Lords Sitting of 24 February 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
The Lord Bridges—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

COMMODITY PRICES AND BUFFER STOCKS
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 attitude their representatives are taking at the conference of the 87 nations attached to the UNCTAD Committee on Commodities on the Secretariat's proposal for a buffer stock to stabilise the prices of non-oil commodities from developing nations.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government consider that the question of setting up buffer stocks should be pursued on a commodity-by-commodity basis, preferably in those international fora which already exist for specialised commodities, or, failing this, by UNCTAD in close liaison with these fora. The United Kingdom delegation to the Committee on Commodities has been instructed in this sense.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Can he say how far the developing nations at the Conference accepted the proposal which Her Majesty's Government made?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot say, because, obviously, in view of the enormous list of commodities concerned I cannot speak for individual countries regarding them.
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but that was not exactly my question. The developing countries put forward proposals for a buffer stock arrangement
538
for 18 different commodities. The Minister has answered that these are to be taken separately. Is it the case that the developing nations have accepted that they should be taken separately, or are they still insisting on the broader conception?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may 1 give a slightly wider answer to my noble friend's question? The United Kingdom view is that the question of setting up buffer stocks should be pursued on a commodity-by-commodity basis, because of the diverse nature of the commodities, preferably in international fora which already exist for specialised commodities—for instance, Food and Agriculture Organisation commodity groups—or, failing this, by UNCTAD in close liason with the fora. However, we cannot see much cause for duplicating work on commodities for which commodity agreements already exist, or are being negotiated, involving buffer stocks. This is true of cocoa, coffee and tin.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does not that answer indicate that the difference between the developing countries and the West—the United States of America, West Germany and this country —still persists; and is not it very unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government in conference after conference should have been in conflict with the developing countries in regard to their demands?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is not a question of conflict. It is a question of the best way to achieve certain objectives. We are talking about chalk and cheese, and it is impossible to arrive at a standard formula to cover both chalk and cheese.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, while we admire my noble friend's voracious appetite for United Nations' Resolutions, would it not be salutary, as the Minister said, for us to have a critical look at this matter and be allowed to take our own stand on it; or do we have to take just what these countries want us to take?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend. The point is that we are concerned with the

539
whole range of commodities, while certain individual countries are interested in a far narrower range.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a book has today been published, which I cannot by the Rules of the House advertise, although I should like to? Is he aware that it is entitled Economic Stability is Attainable and it has a foreword, written by a noble Lord who is a Member of this House and an economic adviser to the present Government, which puts forward proposals, in rather more elaborate form than in previous works, suggesting—as I ventured to suggest to the noble Lord a week or so ago—that solving the vital problem of commodity prices would be one of the most powerful contributions to the battle against inflation? Will the noble Lord consult the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, about it, and will he, perhaps, familiarise himself with the book's contents?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as my noble friend has pointed out, the book was apparently published this morning. I have been struggling through the fog to get from Wales to this House, so I have not as yet had time to read it.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to take an early opportunity of reading this book by Mr. Grondona, which is a really remarkable contribution at the present time regarding international economic difficulties?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the Government consider making a statement on the theories put forward by Mr. Grondona, which have been under examination and public scrutiny for about 25 years, and on which no Government have yet declared their position categorically and clearly?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a subject on which it is impossible for any Government to reply categorically. We all have differing interests.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, are we to take it from the reply which the noble Lord has given to my noble friend that
540
it is not the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to seek to interfere with the independence of the other countries concerned, for example, British Guyana? Is it not true that we have already conveyed information to the nation that the British Guyana Government have decided to nationalise the demerara interests in that country, without any interference at all from Her Majesty's Government?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive remarks.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Government's adviser, Lord Kaldor, is still of the opinion which is expressed on the cover of this book?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, my understanding of the purpose of Question Time—and I have sought to put it to your Lordships' House on a number of occasions—is to elicit information from Her Majesty's Government on matters for which they are responsible. I really do not think that anything concerned with the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, or anybody else has anything to do with the Government. It is a matter for the person concerned.

STUDENTS' GRANTS
2.41 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total cost of student grants.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, the expenditure on grants for fees and maintenance of students by the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish Education Department, Research Councils and local education authorities for the academic year 1973–74 is provisionally estimated at £185 million.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I ask him whether, in view of this staggering sum, there is any possibility that the Government will reconsider abolishing the means test, which I believe does

541
not cost a great amount of money to operate? If, however, they are worrying about where the money might come from, I would point out that a vast amount of expense and unnecessary work could be saved by local authorities if the means test were abolished.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I assume that the noble Earl is referring to the parental contribution. The cost of abolishing the parental contribution would be about £65 million in the current year.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer, and I realise how difficult it is for the Government to be generous in these very hard times. However, do the Government realise the hardship which the means test bestows upon married students, upon students whose parents' income falls into the low or middle income bracket, and also upon students whose parents refuse to fill in the means test forms?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, on the two questions which the noble Earl has raised, I cannot accept that students endure undue hardship as regards the scales upon which parental and spouses' contributions are assessed. The scales are carefully designed to take into account ability to pay. I shall, of course, be looking at them again during the present review of grants for 1975/76.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether this includes grants to married women, and are they equivalent in amount to those received by the single man?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the figures that I gave certainly included grants to married women. There are certain circumstances in which the grant to a married woman is not quite as great as the grant to a married man. It is one of the anomalies which is being looked at in my review of the situation.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether our students are better supported than students in other European Economic Community countries?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, my information is that our students are far, far better supported than most students anywhere else in the world.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that he has no evidence of any hardship among students. I am wondering whether the noble Lord would reconsider his reply, in the light of the fact that many parents who have contributions assessed against them do not make those payments to their children, with the result that they suffer very serious hardship at university?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I hope I did not say that they are suffering no hardship. I hope that I used the words "undue hardship". I am aware that some students have financial difficulties as a result of refusal by their parents to pay in full the assessed contributions. Indeed, local education authorities have been asked to notify parents direct of the amount of their contribution, and also to inform them that if they do not pay those contributions in full the students may suffer hardship.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in view of his very sweeping statement about students in EEC countries, would the Minister be prepared to give figures of grants to students both here and in other EEC countries, and also to give figures of how many students in each country have accessibility to universities?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, that is a different question. However, if the noble Baroness will put it down in writing I will see whether I can get the appropriate information.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, in regard to student grants in this country, would the noble Lord agree that the policy which successive Governments have endorsed has resulted in a far higher proportion of the children of manual workers going to universities in this country than in any other EEC country? Would he also agree that the policy of maintaining the basic grant as high as possible, without regard to the abolition of any so-called means test, has resulted in the children of the impoverished middle-classes, such as the children of the clergy, being able to go to universities?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I should not like to be drawn too much this afternoon into the matter of international comparisons, although I dare say that what the noble Lord has said is correct. It is the policy of this Government, as it has been of successive Governments, to make the grant as high as possible to prevent students who are attending full-time eduction from suffering undue hardship.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the benefit to the community, throughout the whole working life of someone who has been trained in a university, is an extremely good return to the country for this expenditure?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: Yes, my Lords.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend considers the grant for next year, will he take into account the fact that rents—both those payable to universities and those payable to the keepers of lodging houses—are about to be increased and are likely to be increased still further, particularly because of the increasing rates of interest?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, in considering the grant rates for the next academic year, all aspects of the cost of living will be taken into account.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER:My Lords, when my noble friend says that our students are better supported than any in the world, does he mean the world or does he mean the Western world?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I said that I did not want to be drawn too much into international comparisons this afternoon, which are rather outside the framework of the Question. But when I referred to the world, I really meant the Western world.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in fact the comparison would be just as favourable in the Eastern world?

EEC: NON-OIL DEFICIT
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of our total deficit in non-oil visible trade in 1974 was attributable to the 8 EEC countries.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the non-oil deficit with the E.E.C. accounted for 110 per cent, of the total non-oil deficit in 1974.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in view of the startling nature of that reply, would the noble Lord be kind enough to ask the Foreign Secretary, who I understand now controls the negotiations in connection with Articles 92 and 93, what he is going to do about it? My noble friend will no doubt bear in mind that I stressed the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary because on Saturday morning there was a directive given from the Foreign Office that questions arising from Articles 92 and 93 are not now matters of principle but of technique.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will certainly bring my noble friend's views to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, does my noble friend remember the glorious prospects that were held out to us at the time of our entry into the EEC, and the vast export market which it was held out would then become available to us so as to give us a positive surplus with the EEC instead of the negative one which we have now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would have expected my noble friend to take a longer view than two years.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that the implied question of the previous speaker was rather like the army slogan?—We love eggs and bacon, if we had some eggs and somebody would bring us some bacon. The promises are always in the future. What we want to know is what the Government are going to do about the startling reply they have given today.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask two questions: first, what was the difference in the percentage of trade deficit with the EEC countries in 1972 and 1974; and secondly, would the Minister agree that an immense saving was made by buying food from the EEC in 1973 and 1974 to the tune of £500 million while our Commonwealth deficit was already £580 million and we would have spent far more on food, if we could have afforded it, from Europe? Will the noble Lord confirm that?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should, like to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness, but in point of fact we were talking about a very limited area in this Question.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that our overall deficit with the world would have been worse than it is today if our trade with the eight had not grown as fast as it has as a result of Community membership?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the real problem with statistics is that one can make them mean anything. Speaking quite honestly now, and not as—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord WINTERBOTTOM:—a committed marketeer, as I am, I think that the statistics are totally inconclusive. It is a question of time scale.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will the Government rectify this adverse balance of trade with the eight by restricting imports from the Community?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another, and a very difficult question.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that on 13th January in another place the Minister of Trade— answering what I think was a similar question—said that the non-oil deficit attributable to the Common Market countries was 96 per cent., and he repeated that constantly under a series of questions? Could he now say whether the statement he is making today is with the approval of the Ministry of Trade or whether his figures have come from another source?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, they have come from exactly the same source, but time marches on and things change. However, I am afraid these questions will be with us for some time yet.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend answered my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and said that we ought to take a longer view than two years; can he give us an estimate of how many years it will take?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if I could, life would be a great deal easier, but I am afraid I cannot—nor can a great many expert advisers.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord state the difference in the balance of payments with the Common-wealth over the last year as compared with our balance of payments deficit with the EEC?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is quite aside from the Question under discussion. There is another Question coming, which might be slightly more apposite.

EEC AND VISIBLE TRADE BALANCES
2.57 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and when the noble Lord replies would he be kind enough to say whether he is replying honestly or dishonestly?
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the comparable figures for the years 1973 and 1974 for the visible trade balances between the United Kingdom and the 8 EEC countries.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said, statistics can mean anything. Perhaps the noble Lord can decline the word "lies"—lies, damned lies and statistics—but I think this is a case in point.
Now as to the Question: the visible deficit with the EEC is provisionally estimated at £2,035 million in 1974, compared with £1,131 million in 1973.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in view of the fact that the deficit has doubled in

547
the course of the year, would my noble friend take note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when replying on 30th January to much the same Question, said that the difference was only marginal? If it was the view of the Government that the difference was marginal, then would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell us when it ceased to be marginal?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I noted that the noble Lord had intervened on the occasion of a similar Question towards the end of January, but I do not think I used the word "marginal". I said that the deficit was provisionally estimated at £2,035 million compared with £1,131 million. That is the Answer to the Question.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that having regard to the fact that these imports from EEC countries are mainly of manufactured goods and not raw materials, the position is really rather serious?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in point of fact that is not the case. One of the main changes in the shift of the balance is on the imports of food. Food has come into this country to an increasing degree from the Common Market. To give some figures in this limited area, the deficit on dairy produce has increased by £140 million in the two years, and on meat by £90 million. That means we are buying £230 million more in terms of food in this one year. In fact the deficit arises to a great degree from the import of dairy produce, cereals and meat.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the food imported from the Common Market countries was at a very much lower rate than it would have been had it been bought from the rest of the world?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, certain foods were cheaper, certain foods were more expensive; but on balance at the moment the advantages on purchasing are with the Common Market.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the substantial increase in the deficit in the course of a year or a year and a half could be
548
regarded as one of the benefits deriving from the Treaty of Accession; and can we obtain any estimate of what the deficit is likely to be in the course, of, say eight years?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, while I will not admit to the possession of a crystal ball, I will give one figure which will be of help. If we look at the balance of trade with the EEC of the 8 we see that the proportion of the deficit was as follows: in 1972 the deficit with the EEC was 76 per cent, of our total; in 1973 it was 48 per cent., and in 1974 it was 40 per cent. The proportion is moving in the right direction. Within a few years—and I refuse to be tied to a specific year—the position will become very much more favourable to us. Noble Lords must remember that trade has to adjust itself, and it does not adjust itself from weekend to weekend.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that on the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill, pleas were made to the then Conservative Government that this House should exercise its historic duty and delay the passing of the Bill so that the British people could be given an opportunity of taking their decision in fulfilment of the promise of the then Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Heath, that we would enter the Common Market only with the consent of the general public? Does not my noble friend realise that he has answered the Question honestly, because he has revealed the case against the Common Market?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think this Government are in any way answerable for the activities and judgments of the previous Administration. Therefore I think that the question being put by my noble friend Lord Wigg to my other noble friend is not one to which he ought to seek an answer.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I quite understand that my noble friend the Leader of the House should try to protect his noble friend. I am generous and I understand thoroughly my noble friend's desire to protect his noble friend; but when his noble friend uses the crystal ball, which involves a matter of pure conjecture, I am entitled to use not a crystal ball, but the cold water of reality.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, at this moment all my noble friend Lord Wigg is entitled to do is to keep within the Rules of this House and of Question Time. I am not: seeking to protect my noble friend, but to protect the House, on which all our rights depend.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I must again congratulate my noble friend on his desire to protect the House because it seems to vary on occasions!
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Wigg is stretching the patience of your Lordships' House, if not mine, and mine is a long one.
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a matter which obviously will have to be debated in the near future. This is a subject which should be raised as a matter for debate, and not raised during Question Time, which my noble friend is doing.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am quite willing to defer to my noble friend the Leader of the House and leave the matter to a debate. But I must again point out to him that in the application of a Rule—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I repeat, that I must point out—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord WIGG: — there is variance as between one Member and another.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I on behalf of the House and from these Benches support the noble Lord the Leader of the House in the action which he has taken, and in stressing that the Rules of this House must be upheld in the interests of every one of us.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Jacques will repeat a Statement on the railway signalmen's industrial action.
MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

SUPPLY POWERS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee on the Bill. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee on the Bill. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, it will be recalled that on Thursday last we were unable to take the Third Reading of the Bill because printing procedures had not been carried out until that morning. During the interval, my noble friend the Leader of the House took the opportunity of consulting with various interests throughout the House to try to meet the wishes expressed by your Lordships' House on the subject of the hybridity procedure.

551
I understand that in these discussions the principle of an Amendment to the Bill—and one has been tabled for this afternoon, as your Lordships will know —was accepted, but it has not been possible to agree the actual form of words put in the Amendment up to this point. Further discussions will be taking place later this afternoon. It is hoped that another form of the Amendment will be tabled during the day to enable the Third Reading of the Bill and the Amendment thereon to be taken tomorrow. I apologise to your Lordships for this further delay. I think it will eventually be accepted that it is a genuine effort on the part of all concerned to meet the wishes of the House on this important procedural point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I know that the Government are seeking with an Amendment to meet the point made on this Bill by the House and I understand that the Amendment which has been tabled is likely to be improved from the point of view of this side of the House. We are, therefore, quite ready for the delay, but we hope to be able tomorrow—if the Amendment comes before us tomorrow—to ask for explanations and assurances about its meaning.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I think the result may be that the Amendment will be improved from the point of view of all sides of the House. It is largely a procedural matter. The noble Lord will have the advantage of addressing questions to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who will be moving the Bill on my behalf tomorrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee on the Bill. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BILL [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Amendment of Explosive Substances Act 1883]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
"(2) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order, made by statutory instrument, appoint."
The noble Lord said: There must be every hope that the system of extraterritorial jurisdiction which will be put into effect by both this Bill and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, which is now before the Dail in Dublin, will mark a real step towards peace in Ireland. The range of terrorist offences to be found in Schedule 1 and in Clauses 2, 3 and 6 will render a fugitive offender from the South liable to prosecution in Northern Ireland, and the Republic's Bill will similarly bring to trial terrorists from Northern Ireland who seek refuge over the border. So it was that after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had kindly explained the Bill on Second Reading, we sought from these Benches to offer our support for the intention of this Bill. I should also like at this stage to say that we very much recognise the determination of the Government of the Republic to see that fugitive offenders who are terrorists are brought to justice within the whole of Ireland.
Schedule 1 includes two types of terrorist offence which have all too frequently dealt death and destruction to both life and property. One is the offence of causing an explosion under Section 2

553
of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, and the other is, in broad terms, the offence of conspiring to cause an explosion, which is found under Section 3 of the same Act. Each of these sections is included in Schedule 1 to this Bill, and in the Irish Bill, so that to cause or conspire to cause an explosion will make a terrorist liable to be tried on whichever side of the border in Ireland he may be apprehended.
The terms of reference for the Law Enforcement Commission on which this reciprocal legislation was based were to recommend the most effective means of dealing with the problem of fugitive offenders, but only in Ireland. As the noble and learned Lord explained on Second Reading, both Bills go beyond the scope of the Commission's terms of reference by including the whole of the United Kingdom with reference to explosive substances. Thus it is that Clause 7 of this Bill amends Section 2 of the 1883 Act by making it possible for someone who actually causes an explosion in the Republic to be tried here in the United Kingdom, and Section 3 of that Act is also rewritten under Clause 7 to deal similarly with anyone who has conspired to cause an explosion and is found in Great Britain. The unsatisfactory aspect of this clause is that whereas the Irish Bill for its part also extends Section 3 of the 1883 Act to Great Britain, no mention is made of Section 2. I must say that I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord on Second Reading for making it clear that the effect of this omission is that a bomber in Great Britain who perhaps escapes to the Republic could be tried for conspiring, but could not be tried for the explosion itself.
This Bill and the Bill before the Dail have a united objective, to bring peace to Northern Ireland and the Republic, but; after the Law Enforcement Commission's Report last May it became clear that Great Britain was also to be a target for terrorist bombing offences. There is then a question which this Government and the Government of the Republic must subsequently have considered. Would the Government accept that if both Bills were to be passed unamended and a terrorist explosion were then to occur soon afterwards in Great Britain, and if the fugitives were apprehended in the Republic of Ireland but
554
could not be proceeded against for causing the outrage, the sense of public outrage in this country would be very great indeed, and would be increased by the knowledge that if the explosion had occurred within Ireland the offender could have been brought to trial by means of this extraterritorial jurisdiction? It is to try to prevent such a situation that this Amendment is tabled. Its effect would be to allow a period of delay while reconsideration was given to this point. I am certain the Ministers in Dublin will appreciate the damage which this omission from the Irish Bill could do to this legislation, which, after all, they have done so much to help to bring forward. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): I think it would be helpful if I answered the noble Lord straight away before other noble Lords intervene. I think I can meet him doubly. First, I can assure him that we have now heard from the Government of the Republic of Ireland that they will introduce into their Bill in the Dail a reciprocal provision to Section 2 of the 1883 Act, to which the noble Lord referred. Secondly, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak not only to the noble Lord's Amendment but also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which involve doing what the noble Lord is asking us to do but in a slightly more flexible way.
The intention of the Amendment is to enable Clause 7 to be brought into operation without bringing in the entire Bill. The Secretary of State would then be able to postpone bringing in the provisions covering the substantive offence of causing an explosion in the Republic under Section 2, to which I have just referred, until the Republic have amended their Bill as they now tell us they will do. I think the force of this perfectly reasonable request from the noble Lord is removed, and if noble Lords will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 we can meet him even further. Amendment No. 2, which is to Clause 12, is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 14, which is Amendment No. 3, and they must be looked at together. They will have the effect that Clause 12 and the related provisions will come into

555
force on the passing of the Bill, and the remainder of the Bill will come into force on an appointed day, either all at once or piecemeal as required.
The main purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the trial of fugitives who are alleged to have committed terrorist offences in any part of Ireland, irrespective of the part in which they are found. Subsection (2) of Clause 14 provides that the Bill shall come into force as a whole
"on such date as the Secretary of Stale may by order appoint."
This provision is no longer appropriate, because the Bill now goes beyond its original single purpose in two respects, in Clause 7 and in Clause 12, and flexibility is required in bringing these independent parts of it into force. Clause 12 and the related provisions in Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6 must come into operation together with Clause 13, which contains the interpretation provisions, as soon as possible and the Amendment provides for this on Royal Assent. The Amendment also enables the remainder of the Act to be brought into force either on one date or, for different provisions on different dates. This would enable, for example, Clause 7, which is independent of the remainder of the Bill, to be brought into force separately. If the Committee will support me in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that it will not be necessary to press Amendment No.1.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH:I should like to support my noble friend Lord Belstead and the Government. I thought this was a very grievous omission, and I was surprised that the Government in Dublin had not told us when we came to Second Reading that they would correct it. I therefore welcome the change very much indeed.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the reply he has given, and also to the Government of the Republic for stating their intention. I believe I am right in thinking that the insertion of Section 3 of the 1883 Act, which, of course, has already been put into the Republic's Bill, extended their law; whereas we have only rewritten our law, if I followed the noble and learned Lord correctly on Second Reading. I
556
had not in any way doubted the intentions of the Government of the Republic, and I am delighted that they have now made their definite intentions clear as regards Section 2. It does not surprise me that the Government's drafting is superior to mine. I will accept the Government's Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when they are formally moved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I wonder whether I might ask a question on Clause 7 before it passes. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was replying at the end of the Second Reading debate to the hypothetical question of what might happen to someone who had committed a bombing outrage in this country and was apprehended in the Republic, the noble and learned Lord said, at column 973:
"If the bombers were not Irish citizens, they could be tried only in the Republic for such an offence if it could be shown that the preparatory act, the conspiracy or the planning, took place in the Republic."
I want to ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is possible for him to give me an answer, in layman's language, on a question of fact. I should like to know what is the situation if a terrorist explosion is caused in Dublin by someone who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that person is then apprehended in the United Kingdom; and conversely what happens if someone who is not a citizen of the Republic—and this is the point to which the noble and learned Lord was referring—causes an explosion in the United Kingdom and is apprehended in the Republic.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We are dealing with the contingency of a terrorist who causes an explosion in this country and who escapes to the Irish Republic, and vice versa. In the light of the situation that will come into existence after the undertakings given by the Republic are carried out, I think that those offenders will be triable in either country, wherever they are apprehended. I think that is right, but I should like to take notice of the question to ensure that I am absolutely correct in my answer.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I apologise that I did not give longer notice of the question. The question is, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the person causing the explosion is not a citizen of either the United Kingdom or the Republic. Perhaps if the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to allow me to raise this again on Report it will be possible for him to consider it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the noble Lord's forbearance. I am sorry I have not an immediate answer. I should like notice of the question.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: It seems to me that this is touching on a very important matter. If the IRA campaign continues, there is every sign that they will increasingly use people of different nationalities to cause explosions and damage. Therefore, I think that it is something that we should deal with. In dealing with this Bill we should also take more note of the international link-up of international terrorist attacks on our institutions. We must deal with it as though the IRA campaign might continue and use international terrorists to aid them in their foul aims.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may come back to the question, the ordinary extradition procedures would apply in that case. If it was an Arab terrorist that we were talking about, I would expect that we would extradite the terrorist to Ireland and vice versa. That may be the solution. It the absence of any extradition arrangement it would create difficult problems. I hope that extradition would meet the case in that situation, but it is not an easy question.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Prosecution of extra-territorial offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1l shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to ask for clarification on Clause 1.1. I should like to know how the operation will be triggered off. If somebody has caused an explosion or an offence under this Act in Northern
558
Ireland or in Great Britain and has escaped to Dublin, do we assume that the police forces will apply for an extradition order? Having gone through the primary court and having been recommended for extradition, they normally go to the high court where they say that there is a political connection and extradition is refused. To put it the other way round, if they have caused an explosion in Dublin and have come to one of our areas, how is that triggered off, and will extradition be applied straight away? This is crucial to the operation of the Bill and crucial to my next Amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Does the noble Viscount mean extraterritorial as described under this Bill or extradition which is a different matter?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: It is an extraterritorial offence which has been committed and I want to know how the operation is triggered off; it must start somehow. If the man who caused the offence under this Bill has escaped from the jurisdiction either in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (in fact, any of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom), do the police from either party apply for extradition in order to trigger it off? Vice-versa, if an explosion is caused in Dublin and the fugitive comes to the United Kingdom jurisdiction, is it also triggered off by an application for extradition?
3.27 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think extradition will come into it once this new procedure is in force. This has been created because applications for extradition have proved ineffective for the reasons which I endeavoured to explain on Second Reading, the view being taken in the Republic that the offences are not extraditable because they are connected with politics. It has been ruled there time and again that if a man who is a terrorist appears before a court in the Republic and says, "Yes, but I did it as a member of the IRA", then it is immediately classified as being an offence of a political character and therefore not extraditable. It was by reason of that appalling lacuna in the arrangements that this new Bill comes into force to create extraterritorial

559
jurisdiction in the respective territories of Northern Ireland and the Republic. The position will be that the police in one country will send the evidence that they have collected to the police in the other, and the Attorney General concerned in the respective countries will decide whether or not to prosecute, applying the procedures set out in this Bill. What is absolutely crucial, therefore, in the successful working of this machinery-is full co-operation between the respective forces of Northern Ireland and the Republic—and, indeed, of this country—and we are assured that that will be forthcoming. I must emphasise that this is absolutely fundamental to the success of the scheme.
I have mentioned the difficulties of extradition from the point of view of the Republic. It would be open to the authorities in this country to apply for extradition if we wished to do so, but in cases where extradition, in the light of existing experience, would be unlikely to be granted, it would probably be better to proceed, as I have said, after the exchange of information between the police by asking the Attorney General in the Republic to proceed under the new procedure. I hope that that will work out effectively. We would, of course, give all the information available to the police to the Republic's authorities, in order to obtain a successful conclusion to the proceedings.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I am sorry to have to go into this further, but it would seem to me that in the United Kingdom jurisdictions, where we have willingly given extradition, that we should pay attention to the Law Commission's Report, which said that the extra-territorial courts were in fact more likely to cause an injustice than extradition, and that we, in our jurisdictions, should extradite wherever possible and not use the procedure under the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I apprehend that the noble Viscount is speaking of Great Britain as distinct from Northern Ireland. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, in the light of the experience that the courts have had so far, the use of the extradition procedure from the Northern Ireland end would, I fear, be ineffective in most cases. This is why the alternative method of giving extra-
560
territorial jurisdiction has been brought into being. I agree that if extradition on a reciprocal basis could be attained that would be the better solution, but un-fortunately that is not forthcoming.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: No; I am putting it the other way round. Somebody has escaped from the South of Ireland, having committed an offence in the South of Ireland, resides in the North of Ireland and is apprehended in the North. The Law Commission made it clear in their Report that in their view better justice was served by that person being returned to the jurisdiction rather than us being compelled to operate this Criminal Jurisdiction Bill, if it becomes law. If it is better law, then it should in fact be operated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This was gone into. As I say, the essence of the arrangement is a reciprocal one. During the discussions with the Enforcement Commission, Lord Justice Scarman and, I think, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, pressed the extradition procedure as the more effective one. Whether we would extradite in a given case would depend, I suppose, in part on what the courts decided either here or in Northern Ireland. If extradition seemed the more effective course we should prefer that method, and indeed we should have wished that the Republic authorities would agree to extradite the terrorists to Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, as the case may be.
I shall look further into this point. It is an important one. If I have not accurately expressed the position off the cuff we shall come back to the matter at Report stage. I certainly do not want to mislead the Committee on it.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble and learned Lord. That is very much the reply for which I hoped.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Consents to prosecutions etc.]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 25, leave out (" coming into force of this section") and insert (" passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: As I explained in speaking to Amendment No 1, this

561
Amendment is consequential upon the Committee accepting Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 can only be effective if this alteration is made in Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, etc.]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("(2) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) sections 12 and 13;

(b) this section, except so far as subsection (4) below relates to Parts III and IV of Schedule 6, and

(c) Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6, shall come into force on the passing of this Act.

(2A) Subject to subsection (2) above, this Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes.")
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I referred in discussing Lord Belstead's Amendment, Amendment No. 1, which gives flexibility to the Secretary of State to introduce different parts of this Bill at times of his own convenience. I do not think that it is necessary to say more than that. The exact wording of the Amendment is technical in that it excludes certain sections and includes certain other sections. Sections 12 and 13, and Section 14 except those parts relating to Parts III and IV of Schedule 6 and Schedule 5 and Parts I and II of Schedule 6 shall come into force on the passing of the Act, and after the Act has passed everything else will be brought in at the pleasure and consideration of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.36 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Viscount said: I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to apply this Bill in toto to the whole of the United Kingdom; that is, Great
562
Britain and Northern Ireland. The IRA attack from which we have been suffering for five years has been dealt with by various methods. We have taken various powers in each part of the United Kingdom, but there are in fact loopholes and it is to deal with one of the major loopholes that this Bill is before us.
In the United Kingdom extradition has been granted both from the Northern Ireland jurisdiction and the Great Britain jurisdiction without any question, and this Bill would not be necessary were it not for the fact that it is not possible to extradite fugitive criminals from the Irish Republic. But does this Bill in fact meet this case? Without my Amendment I do not think that it does. The intention is that a man committing an offence in any part of the British Isles can be brought to justice and can be made to face trial. At the present moment, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, the case is exactly parallel in the North of Ireland and in the South of Ireland; that is, a criminal who commits an offence under this Act and escapes to another jurisdiction can be arraigned in front of a court and tried, and evidence for that case can be taken on commission in the other jurisdiction.
Now that happens in Great Britain? On Second Reading I instanced the case of the Birmingham bombers If this Bill were passed, and, say, the criminals had escaped from our jurisdiction and reached Dublin, they could be apprehended and tried. However, they could not be given a fair trial unless all the witnesses went from this country to Dublin to give evidence in that court. I give two instances. I wonder whether British people, English people, in the circumstances of the violence and death which the IRA have wreaked not only in Northern Ireland but also in Birmingham, would be happy to go from Birmingham to Dublin to bear witness in this case? But more particularly, in the actual case involved, many of the people injured were in fact Irishmen of a certain residence in this country, some of whom have not been here very long. I am convinced that they would not go to Dublin to give evidence in the full glare of publicity that would undoubtedly exist, particularly in the first case brought under the Bill. They would not go there to put in

563
jeopardy any of their relations who may live in lonely and isolated parts of the Irish Republic. Therefore, I feel that it is necessary for us to give the special powers to the Dublin Government—because that is all we are doing—to hear evidence on commission in the rest of the United Kingdom in Great Britain.
The terrorists have two intentions: first, to provoke repression; secondly, to cause a backlash. If they do not get enough repressive legislation, then the Government will be in dereliction of their duty and you will get a backlash. I shudder to think what would have happened if those Birmingham murderers had in fact got back to Dublin. We all saw the enormous upsurge of hate and feeling that occurred against the Irish people who work in Birmingham and Coventry. If they had got to Dublin and could not be tried, and the Irish Government refused to extradite them, I do not believe there would have been an Irishman safe— whether Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Nationalist Republican, or what-have-you —in the Birmingham area. I much respect the people of Birmingham for the calm way in which they reacted, but I think part of the calmness was due to the effective action of the police. Had it not been effective—and it is something that could easily have materialised—I wonder what revenge would have been taken? The Government of the country, warned of it now, in my view would be very slack if they did not take steps to extend the Bill which is before the House at this moment, to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the citizens of this country require us to put this Bill through now. I am sure that if the Bill had been ready in December no question would have arisen, because there would have been a tremendous demand for it to be passed as applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. On Second Reading I welcomed the Bill, as I welcome every Bill that produces co-operation between the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But it must be a second best to extradition, and I am delighted to hear from the noble and learned Lord that he will look into the question as to whether extradition can in most cases be utilised in regard to
564
British jurisdiction and Northern Irish jurisdiction, because, in my view, greater justice will be done if offenders are tried in the country of the crime. I do not understand why this cannot be done. Mr. Cooney, the Minister of Justice, was reported in The Times of 29th November last as saying:
" Any initiative on extending the legislation would have to come from the British."
I should like to ask the Government whether this statement is true, and, if so, why that initiative has not come? In my mind I have a suspicion that the Irish Government are content to see Northern Ireland being dealt with slightly differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, because it helps them to continue to say, "We in Northern Ireland are not really part of the United Kingdom ". But we are part of the United Kingdom, and we jolly well intend to stay there! This is one way in which if this Bill were amended we should be able to improve the situation.
The object of this legislation was, first, to do justice; and, secondly (and this is a very important part of international relations), to give confidence to the people of Ulster and of the rest of the United Kingdom that the Irish Government would deal ruthlessly with people who are villainous criminals—and there is no other description for them. At the present moment we are pushing on with this legislation through this House. I do not know the timetable for the Bill in another place, but I understand it is not even on the Parliamentary timetable in Dublin at present. Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who is the Foreign Minister, a week ago today in Belfast said it was no longer such an urgent matter because there is a ceasefire. But those of us who live there, together with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, know just how fragile is that ceasefire; and if it is correct that in England actions are predicted before they happen in Northern Ireland, then we should insist that the Irish Government push on with the legislation.
The Law Commission required that this matter should be examined with extreme urgency. The Law Commission concluded its report about ten months ago. I do not consider the First Reading of a Bill, with no Parliamentary timetable ahead of it, to be a matter of extreme

565
urgency. I am more worried because the Opposition Party have now made it clear that they will fight the Bill line by line, yet all Parties in the South have said that Ireland will never be a haven for criminals. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will invite the Dublin Government to push on and show resolution in this matter, to stop talking and get on with the deeds. Further, I wish the Committee to be clear that what I am saying in no way bears any reflection on the recent actions of the Dublin Government in dealing with the IRA, because they have been first-class and their resolution has appeared to be even greater than ours at times. But they must be invited, first, to push on with this legislation and, secondly, to include the whole of the United Kingdom within the jurisdiction of the Bill.
May I remind your Lordships that one of the reasons why Ulstermen are suspicious of having joint Governmental institutions with the Irish Republic has always been because of their total failure to deal with fugitive criminals. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has raised a number of pertinent questions. I begin by informing the Committee that we have every reason to hope and believe that the complementary Irish Bill to that which the Committee is now considering will pass through the Dail. Its timetable is, of course, a matter for the Government of the Republic, but in all the discussions we have had I think both Governments have been clear and precise about the need to produce this legislation in parallel. I can say no more than that we have had assurances that that is the present intention, and, accordingly, we hope that that intention will be fulfilled.
The two Bills are essentially and generally reciprocal as between Northern Ireland and the Republic, because they are both designed to deal with the problem of terrorism within Ireland. They flow from the recommendations of the Law Enforcement Commission whose terms of reference were restricted to Ireland itself. The purpose of the Bill that we are considering, and of the Irish Bill, is to give effect to the Law Enforcement Commission's recommendations to Ireland. Indeed the Government of the Republic have made it clear that any question of
566
the general extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the Republic to cover a wide range of offences committed in Great Britain itself is a separate matter which would require separate discussions and a fresh Irish Bill.
In any event, it is by no means clear that the application to Great Britain of the proposed all-Ireland system can be justified, certainly at this stage, on its merits. We cannot of course predict the future course of possible terrorism in Britain. But the fact remains that one certainly cannot point to the same level of justification for the exceptional measures, which are provided for in the Bill in this country as in Northern Ireland. The difficulty, of course, of security and of containing violence in Northern Ireland, is that the land border makes the crucial difference between the position in Northern Ireland and our position here. In our case there is not the same facility for a quick escape across the Border. There are controls at the major points of entry and, if I may say so, these controls have been fairly effective through the work of our police in arresting alleged terrorists before they have had an opportunity of making good their escape from this country.
Another difficulty with regard to the proposal of the noble Viscount is this: the scheme that was devised by the Enforcement Commission and which is embodied in the Bill emerged in a situation in Ireland where special procedures already exist for dealing with terrorists. The nature of the terrorism there has made that necessary: it has mercifully not yet been justified here and I pray that it will not be necessary. The outcome of the developments which have taken place and the machinery now proposed which has been created to deal with its continuity is that the law enforcement scheme has features which certainly do not admit of simple extension to embrace Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. For example, the commission scheme for the taking of evidence and for the obtaining of information is based on trial without a jury. As I have said, the taking of evidence on commission is among the procedures which are provided for in the Bill in the other jurisdiction.
The Government do not consider that the situation has been reached where it would be appropriate to abandon trial

567
by jury in Great Britain in respect of what is, if we look at the schedule of offences in the Bill, a very wide range of serious criminal offences. The complementary proposals for taking evidence on commission would be quite impracticable: it would hardly be feasible to have whole juries going over from this country across the Irish Sea to hear evidence being taken in an Irish court. Yet, one cannot contemplate the abandonment of the jury trial in Britain in respect of these grave offences at this time.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: It was because I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would reply in that way that I made a point of trying to elicit under Clause 11 how the procedure would operate. If a criminal has committed an act in Ireland and has escaped to this country and is therefore to be arraigned before a British court under the Bill, the Irish Government would apply for extradition and that would at once be granted. Therefore, there would be no question of the administrative problems of judge and jury having to be transported to Dublin. We still have extradition—that is the point that I was trying to elicit from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor—so that, if a criminal came to this country from the Irish Republic having committed a crime, we should continue to grant extradition to that country. The only gap in the arrangements is in the case of a person such as a Birmingham bomber who goes to Dublin and for whom no witnesses can be found because they are afraid to go to Dublin to bear witness. The sole purpose of my Amendment, which, I admit, may not meet the case in a tidy way, is to ensure that the Dublin Government have the power to take evidence on commission in this country. The total administrative problem would, therefore, be the bringing of the Irish court, which consists of three judges, to Birmingham to take that evidence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In the situation of a terrorist who committed an offence in Ireland coming to this country, I think that the probabilities are that the courts would be willing, if the Eire authorities chose to apply for extradition, to allow the extradition of such a fugitive terrorist from this country back to the Republic. I think that that would be
568
so, but the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount would be to extend to this country the whole package of arrangements which is provided for in the Bill. Happily, the power of the Irish courts which will be forthcoming if the intention of the Eire Government is carried out by the passing of their Bill will allow them to deal in the Republic with explosions caused by terrorists in this country who have escaped to Ireland. If they are prepared to try those cases in the Republic, we should, of course, send over the information and evidence, and we should hope to send over the live witnesses and any other evidential support which would be needed by the Irish court. We have confidence in the judicial procedures in the Republic. The backing of warrants procedure in relation to ordinary crimes—such as murder, serious frauds and other cases—has been a system that has operated satisfactorily between this country and the Republic. I have no reason to doubt that if, in the future, most serious offences, such as the Birmingham outrage, were committed and the terrorists involved escaped to Ireland, the new machinery in the Bill, if it is fulfilled, would meet most of the main anxieties expressed by the noble Viscount. At least, I hope that it would.
One will have to see how these things operate, but that is the intention. If, as we expect, it will be carried out in good faith by each side, I have every hope that I am right in assuming that all will be well. Before giving way again to the noble Viscount, may I just say this: my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is aware that, if circumstances should deteriorate and change further, action may be necessary to bring to justice terrorists who have committed offences in Great Britain and in the Republic and there would have to be joint consultations with the Republic about that. We do not think that the situation in which further action needs to be contemplated has yet arisen, and we believe that the amendment of the present Bill to apply to Great Britain would be a most complicated and difficult matter and it might greatly hold up the progress of this urgently needed Bill. As I have said, it is something that is outside the remit of the enforcement commission, which was confined to the situation existing in Ireland.

569
To elaborate the matter further in a situation in which do we not feel it to be strictly necessary would have a harmful effect on bringing this Bill into force. So I hope that the noble Viscount may think that, in the situation in which we are at present—and I hope that we are not taking an over-optimistic view of the position—and given the willingness of the Eire authorities now to deal in Ireland with those who cause explosions and terrorist acts in this country, this is the best arrangement we can reasonably hope to arrive at and it will meet the more desperate needs that could conceivably arise in the continuing future of terrorism.
Lord BELSTEAD: This is my noble friend's Amendment. I am rising only to say that I hope that, after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, my noble friend may consider withdrawing the Amendment. I do not say this because I think that my noble friend has not hit the nail on the head: in one respect, I think that he has. But finally the noble and learned Lord made an important statement concerning what we had said. Where I suggest my noble friend has hit the nail on the head is when he said that although we have welcomed from this side of the Committee the statement that Clause 7 is to be fully reciprocated in the Republic, there is no doubt that it is difficult to find an answer to what my noble friend said about the movement of witnesses when one is talking about the holding of a trial in the Republic. This is no reflection whatever on the judicial processes in the Republic; it might just be difficult in human terms to get someone to go across in the middle of a very difficult trial.
Speaking from these Benches, I fully appreciate the problem that the noble and learned Lord has put forward. The Government will probably say that what they would like is a full system of extradition. I recognise that there will be a practical difficulty, as the noble and learned Lord explained, in the movement of juries, and that the Government would be loth to introduce Diplock-style courts into this country. I also understand the Government's placing great hope in the Prevention of Terrorism Act to reduce the risk of further bombings and other outrages.
570
I venture to give this advice to my noble friend: I think the noble and learned Lord is right and that we must surely move step by step. Let us get this Bill in co-operation with the Government of the Republic and then, as the noble and learned Lord said, if, as we hope will not happen, the situation were to deteriorate, the Home Secretary, in consultation with colleagues across the Irish Sea, would have to give further thought to the very serious points which my noble friend made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for the sensitive and highly responsible way—not to suggest that the noble Lord was at all irresponsible in his remarks—in which the noble Lord addressed the Committee in regard to this hideously difficult situation. We have advanced a good deal and we must not be too pessimistic. The Eire authorities have come a good deal of the way. although not as far as we should have liked, and there are various other indications of a willingness to help in what is really a threat to our respective societies, in the Republic, in Northern Ireland, and here.
We are faced by a common enemy of ruthless terrorism. There is a mood to tackle it and to work together. I know that nothing that has been said here was intended to cause any offence in Eire, nor I think were the words expressed capable of that construction. However, I suggest that we had better proceed as we have done so far and should, alas, the situation deteriorate, we will have another look to see where we go to try to protect our people, the innocent who suffer in our respective countries, from the continuance of these horrid acts.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I am grateful both to my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord for their remarks. I do not foresee any problems about this issue of transporting the judge and jury to Dublin because extradition would apply and the man would be tried in the area where he committed the offence. I am not a lawyer but I have always understood that one of the most important duties of a court is to judge the quality of the evidence, and it is in order to enable the Irish judges to decide whether

571
the evidence is of such quality as to convict a person that I want this Bill to be extended in a way that will enable the three judges to come to Birmingham, or wherever the crime has been committed, and hear the evidence in person.
I do not believe it is justice, or at any rate fair justice, to accept evidence without those who are taking part in the judgment in the case being present to hear the evidence. I do not believe it is fair to the accused, unless his counsel and he are there to hear the evidence and the quality of the questioning. Thus, when a man who commits a crime in Birmingham is taken to court in Dublin, if the evidence is not taken on commission in this country by people who will not go to Dublin, I believe that injustice will be done. We should realise that we are in an age of violence and that failure by the Government to act in time will be just as much of an anti-social act as actually doing it. If a crime is committed and the matter escalates we shall have failed to-day to take measures to bring the guilty person to justice; and if backlash occurs, we shall have nobody to blame but ourselves. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Extra-territorial offences]:
4.6 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is a technical Amendment, and I do not know whether your Lord-ships would like me to give a detailed explanation of it.
Several Noble Lords: No.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I thought that might be the response. I therefore move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, after ("arrest") insert "which was").—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. The remarks I made about the
572
previous Amendment apply equally to this one, and I can therefore move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, after (" 1965 ") insert ("and which does not specify the extra-territorial offence ").—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Examination of witnesses out of court]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I have only a few points to raise on the Schedule before we dispose of it. This provision deals with the examination of witnesses out of court and this is perhaps the most important part of the extra-territorial procedure. As I understand the Schedule, it is divided into three Parts. Part I deals with the examination in Northern Ireland of witnesses to assist the court which is holding the trial in the Republic, while Part II deals with the examination of witnesses in the Republic to assist the court which is holding the trial in Northern Ireland.
To the layman it would appear, having read those two headings, that the two Parts should be complementary, but they are not. They are drafted differently and, having combed through them, it seems to me that three questions arise. First, in paragraph 5(2) of Part II a duty is laid on the court to comply with an application from the prosecutor or the accused for the issue of a letter of request, but for some reason there is no corresponding duty to be found in Part I. Secondly, in Part I. paragraph 2(3), there are penalties for default in attending court or refusing to take an oath or for contempt, matters which have been very much in the mind of the judiciary in the courts in Northern Ireland in the past; but Part II does not contain a corresponding provision, although I have discovered it in Clause 12 of the Irish Bill. Thirdly, in Part I there is provision that the Commissioner shall sit in private, but Part II is silent on this point as well.
These may seem small and perhaps slightly niggling points, and I appreciate that they could possibly easily be answered by letter. Nevertheless, from a

573
layman's point of view, I should like to know what is the basis for the drafting of these two Parts of this Schedule. Certainly it is difficult to understand why it is that, although the headings clearly deal with the same process in the different jurisdictions, the drafting of the two Parts is in no way similar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Part I relates to the procedures for examination in Northern Ireland to assist the court in the Republic of Ireland, and Part II concerns examination in the Republic to assist the court in Northern Ireland. I shall try to illustrate the reason for the difference in the two procedures, and for the necessity to provide separately for them. With regard to the imposition of the duty to comply in Part II—and not in Part I—in relation to paragraph 5(2), we cannot in our Bill place a duty on a court in the Republic. Part I concerns taking evidence in Northern Ireland, and we can legislate for that in the Schedule. The Republic's Bill, however, has a provision complementary to that in our Bill.
With regard to the exclusion of contempt of court from Part II but its inclusion in Part I, Part II of Schedule 4 concerns only the issue of a letter of request in Northern Ireland for the purpose of taking evidence in the Republic. Part I is concerned with the examination of witnesses in Northern Ireland and it therefore needs the contempt provision. It is the nature of the respective proceedings in the one country that can be legislated for by Schedule, while in the other country—in the Republic—what is provided for is in a much more limited field. But there are reciprocal provisions, I am informed, in the Republic for similar steps to be taken.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

RAILWAYS: SIGNALMEN'S INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
4.13 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend in the other place. The Statement concerns the unofficial action taken and being threatened by some railway signalmen. The Statement reads:
"The signalmen concerned complain about the outcome of the major pay restructuring exercise for all British Rail employees which was finally completed last year. They are demanding a further 15 per cent. increase.
"Negotiations on a new, comprehensive pay structure for the railways first began in 1972. They were always accepted as being in addition to the negotiations for normal annual settlements. The negotiations proved long and arduous and the House will remember that they were from time to time accompanied by official industrial action which seriously disrupted railway services. In February 1974, agreement not having been reached, all the outstanding issues were referred to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the railways' agreed and independent arbitral body. In July last, year, the Tribunal reported after carefully considering all the issues, involving as they did the complex of all pay relativities between different groups of workers. Its recommendations were accepted by British Rail and the unions and were implemented.
"It is important to remember this background in considering the present unofficial action by a small minority of all railway employees, indeed a minority of signalmen. The current relativities were established only after long negotiations and a comprehensive and detailed inquiry by an independent tribunal, set up by agreement in the industry. They were accepted by all the unions and the overwhelming majority of those they represent.
"It has been suggested that because of the hardship and inconvenience the unofficial action is causing, I should intervene in some way to secure a settlement or that I should appoint an

575
inquiry. I certainly deplore the appalling inconvenience to the travelling public that has resulted and have urged that it should end. But the present pay structure was itself established by an independent inquiry. I would hope the House would agree that it is neither reasonable nor practical that an issue raised by an unofficial body of some kind should be referred to further inquiry. This could only undermine the established procedures of negotiation in the industry and the authority of the unions. It is a step which could greatly encourage further disruption on the railways and further afield. For the same reasons any third-party intervention is in my view to be avoided. Honourable Members "—and noble Lords—" who advocate such a course should not be misled by the plausible assurances from the unofficial spokesmen that action would stop on such an intervention. The consequences in the longer term could be most injurious to all efforts to uphold established negotiation arrangements and procedures, and to sustain the democratic machinery of the unions.
"It also needs to be remembered that British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen have recently agreed on the reclassification of some 1,800 jobs in signal boxes which will lead to pay increases of between £2·95 and £5·35. Moreover, negotiations have recently begun for a new annual settlement for all railwaymen and the National Union of Railwaymen has already indicated that the expressed grievance should be considered in the context of those negotiations. I am prepared to accept that the signalmen concerned hold their views strongly and sincerely, but I believe that they must in turn understand that they cannot secure a fresh hearing of their case in this way.
"I trust the House will join with me, British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen in condemning any continuation of these unofficial stoppages and in denying those who instigate and foster them the recognition to which their action is directed. The resolution of any grievance cannot be secured by these methods; it can only be secured through the
576
democratic machinery of the union and in the forthcoming negotiations."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, from these Benches we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the courteous way in which he has given us the information contained in the Statement. I am sure he will understand that there are a number of questions with which we on this side feel he could help us, or at least go part of the way towards answering. First, we wish to ask whether this dispute is merely a question of an unofficial group of, as we understand, between 800 and 1,300 signalmen out of a total of 9,000 signalmen who work for British Rail disagreeing with the National Union of Railwaymen and with British Rail— because we wonder what the National Union of Railwaymen have to say about this particularly inconvenient dispute. We understand that the Railway Staff National Tribunal made a recommendation which was accepted by both British Rail and the NUR acting for these signalmen. We understand, however, that the unofficial Union of Railway Signalmen is still dissatisfied with the negotiations.
Secondly, could anything be achieved by asking for the good offices of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service; because this situation is one that they are designed to solve and one that is, I believe, totally for them? Thirdly, how effective is the National Union of Railwaymen's Signalmen's Committee, because some of the dissident signalmen do not have a very high opinion of it? We have heard from the noble Lord that 1,800 signalmen obtained increases of between £3 and £5·45 earlier this year. Fourthly, we have read in the Press of widely differing views as to the increases which have been obtained; and I wonder whether the noble Lord could discount the fears expressed. For instance, the National Union of Railwaymen say that when they were negotiating last year, they obtained a responsibility allowance of over 7½ per cent.; and yet the signalmen say the Railway Staff National Tribunal did not obtain anything for them.
Then there is the question of differentials. We believe that it has been mentioned and it is relevant here and wonder whether the noble Lord could fill us in

577
on these differentials. The Union of Railway Signalmen say that the differentials have been eroded from £2 to less than 30p over other station staff; yet the National Union of Railwaymen disagree strongly with this and say that after the latest increases, the differentials have been increased. Perhaps the noble Lord could fill us in on this. Lastly, what is the likely position after 1st May 1975?—as we understand that negotiations are likely to lake place and the outcome of these negotiations will result in further wage rates being fixed to take effect from 1st May. As recently as last September Mr. Sid Weighell, the General Secretary of the NUR, stated that his members had received rises of up to 45 per cent. in the year to September 1974. The signalmen say they have had 30 per cent. and would require a further increase to bring them to the level of other railwaymen. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to comment on this. I apologise for the lengthy list of questions; but we feel that some questions run into other questions and that the noble Lord would possibly be able to help us.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I pose only a brief question. What does the noble Lord think is to be gained by continuing to condemn the continuation of these unofficial stoppages, as we are invited to do by the Secretary of State? Has not this House and the other place already condemned unofficial stoppages and has not the Secretary of State appealed without any effect to the un-official strikers to go back to work and cease their stoppages every Thursday? Can the; noble Lord explain why it should have any greater effect if this House or the other place condemn them yet again this afternoon?
Could the noble Lord say whether the reclassification of the 1,800 jobs mentioned in the Statement means that British Rail now think that the Railway Staff National Tribunal have their arithmetic wrong and that these particular signalmen, at any rate, if not any of the others, should have been given larger rises in the restructuring award? Could the noble Lord say when this increase of between £2·95 and £5·35 is to come into effect and whether, when it does, he thinks that this will satisfy the Union of Railway Signalmen and those on strike at the
578
moment? Can he give us any indication of what the prognosis is? Are we to get an endless series of Thursday stoppages, or will it escalate into something worse? Could the public be told what to expect, so that they can make plans accordingly?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wish the public could be told what to expect. When I go to the railway station and find that there are no trains, I am one of those who would like to be told. I do not know how the Government can tell the public when the railway staff themselves do not know the night before and sometimes do not know the same morning. The Government are responsible for many things and should be able to give some information; but not information of that kind.
Let us look at the basis of the claim that is being made by the signalmen. They consider that present pay structures agreed between British Rail and the unions have eroded differentials between signalmen and other grades and that insufficient account has been taken of their responsibilities. They are demanding apparently, as a signing-on allowance, an increase of 5 per cent. on the basic rate; and, to restore the differentials, a further responsibility payment of 10 per cent., making a total of 15 per cent. The signalmen did not receive responsibility payment in last year's restructuring, as their pay structure was separately restructured in 1972. However, it was accepted last year that under the restructuring some anomalies would arise. The signalmen's case was considered and the NUR and British Rail established a Working Party, the findings of which were agreed by the NUR Executive and resulted in the reclassificaion of some 1,800 jobs in signal boxes. This gives a further pay increase of between £2·95 and £5·35 per week to about 1,400 signalmen, and, in addition, some 850 signalmen will benefit from a doubling of the isolation allowance. I regret that I cannot give the date when these increases will commence to be paid.
I can also give some information on the amounts of wages. There are six categories of signalmen whose rates vary from £29 to £48 a week. In addition they receive shift and other allowances, special payments and, for those working in London, an additional payment. I understand that the signalmen in the

579
lowest grade earn £53 a week and that the highest earn £80 a week, on average. This is an increase of about 27 per cent. As I have already indicated, there is a further £2·70 in respect of railwaymen who work in the Greater London Council area; and to these figures must be added the reclassification increases of £2·95 to £5·95 to which I have already referred. That is, I think, the answer to the principal question.
May I look at some of the other questions. First, this is an unofficial group. I understand that this dispute was initiated by the Union of Railway Signalmen which is recognised neither by British Rail nor by the NUR; nor is it affiliated to the TUC and we take the view that it is not the place of Government to recognise it. On the last occasion of the disruptive action, the members of that small union were apparently supported by some members of the NUR and probably by some non-union members. So far as referring this matter to CAS is concerned, this is a dispute between a small section of a union and the union itself; it is not a matter for CAS. So far as the NUR Signalmen's Committee is concerned I regret that I have no information on that question and I cannot answer it. I understand that the results of the present negotiations will be payable as from 1st May.
If the National Tribunal were wrong, we have to consider two points. First they were dealing with a most intricate problem, one of the most intricate in wage negotiations. Secondly, whether or not they were wrong, it was accepted by both the unions and the NUR. Even afterwards when there was some discontent, the NUR and British Rail set up a Working Party and as a result of that Working Party adjustments were made. Those adjustments were accepted by British Rail and by the NUR, and those payments are additionally being made. How far can you go?
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, as a man who spent most of his railway career as a signalman, I join with my right honourable friend in deploring the action of the signalmen which is causing the inconvenience which we are experiencing at this time. Anyone who knows anything at all about railway grades, who knows something about the relationship of grade
580
to grade and the delicate balance between them, as well as the difficulty of altering differentials, will realise that this is the kind of job best left to experts, experts from the National Union of Railwaymen who have in the past served the signalmen so well.
I notice that yesterday the signalmen of South Wales, not always the most docile group in the country, decided rightly not to support this unofficial action, but to rely on the National Union of Railwaymen to conduct their case in the negotiations that are now about to take place. The South Wales signalmen were right, and I hope that the rest of the signalmen of the country will follow their excellent example.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, may I take up one point that the noble Lord kindly made in answering the questions I raised? It concerns the responsibility payment to signalmen. I think that the noble Lord's figures tallied exactly with mine as to basic wages, overtime payments and total earnings of signalmen. But according to the information I have received, which was indeed confirmed by the National Union of Railwaymen, the signalmen received a responsibility payment of 7·8 per cent., whereas the Railway Staffs National Tribunal said that nothing was given, because the union (which I presume is the NUR) did not ask for any. The noble Lord is perfectly clear about this; I hope I am. Perhaps he can confirm that I am.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend for his support? I would add that, in addition to the arbitration by the National Tribunal and the Working Party which made adjustments, the NUR have said to these signalmen: "We are now negotiating on the annual increase and any disgruntlement you still have we will deal with in these negotiations." Concerning what was said from the Front Bench opposite, I have no information and cannot confirm or deny what was said.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's own travelling difficulties as a commuter on the Portsmouth line, since I share his experience. Is he aware that I should be the last person to ask him, in Government, to take action to recognise this unofficial group? Is the noble Lord

581
also aware, however, that he is a member of a Government which claims a special relationship with the trade union movement and a special understanding of industrial relations difficulties, and that the million or so suffering commuters look to him, to his noble friends here and his right honourable and honourable friends in another House to take some action with their friends in the trade union movement, particularly in the NUR, and to ask them to ensure that the same discipline is observed by their members in this unofficial matter as is normally observed by them in official strikes?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am one of the suffering public who expect somebody to do something about this situation. I do not think it is the place of the Government to do it; it is the place of the Government to use their influence upon the trade union. But when it comes to the individuals concerned, that is for the unions' influence rather than for the Government's influence. That is exactly the line that has been taken by my right honourable friend.
Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, repeat what is the take-home pay of signalmen at the present moment? I believe he gave two figures—between £55 and £85 take-home pay. Will he confirm that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are six grades of signalmen. In the lowest grade the earnings are £53 per week on average; in the highest grade, £80 per week on average. These figures do not include the reclassification which was made by the Working Party recently, and which gave further increases of between £2·70 and £5·35 to about 1,400 signalmen —not to all but to about that figure. I might also add that those figures of earnings do not include the GLC allowance of £2·70.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when one is leading thousands of trade unionists there comes a time in life when one encounters an
582
awkward squad in a union, and it gives the trade union officials a lot of hard work to control them, never mind the Government? Is he further aware that if we once give way to splinter groups from the big unions where collective bargaining is done, we should say "good-bye" to collective bargaining?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything my noble friend has said, and I thank him for his support.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend gave to the noble Lord opposite figures about average earnings. Did he take into account that those figures do not represent only normal hours of labour but take into account overtime?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, they certainly do and I can measure the situation for the noble Lord. In the case of the lowest of the six grades the rate per week is £29, but the earnings, because of shift allowances, London allowances, overtime and so on, are £53. In the case of the highest grade the weekly rate is £48, but because of shift working and overtime, et cetera, the average earnings are £80. I think those figures give a fair conception.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, opposite has some validity and that there is a special relationship between a Labour Government and the trade unions? After all, we talk the whole time about the social compact or contract. Therefore, surely, although a Labour Government cannot direct any trade unions, they can—I hope they can —use a certain amount of influence.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords. I would wholly agree with my noble friend. My right honourable friend is using every bit of influence he has upon the union concerned, and I know that the union is using all the influence it has upon the splinter group. But it is not the place of the Government to recognise and argue with the splinter group.

EEC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
4.40 p.m.
The EARL of DUDLEY The EARL of DUDLEY rose to move, That this House takes note of the Fourth Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974) and the Twelfth Report (Session 1974–75) on the proposed EEC Regional Development Fund (R/2055/73 and R/2474/73). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I suggest that this afternoon's debate is, so far as this House is concerned, all that passes for a Second Reading and Committee stage of the "Bill" of the Community on the Regional Development Fund. I understand that a Regulation will emerge from the Council of Ministers on the 3rd-4th March establishing the Fund and the rules by which it will take effect. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will correct me if I am wrong about this. This debate will be the only opportunity that this House will have to consider these matters before the Regulation becomes effective and is binding on us all.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I quote from the relevant passage of the Maybray-King Report:
"56A. Regulations. The most unprecedented method of Community law-making is the Regulation which has general application. It is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the member-States. Thus, the Regulation is a rule-making instrument, capable of generating rights and obligations for every citizen in the Community. Regulations have supremacy over all domestic law".
I suppose that there is nobody in this House, however undemocratic it may appear to some, who has a good word to say for the legislative process of the Community. Even those who favour the ends must deprecate the means. If the nation endorses our membership, a political corrective mechanism must be sought, but that thought is for another day. Today I move the Motion on behalf of the Sub-Committee of the European Communities Select Committee, the Sub-Committee which covers finance, economics, regional policy and institutions.
I move the Motion, first to draw noble Lords' attention to the Fourth Report of the previous Committee which was
584
published last July (because when the Motion was tabled no other Report was available) for the reasons given in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Twelth Report— to which additionally I draw the attention of noble Lords—which was prepared following the publication last week of the Government's most recent Explanatory Memorandum. Helpful evidence was heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and from the Confederation of British Industry, and that evidence will be published. Praiseworthy efforts by the Committee's staff enabled the Report to be prepared in great haste and in time for today's debate.
I hope that the loss of momentum which has kept the Regional Development Fund in cold storage for over 12 months will not continue to be a recurring feature in the development of the Community's institutions and procedures. There are urgent and momentous decisions requiring to be taken in respect of the Community's economy, and especially in respect of closer convergence of economic policies. There are strains arising from the present "halfway house" economic and monetary situation—strains as between creditor and debtor states— which must be urgently examined and methods adopted to reduce them. Import controls, which have been suggested, would, in my opinion, be a most retrogade step and there would be clear advantages over them in alternative recycling methods.
I hope also that such measures as may be required to integrate more closely the member States' economies will not be negotiated in such conditions of secrecy as have surrounded, enveloped and concealed the negotiations over the Regional Development Fund. If noble Lords will turn to the second page of the Explanatory Memorandum they will find these words in paragraph 3:
"Revised texts of the Draft Fund Regulation representing the situation at the beginning of February 1975 are attached. They are subject to further amendment in Council."
The amended texts as finally negotiated and agreed in the Working Party of the Council are unlikely to be seen or considered by Parliament or by the Select Committee until the agreement of the Council has led to the issue of the Regulation and made it legally binding. At

585
that point it will be outside the Committee's terms of reference and too late for noble Lords to persuade the Minister that sections may be objectionable. The Committee have no information about the Articles remaining to be agreed and are unable to express an opinion about them. As no finally agreed texts are available, it will be for your Lordships to decide whether you are satisfied with the forecasts and the explanations which the noble Lord will give to you. The Committee could only report and express an opinion on the texts as published.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to describe some of the salient features of the new Regulation. One significant feature of the Fund is that, while it broadly meets national requirements, it is primarily an instrument of Community policy. That policy is described in the first Article as:
"To correct the principal regional imbalances within the Community, resulting in particular from agricultural preponderance, industrial change and structural under-employment".
To achieve this Community objective, there was originally a draft decision by the Council on the creation of a Committee for Regional Policy, a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a European Regional Development Fund, and a proposal for a Financial Regulation setting out the criteria and rules for operating the Fund. All these were dated August 1973. None would have required changes in United Kingdom legislation and all would, if agreed, have had the force of law.
Additionally, there was a proposed Regulation, dated November 1973, listing the regions eligible for aid from the Fund. It contained also a map. The eligible areas were established by a formula which took into account such matters as the percentage of population employed in agriculture higher than the Community average, a gross domestic product and a percentage of the working population engaged in industry lower than the Community average. All these proposals have now been withdrawn and replaced or merged in a single draft Regulation. A number of significant changes have been made. The discarded criteria for eligibility took account of regional imbalances, although the formula was so calculated as to give rise to widely drawn areas. I
586
have been told that something like half of the geographical area of the Community was previously eligible for regional aid.
Following the decision of the Heads of State in Paris in November, only three countries are now to be net beneficiaries of the Fund—namely, Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom—after taking into account all the member States' contributions to the Fund. The new Regulation considerably narrows the eligible areas to those which quality for national regional aid and, although the United Kingdom benefits from about 28 per cent. of the Fund, in cash terms the commitment appropriation is very small, being only about 4 per cent. of the total national regional aid.
Despite this limitation, the Committee regard the establishment of the Fund as a welcome first step; welcome, even if it is only one step on the road towards reaching the Community's objective—to correct those imbalances of wealth, productivity and growth which separate the Mezzo Giorno from metropolitan Paris or Rhondda from the Ruhr; welcome, a1 though it represents only a recycling of about 2½ per cent. of the surpluses which are accumulating as a result of the expenditures by the debtor nations, and at the expense of the debtor nations in the creditor nations' balances. The amendments negotiated by the Government have also brought the Fund broadly into line with national regional policies.
It would be unreasonable to expect complete conformity, since the Commission has to look at the Community as a whole and national regional aid policies, while similar, reflect the differing problems of the individual member States. There are proposals to co-ordinate these at Community level, and I understand that the negotiations are still in progress in the working party of Council. Since the Regional Development Fund established by the Community, and national regional aid policies co-ordinated by the Community are related subjects, although treated separately for the purposes of negotiation and Community legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, might care to consider whether there is anything he can usefully tell this House, however briefly, on the progress of those further negotiations.
Lord OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his interesting Report on this subject, may I ask whether he can give us any indication of the amount that is likely to come to the hill areas of Wales, Scotland and England as a result of the proposals of the Commission?
The Earl of DUDLEY: My Lords, in my opinion, the relevant Article is not very clear and this is one of the matters on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, might give us a more full explanation. To my recollection, the Article states that these are to be treated in the same way as aid for public authorities for infrastructure investments. But it is not clear how the investment should be allocated between the public authorities and the hill farming areas.
The Committee are in broad agreement with the Articles of the Regulation, as revised, subject to one or two qualifications. There have been three policy areas in which the Committee heard evidence that the Government have found it necessary to hold firm to points of principle in their negotiation with the Community. The first concerns one of the main criteria for satisfying the eligibility of individual applications within a specified regional aid area. The preamble to the proposed Regulation stated:
"Whereas Regional Development requires on the one hand investment for industrial and service activities, so as to ensure the creation or maintenance of employment."
Article 6, 2(a) of the Financial Regulation laid down that requests for aid should include information about the effect of the investment on employment. And Article 5, 1(b) of the Regulation specified that the Fund's assistance shall be decided by the Commission, taking into account the investment's contribution to creating or maintaining jobs.
The Committee was informed that by tradition the effect of national regional aid on jobs has not been one of the criteria by which its applications have been made in the United Kingdom; that the Government have considered it a matter of principle for the criteria for eligibility broadly to conform to national policy in this respect, and that the previous Regulation was too widely drawn. Article 4, l(a) of the new Regulation now reads:
588
"The fund may contribute to financing of investments individually exceeding fifty thousand units of account, provided that at least ten new jobs are created or that existing jobs are maintained. Preference shall be given to operations which both maintain existing jobs and create new jobs."
Additionally, Article 4, 2(a) makes the important new qualification that contributions from the Fund are limited to that part of the investment which does not exceed one hundred thousand units of account (that is, dollars) per job created, and fifty thousand dollars per job maintained in being. I think it would be helpful if the noble Lord could clarify Government policy towards this aspect of the Fund's operations; and, also, why the qualification has been made regarding maximum levels of investment per job, and the reasons for the choice of those particular levels.
Secondly, it was clearly the original intention of the Commission that the Regional Development Fund should complement national aid. The preamble to the former Regulation stated:
"Whereas the Fund's assistance should not lead Member States to reduce their own total regional development efforts, but should be complementary".
In the revised Regulation the preamble has been dropped and Article 4, 2(a) states:
"The contribution from the Fund thus defined may, pursuant to a prior decision of the Member State concerned communicated at the same time as the request for this contribution, either supplement aid granted to the relevant investment by Public Authorities or remain credited to those Authorities and considered as partial repayment of such aid".
My Lords, this change raises a number of important considerations. I shall mention one only, leaving the rest of the field open to noble Lords. I should like to invite noble Lords to consider how the Commission would assess the interest of an investment applied for by an industrial undertaking as defined in Article 4, l(a) where the aid would be complementary to national aid, as compared with infrastructure finance applied for by a public authority where the member-State had decided to consider the finance as a partial repayment of a national aid previously granted to the authority.
Article 8, (i) lays down that the Government shall provide information to assist the Commission, and Article 8, 3(b) states that it shall express an opinion as

589
to the total which should be granted to either undertaking. In the circumstances described, and especially if there were limitations upon the amount of aid available from the Fund, what information would the Government provide, what opinion would it express? Would there not be a temptation for Her Majesty's Government, prompted by the Treasury, to favour the public authority at the expense of the industrial undertaking? And to what extent would the Commission, which has the last word, take a detached view? I think it not unreasonable in view of these important issues to ask the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State, to peer a little into the future and tell noble Lords how he foresees these matters being resolved. Thirdly, it would be helpful to have more information about the national priority areas which arc to be favoured as laid down in Article 3.
Article 6 stresses that the degree of the development of the economic and social situation of these priority regions is to be indicated in the regional development programme, and all useful information about them provided periodically to the Commission. What are those areas? By what criteria are they to be established? As yet we have no information about the policy of the Government in this matter. I should like to ask to what extent the information may as yet be available to the noble Lord. If he is unable to give details of the texts remaining to be agreed, or amendments to the texts which Her Majesty's Government or the Commission propose, I think the House is entitled to ask the noble Lord at least to give a reason for his inability to speak.
My Lords, the main and far more complicated renegotiations involving the corrective mechanism have been successfully concluded, and the Government can take full credit for that. Negotiations over the Regional Development Fund linger on. Information given to me last week at the European Parliament indicated that there was hard bargaining between the Government and the Commission over the provisions of the Regulation. Could the noble Lord tell us what the difficulties are? It is for the House, not for me, to form judgments, although it is within the terms of reference of the Committees to express an opinion on this.
590
We cannot express opinions, and noble Lords cannot form judgments or attempt to influence the Minister unless we are given the facts on which to comment and on which to judge, to influence.
My Lords, the Report also invites noble Lords to consider how far the EEC and national regional aid policies are compatible. The Committee agree that it is advantageous for Her Majesty's Government to administer the United Kingdom's share of the Fund, and that it is inevitable that the Commission will wish to reserve the right of supervision and approval of expenditure, to have the last word on the disbursement of the Fund. Provided that Ministers take the view that the Community aid gives an added dimension to national aid—to coin the expression used by the French Foreign Minister yesterday—there is no reason why the two policies should not complement each other. But I confess to misgivings about reimbursement, and hope the United Kingdom will not find it either appropriate or desirable to exercise that option at any time.
My Lords, the views expressed by the Commissioner to the Maybray-King Committee reveal him as being a strong advocate for increased powers for the European Parliament. Given his views, I recommend those who are Members of the European Parliament to consider whether they are satisfied with the degree of consultation which has been sought from the Parliament by the Council in respect of the revised Regulation. I believe they will find it has been unsatisfactory, and that they will be well advised to examine the procedures whereby discussions can take place in the Working Party of the Council, for months and even years on end, and amendments agreed which fundamentally alter the character of the proposals of the Commission without the European Parliament being consulted at that stage.
There may be some who, for one reason or another, perhaps fearful of interference by the Commission in our affairs, regard the Regional Development Fund as a sow's ear. I regard it as a silk purse which will bring tangible benefits to the underdeveloped or declining regions of this country, and of the Community. I hope the nation will decide to remain in a position to enjoy the benefits. I wish the Government well in these and

591
other negotiations with the Community. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Fourth Report of the European Communities Committee (Session 1974) and the Twelfth Report (Session 1974–75) on the proposed EEC Regional Development Fund (R/2055/73 and R/2474/73).— (The Earl of Dudley.)
5.4 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Dudley for the clarity with which he has presented the 12th Report of the Committee, and also for the speed with which he and the Sub-Committee have had to operate in the last few days, because the Government's Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was produced only on 18th February last, with the draft of the Regulation in its new form, much changed from what had been considered in the past. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, at the end of the debate, and to his replies to some of the points raised by my noble friend.
In thanking my noble friend Lord Dudley for the speed with which he has operated, may I say that now that the main points have been settled concerning the Regional Development Fund, I welcome the swiftness in preparing the Regulation and having it considered. I also welcome the fact that even though this is now happening so quickly, the Council of Ministers will be considering it on Monday and Tuesday. It is nearly two and a half years since the idea of a Regional Development Fund was adopted in principle at the Paris Summit Meeting in October 1972. The British Government at that time were in favour of a fund, and considered it would be a useful activity for the Community. They also considered that it would be of special interest to the United Kingdom, where we have a need for the injection of new projects in some of our industrial areas. As I understand it, the Government of today have also recognised this need.
Now that the system and the amount for the first three years have been decided in principle, this could be a valuable new Community institution for Britain.
592
A Fund will be a useful new institution but, of course, it is not essential in the EEC. Over the last two years, there have been grants and loans, most of them for the assisted areas in Britain, from the Coal and Steel Community, the Social Fund and the European Investment Bank. I will come back to this later. In future, the Fund can add to this activity by contributing to investment more directly in the special areas where regional development policies are needed.
My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, the United Kingdom is one of the three countries which stand to benefit most from the Fund. Southern Italy and Ireland are likely to receive high proportions in aid in relation to their populations. Their problems are more related to rural areas than to the industrial problems in Britain to which I have referred. This has been so for other members of the EEC also. Their regional problems have largely been concerned with agricultural areas. There is a major difference in our case in that we have to consider the regeneration of certain old industrial areas, and not simply the problems of agricultural areas where modernisation means unemployment. I am glad to note that both the industrial and the agricultural problems now seem to be recognised in the new Directive.
Before commenting on particular points in the scheme, we should consider it within the Community setting. Some of the main purposes of the Community are being fulfilled, particularly the removing of the barriers to trade within the Nine, including differing regulations, resulting in an immense market for goods within the Community, now responsible for 40 per cent. of world trade. Also, instead of individual, unco-ordinated policies which could have the effect of cancelling out or militating against the policies of neighbours, it is now possible to devise, after full and very often very long discussions, common policies and attitudes which carry much more influence in the world than if there had been several separate policies. And again, in a world where some important industrial and technological projects can only be undertaken on a continental scale, because of the enormous cost of the investment involved, the Community provides the framework needed for such schemes. The objective behind these purposes is higher

593
living standards for everyone living in the Community than would otherwise be the case. To harness all the available resources and carry out the social purposes of the Community, including sharing such higher living standards, a programme is needed to even out imbalances which exist between regions. The Fund can play the main part, I believe, in this.
I mentioned that in the last two years, before this Fund has been set up and while Britain has been a member of the Community, a considerable amount has been done by the three institutions, the Coal and Steel Community, the Social Fund and the European Investment Bank. From the information which has been issued from time to time, I have calculated that such aid has already amounted to about £90 million in grants to Britain and about £200 million in loans. This is excluding the agriculture and food payments. It has not, as I have made clear, been restricted to the assisted areas, but the very large part of it has been in the assisted areas. And these activities are supplementary to the proposed investments by the Fund, which would, of course, all be in the assisted areas.
I think the House will find it helpful to be reminded of what the Community has been doing through these institutions in regional development in Britain. The Social Fund has been largely concerned with training and retraining, and about £50 million in grants has come from the Community for this purpose, a very high proportion of it in Scotland; it has accounted for about half the total public cost of training and retraining. Then the Coal and Steel Community has provided aid where redundancies have been caused, particularly by the need to modernise plant, and through the Investment Bank also, financial assistance has come forward for situations which have been of special concern to us. Considering different fields and looking at coalmining, I find that about £20 million in loans has come forward from the Community for particular projects, seven of them, and £4½ million in grants. I understand that there has been a loan of £18 million for a scheme for powered roof supports for mines in Britain. In the steel industry loans totalling over £80 million have been made, including investments at Ravens-craig in Scotland and Llanwern in Wales.
594
In the electricity industry loans amount to £25 million, including the £10 million loan for the power station being built at Peterhead. In North Sea oil and gas loans have totalled £14 million and grants £3 million. A significant measure of regional development has been loans to the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation (the ICFC), which lends money in turn, particularly to small and medium sized businesses in the assisted areas. This has amounted to £13½ million.
To these Community measures, which are the solid work that has been happening in the? last two years, can now be added this new scheme involving the Fund. I am glad that the question of eligible areas has now been simplified with the acceptance of the assisted areas as delineated by the members. I should like to ask: is it left to the individual countries, the members, to decide on any future changes and are there to be any rules about this? In theory, it would be possible for a country to spread its assisted areas over most of its area, whereas the purpose of the Fund is to concentrate help on the special areas which need assistance It could be that it has been left to the members and that the control is to be exercised by the percentages decided upon by the Council of Ministers. If the Minister could reply to this, I should like to hear what the method of control is to be. For example, the United Kingdom is to be allotted 28 per cent.—about £150 million—over the next three years of the amount agreed upon for the first three years. Is that to be the only control, and will it be left to members to decide which are to be the assisted areas?
We then come to the eligibility of projects. Under Article 4 the projects have to be related to employment created or maintained, and this raises two questions which particularly concern Britain. First, does this involve the acceptability of certain methods of regional development? We know that certain methods of assistance to industry, whether in the assisted areas or not, are under consideration as part of the competition policy to be decided by the Community, an area where M. Borschette is the Commissioner responsible, and not Mr. George Thomson who is concerned with regional policy. The creation of this Fund and the formulation of a system to govern it

595
is not, we understand, part of the renegotiation which Britain is carrying out with the Community; we were told this at the Sub-Committee last Thursday.
Certainly, the idea of the proposals of the Regional Development Fund has come forward since Britain joined, but I understand that the acceptance of rules under the competition policy is still under discussion between the United Kingdom and the Community, on questions, for example, of members' discretion to choose their own methods of assistance to industry; and this in turn affects, I believe, the regional employment premium as a method in this country. But I think we should put this in perspective, because this is the kind of matter which has been investigated between countries, whether or not they were members of the Community, in the past. If one country is worried that another country has a hidden export subsidy or is dumping goods on someone else's market, those are matters which are investigated between one country and another.
As a professional diplomat, I can certainly recall cases in the past where we— and I myself have been involved—have had to take up on behalf of British manufatcurers charges, for example, that large tax rebates were being given on certain products which were considerably more than the tax that had ever been paid on them. The subsidy seemed to us to be much more related to the difficulties of the industry concerned and the un-employment in the development area where it was located, rather than to the amount of tax that it had paid. Therefore, this has been a general question of whether aid to industry should be given by what are known as transparent methods, or whether aid should be given in some indirect and hardly recognisable form.
Then we come to the second question which is raised; that is, whether our regional development grants, which are not conditional on the creation or maintenance of jobs, would be eligible under the Fund scheme. The principle which has been adopted in Britain, in the way in which these grants have been given, is that there are some projects which are pump-priming projects in development areas, but which will not themselves provide additional jobs or maintain existing
596
ones. But we also, of course, need to have the major new projects in those areas which will create new jobs and diversify the industry of the area.
This is especially true where, for example, modernisation of the steel industry means investment, resulting very often in an increase in the production of steel but considerably less employment because of the higher productivity. In those cases, it is important that there should also be completely new projects —perhaps the manufacture of goods which have not been manufactured at all in the area—in order to provide jobs for those who have to be trained for the new work, but do not have to leave the area or become unemployed.
It has been fashionable to denigrate our regional development policies in Britain over recent years, by saying that they have not achieved very much. But while not defending them completely, I would say that they have maintained numbers of jobs in our assisted areas; and that unemployment would have been a great deal worse if the regional policies had not existed. But I believe they could have been made more attractive to industry and more successful if there had been fewer changes in the methods every two years or so. This would have enabled firms to make their plans ahead and invest more confidently. I hope the lesson will be learned in the way that the fund is operated in future.
In addition to the points which my noble friend has put, I should like to ask whether it is the Government's intention to concentrate assistance from the Fund —that means the application from Britain to the Commission—to those new projects which I have mentioned bringing additional jobs because of the criteria in Article 4, unless those criteria are changed by agreement at the meeting next week. Was this the reason for the stalling by the British Minister of State, Mr. Hattersley, at the meeting on 11th February? I note that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have now taken over this subject from the Department of Industry who were until recently providing the memoranda for the Committee. Does this mean that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are now taking responsibility for this subject as a whole? I note that the noble Lord, Lord

597
Goronwy-Roberts, is himself replying to the debate.
I believe we are fortunate in that the Commissioner for Regional Policy in the Commission is Mr. George Thomson. He is familiar with regional problems and has made it clear that he is in favour of a Fund, and that that Fund can play an important role. Besides having been the Minister engaged in negotiations up till June 1970—I think I am right in saying that he stated in the following year, 1971, that the terms achieved had been as good as he could have expected at that time—I believe that he now knows not only our problems but the problems elsewhere in the Community and is admirably qualified to run this proposed scheme. We now have an opportunity to build a new institution, probably of more importance to us in Britain than to any other member of the Community, with the possible exception of Italy. I hope that the Government, with the other members of the Community, will enable this scheme to be launched on the lines now suggested. I also hope that it will prove after three years to have been a satisfactory scheme, and that it will then be renewed with more ambitious amounts of money then available to the Fund.
5.23 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and in following them I should like to speak briefly. I welcome very warmly the establishment at last of the Regional Development Fund. I am glad that it has been agreed in principle in Paris in December, and likely to be agreed in detail in Dublin next week. I think the important tiling is that the Fund has actually been established. This is more important and of greater significance at the moment than the actual amount of money involved, so we can take satisfaction from the fact, which has already been referred to, that Britain is a net gainer along with Italy and Ireland.
As I understand it, some £30 million have been allocated to this country in the first year, although it may not all be disbursed in the first year, and some £50 million in the two succeeding years. This is a modest amount when matched against
598
the £500 million which is spent nationally on regional assistance, but it is another positive gain from British membership of the Community. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, it has to be seen alongside the other assistance which is received from the Community from the social fund and in other ways. As he pointed out, the total up to date in loans and grants is in the region of something like £290 million, and according to Mr. George Thomson £100 million went to the North of England between January 1973 and September 1974. So the Regional Development Fund is not the total of the EEC regional assistance but it is clearly going to be an important element in the overall strategy which will be supervised by the new Regional Policy Committee of the Community. I hope that in time the Regional Development Fund will become the main instrument of regional policy throughout the Community and gradually supersede national policies.
I should like if I may to raise three points in connection with the draft Regulation. In Article 4, which deals with qualifying projects, we find that the qualifying projects include investments in infrastructure directly linked with the development of industrial handicraft, or services investment. I am worried as to how narrowly that might be interpreted. After all, regional development is not only about jobs, very important though this is. It is about infrastructure, about environment, education, even perhaps about culture, and about the whole quality of life. Therefore I should not like to see too narrow an interpretation of the words "directly linked". Secondly, a national Government in applying for aid have two options. They may seek aid either to supplement existing aid or to reimburse the cost of national aid. I wonder whether there is not the danger, so long as Governments can secure aid to reimburse national aid, that the amount of new investment which occurs as a result of the operation of the Fund will be considerably restricted.
My third point is this: all applications for aid will be selected and forwarded by national Governments. What we require to know is the criteria which the Government intend to adopt for the selection of projects and also what part will Scotland, Wales and the regions of England play in

599
the selection process. What role, if any, will be given to the new Assemblies for Scotland and Wales and to the regional planning councils? The operation of the Fund in each country is to be jointly audited by Community and national representatives. Is it envisaged in this country that specific representatives from Scotland, Wales and the regions of England will be included in this work? We have had the unhappy experience of seeing applications from South Wales for grants from the special fund for research projects blocked at the Ministry of Industry. Finally, a word about the aim of the Fund. Article 1 of the Draft Regulation says that the Fund is
"intended to correct the principal regional imbalances within the Community resulting in particular from agricultural preponderance, industrial change and structural under-employment."
The sum at present involved will not correct these imbalances. It will help to modify them but it will not not correct them. To achieve the aim of correction a much greater shift of resources will be necessary. It seems that a shift of this kind is unlikely until significant progress is made towards economic, monetary and political union. Until there is greater integration, nations required to foot the bill will, not unnaturally, jib at paying out more and the whole exercise will be seen in terms of net gainer or net loser so far as each country is concerned. I think it is fair to say that in this country we have only argued about whether Scotland is a net gainer or a net loser from United Kingdom membership when the possibility of complete Scottish independence has been raised.
In the administration of the Regional Development Fund we want to get to the point where need is the sole criteria. But it seems to me that we are unlikely to do so until we are much nearer in the Community to the kind of economic and monetary union which we have in the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, the Regional Development Fund could become the main instrument of regional policy, but with the regions themselves playing an important role in the operation of the policy.
It may be said that this is a long way off, and I agree, but it is important to have the goal in mind. It is important to see the direction in which we are going.
600
I am glad to see that in Article 6 there is a reference to monetary union which makes it clear that this remains the long-term objective. May I say in conclusion that this modest start with the Regional Development Fund is nevertheless highly significant for the future, and warmly to be welcomed.
5.31 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, I am sure that the House will feel indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, for introducing this debate in such an informed and balanced way. I would hope to try to explain to Members where we have got to with respect to the Regional Development Fund, and attempt to let them know the likely immediate course of events. This debate has been arranged at short notice so that there will be an opportunity for Members of this House—and later this week Members of another place—to make their views known to the Government and to Ministers who will be engaged on 3rd and 4th March with the closing stages of the negotiations for the establishment of this Fund. The Government will certainly take the views of this House, and of another place, very seriously into account in deciding what position to adopt in the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.
The decision to establish a Regional Development Fund was taken by EEC Heads of Government at their meeting in December. Of course it has a much longer history than that, but the decisive step was taken last December. That was not the beginning of the Fund. The establishment of a Fund has been one of the explicit purposes of the EEC, to ensure the harmonious developments of the economies of member countries by "reducing differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured." This was originally, and for some time, linked with the question of economic and monetary union, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, reminded us, and the fact that that objective has now been somewhat postponed, for quite sound reasons, should not lead us away from the ultimate objective of harmony not only in regard to developmental programmes of this sort, but necessarily at

601
some time, when it is feasible, of economic and monetary policy within the Community.
Discussion of a Fund was taking place at least as early as 1971. It was one of the objectives of the Summit Meeting of October 1972. But there was disagreement on the size and distribution of the Fund; the discussions came to nothing, and by 1973 there was dead-lock. It was in the summer of 1974 that a renewed series of bilateral discussions between the Commission and various member countries led to agreement to set up a Fund, although on a scale considerably smaller than had been originally proposed. From these discussions last year it emerged that any Fund that would be generally acceptable would have initially to be of limited duration and size—in this case three years and confined to some 1,300 million units of account—and also that it should be concentrated on the areas of greatest need within the Community. In the final run-up to the December Summit the Governments of Ireland and Italy, the two major prospective beneficiaries, were particularly keen to see agreement, and the United Kingdom also was in favour of a Fund.
The total sum, as we know, allocated to the Fund is 1,300 million units of account over three; years. This is not a great deal for the whole Community— about £550 million—of which we are allocated 27·8 per cent., some £150 million, over a period of three years or more because the process of appropriation and payment, as noble Lords will know, may extend beyond the actual period of the duration of the Fund in its implementation. Its consequential payments may continue even if it so happens that it stops as a Fund at the end of three years. That is on a gross basis.
The Fund will get its money through the budget, to which we contribute. Noble Lords will be familiar with the key whereby for the next three, four and five years we have been able to calculate with a fair exactitude what our own contribution to the budget of the Community will be. It is from that budget that the Fund will be funded. It is not possible to give an exact figure for the net receipts to this country from the Fund: that will depend on the rate of payments, which, as I have
602
said, will continue for several years after the money is allocated to projects. But this net figure could be as much as £60 million; not falling in exact proportions in each of the three or four years of payments out, but it helps to think of it in terms of a net receipt to this country of £20 million per annum.
This is not much when one compares it with the £500 million which this country spends each year on assistance to industry, and aid to infrastructure provided by this country from its own resources is additional to that. But, as the noble Earl pointed out, and succeeding speakers agreed, it could be a useful adjunct 1o our regional policy, with a modest transfer of funds to this country from the Community.
It is perhaps only a start. While the Fund has been established, money is allocated to it for only the first three years. But it is likely to continue, and it may grow in size in future years. I put it in that way because that is about the size and prospect of it, and it is well that we should not over-emphasise either in quantity or in prospect what we are discussing today. But I also put it because it provides for continuing scrutiny—if I may use the term as a term of art—even after the decisions, if it is found possible to come to final decisions on the 3rd and 4th March. It is, after all, of limited duration. It is perfectly possible to set up this Fund and then to look at it and see how it should be developed. Should it be changed? Should it be continued? If so, on what basis? If the United Kingdom remains in the Community, the Fund should continue to be of some assistance to this country in solving its regional problems and contributing in a material way to the aims of the Community. The decision taken at the Summit last December was one of principle. It was left to the Council machinery to establish a suitable Regulation for the Fund's activities. There was, however, the clearest will for an early decision on outstanding points. The noble Lord has mentioned the question of momentum. We have seen how momentum was lost between 1971 and late 1974. If we are to make a start on this immensely significant and potentially valuable exercise in international co-operation and mutual help, then we must be careful not to lose this momentum once more.

603
The Paper which Her Majesty's Government assembled, in their efforts to assist the Scrutiny Committee in the House to consider this question, represents a very far-reaching agreement among the Nine; so that when they go to the meeting on the 3rd and 4th March, there is high expectation that there will be final agreement resolving—one would hope and, indeed, expect—the reservations expressed by noble Lords, which I hope to deal with more specifically before the end of my speech. There was a clear will to recapture momentum, and to set up a Fund, even if limiting the period of operation in the first instance and the amount of money which it would dispense. We shared that determination, making clear that we should need to ensure that our own requirements were met. Some of the most important requirements have been mentioned by the noble Lords who have spoken. The Secretary of State made clear, also, that there would have to be time for a Parliamentary debate before the Regulation was passed.
The hope and intention of the Community is, however, that there will be agreement at the meeting on 3rd and 4th March on the text of a Regulation. The wish for speed is natural. Indeed, the Fund is due to operate from 1st January this year, and payments made after that date are eligible. But even when the Regulation is passed it will take time to collate and process applications and to release money from it. The wish for speedy conclusion to the discussion of a Fund Regulation has meant that we have had to bring new Papers before the House at short notice. The Scrutiny Committees of both Houses have had before them the draft Regulations for the Fund for a long time. I am referring now to the original Papers which, of course, have been radically transformed and amended. As is clear from the remarks in the Committee Report to this House, the Community documents relate to the period before broad agreement on the Fund had been reached.
Obviously there have had to be some changes to meet the new circumstances of a smaller Fund. The number of documents under discussion in the Council has been reduced to a main Fund Regulation and a brief financial annex,
604
plus a separate decision virtually un-changed from that of Document 2055 for a Regional Policy Committee, a point which was not raised today advisedly because we wanted to discuss the question of the Fund. The other documents, while still formally on the table, have been superseded. The changes in the main Fund Regulation are not as extensive as they might be. But, appreciating the problem which the House would have in considering earlier texts, my Department put together for the convenience of Members, and attached to the Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated last week, what I should describe as a representative text. This shows approximately the position just before the Council discussions earlier this month. It is authoritative in that it represents actual draft clauses from which the noble Earl quoted, as did others who followed him in the debate. But I should make clear that the text is issued on our authority rather than that of the Community. As we know from a more exalted plane, a conversion can be depended upon even if it is not actually the authorised version. So, in quoting from the document made available to the Sub-Committee, the noble Earl was quoting from what substantially will be before the Council next month. It is a consolidated version compiled for convenience. This, I must stress, is an unusual procedure on our part, and a precedent which, in view of the confidentiality of Council proceedings, we cannot undertake to follow on other occasions.
But the circumstances of the Fund are exceptional in that the basis of the Fund has changed since the issue of Document 2055, and exceptional circumstances demand exceptional treatment. We were anxious to provide for the Scrutiny Committee and for the House as up-to-date a paper as possible, and I think great credit is due to our officials for their exceptional and successful efforts to achieve this.
If one compares the Regulation, as it now stands, with its predecessor, the noticeable change is the replacement of what is commonly known as the "Thomson Map". This is an improvement from our point of view. Instead of the Fund picking and choosing among the areas which should be assisted, now all the assisted areas in the United Kingdom

605
(development areas, special development areas, and indeed intermediate areas) are eligible for help from the Fund, naturally with priority given for the most needy. In British terms this priority means the development areas, special development areas and Northern Ireland. This is an important point, because it brings the Fund explicitly into line with our own development priorities. It also removes the unjustifiable distinction previously accorded to Barrow-in-Furness of being alone among our assisted areas in not qualifying for assistance under the Fund.
All assisted areas coming within British policy as we have known it for many years now are eligible—with proper priorities, of course—for assistance under this Fund. With the allocation of 27·8 per cent of the Fund to the United Kingdom —which was in itself controversial—one may conclude that the regional problems of the United Kingdom, which are largely industrial rather than agricultural, have been recognised by the rest of the Community. Indeed, I should say that a major change—as between the previous proposals with which we were familiar and the proposals which we have had an opportunity of discussing today—is that, in deference to a specific British need, the emphasis has been broadened so as to include industrial problems which, after all, are perhaps more serious and more widespread in this country than in other countries which are members of the Community.
The Regulation is not yet finalised. There remain points for negotiation and, as is usual, the hardest are left to the last. Frankly, I do not think that there are many points of serious difficulty confronting us at the forthcoming Council meeting. There is, perhaps, one major issue outstanding and the noble Earl referred to it: the aim of the Fund is explicitly to assist investment and, in doing so, to create or maintain jobs. We do not dispute this aim, which is, after all, central to our own regional policy. We do, however, have some difficulty in demonstrating in individual cases—here I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Cray—the effect on employment of certain of our aids. This applies particularly to regional development grants which are available for assisting capital investment and which are paid on
606
proof of expenditure with the minimum administrative complication and without test of employment effect. We know that they have an effect on employment, but that is not the first requirement before we extend our own regional aid to an industry in a development area. While we are convinced of the benefit of this aid, we are not in every case, readily able to supply the necessary information to the Fund authorities. Nevertheless, there is now, I believe, a measure of agreement in the Community that regional development grants should be eligible for inclusion in The Fund. There is no question of our agreeing to their exclusion, and that is what I meant when I said that there was perhaps one major point still unresolved which we regarded as of very considerable importance to this country.
The question at issue is the inclusion of regional development grants in the operations of the Fund on the same terms as we include those grants within the ambit of cur own national policy. As we see it, so long as the aid conforms to the general purposes of the Fund, we do not consider that it is part of the Fund's purpose to dictate to member countries the kind of aid that should be eligible; nor do we wish to see elaborate new administrative machinery established to deal with what will be a flow of aid proportionately small in comparison with our existing regional assistance efforts. However, if these points are taken by the rest of the Community, then it is simply a matter of finding a practical means of satisfying the Fund management, in terms of the Article which has been quoted, about what has come to be known as the "job link", and at the same time squaring it with the perfectly practical method by which we extend aid through the regional development grants in our own system. At the end of the day, we do, of course, actually hope for as high a job link as possible.
My Lords, I very much hope and, indeed, expect that a reasonable solution will be found for this difficulty. Among our aids to investment it is only in the case of the regional development grants that any difficulty has arisen. Everything else has proved negotiable—favourable or acceptable to us—and, while there are other matters that we shall need to raise at the Council meeting, we can fairly expect that, given the will already shown

607
by members to set up a Fund and to operate it—granted within certain parameters and criteria, but still with the necessary flexibility—a Fund which is operable and equitable will emerge from next week's meeting.
My Lords, I should perhaps mention one point which may be in the minds of noble Lords. That is the establishment of the Fund as a piece of ongoing Community business. If our points are met, then we shall be glad to see it established and shall welcome the assistance it gives to the solution of our regional problem. If a reasonable administrative solution to the problem of, for instance, the RDGs is found, the fact that the Fund has been established will certainly not diminish our ability to implement our own regional policies. I am sure that this is central in all our minds. Will the establishment of this Fund in these terms in any way militate against or nullify the national regional aid programme with which we are familiar? The answer is, No. This brings me to an important point raised by the noble Earl and, I think, echoed by another noble Lord; that is, what happens to national regional aid programmes when the time comes to compare them from the point of view of competition, and to achieve a correlation and co-ordination of such programmes? That question does not form part of the question we are considering today.
We are concerned simply with the establishment of a Fund which can in no way jeopardise or call into question our existing national regional aid programme. Certainly, in due course, the Nine, who are already discussing the question of co-ordination, will have to take decisions and come to agreements. Indeed, such agreements, as we have heard this afternoon, have to be reached whatever the form of international co-operation for which one opts. Some noble Lords will remember that under EFTA arrangements this country had to co-operate with its EFTA partners in relation to quite substantial development schemes which we wished to see implemented in this country, one of them not very far from my own home.
Similarly, as we have heard tonight, co-ordination and correlation between countries as to what aid they offer—how far they are in opposition to agreed fair
608
practices and how far they are disguised unfair subsidies or disguised protective tariffs—are not simply matters of Community arrangements. There are such things as countervailing duties applied to us by our friends—for example, by the United States—in relation to what we do in this country in certain industries and which they regard from time to time as questionable; and they take upon themselves the right to implement what they call countervailing policies. It would, therefore, be a great mistake to write off the possibility of a Regional Development Fund simply because it may, or will, lead to an agreed system of correlated and co-ordinated national regional aid policies. This is inevitable, I imagine, whatever relationship this country finally decides it should have with whatever group of countries and, indeed, on whatever terms.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, referred in this connection to what he called "acute argument" with the Commission over these terms. I hope I have said enough to indicate that the argument has not been about the terms of the Fund. It is an argument which has begun, and which I am sure will continue, as the general question of co-ordination becomes more and more imminent. As regards the Fund, there has been very little argument of the acute kind. Agreement has been reached on the bulk of the proposals governing this Fund, and there are a few issues which we will need to raise next month at the Council. But once the will was established there was no acute argument among countries, in the sense that we may expect quite acute arguments and very hard bargaining to develop in the discussion on co-ordination. I hope we will keep the two things separate, because they are really not related. This has nothing to do with co-ordination. That is a separate question which is already being discussed and one which will continue to be discussed until a coherent set of proposals is available which this House and another place will be able to consider.
The noble Earl asked whether the assisted areas will change. Any changes must reflect national needs and there is nothing to prevent us from adjusting our areas of need. The priorities in so doing will need to be looked at, and certainly by the time we come to the question

609
of co-ordinating national policies within the Community, it will be in everybody's interest that the boundaries of areas of need have not been so drawn as to reduce the impact of whatever monies there may then be flowing annually into the Fund. The procedure for changes must therefore be related to co-ordination of regional aid, and that is for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised the question of concentrating assistance on new projects in the light of Article 4. This is perfectly possible. He asked whether Her Majesty's Government would concentrate assistance on new projects. As I see it, they could do so; there is no exclusivity here. Old projects which yield new possibilities could figure in the list which the national Government put forward to the Fund management committee, and quite new projects would similarly, in relation to Article 4, figure in that list. It will be for the national Government to assemble applications and put them forward—perhaps the reactivation of old ones plus new projects— indicating whether one of the two options is preferable, and whether the topping up of expenditure is preferable in relation to a given project, or whether the principle of reimbursement is preferable. That will be for us as a country to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked how narrowly the Community—the Fund management committee in this case—will interpret Article 4 as to projects which will qualify, especially, as I understood his question, in relation to the important point of how directly linked infrastructure expenditure would be to what we might call industrial expenditure providing, it is hoped, new jobs. My answer is that I hope and expect it will not be too narrowly interpreted. The will to set up the Fund has bean accompanied by a general readiness to see how it operates, in the first instance over three years, with this amount of money, without being over-rigid about certain of the criteria such as those in Article 4 and, as we hopefully expect, about the interpretation of how regional development grants fit in. Thus, I think I can say in answer to the noble Lord that it will be interpreted not narrowly, but with reasonable flexibility, to see how it works. After all, this is a new thing, deliberately restricted to a fairly short period of three years,
610
with not very much money. The intention is not to operate it so rigidly that no lessons for the future can be learned from it—and this is a point to be made and taken notice of by the Government as they approach the final negotiations.
I have dealt with the question of options. They are options for the national Government to decide in relation to each project as they think fit, after consulting their own nationals, their own organisations, public authorities and others. I was asked whether the Treasury would win the day as to how money will be paid when disbursement has been agreed. The Treasury is always with us. Speaking with some little experience by now of these matters, I think we can fairly put it in this way: the Fund operates; the national Government assemble the applications and, if necessary, accompany these with explanatory memoranda to show how they fit in with the quite legitimate criteria set out in the appropriate Articles. No Government are ever in Office for ever in this country; Governments succeed one another and policy in regard to how the net receipts are disposed of will necessarily vary. Here the views of the Treasury and other Departments and public authorities—in fact, a wide variety of views and, if you like, pressures—will have to be taken into account by the Government of the day.
I found the question about audit very interesting, in that it endeavoured to bring in the regions, and I link it with the point made by one noble Lord about what would be the regional entitlement within the United Kingdom. Of course, no one can say. The notional net benefit to this country is not likely to be more than £20 million a year during the period for which we are providing. Of that I estimate that about 9 per cent. will be FEOGA money—that is, "agricultural money" if you like to call it that. That is not the only component of it which will flow to the hill areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred, nor indeed is it by any means the proportion that would necessarily flow to the most deprived areas. It is impossible to say to what extent various regions of the United Kingdom would benefit. We may be able to say during the course of the three year period—or possibly by the end of the three years—how it has worked; what impact the priorities have

611
had on regions as well as on areas and districts. All we know is—and it can be stated as an absolute fact of Government policy—that the provision for the needs of our regions will continue regardless of the operation of this Fund. The £500 million will flow. The expectation of the £20 million will not affect that. For the next few years, subject to the necessary discussion among the Nine, or the Co-ordination as it is called, the policy we have been conducting, under successive Governments, of spending a substantial amount every year developing the regions—the most hard-hit regions— will continue. There is nothing here to imperil the future of that policy. That policy may be adjusted. The noble Lord said he hoped that the national policy might be superseded by the Community policy of aid. That may be, but it is only when we get down to that kind of discussion—subject of course to the views of Parliament here—that the present National Regional Aid policy will be within sight of being substantially changed, certainly of being supplanted.
I do not know whether I have answered most of the outstanding points which noble Lords raised, but I think I have dealt with the more important reservations which we all have regarding this rather novel departure in European co-operation. I wish to emphasise two things. First, by agreement, this is a modest provision, for a short period, in the first instance. Secondly, what has been said tonight, and what will be said in another place on the 27th, will be taken into account very fully by Her Majesty's Government when they move to the Council Meeting, where hopefully this very substantial measure of agreement about a Fund may be carried to finality. On that basis I think that this House, and indeed Parliament, might confidently and, I trust, hopefully, give a welcome to the Report of the Sub-Committee, which has, after examining certain difficulties, come out firmly in favour of the proposed Regional Development Fund.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of DUDLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord
612
Campbell of Croy and Lord Banks, for the constructive and informed way in which they spoke to the Motion. Both noble Lords spoke from a wealth of experience and clearly with regional problems very much at heart. It is evident that their arguments impressed themselves forcefully on the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I am sure they will join with me in saying how grateful we are to the noble Lord for the immense amount of trouble he has taken, and for the arguments and answers which he deployed in the course of his speech. I think it augurs well for the future of Scotland and Wales that the Foreign Office is taking such a close interest in regional aid and regional development. No doubt there is a lesson that we can draw from this development in the handling of regional problems. I was a little disappointed to learn that there were still difficulties in Council and in the negotiations, particularly over Article 4, but I was encouraged by the noble Lord's comment that he hoped, or fully expected, that a viable Fund would emerge from the negotiations.
The noble Lord mentioned that this was a Fund which could continue to be reviewed, even after agreement had been reached in Council. I think that this is sensible and indeed acceptable; but one's hopes are that the initiatives will come from the Commission, and that these reviews will not be conducted within the dungeons of the Council of Ministers, into which it is so difficult to penetrate. Looking to the future, would the noble Lord bear in mind that if these negotiations go on, as I have said, for months and years in Council, it will be very difficult for the Select Committee to do the work and carry out the duties which this House has asked it to perform.
Finally, my Lords, I wish to say that I was sad to hear from the noble Lord that EMU has been, as I think he put it, put back for what he described as sound reasons. I only hope that this does not mean that EMU is as dead as the Dodo. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STOKE PARK GUILDFORD BILL [H.L.]
6.20 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill and perhaps I should declare an interest in the affairs of the Surrey County Council, although a remote one, because I was a member of it some 24 years ago. It struck me as a coincidence that my noble friend Lord Onslow, who is taking a close interest in this Bill, was also a member of the Surrey County Council. We were both directed by Sir Winston Churchill, who was then Prime Minister, to leave the Surrey County Council when we took up our positions as Junior Ministers in his Government of 1951. So my connection is remote, but nevertheless is a real one.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to give the Guildford Borough Council power to lease some 35 acres of Stoke Park for the location of a new county hall for the Surrey County Council. The technical need for the Bill arises because the Private Act of 1926 under which the Guildford Borough Council acquired Stoke Park restricts the uses to which the area of the Park may be put. This Bill would give specific powers for this purpose. The first query which I think noble Lords would raise is this. Why does Surrey County Council need a new county hall? There are two main answers to that.
The first is shortage of space on their existing site at Kingston-on-Thames. That shortage has now become acute. Some departments have already been moved away from the headquarters building to Epsom, to Ewell, and to Esher, inevitably at the expense of efficiency, and, in addition, a temporary arrangement has been made with the London Borough of Kingston to accommodate a section of the staff in the town centre. This will run out in nine years' time. The fact is that the increasing responsibilities which Parliament has laid on local authorities generally have required, inevitably, increases in staff which go beyond the capacity of the existing county hall at Kingston, even with its various extensions.
Secondly, my Lords, it is clearly in the interests of both the economy and con
614
venience of Surrey ratepayers that Surrey county hall should be located at some central position within the county of Surrey rather than, as now, outside Surrey in the Greater London area in the London borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. Perhaps I should add a footnote. This geographical anomaly was brought about by the creation of the Greater London Council some ten years ago when Kingston, Wimbledon and many other areas were cut off from Surrey and made part of Greater London. I would think that in the interests of economy the Surrey County Council have been slow to correct this anomaly; but now that lack of further accommodation in Kingston has become acute it would seem right that they should make a comprehensive survey of Surrey for suitable alternative sites within the county. This is what they have done.
It is not surprising that Guildford turned out to be the first choice. In addition to being the historic county town of Surrey, Guildford has developed in postwar years into an attractive cultural centre with the building of the cathedral, of a theatre and, now, with the building of the university. In the event, the Guildford Borough Council welcome the Surrey County Council's proposal to move to a site in Guildford. They consider that it is in the best interests of Guildford and of all Surrey people. The Guildford Borough Council wish to make available for the new county hall a site of some 35 acres of Stoke Park. It is North of the Guildford by-pass. This site is therefore detached from the most important area of Stoke Park which stretches out from the Eastern fringe of the old built-up area, South of the by-pass and North of the London Road.
The Guildford Borough Council would propose to compensate for the loss of the area of 35 acres of Stoke Park, by acquiring some 200 acres of riverside meadows alongside the River Wey which adjoin the North side of Stoke Park. The development of any part of Stoke Park is a matter of major importance; and that is why Guildford Borough Council is promoting this Private Bill to seek the approval of Parliament for its proposition. Perhaps it is relevant in this context to recall that two earlier developments have been allowed; the first was for the building of Guildford Technical College and its

615
playing fields; and the second was for the Guildford by-pass, the A3, which runs from London to Portsmouth. Both were authorised in the 1930s by Ministerial decision—at that time the Minister of Health.
This completes my account of the purposes of the Bill and the reasoning behind it. I should now like to deal with two main sources of anxiety which I have heard in connection with the Bill. The first is the town planning aspect. The question is asked: If Parliament approves this Bill, will that influence the decision with regard to the planning application which must subsequently be made for the building of the new county hall on this site? The answer is that this Bill will do no more than remove the legal inhibition which now prevents this site being considered as one of the possible alternatives in Surrey. The Department of the Environment have already announced that the Secretary of State would appoint an inspector to hold a local public inquiry to hear the application and objections thereto if and when it was made.
Secondly, there is the financial anxiety. At this time of grave financial strain in our national life, the question is naturally asked: Should not this scheme which will cost several millions of pounds wait for several years? The answer is that the process of this Bill through Parliament, followed by the planning procedure, will take about two years; and therefore it would be the beginning of 1977 before the Surrey County Council, assuming these consents are given, could be in a position to consider going ahead. They have undertaken that when that time comes they will make a completely fresh financial appraisal of the possible cost of the scheme. I hope that by that time our national fortunes may have substantially improved; but I am sure that, in any event, the Government of the day will have something to say about the matter of timing. But even if they went straight ahead then, I expect that by the time they had completed their appraisal, had taken the necessary decsions, had got the necessary Ministerial decisions, set to work and built the hall, it would be the end of the decade before they could occupy the new building. So it will all take a good many years for these things to go along.
616
May I conclude by saying that this Bill is but the first step in a long process which could lead to the Surrey County Council building itself a new county Hall adequate for its important duties and within the boundaries of its own county, and which they believe to be in the interest of all ratepayers of Surrey. So it is in the interests of good local government that I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
6.29 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has given long and distinguished service to Guildford and has rightly agreed to promote the Bill before us today. I think that he has got me muddled with my father. I certainly was not a Junior Minister in Churchill's Government in 1951, for I was then only eleven years old. I, too, have an interest in this Bill. My family have lived in Surrey since my forebear was the Solicitor General and Speaker in the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. We have been hereditary High Stewards since 1671. I have a special regard for Guildford which since the war has been very well developed. It has a good shopping area and some very fine buildings carefully and well preserved. Its new buildings have been designed sensitively and well. Of course, there have been mistakes, but in my opinion far fewer than in most other comparable towns.
I am saying here that my concern for Guildford is a concern based on an inherited affection of 300 years. I feel very strongly that for the county council to consider, let alone even to want, to build over 500,000 square feet of office block/municipal palace on Guildford's amalgam of Hyde Park and Hampstead Heath is not up to their normally very high standards of service to the community.
I said that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, rightly agreed to introduce this Bill because the matter is of urgent public importance to the burgesses of Guildford and to the citizens of the county of Surrey. I obviously do not use the word "rightly" because I

617
agree with the Bill—I fundamentally disagree with it—but it is, as I have said, of great importance to the people of Surrey. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has already said, the present county hall has been in use since 1893 and will have lasted 90 years if a new one is to be built. The 1893 one has been extended approximately five times, and the county council feel they need a new county hall. If they get their new county hall, how long will this possible new county hall last? Will it last for only 90 years? To have ruined public Often space for 90 years' worth of office block to me seems un-sound. They claim that the present site is too small; they paid rates of £89,240 in 1974–75 to another authority. Please note that that is the only figure which appears in the circular sent by Surrey County Council to Members of your Lordships' House, and it appears twice. They further go on to say:
"The County Council are unable to make any realistic appraisal of the cost of moving County Hall to Stoke Park ".
There seems to be a fault in logic in this approach. On the one hand there is a cost disadvantage, and the only one mentioned in this circular, and on the other there is no point in doing a cost benefit analysis of their chosen alternative. I shall return later, if I may, to figures and costs.
Stoke Park was sold by my great grandfather in 1874 to raise money to finance the Guildford via Cobham railway line. It was then sold in 1925 to the Guildford Borough Council. They paid £42,500 for it. That, my Lords, is at a time when £42,500 bought considerably more than it does now. They are preparing to give away a quarter of it for nothing. The 1926 Act followed. This Act was designed to safeguard this 186 acres for the benefit of the burgesses of Guildford. Since then (when, incidentally, the population of Guildford was about 25,000) the acreage has shrunk to 166 acres because a by-pass has been built cutting off a quarter of the park, and a technical college was also built. I am advised that the Guildford Borough Council probably had no power to build the technical college, and the Minister of Health had no power to allow them so to do. I am also advised that the Surrey County Council had no power to build the by-pass, and the Minister concerned had no power to give them
618
permission. However, I am not a lawyer and will not press that point too far.
The present by-pass is the hinge of this complete problem. This by-pass has left on the North side of Stoke Park some 35 acres which is the land which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, told us, the two councils want as a site for the new county hall. This 35 acres is not in very good condition; it is rough grass and allotments. Here I must add again, there is doubt about the legality of these allotments. Admittedly, few people cross over the by-pass to this area, but by-passes, especially busy by-passes, are difficult to cross with children, prams and dogs. The county council promised in 1930 to build a bridge or an underpass at that by-pass, and did not. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this is the oldest property developers' trick in the world. A site is neglected and cut off, and it then becomes ripe for development. Had the North side of Guildford been as well looked after as the South side of the Stoke Park site has been, the outcry in Guildford would have been even greater than it is at the moment. On this point, I must tell your Lordships that the Save Guildford Association, of which I have the great honour to be president, has collected nearly 11,000 signatures to a street petition begging Surrey County Council not to build their new municipal palace on Stoke Park. This was presented to the chairman of Surrey County Council last Monday.
I come now to the Bill itself. Clauses 4, 5, 10 and 13 would in combination allow the borough council to lease to Surrey County Council some 35 acres, of which I have already spoken, for 999 years at a peppercorn rent to build a new county hall. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, this Bill is not just a technicality which allows Surrey County Council to consider Stoke Park as an alternative site. They could consider Stoke Park—in fact, they have considered Stoke Park. They made up their mind; they then discovered they had to have a Bill. They have already definitely decided that Stoke Park is the site they want.
In the county council headquarters committee report of August 1973, they say:
"… that on the assumption that the District Council endorse the decision of the Guildford

619
Borough Council to make available to the County Council the land forming the Northern part of Stoke Park, Guildford, under a lease to be granted for a term of 999 years at a peppercorn rent the County Council adopt that site as a site for a new County Hall".
Later on it is said:
"… which will lead to the relocation of County Hall on Stoke Park ".
This is not a question of considering Stoke Park among other sites; they have decided that that is the site they want. Detailed design work is in progress, and I should have thought that one cannot design a building without knowing where it is to be put—I will leave aside, however, the story of the old cavalry barracks at Windsor which were reputedly designed for a hot weather station in India, and some Indian regiment is still sweltering in barracks designed for Her Majesty's Lifeguards.
I quote now from a memorandum from the Clerk and Chief Executive, dated 10th September 1974:
"It will be obvious to the Committee that there could be a number of different design concepts which could be adopted for the new County Hall on the site of Stoke Park."
In this memorandum there is no mention of any other site and it is just headed: "New County Hall". On 15th February 1975, the headquarters committee say:
"It would seem that the impression has been created that if the Bill is enacted, it will of itself in some way commit the Borough Council and the County Council to a course of action which will involve the ratepayers of Surrey to heavy capital expenditure".
I wonder how anybody could possibly have got any other impression! The county council documents and articles in the local Press all irresistibly point that way. I suggest that the last paragraph I have quoted is an early lesson in the art of the Jesuitical thought process. Surrey County Council state that Stoke Park is not in Green Belt. In a letter dated 12th July 1972, from the Department of the Environment to the clerk of surrey County Council, the Department point out that the land which was planned to be deleted from the Green Belt—and this includes Stoke Park—is subject to Green Belt policy until the structure plan is approved. That structure plan will then show which parts have been allowed to be deleted from Green Belt.
620
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, of the benefits to the people of Guildford from the new riverside park—200 acres of it. The public now has access to the riverside, the river towpaths are the property of the National Trust, and anybody who cares to do so may walk that way. We saw the figure of £8 million, issued by the county council in 1972, and a little more for the construction of a new county hall at Stoke Park. That figure, building costs having escalated, must now be £15 million or over. No figure is included for the construction of a new riverside park. We must also remember the still non-existent tunnel or bridge across the present Guildford by-pass. That was not built when it was promised. Will the riverside park go that way, too, because of rising costs? What is included is an allowance for the capital value of sites in Kingston, and we all know what has happened to the value of property sites over the last year.
I come now to an even more important matter relating to the peppercorn rent. Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 says that local authorities must get maximum value for their sites when they dispose of them to other local authorities. We are arguing on the basis of what the law is. It is no good Surrey County Council quoting land legislation which is foreshadowed by the present Government White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said in winding-up the debate on the EEC Regional Development Fund, Governments come and Governments go. It is always possible that this land legislation may not be enacted.
Just recently the Guildford Borough Council have bought 10 acres of sports ground for redevelopment, for which they paid £250,000. That, my Lords, is £25,000 an acre. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the 35 acres of Stoke Park is worth £875,000. The population of the present Guildford Borough Council is nearly 120,000 souls. Each one of these 120,000 souls is therefore giving to the other ratepayers of Surrey a present of £7·20. This cannot be right.
In July 1973, the Surrey County Council produced some figures purporting to show that it was cheaper to move to Guildford than stay at Kingston.

621
Obviously, these figures are now hopelessly out of date. Interest rates are at completely different levels; also, they assume a 40 per cent. increase in staff. Is this really necessary? Government Circular No. 171/74 on the rate support grant, from the Department of the Environment, is specific in its instruction not to take on extra staff. The Surrey County Council also say that to provide for 2,500 people as opposed to the present 1,800 people would cost £3,200 each at Guildford. To provide buildings for 700 people at Kingston, which I believe is possible, would cost £10,600, based on 1972 figures. I find this hard to believe. It seems to be one of those factors which is too convenient if one has already set one's mind on going to another place.
Mr. Gordon Oakes, the Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, has stated that every pound spent on a new park or a new council office is a pound diverted from where it is vitally needed—from the fight to reverse the balance of payments deficit and to inject new life into our industry. He also said on the wireless when the rate support grant was announced that this money was not to be used for prestige municipal building. With rates escalating as they are, with inflation the worst in Western Europe, with the housing problem such as it is and with the general financial disaster seeming to be staring us in the face, we cannot afford even to consider new municipal buildings. I have left out traffic considerations. I have left out the fact that in Guildford there are available another 1 million feet for office development. I have left out another site. I have left out the fact that another borough would welcome a new county hall, if it were ever built. I have not developed these themes, because I have not wished to bore your Lordships' House with too long a speech.
Finally, may I ask: what would be the reaction of the authorities to a proposal from, say, Mr. Hyams and his new-found allies, the Co-op, to build an office block of these dimensions on the site of public open space which is protected by Act of Parliament, even if, peradventure, the design had been identical with the design which is now being drawn up in the county architect's office? For all these reasons, for the good of the public in these hard times, I beg
622
the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to withdraw the Bill, especially when environmental and financial interests coincide, so that Surrey County Council will do what every other citizen of the land is doing—namely, making do with what they have.
6.46 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill. I hope to be brief, objective and succinct, and I shall approach this matter on the basic general principles which clearly arise. However, may I say at once that I adopt all the detailed arguments and facts which have been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the excellent speech which he has just delivered to your Lordships' House.
I listened very carefully to the shorter and cogent opening speech which was made by the mover of this Bill, and I fully sympathise with and appreciate the somewhat ambiguous, position in which he now finds himself. He referred to his very remote interest in this matter. Perhaps I should refer to an even remoter interest in it, since I still live in Esher and up to about ten years ago was a co-opted member of a divisional executive of the Surrey Education Committee dealing with the administration of schools in a limited part of the area. Therefore, I am able to claim an even remoter interest in this matter than the noble mover of this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said so clearly, the simple fact is that the Surrey County Council has at present as its headquarters a large building known as the county hail in Kingston-upon-Thames. I know the building very well. Its amenities are still very good. Basically, it is an old building, but in recent years thousands of pounds have been spent upon extending it. About half a mile away from the Surrey county hall in Kingston-upon-Thames there is another large building which is known as the Guildhall. This was built just before the war in Kingston-upon-Thames for local government purposes. Again, it offers good amenities, and I know that building extremely well Owing to the reorganisation of local government authorities and areas, neither of these local government "palaces"— if I may use that word in a modern context, in the same way as the noble

623
Earl, Lord Onslow, used it—is in Surrey, They are now in London, not in Surrey. The present position, therefore, is that the Surrey County Council, through its officers, both elected and otherwise, wish to have a new building somewhere in Surrey, and Stoke Park seems to them to be a convenient spot for its erection.
I have read a large number of the papers concerned with this matter since the conception of the project in 1972. It is a prestigious project. There is no indication in the papers which I have read that the facilities to be afforded by the Surrey County Council would be vastly improved by the spending of millions of pounds on such a "palace". Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in setting out the two basic reasons for this new building, referred to a shortage of space and the fact that it was clearly in the interests of economy that staff should be located in a more central position. In these days of economic crisis, these are not cogent reasons for producing a Bill of this kind before your Lordships, the whole object of which is to get this building built in Stoke Park as soon as possible.
In 1972, the proposed building costs were said to be of the order of £8 million. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was quite frank about it; there is no official estimate of the cost available in any of the papers I have seen. Indeed, the reasons published by the Surrey County Council for not giving such estimates in the reports seem to me to be quite tendentious. I think the Surrey County Council were somewhat surprised to find that in dealing with this proposed development they had first to come to Parliament to ask for a Bill. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, the Surrey County Council or the Guildford Borough Council have not decided to proceed with the building, subject to plans, what is this Bill for? All it will do is merely initiate expensive activities of planning which should not now be initiated in the public interest.
This is the wrong time for local authorities to be contemplating extravagance of the kind contemplated by Guildford Borough Council and Surrey County Council, as stated quite clearly in Clause 4(1) of the Bill, which says that the Bill's
624
primary object is to enable the Surrey county hall to be built, with all the purposes connected therewith, as soon as possible, preferably in Stoke Park. It is totally against the public interest that a local authority should take steps which will inevitably lead to costly planning inquiries and, eventually, to the spending of millions of pounds of public money without adequate reason. As your Lordships realise, there is a Committee now sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Frank Layfield considering aspects of local authority matters, and surely this is a Bill which should at least await the outcome of the deliberations of that very important Committee.
In my view, all action of the kind contemplated in this Bill, whether for extensive planning activities or for building in the future, should be condemned. Therefore, I ask that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, should carefully consider the request so fairly and persuasively put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that at the present time he should withdraw this Bill. Indeed, my Lords, in view of the importance of this matter it may be that Members of this House will consider carefully whether the unusual step might be taken of opposing this Bill on Second Reading.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he is a very distinguished Welshman, may I ask him whether he can imagine any Welsh authority allowing itself to be governed from outside the Principality, and why that geographical consideration should not be extended to Surrey, which wants to govern itself within its own boundaries?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for that interesting geographical observation. I would merely observe in passing that, of course, there is some difference between Surrey and Wales, in that Wales is a nation and I do not think Surrey has so far achieved that distinction.
6.55 p.m.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. Even in 1890, when Surrey County Council debated where its headquarters should be, there was a substantial minority who thought Guildford would be a better site than Kingston, and

625
looking back historically I think even the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would rind it difficult to withstand the proposition that perhaps Guildford is nearer to being the centre of Surrey. Whatever it is in administrative terms, culturally and economically I think it is probably nearer to being the centre of Surrey.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I just say that I did not adduce that argument. I would prefer a county hall, if one is to be built, to be in Guildford; I would much prefer that it went anywhere rather than on Stoke Park. It is Stoke Park that I want to protect, and not to stop the building going to Guildford, although I have grave doubts as to whether it is necessary. I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I will come on to Stoke Park: later, but I am glad that I have carried the noble Earl with me so far, that Guildford is a sensible site for the headquarters of the Surrey County Council. As the years have gone by this has become more and more clear. I do not think Surrey can be condemned for ever to having its headquarters outside its own administrative area, and on a cramped site which is incapable of expansion and which is already failing to contain important elements of the administrative machinery of the county council. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, three or four important sections of the administrative machinery have been moved out to other parts of the county.
I can well understand why those who have looked around the county for a site were tempted to think that the site named in this Bill was the best available. One must have regard to the fact that it is an island site. We are dealing with 35 acres that have got cut off from the rest of Stoke Park. The noble Earl said —and I have sympathy with him—that it ought not to have been cut off; that the road ought not to have been built through, and even if it had been built through there ought to have been a bridge over it. But the hard fact is that such things did not happen. It is an island site and very few people cross over to that island, and I do not believe that part of the park is being used to any great extent for parklike purposes.
From the point of view of Surrey County Council the site has the great
626
advantage that Guildford Borough Council are willing to let it at a low rent. They do not want to sell it. I do not think the question arises of defrauding the ratepayers of Guildford over a sale of which they do not get the benefit, since there will be no sale here. It is a question of rent and not sale. But from the point of view of Surrey County Council it is certainly important that they should be able to find a landlord who is willing to rent them a site at a very low rent. But as I understand, we in this House are not asked to settle these issues finally. What we are asked to do is to enable the ordinary processes of planning inquiry and cost inquiry to go forward in a way that at the moment is precluded because of the 1926 Act. That Act was a creature of its time. By our standards today it is largely an anachronism. We would not think of initiating such Private Bills nowadays because there is general planning machinery and legislation which looks after the issues which, in the old days, Private Bills were passed to look after.
The Bill before your Lordships' House is intended to free the relevant 35 acres so that it can be considered, under planning procedures, and considered only for the purposes of the county council and only subject to the river park project going forward and that area of 200 acres becoming vested in the borough council.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, and 1 am obliged to him for giving way. I am sure he would not wish to misinterpret some clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 says quite clearly that:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or any rule of law—
(1)… the Borough Council may lease to the county council the whole or any part of the specified land … for the purpose of erecting thereon a building for use as county hall and for purposes connected therewith ".
In my submission, there is a very positive indication of the direct purpose of the Bill.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, into those niceties. The broad proposal is as I have described it. The argument that planning permission should come first seems to me unsound. I think that the borough council

627
and the county council have been right to seek that this Bill should clear the way before there is any matter of planning permission. The cost of, and the time required for, dealing with planning permission would inevitably greatly exceed what would arise in your Lordships' House. One would expect planning proceedings over a matter of this sort to last for several days, if not weeks.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, will allow me to interrupt him, I quite agree that town planning procedures are very cumbersome. But would he not accept also that proceedings in a Select Committee upstairs can be cumbersome?
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, I am afraid I did not catch what was said by the noble Lord.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, as I expect to follow the noble Lord, perhaps I will deal with it in the course of my own speech.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, if planning permission were to be granted first, there is no doubt that the matter would still be argued here by the objectors to the scheme on planning grounds, which seems to me another reason for clearing the Bill out of the way first. The planning objections seem to be the main objection to the proposal. I concede at once that there are certain planning objections which would need to be surmounted. But I do not think we in this House should purport to be planning authorities. We are not. Nor, with great respect to the noble Earl, are we arbiters of expenditure. I worked in the Treasury for a good many years, as will be known to some noble Lords. I got quite used to saying, "They cannot afford it." I suppose it might come naturally to me to say that now, but I do not think it is our business to say that. If they cannot afford it, they will not be able to afford it. It will be a great many years before the final assessment of that point will come about—at least five or six years, when the climate might be very different.
I suggest to your Lordships that the right course is to give this Bill a Second Reading, and let the matter go forward on the basis that it should remove the present statutory bar to the proposals,
628
and they could go forward, then, to planning permission.
7.0 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, the first three speakers in this debate spoke as residents and ratepayers of Surrey. I do not know the status of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, but I am now neither a resident nor a ratepayer of Surrey, and after listening to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I think I am rather glad.
Lord HELSBY: My Lords, if I may just interrupt, I am a resident and a ratepayer in Surrey.
Lord REIGATE: In that case, my Lords, I am the first person whose only justification for speaking at all is the fact that I was a Member of Parliament for a Surrey constituency for 20 years. I have a warm affection for the county, and very great respect for the county council. I should like to pay a warm tribute to them for the co-operation they gave me as a Member of Parliament in constituency matters. The last time a Surrey issue came before the House; namely, the retention of Gatwick in the county of Surrey, I was glad that I was able to support the county council. It is, therefore, with some regret that today I find that I cannot.
My Lords, I have not sought to ascertain local opinion in the area I formerly represented, in what might roughly be described as Eastern Surrey. I have not been lobbied by the objectors to the Bill. In fact, my remarks are largely based on the very helpful memorandum which I received from the clerk to the Surrey County Council, sent to me on the instigation of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. On listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, I rather suspect that he received the same brief, because I recognised several arguments in his speech. We draw different conclusions.
My Lords, on the merits of the Bill, there are three aspects on which I should like to comment: is a new county hall needed; is Guildford the right site for it; and is the Bill itself necessary and right? Let me say this about the first two matters. In the long run, this must be settled by the ratepayers and electors of Surrey through their own local authorities. But since it has come before Parliament, I think it is quite right for us

629
to be put in a position to comment on the financial aspects, or any other aspects. That is what we are here for, to discuss a Bill that is before us. I therefore feel perfectly entitled to disagree with the arguments put forward in support of this particular site.
My Lords, the first question is, should county hall be moved at all? In that helpful brief I, too, was told that county hall had been extended five times between 1930 and 1963, and that no further extension is possible. The year 1963 is a very significant date. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, it coincided with the passing of the Greater London Act, which created the Greater London Council at the expense of the contiguous counties which, of course, included Surrey. I remember well the whole incident, as does my noble friend. It caused me a great deal of trouble with my constituents, most of whom were misinformed about the purpose of the Bill. I sat in Committee on the Bill—it was a very exhausting Committee. As a result of the passing of the Greater London Act, Surrey lost one-third of its area, two-thirds of its rateable value, and two-thirds of its population. In the last ten years, many local Government duties have been increased. A few have diminished. Nationally, I believe it is a fact that the staffs in the employment of local government have increased by 40 per cent.
Going back to 1963, would one not expect, after such a truncation, that a county which had lost two-thirds of its population would find a lot of empty space in its county hall? If I were a Surrey ratepayer, I should be very suspicious that Parkinson's Law originated at Kingston-upon-Thames. I cannot but be very sceptical at the idea that a building, adequate to administer a county with a population of 3 million, is too small for a county with under 1 million people. Apart from that, I have no comment at all on the needs of the county.
My Lords, the other question is whether Guildford is the right site. On the point of Kingston-upon-Thames being outside the county, that is, of course, quite true. Of course, it is desirable that one should have the county capital, or whatever it is called, inside the county, but it does happen that there are exceptions. Your Lordships will not forget that Middlesex County Council had its headquarters just
630
across the road for the whole of the 75 years of its existence, for one reason and one reason only; that is, that it was far and away the most convenient meeting place for the county.
Whether Guildford is or is not the right place for the site I do not know. It is arguable. I note in this helpful brief that the old county council consulted the lower tier authorities, 14 of whom, out of 23, favoured Guildford, one only favoured Kingston; I am not told what the other nine thought should happen. That is only 14 out of 23. But since that date there has been a total reorganisation of local government, and I should like to ask whether the Surrey County Council has taken the trouble to consult the new authorities on what their different views are. Are they all now in favour of Guildford? I do not opine too much on this one way or the other, but I think we should bear in mind that from Eastern Surrey—and, after all, one quarter, at least, of the population lives East of Dorking—Kingston is far more convenient than Guildford.
Perhaps on a more flippant note, I could be a little critical of the comment that Guildford is the cultural capital of Surrey; West Surrey, if one wishes, but, as regards Eastern Surrey, I would paraphrase the immortal words of Sam Gold-wyn and say, "include East Surrey out". My noble friend pointed out the—dare I say—empire building going on in Guildford, and I know my noble friend Lord Onslow would be distressed if I made any disparaging remarks about his home town. But when I am told that Guildford is the cultural capital because it now has the university, the cathedral and a theatre, I would make this comment: the university of Surrey, I am afraid, does not impinge very much on the East of the county, which looks to other places; as for the cathedral, the whole of East Surrey is in a different diocese anyway; when it comes to the theatre, if you live anywhere near, shall we say, Redhill, which is the communications centre of Eastern Surrey, it is far quicker to go to the theatre in London or in Brighton or to a concert in Croydon than to go to the theatre at Guildford. So please leave us out of some of these calculations.
I come to my third point: is the Bill necessary and right? It is not, in my view. At this point, if I may, I should

631
like to base my remarks entirely—as did the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, but on a different point—on the wording of the brief. May I perhaps quote:
"It could be argued that, before Parliament is asked to approve the Bill, Town Planning permission should be sought and obtained."
I do so argue. I quote again:
"On balance …"
—only on balance, my Lords—
"… this is not thought to be the appropriate course to follow in the light of advice tendered by Leading Parliamentary Counsel. That advice may be summarised as follows: If Town Planning permission is sought first, the costs to the County Council, the borough council and objectors of presenting their cases at a Public Inquiry will be incurred before it is known whether Parliament is prepared to remove the restrictions".
What is to happen to this Bill? The county council, the borough council and the objectors to the Bill will have to present their cases to the Select Committee without knowing whether or not town planning permission will be granted. The alternative is said to be:
"If Town Planning permission is sought and obtained following the Public Inquiry and the Bill is then to be promoted, petitioners against the Bill will no doubt seek to raise in Parliament Town Planning issues which have been settled under the general legislation."
I would say that they have chosen exactly the wrong course, and this was the point I wanted to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. There is a very big difference between a town planning inquiry and a Bill that comes before Parliament. A town planning inquiry is local. It can be attended by all the local citizens. They can listen in; they can send in their objections, and they can listen better to arguments on the necessity, the siting, the environmental objections, before they embark on what are—let us be frank—ponderous Parliamentary proceedings.
The noble Lord mentioned—he derived it, no doubt, like me, from the brief— the terrible fact that after town planning consent was given the objectors could raise the same objections the second time around. I should have thought that when there had been a town planning inquiry which had gone against them the objectors would get very short shrift from the Select Committee of the House if they sought to rehash arguments that had been fought out appropriately at a local
632
inquiry. I feel, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, said, that a town planning inquiry first is far more suitable. The time of Parliament, the highest court in the land, is, or should be, valuable. It should not be wasted on a Bill which is, in effect, an enabling Bill for a project for which there is no definite commitment—or so we were assured, despite what my noble friend says in some of his speeches—for which no costs can possible be given, and which may in the long run never receive town planning permission.
I hope that the Promoters of the Bill will bear in mind that there will be a lengthy Committee stage upstairs; there will then be a Third Reading here. I think that by now the Promoters and the county council know that the Bill is unlikely to have a totally unimpeded passage through the other place. Therefore, quite frankly, like my noble friend Lord Onslow, my advice to Guildford would be to withdraw the Bill as soon as possible.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, it seems to be the mood of speakers to announce their status in relation to Surrey. My status is one of "has-been". The former holdings of my family, some 7.000 acres, have been reduced by death duties to one, and even that one acre is claimed by one of the nine or ten millionaires who proceeded one after the other and sometimes abreast through the remnants of my inheritance and got a good return for so doing. My connection with Surrey is then dead virtually, except that I have—and I should mention it—a residual interest in a piece of land in respect of which planning consent has been finally refused, and therefore I have no favours to curry with the county council.
I happened upon this Bill by accident, because it was put to me by somebody who suggested that I might take some part in an impartial manner, and when that suggestion was withdrawn I found myself with a little acquaintance with the subject. I compared it with my experiences of acquiring land, a great many sites of land on behalf of the Government at one time, and my experience is that there are serious objections to every single site that anybody can possibly choose anywhere. That is invariable, and

633
it is my belief that the borough and the county are united after prolonged study in deciding that this site is the one they favour.
We can always say that the elected representatives do not really represent the people of Surrey—that is a case to argue. But it is absolutely certain that four Peers do not represent them; Guildford have been elected; it is their business. Therefore, I hold that the many admirable arguments such as I have heard at public inquiries over and over again, are most persuasive but they are in the wrong forum. This is not the forum. The public inquiry in the local town is the forum, where you can go to see the site. I have not been to Stoke Park; I do not know where it is, although I know Guildford a little. I have not read a single brief. I rang up the borough council and asked whether they would like to give me some information about their views, but they said that they would rather not. I have come here with only my own wits and the Bill. I have not been briefed; I have not consulted the lawyers.
Subsection (6) on page 2 reads—
"The purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament".
That I understand to be based—and it is my own judgment, as this is all I have read—on this Schedule. Section 66 of the Act of 1926 has been referred to several times, and it says over the page under a paragraph marked (h) that the borough,
"may from time to time with the consent of the Secretary of State appropriate all or any portion of Stoke Park for any purpose for which the borough council are now or may hereafter be authorised by statute to acquire and hold lands ".
It is because this paragraph refers to a Statute that it has come to us. I suppose that is why it is before us; otherwise it should have been down below at a public inquiry. The following paragraph (i) states:
"They may with the consent of the Secretary of State appropriate, convey or transfer any part of Stoke Park to the highway authority (within the meaning of Part I of the Highways Act 1959) for the purpose of constructing, widening or improving any public highway."
Therefore, with regard to the highway to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred, it would appear that the consent of the Secretary of State was sufficient
634
for that. But I who am not a lawyer do not know whether or not the technical college which was built some time ago was put up ultra vires.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it says at the top of this Section 66,
"(Powers as to Stoke Park) of the Guildford Corporation Act 1926 as amended and continued."
This is the amended Section 66, not the original Section 66 of the 1926 Act.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, the noble Earl is presumably suggesting that the amendment is not viable and does not amend what it is supposed to amend. If it is an amendment, surely it is quite proper to refer to it. Perhaps I mis-described it and he is complaining only of a verbal inaccuracy—or is it one of substance? I should like to go on. I presume that this Bill has to come before us because of this subsection, otherwise I think it is highly inappropriate. Which of us on these Benches can say what is the best site for Guildford? I have no idea myself. What would other people do? I have been on these public inquiries. You view the site, you hear what people have to say on the site and an inspector reports to a Minister.
I have an appeal in the pipeline, but the delay in these things is 18 months from the time of lodging the appeal. If you succeed after 18 months and then some further point arises on which the planning authority refuses permission, a further 18 months expires before you get over that difficulty. It is a preposterous delay, and at the moment I would say that the borough and the county are aiming at something which cannot possibly take place until 1980 at the earliest. The economic climate may be quite different then. We hope to goodness it will be.
In supporting this Bill, which is merely to take away an impediment which prevents these people from considering their choice of sites—something they have chosen themselves—in any rational way, I concede that so far as I am aware anybody here or anywhere else can. for example, put in a planning application to establish a helicopter pad in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, provided they inform Her Majesty. Anybody has this right, whether he has any ownership of not. But until they have control over

635
the land, people do not do this sort of thing unless it is probable that they can achieve it. Therefore I think that to consider it before the Act removes the impediment is to put the cart before the horse. For that reason I have great pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
7.27 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking such a close interest in this Private Bill. In particular, I must thank the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, for their support. The fact that there is interest and that there are two points of view is not surprising. This is very normal in a major proposition of this kind. This is what the process of Parliament, and indeed the Select Committee, is for and the strength of the views expressed by my noble friends on my side and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is characteristic of many who are interested outside and who are opposed to it.
I think the point has been very fairly made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in considering the very large number of signatures to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred in the organisation which he represents, that the elected bodies, the Surrey County Council elected by the county, and the Guildford Borough Council elected by the borough, have both with a full sense of responsibility decided that this appears to be the best site they can find. It is noteworthy, since we are mentioning figures, that in the Guildford Borough Council the vote was some 31 to 6 with support right across the board from all Parties. I think that the general feeling of responsible opinion in the county is not without support for the scheme, not in any way underestimating the weight of opinion which may be against it.
I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Reigate, that the planning appeal should be taken first. This is dealt with in the memorandum sent out by the Surrey County Council and we can all recognise that it is a matter of opinion. The Surrey County Council rightly took the best expert opinion they could get and they followed that advice. I would only make the point that if they had started the other way round and had gone to a
636
planning appeal they would have been in the difficult position of asking the inspector at the public inquiry to consider a site for development against which they were legally debarred. This would have been bound to weaken their prospect of getting a favourable decision on this particular site. That seems to me to be a point which would certainly weigh heavily in my mind, apart from the fact that, as I say, they had taken the best legal advice they could get. I think that they are entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they have proceeded in a proper and responsible way.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is a little tricky in reading Bills of this kind, but I think that I can help him. Clause 4 does not make the whole of Stoke Park available for development. If the noble Lord will read Clause 4(1) he will see that the second line refers to "any part of the specified land". He will see at the top of the page, in the definition clause, the specified land referred to, and that is defined by reference to the maps which will go with this Bill. In that way, the land is defined as the 35 acres that we have been talking about. I hope that this relieves his anxiety on this technical point.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am obliged for that explanation, but that was not my point. My point was that Clause 4 makes it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the building to be proceeded with no matter where it is. My point is that this is not the time to spend vast sums of money on buildings of this kind.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry if I wasted the time of the House in explaining the technical point which the noble Lord made. With regard to the general point, I think that it would be fair to say that a good deal of the argument was directed against local government generally. Here a responsible local government body are trying to carry out their functions and responsibilities to the best of their ability, and they have taken the view that their prospect of doing so efficiently and economically is prejudiced on their present site outside the county, and so they have put up as a proposition how they might remedy this situation. As to

637
whether this is a responsible thing to do, I should have thought that they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.
When, or whether, they will be allowed to spend the money to build a new county hall is something about which the Government of the day will have something to say; but that they should make some preparation for doing so some day, when they can, is a responsible action to take. It is in that spirit that I ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
The Earl of ONSLOW; My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should just like to say that I had seriously considered dividing the House on Second Reading. I have strong reason to believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has already said, that this Bill will get lost in another place, and therefore I thought that it was wrong to waste our time, and the ratepayers' and objectors' money on proceedings upstairs. However, as I had said to the chairman of Surrey County Council a long time ago that I would not divide—even though I wrote to him yesterday and said that I would again seriously consider it—I think that it would be wrong to divide the House at this stage.
However, as I think from this afternoon's debate that the arguments put forward by those of us who are against the Bill are marginally better—or considerably better, although perhaps I am
638
biased—than those put forward by those in favour of the Bill, I feel it right to say that if the Bill gets through Committee, I shall very seriously consider dividing and getting it thrown out on Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.