Health Service is concerned this situation has had two principal effects. In the first place, it has resulted within the hospital in the merg

1055
ing of the medical social worker into the main body of the profession, and this is the point to which my noble friend Lord Reigate draws attention in this debate. Secondly, in the general practitioner services, it has resulted in the attachment of social workers—together with nurses, health visitors and midwives—to group practices, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley. It seems to me that these policies of greater involvement of the social worker in the medical field, in co-operation with the doctors and the nurses, is right in principle, but it raises the problem of confidentiality in respect of the patient's records, which we have been debating this afternoon.
The difficulty is quite obvious: if the doctor, or social worker, maintains complete confidentiality, then it may be that the others who are working in the team with him are less well able to help the family or the individual. If, on the other hand, the doctor, or the social worker, is too free in giving access to his records, then it may well be that matters which the patient considers confidential when he told the doctor may come to be known more widely, and this will be to the detriment of good patient doctor, or individual social worker relationships. It is clearly right that we should debate these questions, and that we should try to find some way of improving the present situation that has arisen as a result of the increase in the importance of the social work profession.
Your Lordships will remember that there was a report on privacy, by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Younger which reported in July 1972, and this committee just touched on the matter of medical confidentiality in paragraph 381 of the report. It concluded that legislation would not help in this sphere. In general, I find myself in complete agreement with that conclusion. I concede to my noble friend Lord Reigate, who was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, the point that there may be legal questions such as the ownership of social work records within the National Health Service. That is a point which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to deal with; but in general, in trying to achieve future arrangements for ensuring confidentiality
1056
of records, I do not believe that this function is the role of legislation.
The Younger Committee thought that the answer lay basically in professional ethics, and that the medical profession should examine the problem and make its own code of practice for doctors. But since then the matter has gone rather wider. The general tenor emerging from this debate is that it is not only the medical profession which should apply its mind urgently to this matter, but also the social work profession—and the two of them together, ideally. I hope, therefore, that as a result of this interesting debate the Government will be able to try to move things along a little more quickly in this sphere, in trying to urge on the professions that it is up to them to try to establish a code of practice which will guide the future actions of the medical, nursing and social work professions. I am sure that this is a most important and urgent task. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord will be able to give us some encouragement to ensure that the initiatives of my noble friend will be helped along.
4.32 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the debate this afternoon has a special significance for me, because I am a professionally qualified social worker who spent—I confess many years ago—some years in the London Probation Service, and who was subsequently a tutor and a lecturer on training courses for social workers, both professional and voluntary. So I have listened with great interest to all that has been said about the confidentiality of reports prepared by hospital workers, and of those to which they have access.
This is no new matter. It is something which has exercised the minds not only of professional social workers, but of voluntary social workers over many years. I do not take issue with any noble Lord or Lady who has spoken in the debate this afternoon. I recognise the anxiety expressed and if I take exception at all to anything that is said it is to the underlying—I put it no higher than that—implication that local authority social workers have a different standard of ethics. They have not. My noble friend Lady Summerskill raised the question of whether there is widespread concern. I

1057
do not know how widespread it is, but I do not think it is widespread in the sense that we tend to use the word in everyday speech, any more than I think that there is a concern about it other than an anxiety.
I do not want to try to answer every noble Lord who has spoken, but the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that the hospital ought to be represented on the committee appointing social workers who are to work in hospitals. With great respect I do not think that this point will arise, for the present medical social workers who are employed in the hospital setting cannot be taken away from that setting unless they wish to leave it.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who put that suggestion forward. I would imagine that although it is perfectly true what the noble Lord said, that there must in future be such appointments, as the noble Baroness has practical experience as a chairman of a regional health authority I believe that she was speaking from her experience. I was supporting her view.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand the situation. In the future there will not be such appointments: vacancies occurring in the hospital set-up will be replaced as they occur by the local authority from the existing local social workers. One would assume that they would take some care to see that the right type of people were appointed. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who raised the question of the custody of medical records in the National Health Service. Perhaps I could say this—
LORD ABERDARE: It was the noble Lord, Lord Reigate.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also referred to it. But medical records in the National Health Service, whether kept by general practitioners or hospital doctors, are generally held to be the property of the Secretary of State. This point has been confirmed by the courts in Scotland, but it has not arisen in England, so there is no decision of the judiciary.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will allow me, this is the crux of my whole speech
1058
and the crux of the matter based on his reply to my Question on June 10. No-one is denying that the medical records are the property of the Secretary of State. What I am talking about is who owns the files that the social worker compiles? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, understand the difference. They, as understand it—and I am advised on this matter too—say that as this work is being executed by the social workers, who are now local government employees, such files are the property of the local authorities. That is the point that I wanted to underline.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to return to this matter because I have spent some time on the subject—several hours in the light of the discussion we had earlier on—and I have, I hope, got certain things in some kind of order? As I explained when replying on June 10 to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, although hospital social workers are now employed by local social service authorities, the custody of social work reports is under the control of the social worker concerned and the disclosure of their contents is a matter of professional ethics for the social worker in consultation, in appropriate cases, with other members of the clinical team.
The nature of social work requires that social workers must command the confidence of their clients. It is, therefore, essential to the social worker, as to the client, that information received in confidence should not be disclosed without the client's agreement. But there may well be occasions when someone returning to the community after a stay in hospital may need help and support from a social worker in the community care field, and for the proper continuing care of the patient the second social worker surely must be made aware of the special needs and problems which have been discovered in the hospital situation.
In these circumstances the hospital social worker—I would hope—would seek the patient's agreement in passing on these necessary details. Noble Lords may be fully assured that social workers outside the hospitals are as conscious as those within hospitals of the high standard of professional ethics required of them. Social workers involved in the life

1059
of the community are well accustomed to receiving information which is a matter of strict confidence, and they may find themselves having to ask a client for agreement to disclose confidential matters to, for example, if I may give one, the general practitioner who is also going to look after that person, and help them with that person when he or she returns to the community.
I think we must keep it in the forefront of our minds (I shall probably not express this too well, but I hope I will not be misunderstood) that doctors and social workers are concerned with different areas of human functioning. Naturally, doctors will concentrate on the health and sickness of their patients: social workers are likely to lay more emphasis on relationships within the family, the community, society as a whole. If the doctor and the social worker between them are going to produce and return to the community a whole person, surely they have got to work together; surely there must be a disclosure between them of what one knows and what the other knows, so that the continuing care that is necessary can be carried on when the patient rejoins the community.
My Lords, I hope that we would all agree that the welfare of the patient or client (I use those two terms to denote medical and lay) and, where appropriate, of his family, must be the first concern of those responsible for treatment and support. To this end collaboration and co-operation among social workers, doctors and other Health Service workers, both in and out of hospital, is not only essential but must be a continuing thing. All these workers will have need of each other in promoting the best interests of the patient or client; and it must, I suggest, be left to their professional discretion, after consultation with the patient, to decide what kind of information must be exchanged between the two, the social worker and the doctor.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, with great respect, which of the speakers doubted any of these things? I do not recognise that anybody did doubt those things.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us welcome what he is saying
1060
because this kind of background is very helpful?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, clearly underlying the speeches of one or two noble Lords there was the fact that it would be very difficult to maintain confidentiality if information had to be passed on to the social worker. If I have said something that to certain noble Lords appears unnecessary, I think it is sometimes necessary to state these things so that there is no misunderstanding.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I have the feeling that the sentiments which the noble Lord has expressed are generally acceptable, but I am not sure that they completely allay the anxieties which were raised at least in my breast as I listened, as a complete amateur, to the unfolding of the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, told us of an extremely interesting episode concerning a request made to him in regard to someone who had been under his care—an improper request which he naturally refused. The question that I should like to ask is this. Without in any sense disparaging social work or social workers, is the ethos prevailing in that branch similar to the ethos which, so to speak, automatically governed the doctor in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in the story which he told us?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, T have neither seen nor heard any evidence, either to-day or at any other time, that leads me to believe that professional social workers have a lower standard of ethics than members of the medical profession. If I could leave it there, perhaps it would be wise for me to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, quoted from the Report of the Working Party on Social Work Support for the Health Service. I intended to quote precisely the same section of that Report as he did, but I should like to make this one difference. The part which the noble Lord quoted related to post-April 1, 1974, and not pre-April 1, 1974. I want to quote, as did the noble Lord also quote, this part. The Working Party on Social Work Support for the Health Service said:
"But we can record as a matter for encouragement the fact that at no point in our discussions has it been suggested to us that confidentiality presents any real difficulty in working relationships between doctors and social workers provided there is personal confidence between the professionals concerned."

1061
The Report goes on to say:
"For the needs of the patient to be fully understood, however, it is clearly right that medical and social information about him should be shared as far as necessary between those who are sharing in the task of caring for him."
This will mean an exchange of information. It must be and is clearly understood by both sides (and I am sorry we have to divide this up into two sides) that there must be confidence. If I may revert to the Probation Service, has anybody heard of any breach of faith in the Probation Service? That Service has been going for years, and there are very few people in the community who acquire possession of more confidential information than probation officers, yet there has been no breach.
We are in danger of anticipating difficulty when it is not likely to occur. I should perhaps make the point that the Working Party included a substantial representation of both doctors and hospital social workers, and that in this recommendation, as in all others, they were unanimous. In using the words, as they did, "as far as necessary", the Working Party clearly took the view that the decision as to what ought to be disclosed should be a matter for professional judgment, and that there should be no question of unrestricted access to records or unreasonable demands for information on either side.
Now the question of responsibility for hospital social work records since April 1 is another point on which a great deal of concern has been expressed. I will try to clarify the situation. Before April 1, hospital social workers were employed by the Health Service, and reports prepared by them before that date were and remain the property of the Health Authority. Since April 1, hospital social workers have been employed—many of them against their will, I know—by local authorities, and reports prepared after that date are the property of the local authority. But let me make it quite clear that medical case notes about a patient, including any contribution made to those notes by a person who is not employed by the Health Service, remain the property of the health authority.
Lastly, hospital-based social workers, as members of hospital teams, may find themselves from time to time contributing to the team knowledge of a patient rele
1062
vant to his treatment. This knowledge would be confidential to the hospital team. I really do not see what more—certainly not at this stage, for it is only November—can be done to protect and safeguard the interests of the patient or client or, for that matter, the position of the doctor or social worker. I think that the first general point to make is that the use of information about a client is a matter of professional ethics and common sense, rather than of legal ownership. It is a matter for close consultation between all who are professionally concerned with the care and treatment of the individual. A suggestion had been made that there should be a legal requirement that a professional worker should not divulge confidential information obtained in the performance of his work without the consent of the patient.
I think that this suggestion arises because some doctors and social workers fear that, without such a requirement, social workers who are employed by local authorities could either themselves make irresponsible use of information about patients, or be constrained by their employers to divulge it in circumstances which would be harmful and damaging to the patients' interests. However, these fears, I am quite convinced, are baseless. Ever since I saw this Motion down on the Order Paper I have been at some pains to discuss this matter with certain doctors I know, with social workers and even with medical social workers. I recognise the fear and the anxiety, but I think that we should be able to distinguish between a feeling of anxiety and the fact that something may happen or has happened. Social workers employed by a local authority have their professional integrity like other professional people elsewhere and this would absolutely forbid them to act in either of these ways. Of this I am quite sure. Moreover, local authorities require a high standard of integrity in all their staff.
I do not think that we have any grounds for regarding social workers as less responsible than other professional workers or anyone else entrusted with private and confidential information. Local authority social workers come into possession of an enormous amount of confidential information, as do probation officers, to whom I have made reference. There is no evidence and no reason to

1063
believe that there has been any real abuse. We heard of one incident this afternoon and I am sure that if some of the noble Lords who have spoken could have given chapter and verse of abuses they would have done so, and quite rightly so.
This means, for example, that in the event of a local councillor asking for personal reasons to see the case papers of a client of the Social Services Department, the social worker concerned would quite rightly refuse. This would apply whether or not the case papers included confidential medical material. If, in order to decide the appropriate local authority action on a matter before them, councillors needed information about a person, it would be a matter for the chief officers of the authority, in consultation as appropriate with any doctor—whether a general practitioner or a hospital doctor—concerned in the case, so that the authority might have such advice as was appropriate in the circumstances while confidentiality on all aspects was preserved where professionally desirable.
My Lords, I may add that this is not a problem peculiar to the local authority world or to the personal social services. It is one which will undoubtedly appear in the Health Service setting. As I told your Lordships' House in the debate in June, discussions have been held between the British Medical Association and the British Association of Social Workers about the circumstances in which information about a patient or client should be disclosed to members of other professions. There have also been discussions about confidentiality between the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Association of Social Workers and, as my noble friend Baroness Summerskill said, there appeared yesterday in Social Work a long article on the subject which was published simultaneously in the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Regular discussions between social workers (both hospital and local authority based) at local level and with members of other professions have shown—these have taken place in a number of areas in England—that anxieties over the exchange of information can be resolved, especially when the importance of this matter is recognised in ensuring good service for clients. These
1064
matters should be settled by understanding and agreement between practitioners rather than by Parliamentary or Government intervention which could result only, I believe, in the creation of a rigid system of rules which in the long run would tend to work against the interests of the patient or client.
My Lords, I hope that, while recognising the anxiety and the fears, we also recognise that this is no new situation. It is a situation which other professional organisations, both voluntary and statutory—and I did refer to the Probation Service—have had to face over a number of years. I hope that we can keep in the forefront of our minds that the important point is to do as much as we can for the individual when he or she leaves the hospital setting and returns to the community, where he or she may need continuous and continuing supportive help from a local authority social worker. I hope we shall bear in mind that it is necessary for the two different settings to come together from time to time to discuss the progress made and to exchange information. In the last analysis, I am sure that everyone in your Lordships House is concerned only to do what is right for the individual and, ultimately, for society. I think we can do this only if we keep in the forefront of our minds what the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has said. I am glad he raised this matter
I think it is right and proper that he should have aired this matter much more fully than he was able to do on a previous occasion but, having said that, I hope we shall recognise that the discussions now taking place between the British Association of Social Workers, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Medical Practitioners will take time. Out of these discussions may arise some recognised code of ethics—I do not know; but let the discussions go on, and let us not hamper them with our fears and anxieties.
5.0 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I think I have the right, if not to reply, at least to make some comments on what has been said. First of all, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank those who have supported me in my anxieties, and I am tempted to thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because although she

1065
disagreed with what I had to say I think she helped to bring out the ire and fervour in the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and other noble Lords who have some anxieties. The noble Baroness said I had not proved my case. I was not trying to do so. She also said that I was wrong in saying there was widespread concern, because the matter had not been mentioned in the British Medical Journal or on the media. I do not read the British Medical Journal and I cannot think that is necessarily the only standard by which we should judge widespread concern. I was of course referring to widespread concern inside the National Health Service, and I should have thought that was obvious from the wording of the Motion. As for the noble Baroness's own reminiscences of the postprandial indiscretions of some of her doctor friends, the less said about that the better. I have never spoken with any social workers in this way or accused them of any similar kind of indiscretion—and I am going to have a word with my own doctor to see that he does not make that kind of remark about me after dinner, thank you very much!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, reminded me of the fact that his own surgeon had betrayed him.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am very grateful. I was particularly interested in the rather wider issues introduced by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley, and I look forward to reading his speech. I am a mere layman and can speak from only very limited experience, but I assure your Lordships that widespread concern still exists. I was most interested in the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I interrupted him to ask whether he was referring to medical social workers or to social workers, because this would be an admirable suggestion. The difficulty arises with the medical social worker who comes straight out of local authority service and is generically trained. Would he be eligible for his Social Workers Council? This, if I may say so, is a "re-hash" of the work which took place: a battle which I regret was lost.
I am also grateful, for once, to have had some support from my noble friend Lord Aberdare on this matter, since he
1066
does not always agree with me. Above all, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he said. There were passages towards the end of his carefully prepared speech which will make interesting reading. He is beginning to feel what I believe many people are feeling to-day, that what is needed on these matters is a proper code of ethics. The noble Lord also made perhaps the rather startling suggestion that there was the underlying implication in some speeches that some of us thought there were lower standards among the local authorities' social workers. I do not think that anybody has ever suggested that, nor that any Member of your Lordships' House even intended to suggest such a thing. What needs to be emphasised is that the hospital social worker teams have been small, compact and forming part of a clinical team. Some of the anxiety here comes from some social workers who will be "outposts" from a larger Department They may feel that the knowledge they derive from their clinical work under the National Health Service will be known by some people who should not know it. It is as simple as that; but I think that some of the things said by the noble Lord will be very helpful in allaying any such fears in that direction.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord just allow me to express my personal thanks to him for having removed any doubt that lower standards might have been imputed. I am sure local authority social workers, if and when they read the report of this debate, will be glad to be reassured that no one suggests there are two different standards.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord derives comfort from that because, as I said, not only to-day do I think that no Member has made any such suggestion, but on the previous occasion when I raised this matter did anybody make such a suggestion: rather the reverse. Putting it in material terms, the local authority social workers are, on the whole, far better paid than medical social workers. This is one of the reasons why the hospital social worker has been in some trouble in this respect. In so far as that is a gauge of merit, I suppose one might say they are of higher standard.

1067
I must make one complaint, which is that the noble Lord once again laid down a ruling and, again, seemed to be confusing the two kinds of records I spoke of earlier. He confirmed that the medical records are the property of the Secretary of State—which is what we all know—and in effect really confirmed to-day that the social workers' files are the property of the local authority, which is what I said. There will still be difficulty in this sphere, and I notice he made no attempt to answer my extract from the letter about the local government Ombudsman. Perhaps he will consider this and let me know his answer as regards the dangers implicit in that matter at some future time. Once again, I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I did intend to reply to him regarding the Ombudsman point. I wonder whether he would care to put a Question to me about that and I shall then be able to notify the whole House of the answer.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

E.E.C. POLICY TOWARDS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
5.8 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN rose to call attention to the changes in the EEC's policy towards developing countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am asking your Lordships to change perspective and pass from the subject of domestic concern to a subject of equal importance but in the international sphere. Some Members of this House may wonder about the timing of my Motion to-day. Just before Christmas, when we are looking forward to enjoying ourselves, perhaps we should turn our minds to those who cannot or will not be enjoying Christmas. But, more than that, Her Majesty's Government and the EEC have just been partici-
1068
pating in the World Food Conference in Rome, when the whole gamut of problems facing developing countries was canvassed; and I think that since Britain joined the Community nearly two years ago the nature of the relationship between the developing and the developed world has changed a good deal. It is worth focusing our attention on some of the ways in which the Community has responded to a changing world situation.
It has nothing to do with the Community that the world price of oil has multiplied by five. Nor is it the Community's fault that this has had an effect on the world prices of fertilisers, or that other commodities have rocketed in price, particularly grain. But all these new developments have greatly influenced the relative wealth of those countries whose economies are still under development. In some ways the old Biblical tag: "To him that hath shall be given", could really be adapted so that apart from the oil Princes we could really say nowadays:
"To him that hath it shall be taken away, And from him that hath not shall be taken away, Even more than he lacked in relation to other people before"—
because those developing countries who have few of their own resources have, as we have with our modest increase in petrol prices, suffered from the increase in the prices of oil, fertiliser and grain. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether he felt that Her Majesty's Government have been encouraged by the progress at the World Food Conference and whether the attitude of the EEC overlaps that of our own Ministers.
But. my Lords, there is another reason why I feel that we should be looking at this matter now. There may be some slight confusion in some of my remarks, because when I came to your Lordships' House this afternoon I discovered that the Government had just issued a White Paper, Developments in the European Communities March to October 1974. I will not attempt to give a precis of it, but having read certain parts of it in great haste I was struck by the fact that under the heading of. External Relations: Trade and Aid, Her Majesty's Government had listed a certain number of objectives that they had in mind when undertaking their renegotiation of our

1069
terms of entry. While I would not want to go through them all it appeared to me that a certain number of them have been if not wholly dealt with at least in part satisfied during the renegotiation so far.
If I may I will use this White Paper as a peg on which to hang my remarks. At one point it reads:
"At a joint meeting of Ministers from the nine member countries of the Community and Ministers from the 45 developing countries held at Kingston, Jamaica on the 25–26 July it was agreed that the industrial and most agricultural exports of the developing countries should have free entry into the Community without any obligation to give reciprocal treatment to Community exports."
My Lords, many of us who are not members of the Labour Party share with the Labour Government a worry that the association agreements that the Community entered into in the past were not as wide in their spread or as generous in their terms as they should have been to people participating in them. It is therefore of particular significance that Her Majesty's Government have already shown how the new type of association agreement which is still being negotiated with all Commonwealth countries who might be eligible is something of a very different nature from the old type of association agreement. Perhaps the noble Lord could give us some information on this aspect.
There are those who look upon the Community as a selfish, protectionist bloc, merely looking after its own interests, and to those people the old type of association agreement (a special form of trading relationship with former colonies) looks as if it were merely colonialism in another guise. As I understand it (perhaps the noble Lord could confirm this), the wider type of agreement that is already in train has excluded many of those features which were objectionable in the old association agreements, for example, reverse preferences. It is very encouraging to us who are keen to see the Community develop a more outward-looking attitude to the rest of the world that the objections of Her Majesty's Government have to some extent been met.
Another point about which the Government were concerned was that those who are not eligible for association agreements for one reason or another,
1070
particularly large countries in Asia with few natural resources and exploding populations, should have a better relationship with the Community. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, could give us some examples of what has happened since the present Government came into Office. Could he tell us, in particular, what has been done for India in this respect, and also whether any progress has been made in regard to the knotty problem of Hong Kong? There is another statement in this White Paper which shows that Her Majesty's Government feel that considerable progress has been made on this aspect of renegotiation. This statement reads:
"For other agricultural produce the Community has offered tariff-free and levy-free access for almost 90 per cent. of the exports of the Commonwealth countries concerned and is now examining the possibility of further improvements."
I would be grateful to the noble Lord if he could fill in a little more detail. At first reading it seems to show that some of the fears which many of us have about the nature of the Community's attitude to those countries which were not associated can be put on one side.
I understand, particularly from reading the evidence which the Minister of Overseas Development gave to one of your Lordships' sub-committees scrutinising European legislation, that Her Majesty's Government take a cool view of food aid as a form of development aid. I can quite understand the concern of Her Majesty's Government. In the past I think the EEC has been too prone to clap itself on the back for off-loading some of its food surpluses on to the poorer nations of the world, giving the reasons that by so doing they were doing a wonderful deed for everybody, whereas it was to some extent merely getting rid of an embarrassing glut. Therefore I welcome the new shift in the Community's policy in this regard. Surely the real objective of development aid must be to enable countries to help themselves, to encourage domestic agricultural production so that they can feed themselves rather than off-loading what may be quite unsuitable food simply because there is a surplus of it elsewhere in the world—not that there are surpluses of many commodities at the moment.
I was very interested to see that, under this heading, Her Majesty's Government

1071
said that already the Council of Ministers' meeting had called for an evolution of Community aid policies leading to a more balanced distribution of aid according to need. I would be glad if the noble Lord could give some examples of this shift that Her Majesty's Government have helped to achieve. I understand that the latest Commission proposal on the subject of development aid takes as its motto, "To each according to its need"; so it seems that as well as the Council even the Commission is paying some attention to what Hcr Majesty's Government hold dear. Will this Government resist any attempt by the EEC to give food aid to countries without giving a grant towards the transportation costs at the same time? I understand that in the past sometimes a grant of food aid has been given, but that the country has been unable to take up the grant of food aid simply because it is so poor that it cannot afford the transportation costs. I would not call that aid at all; I hope Her Majesty's Government will put a stop to it.
This is a short debate and I do not want to pre-empt the time of other noble Lords who arc more expert in this field than I am. I hope that I have provided a platform for the Government—and for those who are more knowledgeable—to point out some of the changes which have taken place in the policy of the Community in this particular respect. I should like to conclude by saying that I have come from Bonn this morning, where I was attending a meeting of the Social Affairs and Employment Committee of the European Parliament. We have been taking evidence from migrant workers, among others, who come from developing countries to work in Germany. We visited a Ford factory and saw that nearly half of the workforce in this car factory came from Morocco, Turkey or some other part of what is still the developing world. May I congratulate the Government on ensuring that the domestic arm of development policy has been reinforced by their decision with our partners in the Community to allow the Social Fund to be extended to projects dealing with those migrant workers from outside the Community who are now resident in Community countries. This was something which the old Community did not allow, but it has happened since
1072
we became a member. This aspect of the matter is being looked at as well as the difficulties of the countries far away.
In the aeroplane I travelled back in we were given the normal flight information about the weather in Britain, and finally the pilot concluded by expressing these wishes: "I hope you are liking to stay with us". I did not know what I was going to do in mid-air if I did not like to stay with him! However, speaking as one of your Lordships' representatives—a part-time one—in the European Parliament, may I say to Her Majesty's Government that so far as the EEC is concerned, "I hope you are liking to stay with us". From what the Minister of Overseas Development has done so far, it seems possible that renegotiation can mean something. I noticed that even The Times, after there had been a meeting of the Council of Ministers—and I should remind your Lordships that the Minister of Overseas Development in Holland is called Mr. Pronk—referred to the "Pronk/Hart axis" in the Council of Ministers. This is renegotiation which is already succeeding in changing the Community into something less selfish and more outward-looking. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and those who will contribute to this debate, will enable this process to continue. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, the whole House must be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for initiating this important debate to-day. I should like to congratulate him on his excellent speech which demonstrated the vast knowledge he has of this problem. The debate is certainly not taking place before time, and I hope that the noble Lord will be well satisfied with the result of it.
Over recent years the policies that the European Community has followed in its relations with the countries of the Third World have come in for considerable criticism, on the basis that the policies were too restrictive and also too inward-looking. Relations between the EEC and the developing world were seen in terms of the Community's development policy towards the former colonies, especially those in Africa, of the member States.

1073
It was only towards these ex-colonies that the EEC had developed, mainly through its system of association, a coherent policy for the Third World.
With the entry of Britain with its historically different view of the developing world from that of the other members of the EEC, it was hoped and believed that the Community would formulate its policies on the Third World on a broader base. This was founded upon the belief that Britain in recent years had done more for the developing countries than had the Community. In terms of trade and aid this was totally erroneous. Both our trade with the Third World, as well as our official aid, in terms of size and rate of growth, were far less than those of the Community. But what was true, however, was that this country's attitude and policies towards the developing countries, especially those in the Commonwealth, were more open.
The 1972–73 Report of the Commons All-Party Select Committee on Overseas Development reflected this more global approach to the countries of the Third World. The Report urged the Community to consider the existing regional agreements as transitional stages in the way to a global development policy. The Committee also stated that those Commonwealth countries which had not been offered association—for example, India and Bangladesh—should not be permitted to suffer by reason of their exclusion from association. This problem has been partly covered by the joint declaration of intent made by the EEC. These aims of the Committee were pressed upon our Common Market colleagues, with a certain amount of support from the Commission, both by the last Conservative Government as well as by the present Labour Administration. This pressure has been partly successful.
Last July. France accepted the principle that the Common Market could give financial and technical aid to developing countries with which it had no special association links. However, this change of attitude was to a certain extent soured by the proviso that the associated States should be given absolute priority when deciding the level of aid. The resolution of the Nine which conceded this principle of financial aid to the non-associates contrasted strongly with the
1074
West German decision to cut back the I amount of development aid that it was willing to grant in the future. The decision was even more surprising consider- ing the stable economic position of West Germany, and the fact that it caused the resignation of the country's Minister of Economic Co-operation, Dr. Erhard Eppler. But these are just examples of how national interests tend to conflict with any real progress towards meaningful cohesion within the Community as a whole.
While the Commission itself tends to provide much of the impetus for change and expansion of policies, the member States are slower and take far longer to reach agreement. Thus it is misleading to think of the Community in terms of the aggregate of the statistics of each member State. If one does so, one finds that the EEC has a population larger than America or Russia, a quarter of the world's steel production, a level of overall development assistance equal to that of the United States, a market for the exports of the developing world which is twice that of America, and so one can go on virtually ad infinitum. These statistical totals are important in that they show the Community's potential but not its current strength, which is far below that.
However, a different relationship is being fashioned between the countries of the Third World and the EEC by factors far outside the latter's control. The recent crises in energy supplies, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the curent shortages of raw materials have tended to enhance the economic bargaining power, of much of the developing world vis-à-vis the developed countries. The recent crises have also created dire economic and social problems for many of the developing countries that lack raw materials and oil, which they have thus to import at vastly increased prices. The World Bank has estimated that developing countries as a whole spent some 5,200 million dollars on oil imports in 1973, and will need to spend 14,900 million dollars for the same volume of oil imports this year. It is likely that if the oil prices remain at the present levels—and it is probable they will increase—the current account deficits of the developing countries will double, reaching well over 20,000 million dollars.

1075
On top of this, these countries are having to face a staggering escalation in the costs of their grain imports. As was made clear at the recent United Nations Food Conference in Rome, some of these countries are facing starvation on a vast scale. I am very glad that the Community did not insist on its original stand to fight against the creation of any new institution for the disbursement of development aid, because if it had done so the Arab oil producers would not have contributed to that aid.
On May 2 last, the EEC announced the i so-called Cheysson Plan whereby the Community agreed to make a contribution of 500 million dollars in 1974 to the UN Emergency Fund of 3.000 million dollars. This Fund had been set up at the Sixth Special Session of the UN General Asesmbly on raw materials and development last April, and was created to help those developing countries hit by the commodity crisis. However, regrettably the Community's contribution was made dependent on other countries joining in the scheme. This proviso luckily was subsequently relaxed in spite of considerable opposition from the French and the West German Governments. Last month the Community agreed to donate 30 million dollars to the Fund and to give 120 million dollars in the form of bilateral aid. But the release of the remaining 350 million dollars is still dependent upon donations being made by other countries. This Fund will be operated by the UN in favour of both the associate countries of the EEC and countries that are not associated with the EEC. This commitment made by the Community could mark the beginning step, if but a small one, on the way towards a more open EEC development policy, benefiting not only the poorest States in Africa but also those in Asia and Latin America.
The current negotiations, that began in October, 1973, between the EEC and the 44 ACP developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (hence the initials) have also been affected by the changing attitudes and economic circumstances of the Third World. There has been created a greater balance of economic bargaining power between the Community and the 44 ACP developing countries. These countries are the 19
1076
African States, Madagascar and Mauritius that come under the Yaounde II Convention, the three East African Commonwealth countries under the Arusha II agreement and the 19 associable Commonwealth independent countries that are offered association under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession. This unity of purpose did not exist in the earlier negotiations for Yaounde II or Arusha II, and this is a very important fact.
In this current set of talks to set up a system of preferential trade, financial aid and joint institutions, the Francophone and Commonwealth States have agreed to negotiate as one bloc under the leadership of Nigeria and within the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity. The tougher bargaining power can be seen in the eight so-called principles that were drawn up at the OAU Heads of State meeting in Addis Ababa in May, 1973. These principles call for the liberalisation of the Community's aid and trade policies. The ACP States are, in fact, seeking more favourable treatment in the area of trade than other developing countries will get from the EEC's generalised system of preferences.
So far as competing agricultural products are concerned, the Community is unlikely to accept a scheme that would undermine the Common Agricultural Policy or grant more favourable terms of trade than those given to other developing Third countries. While the EEC is negotiating on a product by product basis, the associable States are demanding free access as a matter of principle in order to avoid the danger of individual States trying to get marginal advantages on particular products, which is what happened in previous negotiations. Such an occurrence would obviously weaken their bargaining position. The main agricultural products for which free access is wanted are citrus fruits, tobacco, beef and of course sugar. As has been made clear in the Press to-day, the Community as a whole has at long last accepted the principle of access for 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar for an unlimited duration of time. This fulfils the commitment made by the last Conservative Government in the two Lancaster House Agreements to the Commonwealth sugar-producing States. However, at the Jamaica Conference last July the Community came somewhere nearer to the position set up by the ACP States, and

1077
they agreed financially to guarantee the associated countries' earnings from exports to the EEC for certain primary products as well as manufactured and semi-manufactured goods.
On the crucial question of reciprocity the associablcs have totally rejected reverse trade preferences. The Community seems to be divided on this point. Britain appears to support the stand taken by those countries, whereas the French take the Commission view that the associates should establish customs exemptions for certain EEC products. Likewise in the area of aid there is disagreement among the member States. This country, West Germany and Holland are in favour of extending the geographical scope of Community development action, while other member States are not quite so keen on the idea.
Although the European Development Fund was greatly increased between the first and second Yaounde Conventions, the poorer associated States received less assistance from the Fund than did the richer States. To help counteract this in the future the Community and the ACP States have agreed that the programming of EDF aid should be carried out by negotiation, with the existing development programmes kept well in mind. The amount of the EDF has not been settled, although it will probably be around 2,000 million dollars or even as high as 3,000 million dollars to be spread over the next five years. What has not been made clear by the present Labour Government is whether our contribution to the EDF will be in addition to our existing official aid programme or will be deducted from it. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he comes to answer this point in his speech, could also say to what extent the granting of aid is dependent upon the number of Commonwealth States that become associates under a new Yaounde Convention, because it is important to bear in mind the fact that over 80 per cent. of our official aid goes to Commonwealth developing countries.
While many of the Community policies towards the developing countries are still concentrated on the associates, there is a perceptible change of attitude among the member States. The Community has recently agreed to extend the scope of its trade preferences for developing countries
1078
as a whole from the beginning of next year. This decision will increase the amount of imports entering the Community from the Third World at preferential duties by around 15 per cent.
Also, the Community has increased the number of non-preferential trade agreements that it has with third countries. However, in the case of the agreements with Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, the provisions on beef imports have been unilaterally suspended by the Community because of the current glut of beef in Western Europe. However, I am led to understand that those three South American countries have found markets for their produce in Eastern Europe. The negotiations between the EEC and the Special Co-ordinating Committee for Latin America are continuing in an attempt to improve relations between those two areas of the world, although as yet much is still being left to the individual member States.
My Lords, while the recent moves by the European Community and its member States towards a global approach to the Third World might not have been very great, at least they are in the right direction. If the economies of the EEC member States are to expand and grow, then it is in our interest to help to improve the economic standing of the developing countries, irrespective of any obligations which we may feel towards them. In the long term, the aim must be to convert the relationship between Europe and the Third World from one of dominance and dependence into one of more genuine interdependence.
5.42 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I join the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who has just sat down in paying a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving your Lordships another opportunity of considering European Economic Community matters, and particularly this most important subject of aid to developing countries. All of your Lordships will be most anxious that increasing aid should be given to developing countries, but some of your Lordships, like myself, may be bothered as to the channels through which, and the methods by which, that kind of aid shall be given and the nature of the aid that should be given. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, have

1079
given a most impressive amount of information to the House.
Your Lordships may find that it would be helpful to consider one specific aspect of aid to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has referred; namely, food aid. In the few observations that I shall make to your Lordships I wish to consider the proposals, in so far as they have been published, of the EEC in regard to food aid. In fact, my intervention in this debate has been caused by the fact that I have had to consider for other purposes two documents which have been issued by the Commission during the last six months as to their policy on food aid and the responsibilities of the EEC in regard to food aid.
The second matter which caused me to intervene in this debate is that last night I had the honour of meeting the High Commissioner for Bangladesh who spoke most movingly of the difficulties which his country has faced recently—and, incidentally, of the great resources which he said that country has. In the course of the discussion after his speech, I had the privilege of asking him what aid his country had received from the EEC in recent months. Somewhat to my surprise, the High Commissioner said that so far he has received no aid at all through EEC channels. There had been promises of aid through the EEC channels and his country was relying upon that aid which appeared to have been promised to him.
Turning to the published policy of the Commission in regard to food aid, nobody would disagree with their general view, and if I may quote from one of the documents to which I have referred the Commission states:
"Europe must show its awareness of the sudden dramatic deterioration in the situation of the poorest countries and must rise to its responsibilities towards the victims of this crisis."
These reports also recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mentioned, that food aid by itself—and again I quote:
"… is not a satisfactory permanent solution to the food problem of developing countries and that it is essential for them to expand their own agricultural production".
However, these reports, dealing, as they say, with the responsibilities of the EEC Commission in regard to food aid for developing countries, do not explain in any detail how this further agricultural production aid can be developed.
1080
Of course, immediate food aid has great value in certain cases. The recent devastation and human crises resulting from the droughts in Sahel and Ethiopia and the recent floods in Bangladesh establish the positive role to be played by food aid which is immediately granted in such circumstances. It appears to me that the administrative machinery for this kind of aid must be capable of working quickly. From the recent reports of the Commission, it seems that it certainly recognises that its own administrative machinery for dealing with this class of food aid is not adequate.
The problems of the Commission appear to be fully recognised, and again I quote from the section of the report dealing with the procedural and management aspects of food aid. It states:
"The food aid policy requires efficient and rapid procedures for its implementation."
The report goes on to say that—
"The existing procedures are not adapted to the requirements of efficient management."
While not wishing to discourage the EEC from continuing to improve its food aid procedures, it should, I think, be recognised that there are established procedures for granting and delivering food aid. They are the national procedures, and the procedures of the United Nations. Perhaps these established channels for aid may be found to be more effective than any procedures to be set up by the EEC, at least for short-term food aid.
The Select Committee on European Communities, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, referred in his speech and of which I have the honour to be a member, has had the opportunity of considering the Community's policy documents on food aid that have been published during the last six months. Also, it has had the advantage of taking evidence from the Minister of Overseas Development, Mrs. Judith Hart, on August 29 last. I put to the Minister the point about the advantages of national and United Nations procedures for granting food aid, and asked her to contrast them with the proposals by the EEC for channels for food aid. She indicated that the United Kingdom representatives were in the same position as representatives of other members of the Community, being reluctant to give a free hand to the Commission in

1081
this field for a number of reasons which I need not quote to your Lordships this evening.
It may be interesting to refer again to my meeting last night with the High Commissioner for Bangladesh, when he paid a great tribute to the Minister of Overseas Development in taking the stand that she has taken in using channels other than the proposed EEC channels for bringing immediate aid. It became clear to her that the position in India and Bangladesh required aid to be administered far more quickly in view of the acute difficulties in those countries.
My Lords, my main reason, therefore, for intervening in this debate is to ask your Lordships, and particularly the Minister who will follow, whether food aid in particular could be better distributed and better dealt with through the national procedures and the procedures of the United Nations rather than through the proposed procedures of the EEC as I now understand them. I am afraid that my discursive views and observations as to the potential value of EEC procedures for dispensing food aid, certainly in the short term, may be somewhat gloomy. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who will follow at the end of the debate, may be able to dispel a little of the gloom which I have brought into this Chamber this evening.
5.50 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, very sincerely for bringing these matters to our notice, more particularly as I think he rather suggested that he can speak with an EEC voice as well as the voice of a Member of this House. We are grateful to him not only for his expressions of views, but for the information he brings to those of us who do not always have time to read the voluminous material that comes out from Brussels. In the space of a few minutes I will venture to broaden the subject a little and to put it into the context of what has happened in the world about aid over recent years and then come later to the EEC element.
To my mind, two drastic changes have taken place in the world of aid since it began to become organised on a large
1082
scale; say, some quarter of a century ago. In a way, we have come to the end of what might be called the classical age of aid, and there are two principal reasons. The classical aid was defined very well as 'the Jackson-Pearson era and perhaps consists of what Barbara Ward once wrote in Rich Nations, Poor Nations:
"Round the North Atlantic a ring of societies has come into being with more wealth, more resources at its disposal than has ever before been known in human history."
That was the situation in, one might say, its purity until last year.
We now have two drastic changes; one sudden, the other subtle. The sudden one I need not dwell upon because it has already been mentioned; namely, the quintupling of the price of oil. But perhaps I should add that it is not just a matter of pounds and pence; it is a matter of a feeling of vulnerability in Europe. In other words, to anticipate my conclusions, we have to go on accepting the aid obligation, and indeed the aid impulse, despite the fact that we can no longer speak of the North Atlantic in exactly the terms used by Barbara Ward 12 years ago. We must go on but we are no longer quite so confiident of our capacity. There is of course a corollary to that, which is that nations which have suddenly become much richer (not more developed, but richer) enter into this equation now, and the whole picture of who shall give aid to whom is much more confused than it was even quite a short time ago.
The other, subtle, element which has come into this whole question is—and I have said it frequently to my Indian friends when I was there—that people round the world must remember that in this process of a much greater humanitarian attitude towards social questions and towards life generally, the developed countries have discovered their own slums and there is great pressure on Governments now to use such financial resources as they have more and more in the interests of their own deprived people, and this competes with the proper claims of the developing countries. I speak of this matter through experience and not just from theory. I can say from my own activities in a voluntary organisation that the pressure to use a higher proportion of our resources on really

1083
deserving matters at home grows, not sensationally, but all the time.
Therefore, I think that one has—and I put this negative part of my suggestions first—to speak frankly to developing countries in this sense. Moreover, if you read, for instance, the account in last Sunday's Sunday Times of the food conference, I think one can talk very frankly to our friends who want our help and say, "It really is no good lecturing to the people of the developed countries on their misdeeds of the 19th century, on which there is plenty of argument, because people in these countries are just not interested". The point is that we really have to get together with developing and developed countries to try to ascertain what more we can do, and arguments that our system is all wrong really have no impact on the people who have got to contribute.
So much for my negative aspects in this matter. What then should we and what should the Community do? Perhaps I can clear one other negative out of the way. If, with the point of view of a financier, you were to look at the state of this country and notice that in the Budget we are told that we have a "borrowing requirement" of over £6,000 million your reaction would be: "Well how can we give any aid at all?" You would say that we are going to be £6,000 million in debt. However, I think that leads to one of the most positive merits of the experience this country has worked out for itself in the matter of the forms of aid which not only are easiest for us in financial terms to grant but also have the most long-run impact on the economies of developing countries. The experience gained through the original Department of Technical Co-operation, through the Overseas Development Ministry and through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has led to a general understanding which I think could well permeate other countries and may to some extent have done so: the great thing we can do, however difficult our own position is, is to provide a constant flow of technical, scientific, management and other assistance to developing countries. I do not know whether this is a practice of our partners in EEC in their priorities, but we can probably do even more of that because when I have made inquiries about
1084
this subject I have always been assured that we still have technical and administrative capacity to spare which can be of the utmost use, not to produce food tomorrow, but to produce food and many other things the day after tomorrow.
I think we should not be self-righteous about this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, very properly reminded us that 80 per cent. of our Government's official assistance has been in effect directed to Commonwealth countries. So really one kettle cannot call another kettle black when talking to our Community associates on this matter. The great gain from the present situation is a two-fold one: the first is, as the various speeches made by your Lordships have shown that our presence in the Community has in fact caused the restrictive natures of the contributions made by the different members to be subject to a gradual process of resolving themselves in the best interests of the developing countries. This is a 100 per cent. benefit to them as a result of our presence in the midst of the EEC, and if we had not been there the developing countries would not have developed to that extent.
The second advantage is this. Certainly international aid passes with efficiency and reasonable speed through some such organisations as the United Nations Development Programme. Incidentally, if one is too inclined to feel apologetic for the West about this, I looked up a figure for 1972 which showed that out of 260 million dollars of aid passing through that fund 238 million dollars had been provided by the OECD countries, which is to say Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia. Perhaps we could do with a little cash from the Soviet Union which is also a developed country. Our record is not so bad but of course it has not been enough.
By the process of combining the experience in the EEC in the small committee of Nine, which is after all what the EEC is, I am sure that we can accelerate the liberalisation of aid and trade policies in a way not possible in the arena of an organisation containing 130 countries. What can be done by our presence in the work of this expert group of Nine is to continue this liberalisation and, we hope, without any form of appeasement; such appeasement would not be what we really

1085
meant, but by positive work and by getting side by side with people from the developing countries. Thus we can go on accelerating this very necessary progress. By doing so, perhaps we shall help to remove some of the vulnerability (of which I spoke) to pressure from countries which are on the way to development in other respects.
My Lords, my message is simply that there are great difficulties about this matter which I think it is the duty of someone to emphasise. Having looked at these difficulties, we must find ways around them. I have tried to suggest at least one technique, and there are many others. I am sure the Minister who winds up this debate will be able to show us further pointers to the future in which we can help the more unfortunate parts of the world.
6.1 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am rather inclined to think that at the time of our accession, and for a period afterwards, and to some extent still in retrospect, the Community has been criticised unfairly for what were, or were thought to be, its attitudes towards developing countries. It is true that Community aid was principally channelled through its association with a limited number of African States which, in aggregate, did not account for a high proportion of the population of the developing world, although they certainly included a considerable number of the world's poorest countries. But in giving the priority to those countries, the Community was only following a policy similar to our own to this day, of wishing to pay special regard to the historic ties and duties which have resulted from the colonial experience of the peoples of Europe.
On this principle, there is no difference between British and French aid policy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, was acknowledging that point. The difference lies in the much more worldwide nature and scope of Britain's former Empire as compared with any other. This was not, therefore, a problem of attitude, and the Community has responded as naturally and as rapidly in accepting the need to incorporate Britain's similar responsibilities into a Community policy as the other original members did in the case of France and Belgium.
1086
Moreover, there were, and are, admirable features in the Community's aid giving methods within the association. Over the last two years in contacts with Europeans and Africans, I have heard no criticism at all of the way in which aid under the European Development Fund is basically organised. This aid is overwhelmingly in the form of grants, with no problem of interest indebtedness arising. It is managed in a form of partnership; projects need to be approved by the donors, but they can be put forward only on the initiative of the Governments of associated States. Special favourable conditions have been devised to give advantages to local contractors and so on. Nor is it correct to suppose that the Community did nothing for developing countries outside the framework of association. For some time it has had a substantial food aid programme, to the benefit of countries outside the Association. In July, 1971, the Community introduced its system of generalised preferences. But, of course, it is true that since the accession of the United Kingdom, the Community's aid and development policies have been greatly enlarged and broadened in scope.
The first respect in which this is true is in the current negotiations with the now so-called ACP countries which aims vastly to increase the scope of the association itself by the inclusion of many Commonwealth countries, and some countries outside the Commonwealth. Of course, this is a direct consequence of Britain's accession to the EEC. The fact of these negotiations has already had profound consequences in Africa. Previously, there were hardly any contacts between French-speaking and English-speaking countries in Africa. To-day, anyone associated with the negotiations has been impressed by the solidarity within the negotiations between the French-speaking and English-speaking countries, and their apparently absolute determination to conduct themselves within, and to emerge from, the negotiations as a single unit. Of course, this will towards solidarity is explained by other factors, but this unique opportunity for it to find expression was exclusively provided by this country's accession to the EEC.

1087
We must hope these negotiations will be concluded before the expiry of the present association at the end of this year. But there are still some difficult problems which are not yet settled, including the question of the size of the next European Development Fund. I should like to ask the Minister whether he considers that there is a danger that these negotiations may not be concluded before the end of the year. If he does, does he consider that there will be any serious problem over the question of transitional measures to bridge the gap?
Apart from the association's negotiations, another respect in which Community development policy has been extended greatly since we joined the Community is in the generalised scheme of preferences as a result of the improvements introduced for 1974, and again for 1975. These were approved last week in the Council. Incidentally, I think that the Community's generalised preferences scheme is the only one open to modification on an annual basis. As a result of these improvements, it has been estimated that next year manufactured goods to a value of between 21 and 2·3 billion units of account, and textiles to the value of 500 million units of account, will be able to enter the Community from the developing countries, duty free. It is also estimated that agricultural goods worth between 450 million and 600 million units of account will enter duty free, or at preferential rates. The Community's GSP has, therefore, become an instrument of major importance in its overall development policy.
In extending the GSP, a great deal of account has been taken—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will confirm this point—of the needs and requests of countries on the Indian Subcontinent in the implementation of the Joint Declaration of Intent attached to the Treaty of Accession, for example, in the matter of the quota for flue-cured tobacco, or by the inclusion of a long list of Indian specialities for preferential treatment. If some noble Lords think that, perhaps, there are other items that might have been included in this list, it must be borne in mind that any trading concession given by the Community to a developing country can be worth far more than a far larger
1088
concession given by the United Kingdom alone.
There are other points which I might mention: where special account has been taken of Britain's Commonwealth concerns—as in the acceptance of the commitment to guarantee the access indefinitely of the 1·4 million tons of; sugar—the current negotiations for commercial co-operation agreements between the EEC and countries on the Indian Sub-Continent, and also cases where other initiatives have been taken by the Community. For example, the action under the Cheysson Plan was established to assist all countries, whether within or without the association, most affected by the recent oil crisis. But I hope that I may have said enough to help convince any who doubted it that in the Community there is a tendency and a determination to look outwards, and a will to assume responsibilities to the world at large.
However, I do not think it proper to discuss the Community's aid-giving policies without making some reference to the present financial situation. I do not think that at present it will be possible for the Community to do much more than it is likely to be doing if, to those decisions which have already been taken by the Council, we add the assumption that positive decisions will be taken on those proposals already submitted to it by the Commission. It is true that the Community's per capita wealth is, of course, far higher than that of developing countries. But leaving aside the problems of political leadership involved in getting our populations voluntarily to accept severe sacrifices in their living standards, or their expected future living standards, on top of those involuntary ones which have recently arrived, there is also the problem of financial responsibility. Our wealth depends on our economic activity, but much more than our own wealth depends on the survival of this activity and the survival of the world monetary system. There must be a limit to which it is responsible for the Community to extend its commitments to advance financial gifts and loans at a time when it is, or it may be, in search of substantial funds itself to finance survival of its own economic activity. I think, therefore, that we must be approaching the moment when we shall have to seek to consolidate and to main

1089
tain our present levels of assistance rather than to extend them.
I should just like to say something, since the matter has been raised, on the question of food aid. I think there is a fallacy behind the argument of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on this. I do not see how you can criticise the Community for giving food in aid on the grounds that they had the food to give. If they had not had the food to give, the aid could not have been given. Although it is correct that the long-term solution must be to stimulate the food producing capacity in the developing countries, nevertheless there was at Rome general agreement that for some time food aid will be needed, and therefore it is important for the Community to try to maintain its activity in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, doubted the efficiency of the Community's system of distribution of food and suggested that perhaps more use might be made of other mechanisms. I have not had an opportunity to check what are the figures for the Community's current distribution in food aid. There are two forms of food aid programme: there is the regular food aid programme, which I think involves something of the order of 1 million tons of wheat and some other products as well, and there is the emergency food aid programme. Of all Community food aid, something under half, I think 45 per cent., is distributed at Community level, so that the Community cannot be without experience already in this field. I know that under their emergency food aid programme they have assisted a number of different countries, certainly Bangladesh in the past; very recently they have established an emergency system to assist Somalia. I know last year they did so in the case of the Sahel, and I know personally that that aid was very much appreciated. Surely it must be right to build up a single centralised system and, if necessary, make that more efficient rather than rely on a number of different national systems.
If noble Lords can bear with me, I should like to say something about how the European Parliament is involved in the Community's development policy and in the Association, because this may be of interest to noble Lords, some others of whom may, I hope, one day find themselves involved. First, there is a
1090
Parliamentary Committee, the Committee on Development and Co-operation, which meets once every two or three weeks in Brussels. In addition, we currently have a Working Party, meeting rather less frequently, and composed of a small number of members out of this Committee, studying the question of how the Community's overall development policy—that is, beyond the framework of the Association, a matter very much of interest to this country—should be developed. Then within the framework of the Association we have the Joint Committee. This is composed of one representative from each of the African Associated States and an equivalent number from the European Parliament's Development Committee. This Joint Committee currently works three times a year, alternating between Europe and Africa, for what is usually a 3-day session. Then, once a year, immediately following one of the meetings of the Joint Committee, which will have prepared its work, there takes place the Joint Parliamentary Conference which will be attended by between 50 and 60 members of the European Parliament, and again an equivalent number from African States, and these sessions also alternate, like the Joint Committee, between Africa and Europe.
In addition to being a member of the Development Committee and the Working Party, I have had the good fortune to be a member for the last two years of these two institutions of the Association, and from my experience I feel bound to say that, having started from a position of considerable scepticism, I have become convinced of the great value they have for the contacts they provide between working European politicians and their African counterparts. The Joint Committee has been particularly successful in the amicable and frank relationships it has established between the two groups, who have come to know each other well. Institutions like these have become, as I see it, an extremely important means for European Parliamentarians to monitor the consequences of Europe's development policies and to make a contribution towards planning their future direction, and I think that we should think very carefully, in a time of international upheaval, before we dispense with any such instruments of international contact and co-operation as these.

1091
It would be difficult to adapt these institutions to the greater numbers of the new Association, but I think that Her Majesty's Government should use the influence they have to see that they are continued in the future in as close a form as is practicable to what they now are. These institutions are what I have said they are. They are not a trap of a neo-Colonialist kind which seeks to lure developing countries into the acceptance of situations they wish to be free to protest about. These institutions do not inhibit any member from adopting or expressing any opinion at all, whether inside or outside those meetings. Her Majesty's Government should seek to allay the suspicions which are known to exist among some of the associables with regard to these institutions, and I suggest that they should argue that whereas these may be institutions which have not hitherto been traditional to the British pattern of relationships with Commonwealth countries, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government for their part are now sufficiently satisfied on the evidence they have, evidence based on the unqualified support for these institutions from all who have taken part in them, both Europeans and Africans, as to believe in their value.
To summarise, may I say that whereas I believe the Community's original development policy and its development attitude was often unfairly called into question, nevertheless I think that since the accession of the United Kingdom great strides have been taken towards broadening that policy in the direction that the present Government and the previous Government wanted. Proposals now lie before the Council which would carry Community policy almost to the limit of what could now be within its means. If in the next few months the ACP negotiations are successfully concluded; if there is a sugar agreement; if there is an agreement on the Commission's food aid proposals, or at least some steps are taken towards meeting the Commission's position; if the conditions are fulfilled which would enable another payment to be made under the Cheysson Fund; if a step can be agreed towards establishing a fund for financial and technical assistance outside the framework of Association, something
1092
very much desired by Her Majesty's Government (and if I may say so in parenthesis, their proposal that this fund should be the same size as the next European Development Fund is probably beyond the financial means of the Community at the present time, although it is a good principle), then I think that we, in this country, shall have very little left to complain about. Indeed we shall have considerable cause for satisfaction in the rapid adaptation of Community policy in the field of development which will have taken place to accommodate our needs, our views, and our historic obligations.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would like to develop for a moment one policy about which there seemed to be a slight difference between the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and himself? Would he consider in this matter of the organisation of, say, an EEC food programme, that there would be a future in a system by which there was a certain amount of planning jointly in Brussels, and an allocation of functions between members, which would enable the whole thing to get started rather quicker than if it were done either nationally or centrally?
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am not sure that the main criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was on the speed with which the mechanism was able to respond. I think in the most recent instance of an appeal being made to the Community for aid, the delay has been caused not at all by a failure of the mechanisms of the Commission, but of the Council to arrive at an agreement as to whether it wished to respond and, if so, to what extent. As in most instances of where, and where not, progress is being made in the Community, you will probably find that most delays are caused by the Council and not by any other institution of the Community.
6.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as has been said already, we must all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan for the opportunity to discuss this extremely important subject. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, that it is vitally important to us in Europe that the standard of living, health, and

1093
industry rises in the Third World. First, in a world as rich as ours, it is an appalling affront to our consciences that the Third World should be populated by so many people near to death, so many people actually dying of starvation. Secondly, and perhaps more cynically, a richer Third World will buy more of our goods, in turn raising our own standards of living and improving our own economy.
We have heard a lot of details about the Community's development policies and aid policies. There are two vital aspects of these aid and trade policies that, as yet, have not been mentioned. Not only is it better to give than to receive, but it is also easier. We know from examples how difficult it is in this country to persuade some people to accept their rights under various social security legislation. Yesterday, for instance, I heard a woman who said, "I don't want people in the village to know that I receive cheap butter tokens."
This might sound a slight digression, but, after all, there was a similar reaction by the former Ethiopian authorities to the ghastly drought that took place there. When one becomes a newly independent Power, it is often difficult for the authorities to swallow their pride and admit that things in their own countries are not going as well as they have told their own people and the outside world. Consequent upon that failure to admit that there was a problem in Ethiopia, thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily. How can we prevent this sort of thing happening again? Can the EEC, or Her Majesty's Government, or both, try to get better advance warning of these situations?
Added to that section of the problem is the difficulty of honestly administering aid and investment in most parts of Asia and Africa. On September 6, the Far East Economic Review published a series of articles entitled, "Graft; Almost a Way of Life". Some of these examples are worth quoting, and would be very funny if they were not so debilitating for the countries concerned. With our recent experience in the North-East of England, and the present difficulties of the administration in Hong Kong, we must admit that our standards are not up to the ideal that they should be, and of course the happenings in the United
1094
States have been very far from edifying. Will the right honourable lady, Mrs. Judith Hart, in her estimable efforts to get the EEC's aid programme increased, please bear in mind this corruption issue, and see what she, or the EEC can do?
Tony Hagan, who is the first director of the United Nations Relief Organisation, observed that in Bangladesh only one in seven tins of relief baby food reached its intended destination, and only one in 13 blankets reached its intended destination. The rest, as the expression goes, "Fell off the back of a lorry on the way". This is really quite intolerable. For myself, I hate giving taxes, or having them given for me by Her Majsty's Government, to provide cream for the fat cats in the underdeveloped world. I should like Her Majesty's Government to give—and it gives me pleasure to say this—aid which will really relieve, and which will really advance the people who so desperately need it.
The National Awami Party rule the Northern frontier province of Pakistan, and to improve Party funds they sell permission to the Pathans to buy arms. Arms licences have been bought so regularly, that one rustic Pathan had his application approved to buy a Sherman tank. The bribe was automatic, and the application was not even read. Further, in Pakistan a job of station master changed hands for up to 300,000 rupees. No genuine tickets were sold for three months, but half-price tickets were sold and bought from obliging ticket clerks who, in turn, paid the station master.
When the charitable organisations know what is going on in the countries concerned they cannot really publish it, for if the person who generously gives, because he is moved by the suffering of the people concerned, thinks that six out of seven tins of baby food will be "flogged" by somebody in Bangladesh as opposed to going to babies who need them, or 12 out of 13 blankets will be "flogged" in Bangladesh as opposed to going to those who need them, then those one out of seven tins of baby food and one out of 13 blankets will not be forthcoming.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, just in case the position of charity orgisation may be misunderstood, may I say that the one I am interested in invariably

1095
administers its own aid in countries of this kind for this reason.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, that is very good to hear, but, as I said, I am quoting from this article which is in an authoritative book. I think the noble Lord will realise that there is some force in what I am trying to say; at least, I hope he does.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but having met the High Commissioner for Bangladesh last night, and having heard the noble Earl's indication that this corruption is happening in Bangladesh, may I say that the High Commissioner last night denied that such corruption was taking place. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who is dealing with corruption at rather great length, may wish to give examples of corruption in developed countries as well as in developing countries.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, first, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, ever hesitates to interrupt me, because he has done it frequently before. Secondly, I think I said that our own position is not as white as it should be. People in Birmingham and the North-East of England have been sent to prison, and there have been cases in the United States. I am not criticising here from a holier than thou point of view; I am trying to put forward a point which I hope concerns a lot of other people. I shall give the article to the noble Lord and then make sure that he gives it back to the Library from where I got it.
In the Sahelian drought area the lorries donated by the British taxpayer are reputed to be owned by one of the local residents who uses them for her own I profit. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, could confirm that point to me. If it is not true then I unreservedly would withdraw the accusation. But it has a terrible ring of truth about it. What relief in this area is getting through on some of these lorries? The driver, perhaps naturally, gives some of the sacks of food to his friends and" relations who are starving and sells a little extra along the way. We cannot possibly blame that man when he sees what is going on in what I believe in Tanzania were called the
1096
Wah-Benzi tribe, or the tribe who drove Mercedes.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord in his amusing excursions, but could he give some constructive suggestions as to what should be done about the problem to which he has referred, instead of merely dilating for a long time on these horror stories illustrated for the benefit of your Lordships without coming forward with any positive suggestions, in which case I shall have to move that he be no longer heard?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Why?—to start with. But do not interrupt me again. The reason why I am producing these details is to ask Her Majesty's Government, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whether they have any suggestions to make. What I am saying is that this is the situation and it is one that must be borne in mind. It seems to me something of vital importance.
My Lords, I am acutely aware that this corruption is a horrifyingly difficult problem—I am coming to it now—in countries with long traditions of it, perhaps broken in some cases only by brief intervals of honest colonial rule. If all the money that had stuck to the wrong fingers in the last 20 years had been properly invested in the aid and in the industries of the countries concerned, the situation would be infinitely less depressing than it is at the moment. I ask the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whether they have any ideas on what can be done about it. I know it is asking far too much for it to be stopped and I know that we do not have it in our power so to do, but let us try to mitigate this problem as much as possible.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, surely the noble Lord feels himself to be under an obligation, as he has been making these allegations, to come forward with some constructive solutions. Does he really think it fair to make these allegations and criticisms, which may or may not be true—no doubt some are true and I am sure that he has looked into the problem thoroughly—without coming forward himself with proposals as to what should be done?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, my Lords.
6.32 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, I hope that my own intervention will be as brief and as concise as the last one. We must all feel grateful to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan for raising this important matter and to all those noble Lords who have contributed to this remarkably interesting and informative debate. This Motion is being debated at an important moment in the history of the Community's relations with the developing world. The Motion implies that a good deal is happening and this is very true. I hope to inform your Lordships in some fair detail of what is actually going on. I cannot of course provide a complete picture of what is likely to emerge from all this activity, all these changes that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, described to us in opening the debate.
The picture will be somewhat clearer in the next month or two and no doubt this continuing debate will resurface at a time when it is clearer to all of us what are the practical implications of these changes. May I deal with the more important points raised by various noble Lords during the debate by grouping my remarks under three headings. First, the relations between the EEC and the 45 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which are negotiating association under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Association. This heading includes the question of sugar. Secondly, the Community's relations with developing countries outside the circle of association. A number of noble Lords addressed themselves almost exclusively to the future relationship with the non-associables. Under this heading I shall be examining, I hope, not only the Community's generalised preference scheme and worldwide aid policy, but also the details of the Community's relations with Commonwealth Asian countries, a point specifically raised by more than one noble Lord.
Finally, I shall be looking briefly at the Community's action in various multilateral contexts, such as GATT, the multilateral trade negotiations and the World
1098
Food Council. First, the Protocol 22 negotiations. Noble Lords will recall that at the ministerial conference in Kingston last July, the EEC and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries agreed that negotiations under Protocol 22 should be concluded substantially by the end of this month. This is going to be a rather difficult target but we are making every effort to achieve this result. After the Council on November 12, there remained one or two issues on which there is still no agreement within the Community. We hope that these will be cleared up in time for a further ministerial level conference with the EEC countries at which, we trust, final agreement will be reached.
Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that the successful conclusion of the Protocol 22 negotiations offers the best chance of meeting the interests of the developing countries concerned, including the 22 Commonwealth countries, and we are pressing for their conclusion on a satisfactory basis. Although it is too early to give noble Lords details of the arrangements negotiated, I am glad to say that the Community has now accepted that the developing countries concerned will not be required to open their markets to the Community on a preferential basis in return for the preference which they enjoy in the Community market. This was one of the conditions which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary attached to the Protocol 22 negotiations during his renegotiation statement in Luxembourg on June 4. This I think disposes of the point which one noble Lord made about a difference of view between members of the Community in regard to non-reciprocity. It is a fact that there was a difference between Britain and France and some other member States on the question of reciprocity. This was so, but the Community agreed at Kingston that the EEC will not expect reciprocity from the ACP countries. I am sure that the noble Lord who raised this point will be as delighted as I that this is Community policy.
This brings me to the question of future arrangements for imports of sugar from the developing Commonwealth, also a matter that has been dealt with in the Protocol 22 negotiations. As your Lordships' House are aware, the Government

1099
are determined to secure access for 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar at a fair price and on a continuing basis. As I indicated in my Statement to the House on November 13, the Community has already agreed that access should be for 1·4 million tons of sugar. The great bulk of this—practically all of it—will be exported in accordance with traditional patterns of trade, that is, to be refined in this country. A further meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers took place in Brussels on November 18 and 19—that is to say, yesterday and the day before—and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food hopes to make a Statement on this in another place shortly. No doubt that Statement will be repeated in your Lordships' House. I therefore cannot anticipate the content of what is bound to be a fairly comprehensive Statement as a result of the discussions which have been going on this week in Brussels. We hope that the negotiations can be concluded as soon as possible so that the supplying countries may have a clearer idea of their future position in the Community market, and so that one of the uncertainties surrounding sugar supplies to the United Kingdom can be cleared up, this being an advantage both to our housewives and to an important processing industry in this country.
Since we are talking of changes in the Community's policy towards the developing world, perhaps I should take the opportunity to mention one significant aspect of the Protocol 22 negotiations which is sometimes overlooked. It has been mentioned in this debate, and I am very glad that it has. It is the participation in the negotiations of all the independent black African States. The point has been well made not only that this is politically important but that it will help to overcome the artificial divisions in Africa created by differing colonial histories, and will also contribute to a more rational economic development of that continent. I will not pursue that point, but will say that I respond very warmly to the fact that it has been made in this debate. It is of great importance, not only to Africa but to the Community and, I think, to the rest of the world as a hopeful sign of regional unity which contributes to a larger Community.
1100
I now turn to the question of the Community's relations with the rest of the developing world; that is, the non-associables. At this point I should like to remind your Lordships of our renegotiation objectives. Broadly, these are that non-associable developing countries should enjoy better access to the Community market and that financial and technical aid for the associated developing countries should be balanced by similar Community aid for non-associated countries allocated on the basis of their needs. I am very glad to say that there is evidence of change also in this area. A number of noble Lords pinpointed this: that as we expand the practice and the psychology of the Community in this field of endeavour we should try increasingly to get a balance between our treatment of the associated countries and of those outside the circle of association. There is evidence that there is steady change in this area.
On the aid side, I, too, would pay warm tribute to the efforts of my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. Thanks to her efforts, the EEC has now agreed, by the resolution of July 16, the principle of financial and technical aid for the benefit of developing countries outside the circle of association. There is of course some way to go to ensure that this is translated into concrete financial terms. We have asked—and this is the answer to some noble Lords who have pressed this point—for a broad 50–50 division. This is not dogmatism: it is a good basis on which to discuss the broad division of aid and of assistance as between two broad groups of developing countries. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who raised the question of the conditional nature of the EEC offer of 500 million dollars to the United Nations Special Fund. The answer is that the conditions imposed by the Community have been effective in producing contributions by other developed countries and oil-producing countries. I think the noble Earl was with me in this, that he seeks to illuminate the point, a useful point, that by making this condition, not in a hostile way but in a bargaining way, the effect has been, and probably will be—I say this hopefully but with some confidence—that a great deal more money than this

1101
sum will be attracted from sources possibly rather richer than this.
Further on the aid point, the Community has also agreed to the release of 150 million dollars of the funds thus conditionally offered towards the United Nations emergency measures in favour of developing countries—those most affected, as we have heard this afternoon once more, by the rise in oil and other raw material prices. There is now considerable urgency that this money should begin to flow, and we are pressing for this. I will not detain your Lordships by a detailed statement of how the first tranche has been made available, and in what way we are endeavouring to speed its practical application as effectively as possible, but there is now a sense of urgency about the need to put this money to effective use. At our request the Commission has now produced a Paper on possible future developments in the Community's aid policy. In it, the Commission recognises the overwhelming need for a Community aid programme of the kind for which we are pressing—a balanced programme resting on the principle of need. We hope that on the basis of this Paper and the Community's agreement to the principle of such aid, the Community will take decisions in the near future which will meet our aim of a more balanced Community aid effort.
On the trade side, progress has been made towards improving the situation for the non-associated developing countries, especially those in Asia. A trade agreement between the Community and India came into force on April 1, 1974, and the Community recently opened negotiations with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka with a view to concluding trade arrangements with these countries. I have a very long list of specific commodities here which perhaps I might, possibly in response to a Question for Written Answer, circulate for the information of the House. I think it would detain the House unduly on matters of detail if I attempted to give this information specifically to-day. It is too early to comment in any detail on these arrangements, but I am hopeful that it will not be too long before the negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion. That is in response to the fairly general feeling expressed in this debate that not only should we press forward
1102
with meaningful agreements with countries like India but should also base similar agreements on our experience in negotiating that particular agreement. This is in fact how the Community, and certainly we ourselves, see the future in that part of the world.
It is of course in the context of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences—GSP—that the main scope lies for improving the situation for those developing countries which have not been offered association. At the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting on November 12, general agreement was reached on the scheme for 1975. Substantial improvements were secured at the meeting, many of which will be of great benefit to the developing countries in Asia, particularly those in the Commonwealth. And we must not forget Latin America. Here again, the value of a debate like this is that it brings up very important points which sometimes tend to be overlooked. I have had the feeling for some years that we and the other democratic countries of Europe have not paid as much attention as we should have to Latin America. The Generalised Preference Scheme is, by definition, generalised, universal and intended to benefit virtually all developing countries, and we are determined that the improvement should not end here. The GSP is reviewed every year and at subsequent reviews we shall be pressing very hard for a further significant improvement with a view to the progressive abolition of the various restrictions over several years—a policy which will delight the heart of the noble Lord who speaks on these matters on behalf of the Liberal and, presumably, the expanding free trade position.
My Lords, it is largely at our instance that the Community has agreed that there should be a thorough-going discussion in the Council on the general strategy for the development of the Community's GSP. This is the liberalising process. Admittedly it is as yet within a regional context but it is a large and, I would say, an expanding context and to that extent very warmly to be welcomed and promoted. It is expected that this discussion will take place early in the New Year and we also wish to use it to end particular discriminations which still come up within the generally beneficent

1103
trend of liberalisation of generalised preferences. I refer in particular to Hong Kong. It is true that this year we have been able to get a very substantial concession in regard to footwear, but we are disappointed that we were not able to get a concession in regard to textiles. However, in the New Year the discussions will provide us with an opportunity to argue strongly for the end of discrimination of that sort so that, in 1976 if not in 1975, the arrangements will be so changed as to get rid of it finally.
The Community is also playing a full part in attempts to solve the problems of developing countries on a multilateral basis. I refer to the GATT, to the multilateral trade negotiations which are due to begin in Geneva in the New Year, and which will provide a unique opportunity for combating pressures which are growing up in world trade. These are pressures which would particularly harm the interests of developing countries. The Community's mandate for these negotiations is in preparation, but one of the sections of the draft mandate is specifically concerned with the problems of developing countries as a whole, not just those countries with which the Community has had special relations.
Finally, I turn to the points made by a number of noble Lords this afternoon about the World Food Conference and food aid. I am glad to say that the Community as a whole has shown a positive approach to the World Food Conference and has agreed to organise its future food aid in a manner better suited to the requirements of the recipients—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, put with great force and cogency. Member States also agreed that the only viable long-term solution to world food problems is to increase production in developing countries. There is absolutely no doubt that we need effective emergency programmes and procedures to go with them, though I would commend what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, had to say on this score from his very great experience. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would wish to reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, had to say about this.
The fact is that a variety of methods exist of moving food and medicines to
1104
where they need to go. One must not be too technically dogmatic about this. One could go on instancing situations in which immediate bilateral national efforts and arrangements were effective. Then there are situations in which the United Nations method, which is a proven one, is best, and of course it is undoubtedly a fact that the Community has something to offer in regard to machinery as well as resources in this matter. However, this is not a matter about which to be unduly dogmatic. We must study all these methods of delivery in emergencies and, as I think, stand ready to approve and use whichever is best in the situation.
My Lords, the Member States have indeed shown a really new awareness both of the immediate urgency of the situation in many parts of the world—particularly the countries which were mentioned by noble Lords who referred to food aid—and also to the need for a long-term policy of consistent production, of conservation, of storage, and of strategic provision, so as to make use of glut, when it occurs, as a solution for famine. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would join me in delighting in the fact that the United States in particular has used its own abundance very generously and very effectively to relieve real suffering in other parts of the world. One must be thankful that glut does occur, especially in years when we are without its advantages and, indeed, are trying to find the resources to relieve suffering in a situation where there is a shortage of production.
My Lords, there is much that one could say and many points which I have not been able to touch on. For instance, there is the point about the emphasis placed by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, on technical assistance. In all this talk of aid and emergency aid, particularly in regard to food, one must always remember that the long-term key to the situation must lie in technical assistance which enables chronically underprivileged and suffering countries to help themselves. We must help them to help themselves and also of course we must move in without any question of expecting them to do very much when there is a real crisis such as that which some countries are suffering at the moment.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could possibly answer the question of which I gave him prior notice about Britain's contribution to the EDF? I think this is rather important.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I was casting about for an opportunity to do precisely this: as a result of the relief which the noble Earl has afforded me by his intervention, I have been able to put my finger on the holy writ. It is too early to say how large the next EDF will be. The Community's offer will be decided by the Council, but a number of States agree that the Fund must be large enough to provide, first, advantages for the old associates which are comparable to what they enjoyed in the past; and, secondly, equal treatment for new associates, including of course the Commonwealth countries.
As to how much we can contribute as a country, bearing in mind one or two references to our, we hope, temporary preoccupations with our own economic situation, as voiced by, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, I have this to say. Britain's contribution to Community aid, including the EDF, will be found from the aid programme. We believe that it will be possible to meet this contribution out of a rising aid budget without cutting back existing bilateral aid programmes. I think the noble Lord will perhaps be satisfied, at least for the moment, with that statement. He may wish to come back to this matter. I shall certainly want to watch it very closely.
I would not wish to see bilateral aid being trimmed in order to show that an extra amount was being made available under the EDF. That would be misleading and unfair to countries which are expecting more rather than less from the richer countries. However, this country must do what it can, always bearing in mind that its own strength and potential must be safeguarded, so that it is enabled, both as a country in its own right and as a member State of a wider Community, increasingly to assist others less well off.
I leave that point there and will conclude very quickly with references to the two final speeches we heard. I agree
1106
with the noble Lord, Lord Rcay, that compassion must be combined with common sense. There is no doubt about the will of the people and the Government of this country to do everything possible in this field. We have heard from more than one noble Lord that it is often a question of procedures and machinery, as well as of resources.
This brings me to the final speech that we heard—a speech to which I listened with very grave attention—in which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the undoubted fact that in this of all fields there is far too much corruption. Those of us who recall the end of the Second World War and what happened then in Central Europe, not only with food but with medical supplies and the deprivation of children, are deeply concerned that there should be even a minimal amount of "wide boy activities" when millions of people, including children, are starving to death. It is right that we should be reminded of that kind of consideration.
It is also right, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, that when there are instances of this sort they should be brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and I personally should be very glad to look at any evidence of this kind of misapplication of aid, especially concerning food and medical supplies. It is also right that not only the noble Earl but also the rest of us should be constantly thinking of constructive ways in which this kind of activity can be kept to a minimum—I do not suppose it can ever be stamped out completely—and how positive action of a better kind can overwhelm it.
My Lords, I welcome this debate. I have taken note of everything that has been said. There were a number of points with which I should have liked to deal in addition to the ones I have covered. But I think, on the whole, that the main points of concern and suggestion made during the debate have been covered by what I have said. As I said at the beginning, this is a continuing debate because this is a continuing problem and opportunity.
7.6 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have spoken in this debate for their very realistic

1107
suggestions and contributions. Sometimes in debates of this kind we stray too far into the stratosphere without coming down to earth, but certain noble Lords ensured that we stayed very close to the ground and I believe that was well worth doing.
I think all speakers have shown that the merging of traditions of the new member States with their Third World responsibility, with the traditions of the old member States, with their responsibility to the Third World, can be a constructive process and of benefit to all countries, both those which are developing and those which have developed. Perhaps the economic centre of gravity has shifted now, as several speakers have reminded us, but this does not stop people in this country continuing to be aware of their responsibilities to the wider world, and this has been given a new opportunity of expressing itself through our membership of the Community. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FOOD SUBSIDIES (TEA) (No. 2) ORDER 1974
7.7 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES rose to move, That the Food Subsidies (Tea) (No. 2) Order 1974, laid before the House on November 19, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Food Subsidies (Tea) (No. 2) Order 1974 be approved. I think I should first explain why it is the No. 2 Order. There was an unfortunate misunderstanding between the Department and the House of Commons officials as to the method of counting the 28 days within which the Order had to be approved by Parliament. The Department had discussed with the House officials the position of this and other Orders which were made before the Dissolution, and the Department had incorrectly concluded that it was not necessary to count the period between October 22, when Members met to be sworn in and to elect a Speaker, and October 29, when Her Majesty the Queen opened the new Parliament. Late on Monday, November 18, the general office drew attention to this mistake and pointed out that the Order had ceased to have effect on November 16. Therefore, there was a short
1108
gap between November 16 and midnight on November 18, when the No. 2 Order came into operation. I apologise for this mistake and can assure the House that all possible steps to prevent a repetition have been taken.
The purpose of the Order is to add tea to the list of subsidised foods; that is to say, to permit the payment of subsidies in respect of tea under Section 1 of the Prices Act 1974. The amount of subsidy is to be 8p per pound or 2p per quarter pound. The cost to the Exchequer will be £15 million in the current year and £29 million in a full year. The effect upon the food index will be 0·4 per cent., the effect upon the retail price index will be 0·1 per cent. There are a number of questions that have to be examined before any food is added to the subsidised list. Since the primary object of the food subsidies is not only to restrict the rise in food prices but to direct any help from that to the lower income groups, it is necessary to consider as a first question: who buys the commodity? Is it one that figures prominently in the budget of the lower income groups? In the case of tea, the position is abundantly clear. Pensioners, for example, in 1973 purchased 3½ ounces per head per week; the lower income groups generally purchased three ounces per head per week, whereas the national average was only two ounces per head per week. In the case of tea, a bigger percentage of the subsidy will go to the lower income groups than for any other subsidised food. Also, the saving to those in the lowest income groups will be twice that of those in the highest income groups Tea therefore fully satisfies the first question.
The second question that has to be examined is: is it possible to ensure that the subsidy will, in fact, reach the consumer? There are many foods which on other counts it may be desirable to subsidise, but which on this count cannot be subsidised. There are many perishable foods which are of varying quality and it is virtually impossible, because of frequent price changes, to ensure that the consumer will get the full benefit of any subsidy. Tea is not in that category. There are few importers and packers who handle tea. Price control of tea, because of the way in which the market is organised, is relatively easy and it therefore

1109
follows that it is possible to subsidise tea on a fully cost-effective basis. It therefore satisfies under that heading.
The third question that has to be asked is: what is the cost of administration? Because there are only few packers and importers, and because of the way in which the tea market is organised, the cost of administration will be the least of all the subsidised foods. It will, in fact, not exceed one penny for every £100 distributed by way of subsidy. It therefore fulfils that requirement.
We come now to what I think is the final requirement, but which, economically, is the most important one: what is likely to be the effect on demand? Is there likely to be a shortage? That is obviously an important question. Tea has a very inelastic demand; that is to say, price has very little effect upon the demand. Certainly the movement of price equal to that of the subsidy has little or no effect on the demand for tea, and therefore we would not expect that the subsidy would affect the demand. In addition, we have to bear in mind that over the last few years there has been a movement away from tea to coffee, which is a more expensive beverage, and there is no reason for believing that this subsidy will prevent that movement. It will continue.
In the last few years, production of tea has shown a greater growth than the demand for tea and prices have been relatively stable, but in the past twelve months that position suddenly changed. During the past twelve months the auction prices of tea increased by 45 per cent., largely because of decline in production and, to some extent, because of increased demand in the United States and the Middle East. There is every indication that higher prices will stimulate production, and at the present time there is no difficulty in obtaining normal supplies. None is anticipated, but the Government will of course keep a close watch on the market. I hope that I have said sufficient to convince the House that it should accept this Order, and I will do whatever I can to answer questions that may arise. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Food Subsidies (Tea) (No. 2) Order 1974, laid before the House on November 19, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
7.12 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, those of us who are left here will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for having introduced this Order and for having explained what it is going to do. I was grateful to him for explaining how it becomes a No. 2 Order, and was slightly fascinated by the fact that apparently the officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and the officials of another place could not add up one to twenty-eight and come to the same conclusion. However, at least he explained how the error came about.
The noble Lord has introduced this Order and we would not dream of opposing it, but I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I believe it to be entirely misdirected in its efforts. I believe food subsidies to be wrong in principle; I believe them to be an extravagant use of public funds the results of which are not the results which the noble Lord's Government anticipate. I know that this is a subject upon which we on this side of the House and noble Lords opposite have differing views. We are now spending some £500 million a year in food subsidies, and the noble Lord brought along an Order this evening explaining that £29 million is to be used on subsidising tea. If we are to spend £29 million, I do not believe that this is the correct way to do so, nor do I believe that it is right to give a blanket subsidy on tea covering everyone, rich and poor alike, irrespective of circumstances and of their requirements.
The noble Lord said that this Order helped the old-age pensioner. I am all for helping old-age pensioners, but to give a subsidy like this to people who are not old-age pensioners in order to help those who are seems a rather fallacious way of proceeding. The noble Lord explained that 3½ oz. of tea was the average used by old-age pensioners. That means that this Order will give a subsidy of 2p per week or less to old-age pensioners. If that is what the noble Lord wishes to do, I cannot believe that this is the right way to do it and that there should be an expenditure of £29 million to achieve it.
The point which I should like to ask the noble Lord about is this. As I understood it, he said that the cost of living was going down by 0·1 per cent. I understood it was going down by 0·01

1111
per cent. Perhaps the noble Lord when he replies would let me know whether that was a slip of the tongue or is a fact. My understanding is that the effect of the subsidy will be to reduce the cost of living by one-hundredth of 1 per cent., and that is a very small sum for the expenditure of £29 million. It is said that tea is the typical Englishman's drink. So it is, but the argument which the noble Lord put forward was that people are moving away from tea to coffee, which is a more expensive drink. If that is so, why is it, therefore, necessary to subsidise tea? This seems extraordinary. When you think that the tea is being subsidised in order to make it cheaper to drink, is it not an extraordinary fact that the cost of the tea is the smallest item in the cost of a cup of tea? Both the sugar and milk are more expensive elements than the cost of the tea element. Why therefore is it necessary to subsidise it?
In fact, one can still buy tea at 10p for a quarter of a pound, and that allows for 50 cups of tea which makes five cups of tea for a penny. I find it extraordinary to think that, at this time of national and economic crisis, the Government can come along and say, "We are going to spend £29 million on subsidising tea" which is a traditional drink and also a cheap drink. I accept the noble Lord's premise that if he wishes to help old aged pensioners this is one way of doing it. With the greatest respect, however, the right way to do it is to help them directly and not subsidise food across the board in this manner. Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced this Order and explaining it to us.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, may I confirm the fact that the effect upon the retail price index is 01 per cent. There is not as much difference between the Government and the Opposition as it would appear. So far as we are concerned, subsidies are a temporary measure: first, to prevent prices from rising as fast as they otherwise would and, secondly, in so far as is possible while doing that, to direct as much subsidy as possible to those with lower incomes. The decisions announced recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer include changes in family allowances, pensions, et cetera. They are part of a long-term programme for controlling inflation and improving the situation of those who are in need. When circumstances make it possible, the Government will be ready to run down the subsidy programme, but this would have to be done in such a gradual way so as to avoid a sharp rise in food prices. That attitude is not much different from the attitude of the Party opposite, who stated in their programme at the recent Election that they would not interfere with the present subsidies in the present circumstances. I suggest there is not as much disagreement as the noble Earl suggests.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.