Lords Sitting of 1 April 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE INQUIRIES
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many inquiries have been held in each of the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively, under Section 70 of the National Health Service Act 1946.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, one such inquiry was held in 1973 and none in 1974 or 1975.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, could the Minister tell me whether the reason why Section 70 has been so sparingly used is that normally when informal inquiries are held under the Department of Health and Social Security, doctors are prepared to come forward and testify and produce any evidence that is required of them? Bearing in mind the circumstances of a recent case in which the doctors and other professionals involved refused to testify, does the Minister not consider that it is essential to invoke the powers of Section 70, as otherwise a precedent will have been created encouraging doctors at all future informal inquiries to refuse to give evidence?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand Section 70, before it should be invoked—I am not saying "could" be invoked—the Secretary of State should be satisfied that there has been a major breakdown in the hospital services. The noble Lord referred to inquiries; there were 18 inquiries in 1973 and nine in 1974. But to come back to the matter which I think the noble Lord has in mind, the doctors were given certain advice by the Medical Defence
1284
Union. The House will be interested to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has given very careful and urgent consideration to this matter and has today instructed officials of her Department to get in touch and have discussions with the Medical Defence Union to see whether there can be some different outcome. I hope that, for very obvious reasons, I shall not be pressed further on this matter.

NHS: STAFF REPRESENTATION
3.8 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to deny groups of staff on the National Health Service representation on joint staff consultative machinery because they have chosen to belong to professional organisations which are nationally recognised negotiating bodies rather than to trades unions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Scotland and for Wales, support the agreement on joint staff consultation reached by the General Whitley Council for the Health Services for Great Britain which has been promulgated to health authorities. This agreement makes no distinction whatever between staff organisations represented on National Health Service Whitley Councils.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him to make it quite clear, for the sake of the National Health Service in this country, that his reply is either, No, or, Yes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I thought I had been perfectly clear, my Lords. I said that the agreement made no distinction between staff organisations represented on the National Health Service Whitley Councils. I do not think I could be any clearer than that.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, may I ask him whether he is aware that I always like either, No, or, Yes, because that makes it easier for the many people who are not knowledgeable about the way in which Ministers of all Governments answer Questions? If he would just say, No, or, Yes, that would be much happier for the National Health Service as a whole.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is not always possible to answer No, or, Yes, to every Question. If I may call on history, I could ask the noble Baroness whether she has stopped beating her next door neighbour.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I have never beaten my next door neighbour, my Lords.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, do not the greatest number of Government Answers in this House amount to, No, and, Yes?

POST OFFICE SORTING PROCEDURE
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ascertain from the Post Office how long it is expected that sorting by hand will be part of the process of separating second class from first class mail in the London area, and whether any of the existing or proposed mechanical methods for the United Kingdom depend upon identifying the 6½p stamp.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Melchett, who has lost his voice, I am replying to this Question. I have ascertained from the Post Office that their machines are designed to segregate into the first class stream
1286
letters bearing an 8½p stamp or any combination of stamps up to that value. Almost half of the major sorting offices in London are equipped with machines designed to separate the two streams automatically, and the Post Office plan is for a fully mechanised system throughout the country within the next seven or eight years.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for having stepped into the breach at short notice to answer this Question, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will quickly recover from his indisposition. Can the Minister say whether the necessary equipment for mechanical operations is available, and what it is that is delaying the remaining introduction which will cause another six or seven years to elapse? Can he also assure the public that any combination of stamps which adds up to 8½p will be identified by the machinery as first class post? Is the noble Lord aware that this is a matter of very wide interest?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I too, feel a loss of voice coming on. The noble Lord's Question and my reply were concerned with the preliminary placing and sorting operations. Following the lifting of the ban by the Union of Post Office Workers in 1975, the postal mechanisation programme is going ahead. There are now 16 fully mechanised sorting offices in operation throughout the country and, altogether, approximately 40 offices have facilities for mechanical sorting of first and second class letters. I understand that the noble Lord's concern is to be satisfied that the letters of people who put 8½p worth of stamps on an envelope should get first class treatment. I am assured by the Post Office that its equipment can do this. Any system of mechanical separation of first and second class mail must rely on recognition of the 6½p stamp, for the simple reason that that is the current second class rate.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, has the Minister any information about the number of man-hours which it takes to sort first and second class mail and, arising from his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that it would be 7 or 8 years before machines were installed throughout, can he give us

1287
any idea as to how that total will decrease? Alternatively, if he has not the information, could be possibly write and let me have it?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I have not that information. I shall gladly write to my noble friend on the subject.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that an envelope franked with 8½p by a franking machine will also receive treatment as first class mail, remembering that the value printed by a franking machine is very often not easily decipherable?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the Post Office has adequate means to ensure that a franked 8½p letter will receive first class treatment. However, I shall look into the matter and, if that is not so, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us by how much it will be possible to reduce the price of first class mail once these machines are in general use as a result of the lifting of the Post Office ban?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I can only suggest that, on matters of detail such as that, the noble Lord should write to the Post Office.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis. I am in a position to sympathise with him about his voice because I had a tooth extracted earlier today and, although I still have my voice, I fear that I am lisping. May I ask the noble Lord a question about his reply that identification of second class post will depend on identification of the 6½p stamp? I must ask him, if he cannot answer now, whether he will guarantee that a combination of stamps which adds up to 6½p will also be quickly identified? I believe that this question needs to be answered.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, in an effort to be helpful to the noble Lord. I answered his question after consulting the Post Office, whose responsibility this is. I can assure him as regards a matter which he raised the other day that Green Shield stamps will not be accepted. If
1288
he wishes to pursue the matter further, I must ask him to take it up with the Post Office.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, with the decline in the number of letters posted and with the introduction of the new machinery, how much money has been saved on the wages bill?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I understand that the Post Office estimates that, in a full year, this could save about £3 million.

MAJOR ACCIDENT WARNING SYSTEM
3.17 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the method of issuing a red warning in the case of a major accident.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is normally the responsibility of the ambulance service to alert appropriate hospitals that a major accident has occurred. The detailed arrangements for taking this action are for local agreement; we are satisfied with the present procedure.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that on numerous occasions which I need not list, such as Flixborough, Staines, and others, where a major accident or incident has taken place, a period of time has often elapsed between the moment when a warning could have been given, and when it was given, as unfortunately happened last Saturday in the tragedy at Olympia, 12 minutes elapsed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is some dispute with regard to the length of the time involved. My information is that the ambulance service was informed at 16.40 hours that there had been an incident at Olympia. Four ambulances were immediately sent, the first arriving within five minutes of the service having been informed. I do not want

1289
to go through the whole of the circumstances, except to say that the first intimation given to the ambulance service was that there had been an incident in which one lady was suffering from some injury. That is how it was handled. I do not know who is responsible in our public buildings and large centres for giving the initial warning, but an inquiry is being held into this matter. It is usual for an inquiry to be held automatically when there has been a major incident or disaster, and so this is a routine matter. When that inquiry has been held, we should be in a far better position to assess the situation.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I understand that the ambulances left very promptly bat were held up because of the volume of traffic?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness.

EASTER RECESS
3.20 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAMES of HASTOE: My Lords with the leave of the House I will make a Statement about the Easter Recess. Subject, of course, to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Wednesday, 14th April, and will return on Tuesday, 27th April. The Sitting on Wednesday, 14th April, will be at 11 o'clock in the morning.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BROADCASTING
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed in the Fourth Report from the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Select Committee of five Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a
1290
Joint Committee to consider the implementation of the Resolutions of both Houses in favour of the establishment of a permanent system of sound broadcasting of their proceedings and to make recommendations;

E. Cathcart,

L. Aberdare,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

B. Phillips,

L. Winstanley;

That two be a quorum;
That such a Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed, but that no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee think fit, until further Order;
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEYCHELLES BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of this Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The essential purpose of this Bill is very simple. It is, in the words of the Preamble, to:
"…make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Seychelles of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth."

1291
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to trace briefly the constitutional developments which led up to it. Representative government emerged in Seychelles in 1948 and, in October 1970, an advanced Constitution was introduced. General elections were held under this Constitution in 1970 and in April 1974. The elections in 1974 were contested by the majority Seychelles Democratic Party and the minority Seychelles People's United Party, both on the platform of early independence. Over 80 per cent. of the electorate voted, and very much the greater part of this voted in support of either one or other of the two Parties. Indeed, of the 41,833 votes cast, only 11—not 11 per cent., but only 11 votes—went to the single candidate who opposed independence.
Following this clear mandate for early independence for Seychelles, a Constitutional Conference was held in London in March, 1975. On that occasion the Seychelles political Parties disagreed over some of the essential features of an Independence Constitution. They did, however, agree to form the present coalition Government, which was formed in June last, and which has worked very well indeed. They also agreed to an Interim Constitution providing for internal self-government, which was introduced last October.
To help towards a solution of the matters on which the Parties disagreed, an Electoral Review Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Tun Tan Siew Sin, the distinguished former Minister of Finance in Malaysia, and its report was fully taken into account when the Constitutional Conference resumed in January. In this conference all 25 Members of the Seychelles House of Assembly took part. The leaders of the two Seychelles political Parties presented joint proposals for an Independence Constitution. These proposals, including one which provided for Seychelles to become a Republic on independence, were, with some minor changes, unanimously adopted by the conference. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 6409) and presented to Parliament in February.
The conference also agreed in principle to the return to Seychelles of the Islands of Aldabra, Desroches and Farquhar.
1292
Your Lordships may recall that these islands were, with the agreement of the Seychelles Government, detached from the colony of Seychelles in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under an Exchange of Notes with the United States in 1966, we agreed to make the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory available for defence purposes of the two Governments. But subsequently it has become clear that neither Government have plans for the use of the islands for these purposes. Accordingly, tripartite talks between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Seychelles, and the United States, to make the necessary arrangements for the transfer, were held last month. Statutory Instruments, by which the return of the islands will be effected, are now being prepared.
Knowing of your Lordships' interest in these matters, I am glad to be able to tell you that Seychelles is to extend its policy of strict nature conservancy to the islands being returned. In respect of Aldabra, the Seychelles authorities are to maintain close consultation with the Royal Society, who already have a research station on that atoll.
My Lords, the Bill which is now before the House will make provision for Seychelles to attain fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth on 29th June 1976. It also makes provision for various connected matters. Clause 1 provides that on 29th June 1976, the United Kingdom will cease to have responsibility for the government of Seychelles. Clause 2 provides for the Constitution of Seychelles as a Republic on that day. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters. Subject to exceptions in Clause 4, which relate to the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with a close connection with this country and by women married to such persons, Clause 3 provides that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall lose that citizenship if they become citizens of Seychelles. Clause 3 also provides that the section of the British Nationality Act 1948 which governs citizenship by registration on account of marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, shall no longer apply to wives of persons who become in that way citizens of Seychelles.
Clause 5 makes provision for the continuation after independence of laws

1293
operating in respect of Seychelles before independence. Clause 6 provides that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall dispose of any appeals to Her Majesty in Council which may be pending from any court having jurisdiction for Seychelles provided that leave to appeal has been granted either by the court or by Her Majesty in Council before independence day. Clause 7 and the Schedule deal with consequential modifications of other enactments. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with interpretation and Short Title.
Your Lordships will be aware that we have for many years operated a programme of aid and technical assistance for Seychelles. I am glad to be able to confirm that this will continue. Her Majesty's Government will provide the budgetary support amounting to £1·7 million in total over the first four years of independence; and, in addition to technical assistance, we shall provide capital aid in the first two years of independence amounting to £10 million. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to express our confidence that the friendly spirit of the conference in January and the same spirit which animated the talks last month will continue into independence, and that the harmonious relationship—indeed, the affection—between Britain and Seychelles which has existed for more than 160 years will endure. My Lords, Seychelles has already applied for membership of the Commonwealth, and I am glad that it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we can look forward to continuing the close ties that exist between the United Kingdom and Seychelles. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
3.32 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to express our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the clarity and precision which he always uses and which he has again used so effectively this afternoon to explain the Bill on the acquisition of independence by Seychelles. I think the first point that it is of interest to note (and with some jealousy, I may say, by this country) is that the new Constitution is to include
1294
provisions safeguarding the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the peoples of Seychelles. Unlike many of the modem Constitutions, there is also provision to ensure that the citizen will be protected through all the courts of the land. I think this is a new departure, and is very much to be welcomed. Not only will the rights be enshrined in the Constitution, but the individual citizen of the Seychelles will have the right in the courts, extending up to the Supreme Court, to have those rights and freedoms asserted. I think this stands as an example to all new independent territories, and indeed to those territories which speak so much about human rights but consistently violate them.
With regard to the Bill itself, I will not comment in detail because, of course, this will be possible at Committee stage, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the clauses on nationality since they give a certain amount of cause for concern. We have already had many troubles and complex situations in the changeover from British colonial status to independence and it leaves a great deal to be desired, both from the point of view of this country and from that of the individuals concerned, if they do not know or are not sure what nationality they will be on any given date. I do not have to draw your Lordships' attention to the many examples we have had in recent years. So at a later stage, at Committee stage, I should like to raise the difficulties which are evident in Clause 4 as it is at present drafted.
I should also like to draw attention (though I realise that it is no doubt in accordance with the wishes of the people of Seychelles that this provision should accord with their own national law) to the fact that, under Clause 4(5), a woman who is the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will cease to be such a citizen only if her husband does. This means, presumably, that the wife will have to follow the decision of her husband, and will not be free to choose either to remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if her husband becomes a citizen of the Seychelles, or vice versa. This is, of course, a case of legal discrimination so far as this country is concerned, but no doubt this is in accordance with the present situation in the Seychelles and is as the people of the

1295
Seychelles would for the time being wish. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, could give some indication of how many citizens who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will in fact remain so and will not automatically become citizens of the Seychelles. I think it is a very important point that there should be some kind of registration, at the date of independence, of those who are entitled to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies so that at a later stage people cannot claim that citizenship through failure to register or for some other reason.
With regard to the economy of the Seychelles, for a long time, of course, they have lived on the sale of copra and cinnamon, and we are very pleased to see the great developments that are taking place with regard to tourism. We on this side of the House particularly, I know, are very pleased to hear the generous terms of the Government to the people of Seychelles in order that they may develop their economy. We particularly welcome the announcement of the noble Lord of payment of £10 million over two years. I understand that that particular sum will be a "soft loan" rather than a grant, and presumably it will be tied to identifiable projects. Perhaps the noble Lord would comment on that in his winding-up. But certainly in principle we very much support this sum being given in aid to the people of the Seychelles. Of course, this does not imply that there will not be a considerable amount of private investment being put into the Seychelles to encourage tourism and those other industries which will no doubt develop in the coming years.
I should like to say just a few words about the principle of self-determination, because this is one which has really been behind all the changing over to independence of former dependent territories. It has always been assumed that the peoples of these countries who have been within the British Empire have wished to be apart from it and to gain their independence, but I think that in fairness it should be said that for 12 years prior to 1974 Mr. Mancham's Party had always voted to remain integrated with the United Kingdom. I think that for those of us—and I believe there are many such people
1296
in this country—who still feel that the British colonial system did a great deal for the world and the people in it, it is very refreshing to hear that there are still people in other parts of the world who recognise that to be allied and integrated with the United Kingdom has not been such a disadvantage for their peoples. If I may, I should like to quote a passage from Mr. Mancham's letter to The Times on the 23rd January of this year, when he said:
"Personally, it will be sad for me to see the lowering of the Union Jack for the last time on Seychelles soil".
I think this sentiment should be recorded in the Official Report of your Lordships' proceedings.
Finally, with the achievement of independence by the Seychelles, of course the Seychelles will become a sovereign State and will exert its responsibilities as such in the forum of the United Nations, with an equal vote with the United Kingdom and other major Powers of the world, and I am sure it will exercise this vote responsibly. We shall not, of course, lose touch with it particularly because it will, as I understand it, remain an Associated Territory within the EEC; and naturally we hope it will become a party to the Lomé Convention, which would keep a closer link between us than would otherwise exist. With the noble Lord, we on this side of the House warmly welcome the Seychelles as, I understand, the 36th Member of the British Commonwealth Association. All it remains for me to do on behalf of my noble friends is to express our warmest wishes to Mr. Mancham, who I understand will be the future President; to Mr. René, the future Prime Minister, and to all the people of the Seychelles for a peaceful and prosperous future.
3.39 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to join in wishing the Government and the people of the Seychelles a successful transition to independence on June 29th, and an equally successful future after that date. The Seychelles will be, I believe, the 36th member of the Commonwealth, and I hope that their relations with Britain will continue to be close and cordial. I would endorse, too, what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about our hopes

1297
that the Seychelles may be associated with the European Community through the Lomé Agreement.
The Seychelles comprise of 92 islands and a population of 60,000 people. The return of the three islands to which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts referred, the three islands detached in 1965 to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, will add very considerably to the total area of the new independent State particularly if the 200-mile limit is agreed at the Conference on the Law of the Sea. One of the three islands to which the noble Lord referred, Aldabra, has unique flora and fauna. It is a bird sanctuary and, as the noble Lord said, it has been leased to the Royal Society. I am glad to learn that the protection of the environment is to receive the special attention of the Government of Seychelles.
The electoral problems which had to be solved in setting up the new Constitution are not without interest. The People's Unity Party—which is one of the two Parties, again to which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, referred, and which are in a coalition at the moment—had a grievance because the seats they secured on the existing basis in the National Assembly did not adequately reflect the share of the vote that they secured. Under the new Constitution eight members will be elected from the present constituencies and 17 by proportional representation from Party lists. This arrangement is similar in principle to the German electoral system which some of your Lordships will recall was mentioned in another context in this House on Monday. I am glad that the British Government felt able to commend a proportional system in this case.
The Seychelles are situated in a strategic area of great importance, the Indian Ocean. I understand they will have no defence forces and that they have set their face against having foreign bases on their territory. That is understandable. I very much hope that they will be able to follow this policy through without entanglement or disasters and that they will be able to maintain a peaceful haven in a troubled world.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, when, a long time ago, I held the Office
1298
now held by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office were nothing like so thoroughly amalgamated as they are now. I am afraid that I was shamefully ignorant of the history and the geography of the Seychelles until only two or three weeks ago when I went there with my wife on a visit which I think was the most delightful holiday I ever enjoyed anywhere. My only reason for speaking very briefly on this Bill is to express my grateful thanks to all the people whom I met for their kindness and their hospitality and to express the hope that they will enjoy great success when they become independent on 29th June.
The native inhabitants of the Seychelles are very delightful people with a fairly high average standard of education which is largely due to the educational work of the Roman Catholic Church there. A very large number of the islanders can talk fluently all three indigenous languages, French, English and Creole. They are a people who have a great love for their native country. They like interest being taken in them by people from abroad; they like showing off things. They take the greatest pleasure in showing visitors the great palace on the brink of a huge precipice, the palace some 300 feet or 400 feet in sheer height above the sea, where Archbishop Makarios was interned for several years by the British Government.
If you go to see this palace, you will very likely be asked by some guide whether he would be allowed to take you down the long funicular road to the seashore, several hundred feet below, where it is asserted that you may see the remains of 12,00 empty champagne bottles which were hurled over the edge of the precipice—sometimes from a window in the palace but more often from over the balustrade of a terrace in front of it—after their contents had been consumed by the Archbishop and his friends. I am afraid I did not take the trouble to verify the accuracy of this statement; but I hope that while the Archbishop was interned there he was well looked after. Anyway, it is asserted that his chief recreation—he was not allowed to go out very much—consisted in hurling these empty champagne bottles over the balustrade of the terrace and watching them fall 300 feet on to the seashore.

1299
There is only one further thing I want to say. This Bill is, of course, similar in principle to all the other legislation by which we have, over the last 20 years or so given independence to nearly all of our former dependencies and colonies. There are still, I am glad to say, some of them—I think the majority—who have kept and worked the free Constitutions for the protection of individual liberty which we bestowed upon them. But, alas! there are others who have not done so. Some of those whom we most hoped would be strong, developing countries have overthrown the democratic Constitutions which they inherited from us and have established dictatorships, and indeed tyrannies, sometimes of the most bloodthirsty and cruel nature; to that the happiness and condition of the people is not better but worse than it was before.
My Lords, I would beg the people of the Seychelles when they get their independence on 29th June to resolve very firmly and deeply that they will not allow their free Constitution which is provided in this Bill ever to be replaced by a dictatorship. I am afraid that vigilance in any country which is given freedom may be required for this purpose. I hope that the people in the Seychelles will be determined to observe and to perpetuate human freedom, and particularly the Four Freedoms which were so well defined by the late President Roosevelt during the war, but which have so often since been discarded and destroyed by what I am afraid is now a growing number of countries in this world.
3.50 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill providing the Seychelles with independence within the Commonwealth. As a footnote to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, I believe I am right in saying that Archbishop Makarios fell so much in love with Mahé when he was there that he has now purchased a house there. I have known the Seychelles for a number of years, and I have formed a great affection for their warm hearted and friendly people. I have a small interest to declare: in partnership with two English friends and two Seychellois friends, I am the owner of a very small property on the charming
1300
little island of La Digue. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I have often hoped that some integration might be possible. This is certainly what the Seychelles Government wanted after the 1970 elections. Perhaps, looking back to the experience that Malta had, this was not on, and therefore we have a different arrangement which we can welcome today. Out of the disagreement there was between the two main Parties in 1970 to 1974, something good has arisen in that, in spite of the natural and healthy clash of opinion between the People's United Party, under Mr. Albert Rene, and the Democratic Party, under Mr. Jimmy Mancham, there has been a reconciliation of views, and they have come together to agree on this new Constitution. That is something very much to be welcomed.
There is one particular aspect of the Seychelles to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. That is the ecological aspect which has been touched upon very lightly. I do not know any other part of the world where the people themselves have taken more interest in the natural history of the area in which they live. I see opposite me the President of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge; and I am a past-president. The Seychelles Islands have at least five species of birds which are unknown anywhere else in the whole world. That is remarkable. It is because of that that many people from other parts of the world, particularly from this country, have assisted the leaders in the Seychelles to declare some of these islands as nature reserves. For example, Cousin Island, which is run by the International Committee for Bird Protection, is a wonderful place for bird watching. There is also Aride Island, which the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves is running as a bird reserve.
There is no island in the world which is more interesting than Praslin, and some people take the view that the Vallée de Mai was the original Garden of Eden, which it could well have been. Mention has been made in this short debate about Aldabra Island. Aldabra is a very long way from the main group of the Seychelles Islands. I think there are

1301
85 islands, although the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made it 92. Only a small number of the islands are populated. Aldabra is unique. I was extremely worried when I read in the newspapers that there was the possibility of a hotel being built on it. I believe this report to have been false, and I hope that this is the case. When the noble Lord replies perhaps he can confirm that the arrangements that the Royal Society have made with the right to renew the lease on Aldabra until the year 2005 holds good. I believe talks are going on at this very moment. I have in my hand an extract from the Official Gazette of 20th February headed, "Protection and Preservation of Wild Life, Aldabra Strict Nature Reserve Regulations 1976". It would be encouraging to know that the important work the Royal Society are doing there will be able to continue, and I have every reason to suppose that this is the case. Perhaps, also, when the noble Lord replies he will tell us what is happening to the remainder of the British Indian Ocean territories, now that four islands have been removed. I believe this is a Second Reading point.
I was very pleased indeed to hear that generous financial help will be given to the Seychelles Islands over a considerable period, and there are two particular aspects of the economy of the island which need special attention. Where their economic future is concerned, they have been so dependent, as has been mentioned already, on copra and cinnamon and one or two other minor products such as vanilla and tea, that there is every reason now why they should do their utmost to make the maximum possible use of what little land they have that can be cultivated. They are strange islands. They are mostly granite islands surrounded by coral reefs. Aldabra is an exception, for it is a coral atoll. Because of this, on the little flat plain-lands that one gets on Mahé, Praslin, and La Digue and so on, there is very little soil which can be cultivated, and the maximum possible use must be made of land. I am told that a recent survey by a great expert has shown it is possible to breed cattle, both for beef and milk, and intensive vegetable and fruit production, citrus fruits in particular—they grow wonderful limes there—is another possibility. I hope that this point
1302
will be looked at very carefully. I know it is very much in the minds of the Government of the Seychelles.
Secondly, under the heading of economic aid there is education. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned this. With great respect, I am not sure he was entirely right after his recent visit to speak in the way he did about the standard of education there. One does meet soma: highly educated people and I am sure they are well able to run their own affairs. There is a thirst for education there; a number of Seychellois come to this country to attend university for higher education. There are no real higher education facilities on the islands. If we were able to provide them with more help regarding teacher training—perhaps we could consider setting up a technical college on the main island—this would be helpful to them in their new status of independence.
I see the Seychelles with an exciting future. The size of the population is probably smaller than the smallest constituency in this country, and with an electorate of something in the region of 25,000 people, the electorate is a lot smaller than the average constituency. We are talking about a group of islands with a small population which in future will be terrifically dependent on tourism. They have this enormous attraction of their unique ecology and the natural history of the islands. It will readily be agreed by noble Lords that the absolute essence of a successful tourist industry is the maintenance of political stability and the ability to gain the confidence of the foreign investor. It seems to me that the leaders of both Parties have shown an extraordinary sensible attitude to this matter and a full appreciation of the questions I have touched on.
The islands are blessed with many advantages; one is a marvellous climate. Temperatures are in the 'eighties most of the year. It is wet from November to February, but for the rest of the year it is a remarkable climate, particularly bearing in mind that they are practically on the Equator. The islands are cooled by the South-East trade winds. So they have many natural advantages. They are lucky in their leadership; they are lucky in the character of their people. Mention has been made of the fact that they are bent on what Mr. Mancham called a

1303
Switzerland-type non-aligned neutrality. This makes a great deal of sense, particularly bearing in mind that they occupy a strategic position which is of obvious importance. I feel sure that the new Government of an independent Seychelles can rely on Britain to give them any help they may ask for towards the end they have in mind, where this Switzerland-type neutrality, which makes good sense, is concerned.
There is no question of our abandoning our friends from whom we happily are not parting either in anger or haste, but after the most careful consideration. They are leaving us of their own free will, grown up and full of confidence in the future. They can be sure that there is a great deal of affection here for the Seychellois people, which I believe is reciprocated. They have one major advantage of which mention has been made; that is, that they have successfully lived together in harmony despite the multiracial community that one finds there. Speaking French and English and a curious Creole-French patois gives them quite a natural advantage there. In conclusion, may I say that I feel the Seychelles might well be called the "Happy Islands": may they be just that, my Lords.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I add a further word of welcome to this Bill. I think this is one of the most curious and interesting developments taking place in the Commonwealth. Seychelles is a very remarkable place for a number of reasons. As has been said, it is extremely attractive—I believe it was General Gordon who called it, "the Garden of Eden". Among the ecology, I feel compelled to mention the "cocoa de mer". Anyone who has seen that has seen something quite different from anything he might have seen anywhere else. Secondly, it is extremely inaccessible. Thirdly, it is of enormous strategic importance. I cannot help feeling that, at some time, the Government of Seychelles will be under enormous pressure for some strategic reason to give facilities to other Powers. I should like our Government to let us know their attitude towards this problem. I see the Bill uses the phrase "fully responsible status". Is not the normal terminology, "an inde-
1304
pendent republic within the Commonwealth"? Is there anything special about the phrase which has been used in the Bill? Is it not just "member of the Commonwealth", as other countries are? As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is an associated Member of the EEC. There are many curious terminologies connected with the EEC but, referring to the original meaning of the word, I should not have thought it fell within the "associated" status.
Finally, I should like to ask this: I see that in paragraph 8 of the Schedule reference is made to a withdrawal of whaling industry regulations. Does that mean that our restriction on whaling will no longer apply in respect of ships registered in the Seychelles? If that is the case, then I hope that in the negotiations which follow the Government will press the Seychelles to impose the same kind of regulations as we do in this country. In general terms, I welcome this Bill, although I think it does raise rather specialised problems.
4.2 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am delighted that there should have been this general welcome for the Bill. It is in accordance with the unanimity with which the people of Seychelles themselves have indicated their desires and the way they have gone about preparing their country for the experience of independence in the last few months, during a not very easy transitional period. This brings me to the essential point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. Whatever the phraseology used in the Bill, it means that Seychelles now becomes an independent country within the Commonwealth. The noble Earl also raised one or two questions of detail which I hope he will see fit to raise on the Committee stage, very much as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, indicated she would be doing concerning a number of nationality points. One could go into these matters today but, as the noble Baroness herself suggested, I think it would be more useful to do that at the Committee stage. Of course, we have experience of nationality problems, including access to this country, in other parts of the former Empire, particularly in East Africa. It is perfectly natural and proper to raise the question of whether we may not be creating difficulties for

1305
them and for us, even on a small scale, in a transfer of power and of status of this kind. I am strongly advised that this is not so in the case of the Seychelles, but any problem which might arise is really so small that it does not confront us with any serious difficulty. There will be a further opportunity of looking at this and other nationality points during the Committee stage.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of integration—a point which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. I agree with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. In more than one case, of this kind in the late 'fifties and the early 'sixties, the question of integration with the United Kingdom was raised. It was not "on" then in any case, and it certainly would not be "on" now, in the middle of the 'seventies. Whatever some of us may have thought in earlier days in certain connections, it did not prove feasible then and certainly would not prove feasible today.
I join with those who have taken the opportunity of saying that the British Colonial system, certainly as administered by the old Colonial Office and by those who served it, did a great deal of good in the countries concerned. I have been in many of those countries myself and have seen and heard from the indigenous population tributes to the efficiency and devotion of the Colonial Service—for instance, the so-called "political service" in the Sudan. There was nothing political about that: the officers concerned were highly intelligent social welfare officers, whose contribution to the progress of the Sudan is celebrated to this day. There are dinners and other occasions when the Sudanese recall, individually and as a group, the services of these excellent officers.
The noble Baroness asked one or two very important questions, apart from those I have mentioned. She asked about the position of Seychelles under the Lomé. Convention. As she said, Seychelles will become a member of the Lomé Convention, and thereby will have associative status and associative relations with the EEC. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, both pointed out that we all hope the Seychelles will follow what their leadership has described as a policy of pacific non-alignment of not allowing their coun-
1306
try to be used by any other country for military purposes, and certainly not for aggressive purposes. We have every confidence that this will be so. Mr. Mancham and M. René have both spoken very strongly along these lines, and indeed those who took part in the conference came away much fortified by the intentions of the new Government in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also referred to the election system—perhaps inevitably, since he spoke from the Liberal Benches, although the concern for electoral processes is not solely and entirely a Liberal concern. I would only say to him that the election system will be as he described. It is one which is acceptable to the Seychelles and one which they say suits them. There are almost as many election systems as there are electors these days, and the people of the Seychelles, we think, have chosen the right system for them.
We listened to a fascinating speech from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who filled this office with great distinction and dedication some years ago. I agree with him that all the more interesting countries have more than one language and also have colourful archbishops. I am not saying that every interesting country necessarily disposes of 12,000 champagne bottles, as he seemed to suggest. But more seriously, we can all agree with him that many of our former dependencies—more of them than is generally realised—have indeed retained the democratic system which was part of the dowry that Britain bestowed upon them, and have maintained, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, a respect for human rights. There is every sign that this new country within the Commonwealth, and presumably as a member of the United Nations, will retain its hold on the democratic virtues and pursue a system of human rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, asked about the administration of the rest of the BIOT. This will, in fact, be administered residually. It is an administration, as we say now. With the detachment of the three islands, there will be a residuum which will, at least in the interim, be administered as the original BIOT was administered. If the noble Lord would like to raise this point in more detail during the Committee

1307
stage, I shall be delighted to give more information about it. There is no difficulty about continuing to administer what is left of the BIOT as it was administered previously.
The noble Lord also raised one or two other very important points; for example, education. I am not sure whether he said that there is no higher education in Seychelles. I can say that there is, although there may not be enough. I believe that there is a teacher-training college which is a higher education institute, and four, if not five, vocational colleges which I suppose may be termed further education establishments. The House may have noticed that I rather stressed our intention to extend to them technical assistance, and it is for this reason, that they may well need help to develop their education, especially at the technical level which brings them into the higher education sphere, that we regard technical assistance in this case as very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is of course quite right in thinking that the £10 million capital aid over the first two years is in the form of a soft loan. The budgetary aid of £1·7 million over a period of four years is just that. One hopes that private capital will continue to enter Seychelles. There is great scope to develop indigenous industry there. One is tempted to go into the possibilities which are raised by the imminent agreement about the 200-mile limit, which should of course expand their fisheries and the cognate industry of tourism—already a fairly flourishing industry in the country. All in all, we, like the people of Seychelles, look forward with confidence to the future, and certainly this country will continue to do everything it can to help this new member of the Commonwealth.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
4.14 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House establishes the Northern Ireland Development Agency in place of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, and extends the powers of the Department of Commerce to provide selective financial assistance to industry under Section 1 of the Industries Development Act 1966. It also enables interest relief grants to be given as an alternative to loans under Section 9 of the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 towards schemes for rehousing or modernisation, and enables the transfer of publicly owned securities to the Department of Commerce.
The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation was established in 1972 with a statutory life of three years. Its life has since been extended by two years, and would, but for the provisions of this order, cease on 31st March 1977. The Corporation was established at a time when many reputable and well-based companies in Northern Ireland were feeling the effects of three years of civil disturbance, and were suffering serious liquidity problems. Because of the local situation, normal banking sources were reluctant to make money available, yet many of these companies had good long-term business prospects, and they already enjoyed an important place in the economic life of Northern Ireland. The job of the Corporation was to provide assistance to such companies to help them over this period of difficulty and put them back on to a viable footing.
The Corporation has done useful and important work, but it is now clear that a different and more fundamental approach to Northern Ireland's economic problems is called for. What is needed is a coherent and comprehensive strategy to tackle the underlying problems of industry, rather than ad hoc measures introduced to deal only with specific situations. The achievements of the

1309
Department of Commerce in attracting new investment, and creating new job opportunities in the past 20 years have been notable, but they have not managed to keep pace with the needs of the community. It is also clear that the provision of new job opportunities cannot, in itself, be an answer to the problem though it is a very important factor. It is equally vital to ensure that industry in Northern Ireland, whether local or external in origin, is equipped and geared, both in production and management, to compete in local and world markets. Only strong competitive industry can provide the long-term security of employment which Northern Ireland desperately needs. The task of attracting new investment will remain the prime concern of the Department of Commerce, but that of reconstructing industry and maintaining its strength will be the responsibility of the Development Agency.
In pursuing this role, the Agency will have the powers to become involved in almost every aspect of running a business. It will have the power to establish and own companies as its subsidiaries; it will be able to participate in joint ventures, it will have a role in acquiring and disposing of licences and patents, and it will have a major function in relation to the marketing needs of Northern Ireland industry. It will also have a part to play in the formulation and promulgation of the Government's general plans for the Northern Ireland economy, or any section of it.
In particular, the Agency will have a role in relation to those parts of Northern Ireland where the problem of unemployment has been most intractable. It will be a priority to devote attention to the needs of these areas, and to decide upon and take appropriate steps—including the establishment of State industry—to deal with their problems. The successful operation of the Agency overall will depend to a large extent on its ability to win the confidence and respect of management and unions in Northern Ireland. In this it will be given a good start with a membership which represents all business interests—management, unions and professions—and has a strong local flavour.
Since the overall objective of the Agency will be to improve the structure and efficiency of Northern Ireland industry, it follows that it will be expec-
1310
ted to invest only where it can see a good prospect that this result will be achieved. There will be no question, therefore, of the Agency becoming involved on its own initiative in providing financial assistance to companies whose future survival is in doubt, or which are unlikely to hold out a reasonable prospect of continued profitable operation. The primary responsibility for assistance in these cases will be taken over by the Department of Commerce, and it will exercise the powers provided under Article 7 of the order to direct the Agency as to the amount and form of the assistance to be provided, and the terms and conditions which will attach to it. Such directions will follow consultation with the Agency, and any expenditure arising in respect of them will be recoverable from the Department. This arrangement corresponds to that which will apply in similar circumstances between the Department of Industry and the National Enterprise Board.
In taking decisions about new investment, or joint ventures, the Agency will be expected to give close attention to the likely commercial outcome of a project. It should be satisfied in all cases that a viable operation is likely to result, but this does not mean that it should be unduly conservative in its approach to investment decisions. It will not be expected to lose money, taking its operations as a whole; but neither is it required to seek, as a private investor would, the highest return on its investment in all cases. The Government have to take into account wider considerations for reasons of regional employment or industrial policy and these may lead to a decision to invest where the return is low, or may take a long time to materialise.
With regard to the actual provisions of the order, Part II deals with the establishment, powers and functions of the Development Agency, the giving of directions to it, its financial limit and other ancillary provisions. Part III extends the Department of Commerce's powers to provide selective financial assistance to industry under Section 1 of the Industries Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and under Section 9 of the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, and ensures the same facilities relating to a secured rate of grant where Northern Ireland interests

1311
arc covered by planning agreements, as would be the case in Great Britain. Article 18 in Part IV of the legislation removes doubts which have arisen about the ability of the Department to accept publicly owned securities which other Departments or publicly owned bodies may wish to transfer to it. The order concludes with three Schedules dealing with staffing and financial matters of the Agency, and the staff of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation.
The task ahead of the Agency is a sobering one. All too recently we have heard of further setbacks to the economy of Northern Ireland in terms of lost jobs, and it is of crucial importance that new employment should be found as soon as possible in order to prevent the further dissipation of valuable skills and demoralisation which results from prolonged periods of unemployment. The Agency's first priority must be to direct its energy towards the creation of new job opportunities. This it may do through the establishment of State enterprises, or joint ventures, or by encouraging the development of existing local industry. I know that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing the Agency every success with the task with which it is being entrusted. It is faced with a great challenge which will call for determination, courage and imagination if the goals which we seek are to be achieved. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd March, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
4.23 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this order will complete the task, set in train by the Industry Act of last year, of legislating for Government intervention in the work of industry and commerce within the United Kingdom. I am afraid to say that contrary to what the noble Lord hoped in his concluding remarks, this is a policy which I do not support, although in all fairness I must recognise that it is not a totally new concept for Northern Ireland. Also, in all fairness, I must make the point that the arrangements for Government assistance to industry and commerce in Northern Ireland have been
1312
of a different nature from those which are set out in this order.
The noble Lord referred to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. The solution which the Cairncross Committee reached to try to put right the appalling problems of social unrest and economic disruption in Northern Ireland was to establish the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation with powers to assist firms with liquidity problems, but they had to be firms which had prospects of long-term solvency and development. I should like to extend my congratulations to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation for all that they have done over the four-year period of their existence, under two different chairmen, to assist industry and promote jobs.
My point is this. The functions of the Agency under this order are much wider than those of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. Certainly I agree with the noble Lord that Northern Ireland needs an Agency which will support investment, encourage development and thereby promote jobs; but in effect this was what the NIFC did. Although after its initial period of existence I have no doubt that the Corporation needed to re-examine its functions, it is hard to see, except on grounds of political belief, why this Agency should have the power, conceived in the Industry Act 1975, to take over and to establish for an indefinite period a financial interest in any industrial or commercial undertaking. Broadly speaking, this was the objective which the noble Lord again repeated when he introduced this order.
Because I have reservations about an Agency of this kind, I should like to ask the noble Lord for some assurances and to put some questions to him. First, I trust that the Agency will be expected to assess with the very greatest care the consequences of the decisions which it is going to take. The purposes for which the Agency's functions are drafted under Article 4 are very widely phrased. If this had been a Bill, certainly I should have wished to put down an Amendment to phrase more precisely the objectives of the Agency.
In case the noble Lord may think that I am saying this simply on political grounds, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that yesterday in The

1313
Times there was a report that the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General is investigating the grant of £2·9 million of public funds which has come from the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce and the NIFC to a firm called Regna International, a Norwegian company which was set up in Londonderry to produce electronic cash registers. Even under the existing legislation, quite clearly there were problems with this firm which could not be discerned, and eventually it was not possible to overcome them. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Northern Ireland Development Agency is to be given guidelines in the same way as the Secretary of State for Scotland has given guidelines to the Scottish Development Agency.
Towards the end of his remarks I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, say a few words about the commercial considerations with which this new Agency will have to operate. I trust that those commercial considerations, which are not written into the articles of the order, will be incorporated within guidelines, as has been done in the case of Scotland. If sound commercial decisions are to be taken, it will be necessary for the Agency to be capable of giving financial assistance quickly and to be able to do so after evaluating expertly the quality of the business which is in need of assistance. To do this, under Article 3 one needs to have on the Agency members who hold the confidence of industry and commerce. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that the representation will have a very strong local flavour, but may I ask him whether there will be any consultations before the appointments are made?
I referred to the drafting of the purposes for which the Agency is to exercise its functions. I believe that these purposes are too wide and too indeterminate. Obviously the development of the economy and the promotion of industrial efficiency lead to job promotion, but I hope that the Agency will distinguish between its commercial operations and decisions which are taken entirely on social grounds. When the noble Lord replies, I shall be very disturbed if he says that the Agency will take commercial decisions on other than commercial grounds. Job promotion is absolutely vital to Northern Ireland. May I say how sad I was to see that there
1314
is going to be a loss of jobs in the Province under the recent Defence Review. But the Province has a system of grants from the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce, to which the noble Lord Lord referred; it has successful direct labour organisations and it has an excellent system of industrial training. I trust that all those operations will continue, but if so I am still not entirely sure what the relationship is going to be between the new Development Agency and those organisations which I have just mentioned.
I also asked the Government to give an assurance that the Agency will have close practical links with small businesses, which I think was a matter to which the noble Lord did not specifically refer. We all know the tremendously important part played by the small business in Northern Ireland. Of course there is a continuing need to attract investment from outside the Province, but I think the home-based enterprises are of prime importance and I wonder whether the Agency will have a department or an appointment within it especially to deal with smaller concerns.
Article 4(2)(e) gives the Agency the function of promoting industrial democracy. A year ago the Northern Ireland Office published its discussion paper Worker Participation, which was entirely within the context of the situation at Harland and Wolff. In The Times, published this morning, I see it is reported that the Government have now reached agreement with the work force at the shipyard and will shortly be making a statement about the establishment of worker directors and participation in decision-making at four levels within Harland and Wolff. Obviously the noble Lord is not going to say anything about that this afternoon, but I should like to ask him how the Northern Ireland Office intends the Agency to pursue its policy under Article 4(2)(e). For instance, when we know whet the Harland and Wolff solution is, will it expect the Agency to use the Harland and Wolff solution as a prototype? Will the Agency perhaps be setting up a joint committee with the Northern Ireland CBI and the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Trade, to study the different options which there are for industrial

1315
democracy, if and when the Agency wishes to introduce it into any undertakings. This is a function of the Agency under this order and it would be interesting to know how it is intended that the function is to be discharged.
I should also like to know what is to be the relationship between the Agency and the National Enterprise Board in London. After all, the functions of the Board are going to be exercised throughout the United Kingdom. To what extent will the Agency be a free agent? The Order which set up the NIFC in 1972 clearly set out that the Corporation was to give assistance to industry, depending upon the solvency prospects of the undertakings to be assisted, upon the capability of management which was to receive assistance and upon the suitability of the organisation of the undertaking concerned. My complaint is that the Agency's purposes for intervening are drawn far wider than that.
In addition, this order alters the purposes for which assistance may be given under the Industries Development Act 1966 and those purposes do not include an estimate of solvency, nor the capability of management or the suitability of the organisation. Therefore, I am apprehensive about the role of the Agency. As between the two sides of the House we invariably agree on Northern Ireland affairs, may I say that in friendliness and with no rancour; but it would be foolish of me to say that I am not apprehensive, because I am. None the less, given sensible guidelines—and I hope that the noble Lord may be able to reply to me on that point—I agree with the noble Lord that the Agency will work, and if it has a reasonable representation of Northern Ireland business interests and is allowed to get on with the job in Northern Ireland I expect it could work very well. On those grounds, and on those grounds only, I wish the members of the Agency well in the task they will be undertaking.
4.35 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the modified welcome which the noble Lord has given this order. I should like to deal first with his major worry, which is the political one; namely, the ques-
1316
tion of wider functions. In adopting these, the regulations we are speaking about follow the National Enterprise Board. This has been discussed—I was going to say ad nauseam, but to the greatest length in Parliament and I think the noble Lord will probably not wish me to rehearse the arguments. This is as near as anything a photocopy of the National Enterprise Board in relation to the Province. I made notes of various points raised by the noble Lord and I will go through them as I have put them down. The new body will be a totally free agent in relation to the National Enterprise Board but will of course indulge in the closest liaison. There is no question of its taking orders from the NEB.
The noble Lord asked about small businesses. We have not said much about small businesses here because, as the noble Lord knows, we have an admirable organisation called LEDU, Local Enterprise Development Unit, which has been set up for that very purpose. It has been working for four years and in that time has created over 3,000 jobs in small industries in the rural towns and villages. There seems to be no particular reason to create a formal overlap there. The noble Lord asked about consultations in connection with appointing members of the board of this body. The answer is that there has been wide consultation with Northern Ireland, including in particular the Northern Ireland Economic Council, on all aspects of the Development Agency, including the representation to be given to the different interests, and the representation is rather greater in trade union and local business representation than it was in the case of the Finance Corporation. When it comes to names, of course, that must be the business of the Minister concerned.
With regard to the question of commercial considerations, under Article 7 the Department is given power to direct the Agency to assist companies and to provide the money for that assistance. This will occur only where the assistance of the company goes beyond the stage of normal commerce. I think that answers the noble Lord's worry fairly clearly. The Agency is confined to commercial assistance; that is to say, assistance which will stand up to commercial standards, except in cases where there are particular social

1317
or other reasons, when the decision whether or not such help can be given will be made by the Department of Commerce and not by the Agency, so it would then be only an agent for the Government, if the Government wanted that. The noble Lord asked whether there would be guidelines. The answer is that there will be, in the way he suggested. He referred to the Regna case, but I do not think I want to go into that. In enterprises of this kind things will occasionally go wrong and this is one where they quite clearly did, but I do not think it would be helpful to have a post-mortem.
I think that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. I am perfectly happy that this will be a more effective edition of what we already have and of which the noble Lord approved in the NIFC. I think this will be rather more broadly based and it will be directed commercially fairly rigidly without any "lame duck" approach, if I may quote an expression used by one of the noble Lord's colleagues some years ago. It will certainly not try to assist lame ducks, but, on the other hand, in the peculiarities of Northern Ireland, with something like 30 per cent. unemployed in certain places, the Government, as opposed to the Agency, may decide in certain cases that something which is not strictly commercial will be done for social reasons. If they do, it will be a decision of the Government and not of the Agency.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EEC REPORTS: CONTROL OF POISONOUS SUBSTANCES
4.40 p.m.
Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the following EEC proposals relating to the environment:

(a) Standards for lead (R/1150/75) [6th Report, Session 1975–76];

(b) Water for Human Consumption (R/2098/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(c) Titanium Dioxide Waste (R/2003/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(d) Dumping of Waste at Sea (R/105/76) [23rd Report, Session 1975–76].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in so doing draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the reports from your Select Committee on five draft Directives which have issued from the European Community within the past few months. In the opinion of the Sub-Committee which deals with environmental matters, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, each of these Directives raises matters of importance; and two of them—that on titanium dioxide waste and that on dumping of waste at sea—raise matters of principle which, in our view, should cause our representatives at Brussels to resist them in their present form.
Before I turn to the reports, may I say how much we deplore the absence through illness of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby. He has fallen victim to a severely virulent form of American influenza. We wish him well, but his authoritative contribution today will be very much missed.
The first report on our list is concerned with two draft Directives, one on biological standards for lead, with certain requirements for the screening of our population, and one on air quality standards for lead. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, hopes to deal with these in some detail. He has made a considerable study of the subject, so I will confine myself to saying that we acknowledge the increasing concern caused by lead. It has, of course long been recognised as persistent and toxic, but only in relatively recent times has it become apparent that continuous exposure to even small quantities in the air or by ingestion may possibly be damaging, particularly to children. So we sympathise with the general objectives of these draft Directives.
We are, however, critical of some of the methods proposed, and believe that, as usual, the authorities in Brussels are aiming at universality and uniformity when more valuable results could almost certainly be obtained by concentrating our resources and efforts on areas and on population groups which are likely to be most at risk. We also find certain difficulties, which we have tried to describe in the report, concerning the desirability of the screening methods proposed, and we took evidence of this both from Sir

1319
Richard Doll, the Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford, and from the Departmental witnesses. This evidence is printed with our report.
Lead is the principal villain of the piece in the next report which is on the quality of water for human consumption. Here the problem for the United Kingdom arises hardly at all from the water supply to consumers by the water authorities whose responsibility it is to bring wholesome water to the rising main. Public water supplies in the United Kingdom are constantly tested and monitored and comply in almost all circumstances with World Health Organisation standards. The standards put forward by the Commission in the draft Directive are somewhat more stringent than those of WHO, notably for lead and for nitrates. We believe, however, that WHO is about to promulgate tighter quality standards, and these would be supported by our own Department of Health and Social Security.
Our problem, however, arises because the draft Directive is concerned not with public water supplies but with water as it is drawn from the tap. There is, of course, logic in this, as the person who needs protection is the one who drinks the water or consumes food or drink prepared with the water. It should be a commonplace of health education that water for consumption should be taken always from the main and not from a pipe leading to a storage tank which may be contaminated with dust, dirt and probably deceased insects. This, of course, is a matter for proper domestic management. But the intractable problem concerns the nature of the pipes which connect our domestic supplies with the public supplies. If these pipes are of lead—and this is particularly true in soft water areas—there can be constant contamination of the domestic water supply.
We reproduce in our report figures which indicate that there are many households, more particularly in Scotland, which would fail by a very considerable margin to reach the proposed limits. I have seen reputable estimates that in England there may be around 1 million houses which would show a lead content in excess of the standard of 0·05 mgs. per litre, and that in the early morning, when water may have been left in the
1320
pipe overnight, the number could reach even as high as 3 million houses which could be found to be consuming water in excess of what is regarded as safe. I am sure that other noble Lords—not least, I would expect, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—will wish to comment on this draft Directive. So I will confine myself to asking the noble Baroness, who I understand is to reply to the debate, what action is proposed by Her Majesty's Government. She will have noted that our Committee believes that no lead piping should be permitted in new housing in the future, and that the replacement of lead pipes should be a condition for future house improvement grants.
We were much disturbed to learn that at least one water authority in the United Kingdom—I believe, the Thames Water Authority—still permits the installation of lead piping. Even if it is used primarily for waste water rather than for supply, with the increasing recycling of water for re-use, this does not seem to be a desirable practice, either. I should also like to ask the noble Baroness what steps are to be taken to increase the research into this field. We know very well that there are as I have said, a large number of houses in the United Kingdom in which the standard is not up to the proposed inter national standards. It would be an enormously costly and time-consuming job to replace all the pipes or the lead storage tanks, which I understand are particularly deleterious to the water supplies, especially in Scotland. But one could possibly find methods of changing the constitution of the water which would make it less liable to contamination by lead. There are also suggestions, I understand, for lining tanks or even lining connecting pipes. I think it would be very helpful to the House, and I would hope to our representatives in Brussels, also, if we could be given some further information as to the steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take.
My Lords, even if remedial action is promised, I think we would surely agree that the time limit of two years suggested in the draft Directive is completely unrealistic. The Association of Public Water Companies and Suppliers within the Community, appropriately named

1321
Eureau, suggests a period of at least 10 to 15 years as being required. The unrealistic estimate on the timescale was very clearly recognised by the Economic and Social Committee which issued its opinion on this Directive on 25th February last. It had many sensible things to say on the need to distinguish between parameters which are really important for public health and public water supply and those which are perhaps ideally desirable but frankly not worth the cost involved. This, I think, applies more especially to water used in manufacturing processes. This Directive, therefore, in our view needs the most careful and detailed scrutiny and should, we believe, be amended in detail. But we must recognise that in the matter of possible lead pollution we in this country should be prepared to act, where necessary, with or without the Directive to prevent, in particular, additional future risks.
I now turn to the next draft Directive which deals with titanium dioxide waste, a draft Directive for which my Sub-Committee had little patience and not very much respect. I am afraid that it is a further example to add to those we have already received from Brussels of proposals which could become binding on British industry, being put forward with quite inadequate justification and with no convincing evidence in support. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will firmly resist this proposal in the form in which it is now presented. It is well known that what we believe to be the exaggerated importance attached by the Community to titanium dioxide waste arises from the Mont Edison situation where severe discolouration of the sea has been caused by an Italian works most unwisely sited on Mediterranean shores, where the tidal conditions are such that the waste products cannot be swiftly or adequately dispersed. There have been complaints from neighbouring Corsican fishermen of diminished fish catches. But I must say that we have been unable to trace any substantive evidence that this was cause and effect. Even, however, if it were proven, it provides no case for insisting on expensive preventive measures in areas where the condition of the receiving waters is entirely different. We are fortunate in being able to site such works in the United Kingdom on fast flowing estuarial rivers where waste
1322
material can be rapidly dispersed. In such circumstances we therefore have no need to take measures which might indeed be required in the Mediterranean.
The draft Directive not only fails to convince us of its general necessity but it seems to us to add insult to injury by claiming that satisfactory alternative methods of dealing with titanium dioxide waste are ready to hand. So far as we can tell, they are not. None of the methods recommended in the draft Directive has gone beyond the pilot plant stage, and one at least of the processes referred to has been abandoned before reaching a practical form. It would indeed be possible to pile titanium dioxide waste on land instead of dispersing it in water, but the environmental problems would be far worse and the quantities would be enormous. It simply does not solve the problem of industrial waste to remove it from one element to another.
This waste, in our view, is unaesthetic, and objectionable on that ground, rather than positively harmful. It can be taken by barge out to sea, and this may be necessary where river conditions are not good, but it all depends on the local conditions. There is no case for uniform standards which can add quite unnecessarily to the cost of the product without significantly improving the safety of the environment. Our argument here is similar to that which we adduced some little while back on waste from pulp mills. Such installations should be sited in suitable locations so that problems either do not arise or can be mitigated without undue cost.
Finally, I come to the fifth Directive in the group we are discussing today, that on Dumping of Waste at Sea. This draft Directive, too, causes us considerable disquiet, but our reasons on this occasion are more complex. There are our customary difficulties over uniformity and universality, but there are wider political considerations to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention. I need hardly say that the United Kingdom is fully conscious of the need to protect the marine environment, and we have the necessary legal basis for action in the dumping at Sea Act 1974 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.
Not only have we ratified the Oslo Convention but, as the name suggests, we

1323
took a leading part in initiating the London Convention, which is worldwide in its application. The London Convention was intended to give general guidance on dealing with this problem of the dumping of wastes at sea with the quite specific objective that there should follow a series of regional agreements. We welcome very much the arrangements that were agreed at Helsinki for the Baltic and the recent Barcelona agreement for the Mediterranean—agreements which, very rightly, take into account the peculiar and particular physical conditions of those seas.
But now we have the Community coming forward with a fresh set of rules which differ in certain important respects from the terms of those Conventions—particularly those which are applicable to United Kingdom conditions. I do not say "United Kingdom waters", partly because we do not know yet what agreement on territorial waters will come out of the current Law of the Sea Conference, and partly because we have already acknowledged that the Community may make proposals relating to areas extending beyond territorial waters. We refer to this in our Report. Paragraph 2 of Chapter 6 of the Community Programme of Action on the Environment is concerned with the Oslo and London Conventions which are not, of course, limited to territorial seas.
I should also draw attention to other international arrangements which are in force, more particularly dealing with radioactive substances. A Written Answer given in another place on 26th February last sets out in some detail the international arrangements for dealing with radioactive substances, and makes it plain that the United Kingdom has disposed of low activity radioactive waste in the sea since 1949. In 1967 the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD agreed to arrange sea disposal operations, to establish on an international basis the means by which solid radioactive waste could be safely disposed of at sea without damage to the marine environment. Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency—an inter-governmental organisation under the aegis of the United Nations—is also concerned with radioactive waste management questions, including sea disposal.
We find it therefore disturbing that the Community, under the guise of
1324
"harmonisation", should endeavour to establish a set of uniform rules based, in part at least, on regional conventions, which have been deliberately worked out on a localised basis, simply because physical conditions vary so much from one marine area to another, and they seem to be oblivious of the other arrangements which are in force. After all, membership of the Community extends to States some of which are within the Mediterranean system, some of which are in the Baltic system, and some of which are in the North Sea and North-East Atlantic system. It is going completely against the philosophy of international action in recent years to try to set up a draft Convention for the EEC countries on the basis which is currently proposed.
It is not only the philosophy of the matter; we are not clear as to the enforcement arrangements. We ourselves are mostly concerned with the Oslo Convention, which provides for jurisdiction by the Oslo Commission, and it is their business to receive and consider records of permits and approvals issued and dumping which has taken place. Are we, then, to have a separate system of enforcement for the draft Directive which is before us? Is there to be a dual system with at least two different sets of rules applying to the same maritime area, the international rules and the Community rules? If this is what is intended, then surely it is a confusing, wasteful and unecessary procedure. My Committee was strongly of the view that if, in its wisdom, the Community considered that any one of the international Conventions which affect its members was in some way defective, it should seek to secure an amendment or improvement of that Convention, possibly by itself first becoming a party to it.
From the point of view of pollution control, if some measure is desirable for members of the Community, it is also desirable for other States in the marine area concerned, even if they are not members of the EEC, because nature does not recognise political boundaries. Our uneasiness is based on the difficulty which arises when one tries to marry conflicting concepts which are embedded in Community thought but which do not match the physical world known to science. Pollution control to protect man and the

1325
natural environment, the biosphere which we share with other forms of life, must be science based if it is to make ecological sense. It does not seem to us acceptable that, possibly in order to assert its political identity, the Community should propose actions which do not appear to be in the best interests of rational, international pollution control. There is ample scope for Community initiative in the field of pollution without either duplication of international administration or the adoption of generalised standards when all reputable effort in recent years, in the United Nations organisation and elsewhere, has been in the direction of the identification and refinement of localised standards for marine pollution control.
It would have been helpful to give examples in other areas if the Community had been able to persuade its members to adopt a common policy at the recent London conference on civil liability for offshore pollution damage. There are plenty of other instances where the Community could give a genuine lead, but the conflict with scientific validity exemplified in the draft Directive before us is clue, of course, to the desire for harmonisation at all costs. The principle behind the Directive seems to be the desire to deal uniformly with conditions which are not uniform in order
"…to avoid creating distortions in trade and in the distribution of investment."
This is a matter to which we have referred before in our comments, as I have mentioned, on pulp mill effluent and today on titanium dioxide waste. Where natural conditions are favourable to a particular process, it is surely the depths of stupidity to scorn the benefits offered by nature and to acid quite unnecessarily to the cost of the product, while by harmonisation one removes from the industrialist the encouragement to choose sites which are particularly favourable to his particular enterprise.
I have endeavoured to explain the reasons of principle which have caused us to draw this draft Directive to your Lordships' notice. There are, of course, a number of points of detail which need considerable further clarification; we have touched on them briefly in our report. The most important one is the proposal to prohibit the dumping of any radioactive waste, of however low activity
1326
it might be. This in itself of course does not solve the problem; it simply means that one must find storage areas on land. This is far from easy, but I would not deny that it is at least arguable. We, under the London Convention, are obliged in our dumping policy to carry out considerable investigation before we issue permits for dumping. I have had some difficulty—perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to help me in this—in finding out just what investigations we have made, for example, into the physical characteristics of the Bay of Biscay, which I understand is our favourite dumping ground for low activity radioactive waste. I am sure that investigations have been made and it could be that my researches were not sufficiently adequate to find out whether they have been published. I should like to know about this and to make certain we are completely in compliance with our obligations.
I hope very much that it will be possible to have further thoughts on this draft Directive. We were very much encouraged that following our debate last October on some other environmental Directives, the Ministers when they met in Brussels in December were able to agree on a compromise modus vivendi for countries with differing views on the sensible way to deal with certain pollutants. I am afraid that this afternoon we have felt obliged once again to be strongly critical because, as I have tried to explain, we do not think that the scientific basis for the proposals in the last two Directives which I have mentioned have been adequately worked out. And where pollution is concerned we believe that science must come first. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Communities Committee on the following EEC proposals relating to the environment:

(a) Standards for lead (R/1150/75) [6th Report, Session 1975–76];

(b) Water for Human Consumption (R/2098/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(c) Titanium Dioxide Waste (R/2003/75) [19th Report, Session 1975–76];

(d) Dumping of Waste at Sea [23rd Report, Session 1975–76].

—(Baroness White.)
5.7 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I join in this debate today as a member of the Front Bench team on this side of the House and as a new member of the noble Baroness's Committee. I am glad to say that, at any rate for this debate, I do not feel any division of loyalties. I wish to begin by claiming that the United Kingdom is second to none in its sensitiveness to the damage and danger of industrial pollution. It seems to me that we have learned our lessons the hard way. We are working hard to restore and reclaim our own despoiled environment and therefore we want very much to take a wholehearted part in protecting and improving the whole European environment and putting our extensive experience at the disposal of that task. We also want to help other countries, particularly the developing countries and those which are not yet fully industrialised, to avoid the mistakes that we made in the early days of our industrial past. This makes it all the more regrettable that our encouragement and support of the good intentions behind the European Commission and its Environmental Action Programme has to be tempered, as the noble Baroness said, with either sharp criticism or serious misgivings, or, in some cases, outright objection to almost every directive in this field that has come before us so far and certainly all of those we are debating today.
Fortunately for us, the fish in the Thames and the Trent, the clean buildings of Sheffield, the winter sunlight here in London, the valley floor around Swansea, all bear witness to our zeal, even in hard times like these, to press on with the control of pollution, with the protection and improvement of the environment, to the fact that we know how to set about it and that we very greatly prefer the principle known as the application of the best practical means. This requires the application of patient, painstaking, detailed policies applied with precise knowledge of the damage that each particular pollutant really causes and as an exact idea as is possible of what remedy produces what improvements and at the least cost. That is what the Commission is not doing. Take lead, for instance, which is the subject of the first of the Directives before us. If the Commission had had its way, we should even
1328
now have in force procedures which would apply over all large cities in all the countries of the entire Community for taking samples of people's blood and monitoring the level of lead shown in it. The need for this proposal is unsupported by any evidence that there is any widespread damage to health from lead poisoning and unsupported by any evidence of any particular disease being entirely attributable to lead poisoning, even in particular places where there is some danger of lead being ingested. Certainly, in such places where there is a prima facie case that some danger exists, there is a case for careful research and caution and monitoring such as is proposed. When that shows that remedies are required, by all means let us apply them. But there is really no justification for sweeping measures over the entire Community.
Much the same applies to water for drinking, as the noble Baroness said. Here, there is another sweeping Directive which, if the Directive is not amended, is to be applied within two years throughout all areas of the Community and which calls for routine comprehensive monitoring of all drinking water supplies. Here, there is more supporting evidence of polluting dangers, but it all points to the dangers being concentrated, as the noble Baroness suggested, in houses with lead pipes in soft water areas, rather than anywhere else. As your Lordships can see from the annexe to our report, all members of the Community have laws or regulations restraining the use of lead in domestic water pipes. All nevertheless have large amounts of lead water piping still in use and in many cases more lead piping is still being added. So there appears straight away to be a strong case for more selective enforcement of the national legislation which is already in force before we start to think about any Community legislation.
Research into the harmful effects of continuing to permit the use of lead in soft water areas certainly needs to be advanced. Then, if the need is shown, steps can be taken to restrain or reduce the use of lead by such means as building regulations. It could be made a condition of a housing improvement grant that lead pipes should be removed where they existed in soft water areas. As an alternative or addition, home safety steps could be taken to avoid the dangers of

1329
lead in the areas in question, for instance, by putting up a written notice in houses which had lead pipes in soft water areas, warning the occupiers to draw off water before taking any for drinking. Certainly, there are many better and cheaper steps to take about drinking water before it would be useful to introduce the proposed Directive.
I turn to the Directive on titanium dioxide. I strongly support the noble Baroness. This Directive is also objectionable, as the noble Baroness said. As a result of one particular case in the Mediterranean where some ecological damage has been alleged but not proved, we now have a sweeping Directive restraining the dumping of titanium dioxide anywhere at sea. Once again, this appears without any evidence that the present practices of, for instance, in our case, discharging it into rivers and estuaries by pipeline whence it flows to the North Sea, do any harm at all. On the other hand, we know for certain that any other way of dealing with it would be dangerous and difficult. As the European Assembly's own Public Health Environment Committee put it, the extent to which titanium dioxide waste is harmful depends on its composition, the way it is dumped and the kind of place where it is dumped. That is perfectly true. If the Directive were addressed to controlling these factors according to the circumstances of each discharge, it would of course be acceptable, but it starts by proposing uniform emission standards and I submit that it should not be accepted.
I shall not deal at all extensively with the dumping of waste at sea because the noble Baroness has—in my view, quite properly—devoted a fair amount of her speech to it. Here, once again, as she says, we have overlapping jurisdictions and potential conflicts in their application. We have insufficient scientific proof of environmental damage to justify the full range of proposed controls over so many broadly specified substances. Annexe 2, for instance, refers to all acids and alkalis. It is absurd, when they differ so much in characteristics and danger, to lump them all together in this way. It is far too wide an extension of too comprehensive codes of uniform prohibitions to be applied in a whole variety of different circumstances. As the noble Baroness said, it is only common sense
1330
that the warm, relatively still, non-tidal waters of the Mediterranean coast should need a different scale of protection from the turbulent, tidal, cold and deep waters of the Atlantic. It is absurd to have a common code for both. We must try to dissuade our friends in Brussels from blundering about blindly with a cudgel when what they want is to take up a more elegant stance based on scientific research and then put in a few well-aimed thrusts with a rapier at the places where there is real trouble.
To sum up, it seems to me that the main lessons to be learned from the four latest sorties by the Commission into the environment are as follows: first, preliminary research must be directed to establishing as accurately as is practicable the real damage that can be caused in various circumstances by each threatened pollutant; secondly, the choice of methods of control available; and, thirdly, the cost and the effectiveness of each method in each case. Against that background, the meaning and purpose of harmonisation of national regulations by Community measures which the noble Baroness rightly dwelt on at some length needs to be clearly set out because it means something quite different in each case. Then, and only then, ought Parliaments to be asked to give opinions and Governments to be invited to take decisions. I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Baroness agrees with that summary of the situation.
5.19 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I raise a general point before coming to the Reports of the Select Committee which we have before us. This is the third debate in which I have taken part on the Reports of your Lordships' Select Committee on EEC draft Directives. The first was on nuclear safety and, more recently, there was that on migrant workers. I am wondering what happens as a result of the speeches which are made in your Lordships' House. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, tell us whether there is any point in the exercise at all? Do the things which are said in this House get reported to our delegation in Brussels and what action do they take on them? Most important of all, could there be some feedback? I have found it very discouraging to look

1331
at the Directives, to read the Reports of the Select Committee, to come here and make a speech and then to be left completely in the dark as to whether action has been taken or the Government have agreed with what was said. I believe that it would be useful to complete the circle of procedure by having some kind of additional stage of reporting back on the recommendations which are made not only by the Select Committee but by those who have not been serving on the Committee but who have taken part in the proceedings following the latter's Report.
I agree with some of the criticisms made of the Directive, but it would not be good enough if we were simply to rule them out without suggesting any alternatives. I do not take a complacent view about the questions of pollution raised here, and I wish to refer particularly to the matter of atmospheric levels of lead. I wish to put a different point of view on this matter to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who seems to think that one must wait until there is conclusive clinical evidence of damage being caused to members of the public before one can take any steps to control the substance causing that damage. I am not sure that the determination of blood levels is the right approach. I can see that this has serious difficulties and implications for civil liberty.
One might consider whether blood samples taken for other purposes might be used, although obviously they would not represent a random sample of the population. But there are many thousands of blood donors, and samples are also being taken all the time to ascertain whether the level of alcohol in the blood exceeds the permitted maximum. It is possible that legislation might be introduced to enable these samples to be used as a means of determining the levels of lead in the blood. Certainly there are groups of people who have levels much higher than the average of the population as a whole. I agree with the sense of what the noble Baroness said: that one should look at particular groups—(as distinct from the general population)—rather than to try to determine a uniform method of tackling the problem,
1332
which may be inappropriate in particular cases.
I was looking at an article by Dr. T. J. Chow writing in Chemistry in Britain for June 1973, referring to a study of London taxi drivers. Obviously if anyone is to be vulnerable to levels of lead in the atmosphere it would be people who are constantly driving their vehicles in the highly built-up areas, where the concentration of fumes would be at its worst. This article showed that the mean blood level of London taxi drivers was 0·29 parts per million, and the range extended from 0·16 to 0·45 parts per million, which I think exceeds the permitted maximum recommended in this Directive. That also leads me to the point that where these groups of workers or residents may be thought to be highly vulnerable, I should not have imagined that there would be any difficulty in securing their co-operation, if necessary, in the voluntary taking of blood samples to make sure that their health is properly looked after.
There is also the point, which needs to be stressed, that continuous exposure, even in very small quantities, may be damaging to the health of individuals, even though there are no clinical symptoms. This point was brought out by some studies made on animals during the war in the Soviet Union, and since repeated elsewhere with similar effects. Those studies found that there could be very significant changes in the behaviour of the animals at blood concentrations far lower than those required to cause clinical symptoms.
Furthermore, studies in human beings show that children are particularly vulnerable. I wish to refer to an article by Professor Bryce-Smith, professor of organic chemistry at the University of Reading. He pointed to behavioural changes caused in small children as a result of high concentrations of lead in the bloodstream. He pointed out that these can, for example, result in mental retardation and other behavioural abnormalities, such as lack of attention, children being easily distracted, and being unable to sit for a long time. They may, too, be slower to learn, more aggressive, and possibly even suffer from dyslexia.
It may be extremely difficult to associate these behavioural symptoms with

1333
the concentration of lead in the bloodstream. As I have said in relation to the taxi drivers, people who live in urban areas are clearly more vulnerable than those who live well away from the traffic. This needs to be emphasised, in that the levels of lead in these urban areas may be adding to what has been called the "cycle of urban deprivation" on which millions of pounds has been spent by the Home Office, but to deal with the physical environment, when there may be other factors of equal importance.
The article by Dr. Chow, to which I referred, indicates that the levels of lead in the atmosphere in Fleet Street increased very considerably between 1961 and 1971. I do not know what has happened since 1971. The Government have taken measures to reduce the concentration of lead in fuels for motor vehicles, but I am seriously worried that this action may be negated entirely by the increase in the volume of motor traffic. If one is to believe the forecasts by the Department of the Environment of twice as many road vehicles circulating by the end of the century, we could be back in the same position, having reduced the permitted maximum concentration of lead in fuels, but then having entirely contradicted that by having so many more vehicles that the concentration, in fact, remains the same.
I believe that this needs to be monitored very carefully. According to an article in the Sunday Times last January, approximately 10,000 tons of lead is discharged into the atmosphere in the form of particles which come out of the exhausts of motor vehicles. This could be a very significant source of the concentration of lead in the bloodstream of individuals. The oil companies have always contended that if lead is removed from fuel, it will be necessary to pay 3p or 4p more per gallon at the pump. That had always been accepted until quite recently, when in Germany the regulations were tightened, I think to a considerably greater extent than in this country, and low and behold!, it was found that the oil corn-panics were able to accommodate this change without any increase in the price of petrol at the pump. We ought to look at that experience to see whether we are not perhaps going too slowly, irrespective
1334
of what we may be told to do from Brussels.
Finally, I believe that the report dealt with in the Statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment, on the hazards of asbestos, is an excellent example of the Government's preparedness to react when an industrial substance is shown to have caused serious harm or even, as in this case, death, yet because we have no dramatic evidence to which to point, we shall be extremely lucky if we get similar firm action in the case of lead. But there are these behavioural problems and sub-clinical effects from lead in the environment which, I believe, it would be very dangerous to neglect.
5.30 p.m.
Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, has drawn to the attention of your Lordships' House four reports which have been prepared by her Committee and which comment on draft Directives prepared in Brussels. Two of those reports deal with effluents and with the disposal of industrial waste, and it is with those two subjects that I should like to deal this afternoon. Besides the papers which have been drawn to the attention of the House this afternoon, there have been other draft Directives on effluents and on industrial waste which have been considered by your Lordships' Committees during the last few months, and those Committees have found reason to object, on various grounds, to several of those draft Directives.
However, there has been one feature in all of them to which we have found ourselves bound to object; that is, that the EEC seem to base their standards on the concentration and quantity of effluent at the point of discharge. It has been the practice in this country to deal with pollution in a more pragmatic way and to consider, not merely the composition of the effluent at the point of discharge but its effect on the environment, and in doing this to realise that an effluent which might well be objectionable if discharged into a small stream might have no objectionable effect on the environment if it is discharged into the open sea or into estuarial waters. But we have been told that the Minister is extremely conscious of this point and that he has made the British approach to this problem quite clear in

1335
Brussels, and therefore I need waste no more of the time of your Lordships' House in dealing with it.
There is a cognate point, however, which was raised by the noble Baroness to which I should like to draw attention, or perhaps I should say, I should like to underline what she has said. It is the declared purpose of the Treaty of Rome, or one of its declared purposes, to harmonise industrial practices within the Community countries; but surely that does not mean that environmental standards should be harmonised by setting standards which suit the worst sited, the worst designed, the worst operated plants. Yet this is what seems to be happening. I hope that, in taking examples of this, I shall be forgiven if I refer as my first example to a report which is not before your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is the one on the discharge of effluents from paper pulp mills. That paper sought, as so many of the other EEC papers have done, to lay down the composition and quantity of discharge quite irrespective of whether the discharge was into rivers, into estuarial waters or into the open sea.
But it went further than that, and said that pulp mills which found difficulty in complying with the standards which it was sought to lay down should be given what was referred to as "specific aid from public funds". This presumably means that the plants which have been sited well in relation to the supply of raw materials or in relation to the markets that they serve, but which have been badly sited in relation to the discharge of effluents, should, while retaining the advantages of siting in regard to raw material supplies or distribution of products, have other people pay for the environmental danger which they cause. The draft Directive said that the standards for effluent discharge:
"…could distort competition and create a barrier to the proper functioning of the Common Market".
But surely it is wrong to consider a factor which is disadvantageous to one certain plant while disregarding all the other considerations which give advantages to that plant. If the polluter has sited his factory badly, or has sited it so as to gain other advantages, surely he should
1336
pay for any environmental damage which results from that siting.
The second example which I should like to take is one which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is the disposal of waste from titanium oxide plants. The only titanium oxide plant whose waste has been judged to cause damage to the environment is the one in Italy. The waste from that plant, as has already been said, is discharged into the tideless Mediterranean. The Germans dump the discharge from their plants into the open sea; the British discharge the effluents and wastes from their plants into tidal waters. In neither of those cases is any damage done to the environment. Yet the proposed Directive appears to seek to apply conditions of disposal which may perhaps be necessary in the tideless Mediterranean but which cannot be considered to be universally necessary.
The Italian plant was presumably sited where it is because that site had advantages for the manufacturer; but, surely, if he wants to enjoy those advantages he should comply with the principle that the polluter pays, and he should offset the cost of dealing with his waste products in a satisfactory way against the advantages that he has gained from the siting of his plant. It should not be expected that other manufacturers, who have located their plants in positions where the effluent can be more easily dealt with, should necessarily be brought into line with the man who has sought other advantages.
I have given only two examples, but that same trend of thought, I think, can be seen in other draft Directives. I suggest that the principle of harmonising at a level which suits the worst case is one which ought not to be acceptable to us, and is one which should be resisted.
5.38 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her Committee for this excellent report which is now before the House. I feel certain that the Government will find it helpful, as well. The Commission's proposals deal with a number of important matters, but I should like to use most of the few words that I wish to say in referring to the problem of the lead

1337
content in drinking water. Perhaps I may first say something to console the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the product of these debates, which I must say are conducted at a very high level, I think, in terms of scientific content of the kind which comes from Lord Hinton and, on previous occasions, from Lord Ashby and others. I think we had a very good product from the last debate, because it enabled a Minister to go to Brussels and to achieve, substantially, what the House was recommending in the wake of the noble Baroness's report. So I think we can be entirely satisfied that we were cost-effective on that occasion.
Perhaps I may also say, in passing, how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, about the mistaken approach of the EEC in insisting on uniform emission standards. There really could not have been a more cogent economic argument than that which the noble Lord adduced. I just hope it is read in Brussels, because it could not fail to convince the authors of these documents that that is the proper approach in the interests of the whole future economic development of the Community.
My Lords, I should declare my interest to noble Lords as chairman of the National Water Council but I think that my interest is sufficiently indirect not to interfere with my making a comment now. Let me say that we, in the water industry, all 10 regional water authorities, are deeply concerned about the potential dangers of lead in water. We accept that a build-up of lead in the human frame is something potentially dangerous and that lead in water could be one of the sources of it. We are most anxious to take up a responsible and positive attitude; although I am inevitably going to follow a good deal of what the noble Baroness has said in being somewhat critical of the approach of the EEC Directive. The sample survey carried out by the 10 regional water authorities shows that some 2½ per cent. of daytime samples of water exceed the present WHO standard of 0·1 mgs per litre and that about 8 per cent. of daytime samples would exceed the proposed EEC standard now before the House of ·05 mgs per litre. Those figures can be doubled if we take first draw early in the morning.
1338
The noble Baroness rightly referred to our statutory duty in this country which is to deliver wholesome water to the point in the mains to which each household is connected. In fact, there is very little lead present in the mains; almost all is probably coming from the connection from the main to the house and in the householder's own plumbing. The EEC proposals, as the noble Baroness rightly said, refer to water in the tap; and that is a perfectly practical thing to do, although it makes the problem very much more difficult to deal with. The noble Baroness was also correct in saying that most of the areas in this country where there is high lead content in the water are the soft water areas because soft water has a greater lead solubility; but it is a fact that there are some hard water areas where, for not very clear reasons, they also have some lead in the water too. This is evidently due to the different natures of the hardness.
The noble Baroness asked some questions about what is being done in research on this difficult problem. The Water Research Centre is working on possible methods of water treatment to reduce lead solubility; but this is not at all a straightforward problem. There is some scope for progress here but one of the difficulties is that if the solubility of the water to lead is reduced it may result in a by-product of particulate lead in the water which will be ingested by the householder and will do damage in that fashion. So this problem becomes almost a matter of art rather than science; development is going to play quite as big a part as research; that is, the water authorities will have to try out approved methods of treatment to see what happens in their own particular waters. Water varies considerably from one place to another. They will have to find out whether the treatment does achieve improvement or not. This work is going on and it will achieve some improvement for the benefit of householders.
Turning to the EEC Directive that the level of lead in water should be reduced to ·05 mgs per litre, this in our opinion is completely beyond the capacity of water treatment to achieve. It would be impossible to achieve except by replacing all the lead piping now existing in connecting mains to the householders and in the households as well. We cannot make any precise estimate of what this would

1339
cost. The noble Baroness's figure of about 3 million houses being affected is something of the right order. The cost, we reckon, is something of the order of £500 million. That is equivalent to the total capital expenditure of the whole water industry for the year. If we did nothing else for a whole year that could be done. That is the order of it. One must immediately pose the question: would this really be the right priority? I am certain that before this summer is out there will be some places which are going to be very short of water and and they will think that these hundred of millions of pounds would be better spent on new reservoirs to make greater storage and on greater security than on replacing all the lead pipes.
The fact is that at the present time there really is not the scientific evidence to justify this gigantic expenditure which would oblige the deferment of many other desirable developments in the field of water: on supply, in the environment and generally in all the water services. The fact is, as we all know here as Parliamentarians, that in the reality of life there are all kinds of desirable improvements that we should like to be able to make, whether in the field of water and anything else. They cannot be done at once. We must arrange a system of priorities judged according to the best scientific evidence available.
When you turn to the picture to which the noble Baroness referred which appears in Appendix 1 of the Nineteenth Report of what happens in the other EEC countries, we see that they are, on the whole, a good deal worse off than we are as far as lead pipes are concerned. Therefore they are going to have the same, if not greater, practical problems than we in conforming to the proposed Directive. The noble Baroness rightly referred to the reaction of Eurea, which is the European Organisation of Water Industries of the Members of the EEC. They who have to deal with the realities on the ground would say something similar to what I am saying now: that they could not possibly conform to this under 10 or 15 years. It is quite clear that if the EEC are to go ahead with this proposal, all of their Members, I should think, would have to apply for what they call EMACs which are exceptions; for none will be able to
1340
conform with it. It seems a slightly absurd start to this new Directive that all the Members should have to ask for exceptions. I should like to suggest, with respect, that when the Commission are considering making these proposals, they might consider an alternative approach; they might find find out, first, what are the general standards obtaining through all EEC countries and having, from that knowledge, then established a common standard for all which is something like what is now existing, they might then proceed to aim at some progressive improvement and give some advice as to how that improvement is going to be achieved.
In the meantime, what we are doing here is aiming to conform with the existing WHO standard of 0·1mgs per litre. We are advising that all households should fit a rising main tap for drinking water supply and that where lead pipes exist between the mains, their first draw, the first half gallon or so, should be used for washing purposes rather than for drinking purposes. I warmly support the noble Baroness's suggestion—on which I do not doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will be making a comment—that the Government may consider making a regulation that in new houses there should be no lead pipework, and it should be made a condition of any reconditioning grant that lead pipework should be removed. This is obviously a position to which we want progressively to move; it cannot be done overnight. I thank the noble Baroness and her admirable Select Committee on the wisdom of their Report. I trust the Front Bench will think it sound and our Ministers will once again go to Brussels armed with some sound common sense, and will be able to inject this into the deliberations of the Commission.
On other matters, may I say briefly that I feel the cogent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, allied to what the noble Baroness said, has completely disposed of the titanium dioxide situation. I agree with them. I am certain that the proper approach is selective standards depending on the environment concerned. Certainly the sea is the proper place to dispose of titanium dioxide provided that there is adequate dilution.

1341
Regarding solid waste, there are a number of sludge ships that carry solid sludge out to sea. The disposal sites are selected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and carefully monitored by them. The whole record of this disposal has been entirely satisfactory. There has been no apparent danger to fish life—if anything, rather the reverse—so we can say confidently the systems being used for this particular process of disposal are completely satisfactory. As a politician, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is likely to be considerable political complications arising out of the EEC proposals, and I hope they will listen to the advice which she gave. May I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, and her admirable Select Committee for the tremendous amount of work that they do for us, and say how grateful we are to her and her colleagues for what they do.
5.52 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, so far the debate has been one of outstanding quality. As the proud possessor of a rather bad 0 level in biology, I hope your Lordships will sympathise with me if I say that I do not feel wholly confident that I have a valid contribution to make. But perhaps I can introduce a new tone to the discussion on the reports from the Sub-Committee of the noble Baroness (which I have now left) by saying that I speak as a Federalist who believes that environmental controls can only be successful if applied above and beyond the nation State level. I am sure that if Members of the House disagree with other things I may say, I may carry some of your Lordships with me by starting off with the remark that we all hope the emission standard of proposals from the Commission should be markedly improved, because their environmental proposals are not of the same quality as those that the other Sub-Committees of the EEC Scrutiny Committees have observed.
I suggest that there is a simple reason for this. The Treaty of Rome has nothing to do with the environment it was not a pre-occupation of its authors and, if you add the number of people who are occupied with the environment inside the Commission, it is not surprising that their proposals are not all that good because
1342
it has only been a subject of their concern since about 1970, when the Heads of Government decided to introduce and insert the idea of the environment into what is basically a free trade treaty, the Treaty of Rome, which has now been overtaken by events, and updated by diktat of the Council of Ministers. Those parts of the Treaty which are wholly concerned with free trade have nothing to do with the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, pointed out. It is to be hoped that perhaps a little before we have a written Constitution the Treaty of Rome can be updated as the Heads of State have agreed in practice it should be. This consideration lay behind Lord Diplock's reference to vires in a previous debate. If we are dissatisfied with the level of the quality of the Community's proposals in the environment—and I am—should we not press Her Majestys' Government to allocate more money to the Commission solely and specifically for improving their scientific expertise, so that when they come forward with proposals they are well based and well grounded? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she will look into that?
The situation is one where the Community has embarked on new territory and has not yet learned to cope. Having achieved the weapon of harmonisation as the legal basis for its activities in many other fields, mistakenly those enthusiasts in Brussels apply the same all-purpose legal basis for action to a field where it is not necessarily appropriate; namely, the environment. By and large, the Commission, in its present incarnation, has abandoned harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, if only at the urgent insistence of the present and previous British Government. The Commissioner now takes great steps to make sure harmonisation achieves some objective beyond that of harmonisation squared. I think when we suggest in your Lordships' House that sound environmental reasons must be the basis for future proposals, we are pushing at a door which is already open. We should also be comforted by the fact that the death rate for proposals from the Commission is extraordinarily high. The mortality rate of the British Government's legislation is, on the whole, low; but because of the open nature of the

1343
Community process, where the Commission is acting as a central motor attempting to drive the Community forward, many of their proposals are never put into effect because they are merely in the nature of Green or White Papers. We should comfort ourselves with this thought.
Very much of what I wanted to say about lead has been—I was going to say "pirated"—said before me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not want to repeat what he said. There is a middle course which can be steered between his views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The Sub-Committee received evidence from Sir Richard Doll, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, which leads me in all my innumeracy still to be worried at the lack of real steps to control lead in the environment. Sir Richard said to us:
"I think the first thing to say is that, together with many people, I am disturbed at the fact that blood levels of lead in this country are getting—or perhaps I should say are, rather than are getting—uncomfortably close to what is generally recognised as a toxic level. They are closer to a toxic level than blood levels of any other element or toxic substance."
We do not have to wait for thalodimide to stop it. We do not have to wait for the lead equivalent of thalidomide to stop it. However pragmatic you may be, my Lords, you do not have to wait until your foot drops off to do something about it. I suggest to wait until disaster strikes is a little short-sighted.
I feel that the attitude of the Department of the Environment to one of the proposals we are discussing today fell into the "waiting-for-the-foot-to-dropoff" category, because in the Explanatory Memorandum to Directive No. 1150 they said:
"The United Kingdom practice in environmental protection is to use the best practical means of control. This always involves taking into account the local situation."
Of course we should do that. But what happens when the local situation is almost everywhere? By logic, we are getting towards a uniform emission standard when the local situation is almost everywhere, because air is everywhere and airborne lead is dispersed widely. It does not hang around cars in an invisible cloud and wait for people to stick their heads into the cloud and sniff it: it is
1344
dispersed into our reservoirs, on to our gardens and on sewage works which produce the sludge that we use as fertiliser. So when the Department of the Environment talks about taking into account "the local situation", the local situation is everywhere.
The Community's environmental policy is tending towards the same objectives as our own. We must not assume that in their methods the Department of the Environment is always right and that the Commission is always wrong. But to exaggerate differences in methodology into points of fundamental principle is a great mistake, and I hope we shall not let the very obvious defects in all the proposals we are discussing today blind us to the fact that genuinely successful environmental controls can only be achieved above and beyond the nation State level, and no matter how bad the Commission is now, it could become the most effective international organisation for dealing with the problems we are trying to solve.
6.3 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Admittedly, the Select Committee has produced serious criticisms, but we must not run away with the idea that there are not some evils to be dealt with. The view has been expressed time after time in memoranda submitted by Departments that our existing legislation is capable of coping with all these problems, and they always adopt the attitude that has been expressed today: that we must have a pragmatic approach and consider each case on its merits. If that is done, and done thoroughly, there is a great deal to be said for it; but I am not satisfied that that is the case. Enforcement agencies are not always vigilant and sometimes they get very slack. We have had an example during the last few days in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to asbestos in a certain works. This was trouble which had been going on for years and was observable. It was not concealed; yet no vigorous or effective action was taken.
This is where we must concentrate our attention if we are to adopt the view that we do not need to have uniform Community standards. But we ought to have some standards. In the case of titanium

1345
dioxide and other substances, it is said that, "It's all right if you discharge it into an estuary or into tidal waters". That is an easy thing to say, but it really requires very substantial research to see what the result is and whether there is a dispersion down to levels which are inoffensive and also whether there is a dispersion which ultimately could affect the fish life in the sea, for example. We are already seeing that the fish in the North Sea, for one reason or another—and the reasons are not always clear—have diminished significantly to a point where everybody agrees that the most drastic control and restriction on sea fishing is necessary. Do not let us imagine that that cannot—
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves from that point, may I ask him whether he knows that recent research in this country has enabled a model to be built for monitoring the waste discharged into estuaries in order to ensure that the toxic elements are kept to a level which does not damage fish life? The effectiveness of this model is such that it has been universally acclaimed throughout the world; so we now have an effective method of doing just what the noble Lord wishes to be done.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I think it is possible to have an effective method of following the physical and clinical dispersion of substances, although that is not quite as simple as it appears to be; but biological questions are a great deal more difficult to solve. I do not accept that they have all been solved—far from it.
Let me now revert to a matter on which this arises particularly acutely—the question of lead in the environment arising from industrial processes, from the discharge of lead in petrol and from domestic water supplies. It is only comparatively recently that this problem has begun to come to light, with the recognition that the consequences of lead to human beings are more varied and more serious than was thought for very many years. The question of brain injury to young children raises very serious disquiet, for example, and it possibly will become more acute as time goes by because of the fact that infants so frequently are reared upon artificially-com-
1346
pounded milk substitutes instead of being breast fed by their mothers. Consequently, in the most susceptible years of life they are subjected to far more lead than would have been the case in days gone by. The investigation of this kind of thing lags far behind the investigation of physical and clinical problems relating to industry, effluents, and so on. It is biological research which is lacking and which ought to be intensified. Until that is done thoroughly, we do not know what standards ought to be applied.
In the case of water supplies, the WHO level was revised from 0·05 to 0·1—in other words, it was doubled. What were the reasons for that? The reasons for that were not biological. The reasons were that the water authorities who were consulted about it said that it was impracticable for them to conform to the level of 0·05. It was not because anybody had discovered that lead was not so dangerous. It was merely in order to have a technical excuse for supplying water of a quality which is definitely undesirable.
I know that it is very expensive to deal with this and that the extent of the problem is very great. But if there are 3 million houses affected, that is 6 million or 8 million persons who are being exposed to lead poisoning and who ought to be saved from it. The sum of £500 million is a great deal of money but the longer we wait to begin to tackle these problems the more people may be injured and it will not become any cheaper.
It has been known for a long time that we had very large volumes of water supplies in this country which were capable of dissolving lead, and which did dissolve lead. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But for years the Ministry of Housing and Local Government refused to admit that there was any possible problem at all. They kept on saying that the water supplies were perfect, and that there was no lead danger at all. Now they say, "Ah, well! The water as we put it into the reservoirs and into the mains is all right, but unfortunately it dissolves the lead in the domestic water supplies and that is where the trouble is." It is indeed where the trouble is, but it has always been there. It has never been anywhere else. This ought to have been dealt with many years ago when it first became apparent that so

1347
many water supplies were being contaminated by lead. Therefore, I say once more that it is all very well to adopt the pragmatic approach and say, "We have got the machinery to deal with all these things and we will deal with them." Let us provide more proof that we are going to deal with them earnestly.
6.12 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, may I start with a declaration of interest. I was until recently a full-time consultant to the European Commission and on the completion of our piece of work I am still a part-time consultant to it. But I think your Lordships will see that this has not, to put it mildly, affected what I am going to say. I expect all your Lordships know that it was said within the Community before we joined that the Germans knew what the new Directives and Regulations were and tried to keep them; that the French knew what they were and that the Italians did not even know what they were. We, as comparative newcomers, are, I think, trying to find our place on this scale, and it seems to me that in the four draft Directives which we have before us this afternoon we should be well advised to adopt a German position on those concerning lead, and a French position on those concerning industrial emissions.
The villain of the piece is the concept of the uniform emission standard. I do not think I need to go into it, because everybody who is present for this debate is here because he knows about the subject, and knows the difference between a uniform emission standard and an individual emission standard. The key to the matter is: what do you want to be the use of the piece of the environment into which the pollutant is emitted? You take your decision. But in the achievement of your purpose a uniform emission standard is totally useless, because it may be 100 factories hitting that standard or one. The European Commission is addicted to the naïve and totally mistaken concept that you can control the environment by this means, on to which it sometimes grafts an even odder one that the emission of a given factory or industry, which is to be tolerated, should be related to its production. So one can imagine a factory where someone simply says, "I have the right to pollute this bit of the
1348
environment"—whatever it is, whether a tiny stream or the open Atlantic—"more and more, because, as you can see, I am increasing my production, which is of course a very good thing in the national interest."
The lead matter, on the other hand, is not necessarily related to this stupid uniform emission standard. It may be related to a uniform consumption standard through the tap—there is some sense in that—but the environment with which we are concerned in the case of lead is human blood and brain. If we can hit and keep below certain levels of lead in that internal environment, then we are all right. I must say that I share the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that we should not scorn the Commission's attempts in this direction, but should adopt a German attitude towards them; that is to say, we should know what they are and try to hit them. We shall fail to do so, but we should try.
On the titanium dioxide and dumping of waste at sea, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady White that we should adopt the French position; let us be fully informed about what the Directive contains. The Commission is addicted to this harmonisation way outside the field of environment. I would not go along with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in saying that the Environment Department is especially addicted to it. These attempts to harmonise supply and demand in agriculture have been among the most conspicuously unsuccessful attempts by anybody to harmonise anything over the last 15 years. This attempt to harmonise the conditions of sale of poultry threatens, apparently, to deprive us of the right to buy fresh chickens at all, because of this extraordinary draft Directive about guts.
The uniform emission standard approach, the harmonisation approach to the matter, is equivalent to ordering the sun to be turned off in Sicily, because it is unfair to Scottish tomato growers or, alternatively, ordering all the Sicilian tomato growers to build glasshouses, because the Scottish tomato growers have to do so, and that will restore parity of competition. You cannot do it, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The climate is different; everything is different.

1349
I sometimes wonder: can the Community survive the Commission? I answer myself: Yes, but not for much longer. And we must hurry to apply the only possible corrective, which is continuous democratic control through a properly directly elected and fully active European Parliament. That will do the trick, and will get rid of a lot of the nonsense that comes out of the present short-sighted, under-informed, ill-organised and under-qualified bureaucracy in Brussels.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government welcome the opportunity presented by the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady White to hear the views of the House, and to give their own views on the draft Directives. Like my noble friend, I also regret the inability of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, to be here with us today and I join in her good wishes for his speedy recovery. Your Scrutiny Committee, under my noble friend's chairmanship, has—as I am sure we all acknowledge—done a very thorough and expert job in looking at these Directives and drawing the attention of your Lordships to some of the serious matters for criticism.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wondered whether these various discussions which we are having in your Lordships' House on the Directives serve any useful purpose. I can assure the noble Lord that the views expressed in this House are indeed noted very carefully. They are certainly passed on to our representation in Brussels, and I have no doubt that they are brought to the attention of the Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, visited the Commission last autumn and I have no doubt that they were not completely silent while they were there. I note the point about the desirability of feedback. I am not quite sure how this would be achieved but I will certainly have a word with my right honourable friend about it and see whether there is any possibility of feedback.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, could not the six-monthly report by the Government on activities within the Community be more useful? At the moment it is a waste of time. Could not the Government give an account of what they have done in
1350
response to debates in both Houses, perhaps as an appendix to that report?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that might very well be a useful way of dealing with the matter and I will certainly put the noble Lord's suggestion to my right honourable friend. Turning to the lead standards Directive, we have always made clear our support for measures to reduce the risk of damage to health from lead. In this country we have adopted a good many practical measures, some of which are also the subject of EEC proposals, such as those concerning paint and cooking utensils. There has been a limitation of the lead content in paints for indoor use; it has been limited by voluntary agreement to one per cent. Also, there has been a limitation by regulation to 2,500 parts per million of lead in paint for toys, while the content for pencils and coatings is limited to 250 parts per million.
The EEC proposal for paints is nearly ready to go to the Council and a proposal for toys is at an early stage of drafting. There is also an EEC proposal on ceramics which is being discussed at Council level and another proposal on enamel ware is being developed. Already there are regulations in force based on British standards which limit the amount of lead in glazed ceramic and vitreous enamel, articles designed for use with food, as well as the regulations which control the tinning of saucepans, et cetera. In food, the lead content is at present limited to a maximum of two milligrammes per kilogramme for most food items but the Independent Food Additives and Contaminants Committee has recommended the lowering of the limit to one milligramme per kilogramme for most foodstuffs. Representations on this Committee's report are now being considered.
In so far as lead in petrol is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether it is useful to reduce the content of lead in petrol, if we are to supersede this by putting more cars on the road. We appreciate the noble Lord's point that the number of cars on British roads is likely to continue to increase over the years. However, I do not think we can agree that this fact in itself will negate the benefits to be obtained from reducing

1351
the content of lead in petrol. The programme of phased reductions in the lead content of petrol which was announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Howell in another place on 4th March is based on keeping with the 1971 levels—this allows for estimates of increases in traffic—as advised by the chief medical officer. As your Lordships know, the Government's decision on the lead content in petrol is that there shall be a three stage reduction to a level of 0·5 grammes per litre as soon as practicable, to 0·45 grammes per litre by 1978 and 0·40 grammes per litre by 1981. In connection with this decision, I shall also draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the German experience.
This approach of tackling the risk at source is the most practical one if we are to prevent individuals absorbing too much lead. We have also made it very clear that we entirely support the work of the Commission on devoloping criteria on the dose/effect relationship of particular pollutants and, from these, arriving at quality objectives and, if appropriate, quality standards. We have always, however, insisted that proposals should be based on sound scientific evidence and that it would be quite wrong to adopt too rigid measures on the basis of inadequate information. At the same time we must avoid deferring prudent action simply because we do not know enough.
The Commission's proposals on biological standards for lead in blood and air quality standards for lead go, in our view, too far. The Government, therefore, are in agreement with the points made by the Scrutiny Committee about the inadequacy of the information on which the proposals for standards have been based. The scientific evidence, despite the effort put in over a number of years, is still not such that we can advance to the point where we should lay down, in legislation, precise standards. Such a step would imply in law that every individual exceeding the blood lead limit and everybody in an area in which the air quality standard was exceeded would be in danger. We would not dissent from the view that the sort of figures for the standards proposed are reasonably reliable indicators of where investigation
1352
of the sources of lead should be initiated and action taken. We are, however, opposed to the rigidity and overemphasis on particular figures which would be consequent on enshrining them in legislation and which would carry with them the absolute obligation that they should not be exceeded.
Until we know more, therefore, we should prefer something less rigid in the form of guidelines, or possibly quality objectives. These would set targets to be achieved which, in the light of further evidence, may be further modified or possibly adopted as standards. The main purpose of the proposal is to ensure that appropriate action is taken to deal with particular sources of lead contamination, and that would not be altered. Our attitude is wholly consistent with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission in its recently published Fifth Report. This would be, first, to set the targets to be achieved, which can be amended or changed to standards in the light of further evidence; then to ensure that action is taken as necessary to deal with particular sources of lead pollution (this requires identifying potential areas of risk which we are already doing in the United Kingdom through our monitoring programmes); and then, as a consequence of that, to improve the proposals for monitoring.
The point about the importance of the need to identify areas of potential risk was also made by the Scrutiny Committee and repeated by my noble friend Lady White today. The Government accept this point entirely. The proposals in the Directive are inadequate in this respect but we see no reason why we should not arrive at an answer. We are, at present, already doing a great deal of monitoring in areas where lead levels are known or expected to be higher than average. In the main, such areas exist around industrial sources of lead and near major roads, and are, in relation to the country as a whole, not extensive and readily identifiable.
The proposals for monitoring blood lead in particular do not meet the real needs of the situation. We would advocate first defining more accurately the areas at possible risk by means of monitoring lead in the air in places where people spend most time—in the localities where we know there could be higher

1353
levels of lead in the air. Where these exist it would be more effective to carry out some system of monitoring for blood lead levels. This kind of survey would indicate more accurately the possible dangers and whether there was a need to reduce them. We appreciate the legal difficulties of monitoring blood lead levels. United Kingdom health authorities do not have statutory powers to oblige citizens to submit themselves to medical tests and do not allow samples of blood taken for one purpose, such as blood donations, to be used for another. The Commission has, however, realised that sampling would have to be conducted on a voluntary basis and extra care taken to ensure that the sample is none the less representative.
There appears, therefore, to be little difference between the views of the Scrutiny Committee and those of the Government. We welcome the additional support that this gives—coming, as it does, from such an eminent and well-informed source. We have good reason to believe that a number of other Member States share our views on this Directive and we look forward to arriving at an agreed form of Community document which will meet the real needs of the Community in this matter.
The draft Directive on the quality of water for human consumption is still at a relatively early stage of discussion at official level.
We agree with the views which noble Lords have expressed today, that it is impossible to implement all the details of this Directive within the two years of notification to Member States. The facts quoted in the Committee's report make it clear that other Member States share our problems and we shall make it quite clear in Brussels that two years is unrealistic. We support the Directive in principle, but we are concerned that its requirements should be soundly based scientifically, that they should be realistic and that they should be practicable. We are therefore paying particular attention to the parameters listed in the annexes with which the water must comply, frequency of sampling and the methods of analysis used.
A general criticism which has been widely made is that the Directive does not distinguish sufficiently between sub-
1354
stances which are of proven harm to human health and those which are merely undesirable. We believe that only the former should be subject to mandatory standards. Individual standards have also been criticised as unnecessarily stringent; for example, those for copper and zinc. All the standards are currently under detailed discussion in the Community.
The main problem is lead. The standard proposed is 0·05 milligrammes per litre, and as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said in his very informative speech, that is twice as stringent as the current WHO standard for water in supply of 0·1 milligrammes per litre, though a WHO working group recommended in favour of 0·05 milli-grammes per litre as long ago as 1972. All water put into public supply in the United Kingdom is well within the existing WHO standards, but as my noble friend pointed out today, water from the tap can contain higher levels of lead as a result of contamination from lead piping.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady White that research is being carried out, with Government support, both into the factors which cause plumbosolvency in water and the treatment of water in areas where the water is plumbosolvent. It is a complex matter. The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned that soft water can be plumbosolvent. There are, however, soft waters which are not plumbosolvent and there are hard waters which have been found to contain lead, and this research will supplement the knowledge which we shall obtain from the current lead survey and the epidemiological studies which will follow.
There is often variability in the amounts of lead which come away at the tap. A recent survey of lead in water carried out by the Department of the Environment and other Departments in conjunction with the water authorities has shown the complexities of the situation. That report will be published shortly. We shall need to consider carefully whether the medical need to limit the overall intake of lead can best be met by tightening still further the existing WHO standard, bearing in mind that lead from water is only one of the sources of lead ingested by the body and, if so, how far a more stringent standard could be met

1355
by redeployment of sources of supply and by developing more effective means of treating water to reduce its plumbosolvency. If there proved to be a case for setting a more stringent standard for lead in water, this would have to be treated as a target with a realistically long period for implementation because, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded us, of the gigantic expenditure that would be involved.
We know that my noble friend's Committee has been worried about the enforcement of the Directive, particularly about the powers to test water on a consumer's premises. The Directive does not specify the precise point at which its requirements should apply, and in particular at which sampling should take place. It may well be preferable to avoid precision in these respects. We are of course ultimately concerned with the quality of the water as received by the individual, that is, as it comes out of the tap. But the means by which a satisfactory quality of water is assured on a consumer's premises ought, we think, to be left to Governments to decide in the light of varying national circumstances. We think it is important that users of small sources should not be subject to the burden of an extensive testing programme. But again this should be left for Governments to decide.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, while the statutory duty of water authorities to provide a wholesome supply of water for domestic purposes does not extend to the quality of the water within the consumer's premises, they have power to make and enforce by-laws for preventing the waste, misuse and contamination of water supplied by them. These by-laws are now in force over the whole of the country. Local authorities also have powers to enter premises in the exercise of their public health functions. We are advised that the powers of both kinds of authorities should be adequate for enforcement of the Directive as it stands. These arrangements have worked well in protecting the consumer. Sampling at the tap, whether by water authorities or local authorities, is carried out only where necessary, and the need does not arise very frequently. We see no justification for changing and we shall certainly attach great importance to prac-
1356
tical provision being made for the application and enforcement of the Directive.
My noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the question of lead in water, and my Department decided, after consultation with the water industry, to set up a national survey of the current levels of lead in water, to ascertain the implications of these proposals. Two thousand four hundred households in England and Wales and 500 in Scotland were included in the survey and we are most grateful to the people concerned for their co-operation. The water put into supply has lead levels below the current and proposed limits, but the levels can be affected by factors such as the length of time the water spends in the lead piping used in the supply system, or in the house itself, and by the chemical nature of the water itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded us, the results of the national survey showed that about 2 to 3 per cent. of the households in England and Wales had levels of lead in normal running water in excess of the current limit, and about 8 to 10 per cent. had levels above the proposed limit. In Scotland, the proportion exceeding the limits is somewhat higher, and, moreover, a higher proportion in each case has levels over the limit in the first draw water, Which is the water drawn off first thing in the morning after it has stood in the pipes overnight. The water authorities and the water companies are advising householders about what action may be desirable where higher levels are found, and usually this means not drinking the water which has stood in the pipes for some hours.
On the Directive on the titanium dioxide waste the Minister of State for the Environment, my right honourable friend Mr. Howell, declared on the 16th October last in the Council of Environment Ministers, that we could not accept the proposal in its present form since it embodied uniform standards for controlling discharges of waste, regardless of environmental circumstances. Discharges are said to present a problem in the Mediterranean, but we have no significant problems from our industry which discharges into the North Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the draft Directive on pollution from

1357
pulp mills which was debated in this House on 13th October last year in connection with its proposal for uniform controls on discharges. We intend to take a similar line against ill-conceived uniformity and in favour of flexible controls, designed to produce an acceptable quality in the environment rather than a uniform standard of discharge. On the pulp mills Directive your Lordships generously supported the Government's line in this respect, and we hope that you will be able similarly to endorse our policy here.
As your Lordships know, the draft Dumping of Waste at Sea Directive intends to harmonise within the Community the application of three international Conventions. Each of the Conventions has a regulatory body. We fully support the need to control dumping at sea in accordance with the criteria in the appropriate Convention. However, the draft Directive establishes the Commission as an additional regulatory body whose functions will need the most careful consideration and examination if it is not going to duplicate the works of the others. The intention of the Directive, as I have said, is to harmonise. Your Committee has pointed out that there is a danger that the establishment of the Commission will give rise to duplication of the work already being satisfactorily carried out. We intend to establish what exactly is proposed and to ensure that there is no duplication.
My noble friend Lady White asked some questions about the Bay of Biscay. I am advised that it is not true to say there is prohibition of dumping of all radioactive waste. The draft Directive provides in Annex 2 for the dumping of radioactive waste not prohibited in Annex 1; but those high, medium and low-level wastes prohibited in Annex 1 have yet to be defined. We are completely in compliance with our own international obligations for the dumping of radioactive waste. The selected dumping areas are by international agreement under the control of the nuclear energy Agency. But we do not dump in the Bay of Biscay.
One area where conflict could arise, of course, is in the disposal of radioactive waste. The Commission's proposals envisaged a prohibition on high, medium and low-level radioactive wastes.
1358
This is quite different from the arrangements set out in Annex 1 of the London Convention, which effectively prohibits only the dumping of high-level radioactive wastes as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Other categories of radioactive wastes may be dumped under this Convention provided this is not contrary to the current recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that a permit has been obtained from the competent national authority. Because of our nuclear energy programme, we shall have a need to dump low-level wastes for the foreseeable future. This is clearly a matter which will have to be vigorously taken up, as the Scrutiny Committee recognised, in our negotiations in Brussels.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made reference to the environmental controls, and I am sure that we would all share his concern that such controls should be above and outside any nation State level. We are more environmentally orientated here than in many other countries, and perhaps by our criticism of these Directives from time to time we can help with all that is being done. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also raised the question of more money being made available to the Commission for scientific research. There is a considerable effort in research in support of the Community environment programme, both directly in the Community Joint Research Centre, and indirectly in member countries, and a second research programme is about to start. The Commission usually, but not always, consults widely, and it has available to it the best scientific advice from the experts of the Member States, but it remains free to make its own judgment having received that advice. I will certainly pass on the noble Lord's suggestion that when we have money available this is one source to which it might perhaps be directed.
The draft Directive also envisaged a prohibition of the dumping of acids and alkalis from the titanium dioxide and aluminium industries. The Government share the concern of the Committee that such a prohibition is unjustified. Our long experience leads us to subscribe to the view that these wastes can be safely disposed of in coastal waters, provided that the operation is carried out under

1359
suitable conditions, when the effects of such disposal can be reduced to such a level that little or no ecological disturbance can be observed. We will naturally take up this question also in the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.
I share the view—I am sure all noble Lords do—of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that here in the United Kingdom we are second to none in our environmental endeavours, and I know the Government appreciate your Lordships' interest. I hope to have shown the Government's awareness of the problems raised by these draft Directives, and also to have shown how we intend to deal with them. I have listened with interest to the debate and have tried to deal with particular points of concern. If I find that I have missed any points, I will get in touch with noble Lords on the points they have raised. Much of what has been said is indeed helpful in supporting the Government's attitude. I would hope in turn that those who have expressed concern are reassured about what action the Government intend to take. But I would not wish to be pressed to go beyond the present statements of intent, since, as your Lordships will undoubtedly appreciate, this will allow discretion to the Government and will not embarrass them in their room for manoeuvre.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I should like to express the gratitude both of myself and of my Committee to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I might say that we were delighted to have the unexpected bonus of contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Kennet, which added greatly to the quality of our deliberations. I was also particularly happy that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who has perhaps as close a knowledge of the workings of the Community as any noble Lord in this House, put our debate into the European context in, I thought, a particularly enlightening and illuminating way. I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lady Stedman for her comprehensive reply to the debate.
If I may make just two small points of regret, they are these. She did not make any reference to the esuggestion from the
1360
Committee that there should be consideration of building regulations for new houses which would prohibit the use of lead pipes in any new construction. I am sure this inadvertent omission does not mean that the Government will not pay some attention to it. Maybe she will be able to write to us in the Committee to let us know what is proposed. The other matter on which I felt some slight disappointment was her suggestion that it would be possible for the Community to administer a quite separate set of rules for dumping at sea without an element of duplication. I think those on the Committee take this point extremely seriously; we think that where you have adequate, fully international arrangements, it is not desirable as a matter of policy to embark on other rules for the same marine area which inevitably, if they are to mean anything at all, will mean duplication of administration. We would hope very much that our representatives in Brussels will make this point with considerable force.
Finally, I should like to say that I trust that our colleagues in Brussels, not least those in the Commission itself, will not take amiss the criticisms we have felt obliged to make. We do so in the most constructive and, we hope, helpful and co-operative way. We genuinely wish to see achieved the objectives aimed at in these various Directives. It is largely the methods to which we have taken exception.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HONG KONG
6.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY Lord BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what decisions have been reached regarding the social, economic and political future of Hong Kong. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I want to begin by acknowledging that I have not been to Hong Kong. I have not been further East than Singapore. But I have developed over the years a curious identity with the people of Hong Kong. I have had innumerable letters from those resident there. I have tried to study all the reports. I think it likely that the picture which I have

1361
gained may be a little unbalanced, because those who have communicated with me have been mostly the underprivileged, but the fact that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be replying, and was there last year, may correct any imbalance which my remarks reflect.
My Lords, I want to express particular thanks to two of those who have been informing me on this question. The first is Mr. Walter Easy. He is now Secretary of the Hong Kong Research Project, and he himself was a policeman in Hong Kong between the years 1962 and 1968. He has acknowledged from his own experience the widespread corruption in the police, the enforcement of bribes under threat of trumped-up charges, and the harassment of the poor. He has admitted that he has connived at this while he was in the police service. He is now seeking to correct that record by his service to the people of Hong Kong.
The second person to whom I am greatly indebted is Councillor Elsie Elliott. She went to Hong Kong as a missionary. She established in a tent a school for 20 children. Her school now has 3,000 children. She has been fearless in her championship of the rights of the underprivileged people of Hong Kong, and, despite the abuse which the establishment have thrust upon her, her integrity is so much recognised that even the very limited franchise which elects the urban council has returned her with the highest majorities in Hong Kong. I want to pay tribute to that brave woman, whom I have met in this country and with whom I have been in frequent communication. I regard her as the Florence Nightingale and the Sister Teresa of Hong Kong. The population of Hong Kong is 4 million, only 1 per cent. of whom is European. The population is larger than many of the countries which now have their independence.
I want to speak first about the corruption there. One often hears new nations in Africa and Asia denounced for their corruption; I denounce them. But I doubt whether there is a single one of the new nations where corruption is so integrated into the whole of the Administration as it is in Hong Kong. May I give two examples? First, in the streets of Hong Kong there are 100,000 hawkers who have to have licences for their stalls, and for the place from which they operate.
1362
There is an absolute protection racket throughout the whole of that relationship. There are secret societies, triads, which work closely with the police and which demand bribes from the hawkers; otherwise they will be charged with trumped-up charges. There is a similar system of corruption among the many mini-cab drivers, who again have to have licences. The corruption by the police was so well known that it took place in the streets, and Councillor Elsie Elliott has photographs of it taking place. Because of her public exposure of it and the photographs, it now takes place in secret rooms. It has become a part of the life of Hong Kong.
This corruption does not apply only to the ranks of the police force; it extends to the most senior officers. There is the notorious case of Ernest Hunt, who admitted in court that he had amassed £500,000 over 18 years as a policeman. Because this became known as a result of the agitation in Hong Kong by Elsie Elliott and others, a Commission Against Corruption has been established. I have asked Questions in this House about it. In February 1975 there were 1,798 complaints to the Commission against the police, and 1,550 against other departments. I want to ask the Minister questions of which I have given him notice. How many complaints have now been made to the Commission Against Corruption; how many have now been investigated; how many of these investigations have been completed; and how many convictions have there been?
The unhappy state of Hong Kong is not limited to corruption. Councillor Elsie Elliott gives evidence in her reports that the administration of the courts is weighted heavily against the poor and the uninformed Chinese. This may often be due to their ignorance rather than bias of the magistrates. I want to pay particular tribute to the late John Miller, who was known throughout Hong Kong as, "The just magistrate". Sometimes legal representation of these poor and ignorant people is not available. I want to appeal to the Government tonight and ask that legal aid should be expanded, that there should be no means test for it and that it should be available to all who need it. I should like to see attached to every court a prisoner's friend, similar to our probation officers, who would sympathetically explain, advise and help.
The unhappiness of Hong Kong goes further than this. It is absolutely unique in the British Colonial system for its absence of democratic rights. There is no Legislature, and therefore no vote for it. There is only an urban council. Those who vote for it are limited to one in ten of the adult population. The scope of the urban council, in the words of The Times of February 1975, is:
"…whose duties and responsibilities are concentrated largely on garbage collection, tree planting, hawkers' licences, and restriction on spitting."
That is the extent of democracy in our largest colony.
In Hong Kong there is no free compulsory education; there is no free medical service open to all; there are no unemployment benefits; there are no old age or widows' pensions; there is no paid maternity leave; there is no maternity allowance; there is no minimum wage; there is no limitation of the hours of work for males over 18. Legal and illegal child labour are rife, as indicated only last January in the report of the Christian Industrial Committee. There is in Hong Kong the worst heroin traffic in the whole world. It also has the third worst suicide rate.
In contrast to this, it is often pointed out how much the Administration has clone in the housing sphere and the encouragement that has been given to trade unions. I will only say on housing that when areas with small huts are demolished and blocks of buildings are created, those blocks are constructed on one-third of the land previously occupied by the huts and two-thirds of the area is leased to private companies. One welcomes the encouragement that has been given to trade unions, but they are still terribly restricted. For example, no casual labourer in Hong Kong—the number of such workers is very large—is allowed to join a trade union.
One asks why there is this terribly unhappy state of affairs in our largest remaining colony. If there had not been special circumstances, Hong Kong would have advanced to political independence in the wave of liberation which occurred after the war. The British occupation of Hong Kong began in a way of which we must all be ashamed; it was annexed after the infamous opium war of 1829
1364
when the Chinese Government sought to stamp out opium smuggling, which was a major source of British profit. We declared war and Hong Kong was made an opium base. I sometimes think that wrong beginnings determine future injustice.
In addition to the Island of Hong Kong, Kowloon was seized in 1860 and a large mainland new territory leased from China for 99 years in 1898. China has refused to accept these unequal treaties but we now have a strange situation. China found British occupation an advantage—for trade in the world, for foreign earnings and as a centre of financial institutions—but the situation is changing. China has become a major exporter of oil and, because of the financial advantages of that, China is no longer dependent on Hong Kong. Our occupation has been valuable for Britain in terms of the profits of its companies, in the contribution it has made to our balance of payments and in terms of the military outpost there. However, the lease for the mainland ends in 21 years and without the mainland territory Hong Kong itself would not be valid. Its ultimate return to China has become inevitable.
I urge that, meanwhile, we must accept responsibility for the 4 million Chinese in Hong Kong. The Commission Against Corruption is not enough. The whole Administration must be overhauled, the courts brought into relation with the people; we must establish social services, minimum living wages, maximum hours and make Hong Kong a place where its millions have the opportunity to live a human life. This will be a very big task but it need not be expensive for Britain. Business in Hong Kong is extraordinarily profitable. The incomes of the élite there are the highest in Asia except for the sheikhs in the Middle East. Hong Kong's wealth has just been indicated by the new defence agreement; this year it will pay this country 50 per cent. of the cost of the British garrison, next year 62½per cent. and, thereafter, 75 per cent. There is plenty of money in Hong Kong.
The necessary planning will require technical experience beyond the present Administration. I urge the Government to gather a team of skilled civil servants and others under a chairman who is both realistic and imaginative: a Commission

1365
of Reconstruction. It should include in its objectives the extension of democracy. The argument is sometimes used that Peking will not allow democracy to be established in Hong Kong, but experience in the Portuguese similar area of Macau indicates that that is not true; the Chinese have agreed there to adult suffrage and a direct vote to the legislature. When Hong Kong eventually becomes absorbed into China let us be proud of the society which we have helped to create there. China is building a new society. When Hong Kong's millions join it, let them have an experience of democracy which they can contribute to it.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, for once I have great pleasure in sharing a negative experience with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in that I, too, have not had the pleasure or opportunity of going to Hong Kong. However, I do not share with him the opportunity of having read the very interesting correspondence on which he based such a large part of his Question and, accordingly, I can only use for my contribution to this short debate information which is official or which has been published in the rather better daily or weekly newspapers. The noble Lord will forgive me, therefore, if, owing to the lack of availability of the same sources of information, I do not deal with all the points he mentioned.
The noble Lord, in his own inimitable way, at least managed to avert our gaze from the more troubled domestic economic scene of the United Kingdom to a part of the world where certainly the economy at least is very much more salubrious. I understand that quite a number of his proposals and facts, or at any rate his observations, came from a Fabian report which was commented upon in one of the daily newspapers. It rightly emphasised the enormous amount of social injustice, and those who have been to Hong Kong and to whom I have spoken have confirmed that there are terrible housing conditions in parts of Hong Kong, and this nobody would deny. But for a report to be valuable it must be objective and fair and must realise the conditions under which the people of Hong Kong have been living and have to live, the contribution and work of the governing body of Hong Kong and the
1366
elected bodies which work under the Government.
First, if the noble Lord was referring to the trade in narcotics, it is true to say that there is a considerable amount of opium taking and that Hong Kong has become one of the traditional outposts for trading in this drug. But it is also true to say that this has been a tradition for centuries in that part of the world. That has to be taken into account and I would advise the noble Lord of the comments of Chinese and other Asians who come here to this country and see the enormous amount of alcoholism. When they go back, precisely the same comments are made about alcoholism in Western Europe as the noble Lord has been making about opium in Hong Kong. So I feel that this must also be viewed with a certain amount of tolerance, however much we ourselves may deplore the use of opium and drug trafficking, which is an evil which we should wish and hope to see suppressed. I believe that it is fair to put it in its proper perspective.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the very large population of Hong Kong. However, he did not mention the fact that the population has increased from about 600,000 to 4½ million in the last 30 years. That is an enormous increase by any standards and a proportional increase in this country would not only not be tolerated but would be quite impossible to administer. This must be taken in relation to the size of the territory on which these people are living. Nor did the noble Lord refer to the almost impossible difficulty of resolving the franchise problem because the population has not only increased but is an ever-changing population. That makes it all the more difficult to administer. I was very interested to see in a recent communiqué from the Community Relations Commission that by far the largest ethnic group in the schools in this country are children of Chinese origin. It is of course true that they are coming into this country from Hong Kong. This merely emphasises the point that considerable numbers are crossing the border the whole time. Again, that must make administration a nightmare for those responsible.
The noble Lord mentioned schooling. I believe that he was probably slightly unfair. From the information that I

1367
have, there are about 1,200,000 schoolchildren registered in the Hong Kong schools. That is about a quarter of the population of the country. By any standards, that is a vast problem and it cannot just be brushed aside by saying that nothing is done about it. To have a proportion of 25 per cent. of the population of school age must set any Government an enormous problem.
In the past five or six years, 1¼ million of the people coming into Hong Kong have been refugees, so if the noble Lord is making these comments about Hong Kong and criticising the Government, I believe that it is fair to nut the other side. What the noble Lord did not mention—which is perhaps hardly surprising—was the enormous benefit which is flowing to the whole population of Hong Kong from its increased economic growth. I gather—and these are the only statistics I have seen, though the noble Lord may perhaps have others—that the gross domestic product is increasing at an annual rate of something like 7¼ per cent. One need only think of the Hong Kong dollar which in 1971 was 14½ to the pound sterling and is now 10 to the pound sterling. That in itself gives a very fair comparison of the benefits of a free market economy and free enterprise. I do not think that I need say much more on that point.
With regard to the growth of industry which, after all, affects the whole labour force of Hong Kong, Hong Kong is a very small territory in relation to world land space but it has now become the sixteenth largest trading nation in the world. Not only does one realise the effect of a free market economy but one must pay strong tribute to the people themselves. They are willing to work hard. They want to improve their living conditions and to remain independent. That may account for the comparatively small number who belong to trade unions.
With regard to the defence of Hong Kong, which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is a vital element, I should like to draw attention to the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee for 1975–76 on Hong Kong and Cyprus. I refer to the summary of conclusions, page xxiii. Conclusion 2 reads,
"We consider that the continued presence of British forces in Hong Kong is vital to the
1368
continued existence and the economic wellbeing of the Colony."
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he comes to reply to the Question, will be able to make some comment on this point.
Of course it is not for me to attempt to answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because it is rightly addressed to the Government. Nevertheless, I think it right to put some of the points in favour of the people of Hong Kong, and by that I do not mean only the upper class and richer people of Hong Kong, but all those who live there and who contribute by their work to the improvement of their standards of living.
When the noble Lord speaks of there being no maternity allowance and no minimum wage, I should like to draw his attention to some of the social provisions is this country. Maternity allowance was only very recently introduced in this country, after very many years of National Insurance. Maternity allowance was not considered necessary. Nor do we in this country have a minimum wage. It is not correct to attack a country like Hong Kong for not having benefits which we ourselves do not have.
In conclusion, I should like to see Hong Kong remaining a prime financial centre for South-East Asia and working in harmony with its great neighbour China. I should like an assurance from the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that they have no plans to change the constitutional establishment or status of Hong Kong and that we, as a country, and Her Majesty's Government in particuar, will continue to fulfil our obligations to our greatest Crown Colony, Hong Kong.
7.18 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I always listen wtih respectful attention to the noble Baroness, but I was not quite sure which side she was on during her speech. One felt that she was speaking more for the Hong Kong chamber of commerce than for the British Government and that she was rather rejoicing in a very odd economy which has done infinite harm to the economy of this country in the last few years.
The reason why I am taking part in this debate is that 30 years ago Lancashire Members of Parliament were

1369
calling attention to the devastating effect of miserably paid competition from Hong Kong, in particular, and South-East Asia, in general, which was putting people here out of work and destroying our cotton textile industry. I recall my noble friend Lord Brockway and I, who were both members of War on Want, being almost attacked by fellow Members of Parliament for trying to undermine the stability of the workers in Hong Kong and their conditions by suggesting that that competition was unfair. Of course, we replied, given fair conditions, that was exactly what we were asking for.
Thirty years have passed since then, and I dare say that many other speeches have been made by myself and others. Now we take another look. The noble Baroness said correctly that the population has gone up since then from 600,000 to 4¼ million. I hope that she will forgive me for saying so, but she seemed to give the impression of speaking of that as some form of population planning which had produced benefits. It is not a good thing to be grossly overcrowded, particularly when out of the 400 acres that constitutes the established and the leasehold parts of Hong Kong, the overwhelming majority of the population are on the Island of Hong Kong and Kowloon, which represents only about a tenth of the total area. That is dreadful overcrowding.
When we look at it today, we find that Hong Kong contains 4¼ million people, 500 churches, 150 religions and 137 banks. One commentator says that there are the same numbers in the City of London, but I find that difficult to believe in view of the growth in the City; banks are growing everywhere. There is a record of corruption almost unequalled in modern history, and there is practically no national debt. As the noble Baroness said, there is an admirable looking balance sheet. Hitler could have shown something similar, and so could Tiberius, if the figures were available.
A dictatorship running on excessively low wages can, of course, show such figures: no national debt, and running an adverse trade balance with the United Kingdom which amounted, I think, in 1973 to £100 million a year. To be quite fair, I should say that they reduced it in the following year to something nearer
1370
to £60 million. My noble friend Lord Brockway has detailed the failures of the Government of Hong Kong to implement the minimum standards of decency which are required.
Meanwhile, as the noble Lord said, and as everybody says—there is no doubt about this—we exist by the courtesy of the Government of China. When I refer to China I no longer mean Taiwan, but President Nixon's China. They have behaved admirably. There is always a touch of pragmatism in their approach, and political pragmatism has an element of political cynicism. They find it quite convenient to have the entrepreneurial trade there; they find it equally convenient to be able to point to Hong Kong as a horrid example of the evils of capitalism. They have not got any corruption in China, so far as anyone has yet been able to find out. They have helped in times of emergency, and on occasion they have shown temporary annoyance and a demonstration of their power when, as a couple of years ago, they suddenly granted exit permits to a large number of the citizens that they regarded as most undesirable, and 50,000 came in to swell Hong Kong, to make a demand on housing, water supplies, and so on.
That is the position. But I should differ slightly from my noble friend on this. I think that the present Government of Hong Kong is probably the most honest they have ever had, and perhaps the most able. I think that this limitation of 21 years completely and absolutely controls possibilities of long-term planning now. One really cannot involve oneself in enormous capital expenditure, which cannot repay its debt or anything like it, if the country is passing to China. I am not certain that it will pass to China, but it has to pass if they ask for it. Indeed, it could pass to China tomorrow if they have made a motion. Nobody questions that; it would be silly to say anything else. The Chinese could release a million of the civilian population which would not be noticed in China for a week or two. The problem could be solved without even any arms or any demonstrations. The Chinese have behaved, in the circumstances, with understanding and generosity.
The other thing that has happened, as the noble Baroness said, is that the

1371
pound and the Chinese Hong Kong dollar have been floated. The Hong Kong dollar floated upstream, while the pound was sinking. It may very well be that at this moment they find it extremely difficult to compete with Lancashire because of the rise in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. This is not very meritorious, because we are speaking in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and this represents an accumulation of mistakes that surely really means disaster. I have heard, too, that the independent committee against corruption, which has now been functioning for two years, is doing its best. It has achieved some major successes, but of course is facing a problem whose roots are so deep and so widespread that the committee cannot hope to succeed wholly in extirpating a corruption which is almost part of the people.
Finally, one should say that there are 10,000 independent small registered businesses in Hong Kong. It is true that there have always been trading nations; the Lombards in the 11th century in France, the Jews, the Indians in Africa, who are now to be replaced by the Kikuyu, I think. They have always been trading races, and very often their economies are based on the family economy. One can work 15 or 16 hours a day if one is working for one's mother, sister, brother and uncle, but it is not so attractive when one is working for a highly paid part-time director. I should have thought that even a Labour Government would have had sense enough to know that this is not a very good way to start to try to develop an immense—and perhaps too immense—combine.
My Lords, in view of what happened last night I propose to have a little mercy upon the staff and the Members of the House, and to go home to bed rather earlier than I otherwise would—
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to point out that he misquoted me on at least two or three occasions. I ask him to do me the courtesy of reading in the Official Report tomorrow exactly what I said. I will not take up the time of the House now in correcting every statement, but I ask the noble Lord to look in the Official Report to see what I said.
Lord HALE: Most certainly, my Lords.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is not here because I have often taken part with him on occasions such as this, and very often we had some sympathy with each other in what we had to say. But this evening I regret that I have not any sympathy with what he said, because I believe that he has given a picture which is not the realistic picture of Hong Kong. I had the opportunity of going there in 1946, and I have been several times since. I must say that it is quite amazing what has happened to the island, and how it has revitalised itself. I think we can say that a really excellent job has been done—all the people working together. I have also lived in Indonesia and in Malaysia for considerable periods, and I therefore have the greatest respect for the Chinese people. We have to remember that their civilisation is a great deal older than ours. They have kept their traditions in the many countries in which they have worked, and have successfully contended with all kinds of conditions.
Hong Kong's reaction to the world depression has been no strikes and no serious industrial disputes; and when the shadows of the world recession darkened their nation, groups of workers organised their own internal systems of shared labour and part-time rotation. I should like to quote what they said:
"Share the bowl of rice which has temporarily"—
and I should like to emphasise the word "temporarily"—
"replaced the normal two bowls; don't break the empty one".
I think this is the way in which they have tackled the crisis at the present time.
Mention has been made of the Chinese extended family system. I think this is admirable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hale, that when you are working for your family you obviously work harder, and probably better; and, though most of the people work for firms, and so on, they think that they are working for their families, because they are so proud of their children and they want them to have a better future

1373
than they themselves had. Whether they remained in Hong Kong during the war or whether, as so many of them did, they went to the mainland, or whether they are the one who have been mentioned who have come from the mainland to get a better life, they are thinking of the future of their families. One has to remember that a great many of these Chinese think that some of the mistakes of the past—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would agree with me in this—have been that we have imposed too many European standards on the people in the countries which are erstwhile colonial territories, though I must say that, as a whole, we have not done anything with regard to their religion or to the culture of the people.
Trade expansion in Hong Kong depends, as has been mentioned, upon trade and good relations with China, because we are not only dependent upon them for food coming down the Yangtse River and the Pearl River; we also need their water. But the Chinese do not just leave Hong Kong to this trade. They have got very large, shall I say, "safaris", who have been visiting countries like the United States, the Eastern European countries and the Arab States—in fact, I believe about 153 countries in all—to get other trade. I have recently read the Fabian pamphlet called Britain's Responsibility, and I would suggest that at present the British Government are guardians of the territory. If the Chinese are only left alone, I think they will be able to thrive under a liberal type of colonial rule. I think that is exactly what is happening at the present time. That is why I was not very happy about the statements in the Fabian pamphlet, because they went on to say:
"For socialists, indeed for any liberal British observer, the patent injustices and exploitation in Hong Kong are unacceptable and inexplicable".
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned hawkers. There is now, of course, as he probably knows, legislation, and the hawkers have been taken off the streets, not only because they block the roadways but in order to give them the protection that he mentioned. The Chinese who left Hong Kong during the war returned in 1945 to 1947, when the population was, as mentioned by my noble friend, 600,000. Then it rose, in 1971, to 1,800,000; and it is now just over 4 million. What I think
1374
is even more admirable is that they received 4,000 Vietnamese refugees. With all their other problems, that is really an example to us. Furthermore, they were able to open the universities as early as 1946, when they had 109 students. By 1975 they had expanded this number to over 3,500, besides sending as many as they could overseas, to this country and to other countries in Europe.
In regard to welfare, a social welfare office was formed as early as 1946 and it became an independent department in 1958. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to know that eight times as much is now being spent as was spent eight years ago. There is also a Community Chest comprising 70 different organisations and over 100 voluntary organisations, with the Council of Social Service at their head. This was also formed in 1946. What I am also very pleased to say—because I am interested in both—is that there is a school for the deaf and a school for the blind, and also workshops for the blind. Why I particularly wish to mention the school for the deaf is because previously the only method of teaching them was through English. Now, with the modern instruments, they can teach these children Cantonese. Cantonese is a tone language, so it is more difficult; but it does mean that when the pupils go home they can converse with their parents, and so on; and it is really rather thrilling to see these small children and the interest they are taking.
Also, of course, the Chinese have outside representation. They have representatives to deal with GATT, with UNTAD and with the EEC. Mention has also been made of wages. The wages as a whole—not just the millionaires—are still the highest in the Far East, with the exception of Japan. In regard to the problems—and of course there are problems—I would mention housing first because, obviously, it is the most important. One thing that everybody needs in order to have a happy family is to have a good roof over their head and somewhere where they can live in comfort. My Lords, 1·7 million Hong Kong dollars have been spent between 1954 and 1973, and 1·8 million dollars are allocated now. In the early days—and I have done so since—I visited some of the housing which. I agree, was very standard. In

1375
fact, when I saw the Governor last time he said, "When you came previously, when I was First Secretary, you ticked me off". I could not remember what I had said, but he told me that I had complained about the standard of housing, and he agreed with me. There is already certain money specially allocated for rebuilding these old blocks; in other words, instead of having the one room, as they had before, with communal washing and so on, they are going to be made into fiats. Unlike a great many other nationalities, the Chinese have a tremendous facility for home-making. If you go to certain towns, like Calcutta in India, and if you compare their standards with those of the people who come out of the houses on the hillsides in China—and there are still some—it is quite remarkable when you see them coming out in their beautifully starched garments.
The question of drug addiction has been mentioned, and action has been taken by the Committee against Narcotics, which advises the Government. At the moment there are about 100,000 addicts, mostly males; that is only 2 per cent. of the population. A great many of them—and I have been to see the places where they are rehabilitated—have not reverted; they have really been cured of drug-taking. I would agree that schooling is still a difficult proposition. I do not know whether any action can be taken by the Hong Kong Government, but what worires me is the fact that children have to leave school at 12 and are not legally allowed to go to work until they are 14. So there is a two-year gap, which I think means that many of them go to work illegally. On the other hand, through the activities of the inspectors, child labour is going down. But, of course, the situation is very difficult when you have 25,000 factories—the industry is very fragmented—only 118 of which have over 500 workers and about 15,000 of which have less than ten workers. But the inspectors do prosecute. We have now seen, too, that everybody has holidays with pay; but still there is no payment for rest days. I think this is unfortunate, because it means that people do not take their rest when they should. Therefore, I should like to see payment on rest days, if possible.
1376
Then we come to the question of family planning. There is a greater need for help in this work. When one goes to China and is able to see for oneself how the Chinese there keep to the standard of two children per family, one hopes that perhaps the Chinese in Hong Kong may feel that they are able to take that example. If not, in 10 years' time there will be 5·3 million Chinese on this small area.
The other problem is pensions. There are pensions for those over 75; but I cannot discover the average age of the Chinese. Whether they have much expectation of drawing their pensions for a long time, I do not know. I should like to see the elderly single people, who are in great numbers but who are obviously rather neglected, given some more help. I should like to make a suggestion: that we might suggest to the Government of Hong Kong that there be a tax on tourists going to hotels. There is a very good tourist industry. If you go to France you pay tax on the hotel bill according to the number of days that you stay. At one time we thought of introducing such a tax in this country; but I suggest that it might be useful in Hong Kong.
I would mention also the fact that women's progress is quite considerable in Hong Kong. They had the first woman stockbroker and the first woman to be ordained in the Church of England. Their youth organisations are doing well. If in proportion to the population we could say that we had 60,000 youth in uniformed organisations, we should be delighted: but we have, of course, a great many other organisations run by the Church and voluntary organisations which do a great job in helping young people. The British Council should be mentioned too because they are a very great asset and are much appreciated by the people of Hong Kong.
My Lords, I finish by saying that there is still a great deal of superstition in Hong Kong, and among the Chinese in general. When the Queen and her family visited Hong Kong, the first reigning Monarch to do so, they found that it was on the birthday of Ten Han, the goddess of Heaven and the protectress of seafarers. I hope that this augers well for the future of Hong Kong.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I apologise for the fact that I was out of the Chamber for a moment when she began her speech?
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I was merely saying that on many occasions we have taken part in debates like this and often I have agreed with the noble Lord. Today, I am afraid I cannot do so.
7.42 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brockway for raising once again for discussion in this House the situation in Hong Kong. Having said that, I should like to part company with him in many of the comments he made. In my view, he described in perhaps too minute detail only one side of the coin. May he perhaps take it from me as an old friend of many years' standing that there is another side to Hong Kong. He has only to read the speech in Hansard of my noble friend Lord Hale to see that he took a rather more moderate, perhaps less rigid doctrinaire view of the situation when he said that the present British Administration in Hong Kong is the best Administration that Hong Kong has yet had. Those were the words of Lord Hale. I go with the noble Lord in that. If my noble friend Lord Brockway says that that is not saying very much, then again I would part company with him and say that it is saying a very great deal.
Of course, he is right about corruption. We know that corruption exists in Hong Kong to an appalling extent; but I would say most emphatically that while corruption is endemic in every country in South-East Asia, it is less marked in Hong Kong than in any other. I feel a little hesitant in accepting the views of people who pass judgment from a distance of 14,000 miles, people who are ready to absorb all the complaints of visitors to this country from Hong Kong, without going out and investigating for themselves not only the conditions in Hong Kong, but the conditions in the Philippines, the conditions in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in South Korea and in South Vietnam as we used to know it. They would be thankful to come back to Hong Kong and see what success the British Administration has been able to achieve on behalf
1378
of the native population there. He spoke to us of the marvellous work that Councillor Elsie Elliott has been doing in Hong Kong. I go with him in every word he said. She is a noble character. She has been doing magnificent work and almost single-handed. It is almost parallel to the work that my noble friend Lord Brockway has been doing consistently in this country through the whole of his life. If he would forgive me, I would describe my noble friend as the Councillor Elsie Elliott of our own public life in this country—and I say that as a genuine tribute to the work that he has done because he is a friend of old standing. We know each other reasonably well although there are many points on which we may agree to differ.
There are many other points in his remarks that I should like to take up. Perhaps some of the answers were given by my noble friend Lord Hale. Lord Hale was quite right when he described the intense competition that our textile industries in Lancashire have had to endure from cheap labour in Hong Kong. I sat with him for some years as a fellow Lancashire MP in the House of Commons. I would ask how it is that, repeatedly, under successive Labour Governments, the situation has been tolerated. That is the other side of the coin and there is a reason for it. Even today the imports keep coming in from South-East Asia, from Hong Kong, from Taiwan and other countries, imports which our Labour Government persists in allowing into this country. All I want to say, without trying to justify it, is that there is another side to this case.
My noble friend spoke about child labour in Hong Kong. I believe that the labour regulations of our British Administration have been more liberal and more effective than any labour regulations in any of the countries of South-East Asia; and although they are faced with an uphill task, I think that they are doing magnificent work in this direction.
There are many other points that I should like to follow up in the remarks of both my colleagues on this side of the House: from the speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway to the rather milder, more objective and more balanced approach of my noble friend Lord Hale. Perhaps I may be forgiven on these Benches for going slightly more to the

1379
other extreme. Reference has been made to the family life in this unhappy country, as my noble friend Lord Brockway described it. "This unhappy country" to my mind is one of the happiest areas that I have been in in the whole of South-East Asia. Having travelled again and again, three or four times, over most territories in that area, one is able not only to meet people and hear their complaints but to get the feeling of life in the area.
Reference has been made to the enormous growth of the population in Hong Kong. The British Administration has had to cope with a flood of immigrants into that tiny territory. And from where do they come? They come in from one direction, from the mainland of Communist China. The noble Lord may take my word for it, the facts are irrefutable: the movement is in one direction only. It is not a two-way flow. The Government of Hong Kong would raise no objection if people wanted to go out of that "unhappy" country into the "happy" country of Communist China. But no such migration has taken place.
Lord HALE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me reminding him that the population of Communist China has increased in the same period by 400 million.
Lord SEGAL: Yes, my Lords, but the territory of Communist China is vastly greater than the territory of Hong Kong. I yield on this point, except I insist that this is a one-way traffic in human souls—and I will come to this later in my remarks. Unfortunately, latterly there has been a forcible traffic.
A point of criticism that I would level against the British Administration in Hong Kong is the forcible migration of unhappy people, refugees from Communist China, forcibly repatriated into Communist China. Whatever criticism may be levelled against our Administration of that Crown Colony as the last remaining outpost of colonialism—the citadel of paternalism, and so on—it is only fair to point out that our own Westminster concepts of democracy, representation of the people by free elections, are not always universally applicable. We may regret this, but it is nevertheless a
1380
fact, and particularly so in Hong Kong. They have to be considered in perspective, and especially in perspective of the surrounding territorities. Corruption, as we know, is endemic in the whole of that part of the world. It is not unknown even in other parts of Asia, India, Ceylon, look where you may. I believe that more genuine, effective methods have been taken to suppress corruption in Hong Kong than in almost any other territory that my noble friend would care to name.
Here we are dealing not in any sense with a developing territory. Hong Kong today is a highly developed, sophisticated area. The Chinese people have a civilisation and culture of their own that is 5,000 years old—3,000 years older than ours. We have a great deal to learn from them in culture, art, and the philosophy of Goverment—far more than we, with our 700 years of Parliamentary history, are able to give to them. Nor have we the right to remain in Hong Kong today as a ruling Power unless we are fully able to justify our right to remain there. We are there today only on sufference in the interests of the native population and of the vast adjoining territory of Communist China. Let us never forget that beyond the tiny 16 miles of frontier lies a vast population of over 800 million—nearly a quarter of the world's total population. It is 16 times the size of our own population and 200 times greater than the population of Hong Kong.
It is probably true that the standards of education, the general level of prosperity and the average working wage, are higher in Hong Kong today than in any of the adjacent territories. The economic growth of Hong Kong has been phenomenal and its impact has also been felt in Communist China. But with it there has also been a rapid growth in higher education, housing development, medical, cultural and recreational facilities without parallel in South-East Asia, except possibly in Singapore, which has only a half of Hong Kong's population. Above all, we must remember that our British administration is in Hong Kong today not as a colonial Power, any more than the Portuguese today are masters of the nearby territory of Macau, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Brockway. There is no parallel whatsoever between the growth of democracy

1381
with the active encouragement, if you will, of Communist China among a population of from between 30 to 40 thousand and a rapid growth of democracy among a population of well over 4 million.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, what I was saying was that in Macau there is now adult sufferage, there is direct elections, and that has been accepted by Communist China. That is in great contrast to the administration in Hong Kong.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the size of Macau is a little attic compared to the territory in Hong Hong. The population of Macau is only a tiny fraction of the population of Hong Hong. You can encourage the growth of democracy more easily when you are dealing with a population of from between 30 to 40 thousand largely indigenous than when dealing with a vast population of over 4¼ million composed almost entirely of refugees. The problems are in no sense analogous.
We must realise that we remain in Hong Kong only by consent of the administration in Peking. It might be an exaggeration to say that if Peking sneezes, Hong Kong is liable to catch pneumonia. But there is a slight element of truth in this assertion. Even so, the medical services in Hong Kong have made such rapid progress that they are easily able to cope with even an epidemic of pneumonia, if it should arise in that colony. All those admirable reforms suggested by my noble friend Lord Brockway can be introduced only with the approval of Peking, which may not always be taken for granted.
Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether we can take it for granted that the administration of Peking would necessarily approve of an immediate wider application of democratic principles among the population of Hong Kong? For example, would a growth of Party factions, democratic institutions, more active and more militant trade unions—which are badly needed in Hong Kong—or free elections be possible today, unless Peking had given its prior consent? How far would Peking approve of further progress in Hong Kong along the path of democracy without taking great care it has the last word, not only in the extent of that progress but also in the rate of that progress? Yet, having said this, I must confess
1382
there is one aspect of our administration in Hong Kong which fills me with the direst misgivings. In the past two years there has been almost a total reversal of our humanitarian policy of giving asylum—even of temporary asylum until they can find refuge elsewhere among their own people—to refugees who arrive in Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong was generous in providing temporary asylum to thousands of refugees from South Vietnam who fled to her territory after the fall of Saigon. They were granted refuge at the expense of the Hong Kong Government until they could be absorbed into other territories.
In the 12 months December 1974 to the end of November 1975 no less than 1,282 hapless refugees who reached Hong Kong from Communist China—some in peril of their lives and nearly all after undergoing appalling hardships were turned back and sent to whence they came. It is indeed a tragic story. An average of more than 100 refugees a month have had to suffer this humiliation, to put it at its mildest. It is true that in the past few months these figures have dropped to a mere trickle.
There is something about this traffic strangely reminiscent of the Ernest Bevin régime during the last days of our Palestine mandate—also, let it be said, under a Labour Government—when thousands of Jewish refugees were sent back to Germany in rotting hulks like the "Exodus", refugees who were seeking asylum in a land of spiritual freedom. I am fully cognisant of the difficulties in Hong Kong, and of the dangers impending. The trickle could very easily resolve itself into a cascade, and the cascade into a tidal wave, in which thousands of refugees might be involved. But has this reversal of policy taken place at the request of Peking? If so, I can fully understand it, however much I might regret it. I could possibly even condone it, rather than put at risk the freedom of the 4 million Chinese who are still our responsibility in Hong Kong. If this diagnosis of the present situation in Hong Kong is correct, I believe that is the complete answer to my noble friend Lord Brockway. It is a diagnosis I must perforce accept with great reluctance, while having to express my approval of the calm, the wisdom, the steadfastness and the high sense of public duty which

1383
characterise our present administration in Hong Kong.
Finally, a word must be said in praise of the restraint shown, in the face of great difficulties, by the Communist Government of Peking. They have endeavoured to pursue a policy of detente and to honour that policy as befits a great world Power. They have established trading relationships with many nations of the West and with America, and have turned off the heat where many controversial issues, such as the offshore islands, are concerned. May I express the hope that this constructive attitude of déetente—in a region of the world which needs peace perhaps as desperately as any other region on the face of the globe, especially after the 30 years of war that went on in Vietnam—will be strengthened in the future, and not least where Hong Kong and its refugees are concerned.
8.2 p.m.
Lord BOURNE: My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts forgive me if I intervene briefly before he speaks? I have just a few remarks to make. First, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that there are two sides to this case. It is very easy to criticise any capitalist system. Of course there are defects; of course there are things like heroin, opium, and other things and of course there are child labour and similar problems. But they are a good deal worse in Peking and Canton—at least, I think so.
I should like to divide my remarks under two heads: administration and defence. First, on the administrative side, what the noble Lord, Lord Segal, said just now was that the Hong Kong Government, under their Governor, are very much alive to these things. They run a frightfully good show, in my opinion. The Chinese are fully represented on the Legislative Council and have been for many, many years. I was stationed there before the war, when the population was only 600,000—a situation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred—and I have seen it grow to 4⅓ million, having been back there since. Despite that, I would defy any colony to be better run, although of course there are defects.
1384
Turning to defence, this Government have reduced the garrison of Hong Kong to four battalions, a Gurkha engineer squadron, five naval patrol craft and an RAF helicopter squadron. In my opinion, that is not enough. There is a contradiction here, and I should like to quote from the same Report of the Expenditure Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred. The only role now which they are capable of carrying out is internal security. Yet, turning over the page, we find that the main function, exercised on behalf of the local administration on a continuing basis, is the securing of the Border between the Colony and the Peoples' Republic of China. That border is 20 miles long, and in my opinion the force available to the Colony is not enough. The Expenditure Committee implore that at least an artillery battery should be restored to the Colony, together with an armoured car squadron. That is certainly not very much, and I think it would make much more sense in that setting, because, so far as I know, there is no prospect of any reinforcement. My Lords, that is all I have to say.
8.6 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: A good contribution! My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for introducing this debate and also to those who have taken part in it. The debate, of course, will have to be read and studied as a whole so as to offer the maximum advantage resulting from our discussions. I hope that all the speeches that have been made will be studied both here and in Hong Kong.
As I listened to my noble friend and then to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I felt I should have my work cut out to steer a course between the Charybdis of outright denunciation of Hong Kong, on the one hand, and the Scylla of almost unalloyed complacency about the situation in the Colony on the other hand. Fortunately, there have been a number of interventions by noble friends which have helped to give a fuller picture, and now I hope to do my little best to complete the picture and to put it into perspective.
It is very important to see the achievements and the present plans of the Hong Kong Government in historical context. Since the end of the war, as we have heard, Hong Kong has been faced with

1385
a population explosion of atomic proportions. In 1945 the population was 600,000: today, it is 4½ million, and this in an area of rather less than 400 square miles. If you have an inpouring of hundreds of thousands a year into a tiny area like that (smaller than the smallest county in England), what do you expect, my Lords?—especially where the area is almost completely without natural resources from which one can create indigenous industry to sustain not only employment but social services. It is an area which, indeed, is deficient in the obvious essentials such as an adequate water supply. What is remarkable to me is not the fact that conditions in Hong Kong are as bad as they are—and they are bad in patches—but that the quite superb achievements of the Government in Hong Kong pass without more praise and appreciation than they actually receive.
We all know there are massive problems in Hong Kong and there have been these problems in the past. We must also examine the record to see how the Hong Kong Government, backed by the British Government, have tackled those problems. My noble friend divided his Question into three. He asked what we were going to do about social, economic and political questions in Hong Kong, and as briefly as I can I should like to feed into the Record some of the facts and figures. First, in the field of housing—addressing myself to the social scene—the Hong Kong Government continue to face great problems. But they have overtaken great problems, also, and 1·7 million of the population, or 43 per cent. of the whole, have already been accommodated in Government subsidised housing. There are still, of course, many without adequate homes, but the Hong Kong Government are planning to house a total of 3·3 million, or 54 per cent. of the estimated population, by 1983–84. In this coming year, 1976–77, alone, it is planned to complete homes for a further 94,000 people. An important and imaginative part of this large programme is the construction of three new towns in the New Territories.
I think it is fair to say that the record of the Hong Kong Government in the field of health and medical services is already very good. It is at least comparable with cognate countries in that
1386
part of the world, and in many respects much better. The development of preventive health services has now resulted in the eradication of quarantinable diseases, which is a remarkable achievement in view of the over-crowded conditions which have had to be overcome. Today, the average life expectancy in Hong Kong is 71·7 years. This is the second highest rate in Asia, and is virtually the same as in the United States. By the same token, the infant mortality rate is among the lowest in Asia. But there is no sense of complacency. There are extensive plans, which I saw for myself, to reduce hospital overcrowding, the target being to provide 4·5 beds per 1,000 population by 1980, as compared with 4·1 at present.
On the subject of education, here, too, plans are extensive. There is already free primary education for all up to 12 years of age, and it is intended that this should be extended to the age of 14 in a comparatively short time. In 1974, the Hong Kong White Paper on Education laid down as an objective the provision of, admittedly subsidised, secondary education for all up to the age of 14 by 1984, and for 40 per cent. up to the age of 16 by that date, and the programme is already well on target. Over 160 new schools are to be built, and 42 will be under construction during the course of this year. There are also plans to improve opportunities for further education. Three technical institutes have been completed, a fourth is under construction and a fifth will be started this year. The Government are also steadily increasing the number of places at the two excellent universities, both of which I visited, and all university places are subsidised.
At this point, I turn to my noble friend's query about social welfare programmes and benefits. The social welfare programme has been expanded greatly over the last few years. In 1971–72 the expenditure on social welfare was 50 million Hong Kong dollars—divide that by 10 and one gets £5 million sterling. In the coming financial year, it is expected to be not 50 million Hong King dollars but 400 million. The money is coming from somewhere. If the mass of the population is as poor as my noble friend has made them out to be, it must be coming from the rich minority he has been denouncing so much. In the coming financial year, it will be eight times what it

1387
was two years ago. It can be expected to rise in the future, and I understand that a Working Party is at present actively considering the question of an extended system of social welfare allowances.
There are no unemployment benefits as such, but public assistance for needy families and individuals is extended on a means test. So it is not true to say that there is no provision for people who are unemployed. Admittedly, able-bodied persons aged 15 to 55 are not eligible if they have no family commitments. On sickness benefit, again there are provisions for this, not as lavish as those in this country, but more lavish than in many countries comparable to Hong Kong, and there are programmes for improving such benefits. Already, all manual and non-manual workers earning less than 2,000 dollars a month are entitled to sickness benefit on a formula which, as I said, is not as lavish as ours but is certainly there and improving all the time.
I have dealt at some length with these programmes, because they represent the great effort that is being made in Hong Kong to plan ahead for the future wellbeing of the population, and I think that the Administration can be proud of their achievements bearing in mind the heavy odds against them. This is an area which has no resources, except what it can attract into itself from outside, and to attract foreign investment places certain constructions on one's fiscal policy. This is inevitable. If you have no resources you must attract them from outside, and in order to do that you must extend inducements. It is the balance between the production of fiscal inducements and direct taxation in order to finance a progressive social programme. That is the question which the Hong Kong Government must face every year—indeed, every day. The Governor himself—a progressive and humane man—Sir Murray MacLehose deserves particular credit for what has been done in recent years.
There are three other fields which have been referred to in this debate about which I shall comment. First, there is the question of the increase in crime, in the last few years in particular, and the problem of corruption. Violent crime increased sixfold between 1965 and 1974—a macabre experience not confined to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government
1388
are radically reforming the organisation and methods of the police force to cope with this situation, and are achieving very considerable success. At the same time, the Independent Commission against Corruption, which began operations in February 1974, has made impressive progress in the fight against corruption. The work of this Commission, combined with a large-scale public education programme, has played a vital part in combatting the problem.
I have some figures here which my noble friend gave me notice he would like me to provide. From February 1974 to date, the Independent Commission against Corruption has received 7,026 complaints of corruption, as a result of which 2,820 investigations were launched. Of course, complaints vary. When there is a determined attempt to persuade people to feed in reports and complaints in the fight against corruption, you are bound to receive many reports and complaints which, after fairly cursory examination, are found to be without content.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I may have misunderstood my noble friend and I may be unjust in what I am about to say. If so, I apologise. I thought, however, that my noble friend suggested that the determined effort to obtain complaints came from outside. In fact, it came from the Commission themselves who very properly published illustrated advertisements all over Hong Kong appealing to people to make complaints of any kind of corruption which they thought it proper to make.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in my own inexpert way I was trying to convey to the House that in fact there had been a determined campaign by the Commission to get the general public to send in any complaints which they thought the Commission should look at. As a result, there was this very large number of complaints—7,026 in two years—which were all looked into. As a result, 2,820 investigations were launched. Of those 2,800 investigations, 2,400 odd have been concluded; 408 people have been prosecuted, resulting in 275 convictions; and a further 57 are still before the courts.
The budget for the ICAC in 1976–77 has been increased to 38 million Hong Kong dollars, an increase of 52 per cent.,

1389
with the aim of bringing the establishment up to its full strength of 1,000 investigators by the end of this year. There can be absolutely no doubt about the determination of the Hong Kong Administration to tackle the question of corruption in the colony when the facts and the figures are as I have given them.
Secondly, in the field of labour affairs there has been a steady stream of legislation to safeguard the health and safety of workers in recent years, including the 1975 labour relations ordinance. This sets up formal procedures for solving labour disputes and amendments to the employment ordinance which entitles workers to severance pay and protects employees from anti-union discrimination. The problem in Hong Kong is not that they have no trade unions but that they have too many of them. Of the many trade unionists in Hong Kong, three-quarters are Chinese and Communist. Once more, Hong Kong is sui generis. There is no lack of freedom of speech, of the Press, of discussion, of unionisation. What Honk Kong lacks is natural resources. Therefore, the policy of keeping this vast population employed, healthy, and progressively better educated has to be coped with against that background. Considering the difficulties, the Hong Kong Government have succeeded very well indeed.
Thirdly, I ought to mention the great efforts which have been made by the Hong Kong Government to improve public amenities in Hong Kong by providing recreational facilities and applying environmental standards, particularly in the construction of the new towns. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, this is of major importance in so densely populated a territory where the population is comparatively young.
I pass now to the third point that the Question raises: the economic aspect. These improvements in social services have been made possible by the rapid rate of economic growth until the recent recession. An economy like Hong Kong, which is so dependent on exports, is particularly sensitive to world trading conditions. The world trade recession over the past two years therefore hit Hong Kong particularly badly. For example, by the end of 1974 exports had fallen 23 per cent. below the December 1973 level. By mid-1975, the economy was
1390
operating well below capacity; there was a considerable increase in unemployment and a decline in real wages; and economic growth had come to a standstill. Even so, the Hong Kong Government continued to pursue their social objectives during that recession. The percentage of the budget spent on the social account for the purposes my noble friend and I have so much at heart increased from 37 per cent. in 1972–73 to almost 40 per cent. in 1975–76—that is, during the recession at its worst—once more proof that the Hong Kong Government are and were in earnest in devoting resources to the amelioration of the conditions of the people.
The resilience of the Hong Kong economy has once again been demonstrated. By the spring of 1975 there was a renewed demand in world markets so that by the latter part of the year Hong Kong exports showed an increase of 4 per cent. at constant prices over the year as a whole, compared with 1974. The textiles industry, which is Hong Kong's largest employer and foreign exchange earner in the manufacturing sector, is expected to record a growth in exports this year of between 15 and 20 per cent. Other industries are also reasonably optimistic about their prospects.
That brings me to a point made by my noble friend Lord Segal about the imports of textiles from Hong Kong into this country. Textile imports from Hong Kong into this country are already subject to control under the EEC Hong Kong textiles agreement. An important element in that agreement is that other Member States of the Community will take a greater proportion of the growth of Hong Kong textile exports than in the past, and the United Kingdom correspondingly less. The average rate of growth of intake of textiles from Hong Kong for the Community as a whole is 7 per cent. For the United Kingdom it is 2 per cent., with some growth rates in imports as low as one-half of 1 per cent. for the most sensitive items. I suggest that by agreements in this way between the Community and Hong Kong it is more effective to protect British interests than to go for the cruder kinds of import control measures which nowadays are so frequently advocated.
As I am referring to my noble friend Lord Segal, whose speech I greatly

1391
admired because it so greatly helped to give us a balanced picture of the situaton in Hong Kong, may I mention a point which I know he has very much at heart; namely, the problem, as he sees it, of the people who continue to enter Hong Kong from the mainland and who very often are turned away or turned back. He described them as "political refugees", but with all due respect to my noble friend this is not quite the position. The vast majority of the many thousands who come into Hong Kong from the mainland are not political refugees. Rather I would describe them as merchant adventurers: the grass is greener, or thought to be greener, across the border.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but, if he will allow me, may I ask him whether it is fair to assume that these refugees are adherents to the Communist system, or whether or not it is fairer to assume that they are non-Communists who wish to live, if allowed to do so, under non-Communist rule?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly they want to live in Hong Kong; but what is reasonably certain from the fairly dependable information one gets is that they are not, in the great majority, political refugees. They are people who, rightly or wrongly, think they would benefit economically from crossing the border. That is all very well, and up till 1967 Hong Kong kept open door to them and in they flowed in their thousands. Indeed, in 1967 they came in in numbers in which, even with the burgeoning population of Hong Kong itself, they could be digested socially and economically in terms of the resources and the accommodation available. But under the "open door" policy, their numbers had become 12,500 in 1971. By 1972 the total was 37,000; in 1973, it was 73,000, and of course in 1974 it was found necessary to control this inflow to allow legal immigration to proceed—and it is still proceeding—while checking illegal immigration.
Where an illegal immigrant is able to show that his return would indeed lead to suffering on his part, he is not sent back. But those who are sent back—
1392
and the great majority are sent back because there is no real reason why they should come in—are not treated unduly harshly by the mainland Government. This is the information we have. But if any Member of this House or of the other place has an example of what he thinks is the return of an illegal immigrant who, because of his political opinions, is likely to be, or has been, dealt with harshly on the mainland after being returned, I should like to know about it. I can assure the House that every illegal immigrant's case is examined individually and, where there is any question of undue hardship attending his or her return, then the Hong Kong Government exercise compassion. But I repeat that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are not there because of ideology but because of economic opportunity, which is rather a different thing.
I now turn to the political aspects of this matter, and I want to concentrate particularly, but as briefly as I can, on the existing political institutions in the territory. There is little one can say about the future of Hong Kong itself and the end of the New Territories lease in 1997. One can only point out that this date is still quite a long way ahead and a great deal will have happened by then, not only in the territory but in other parts of the world, especially those adjacent to Hong Kong. It is not possible to predict what the circumstances will be so far into the future, and Her Majesty's Government will continue to administer the territory in the interests of those who live there, and will do so having regard for the unique internal situation in Hong Kong and the equally unique external relationships which this territory has to live with.
It is well understood in Hong Kong that the pattern of constitutional development followed in most other dependent territories, previously colonies of ours, that is to say progress towards internal self-government and thereafter, where appropriate, to independence, such as in the case of the Seychelles, as we observed when the Bill was read a second time in this House today—that pattern which Britain has followed honourably, effectively and successfully with so many former colonies is ruled out by the particular circumstances of Hong Kong. I repeat, this is sui generis not only economically

1393
but politically. The genius of this country is to recognise the facts when it sees them. It might be rather easy to proceed dead-pan according to the pattern regardless of the circumstances and the implications, but what will happen to Hong Kong itself—to this tiny territory of 4½ million people?
In the absence of popularly elected institutions there has evolved in Hong Kong a unique system of government which seeks to achieve the same objective of responsiveness and responsibility by means somewhat different from ours. The aim there is to produce a system allowing wide and active participation at all levels in the process of government. Here the blessed word "participation" comes in. We hear a good deal of this in our own country, as a means (dare I say?) of supplementing our own ancient Parliamentary tradition. Perhaps Hong Kong is also having a good look at participation by other than Parliamentary means. To achieve this, contacts between local institutions and community organisations and the central Government are being improved. I saw this for myself. I sat in at meetings of what are called "mutual aid committees". They are grass-roots committees of Hong Kong people, Chinese people, who discuss their local affairs—and solve them, too—participatively, co-operatively and also feed up through the proper channels into the Government itself their own views, wishes and offers of help.
There is more than one way, especially in Asia—in the new Asia—of achieving participative democracy. The Governor has also indicated that there is room for change in the Legislative Council while retaining its essential character. Of course we accept that in the absence of an elected legislature, opinion in the Legislative Council is, and should be seen to be, representative of all sections of the community in Hong Kong.
In conclusion, we and the Hong Kong Government fully accept that a great deal remains to be done; that there is absolutely no room for complacency. For all the progress that has undoubtedly been made there are basic deficiencies still in housing, education, social welfare, communications and recreational amenities. There has been a rapid increase in violent crime over the last eight years and an
1394
unacceptable level of corruption. I have outlined the plans that have been made to tackle these problems, to create a prosperous, stable and happy community, and I have indicated how far those plans, put into operation, have so far succeeded.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord has not mentioned the question of compensation and the legal aid department, which was raised by Lord Brockway. I think it is very important. I understand that, since 1967, £22 million has been paid out in compensation and damages to people who have been legally aided. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm this.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords; in fact I have a rather useful note on that matter, although I think the noble Baroness has answered the question better than I could. Legal aid is available for about 75 per cent. of all criminal cases tried in the district courts. There is a means test, but the availability is there, and, as the noble Baroness has said, it has an impact. There is a real attempt here to enable people with small means to avail themselves of the processes of justice.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would pay some attention to the proposal I made that at the courts there should be a prisoner's friend who would be able, like our probation officer, to give advice and help to those who are often completely ignorant of the procedure and are destroyed in presenting their case because of that ignorance, which might be removed if they had that kind of help.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Gladly, my Lords, it is a splendid suggestion. I do not know to what extent it is not already available, but I am sure that my noble friend has gone into this, and I most gladly welcome the suggestion. When I visited Hong Kong last year I took with me the chairman of one of our benches of magistrates, a member of my family, and she was able to attend courts and indeed treatment centres for drug addicts. I believe she saw, at least in many cases, the kind of provision my noble friend has rightly advocated. Whether it is the general practice I do not know. I will check with my friend the magistrate when I go home and see what

1395
her report is. But it is an excellent suggestion and one that I should like to look into much more deeply.
I was coming to the end of my remarks. I think what we need to do is to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Segal and others have reminded us of during their remarks, in looking to the future constitutional progress of Hong Kong. The position is that our relationship with mainland China is excellent; our relationship with them in regard to Hong Kong is excellent. They do not regard Hong Kong as having been properly separated from the mainland, as my noble friend reminded us; they denounce the acquisition as having been made under duress. Nevertheless, they, too, see that Hong Kong is unique. While I cannot put words into the mouths of our Chinese friends, I think it is perfectly fair and safe to say that they regard the present position and its continuation as being at least as satisfactory as any other solution that has been offered. So that we can look forward, I am sure, to a period of peace during which the British Government and the Hong Kong Government together do their best to raise standards in Hong Kong, to protect the economy, to expand social welfare, without engaging in any policy which might force the great Republic of China into an attitude rather less co-operative than the one she has been adopting for so many years in so statesmanlike a fashion.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.