Lords Sitting of 3 February 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by The Lord Chancellor.

BARONESS VICKERS
Dame Joan Helen Vickers, DBE, having been created Baroness Vickers, of Devonport in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Northchurch and the Baroness Emmet of Amberley.
The Earl of Limerick—Took the Oath.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE DUKE OF NORFOLK
2.44 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, during the weekend we have been mourning the death of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who, as your Lordships will have heard, died in his sleep on Friday morning. I could not allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words in tribute to the memory of this great and popular man who figured prominently on all State occasions for nearly fifty years.
Bernard Norfolk was premier Duke and hereditary Earl Marshal. It is now 58 years since we paid tribute to the previous Earl Marshal, his father, who died in 1917 when his son was nine years of age. During Bernard Norfolk's minority, the Earl Marshal's duties were carried out by his uncle, the noble Lord, Lord Fitzalan. Then in 1929 he came of age and began his long life of public service. His career embodied all the traditional values of old English families and we should be grateful for the memory of a man who was a strenuous advocate of these virtues. The whole nation reconised him as its acknowledged master of
652
ceremonies. I believe that he was not too bright at school and that it surprised many that he became such a skilled administrator. He presided over two Coronations, the first when he was only 27 years old, three State funerals, a Royal Jubilee, a Royal Wedding and the Investiture of the Prince of Wales. For all this he was entitled to an annual salary—which he never drew—of £20, which has not been increased since 1483.
My Lords, the most moving of recent ceremonies which he organised was probably the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill and it is a matter of good fortune that such an important ceremony in the nation's history should have been conducted with such understanding. Whatever the occasion, he attended to every detail with military precision and scrupulous care. He would walk the route of processions with his own stop watch; he insisted on perfection in ceremonial, no matter how late in the day any faults had to be put right; and nobody at a State occasion was permitted to falter, not even the Earl Marshal as he walked backwards before his Sovereign. He was quite unflappable. I remember the rehearsal of the Opening of Parliament in 1964. When he asked me if I was sure I knew what to do, I commented that I did, but what about the rest—it seemed to me that the rehearsal was a complete shambles. "It's no worse than usual," was his reply. His confidence was proved justified by the dignity of the Opening on the following day.
My Lords, he was not a frequent attender at this House in recent years, though he held Office during the war as Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Agriculture in the all-Party Government under Churchill. Nevertheless, he took part in many public activities. He was a leading Catholic, like many of his forebears, and was President of the Catholic Union of Great Britain. His cricketing ability lead him to arrange an annual fixture for touring teams each season on his private ground at Arundel. It was not often that the noble Duke participated in such introduction ceremonies as we have seen today; but my mind goes back to when he graced the introduction of Leary Constantine, the great West Indian cricketer—a tribute both to the Caribbean and to cricket. Apart from

653
being a past president of the MCC he also managed an MCC tour to the West Indies and Australia in 1962; and this year it must have been a source of great regret to him that his dying weeks saw the dying hopes of winning the Ashes in Australia. Perhaps racing was his best-known sport and, as the Queen's Representative at Royal Ascot, he virtually ran the Berkshire course until he gave up the post in 1972.
He was Head of the College of Heralds and the unfailing arbiter of questions of precedence and protocol, and he also had the distinction of being the first Earl Marshal since 1737 to convene his own court, the High Court of Chivalry, to hear a case in 1954. Another sphere in which he was known to several of your Lordships was as chairman of the Association of Lieutenants of Counties, a duty which he fulfilled with welcome authority. He was a senior Knight of the Garter.
Born to privilege, he was ceaseless in his service to the country and community. He led a full life. I feel sure that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our condolences to his widow and daughters, and to assure them that we remember him most affectionately and will miss his dry humour, his delicate control and his devoted service to those in every walk of life with whom he came into contact. We shall miss him greatly.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has paid a most eloquent tribute to the late Duke of Norfolk, with which those of us who sit on these Benches should like to associate ourselves. The Duke of Norfolk's life covered such a wide range of interests that he will be remembered for many different reasons by many different people. In this Chamber his figure was perhaps most familiar, as the noble Lord recollected, walking backwards into the Chamber with great solemnity at many State Openings of Parliament. This was really only the tip of the iceberg. Below there lay genius—and I really mean "genius"—for the organisation of great State occasions: the funerals of King George V and Sir Winston Churchill; the Coronations of King George VI and the present Queen; and most of all in Wales will he
654
be remembered for the Investiture of the Prince of Wales at Caernarvon—a magnificent ceremony, one which he largely had to devise himself with little precedent to guide him and only a short half-day for a full rehearsal.
He did not often speak in this House, but some of your Lordships may well remember him in 1966 when he spoke up to his own Motion in defence of the Territorial Association, in which he played so large a part. He spoke without a note in his hand and gave a most impressive performance. Some will remember him as the leading layman in the Roman Catholic Church in this country; others as an enthusiastic sports-man, both at cricket—where he, with surprising success, managed the 1962-63 Australian tour and made many lifelong friends in Australia—and on the turf. It was certainly a very happy moment for him last year when he saw his sky blue and scarlet colours come first past the post on Ragstone in the Ascot Gold Cup.
But as well as a public figure, the Duke was a family man and behind that dignified ducal exterior there beat a warm and simple heart and a great sense of humour. He will be mourned by a host of friends of all sorts and conditions. I should like to echo especially the sympathy expressed to his wife and children, who gave him such loyal support through-out his life and were with him to support him at the end.
2.54 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to associate our-selves with the tributes which have just been paid by the two noble Lords. The Duke of Norfolk's career was a remarkable one. The aspect which many of your Lordships saw at fairly close quarters was his superb grasp of the practice of pageantry and ceremonial. Those of us who represented your Lordships' House at the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at Caernarvon will never forget the way the Duke took command of the rehearsal the night before. We were all impressed by his attention to minute detail and the improvements which he brought about effortlessly in the space of a few minutes to the great benefit of the ceremony on the following day. In particular, in no uncertain terms he told the Peers that

655
they had better smarten up their performance for the next day and, my goodness, how right he was! On the day we were very good indeed! He had that remarkable ability to pick out the things that were wrong and put them right very quickly indeed. The nation must be extremely grateful to have been so well served for many years by such a loyal servant. From these Benches we also extend sincere condolences to his widow and family.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, if I may I would join others who have paid such a great tribute to the Duke of Norfolk. He and I were brought up together, and, as one of a family, maybe I am too close to be able to judge all that he stood for, but I shall try, and I know that your Lordships will make allowances, particularly if in one or two respects I have to repeat what has already been said about all he did and all he stood for. He was born a Catholic, and had two ancestors who were Saints—St. Philip Howard and St. Thomas More. Religion was a daily part of his life; it was part of him and he served the Catholic Church well and faithfully.
He was an Englishman, a man of Sussex and Arundel, and was proud of Sussex and its people. All his life he played a full part in the doings of the county. He was a Yorkshireman and hunted the Holderness from his mother's home. He was a border Scot of the Solway with its geese and its wildfowl and he gave them a sanctuary. He was born to high estate but was one of the people—at one with them, simple and true. He was a countryman and he founded the Young Farmers' Clubs which are of great and lasting benefit to the land.
He was not a politician but he could bend Governments, and, as your Lordships will recall, one of his greatest triumphs was to lead the campaign to save Britain's Territorial Association with others of your Lordships and many throughout the country. He was not a man of business—he had no need to be —but he was a great showman, as the noble Leader and others have said. Look, my Lords, at the splendid things he did on State occasions! He was a very good organiser. Look at Ascot,
656
my Lords, which under his guidance be-came the finest race course in the country, or at least the equal of any other.
He believed in tradition, but brought television to its aid and was ready for new ideas—look at the cranes which dipped in honour of Sir Winston Churchill as his coffin travelled down the Thames, the road of London's history. He loved sports, he played them as a game and was rather good: shooting, tennis, golf—he once had a hole-in-one at Littlehampton—and cricket. Above all, cricket on his lovely Arundel ground where many great games were played for charity, and visiting teams from the Commonwealth often played their opening match. Your Lordships have already heard how he took the MCC teams to the West Indies and to Australia. It was hard work but he enjoyed it. His hosts enjoyed it also, and they took him to their hearts.
As for racing, I can well remember the start, because when we were children we studied form and we used to have shilling bets in coded telegrams to bookmakers. From those small beginnings came his great services to the racing world. As an owner in the last year, as we have heard, he had that great success with Ragstone when he routed a foreign challenge and won the Ascot Gold Cup. And in racing, his enthusiasms were shared with his beloved wife, Lavinia. Theirs was the happiest of lives together, and her devotion in the last weeks when he was ill was something never to be forgotten. In addition to his wife's support, he had the support of their sweet daughters. My Lords, when we and countless friends remember him, let us not be sad but grateful for the good that he has done lives after him.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I should like to say just a word of sympathy to the Duchess of Norfolk and her daughters because, by a freak of fortune, the paths of the Duke and myself crossed. He was interested in racing and so was I—but from a different social angle. As a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board I saw a great deal of him and had many talks with him regarding the re-erection of the stand at Ascot. From that time onwards we saw a great deal of each other; but we quarrelled, and we quarrelled publicly. He believed he was right—I am quite sure I was; but it is

657
that which makes me say what I want to say.
Here was a man of great honesty of purpose who saw his duty and did it to the best of his ability. He never dissembled, and to such men much may be forgiven. I mentioned the points on which we disagreed, and these will be familiar because they were not private quarrels. But there was another matter on which he and I were entirely at one: that was the Territorial Army, bearing in mind its traditions. I recall with great pleasure that it was from these Cross-Benches I first made a speech on that subject in support of his Motion.
I am sorry that the end has come, but in expressing that sorrow I realise only too well the great contribution this man made to the public life of this country. I repeat what I said at the beginning: my personal sympathy goes out, as I am sure does that of every Member of this House, to his family at this time.

HEALTH SERVICE: PROPRIETARY DRUGS
3.4 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action it is proposed to take to impress upon doctors in the National Health Service the importance of avoiding the use of expensive proprietary drugs where there is an unbranded drug in the national formulary of an equivalent value.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a policy of impressing upon doctors the importance of avoiding the prescribing of expensive proprietary drugs when suitable alternatives exist has been followed since the days of National Health Insurance and is still being prosecuted vigorously. It has been commended repeatedly, in particular by the Hinchliffe Committee on the Cost of Prescribing, in 1959. The Government have initiated a comprehensive review of the whole question of prescribing, notably the safety, quality and efficacy of existing medicinal products and have
658
sought the advice of the Medicines Commission about the content and standard of advertisements of medicines and about the best ways of keeping doctors informed about medicines.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that very full reply, which I am sure will make my noble friend very happy.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether any sanctions are operative against those doctors who repeatedly transgress in this matter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of any sanctions, but doctors whose prescriptions over the course of a year are found to be—and I am speaking entirely from memory—approximately 25 per cent, above the average for their district are seen by members of the medical profession on behalf of the Department at which time this increase is pointed out to them. There is a limit to the number of personal visits which can be made by the medical inspectors and, consequently, a large number of doctors receive letters. The outcome of this practice is found to be very satisfactory.

MENTALLY ABNORMAL OFFENDERS
3.6 p.m.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what positive action they intend to take in the near future to help the courts with the difficulties they are experiencing in dealing with mentally abnormal offenders who need psychiatric treatment but who must be kept in secure conditions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the House will know, the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders under the chairmanship of Lord Butler is currently considering all aspects of the difficult problems surrounding the law relating to and facilities available for the treatment of mentally abnormal offenders.

659
It is hoped that the Committee will present its final Report later this year. Meanwhile, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced on the receipt of the Committee's Interim Report, Regional Health Authorities have been urged to establish regional secure units and to make suit-able interim arrangements in advance of the completion of the units. The Government are also pressing on with plans for a fourth special hospital at Park Lane, Magull, near Liverpool.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he feels that the courts are placed in a quite invidious position at the present moment because of great overcrowding at the special hospitals? May I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many offenders have to be given places in custodial care in prisons because there are no secure units in any of the National Health Service hospitals?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to some extent this is so, but it has to be determined on the degree of subnormality of the offender. There are three very large secure institutions for this purpose: Rampton, Broadmoor and Moss Side; and some from Broadmoor have in fact been transferred to an advanced unit which is also in the Moss Side area. We are aware of the existing difficulties, but I do not think they are as numerous as we are sometimes led to believe. The very fact that there is some difficulty has caused the Government to make available money for the building of a fourth, which will provide something like 400 places. This will help to reduce the present overcrowding which exists in addition at Broadmoor.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is intended to rebuild Broadmoor?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The answer is, yes. It is intended that when Broadmoor is completely rebuilt it will accommodate only 500 inmates as compared with the present 800.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that we
660
have had this type of reply now for a very long time? Can he say how many new places have been provided, shall I say, during the last four years? This seems to be almost a recurring decimal, and we do not seem to get very far. We hear of the urgency, and yet the priorities appear to be very low for this type of treatment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, without notice I cannot give figures as to how many fresh places have been provided in recent years. My noble friend is quite right when he speaks of priorities; there are priorities in a number of fields. But we must bear in mind that the severely mentally handicapped, including those who are offenders, should be dealt with in the ordinary hospitals for the mentally handicapped. And so far as this Question is concerned we are concerned only with those who are particularly violent or a considerable risk to the community. Bearing that in mind, we have made some progress in recent years.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what improvements are being made as regards the staffing of these institutions; whether there are increases in the staff ratios, and, if not, what measures are being taken to put this right?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that matter because this is one of the problems with which this Government, and any Government, are faced: that is, finding suitable people to undertake the nursing work involved ; people who must have not only a sense of vocation but some rather fundamental training as distinct from basic training. There are training schemes for people who are willing to do this work, but the people concerned are in short supply. But some progress in that field has in fact already been made.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Committee are looking into the needs of the under 17s, the juveniles, as well as of those who are older?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know that I can give the noble Baroness a firm answer about that question. I am assuming that we are dealing

661
with the severely mentally handicapped regardless of age. Perhaps she will allow me to look at the matter and write to her on this point.

NORTH SEA OIL: PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 concrete platforms are now believed to be under construction for North Sea oilfields, how many of these are being built in the United Kingdom and for which oilfields are both categories of platform being built.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, seven concrete platforms are under construction or on order for oilfields in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. Three are being built in the United Kingdom for the Brent, Cormorant and Ninian fields. The remaining four platforms, two for the Brent field and one each for the Beryl and Dunlin fields, are being constructed abroad. A concrete platform for the Stratfjord field in the Norwegian sector is also being constructed abroad. One of the two concrete platforms required for the Frigg field, which is gas, is being built in the United Kingdom—I thought that I would add the number for gas fields, too.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that informative and helpful reply, and in particular for his last point concerning gas which I forgot to put in the Question, may I ask him whether or not he would think it is the case that further platform orders in respect of the smaller fields are being delayed while the companies concerned reappraise their investment programmes due to uncertainty about the tax regime to which they will be exposed?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, there are a number of reasons for the delay, including delays in the oil companies' appraisal
662
drilling owing to very bad weather. This year was by far the worst ever, as we all know. The effect has been to turn what would have been a peak in orders into a plateau extending into 1976. This is to the advantage both of the platform fabricators, because it spreads the ordering, and of the United Kingdom. We have had time to develop our own sites, whereas a year ago the Norwegians were very much in advance of us.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the longer these projects take to come to fruition the greater the effect of inflation at the present rate and the greater the shortage of cash for the companies concerned? Would he give an assurance that such organisations as Finance for Industry, FFI, are possibly to lend money to enhance and quicken the development of these important projects for our nation?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am sorry that I shall not be able to answer the second part of the question because I have not prepared for it. So perhaps the noble Lord will put down a further Question, or I can communicate with him directly in writing, just as he wishes. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, the noble Lord must have seen the Statement by my right honourable friend in another place in which he explained our policy in regard to the weaker companies. The Government have of course given certain guarantees; they have intervened in the case of a larger company which got into difficulties. We are doing our very best to ensure that no financial troubles should aggravate a situation which has been, as I said, aggravated by the weather.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to say if the eight rigs to which he referred in his Answer are for exploratory development work or for more permanent siting?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I shall have to answer this question from memory and therefore I would not want to be dogmatic about it, but I think they are for both purposes.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that the plateau in platform building is now becoming a rising incline?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, for the moment I cannot give that assurance. At the moment if I were an oil company director, I should certainly try to frighten the Government into further undue concessions because I should be acting as a trustee of my shareholders.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question on a point of order? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has a Question on the Order Paper which has not been asked. Would he observe that Her Majesty's Government are being asked to take action on the basis of a Times report and a report contained in a book? Clearly (I am sure my noble friend will agree), Her Majesty's Government can have no responsibility whatever for every article that appears in every newspaper in this country, and I do not—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I put the question to my noble friend: has he considered the implications of the Question standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone? I am sure he would agree that the Question itself is in order in technical terms. But what possible responsibility does he consider have the Government for reports in The Times and reports in a book, and where does it take us? Does it mean that every Member of this House is entitled to raise questions here arising from any article which appears in any newspaper or any book? Would it not be a matter for consideration that Her Majesty's Government should consider whether it should not be that Questions on the Order Paper—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he will consider the advisability of asking the House to agree that Questions placed on the Order Paper should in some way, however remote, have something to do with the responsibility of the Government.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House answers, may I ask whether we are not still dealing with the Question following the Question to which the noble Lord,
664
Lord Wigg, has referred? I believe that a noble Lord on this side wanted to ask a supplementary question about oil.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that was so. But the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, put a question to me and your Lordships permitted him so to do. This seems in fact to have moved us on to another matter. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has asked me is whether I should give thought to the Question that is on the Order Paper in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I would say to the House that he is perfectly entitled—it is within Standing Orders—to raise that as subject matter. So far as my position is concerned, it is in no way different from that of any other Member of your Lordships' House. It is for the House itself to decide whether a Question or Motion should be on the Order Paper, and whether it should be put. My position is no different.
In regard to trying to lay down tighter rules about the direction of a question or a Motion, I am quite willing to look at it; but I recognise that your Lordships' House has few Rules and we do remarkably well as a consequence. I myself would not wish to tighten the Rules unnecessarily if only to place a restriction upon your Lordships' House. I will look at the matter, but I have to say to my noble friend that the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, put on the Order Paper is in my view within the Rules of your Lordships' House and I think we should leave it there.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would it be possible to return to the matter about which we were directing questions? May I therefore ask the noble Lord who was good enough to answer the Question which I put down whether or not he would agree that although the weather factor is undoubtedly one that has delayed investment appraisals in the North Sea, there is also the fact of uncertainty about the fiscal regime to be accepted? Would it not be well to recognise that both factors are relevant to the matter in hand?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Earl would

665
have understood my tactful allusion to the problems of company directors and their actions. So far as the taxation problem is concerned, I should have thought that I am the last person not to be very worried about the length of time it took us; but I can assure the noble Earl that the time which was taken was in order to have extended discussions with the oil companies. It is a unique sort of tax, and therefore it poses exceedingly difficult problems of principle to the Inland Revenue. We wish to sup-port the industry as much as possible within the aims laid down in the Manifesto.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the Government's proposals for participation are creating even more uncertainty due to undermining the borrowing base of the oil companies; and could he tell the House when the uncertainties regarding both participation and the tax regime are likely to be resolved?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am somewhat astonished by the noble Lord's assertion that participation should cause difficulties on finance. On many other things it may cause difficulties and misgivings, but so far as finance is concerned it is obvious, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said, that (1) the oil companies will financially be in the same position as before, and (2) their cash flow may be enormously increased. So the participation point, when the noble Lord thinks it over, is not one which stands up. So far as the taxation point is concerned, we are only too glad to have the opinions of the oil companies, and I think noble Lords will find that in the end our reticence to impose premature taxation has paid off.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's assertion of all these noble platitudes but, with respect, he has not answered my question as to when he expects these negotiations to come to fruition.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I apologise. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I find almost inalienable difficulties in pronouncing that title—said the day before
666
yesterday in New York that he hoped to announce the tax date before the end of this month, and as soon as the tax date is announced and therefore the structure of the financial situation is clear, I think we shall then begin to make progress with the negotiations on those oilfields the owners of which have not yet offered us participation.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the degree of work on platforms now coming to British firms? Is there any effort made when squares are being allocated in the North Sea to do a little refined blackmail, in the sense that those American firms which agree to place their orders with British firms would perhaps get priority in the squares they require?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, my noble friend surely means not "blackmail" but "persuasion".
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to revert to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, which I think is a matter of some importance. It is not new to the House. Some of your Lordships may remember that I raised the same point when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was sitting on this side of the House and asked Her Majesty's Government of the day whether they would comment upon certain Press reports of, I think, some African country? It seems to me that if the Rules of the House, which we ourselves make, are so wide as to allow this practice, which in another place would certainly not be allowed, surely the remedy lies with the Government and that the Minister may say, "Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for this. Therefore I do not answer the question".
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. It is quite open to any noble Lord, within the Rules of the House to put down a Question, and for the Government to decide whether they wish to reply to it, although in practice they do. If I may say so, I should like to consider whether or not the Question on the Order Paper, is for the Government. If the noble Lord is intending to put down a Question on the matter we shall have to deal with it when it is put. However, I think I ought to say that on my reading of it, the Question on the

667
Order Paper is within the Rules of your Lordships' House.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, since I am acting as Leader of the Opposition, may I say a few words. My Lords, I think we have already passed this Question which was not asked, and we are quite out of order in starting a debate about it. I would suggest, if I may, that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee rather than it be debated at the moment.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, that is precisely the point I wished to put before the noble Lord opposite intervened. It seems to me that we are now violating the Rules of the House. If there is any question of procedure to be raised it must be done in the normal fashion, either by approaching the Chairman of Committees or the Clerks of the House, or by putting a Question on the Order Paper. If I may say with great respect, when my noble friend the Leader of the House replied to my noble friend Lord Wigg, he was violating the Rules of the House. He should have ignored the question.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, so long as my noble friend allows me to treat him in the same way as he suggests I should have treated my other noble friend, I will accept his advice. My Lords, I suspect we are making rather a mountain out of a very small molehill. I will certainly consider whether it should go to the Procedure Committee, but I would suggest to your Lordships that we now have other things to do of far greater importance.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, once a Question appears on the Order Paper and the Member of this Chamber is not in attendance to ask his Question, there is a set period of time in the order of procedure before such Question can be repeated on the Order Paper?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, everything is entirely up to your Lordships' House. It is for your Lordships' House to decide whether a Question should remain on the Order Paper or whether it should be put. There is no time limit so far as I am aware, other than that within which it becomes finished when it has been dealt with by your Lordships' House. I suggest with great respect to all that we should now move to the next business.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
3.30 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Lomé Convention between the European Economic Community and the developing countries.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will have noticed that, like the four Bills which will follow, it is a Consolidation Bill. It is one part of the massive consolidation of the enactments relating to National Insurance and social security dealt with in the five Bills, and the sheer bulk of the operation may be judged by the volumes which I hold in my hand. It is the main Bill for Great Britain and it consolidates the remaining parts of the National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1974 and the relevant provisions in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1965 to 1974, the Social Security Act 1973 and the Social Security Amendment Act 1974.
If your Lordships agree, each of these Bills will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for their detailed examination, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I—and I believe that here I speak on behalf of the House generally—appreciate the invaluable work done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and his Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their contribution to the continuing task of tidying up the Statute Book and

669
maintaining the impetus of law reform. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SOCIAL SECURITY (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the main Bill for Northern Ireland and it consolidates the remaining National Insurance Measures (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1974 and the other relevant enactments extending to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It consolidates the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1967 and the subsequent enactments which have amended it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (NORTHERN IRELAND OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill for Northern Ireland only and it consolidates the legislation in force in that Province
670
corresponding to part of the "Old Cases Acts" in force in great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It gives effect to all the repeals, transitional provisions, savings and consequential amendments of the Statute Books of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland which result from, or are made necessary by, the four Bills to which the House has just given a second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord CROWTHER-HUNT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, looking through Hansard I find that, since all my remarks were aimed at trying to improve the effectiveness of this Bill, I failed to make it clear that we on this side of the House are in sympathy with and welcome its general provisions as regards residential students and the 85 per cent, grant. I should like to put that on Record.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RACE RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to deal with one aspect of racial discrimination not covered by the 1968 Act, which I maintain could quite readily be treated separately from any other provisions which may be found necessary in the light of the review which was announced recently by the Home Secretary. The need to make discrimination by clubs unlawful has been highlighted by the decisions of the courts in the Charter and Preston Dockers' Labour Club cases which successfully limited the interpretation of the words "section of the public" in Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, thus contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of that Act.
Parliament is certainly to blame for using words in the parent Act which can be construed in several different ways, and it may well be that as part of this review which is being conducted by the Home Secretary an unambiguous definition of the words "section of the public" should be framed. In the meanwhile, however, the earliest opportunity has to be taken to reverse the damage which has been caused by these particular rulings of the court. Immense damage to community relations has already been caused, and it is calculated to ensure that racism is strongly entrenched in a large and important sector of the social life of the country if matters are left untouched for any longer.
If I may briefly summarise these cases, in the Charter case Mr. A. S. Shah, who was of Indian origin, applied for membership of the East Ham Conservative Club. Mr. Shah was a paid-up member of the East Ham Conservative Association and he had been properly proposed and seconded as a prospective member of the club. Although normally in these circumstances his election would have been a mere formality, the rules of the club provided that the committee had the last word, and Mr. Shah's application was rejected upon the casting vote of the chairman, who admitted quite frankly that at the meeeting his vote had been determined purely on racial grounds. The court held that because a club is essentially a private association of individuals
672
and that the word "public" in Section 2(1) was used in the sense opposed to "private", the subsection does not apply to bona fide clubs where approval of membership applications is discretionary.
Then the scope for discrimination was even further widened in the Dockers' Labour Club case. In that case Mr. Anthony Sherrington was a member of the Meadow Street Labour Club in Preston. That club is affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. Altogether there are some 4,000 clubs which belong to this Union, with a combined total membership of 3½ million people. Any member of one club has the right of access to any of the other clubs belonging to the Union, so long as his subscription is paid up and he has obtained an associate card issued by the Union. Strictly speaking, this right is subject to the approval of the committee of the club which the member is visiting, but in practice it is never denied so long as the visitor behaves himself and so long as he is white.
Mr. Sherrington, who is not while, went to the Dockers' Labour Club as an associate with his friend, Mr. Moulding, who is a member of that club. He ordered a round of drinks, but before they could be served the secretary took Mr. Sherrington aside and asked him to leave, making it absolutely clear that he was the wrong colour. "We do not serve anyone who is coloured here", the secretary, Mr. Chamley, said to Mr. Sherrington. My Lords, the motto of the working men's club is: "Honour all men! love one another; use hospitality to one another; be not forgetful of strangers". Mr. Chamley and the other committee members who exclude black people from their club while professing to uphold these principles are nauseating hypocrites. As Lord Diplock said in his judgment:
"If everyone were rational and humane—or for that matter, Christian—no legal sanction would be needed to prevent one man being treated less favourably than another simply on the ground of his colour, race or ethnic or national origins".
Since Mr. Chamley is evidently neither Christian nor humane, and since there are known to be many other clubs whose committees follow the same racist policies, there is a need for legal sanctions, just as there is in the field of housing, employment and in that part of the social

673
life which is already treated by the courts as being in the public domain.
I have no hesitation in saying that an overwhelming majority of your Lordships and of the Members of another place would agree that the behaviour of the East Ham Conservative and the Preston Dockers' Clubs was loathsome and deplorable. The question is simply whether Parliament should put an end to racism in clubs or whether, by reference to the principle of individual liberty, we should allow that racism to continue and to over-ride our hatred of discrimination.
The freedom of individuals to get together and form clubs or associations with others, selected on whatever arbitrary criteria they may choose, is not at issue. What I claim is offensive in the extreme is to pretend that all Conservatives or working men, as the case may be, are eligible to join or to take advantage of the facilities provided by the club and then to exercise a further and unwritten restriction purely on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origin. On the other hand, the freedom of all black Conservatives or of all black working men has been severely restricted by the courts. They know that they are not going to be welcome in the particular notorious clubs which I have mentioned, but they may also be fearful of risking insult by visiting other similar premises. According to the Observer the Race Relations Board had to drop another 18 similar cases that were on its books at the time of the ruling on the Preston Dockers' Labour Club case. Probably that was only the tip of the iceberg and there is in fact a great deal more racism in clubs which has not come to the notice of the Race Relations Board. Thus black people will have been warned off several thousands of clubs which are enjoyed by millions of their white fellow citizens, and that is a most devastating encroachment on civil liberties.
Nor is it only black people who are likely to be the victims of prejudice. Jews may also find themselves excluded now that anti-Semitic committees will know that they will be upheld by the courts. The undermining of the freedom of minorities is incalculably more serious both in its direct effects and in the way in which it creates second-class citizens whose rights may be arbitrarily withheld,
674
than any supposed erosion of the freedom to discriminate of the Alf Garnetts of Preston or East Ham. It is an ordinary right of association which has been removed by the courts while it is the right to commit a very great moral offence which has been upheld.
In this respect I think Professor John Griffith does not put the case strongly enough when he argues, as he did in the New Statesman of 22nd November last, that racial discrimination should be viewed not as an individual right but as a social wrong. It is a social wrong, of course, but it is also a most grave individual wrong; and it requires but little insight to appreciate what must have been the feelings of Mr. Sherrington when he was unceremoniously bundled out of the Preston Dockers' Labour Club in front of his friends.
However, those feelings are as nothing compared with the great wave of apprehension that has swept the minority communities since any redress was denied to Mr. Sherrington by the courts. Mr. A. A. Khan of Bradford, writing to the BBC programme Any Answers, expressed it extremely well. He said:
"The decision confirms some of the worst fears that we, the coloured people, feel about our future here.… How can it ever be imagined that in the face of such an inhuman practice these coloured people who have made England their home, and who are sincerely keen and anxious to play their part, however small, in making Britain truly great, will give their trust and loyalty to this country?"
The only reply that can be given to Mr. Khan so far is that a great many individuals and organisations are just as horrified as he was and are already doing what they can to minimise the damage. The TUC are planning a meeting with the Club and Institute Union to discuss the ways in which clubs can be persuaded not to practise discrimination. Equity is strengthening an instruction which has already been issued to its members not to appear in clubs which practise the colour bar. The Blackpool Trades Club is running a campaign against the decision in the Preston Dockers' Club case and an opinion poll conducted by ORC shows an 8 to 1 majority by clubs against discrimination and also a clear majority for making it illegal, as proposed in this Bill.
The Home Secretary has said that he shares the concern expressed about the

675
effect on race relations of the courts' decisions on the clubs and that he is considering what is needed to correct the situation. But he prefers not to deal with this problem in isolation from the wider review of the Race Relations Acts, and because that involves a great deal of consultation he cannot promise any early legislation. This means that nothing can be expected to happen during this Session of Parliament, and indeed there is no guarantee that space will be found in the 1975–76 timetable.
I am not going to say that the solution proposed in this Bill is the ideal one, or that it may not require modification in the light of the consultations now being undertaken, but at least it would prevent the canker of racism spreading any further among the clubs while more comprehensive legislation is being prepared. It is a simple, one-clause Bill that would take up very little Parliamentary time—hardly any more than the five consolidation measures that your Lordships have passed earlier this afternoon. It says plainly that it shall be unlawful for a club to discriminate against a person either by refusing him membership on like terms as other persons applying for membership, or by treating him, when a member, differently from other members, except when the essential nature of the club is to provide facilities for persons of a particular descent or a particular national or ethnic origin.
Obviously, the raison d'être of the London Welsh Rugby Club and the Caledonian Club is to provide facilities for Welsh and Scots respectively, and it is quite reasonable for them to deny membership to Englishmen. But the clubs for Conservatives, working men, anglers, cricketers, travellers or university graduates would not, and should not, be permitted to discriminate. Of course having made provision for bona fide associations of Scots, Welsh or any other nationality it was at the same time impossible to avoid allowing overtly racist clubs to operate. For instance, a Burnham-on-Crouch patrials' sailing club would be legal under the provisions of this Bill, but I believe that the pressure of public opinion would be quite strong enough to prevent this from happening extensively, if at all.
We are not dealing here merely with a "grubby little incident", as the Daily
676
Telegraph described Mr. Sherrington's case. The unanimous opinion of all those who are concerned with race relations in this country, including Six Geoffrey Wilson, Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, the National Association of Community Relations Officers, and so on, is that a serious loophole in the law has been disclosed by these cases; that great damage might be caused so long as it is allowed to continue, and that legislation to stop up that loophole should be introduced in the present Session. The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has said in so many words that he will do so when he is ready with his more comprehensive provisions. If there has to be a delay, the success of the rest of the package will be jeopardised because with every minute that passes, racism will become more strongly entrenched in the social life of clubs used by millions. Let us act now before the disaster spreads too far to be healed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Avebury.)
3.51 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am in complete sympathy with the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I think, also, that his request to the Government for urgency is extremely important, but it needs more than an Amendment to the Race Relations Act 1968 to clarify and rationalise our legislation on race discrimination. As was said by the noble Lord, the recent case of Mr. Sherrington, which finished up in the House of Lords, exposed the weaknesses of the Act. Personally, long ago I gave up any hope of penetrating the language in which Bills are drafted and presented to Parliament. But when the lawyers begin to shred these Bills and to dissect out the meaning from the words, the layman finds these legal documents puzzling and often inscrutable. Ordinary mortals are caught up in a legal maze from which there appears to be no exit to Parliament's intention.
My Lords, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the last few years several cases have exposed such weaknesses in the wording of the Race Relations Act 1968. The most recent example has been the case of Mr. Sherrington that was referred to in this debate. This was a clear case of colour

677
discrimination. Mr. Sherrington was born in this country; he is a coloured Englishman. Incidentally, his British citizenship was never referred to. He became a member of a working men's club in Preston, I believe it was. This club had no colour bar. Members of this type of club qualify to become associates of clubs in other districts, and are entitled to enjoy the facilities offered by these other clubs. However, as has been said, when Mr. Sherrington visited the Dockers' Labour Club, he was asked to leave, because this club exercises a colour bar. The matter was reported to the Race Relations Board, who brought an action against the Dockers' Labour Club in Manchester County Court, and judgment was given in favour of the Race Relations Board. The Dockers' Labour Club proceeded to appeal to the House of Lords, where five noble and learned Lords reversed the judgment and allowed the appeal. Briefly, as I understand it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the question on which this final judgment turned was on the definition of the meaning of the words "private or public" as applied to the Dockers' Labour Club. Obviously there was doubt and ambiguity about the interpretation of these words or this case would not have reached the House of Lords—nor, I may add, would it have had such a barren result.
Further, I find it hard to believe that these noble and learned judges were unaware of the intention of Parliament in the Race Relations Act. So I will risk the accusation of gross ignorance of the law, and a charge of bias—I plead guilty on both counts—and ask the question, "Why was it not possible to give Mr. Sherrington the benefit of the doubt?". Anyone reading the statements made by these distinguished noble and learned Lords—anyone trying to understand the verbal contortions and legal acrobatics—might be excused for thinking that this judgment was unfair. They might even wonder whether the appeal allowed to the Dockers' Labour Club was a forensic misinterpretation of the intention of Parliament which ran counter to what Parliament meant to say. I mean no disrespect to these noble and learned Lords, but I venture to say that if similar judgments follow in cases of racial discrimination such as this—and the noble
678
Lord, Lord Avebury pointed this out, too —it might be that the House of Lords, the highest court of appeal in the land, will acquire the reputation of being the last bastion of injustice.
My Lords, colour discrimination is per-haps the meanest discrimination of all, because it is the most primitive and irrational. It is most important and urgent that the Government should examine and review all aspects of discrimination in our national life so that our laws may properly reflect the intentions of Parliament as understood by the public at large, and not only by lawyers. The ball is now in the Government's court.

EEC/ACP CONVENTION OF LOMÉ
3.58 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVTES of HASTOE: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, which reads:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the conclusion of the Protocol 22 negotiations between the Community and 46 developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, in which the sugar negotiations had a vital role to play. I told the House in my Statement on 31st July, after the Conference in Kingston, Jamaica, that a major concern to us was the need to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth countries concerned. I am glad to be able to report that I believe that our joint British and Commonwealth efforts have succeeded. In Brussels on Saturday morning we agreed the text of a Convention which, after submission to ACP Ministers in Accra on 11th February, will be signed in Lomé the capital of Togo, on 28th February.
"The Agreement has rightly been described as historic. In its detail, it embodies a new economic relationship between the developing countries concerned and the industrialised nations of the Community. It is my hope that it may, in the longer term, contribute towards a new international order in the relationships between industrialised and developing countries, for example,

679
in influencing the conclusions of the UNCTAD next year.
"The Agreement provides for the free entry into the Community market of industrial products, and almost complete free entry for agricultural pro-ducts from the developing countries."
Satisfactory arrangements have now been made on sugar.
"I should mention particular points of concern to Commonwealth countries which have been satisfactorily resolved: beef, which is important to Botswana, Swaziland and Kenya; and bananas, and white rum, which are important to the countries of the Caribbean. A most important new element in this Convention is that there is no requirement for reciprocity except a provision for at least Most Favoured Nation treatment to Community exports in the markets of the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The Community has thus taken a valuable major step away from the requirement of reverse preferences which was built into the previous Convention, and towards the kind of trade relations for which UNCTAD has called.
"A further most important innovation, for which the groundwork was laid in Kingston, is the new scheme of stabilisation of export earnings for commodities. It will cover such commodities as cocoa, coffee, cotton and copra; and one, but only one, mineral, iron ore. This scheme was one to which the developing countries attached very great importance.
"In relation to aid, the Community offer of approximately £1,600 million (including payments on commodity stabilisation) plus a further £200 million of softened loans from the European Investment Bank has been accepted by the ACP countries, although it is less than they would have wished. They made it clear, however, that they regarded development as being essentially a matter for them, and that they did not wish to bargain on the figure.
"I am glad to report that on one major question of great concern to the ACP countries—the title of the new Convention—it was possible to reach agreement. The concept of Association
680
is to be dropped. The new Convention will simply be known as the ACP/EEC Convention of Lomé. To some extent this is a symbolic change. But it reflects a new relationship, which replaces paternalism by co-operation. I cannot pay enough tribute to the role which our Commonwealth countries and their negotiators have played in securing this. I have been very glad to be able to understand and support them in so much that they were seeking to achieve. I would also like to express my own personal warm appreciation of the steady and consistent contribution made by Sir Michael Palliser and his staff in securing such a successful outcome to these negotiations. There are, of course, many details of the new Convention which the House will wish to know. I pro-pose as soon as possible to make the text available to the House.
"As far as British renegotiation objectives are concerned, the position is that, following the agreement in Brussels on Saturday, a great deal will now depend on a successful conclusion to the meeting of Development Ministers to be held in March, when I will be seeking to ensure that Commonwealth countries not covered by the Convention receive their due share of EEC aid."
My Lords, that I am afraid was a long Statement and I am sure your Lordships will agree an important one.
4.2 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating to the House that important Statement which we on this side welcome. I also want to congratulate her right honourable friend on so successfully participating in these negotiations which began some eighteen months ago when we were in Office. However, the Statement gives rise to certain questions. What, for instance, will happen to the Convention, our obligations under it and the benefits granted to the forty-six developing countries—some of them members of the Commonwealth—if Britain attempts to pull out of the EEC following a negative result in the Referendum? Since the new Convention does not come into effect until the end of the month, are there any plans to carry over the pro-visions of the Yaoundé Convention and

681
the Arusha Agreement which finished at the end of January? In relation to the agreement on trade, what does the Statement mean by, "almost complete free entry" and how does this fit in with the provisions of the Common Agricultural Policy?
I personally welcome the virtual end of reverse trade preferences. Furthermore, what is the estimated cost of the new stabilisation scheme and at what level will it operate? Since the level of Community aid has now been settled at approximately £1,600 million, what will be the percentage contributions of the EEC Member States to the EDF? Lastly, can the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that there will be no reduction of existing aid, as a result of this agreement, to those developing countries within the Commonwealth that are not associated with the Community?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would forgive me, as it is such a very technical subject, if I answered those seven appallingly difficult questions before the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, speaks. In the first place, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for his extremely generous tribute to my right honourable friend. She has had a wonderful success and it has taken eighteen months and a marathon twenty-four hour sitting to achieve it. I shall pass on the noble Earl's comments to her. As to the noble Earl's hypothetical question about what happens if we leave the EEC, it will be up to the ACP countries themselves—all forty-six of them—including those in the Commonwealth, to decide what form they wish to retain links with the United Kingdom. That is the best answer I can give the noble Earl.
As regards the question about what the Statement meant by "almost free", as I think he knows this refers to the agricultural products. Broadly, I think I can explain that where the ACP's interests overlap with the Community's interests there is not always free entry. But I should like to underline the major triumphs secured on beef and sugar, both of which overlap Community and Commonwealth interests, so that the remaining ones are very much less important. I think the noble Earl asked about the
682
level of the stabilisation scheme. I was not quite sure what he meant by that, but I think I can say that if any of those countries are dependent for more than 7½ per cent, of their export earnings on 11 specific commodities, then they will be eligible for help; if those earnings then fall below more than 7½ per cent. they will be made up by the Common Market. Of course for the less developed 24 countries it will be 2½ per cent. below their average level. The noble Earl also asked about the level of contribution. The United Kingdom will be contributing 18·7 per cent., and Germany and France, for instance, will be contributing 25·9 per cent. I hope that those answers have more or less satisfied the noble Earl.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we should also like to thank the noble Baroness for making the Statement, and to congratulate her right honourable friend on the negotiations on this subject. I should like to repeat and emphasise what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, that this surely shows what a terrific advantage it is for this country to be a Member of the EEC. There is one other point which I should like to raise and it is an agricultural one. While in no way trying to jeopardise the interests of the Commonwealth countries concerned over sugar, may I say that the deal that was done the other day will mean that cane sugar will cost nearly twice as much as the British farmer is paid for his beet sugar. Could Her Majesty's Government try to bring the British fanner slightly more into line with the Common-wealth producers, as charity sometimes begins at home?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I agree about charity beginning at home and I am quite sure that the noble Earl will be stumping the country during the Referendum putting his views on the Common Market. As to sugar, I should not like to deal with specifically domestic issues, as this is a question about overseas countries, the Commonwealth, and their relations with the EEC. But, broadly, what the Sugar Agreement has secured is that it gives the Commonwealth producing countries an assured future and it gives us an assured supply.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this is another

683
example of the Common Market chickens coming home to roost? This country has been faced with a shortage of sugar and with paying a vastly increased price through the negotiations carried on by the Minister of Agriculture, and I certainly do not congratulate him either on the result, or on the competence with which he has carried them out. The situation which faces this country is a direct result of the incompetence of the Conservative Government, which is normal so I will not underline it. Is the noble Baroness also aware that the object of the policy here is ultimately to get this country and all the countries in the EEC relying upon beet sugar produced on the Northern plains of France, and that if we do not mind out we shall once again find this country short of sugar and paying a vastly increased price for what supplies we do get?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend about the incompetence of the previous Government, I do not agree with him about the incompetence of Her Majesty's present Ministers.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, am I right in assuming from what the noble Baroness has said that the Common-wealth Sugar Agreement has now totally lapsed?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as the Minister is aware I put down a Private Notice Question asking for this Statement, and therefore I welcome it very much I am not sure from the news in this morning's papers, or even from the full Statement which the Minister has made, that we yet understand the significance of this Agreement. In my view, the decisions which have been reached will alter the whole relationship of the developing countries with Europe and with this country. I want to express my appreciation of the service which the Minister of Agriculture has rendered, and more particularly for the remarkable contribution which the Minister for Overseas Development has made in reaching this conclusion.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is not often
684
that on this Bench we receive praise from my noble friend. It is therefore all the more welcome. I most heartily echo what he says. Coming from a man of his experience of the developing countries, it is worth doubly much.
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this Agreement is both a tribute to the unity of the 46 ACP countries and also to the flexibility of the Community, particularly as they did not insist on reverse preferences? Could the noble Baroness say a little more about sugar? As I understand it, despite the Sugar Agreement this country will still be nearly three-quarters of a million tons short of our needs. Could she say whether further negotiations are going on with the sugar producing countries through the EEC, which will involve a subsidy to the United Kingdom if the price is not to rise?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should not like to answer the last part of the question about the subsidy, because I have not really been briefed on it. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, as I am sure she knows from her past experience, that these negotiations go on all the time. As to the immediate supply of sugar to this country, which we all know was a very real problem, I think we can say that that difficulty is almost completely solved.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the short-fall in supplies of cane sugar is attributable to the negotiations which were started to take this country into the Common Market? One found the extraordinary situation in 1972 that in Jamaica, a prolific sugar producer, there was a complete absence of sugar for sale in the shops. The curtailment of supply will continue and will get worse, unless there is a guaranteed market, or an alternative market. There is an alternative market already arising in the Soviet Union. One of the reasons why I assert that the negotiations have not been carried on very competently is that a price has been determined at the point when the countries behind the Iron Curtain have been heavy buyers of forward sugar.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that I had

685
better answer this point before the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asks a question, not that I could answer adequately without making a very long speech. I do not think it is true to lay all our sugar troubles at the door of the Community, and I should like to echo what the noble Baroness said about this whole Agreement being such a tribute to the unity of the ACP countries, which has not been seen before, and to the flexibility of the Community.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that had it not been for the Community we should now be paying far more for our sugar? Secondly, would she also agree that the allegation which we too often hear nowadays, to the effect that the Community is in some way inward-looking, is totally disproved by the recent agreement in Kingston, Jamaica?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the House will not expect me to agree with all the views of the noble Lord on the EEC, but in this particular case I am bound to say that I find myself astonishingly on his side.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, while welcoming very much the signature of the ACP/EEC Convention of Lomeé and the fact that Her Majesty's Government will be contributing 18·7 per cent, towards the European Development Fund, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would agree that we should have closer contacts with the Francophone countries of Africa —in effect, the 19 countries of the Yaoundé Convention, the AASM countries? From a Written Answer that I received on 30th January, it would appear that we have had very little contact over the last four years. Do Her Majesty's Government not feel that greater contacts are desirable, and that there will be increased opportunities for this? We also shall be subscribing to funds which will be going to those countries, and therefore it is in our interests and those of the developing countries that we should get closer together in the months and years to come.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am in entire agreement that it is of special importance
686
that the Francophone countries and ourselves should get together, and that the Community provides a good platform for this to be done. I must admit that I think that the Lomé Convention is a very much better one than the Yaoundé Agreement, and I am glad that we have substituted it for that. I know that the noble Lord will be glad to know that Mr. Ba, the Senegalese Foreign Minister, played an active and able part in these negotiations. This is precisely the kind of thing that we want to see.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not realise, in her anxiety to excuse or pay tribute to the flexibility of the Common Market, that it is a simple economic fact that price tends to the level at which supply and demand will equate? In 1970 it was clear that this country, regardless of its well-being, would be forced into the Common Market, and it would lead to a curtailment of the production of cane sugar throughout all those countries that were producing that commodity. The consequence is that as it is a seven-year cycle the shortage is bound to get worse, and the price will rise.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, one of the things which contributed to the shortage of cane sugar was the fact that as the countries who produced it became more prosperous the people did not go out and cut the cane, and who can blame them? My noble friend is one of the greatest and best advocates of good employment and not degrading and harsh employment, so I should have thought that he would be glad about that. I shall now wear my other hat as Chief Whip and say that I think that we have had a very good run on this Statement. We have a lot of business today, and if your Lordships agree with me perhaps we may pass on.

RACE RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, to revert to the Race Relations Bill, I should like to express my appreciation of the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the very forthright declaration made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will give facilities

687
for this Bill. I understand their difficulties. More than two years ago the Race Relations Board made recommendations in their annual report for fundamental changes in the Race Relations Act. In this House I introduced an amending Bill which reflected those recommendations. The answer of Her Majesty's Government was sympathetic and indicated that the matter was under review. I have since had conversations with the Home Secretary, and I know that it is his desire to reintroduce in the next Session of Parliament an amending Bill, which I hope will include most of the recommendations of the Race Relations Board.
I regret that consideration will be postponed until the next Session, which will probably mean that its application will be postponed until January 1977, but I appreciate that the Home Secretary intends, meanwhile, to introduce a Bill dealing with sex discrimination. I welcome the fact that the proposals for that Bill admit in the case of sex discrimination all that we have been demanding in the case of racial discrimination. It is true that the recommendations of the Race Relations Board included the proposals contained in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. But I want to submit to the Government that this was only an incidental proposal to much more fundamental changes in the function of the Race Relations Act, and that, while a review is being made of those much larger issues, Her Majesty's Government, in view of the delay involved, should immediately deal with the problem which is raised in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I do not think that there is any doubt among the Members of this House that when the Race Relations Act was discussed, although it was the intention of Parliament that clubs of a political character—excluding those which did not accept a specialist basis, and national clubs, whose members were of a distinct race—should have the right to determine their membership, in the case of clubs which extend to the whole community, and which have no specialist basis, race discrimination and the colour bar should not apply. I do not think there is any doubt that that was the view of Parliament. But, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell has indicated, the terminology
688
of the Act seems to have been such that the Law Lords could decide that it did not apply in this case.
I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House are frequent attenders at the great working-class clubs which now exist in the North. They are the modern music hall. The whole population goes to them. I have been in these clubs in Lancashire where I have met a bank manager and a solicitor. The occasions are such that the whole community are gathered around their tables, men and women having their drinks, listening to star entertainers who are now often paid more money at these clubs than for television appearances. They are such community occasions that to apply race discrimination to them, as well as the colour bar, is a denial of the whole principle of racial equality.
I want to suggest that, in view of the fact that any amending Bill to the Race Relations Act introduced by the Government, which reviews its whole range of functions and which extends them greatly, must be postponed in application, probably until January 1977, the immediate issue should be dealt with urgently. If it is not, the racial feeling that has been occasioned by the House of Lords judgment will become intensified and race relations will worsen during this whole period. This issue is not a part of the review which Her Majesty's Government are making of the entire functions of the Race Relations Board. It is incidental to it; it is separate from it and it ought to be dealt with separately. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to the passage of this quite small Bill, which will, nevertheless, have a very considerable effect in improving the race relations of this country.
I know that its programme is crowded, but this small Bill—in this House and in another place—could be adopted without postponing any urgent legislation, and its adoption would make a considerable contribution to better race relations in this land.
4.26 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, in venturing to address your Lordships, I must start with an apology that I was not present at the inception of the debate as I was sitting in an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. I mentioned the matter to the

689
noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who was good enough to say that he would not take it amiss if I intervened. Having missed the opening of the debate, and having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, the fact that I missed the beginning of the debate is a matter for regret as well as apology.
Although I have cause to have personal objection to racial discrimination, I do not propose to address your Lordships on the merits of the Bill. Indeed, I would not intervene if I proposed to discuss the merits without having heard the opening speeches. There are two reasons why your Lordships would probably think it wrong for me now to discuss the merits of the Bill. The first is that the Bill is to some extent controversial, and on the whole it is better for those who hold judicial office to try, if possible, to avoid becoming involved in controversy. The second reason is that I was myself a member of the Appellate Committees which decided both the Charter case and the Preston Dockers' Labour Club case, and your Lordships would certainly not approve of a Member of your Lordships' House, who holds judicial office, discussing the merits of any judgment before your Lordships sitting legislatively.
My object is a much more limited one, which is to make a suggestion with a view to improving the communication between Parliament and the courts of construction whose task is to ascertain the meaning that Parliament is expressing in a Statute. I venture to intervene on this Bill because it provides a striking example of what I propose and what I mean. The Act which this Bill amends in this respect, was, I think your Lordships will all agree, defective in bringing beyond any doubt to the mind of a court of construction what Parliament intended to do about clubs. In fact, all the guidance that was finally given to the courts lay in the words,
"provision to the public or a section of the public."
Clearly, that was inadequate, because although, as I hope to satisfy your Lordships, the final decision was in accordance with the assurance that had been given by the leading Minister as to the effect of those words, that was only very narrowly achieved.
690
In the first case, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissented and in both cases the Court of Appeal came to a different decision from that to which your Lordships' House came on final scrutiny. One must remember that the starting point is that for a number of reasons the courts do not look at the Parliamentary proceedings in order to ascertain the intention of Parliament. My own view is that this is carried too far and that in the clinching case the rule might well be reviewed. But there are powerful reasons—which are, in fact, mainly practical—why the courts do not look at the proceedings in Parliament, and the last time the matter was considered, by the Law Commission, it did not recommend any abrogation of that rule.
What could be done is this. In many cases, situations arise before the courts which Parliament does not envisage. That is, of course, inevitable, and the courts must do their best with that sort of situation, with a view to finding out within the wording of the Statute what was the intention reasonably to be ascribed to Parliament, had it envisaged that situation. However, where a situation arises which has been envisaged, then, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, it should not be left in doubt, for if left in doubt it can lead only to the unsatisfactory kind of situation which has given rise to the present Bill.
As I say, my Lords, I am not discussing the merits of the Bill, and when I speak of an unsatisfactory situation I mean that a number of courts have taken different views as to what Parliament intended and that a matter had finally to be pursued on two occasions to your Lordships' House in order to ascertain the meaning. In fact, on no less than four occasions the Act of 1968 has been brought up as far as your Lordships' House for its meaning to be elucidated, but only two of those cases are relevant to the present Bill. I mentioned that on this occasion the situation was envisaged. I say that because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was Lord Chancellor, was specifically asked about the matter of clubs in the context of the 1968 Act. He was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who said:
"I should like to ask about three clauses in the Bill. First, Clause 2, which refers to

691
facilities and services. I wonder whether this includes clubs. Many clubs do not practice discrimination, but some do."—[Official Report, 15/7/68, col. 98.]
When the noble and learned Lord replied for the Government at the end of the debate, he referred to the query that had been raised and said:
"My noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised several points.… Then he asked about the clubs. Clubs, as such, assuming they are bona fide clubs, are not covered."—[Official Report, 15/7/68; col. 156.]
My Lords, I do not suggest that what a Minister says should bind the courts, although it might well be a guidance. What I do suggest is that when an assurance of that sort is given it should be the subject of specific amendment. It could then have been made clear that it was the intention to exclude clubs. That would not necessarily have commended itself to Parliament, which might have rejected such a proposal and instead made it quite clear, to avoid litigation and heart-searching when an adverse decision was come to, that clubs were covered. Alternatively, the matter might have been ascertained and determined finally on the sort of compromise that is contained in the Bill now before your Lordships. In other words, it might have been provided that certain clubs should be covered and that others should not. All those three possibilities could have been discussed by Parliament and the one chosen could have been inscribed in the Bill, and much expensive litigation and much money that might have been spent on better things by the Race Relations Board could have been saved.
My Lords, there is another disadvantage that could have been avoided. Inevitably, when decisions are taken such as those to which your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, came, those decisions cause much heart searching to a number of our fellow-citizens who suddenly find that they have been denied protection sought on their behalf by the Race Relations Board. They are a class of our citizens to whom it was the whole objective of the 1965 and 1968 Acts to extend the protection of the law, and it can be by no means to their advantage if they are led to think that the law is capricious in its legal and forensic institutions and is denying them a protection for which they were looking.
692
Therefore, my Lords, without intervening in any way on the merits of the Bill, I ask that every Government and every proponent of a legislative measure should seriously consider whether it should not be a constitutional convention that, when a situation is envisaged to which a measure is meant to extend or not to extend, that should, unless the matter is plain beyond any question, be written specifically into the Statute so that the court of construction is left in no doubt.
4.40 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, if I do not attempt to follow the noble and learned Lord who has just resumed his seat it would be for two quite sufficient reasons. One is that I could add nothing from any expertise that I might profess to what he said, and the other is that he seems to me to have made an unanswerable case for the furtherance of those means of communication which in the future could well avoid the kind of contretemps to which he referred. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this issue and I wish heartily to support the intention and maybe the Second Reading of the Bill which involves that intention and that purpose. I do so for a very simple reason. I am not unnaturally attracted to a moral issue and this is, incontrovertibly, basically a matter of morals. But in this particular case it is much more than that, and I would delay your Lordships a little by reminding your Lordships that if, as my noble friend has suggested, there is a relationship between the music hall and the workingmen's club, there is an even greater, more intimate relationship between the workingmen's club and the fellowship of the Churches, particularly the Non-Conformist Churches, of about fifty years ago. It is no surprise that the motto of these particular clubs is:
"Honour all men. Love one another. Use hospitality, and be not neglectful of strangers."
Your Lordships will well know that this is a digest of the twelfth chapter of St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, and is specifically referred to almost in precise terms in St. Peter 1–17. This is no accident. The Mowcock Methodists, the Durham miners, the Calvinists of the coalfields of South Wales began in fellowships which were associated with the Churches, and in many cases the clubs

693
are the residual legatees—perhaps unwilling and unfortunate in some respects, theologically—of this tradition. Therefore, it would seem to me impudent as well as totally irrelevant to talk of the 3,000,500 members of these clubs as though they belong to some kind of private society. They are indubitably a section of the public, and for that reason they are entitled to be regarded as within the ambit of the Bill. It is an insufferable insult, as it would appear to me, to exclude on the grounds of an impersonal quality those who could, I think, be excluded if the quality of the particular club were personal. In this regard I find highly agreeable the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the distinction, the discrimination if you like, between the private and that club which is a section of the public, is that the differentiation in the one case is impersonal, whereas in the private club it is strictly personal. This seems to me quite a sensible argument and would dispose of many of the difficulties in this particular case.
My Lords, there are inherent stupidities as well as obvious and large scale moral evils in this particular exclusion from the provisions of the Act of the workingmen's clubs. One is that you will by so doing create second, as well as first-class citizens of these clubs—those who are able to respond to the invitations which are lavishly expressed in the trade papers, of visiting friendly and other clubs and being welcomed therein. There will be those who are welcomed because their skins are grey or white; there will be those who are not welcomed because, it is a shame, their skin was darker than that. Furthermore, there is an added complication, and it is an even more sinister and stupid application of the provisions of this Act—that if Mr. Sherrington had come with his dartboard he would be acceptable. As a member of the darts team he would be acceptable in the very club in which, when he professed to desire a drink, he was excluded from the opportunity of having it, and wounded, as one of the noble and learned Lords said quite properly, in his spirit by the very fact that he was so excluded.
I do not know how quickly the Government will express their intention to rectify this quite obvious mistake in the interpretation as put forward from the
694
intention which, in the first instance, intended that these clubs as sections of the community as a whole, should be free of the racial poison which infects the community so largely. But I should like to add to the argument which, without any question, has been put with overwhelming force, that one of the supreme enemies of any equitable relationships between various groups who make up this multi-national society today is cynicism. I spend a good deal of time listening to people who are quite sure that there is no longer anything like craftsmanship in the community, only craftiness. This is quite wrong and I am ashamed to think there are not a few people who ought to know a lot better, who have been rushing into print over the last few days to point out how, in their judgment, there is no such thing as justice and honour in the community any longer. But cynicism in regard to race relations is deeply imbedded, and I wish to echo what has already been said so forcibly that there are many who have persuaded themselves, if indeed they needed much persuasion, that the whole thing is a mockery and they take as their instance this particular reference to the exclusion of clubs from the actual provisions of this Bill, of this enactment.
Furthermore, the situation is urgent. It may well be that the Government may be able in due time, and quickly, to bring forward such legislation as will equate the intention of Parliament in the drafting of this Bill with the interpretation that Law Lords most properly put upon it. But it is urgent. It may well be that before long there will be increased pres-sure on unemployment. If that is so, it is likely that the relationships between black and white will be exacerbated.
There is no doubt that in times of stress it is easy and highly likely that people will look around for those whom they can blame. I therefore believe that it is in the public interest—whatever the particular difficulties and long-term prospects of a new kind of Race Relations Bill which will deal with many of the problems yet unsolved—for this particular and simple Bill, if acceptable to your Lordships' House, to become statutory. Mind you, in the immortal words of Bruce Bairnsfather:
"If the Government can provide a better 'ole I am quite happy to go to it."

695
But I cannot see that this is the kind of problem that brooks delay. I certainly think it is a monstrous iniquity, and I can speak in the spiritual presence, I am sure, of my ecclesiastical colleagues who, were they here, would speak on behalf of the Churches they represent. I speak on behalf of the Church I represent, and say that we regard it as an enormity, a piece of social injustice which can be put right, which ought to be put right and, in the terms of Lord Avebury's Bill, I think, can, in fact, be rectified.
4.48 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak, but I hope your Lordships will allow me to intervene very briefly, just to make two points. First, I would remind your Lordships as to the function of this House when sitting in its judicial capacity. That function is solely to interpret what Parliament has enacted. When any of their Lordships sit in a judicial capacity their personal inclinations, individual desires, must be suppressed in favour of the task that is allotted to them; that is, to decide what Parliament has enacted. Parliament is supreme, and Parliament passes measures by the use of the English language and must be assumed to intend what it means. There was a case a little time ago in which somebody suggested that an Act of Parliament might really be disregarded, because Parliament had been misled when it put a particular measure on to the Statute Book. One could not tolerate that for one moment. Parliament is supreme; and what Parliament enacts must be followed. Those of your Lordships who sit judicially and who are given the task of deciding what this means must fulfil this task to the best of your ability. There have been about four cases that have come to this House arising out of the Race Relations Act. I think that in at least three of them, five Law Lords—and different Law Lords—have not been able to arrive at the one conclusion. Therefore, I think it would be difficult to say that in passing the Race Relations Act Parliament made its meaning entirely clear ; and I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in regard to clubs in particular, has demonstrated that that was so.
What was meant by the words of Section 2 of the Act? The section reads:
696
"It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public (whether on payment or otherwise) of any goods, facilities or services to discriminate…".
What about a West End club? Was a West End club one that was concerned with the "provision to the public or a section of the public?". Those words gave room for very considerable doubt—and a doubt that met with different answers by those who had to endeavour to solve the problem. That is my first point, that I do not think it can be said in this case that Parliament made its meaning entirely clear. Nor can it be said that those who sat judicially were in any way giving a fair wind to any false policy or to any wrong approach. That was not their task. Their task was, to the best of their ability, to decide what Parliament had enacted. I would support entirely what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has said, in regard to a situation where a Minister has answered a specific question and perhaps has informed your Lordships or another place as to what is the intention of Government. It would be very desirable in all these cases if that could be introduced specifically into a Bill.
Like my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale I do not wish to speak to this as a measure. The only other point I should make is in regard to subsection (3) of the new Section 4A. The subsection reads:
"Nothing in this section shall render unlawful an act which is done on the ground of race or ethnic or national origins by or on behalf of an association the essential nature of whose objects and activities is to provide goods, facilities or services for persons of a particular descent or particular ethnic or national origins including the provision of opportunities for social intercourse between such persons."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has really acknowledged— indeed, has pointed out—that those words could be applied so as to defeat the purpose that he has in mind. Could not any association make a rule saying that the object of the association or club is to provide goods, facilities or services et cetera for those born in London, for those born in the United Kingdom, or for those of a particular nationality?
I think that there can be no doubt— and I believe that the noble Lord has said so—that the only sanction following

697
these words (if they were passed) in favour of what he so ardently desires, would be the sanction of public opinion. As it seems to me, these words if enacted could not achieve the purpose, if the purpose is to make it unlawful in any circumstances for a club to have a colour bar. I repeat that I do not wish to express an opinion in regard to the Bill itself, but I hope that those two points might be of some help in this debate.
4.56 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, one thing has been achieved in the course of this short debate. It is that the two noble and learned Lords from the Cross-Benches have made a very earnest plea for greater clarity in draftsmanship. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has explained in this forum very much the point he had in mind when he made his speech on the Preston Dockers' Labour Club case in the Appellate Committee, when he made some interesting suggestions in a general context in relation to drafting and interpretation. What has happened, now that this House sitting judiciously has considered the 1968 Act twice, is that they have established what was the policy, so it would appear, of the Labour Government who introduced that measure as a Bill. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the then Lord Chancellor, said that it was not intended to include clubs, then that is what has been achieved at the end of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, shakes his head, but I am referring to a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. If he did not intend to include clubs, that is what the law now is and that is what this House, sitting judicially, has decided that it is.
If this is to be changed—and this is where I am a little anxious—then, first of all, we must decide to what it is to be changed. Here I am very much in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, that if, under this Bill, someone wishes to escape from the rigours of even this proposed stricter and more restrictive law, then I have little doubt that, with ingenuity, he can do so. I shall come back to that point a little later.
My Lords, perhaps of more importance is the fact—and this is something which, it appears, no other speaker is concerned
698
with this afternoon—that I do not know what organisations or associations are covered by subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 4A. This is of some importance, because if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is right, and he usually is right, in thinking that the Government are proposing much more sweeping legislation in due course, I have little doubt that he, at any rate, anticipates that there will be included in this legislation some powers whereby the Race Relations Board can investigate—and, indeed, force evidence to be brought before it—the activities which it is entitled, under its remit, to look after.
If the proposals in this Bill are the law at the time when extended powers are given to the Race Relations Board, all the activities embraced by subsection (2) will be covered and will be capable of being investigated. This means, I think—and I should like to know what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thinks it means, or what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, intends it to mean—that almost any association of people, however informal and for whatever purpose it is set up, unless it is done specifically for the purposes dealt with in subsection (3), will be caught by the law as it will then stand, and will then be susceptible of investigation and inquiry by the Race Relations Board.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper—and I entirely agree with him—said that there may possibly be, in times to come, an occasion or a period when there is a danger of pressure being applied by one colour to another because of something like unemployment. There may be an occasion when race is used as a lever or as an excuse for some act to relieve frustration. I believe that one of the points one has to consider most carefully when seeking to legislate on race relations is that the balance should be right.
I personally abhor the facts of the Charter case and what happened to Mr. Sherrington, but I do not believe that people, in seeking to put them right, spurred on by abhorrence of these things, should wholly disregard areas of privacy and personal choice of such a small and intimate character that the records of the law are not suitable to delve into them. This in itself, I am afraid, is the other side of the problem, and it is a side where an injudicious use of power

699
would be liable to stir up the trouble that the Race Relations Board, and everybody else concerned with this problem, is trying to prevent. I am therefore worried about the extent of subsection (2). I am worried anyway, because 1 do not know how small an organisation would have to be in order to be caught. I made this point to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, when he introduced his Bill. I do not believe I received an answer to my question then, as to what was meant by the wording which is largely reproduced in this Bill today.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may seek to indicate it now? I think we would all agree that where there is any association of people, who are joined with a specific purpose, that specific purpose should apply to their association. The only purpose of this Bill would be that, where you had an association of people which was broad-based and brought in the whole of the community, racial discrimination and colour bar should not apply.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, that is extremely interesting. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, had a slightly different interpretation of the area he thought ought to be covered. If I may respectfully say so, I do not think the Bill is apt to draw the line in either of the noble Lords' places. If that is so, it is a serious fault. Maybe there are reasons other than the one I gave, but the one I gave is, I think, good enough. Therefore, I am very concerned about this being done in that way. This is a major matter of principle—the extent to which the club should be covered, the definition of the club that is intended to be caught and the one that is still intended not to be subject to this rule.
I am anxious that this House should not give a Second Reading when we are so far apart as appears to be the case about the principle involved. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be able to give some assistance on this point. I hope that he will be able to give us some enlightenment about the Government's policy as a whole. However much this decision or the facts that gave rise to it have upset people, I would rather see a fully considered and total piece of legislation, if legislation we need
700
at all, rather than doing it in bits and pieces in the way now suggested. I believe that the full inter-relationship of this Bill with something that may come along in the next Session may not be fully understood. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be very careful about this, and that the Government will not readily accept it without seeing where it fits into their general scheme of things.
If noble Lords are worried about the urgency of doing something on the facts of broad political clubs and the rules they make, is it not right that we can rely in this regard upon the other side of the accepted principles of the Race Relations Board, which is: example, education and persuasion? That can be done without any exertion at all of new powers. I was delighted to hear that the Trades Union Congress and other organisations were bringing about a certain campaign to try to enlighten those who still run a colour bar in these clubs. I see no reason why that should not be done widely, and why it should not fill the gap until such time as the Government propose further legislation.
I cannot see that this Bill is so urgent, particularly in the light of those campaigns that are going on, that we should throw caution to the winds and allow a new principle to be established, a new principle of associations which appears to be very widely based and which, in itself, will lead to a lot of litigation as to the extent of the prohibition of the discrimination which they may practise. Therefore, I am afraid that I strike a note rather contrary to what has been said this evening. I do not do it because I wish to support racialists; I do it because I wish to see a balanced pattern of legislation. I am afraid that if this Bill is passed we shall have failed to consider properly what we are doing, let alone fit it into the wider context that is most desirable.
5.8 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing this important matter before the House. As I said on the last occasion that we were having a debate along these lines, the noble Lord's dedication to the cause of

701
minority rights is widely known and respected. May I, on a personal note, say how much pleasure it gives me to follow my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. She has spoken vigorously on many occasions for the under-privileged, both as a Member of this House and as a member of the British delegation to the United Nations. Nothing would have given Hugh Gaitskell more pride than to hear her speaking this evening so forcefully for the cause of racial equality to which he dedicated his life. May I also at this stage refer to the important speeches made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. They have raised a number of significant questions, both for the present Government and their predecessors. Their words repay careful study, and careful study their words will receive.
Let me make it clear that we on this side of the House have, as I am sure have many other noble Lords, much sympathy for the aim of the Bill. There is no doubt that the decisions of the Appellate Committee of this House in the cases Race Relations Board v. East Ham South Conservative Club and Race Relations Board v. Preston Dockers' Labour Club have caused grave concern—concern not only among minority groups but also among all those in this country in the majority communities who strive for tolerance and an end to discrimination. None of us would question the Committee's judgment or that of other members of the Judiciary in interpreting the law as it is, the law as it leaves us, the legislators. The Race Relations Act of 1968 was drafted with the intention of excluding from its provisions bona fide private members' clubs. In these two cases the Court of Appeal initially found that the members, associates or guests of the clubs were "a section of the public", but this view was not upheld by the Appellate Committee. The sum effect of its decisions seems to be that any club which operates a form of scrutiny of prospective members is not taken to be open to "the public or a section of the public".
These decisions have most significant consequences. This is most easily exemplified in the case of some 4,000 clubs which are affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and which have a total membership of about 3½ million
702
people, of whom about 1 million are also associate members of other than their own clubs. Of course, there are many other clubs affected by the judgments of the Appellate Committee which are not members of the Club and Institute Union and which also play an important part in the life of the community.
The Government are committed to ensuring fair and equal treatment for all, regardless of colour. This is important in recreation and the use of social facilities, just as it is in employment and housing. There is no true equality if a man is excluded on racial grounds from sharing the recreation of his fellows: a society supposedly integrated in work and segregated in leisure is dangerously divided. I believe it to be a denial of the principles for which all Parties represented in this House stand. I have much sympathy, therefore, with the principal aim of the Bill, to extend the application of anti-discrimination legislation to clubs except those with a genuine ethnic base. In our society, colour is not an acceptable ground for exclusion.
It follows that the Government wish to correct such injustices. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is aware that I have assured the House that the Government are conducting a wide-ranging review of all existing race relations legislation. As part of this review, we are considering what is needed to correct the situation created by the Appellate Committee's judgments in the two club cases. We are looking at the scope and effectiveness of the 1968 Act; we are examining the roles and powers of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission; we are considering how best to act positively in this crucial and delicate field of community relations. The Government do not think it wise or practical to act on the clubs' issue in advance of these wider proposals for strengthening the law against racial discrimination; there might well be some interplay between the review as a whole and the issue of clubs in particular. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given an assurance that the interval between the introduction of the new sex discrimination Bill and legislation to strengthen the Race Relations Act will be as short as possible. The Government would not contemplate a marked imbalance in the respective powers of

703
the Board and the Equal Opportunities Commission for longer than was strictly required by the demands of the legislative timetable.
In view of the past history, I am also especially concerned that new legislation in this field is as free from ambiguity as we can make it. It is my conviction that the Bill now before us is far from precise. There are several minor points which no doubt some redrafting could correct; but there is one major area where, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, the effect of the Bill is at least highly debatable. Clause 1(3) exempts from the new provision any act which is done—
"on the ground of race or ethnic or national origins by … an association … to provide goods, facilities or services for persons of a particular descent or particular ethnic or national origins …"
This is a brave attempt to get over the difficulty of the cultural association which is identified by a label which refers to racial or national origins. We are not, however, persuaded that the attempt is successful. The Bill as drafted would unquestionably permit of discriminatory clubs, for example, confined to persons whose national origins lay within the United Kingdom or Europe. Thus it would be possible to form "patrial" or "European only" clubs which would be outside the scope of the legislation and would, in my judgment, gravely undermine it. It would be ironic indeed if in legislating against the discrimination which now exists we were unwittingly to give legal sanction to such discrimination in another guise.
This is precisely the sort of problem which the Government will seek to resolve when they draft their own legislation. Definitions will require the most careful and detailed consideration. It is also important, as I have said, that any changes we make in the existing law affecting clubs should be interrelated with the other changes which flow from the review of race relations legislation which the Government are now conducting. In view of the criticisms made earlier by noble and learned Lords, on this occasion when we amend the 1968 Race Relations Act we really must do our best to get matters right. The consequences of failing to do so would cause a great deal
704
of disquiet, and not only to the minority communities in this country.
Obviously it is not my intention this afternoon to invite the House to vote against this measure. On this side and, I am sure, in other parts of the House, we sympathise with its objectives, and I can only urge the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to withdraw his Bill pending the completion of our review and in anticipation of comprehensive legislation which we intend to introduce and to which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary attaches the greatest importance.
5.18 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am disappointed, though I cannot say I am surprised, by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I suppose the introduction of my Bill will have at least partly justified itself because it has led to a very strong and forthright statement on behalf of the Government that legislation will be introduced to cover the question of discrimination at clubs, and will in effect reverse the rulings which are the subject of this debate when the equal opportunities legislation is on the Statute Book and when the consultations have been completed.
However, I do not think I should let the debate end without making some comment on the points which have been raised in criticism of the Bill. Perhaps I should also take this opportunity of thanking noble Lords for their extremely valuable and welcome support of the principle involved, and also for the way in which they have expressed their views. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, whose speech I much appreciated; it was one which I thought was extremely powerful. When she described prejudice in clubs as being "primitive and irrational", she was certainly not exaggerating. I hope that her words will be widely listened to and borne in mind when discussions take place between the TUC and the clubs, and when those who are members of committees have occasion to decide on the admission of black Africans to membership of their clubs.
The criticisms made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, must be taken into account. I certainly would not dismiss them as having no bearing on this situation. I think one must reply

705
to the question, addressed to me in particular, as to whether the Bill had the effect, and possibly the intention, of dealing with small and, as I think he called them, "trivial" situations. He asked on the other hand: should we not regard some areas of privacy as being worthy of preservation? The principle set out in the 1968 Act was that domestic situations were always treated as private and beyond that Parliament did not express in so many words any opinion at all—though I take the point which was made about the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, during the Committee stage of the 1968 Act.
I would have thought that "a section of the public" ought to have been interpreted in the light of the definition implicitly contained in the 1965 Act. If one looks at Section 6(2) there, it says:
"Publish' and 'distribute' means publish or distribute to the public at large or to any section of the public not consisting exclusively of members of an association of which the person publishing or distributing is a member."
The implication of that definition is that an association is a section of the public, because otherwise it would not have been necessary to provide for that exception to the definition in Section 6(2). If one looks at the question of the interpretation of the words as they stand, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, invited us to do, I should have thought that one construed the Act by reference to the 1965 Act and one could disregard, as, indeed, the court did, references to other legislation such as the Copyright Acts which were dealt with in those cases of Charter and the Preston Dockers' Labour Club.
The answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is that unless one states what is the minimum size of an association, then obviously there is no minimum. The Bill as it is drafted covers any club or organisation of individuals comprised within the definition of "an association" and makes no distinction as to whether it consists of three or 300 members. Surely the logic of this is that in other public situations, such as a public house or restaurant, we do not ask whether or not the establishment is a popular one; we do not say to the proprietor of a restaurant, "How many customers do you have in the course of an evening?" and if he has only two or
706
three then we exclude him from the provisions of the Race Relations Act. No more, therefore, should we do so in the case of a club. But the noble Viscount must know that, in practice, the Race Relations Board do not set out to look for situations involving one or two people, and that if their powers of investigation are increased, as many of us hope, they would confine themselves to the important cases of principle—such as the one with which we are mainly concerned this afternoon—in which 3½ million people are members of clubs affiliated to the CIU. The Race Relations Board are extremely unlikely to deal with the case of a purely social get-together of two or three people, a coffee morning or something of that kind held under the auspices of the local Mothers' Union. So the noble Viscount was raising difficulties which would not exist under the terms of this Bill.
He said that example, education and persuasion should provide the solution, and that he could not see that this Bill was so urgent that a new principle ought to be established that would lead to a lot of litigation. First of all, I should have thought that we knew by now that example, education and persuasion, while necessary, are not enough in situations of this kind. This is the reason why Parliament has successively found it necessary to enlarge the scope of race relations legislation; and I am sure we have not yet reached the end of this process. If he does not see that the Bill is urgent then he cannot have had very much dealing with members of minority communities; nor has he listened to the comment which has been made by them or by persons concerned on their behalf, particularly since the decision in the Sherrington case. Nor do I accept that a new principle is established by this Bill. It merely extends the principle which is already set out in the 1968 Act; that discrimination should not be permissible where a section of the public is concerned. What we are really doing is simply extending the meaning of the words "section of the public". It would not lead to a lot of litigation, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out. There have so far been four cases which, because of the opaqueness of the 1968 Act, have come before this House sitting in its Judicial capacity. What I am doing in this Bill is simply clearing up one

707
area of opaqueness which has led to two out of those four cases. While admittedly the interpretation has been made, and it is not likely that any further club cases will come before your Lordships' House sitting in its Judicial capacity, it is nevertheless important that Parliament should state what it really meant. I do not believe that a lot of litigation would result.
I am also disappointed—and this is the last remark I want to make—that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, should have mixed up, as I see it, the role and powers of the Board and Commission with the question of how those powers which are at present conferred on them are exercised. The sweeping review which is being undertaken and which will result in changes which are modelled on the equal-opportunities legislation is one matter—admittedly of great importance—and how those powers are exercised at the grass-roots is another. We have to consider the situation as we find it and not as we should like to see it on 1st January 1977, as 1 think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. He does not anticipate that any legislation introduced in consequence of this review would become effective before then. This is precisely my point. We have to wait almost two years while this sore of race relations is festering away in the clubs. That is why it is extremely disappointing that the noble Lord did not feel able to accept the Bill this afternoon.
Before I sit down I should perhaps deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it would be possible under the terms of this Bill to form patrial or European-only clubs. I recognise that this is a major problem. Once one admits that bona fide clubs having national memberships, such as I imagine the London-Welsh Rugby Club, should obviously be permitted to exist, how does one draft a Bill in such a way as to exclude what I call the overtly racialist clubs which exclude all except Europeans, for instance, or except Londoners, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, mentioned? I do not see any way around this problem and, having discussed it with a number of lawyers, 1 am convinced that, however
708
long the Home Office may choose to look at it and however skilled their lawyers may be, if one is to admit the London-Welsh one will also at the same time make it possible (1 say no more than that) for a patrials' club or a whites-only club in some other form to come into existence.
However, it is one thing for the East Ham Conservatives or the Dockers' Labour Club at Preston to say that they will exclude a black person without actually having a rule to that effect in their constitution, and quite another for them, looking at Clause 1(3) of this Bill, to bring a resolution before an annual general meeting or a special general meeting and ask their members solemnly to affirm that they will practise racial discrimination. Those who have been to the Dockers' Labour Club and inquired of the members what they feel about it, as opposed to what the committee feel about it, find there is quite a lot of shame and disgust at the decision of the committee. I believe that if racialists on the committee were to introduce such a provision into the rules, or to attempt to introduce it, at an extraordinary general meeting, in 99 cases out of a 100 it would be defeated. In the one case where the Dockers' Labour Club, or any other similar institution, inserted such a provision into its constitution, I believe that the CIU, or whatever the parent body might be (because the Conservative clubs or Liberal clubs also are affiliated to similar organisations), by disaffiliating them, would ensure that that rule was rescinded. Otherwise they would be denied the benefits which they obtained from association with a large number of similar clubs up and down the country. This would be the sanction against explicitly racial rules being written into the constitution.
My Lords, having said all that, I know that it is useless for me to persist in the face of opposition from the Government. In legislation of this kind it is necessary to have the support of the Government of the day. Therefore it would be foolish for me to carry this Bill to a Division. I hope that as a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has, said, and as a result of the efforts being made by the TUC and those who are on our side at the clubs, we can exercise education and persuasion, as the noble

709
Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, suggested, in such a way that the damage can be minimized. However, I think our failure to take this Bill any further this afternoon will have adverse results. It will allow racism to become more strongly entrenched in the clubs and those who have refused to take it further have the very serious duty to do everything in their power to ensure that the effects are minimised.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

EEC FARM PRICE REVIEW
5.31 p.m.
Lord WALSTON Lord WALSTON rose to move, That this House take note of the Seventh Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974–75) on EEC Farm Prices Review (R/3358/74) and on the Draft Directive on Less Favoured Farming Areas (R/17/75). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am particularly glad to be doing this for two special reasons: the first and most important reason is that those of us who pay any attention whatsoever to the Community, and who are engaged in thinking about whether or not it is right for us to be members of the European Community, are exercised about the sovereignty of Parliament, so that it seems to me that on an occasion such as this we have an opportunity to exercise a certain amount of sovereignty over what goes on in Brussels. The Select Committee which your Lordships set up, originally under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and now under the equally distinguished chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has the task of looking at all the Directives and proposals, all the secondary legislation emanating from Brussels, sifting it, examining any of it that appears worthy of examination.
Fortunately for your Lordships, a small number of cases are reported to your Lordships in such a way that you have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations of your Select Committee. Those recommendations are then, one hopes and believes, studied and listened to, as, indeed, will be the views expressed by all your Lordships taking part in the debate this evening, by the Department
710
concerned and, above all, by the Minister concerned, so that when he—in this case my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture—goes to Brussels to finalise the Price Review he will be fortified and, I hope, influenced by what has been said here. In that way—in theory at least—it is possible for Parliament to retain at least as much sovereignty over the decision of Ministers and Governments as it has had in the past. I say "in theory" because I do not wish to prejudge this issue and we are only in the very early stages of it. It depends on the working of the Select Committee and its sub-committees, and on the discussions which take place in this Chamber and in another place. It also depends on the attention which is paid to such discussions by the Minister and on his influence in Brussels. It is upon all those things that we shall eventually make our judgment as to whether or not there is sufficient influence still residing in Parliament.
That, my Lords, is the first reason why am happy that we are having this debate. The second reason is that it concerns what is probably the most hotly disputed aspect of the Community; namely the Common Agricultural Policy. This has been hotly disputed for very many years, because, I suppose, it affects the price of food and the price of food affects everybody. It should, of course, be disputed for many other reasons because of its effect on the wellbeing of a very large section of the community—the farmers and farmworkers. Perhaps most important of all, it should be disputed because it has a profound effect upon our relationship with the Third World, about which I may say a few words later on.
However, whatever the reasons, the Common Agricultural Policy has undoubtedly been one of the most controversial aspects of the Community, and now for the first time in this House we are having an opportunity of discussing before they actually come into force, proposals which are very germane to the Common Agricultural Policy. These proposals, as your Lordships know, concern the actual prices which it is proposed will be paid to the producers of the Community during the current year. The actual document which is extremely long is available to your Lordships. I hope

711
some of you may have read it. I know that the members of the Committee concerned undoubtedly have studied it in great detail. Our recommendations on this are now embodied in this Seventh Report which has been available, not for a very long time I am afraid, because we have had to work to a very close timetable, but long enough for those who had any interest in this subject to have been able to read it.
I do not propose to go through the Report in any detail. It is not very long and I hope you will agree that it has in it quite a lot of meat. I will merely pick out one or two of what I consider to be the salient points. The first point is what is described on page 2 as, "Agri-Monetary Measures". This is a complex matter, but at the risk of over-simplifying it—and I hope that those of your Lord-ships who understand it far better than I do will not think it amiss if I do this—I will explain the monetary procedures of the Common Agricultural Policy as follows: the Common Agricultural Policy is, of course, based upon a common monetary policy, but because that is not yet in existence there was invented what was called the "unit of account" which was itself based upon the value of the dollar. That was the common currency on which the whole of the agricultural price structure of the community was based. It worked very well so long as the various exchange rates of the different member-countries remained in harmony, but when they were revalued, devalued or fluctuated that played havoc with the unit of account and with the monetary policy of the Common Agricultural Policy. To some extent that has been overcome by the creation of what is known as the "green pound", which is, in effect, the devalued value of the pound vis-à-vis the unit of account.
Of course with a fluctuating pound it has been impossible for the value of the green pound to be changed daily or weekly, which would be necessary if it was to be a true reflection of the value of the pound. It has been stabilised at a figure which, as it works out, is favourable to the consumers of this country, allowing consumers to buy from the rest of the Community produce at a price lower than would be the case if we had to pay the actual value of the pound as regards the mark or even the franc.
712
However, it is unfavourable to the British farmer, because it puts him at a disadvantage with regard to prices compared with many of his fellow farmers in the rest of the Community. There is no question about it; as the green pound is fixed today, the prices which the British fanner receives are lower and he is to some extent under a handicap. Therefore, may I suggest to your Lordships that the value of the green pound at the present time is in urgent need of revision.
Turning to the actual prices, one thing which we must remember is that this country is still in the transitional period. Therefore, many of the prices which are agreed in Brussels do not actually apply to this country, though presumably— possibly my noble friend will confirm or deny this when he answers—when the Price Review takes place between the Government and the National Farmers' Union in this country due regard will be paid to the prices which are agreed this month in Brussels.
I will mention only two or three of these prices. The Brussels proposals for wheat prices are just under £64 per ton. We do not know what the price for the British farmer will be, but there are certain indications that it may be in the neighbourhood of £55 a ton, which is considerably below what the Brussels figure will be. We do not know, either, what will be the price of barley in this country. The Brussels price for milk is nearly 33p per gallon. The United Kingdom price is 30p per gallon, which is about 10 per cent. below the Brussels price. In the case of sugar, we have come on to the actual Community price. The proposal is that for the ensuing year the price of the harvest which has just finished should be 16 per cent. higher. I must express my own very strong doubts as to whether that will be sufficient incentive to encourage farmers in this country to grow the extra amount of sugar that we believe will be needed.
We listened earlier to the Statement concerning sugar, which makes it quite clear that whatever may be happening to world prices today there is still a very marked shortage of sugar. Whatever we can buy on the world market is considerably more expensive than the price we are paying producers in Europe at the moment, whether they are other members of the Community or producers in this

713
country. Perhaps I should once more declare a personal interest. I think it is well-known to your Lordships that I am a producer of sugar beet, and I see little indication among any of my neighbours, or other growers, or people who have not been growing sugar beet but who will have to grow it if we are to get the desired increase, that the increase which is being talked about now will be sufficient to achieve it.
With those rather sketchy points on prices, may I remind your Lordships that we say in this Report that we are in general agreement with what is proposed, with these certain reservations and doubts, We are also in general agreement with the draft Directive on less favoured farming areas. It does not look as though any of these Directives will seriously affect any of our existing subsidies and the help given to less favoured areas, although there are certain points which I personally do not consider to be at all reasonable. Why, for instance, should grants be refused to a farmer if he happens to be over 40 or 45 years old? Certain restrictions of that kind, and also restrictions with regard to size, do not seem to make sense to us or to be in the interests of agriculture or efficient production. However, I do not want to labour that point and will leave it to other speakers who have far more experience of these matters than I have to enlarge upon them.
Nevertheless, one thing which struck us most forcibly as we were listening to all the evidence that came before us—we had both written and oral evidence from very many bodies, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers' Union —was this. How is it possible to pass a reasoned judgment on prices for any agricultural product if one does not know what are the objectives of the agricultural policy? Unless one is given guide-lines of this kind—"We want to increase sugar beet production by so-much per cent.", or, "We want to restrict the amount of milk to such and such a level", or "We want to encourage the development of more forage crops and discourage the growth of potatoes", or whatever it may be—it is impossible to say whether these prices are right or wrong.
All one can say is that, in general, it looks as if they may hold the balance pretty much as it is, or something of that kind, and that is just not good enough at the present time because we are all aware of the threat of world food shortages. We are all aware of the enormous inflation in prices of wheat and coarse grains that has taken place, and, above all, of sugar. We are all aware, too, of the recent "butter mountain" and its sudden disappearance, and of the shortage of cheese and dairy products at the present time. We are aware of the recent short-age of meat, of the great encouragement which was given to producers to produce more meat, and now the sudden glut and complete collapse of the market. All those things are with us, and they are factors which we must take very seriously into account, and which I should have hoped that by now both Her Majesty's Government here and the Commission and the Council of Ministers in Brussels would have taken sufficiently into account to be in a position to say, "Here is our long-term agricultural policy for the Community as a whole. This is what we want to achieve, and these are the prices which we propose in order to achieve them, and the other methods also." Those, however, we do not have before us; we have rumours before us.
Again, I hope that my noble friend will substantiate that the Minister of Agriculture is working with his colleagues and with the industry on a long-term policy and that it will shortly see the light of day and be available for discussion. It is quite clear from the voluminous documents which I have been attempting to study over the last few days and which have come from Brussels, that they are giving thought to this matter and have a great deal of background information. However, background information is not enough. It is essential to begin with, but on that background or on those foundations must be built a more constructive structure.
To quote one or two facts from these documents, it is a fact that the Community is still the largest importer of animal feedingstuffs in the world, and that these imports account for 25 per cent. of the total imports of the Community. By 1977, it is expected that we shall still have to bring in approximately one-third of our total needs of animal

715
feedingstuffs and grains of different kinds, mainly maize and soya, and at least 15 per cent. of our sugar. In the last ten years, the average rate of increase of imports of agricultural food products was running at 7·7 per cent. per annum. So all the indications are that we will require very substantial amounts of food to be imported from overseas, and that there-fore it must be in our interests in selected cases to grow a good deal more than we are growing at the present time.
I must not allow myself to be led astray into a discussion of long-term agricultural policy for the Community, but I think we would all agree that whatever is the policy of growing more food of certain kinds it must not be an inward-looking policy, it must not be a protectionist policy; and the statements which we listened to earlier must have gone a long way towards dispelling any lingering doubts that might have been in people's minds that such was the case. The Agreement reached between the Community and the 46 developing countries is surely an enormous step forward. Again, declaring an interest as a producer in one of the developing countries, I am delighted that it has got as far as it has, and I certainly add my congratulations to those already expressed here to my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, on the very great struggle she has put up and the great success she has had, and also on the fact that the outcome of the sugar talks has, by and large, been successful. But for all that, my Lords, we must aim at increasing production in this country and in the EEC.
A short digression, if it may be allowed, brings me to the question of research in agriculture. If we are to have a long-term policy it must be based on scientific advance and on more efficient agriculture. It is highly disturbing to learn that the amount of money available for agricultural research has been cut; that at the moment agricultural research establishments are forbidden to replace staff who have left for any reason—moved on to more important jobs, gone overseas or whatever—even though that might mean breaking up a team. One might have a team of three or four scientists working on a project—on seed breeding, for instance. One man, a micro-pathologist
716
in the team may go and, as things are at present, he cannot be replaced. There is a freeze on replacement.
The proposals which have been put forward, in regard to public expenditure to 1978–79 on agriculture, fisheries and food, make it quite clear that, even if the funds grow as rapidly as is forecast here, then in view of the cuts that have already taken place it will be 1978 before the levels of two years ago, 1973, are again reached. That is a very serious situation to be in at a time when we are talking about expansion. I should like to remind your Lordships of the kind of financial advantages which can and do arise from basic research. The seed breeding successes are the most obvious ones, the best known and the best publicised. The new varieties which have come from the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge of the Maris varieties during the 1974 season added £23 million to the value of the crop over the next highest yield. If, ten years ago, the Government had prevented that research by cuts, this country would have been £23 million poorer this year. That is the sort of situation that we are risking at the present time.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, in order to underline the point he is making, which is so important. Normally, it was considered that one would be very lucky to get two tons per acre of wheat and now Maris Huntsmen growers are getting over three tons per acre. I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but it is such an important point that I thought it should be emphasised.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for emphasising this point, and I am tempted to go on and give a whole list of other examples. I will not do so, and I will just mention one or two of them. At the moment, research is going on at Rothamstead on the application of fertilisers to sugar beet, which has shown in its provisional stages that if the results of that research are finalised and adopted at least 5 million pounds of fertiliser can be saved every year. At the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering at Silsoe, research is going on into different methods of tillage which can effect a very big saving in our consumption of fuel. Also, there is research into the use of slurry which will

717
effect a very big saving in our use of nitrogen, and will prevent the wastage of it which takes place. Research is being undertaken at the National Institute of Research in Dairying at Reading, which can cut the £30 million annual losses at the present time due to mastitis by at least a half, and possibly by two-thirds.
Those are just a few examples and I urge the Government, even in these days of great financial stringency, to restore forthwith these cuts so that in the years ahead we shall once more be able to say, "£23 million saved on plant breeding; £30 million on disease control, and so on." These are essential things in this country, and in the Community as a whole if we are to have the sort of agriculture that we want, bearing in mind that the forecast of the Community even to 1977 still shows us to be such big importers of feedingstuffs of the kinds that we could to quite a large extent grow in this country.
My Lords, I apologise for having kept you long on this matter, but I believe it is important on the grounds that I have mentioned already: the importance of this Parliament being able to exercise its influence on decisions in Brussels; the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy as something which we all agree needs revision, and therefore the importance of the proposals put forward on prices; but, above all, the necessity of urging on our colleagues in Brussels and throughout the Community, as well as on our own Minister, the absolutely essential need to have forthwith a long-term agricultural policy. We may then know in what direction we in this country are trying to go; in what direction the Community of which we are partners is trying to go, therefore enabling us to assess the means which are being put forward to achieve the desired results. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Seventh Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974–75) on EEC Farm Prices Review (R/3358/74) and on the Draft Directive on Less Favoured Farming Areas (R/27/75).—(Lord Walston.)
5.59 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for bringing before
718
your Lordships this afternoon, and giving us an opportunity of discussing, the Seventh Report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on these two very important documents. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, this is the first opportunity that we have had of discussing the European Economic Community's agricultural policy, and the House will indeed also be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and her Committee for so carefully examining the voluminous documents referred to.
We are at the very beginning of a whole new ball game and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has piloted us through two documents which are of formidable size and complexity, but I should like to commence my remarks by examining the documents themselves. We have before us, first, the Farm Price Review, and secondly, the Draft Directive on Less Favoured Farming Areas, both of which weigh a great many kilos. I defy any of your Lorsdhips to carry these papers with ease on the person in a pocket. I feel there is a serious point here. I ask the Government to give a little attention to to this, purely on the grounds of economy of paper. I ask them to see whether these documents can be condensed by the EEC into a more portable form, and whether they can be produced in a manner in which the documents are economical to produce, yet easy to handle. In Westminster, we are very fortunate in having printed for our use a daily issue of Hansard—occasionally it is interrupted, but not frequently. It contrasts sharply with the difficulty one has in reading the documents which are available from the EEC, and our own. Your Lordships probably will have found, as I have, that in certain lights it is extremely difficult to decipher some of the documents. They are not particularly well printed. It is also difficult to manage them because of their binding. Perhaps this is a small point, but from dealing with the unbound Hansard which we had printed on single sheets last summer, we are all familiar with this problem, and I ask the Government to investigate it at the outset.
My Lords, to deal in greater depth with the documents themselves, I think the House will be particularly grateful to the Committee for carrying out its duties of scrutinising the documents. But first of

719
all, perhaps we may examine one especially important sentence which appears on page 3 of the Report, which ought to be printed in almost elephantine capitals. The sentence reads:
"If agriculture is to pay its full part in the economy of the Community, greater capital investment will be needed".
I imagine that is a misprint—"pay its full part" should read "play its full part"; nevertheless, the words appear to be interchangeable. This is the centre of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred in great detail to the specifics. In my brief remarks I shall not refer to the specifics on farm prices, but would like to draw the attention of your Lord-ships especially to what the noble Lord said in his closing remarks on the import of feedingstuffs into the United Kingdom.
We have been all too keenly aware of this problem in the past six months and, indeed, have been saved providentially by a mild winter in that we have been able to take the opportunity of using grass for a much longer period than is normally customary. But this is a crucial factor. Reviewing, as one does, from time to time such problems as straw burning, it seems absolutely fantastic, with hindsight, that we should have considered it necessary to produce a Draft Code on Straw Burning, when straw at the present moment is reaching such fantastically high prices on the open market for both barley and wheat straw. It is a fluctuating situation. One recognises that surpluses and shortages occur alternately from season to season. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, was suggesting to your Lordships that long-term planning programmes should enable the EEC to overcome its mountains, be they of butter, feedingstuffs, dairy products and so on. We should be able to have a more even pattern of production, distribution and market pricing.
My Lords, I should like to turn the attention of your Lordships to the second document, the Draft Directive on Less Favoured Farming Areas. In this connection, I would especially draw the attention of your Lordships to a document produced by the National Farmers Union about two years ago, entitled A Policy for Hill Farming in the United Kingdom. When this document came out, the President of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Henry Plumb, said:
720
"Hill fanning not only covers about one-third of the farming area of the United Kingdom, but also plays an invaluable part in the production of our meat supplies."
I think it possible that it is insufficiently realised that the relationship between our hill and upland farms and the remainder of our farming areas is totally different from what is largely taken to be the less favoured areas in Europe. The less favoured areas in Europe are very largely mountainous regions—in certain cases, rather over-populated mountainous regions such as in the southern part of Italy—with a totally different characteristic from the British hill farms and up-lands. I think it has been stressed sufficiently in the past, but perhaps it may be stressed once again, that it is essential that the success and prosperity of British farms ultimately depend on the success and prosperity of the hill farms throughout the United Kingdom. It is in this regard that all those interested in agriculture will welcome especially this document, as it enables the continuation of our hill subsidies.
In turning to the document to which I have referred there is one particular paragraph I should like to stress regarding the nature of hill farming. On page 6, it says:
"The close interrelationships between up-land and lowland farming characteristic of our livestock industry have no parallel in the Six. This helps to explain why in the Community the special problems associated with hill or mountain farming are regarded as being mainly of a social nature, and as such, aid provided has been largely on social grounds."
This emphasises precisly what I have been saying. I feel that this point has to be taken into account in future years when examining policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred in some detail to policy in regard to young farmers. In the Report itself, an especially relevant comment appears at page 3 of the Seventh Report. Under the heading of "Agriculture Structure" these words appear:
"They consider the present proposals for less favoured areas inadequate for aid to young farmers to be shallow and in part ill-conceived".
That is a fair comment. It in no wise seeks to do injustice to the policy which is an attempt to help the young farmers, but it is a shallow and in part ill-conceived policy. To encourage the young farmer very many wider issues

721
have to be considered, some fiscal and of a domestic nature. Here, one might digress and mention the highly important matter, currently under review, of the capital transfer tax. There are such issues as farming structure, and also such very important issues as the great need in all countries for an adequate system of training, and farm schools. What is considered here we take to be a step, but a very small and rather hesitant step, in the right direction. We hope it will be reconceived and will be reviewed in a much wider manner.
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong my remarks, because those who are to follow me will have much wider experience in the EEC than I. I most warmly welcome the opportunity to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, who will follow me in this debate. Once again, I should like the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for speaking on this matter, because the steps we have taken today in discussing this matter are steps which are at the very beginning of a review of farm policy. Perhaps we shall be able to develop a system which we will come to recognise, as we did a few years ago in our calendar, of the Oxford Farm Conference, followed by a Farm Price Review, followed by debates in your Lordships' House and in another place. It is, above all, a stability which is needed, and all farmers, 1 think, today yearn for that as part of the European fanning policy.
6.10 p.m.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, it is always a pleasure and a warm satisfaction to take part in any debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I have been, I may say, most disappointed not to have been able to attend as an observer any of the meetings of his Committee which has produced this excellent and closely considered Report. I regret it particularly since I am not only a member of the European Parliament but a member of the Agricultural Committee of that Parliament.
Before this country entered the European Community, the anxiety of those who opposed our entry was expressed in a number of shibboleths, among the most frequently voiced of which was the heart-cry of "higher food prices"—higher prices, that is, as a result of our imminent membership of the European Community.
722
The curious fact is that this anxiety is still being repeated when fact and experience contradict its validity. For instance, I am able today to congratulate Mr. Peart on the Sugar Agreement which he brought back yesterday and with which he was clearly very pleased himself, if his demeanour on television and his words in another place were anything to go by. I doubt whether I could be rationally challenged in saying that such a favourable agreement for this country could not have been reached outside the Common Market.
It was my intention to ask the Minister who is to reply some questions as to the duration of the Agreement reached, but I understand that in a Statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in another place, which was not repeated here, he in fact included the significant words:
"Agreement was reached on a protocol which enshrines the principle of indefinite duration of access arrangements."
Here is something upon which he can indeed be congratulated. It must be a great reassurance to the sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth. I cannot in fact believe that it was a very difficult achievement since I know how total and how definite was the dedication of M. Lardinois, the Agriculture Commissioner, to honour the bankable assurances given during the negotiations for entry.
As regards the wider picture, covering other commodities, Mrs. Shirley Williams stated in another place on November 11th (col. 4):
"Official estimates now show that food prices are, on balance very slightly lower than they would have been were we not members of the Community."
That is part of a Ministerial speech. However slight the difference, it is on the right side of the balance sheet and I hope it will have served to allay some of the perfectly genuine anxieties expressed before the act of entry.
The Community, and Britain within the Community, together with most of the rest of the world, has just passed through an outstandingly difficult agricultural year. As farmers, both the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I are aware of it. Ironically enough, one aspect of the problem is due to the high level of technical efficiency achieved by the farming industry. I recall that in January 1973,

723
when I made ray own first speech in the European Parliament, the most evident problem staring us in the face was the "butter mountain". Incentive schemes were then being proposed by the Commission and put before Parliament to encourage dairy farmers to convert to beef. I think two different schemes, among those put forward, were debated and in fact implemented by the Council of Ministers, and the farming industry reacted with such promptitude—that is to say, modern techniques enabled the industry's reaction to be so swift—that last year's problem was a glut of beef, causing distress and even disaster to many farmers who had responded to the exhortations, against which nobody to my knowledge, on either side of politics, had objected. This, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, calls for long-term thinking in the planning of agriculture.
The other main problem of the past year has been that of sugar, caused by the coincidence of a meagre beet harvest throughout Western Europe and the diversion of cane sugar to other buyers on the world market, leaving the Community countries in some danger of a sugar famine, which has now been averted. I think it is fair to mention, though without any wish to create controversy, that in the negotiations of 1971 had we been less intent upon protecting the interests of the Commonwealth sugar producers and the interests of New Zealand, it is more than conceivable that certain other terms obtained, more closely on behalf of our own country, would have been more favourable. There was an element of quid pro quo endemic to any such negotiations, and we chose to assist our partners in the Commonwealth rather than ourselves.
We have now been members of the Community for two full years, and during those two years, as it turns out, the Common Agricultural Policy has given our country lower prices, together with greater security of supply, than we would have enjoyed outside. The benefit has been felt by the whole population of our country in terms of the food they have bought.
On entering the Community, I for one was aware of the fact that where each of the other member countries had a
724
Ministry of Agriculture, we alone had a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—and I underline the word "Food". That is to say that our Ministry represented, as it represents now, the consumer as well as the producer. I am bound to say that in the light of experience, although we have been made aware of the power of the agricultural lobby— in particular of COPA, the union of agricultural organisations, of which Sir Henry Plumb became President a week or so ago; and this is signal recognition of our influence—and although consumers are not as recognisably organised as they are in this country, the interest of the consumer has been very much to the fore in Parliament, in the Com-mission and in the Council of Ministers.
It is not easy to identify, confidently, cither advantages or disadvantages where they occur, but the following facts can be mentioned. Consumer subsidies on butler and beef (by which pensioners are specifically favoured) are worth £30 million a year to Britain out of Community funds. There are also "monetary compensatory amounts" which, although they bedevil statistics and give headaches to anyone involved in working them out, have been introduced to protect the housewife against the rise in imported food prices due to the depreciation of the pound, and of course other European currencies. These amounts are paid as subsidies on food imports from across the Channel or across the Atlantic and represent a value of about £5 million a year. Until Saturday and the Agreement reached by Mr. Peart, the Community was already giving a sugar subsidy equivalent to £2 to every British household. It is too soon, for me at least, to have worked out the corresponding figure since yester-day, but the Minister may be able to oblige.
Such a farm policy, which proposes security of supplies and stability of prices, must cost something when world prices in a given commodity are low. But when supplies are scarce and world prices zoom upwards, the benefit of this insurance policy is directly felt, even if not directly appreciated. One of the obligations laid upon farmers by this policy is to give favourable treatment to consumers within the Community. The Prime Minister of France said recently

725
that if his country had sold her grain and sugar outside the Community at world market prices she would have made a profit increase equivalent to £1,500 million.
We are of course principally interested in the future rather than the past or present. To an extent, we find ourselves in something of a vacuum, since the meeting of Agricultural Ministers on the 20th and 21st January ended at about 9 o'clock at night and set a later date of 10th February for the next long and, hopefully, final and conclusive session on the coming year's prices. That session is expected to last a full three days. All would be happier to have set an earlier date, and the Commission expressed its disappointment that a final announce-ment could not be made, as intended, on 1st February. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, quite rightly said, that at least has given an opportunity to this House to discuss the matter before it was decided within the Community.
The reason for delay was that the intervening calendar was very crowded. The Green Week in Berlin occupied the whole of last week, and in particular the German Minister of Agriculture, but it enabled Agricultural Ministers to hold a meeting. Mr. Clinton, as President of the Council of Ministers during these six months, will be discussing intensively with M. Lardinois during this time, and in some matters which brook no delay measures have been taken. For instance, prices in milk production will be back-dated to 3rd February, and the guaranteed prices for fat cattle, which should have ended on 31st January, will be continued to 2nd March. There is a general conviction that the European Commission's proposals are basically sound, and agreement can be reached, and can only be reached, on the basis of a substantial rise in agricultural prices, taking into account the monetary compensatory amounts, and with measures to aid the under-privileged forming part of the consensus.
Naturally I cannot claim to be privy to the Government's thinking on these matters, but the personal utterances of Mr. Peart do not reveal any important cleavage between him and his colleagues within the Community. There has been a great deal
726
of talk about fundamental changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, and changes have always been inevitable. My understanding, at second or third hand, is that Her Majesty's Government hope to return to a system of "deficiency payments". I believe that so much, even Mr. Peart, with all his persuasiveness, will not achieve any agreement with his European colleagues. But he has the advantage of being in Office at a time when the Community, by a decision reached more than a year ago, is setting about a stock-taking of the records so far of the Common Agricultural Policy. This policy, as other policies operated before and since our entry, is regarded as a flexible instrument, subject to evolution in the light of experience.
The basic object at which, I think, nobody would cavil, is the assurance of a strong and stable agriculture, providing food at fair and reasonable prices—reasonable, that is, for the producer and the consumer. To that end the phrase most frequently heard in debate in any of the member countries individually and when they are gathered together is the need to restore confidence in the farming industry. I appreciate that that is too general an observation to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in the question he specifically put. It would be wrong to imply that all is totally harmonious at all times between the nine nations in the complex field of food production and food consumption. I understand that the British Government wish to suspend from 1st July this year the existing incentive for farmers to switch from milk to beef, in which our own Minister did not win universal support. As a dairy farmer myself, I can go on record as saying that I think he was taking a reasonable line in the circumstance. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply what, if anything, has been decided with regard to aid to glasshouse growers, and in particular for young farmers, defined for this purpose as those under 40 years of age. My understanding is—the echo that I hear—that an idea for a special scheme for young farmers was in fact rejected.
Turning far more briefly to the matter of assistance to the "less favoured areas"—the second of the draft Directives under debate—I hope I can give some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Sandys, who

727
has just spoken. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that the Commission has shown exemplary effort in seeking to meet the requirements of this country in this field. A mountain farming scheme existed in draft before the enlargement of the Community in 1973. This scheme, being defined by height above sea level, would not, I believe, have included a single acre of hill farming land, as defined in Britain. The whole scheme was therefore redrafted, in order to include the entire hill farming area in this country, and will happen once the new scheme, passed by the European Parliament in the plenary session of last month, is approved by the Council of Ministers. One particular section of the Commission, one of those sections working under M. Lardinois, has been responsible for this; and both good will and hard work have been brought to bear. I am happy to say that some of those far from faceless bureaucrats have become my friends in the course of the redrafting.
The calculations by those officials took account of the fact that despite 15 years of agricultural development policy within the Community, the discrepancy between incomes in the farming industry and in the manufacturing industry showed no tendency to diminish. They further calculated that over a wide area this was not due in any way to the inefficiency of the farmer, and that in a certain category it was directly attributable to the adversity of nature. They argued that if we wanted to maintain farming in such communities (that is to say, maintain human occupation of whole areas) despite their adverse conditions, then we in the Community would have to admit the need of special help for them. The need to extend this help goes beyond purely agricultural needs; it is a matter of decision for society and by society.
The prevention of depopulation also goes beyond mere sentimentality or aesthetic judgment. It includes the waste services already in existence in areas endangered by depopulation, and the requirement for new services (at high capital cost) for those who move from the unrewarding areas into other already overcrowded areas. In the background to this question of whether we want to have empty or populated these areas of
728
great natural beauty, the map, which was available for us at the session attached to the Commission's Working Paper—and in a somewhat less legible version attached to the Explanatory Memorandum for the benefit of this House—shows some startling discrepancies within agriculture. It shows that one quarter of the entire farming area of the Community—that is, land being farmed, working farmland—is occupied by over a million working farmers and represents only one tenth of agricultural production, which is an indication of the degree of poverty suffered in those areas by those individuals. What seems important to me is that the member-nations are not in the Community purely for what they can take out of it.
The map reveals that certain nations are not benefiting in any way from this scheme. In their whole territory there is nothing defined as a "less favoured area". They are therefore not simply net contributors but unilateral contributors and non-benefactors. Large transfers of finance will be required from which they will not benefit. The cost of the whole scheme is 500 million units of account (that is approximately £250 million) over the period of the first three years. That corresponds to a little over one-third of the entire Regional Development Fund. A slightly less happy note has to be struck in mentioning the fact that the Council of Ministers has so far barely discussed this question, having been occupied over other matters. It has been calculated that Britain will receive at least 25 per cent. of the benefit of the scheme, once it is approved.
My Lords, I should like to end by quoting (and I am certain that this is within the Rules of Order) the words of my honourable friend Mr. Scott-Hopkins in the European Parliament in the last Session on an agricultural debate. Addressing the House, the Commissioner and the Council of Ministers, he said:
"Farmers today are worried, are anxious and are looking to us all, all the three elements here, to see that their future, their income, their livelihood is safeguarded in the years to come. If we do not do it, then, indeed, we shall be culpably guilty of not doing our duty towards a very important sector of our constituents throughout the whole of the Community."
He spoke as a Member of the House of Commons, a British delegate like myself; that is the kind of voice which is being

729
heard in the European Parliament and I am happy to note that in the Record "applause" is also recorded.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that we were all fascinated by listening to the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, of what is really happening in the European Parliament and also about his experiences in Brussels. I have always been a strong supporter of our being part of the EEC, but I have found, as have many people, great difficulty in discovering what goes on there. We are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, for telling us a number of extremely interesting things which I—and I am sure other noble Lords—did not know. Therefore we are greatly indebted to him for this precise explanation. Also, we are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, the chairman of this Committee whose Report we are discussing, and a most admirable chairman he is. I have only just been made a member of this Committee, but I have been to two meetings and found them absolutely fascinating. What is more, I yield to no one in my admiration for the knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has of the agricultural industry.
There is only one subject about which I believe I possibly know more than he, and that is hill farming, since he farms in East Anglia and I farm in the Borders. Without boasting, I know something of hill farming because I have been trying to make it pay for forty years; so I can speak with some authority on that subject. Otherwise, in the two meetings I attended, which were chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I have learnt more about the Common Agricultural Policy than I could have learnt in any other way. I am most grateful for having been co-opted on to the Committee.
I think it is also significant that this is the first time your Lordships' House has discussed this kind of Report, a discussion on agriculture and the Community. We have, by a very long chalk, more agriculturists, and people with knowledge of agriculture, in this House than they have in another place. Many of your Lordships
730
have long experience as farmers. Therefore it is of great interest that we are the people who at the moment are discussing this extremely important Report. Again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his speech today, since for the first time I have begun to understand a little about the unit of account, about the green pound and about various other specialised aspects of the Community policy. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his very succinct and simple description of what I have previously found very difficult to understand.
I am one of the people who feels that the vast amount of written material issued from Brussels is a little daunting. I have read a good deal of it, though certainly not all. Of course, as we all know, reading that kind of material, which is simply Roneod or Xeroxed, is a little trying. Therefore if it is possible—it may not be —for these documents to be printed in a slightly better manner it would be of assistance to those who want to study them. In reading all these documents one realises most forcefully the immense variety of climates, soils, conditions and so on, that the Community has to cater for in any agricultural policy. It is enormously difficult. While I have often been critical I now realise, having studied this situation rather carefully, what tremendous difficulties they are up against. One therefore must have some patience.
As your Lordships will have read the Report which we are discussing, I do not need to stress many parts of it. But I agree with what has been said, for instance, that indiscriminate help to all farmers, of whatever size or value, must be wrong. It is to encourage efficient production on a long-term policy, which must be worked out by the Commission, at which we should aim. There has also been stressed the great difficulty which arises between incomes derived from industry, or public services, and incomes derived from food production. Yet if we start to raise for farmers the income from food production we get great opposition from those people whose incomes are derived from non-agricultural interests. You cannot win on this one, which is extremely difficult. While we should not give indiscriminate help, I support those who feel

731
that the help given to efficient agriculture is a very good way of spending public money.
I have always maintained that agriculture is a way of life not to be compared to the get-rich-quick ideas of many people. Nevertheless, if production is efficient and the labour is skilled money can be made, and in a way far more satisfactory to me than any other. The proposals of the Community must be related to the needs of the Community and the efficiency to enable those needs to be met economically. One or two speakers have mentioned the butter mountain and the beef surpluses. They are no evidence of a well thought-out policy of production; and where at the same time there is an appalling shortage of food in the developing world—as witness our debate the other day on the Food Conference in Rome and its findings—the CAP should plan for enough production in Europe and in the Community and a substantial contribution for the developing world. I entirely agree on this point with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. That is one of the obligations we should take upon ourselves. In the words of the Seventh Report:
"A price review cannot be taken as a substitute for an agricultural policy. It can only be a means of implementing a policy once agreed upon."
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and others discussed various aspects of the policy. I should like to talk about beef and lamb production and also the policy for upland hill farming. I begin by dealing with beef. Between July 1973 and July 1974 beef prices in France dropped by 4·6 per cent. and in Belgium by 11·4 per cent., and it is quite unnecessary for me to stress what happened in the United Kingdom. Prices fell by 50 per cent. or more, and in the autumn we had alarming demonstrations by farmers unable to sell their cattle except at derisory prices. Intervention has helped, but not perhaps as much as we should have wished. But what any beef producer will say is that what is needed is a base below which beef prices cannot fall; in fact, a deficiency payment system, which we operated so successfully in the United Kingdom, and where for months beef kept at a good and reasonable price and no deficiency payment from the Exchequer had to be made.
732
It is, I think, most unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, mentioned, that this policy is one that the CAP are not prepared to accept. But in our Seventh Report we have asked whether the Minister could ensure whether the system, which the CAP are advocating, must be universal. Why, in certain special areas where it suited the type of production best, should not it be possible to prefer the intervention price and to operate that? I know that this is highly controversial, and I am making the suggestion only because Mr. Peart has fought so manfully—and I say that with great admiration—to get the kind of policy which suits the United Kingdom, and he has been very successful in many ways. I therefore ask whether he might again struggle to see whether or not we could have a variety of policies in connection with beef prices. If not, something more than what has been done will undoubtedly be needed because we must have a floor below which the price of beef cannot fall. That is the only way in which we shall get stable beef production.
My Lords, I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald had to say about the CAP policy on the less favoured farming areas. As a farmer—and I think I am the only hill farmer who is speaking in this debate— this is something which we very much welcome. The proposals arc extremely helpful because, as I think my noble friend Lord Sandys said, and as has been stressed by the National Farmers' Union —and indeed all farmers know it—the question of production of store cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom is absolutely basic, not only to Scotland but also to the North of England and to Wales. What has been done to help those areas in improving their production and, in many cases, in using all the acres of hill land that were being wasted has to be seen to be believed. That will be obvious at least to any of your Lordships who has lived among the hills as I have. We have seen the enormous increase in production that has occurred since 1948, when Tom Williams was at the Ministry of Agriculture.
When I was attending this Committee, I found it very interesting to realise—as I had not done previously—that the CAP has no policy for sheep and lamb. I should have thought that in the CAP they

733
would be interested in the production of mutton and lamb just as they are interested in all other kinds of production, particularly cattle. However, they are not. It would be a great help to farmers in the United Kingdom if we could more easily export our sheep products to Europe. What happens now is that, when the Paris market is open, this has repercussions throughout the whole sheep industry from John O'Groats to the Borders of Scotland and right through Wales. But it is entirely arbitrary. It depends whether the people in France take it into their heads to want more mutton or not. There is no overall policy. I do not know whether it is possible to have one or whether it would be of advantage, but it seems strange that there should be absolutely no policy. Perhaps they do not eat mutton in Germany, Belgium and Italy; perhaps it is eaten only in France. But certainly it would be a great help if there were a policy for sheep and mutton as well as for beef.
I am delighted that this new policy of the CAP is being pursued and, as my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald has told us, in many ways this is a very unselfish gesture by the European countries, since a good many of them will get no advantage from it at all. Therefore, from that point of view, one is extremely grateful. But there are two recommendations in this policy to which I take strong objection. The first is the requirement that farmers over 65 years of age should not receive any hill or farming assistance. I do not hide from your Lordships the fact that I am well over 65 years of age, but I am a very active farmer and I should be extremely annoyed if my farm were to be excluded because of my age. I hope very much that whoever represents us in the negotiations in Brussels will seek to do away with that age limitation in exactly the same way as that which directs aid towards young farmers. It seems to me to me equally silly for an active farmer of 41 to be treated differently from an active farmer under the age of 40. There seems to be no point in this at all, and I hope that Mr. Peart will be able to stamp on those two very silly recommendations because they have absolutely no relation to efficiency, good farming or increased production. I do not think that skill in farming has anything to do with age.
734
My Lords, I should like very strongly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said about research. Like everyone else, I have had great benefit from research, particularly into the diseases of animals. I do not know what we should do in Scotland without the great research institutions in Edinburgh and St. Boswells, at Grey Crook. The Animals Diseases Research Institute in Scotland is absolutely vital.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would allow me to interrupt, we also rely on the research institutes in the North of England.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, according to this, the North of England will be just as badly dealt with as Scotland. In any case, I am all for the research institutes, wherever they are, whether it is Cambridge, the South of England or wherever. The point is that research saves money. One of the great problems in producing animals is disease. The number of diseases which animals can get is terrifying. Very often these are new diseases, or perhaps they have not been dealt with so far. Take the enormous effort we are all making towards brucellosis-tested herds. We would not do this unless there was research all the time into the disease so that we can at least get some help with this extremely difficult matter. Therefore, I strongly sup-port the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I do not believe that research is a waste of money. Rather, it is a good investment, and I hope that the Government will be brave enough to go on with it.
My Lords, we in this industry are subject to many unknown and unpredictable happenings. While every farmer knows that, the principle of producing what is needed, in the quantities needed and by the most efficient methods, is something which we can all apply to all farms, coupled with the need to get a fair return for one's labour. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to make representations in Brussels for the policy that we have outlined and will be able to achieve the kind of concessions that will help the United Kingdom. I do not say that we should be selfish about this, and of course we must consider the other areas as well; but, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and various other speakers have said it, it must be stressed

735
very strongly how important it is to have a policy, and one which must cover extremely varied conditions. We cannot have a policy which is suitable only for one particular area. I have great faith in Mr. Peart. I hope very much that he will be able to press the points we are making. I can assure him that there is no doubt that all farmers here want to improve production and to grow more food, and so obtain a return which makes it possible for us to continue.
6.49 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I begin by apologising form-ally to your Lordships that my name was not on the list of speakers, but I am sure that my name was put forward some ten days ago and there appears to have been some hiatus in the usual channels of which I am not aware. I should like to join in offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on the clear and expert manner in which he has introduced this important paper on the EEC Farm Price Review and also the draft Directive on the Less Favoured Farming Areas. As is well known, the noble Lord has an international reputation in a wide range of agricultural activities. I hope, therefore, that it will not be presumptuous of me to comment briefly on these reports in the light of my experience, which is mostly related to conditions in the hill and upland farms in which my country of Wales abounds. I have been encouraged to make these observations by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Harwood, in their support of the importance—
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: Elliot.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am terribly sorry. I do apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood.
I am encouraged by the observations of the previous speakers of the importance of the upland areas and hill farms and their inter-relationship with other fanning areas. The document on the Farm Price Review which is before us excludes the price proposals in respect of potatoes, wool, mutton and lamb, and therefore so far as Wales is concerned it does not touch a large section of fanning activity in that country.
736
Like other noble Lords, I have myself spent a great deal of time studying and trying to manipulate the large number of documents associated with these reviews, and I have read the reports issued by the European Parliament, in particular its Report of 13th January 1975. The mass of statistics and information in the papers, dealing largely with the wide diversity in geographical, economic and social factors in the Community, impresses on me once again the absurdity of trying to continue with a Common Agricultural Policy for the Community as was in force before the United Kingdom acceded to it.
Accompanying all this diversity to which I have referred, there has been introduced into the monetary structure of the EEC, international and national monetary uncertainties—for instance, the floating currencies and devaluation—which have completely undermined the concept of the Common Agricultural Policy in practice with its fiction of the common price for the whole Community. Such a concept at least presupposes fixed monetary parities between the nations concerned, and I strongly support, with the noble Lord, Lord Wolstenholme—I mean Lord Walston; I am sorry I am getting my names wrong. May I quote Shakespeare:
"What is there in a name?"
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord is more accurate in his quotations from Shakespeare than he is in his quotations of the names of noble Lords present in the debate.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that very helpful intervention. Most members of the Community seem now to accept that drastic changes in the Common Agricultural Policy are inevitable, and some important steps have been achieved by the Government—for example, it is now recognised that the Community should contribute to the support and development in the hills and uplands. But among all the facts and figures which are associated with these proposals, I have searched in vain for proposals which could be said to be directly and realistically directed to the farming conditions in Wales.
In all price-fixing discussions, it is of course essential that there should be a

737
balance between the needs of the producers, if they are to remain in business, the prices to be paid by consumers and the effect of general taxation. But the proposed livestock increase contemplated in the Review is too small, in my view, to help and encourage livestock producers in the small farms of Wales who have been so hard hit by increased costs and falling prices—and many of whom are in a difficult financial position. I hope that in future negotiations this special position of livestock farmers will be borne particularly in mind. I therefore endorse the views of the sub-Committee on page 6, where it is stated—and I quote:
"The confidence in the future stability and an economic return are the prerequisites of maintaining food supplies."
Again, I support the last sentence of the Report:
"That the proposals in this agricultural package will inspire neither the confidence needed for expansion nor the reinvestment requisite for efficiency."
In reaching this rather dismal conclusion, I should, however, like to pay a personal tribute to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the way in which he has persevered in his difficult negotiations. He has made great headway in bringing more flexibility into European policies and in particular in establishing that direct aid is often essential to producers of livestock as well as reliance on end prices. From these Benches we wish him well in his future negotiations.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, this is a very important document that we are debating today. It has been said already by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, but it seems to me a pity that more of your Lordships have not taken part in this debate. I certainly should have put my name down earlier. I am a farmer, as your Lordships know, since I have declared an interest earlier. I do not want to discuss the whole Report, but I should like to pick out one or two subjects.
The first is that it seems to imply that the beef-cereal equation cannot be got right within the intervention system. In Part II in the beef section, the Report refers to 91 per cent. and 87 per cent. of guide price for intervention buying, and also states that full-scale intervention is
738
not practical for beef. Let us, therefore, urge upon Her Majesty's Government, and Mr. Peart in particular, that the Common Agricultural Policy should be changed. Perhaps "changed" is not the right word—"improved" or "modified" might be better. This should be done not for the sake of change, but for the sake of fairness to consumers; and, in my contention, consumers' and farmers' interests are exactly the same because fluctuating prices do neither of them any good.
Grain should certainly be supported by intervention, but let us work out a deficiency payments scheme for meat, tied to a grain intervention system. This system would surely allow the market to mop up surplus amounts of beef, as we have seen in the last year or so, and would obviate the need for expensive subsidies like beef coupons to old-age pensioners. In saying this, one is not saying that old-age pensioners should not be allowed to buy beef. It would seem to me better that they should get a proper old-age pension and so be able to buy it on the open market.
My second point is to urge the Community as a whole to go in for being self-sufficient in temperate products. If the United Kingdom had been able to increase its home-grown food production from 35 per cent. before the war to 65 per cent. now—and the NFU claim that it can be further increased to 80 per cent.—then surely the Community as a whole, whose agricultural acreage per head of population is rather larger than ours, should be able to do this.
We have only to see what the Russian grain purchases of 1972 and the Arab oil price cartel have done to increase prices to see that this must be desirable. It has also been said that the Community is very short of animal protein. I think it imports, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, 25 per cent. of its needs. This is surely one of the areas where production could be very much increased. For instance, France over-produces wine. One hesitates to advise the French on what to do with their vineyards ; but it would be possible, I should have thought, to produce grain or maize for animal feed in some of these areas.
Thirdly, I should like to comment on the statement in the Report that farm gate prices had fallen in 1974. The

739
noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, commented also on this matter. This coincides with large rises in input costs; and, at the same time, inflation has been varying from the German 7·5 per cent. to the English 20 per cent. This cannot be good for the farming industry; it cannot help them. Some of it ought to be made up by the increased yields of grain. Such figures do not help us—and by "us" I do not mean only the British Isles, but the whole of the EEC—to become self-sufficient, which is what we should be aiming for.
Lastly, my Lords, I turn to the important section of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on the difficulties of working a Common Agricultural Policy with floating pounds and, for that matter, the green pound. This must somehow be changed. How, I do not know; but it seems to me that the vital need is for a common European currency. When that happens all these difficulties—of green pounds, floating pounds, snakes in tunnels, and heaven knows what else! which is going on in the Community currency systems—will be much easier to overcome. Thus, we shall be enabled to run a Common Agricultural Policy whose objective must be for Europe to become self-sufficient in food—outside of the influence of the cartels, of the Russians, or of whoever else wants to buy up our grain. Then these foods will be ours and we shall be free to produce —and each area in Europe will be free to produce—food on farms for the benefit of Europe as a whole. This is the objective for which we should aim.
7.7 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Walston for initiating this debate and for drawing your Lordships' attention to the Report which is the subject of our deliberations tonight. I must apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Beswick was not able to answer for Her Majesty's Government, but suddenly this morning he developed 'flu; so I am afraid that this task has fallen upon my unworthy shoulders, but I will do my best. It has been a great advantage to me to listen to this debate. We have had an interesting debate showing great knowledge, as is always the case in this House, and
740
there has been a wide diversity of views expressed. The debate has ranged far and wide and at one point there seemed to be a formidable woman Peer taking part called "Baroness Wootton of Harwood". As I am an under-study tonight, I am glad that such a formidable combination is not participating; in actual fact, we listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I should like to deal a little later with that speech.
My Lords, before answering the main points which have been raised, I should like to start with some comments on certain points in the Select Committee's Report, which is formally the basis of our debate. The Report emphasised that a satisfactory agricultural policy must go wider than simply establishing support prices. I entirely agree with that and I also accept that the structural proposals contained in the documents referred to by the Select Committee have limitations; although the proposed Directive on less favoured areas would nevertheless represent a significant advance. I shall have a little more to say in the course of my speech about this question of the less favoured areas, which has been referred to by most noble Lords. I think I should add that the EEC Council has already agreed that the proposed aid for young farmers should be examined further and not adopted as part of the current package.
Coming back to the Committee's remarks about agricultural policy generally, it has been a cardinal point made by the Government that the Community agricultural policy cannot operate merely by trying to manipulate market prices. The policy must, I submit, be more flexible. In the beef sector, particularly, we have urged the need to support producer returns by other means, besides intervention buying. We secured the introduction of direct payments to producers, including the variable premia, which we have been operating since November. The Commission should shortly be making their stocktaking Report on the Common Agricultural Policy. In considering this, we shall have very much in mind some of the more general points raised in the Select Committee's Report and, of course, in today's debate. I certainly took note,

741
as I am sure did all noble Lords, of what my noble friend Lord Walston said about the sovereignty of the British Parliament and of how the Minister when he goes to Brussels will be fortified by what is said in London.
My Lords, there are two issues of some substance in the Select Committee Report on which I should like to comment before moving on to deal more specifically with the Commission's support price proposals. The Committee report unfavourably (in page 2) on the system of monetary compensatory amounts. However, as they acknowledge, this system has brought substantial benefit to our consumers in the form of import subsidies financed from Community funds. The obverse of this is that our producers' returns are not as high as they might be. However, the Committee are wrong to say that the system has increased the costs to producers of imported inputs; it has not affected non-agricultural inputs either way. In the case of animal feedingstuffs, the system is currently providing subsidies of £5 to £6 per ton on all of our cereal imports.
The other general point which I should like to make concerns food aid. The Select Committee's Report, in a couple of places, refers to the possibility of the Community providing produce to the developing countries. This was also touched upon by my noble friend. While I accept that there is a role for food aid, I must emphasise that, in the Government view, the best way of helping developing countries with their food needs is by encouraging increased production there. I do not believe that an objective of Community policy should be artificially to stimulate increased EEC production for food aid. The disposal of commodity surpluses as food aid must be kept under careful review.
My Lords, I should like now to turn more specifically to the EEC farm price discussions. Here I should say how much we appreciate the tributes which have been paid to my right honourable friend the Minister, which I think were most generous. I find noble Lords on the other side of the House most generous about what this Government have done in the last 12 months in trying to improve the terms. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that in replying to some of the many points which have been
742
made tonight, I want to avoid weakening my right honourable friend's position in the negotiations which are to be resumed on the 10th February. However, I can certainly confirm that my right honourable friend will be determined to see that fair and responsible account is taken of the interests of both producers and consumers. Clearly, no settlement would be acceptable which puts in jeopardy the Government's commitment to the efficient and economic expansion of our great agricultural industry. Equally, the Government could not agree to unnecessary additions to the inflationary pressures facing consumers.
In particular, in considering the future shape of the EEC beef régime, to which reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the Government have already made it clear that they will not agree to support-buying in this country at a level leading to the accumulation of large stocks of degraded beef. The only point of producing beef is for it to be eaten and not to build mountains with it. At the same time, especially with beef's long production cycle, producers need an assurance of a satisfactory return; otherwise, they cannot be expected to make the necessary long-term investment. My right honourable friend has insisted in Brussels that the way to meet the interests of producer and consumer in this matter is through a system of premia such as the Government introduced last year.
That deals with the general situation. I should now like to try to answer some of the more specific points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Walston referred to agri-monetary measures and the value of the green pound. This was also referred to by other noble Lords. The proposed changes in the parity rates used for CAP purposes in respect of the German, French and Benelux currencies are primarily for the countries concerned. I do not think we need to intervene. We are not prepared to see another change in sterling's representative rates so soon after October's change.
Such a change would reduce the benefits our consumers gain from the monetary compensating amount subsidies on our imports. In particular, it would cut the advantages we secured from the suspension last October of the so-called

743
"abatement rule" for monetary compensatory amounts. The suspension of this rule has meant our getting substantial FEOGA financed subsidies on all our cereal imports. These are now running at some £5 to some £6 per ton. There is another change in the representative rate for the Irish pound and this could create problems for us, especially in Northern Ireland. We have made this clear in the Council. We shall see that this aspect of the matter is not overlooked. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time on whether subsidy rates will be increased to offset the price increases arising from the next step towards full EEC price levels and the Council of Ministers' decisions on farm prices for 1975–76.
My noble friend referred to the Price Review and asked whether the EEC's price decisions will be taken into account in the UK's Price Review decisions. The answer is, Yes, our 1975–76 guaranteed prices will certainly take into account the decisions on EEC farm prices. My noble friend Lord Walston referred to sugar and sugar beet. The Government entirely share the sub-committee's view that we should aim at increasing our own production of sugar from beet, both to deal with the present acute shortage of sugar in the Community and throughout the world, and to get a better balance between imported and home-produced supplies. To this end, we secured an increase in our basic beet quota from 990,000 tons to 1,023,000 tons and a maximum quota, inclusive of the basic, of just over 1½ million tons.
Turning to the beet acreage, the level of beet acreage planted is, however, essentially a decision by the farmers themselves who must decide between the different possible crops open to them. It is also a matter which depends consider-ably upon the commercial judgment of the British Sugar Corporation who decide the acreage for which they will seek con-tracts. The Commission's price proposals would yield a grower's price of approximately £16 per ton, taking account of transport allowances, and so on. This should, we believe, represent a satisfactory incentive to producers.
My noble friend also raised the question of the less favoured farming areas.
744
This was also referred to by most other noble Lords. It is an important matter, and we take full note of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said. The Less Favoured Areas Directive is important to us for two reasons: it gives a practical shape to the undertaking which the Community entered into in the accession negotiations to take the necessary action to preserve reasonable incomes for farmers in hill areas. When we consider that the Community had no system of support for the hills in those days, and the Directive now provides for grants and subsidies in all member States which are almost identical to our own, this must be regarded as an encouraging sign for us, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, who is a member of the European Parliament, will be pleased about this.
The second point is related. The new system does not merely closely follow our established arrangements; the proposal now before us involves the commitment from the Community to finance on a large scale our expenditure in this area, and because it is a bigger issue for us than for any other member State at present we would, at some £20 million per annum, be the largest single beneficiary. It is true that in some respects the Directive, as it stands, limits our freedom, but the Government are aware of all these points and have already set out their view on them to the Council. We are seeking for a measure of flexibility before the Directive takes effect.
Several noble Lords raised the question of elderly farmers. It is true that the Directive limits the payment of special livestock subsidies in the hills to fanners who are not receiving a retirement pension. An appreciable number of farmers in the United Kingdom could be affected by this provision. This restriction exists because the Directive is part of the enlarged Community's overall structure policy which had its origins in the Mans-holt Plan. The idea is that public funds should be used selectively in the interests of improved farm structure. The preponderance of farmers at or near retiring age in other parts of the Community is a real problem. But we do not think this is the right solution, and I can assure the House that we are seeking to limit its practical effects in this country.

745
My noble friend Lord Walston asked what were the objectives of our agricultural policy in the long-term. The Government have been holding talks with the interests concerned about the long-term prospects for agriculture. It is hoped that the conclusions of these talks can be announced soon. The Government have made clear their commitment to the economic and efficient expansion of our agriculture. My noble friend also raised the question of research and showed great concern about the cuts which he said have been made in this area, and he asked the Government to restore these forthwith. The current year's budget of the Agricultural Research Council, which represents slightly more than half the spending on agricultural research in this country, was reduced to a level some 3·7 per cent. lower than for 1973–74 as a result of the Public Expenditure cuts of December 1973—that was during the last month or two of the Conservative Government. The effects of the cuts have been made more severe by very high increases in the prices of animal food-stuffs and fertilisers.
To achieve the savings necessary, I understand that the directors of the ARC institutes have agreed to a moratorium on new appointments until March 1975. Although the Government clearly cannot promise that the ARC will be protected from any short-term difficulties which may face Government-financed organisations in the future, I can assure my noble friend that, in general, we share his views on the importance of agricultural research and its claim on our resources. Indeed, within the limits necessarily set by wider public expenditure considerations, it is our intention to provide in the Estimates for 1975–76 an increased sum for research commissioned by the Department with the Council.
I was very grateful for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and for the non-Party basis which he adopted. The noble Lord was quite right when he said that this is the first opportunity the House has had to discuss the EEC's Agricultural Policy. I shall of course, in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, take up the question of the documents, to see whether these can be produced in a more portable form. I think this is probably a matter for the Lord Chairman of Committees
746
and the usual channels. I will certainly talk to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman and also to my noble friend the Chief Whip who is sitting behind me on the Front Bench, to see what can be done. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also referred to the less favoured farming areas, and I hope I have dealt with those.
We also had a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, who speaks from his great knowledge as a Member of the European Parliament. I am sure we very much appreciate the kind remarks made about the achievements of my right honourable friend in regard to the Sugar Agreement. The noble Lord asked what had been decided about the glasshouse growers, and I think I can give him some information on that point. There has been reference to the effect of fuel oil costs on horticulture. The Government recognised this problem in the subsidy given last year, which was worth some £7 million. Contrary to the impression given in the Select Committee's Report, the subsidy is not available for fuel used after 31st December 1974. However, representations have been made to extend the subsidy and these are being considered by the Government. We welcome the Committee's comment that this matter should be considered in the context of an overall energy policy. Certainly horticulture, like any other fuel user, must adapt to the increased cost of energy. The Commission have said they will be making certain proposals to the glasshouse sector. These proposals have not yet been received but they will be carefully studied when they are received; and in the mean-time the Government are considering the representations that have been made.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Hare-wood, and what she said about beef. I think I have answered her points during the course of my speech. This is one of the matters which will be taken up by my right honourable friend in Brussels. We greatly appreciate the congratulations proffered by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness Lady Elliot of Har-talked about the less favoured farming areas. I think I have already covered the points that he raised. As he says, there is no mention of Wales. That is so, but there again, we hope that one day

747
in the future the Principality will be in. This, of course, is not entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government but we take note of what the noble Lord said. I was interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the beef question. As I have said, this is being made the subject for further negotiation.
I hope I have answered all the points that have been raised. In conclusion, I should like to repeat my appreciation of the diversity of views expressed today, and assure noble Lords that their points will be fully weighed by my right honourable friend in his further negotiations next week. Assuming that those negotiations are concluded, he will be reporting the outcome to Parliament. It has been most helpful to hear the views expressed, and I know that my right honourable friend is determined to secure decisions that strike a proper balance between all the various interests involved. We shall be aiming to make further significant progress in the Government's efforts to influence the Community's agricultural policies in ways which are favourable to the United Kingdom.
7.28 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure we would all wish to express our condolences to my noble friend Lord Beswick on his sickness, and to hope that it will not be long before he is recovered and able to be present in your Lordships' House again. While we are sorry he is not here today—if I may say so without appearing to be insulting to him—we have lost nothing, because the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has fulfilled the task admirably and has answered all our questions in a most thoughtful and helpful manner. This has undoubtedly been a worthwhile debate from our point of view. I think it has been good for us to express our views and listen to the views of others. I hope it has also been a worthwhile debate from the point of view of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and that it will help him in Brussels.
There are perhaps three specific points above all others which have emerged from this debate, to which I hope he will pay attention. The first is our strong support for the present system of hill-farming subsidies
748
and other helps. I hope he will not give way on that, whatever other helps may be brought in for special areas in different parts of the Community. We hope he will stick firmly by the policy which enables the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, to continue to farm so effectively and which might even enable the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, to do so if she wishes.
The second point, while not of immediate relevance to Brussels—though I hope it is something which can be done on a Community scale and not just on a national scale as the years go by—is the complete unanimity of those who have spoken on the importance of research and the overriding economic reasons for promoting research in spite of cuts which may be necessary elsewhere.
The third and undoubtedly the most important point which has come out of all this is that, while we criticise prices in certain respects, while we think that the desired result may not be achieved especially in the sphere of sugar beet, and while we recognise the problems that there are with beef, all these things are relatively unimportant compared with the overriding importance of the long-term policy for agriculture, bearing in mind the great need, even of the enlarged Community, for imports, the rising cost of all production, the rising cost of investment which is essential for efficient production, and the rising demand on a long-term basis throughout the whole world in the years ahead. So there I hope that my right honourable friend will not only pursue with the utmost urgency, and bring to a fruitful and speedy conclusion, his negotiations with the National Farmers' Unions on a long-term policy for this country, but will extend his discussions and make use of his great experience and the experience of this country in discussions with the Community and the Council of Ministers, so that very soon they will follow our example, or even lead us —I do not mind who comes first—in producing a long-term policy for the whole of the Community. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to those who have remained to listen to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.