Lords Sitting of 5 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich
The Earl of Northesk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AUTHORS: PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to fulfil their long-standing promise to introduce legislation to provide for a public lending right for authors.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council said in another place on 15th January, the Government hope to publish a Bill very shortly.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that those words sound extremely familiar. Is the noble Lord aware that there is growing anxiety among authors, as well as growing distress, because the allocation to libraries has been severely cut down as a result of publishers cutting back on their lists and a great many authors are worried about the fact that this PLR Motion was put into the gracious Speech of 1974 and the gracious Speech of 1975 and we still hear the term "very shortly"? Could the noble Lord give me something more definite than that?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the words I was quoting were those used
1410
by my right honourable friend in the other place. I cannot give my noble friend anything more precise; but as he knows, "very shortly" means as soon as possible.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, may I ask, as soon as possible, whether it would be possible for the Bill to be introduced into this House first in order to save time? My noble friend will be aware, I am sure, that there is great pressure on legislation in the other place. Would not it be useful if my noble friend were to approach the Minister to see whether the Bill, which I am assured is already prepared and ready, could be introduced into this House, thus to save time?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes, this would be perfectly possible, if it is agreed through the usual channels. I will certainly see that what my noble friend has said reaches my noble friend the Chief Whip and my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a Bill such as this may have a very rough passage indeed? It is a Bill to subsidise the rich author at the expense of the part-time author, and the part-time author is the one who ought to have encouragement.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's feelings from his speech on 4th July. All I can do is to ask him to await the Government's proposals.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, now we know what "very shortly" means, may I ask what "hope" means?
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton has just said is absolute nonsense?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in fairness to my colleagues I must say that a great deal of time has been spent on preliminary operational trials and other studies of practicability and that this will be time saved when the Bill becomes an Act.

ANGOLA
3.10 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 our representative at the United Nations, Mr. Ivor Richard, has made any representations to the Director General of that organisation to offer mediation in the present conflict in Angola.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government are extremely concerned about the conflict in Angola and have been active in promoting the withdrawal of foreign forces and reconciliation between the parties. In the light of inquiries we have made, we do not believe that it would be helpful at the present time to take the initiative suggested by my noble friend; but we shall continue to keep the situation closely under review, and I would not rule out such an initiative at some time in the future.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer, but it is not altogether satisfactory. Can my noble friend explain why it is that this peace-keeping organisation, the United Nations, and its co-partner or its superior, the Security Council, seem to be reluctant to take any action vis-à-vis Angola? Can it be that they are reluctant to offend the Soviet Union who are involved? In those circumstances, could not the United Kingdom Government take the initiative? Surely they are not afraid of the Soviet Union.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the United Nations, and certainly this Government, have to have regard to one central fact. The African countries have made it clear that they consider that the Angola situation is their primary responsibility. If later they decided that the United Nations could play a useful role we would do everything in our power to support them.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the leverage of the Western Powers might be used against the Soviet Union regarding the question of Angola, and whether the Government have considered or are taking any steps for concerted action with our eight fellow Member States of the EEC and also with the USA?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The attitude of our partners in the Community is very much in accord with the attitude we have taken: that is to say, that we deplore any outside intervention from any quarter in the internal affairs of Angola.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I entirely excuse him from any sentiment other than the correct one in a matter of this sort? But in reply to my Question he mentioned that the Organisation for African Unity seemed to be interested in the matter. Is there any evidence to that effect? Is it not extraordinary that the Organisation for African Unity also seems to be afraid of the Soviet Union? They have not moved an inch in the matter.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, those points raised by my noble friend represent his own points of view. I can only repeat that our information, which is based on very sound sources, is that the Continent of Africa, including important and influential States in that Continent, would deplore any initiative from outside Africa, either UN or otherwise. Until we have a consensus in Africa it would be foolhardy—possibly disastrous—for any other country to intervene.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the position in Angola has very serious implications so far as at least one Commonwealth country is concerned; namely, Zambia? So this is not a matter which can be left simply to the African countries of the OAU because they are almost equally divided on this matter. Is it not time that not only Her Majesty's Government but also other countries concerned with the development of Russian power in Africa took some initiative to try to resolve the present situation, which

1413
amounts to aggression by the Russians and the Cubans in Angola?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is that there are elements in this matter which have to be kept in mind, particularly when we consider how best and how productively to introduce into an African situation an initiative which is non-African. It is not an easy matter and Her Majesty's Government have taken the lead in consulting like-minded countries in the West as to how best to proceed.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not now think it appropriate that the large loans, at very special rates, for the provision of wheat to the Soviet Union should be reconsidered?
Lord LEE OF NEWTON: My Lords, would it not help to show our true feelings about Angola if we were to find some way of stopping mercenaries from going there from this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is an Act still on the Statute Book, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. I do not believe it has been invoked since the Jameson Raid in 1896, and it is not absolutely clear whether it would apply in the present situation, but this point is being urgently examined. We deplore, and we would seek to do everything in our power to stop, mercenary incursion from this country or any other country into Angola.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to whether the reticence of our representative at the United Nations, complained of by the questioner, was in any way related to the apparent inexplicable reticence and neglect of our representative when Israel was being branded as racialist in the UN Security Council?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there was certainly not reticence in denouncing the infamous charge against Israel that it was a racialist country. In fact we took the lead in denouncing such a thoroughly unfounded assertion. In regard to what we have been doing about Angola, I repeat that we have been in close consultation with other countries in the democratic West
1414
to see how best to move in this very important and difficult situation in Angola.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, reverting to the question of the mercenaries, is it not a fact that we have on the Statute Book the Foreign Enlistment Act, which I believe has never been used since the Jameson Raid?
A Noble Lord: The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has already said so.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, can that Act be got out of the cubbyhole, dusted and an effort made to see whether it is applicable to this situation?
A Noble Lord: My Lords, the noble Lord might listen to the answers.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, clearly my noble friend listened very closely to what I said just now because he has reproduced it in almost identical words. He omitted the last clause of what I said; namely, that we are looking at the applicability of the Foreign Enlistment Act with urgency to see how it can be applied to the Angolan situation.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, bearing in mind that the question of mercenaries, freedom fighters and others is rather beside the actual Question asked, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that despite the Government policy, for which I have respect, every time there is an international conflict of this kind—which this is—and the United Nations is not asked to intervene, that in itself weakens the United Nations? Further, is he able to tell us whether there has in fact been any discussion with the Secretary General about any possible intervention by him under Article 99 of the Charter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not answer definitively the second part of the question asked by my noble friend. I should like to look at that and be absolutely precise about it. On the first point, indeed when the United Nations—the world authority—is incapable of moving, here or at any other point of disturbance and danger, it is a weakening of the world authority. I would add that it does not devolve upon this country to take the initiative.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the United Nations

1415
has sent a representative to inquire into the difficulties in Mauritania with the Polisario, and could they not again make some efforts in the direction indicated by the questioner, always bearing in mind that the intervention which has been provoked in Angola came in the first instance because of the under-cover operations of the Central Intelligence Agency and South Africa? If, in fact, we keep our noses out and leave these countries to develop their own affairs, in the long run the same thing may happen in Angola as happened in North Vietnam, and they will join the non-aligned group, where I happen to think the future destiny of this country ought to lie.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a great deal in what was said by my noble friend Lord Wigg with which I am in agreement, but I disagree with him about one or two things in the middle of his intervention. What he has said suggests that those who intervene in situations like this may find that, in the end, their intervention is counter-productive, and the country that is the subject of that intervention may opt for a quite different alignment from that which they hoped for.

EAST EUROPEAN REPRESENTATION IN UK
3.21 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total of USSR personnel serving in the United Kingdom in diplomatic, trade and other posts; what is their estimate of the percentage of that total who have been trained by the USSR in espionage; and what is the total serving here in respect of the remaining Eastern European countries.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the number of USSR personnel serving in the United Kingdom in a diplomatic capacity is 94, with the Soviet trade delegation, 53;representing Soviet commercial organisations and the media, 106; commercial inspectors number 60;
1416
and there are 16 Soviet employees of international organisations. The total serving here in respect of the remaining six Eastern European countries is 476. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the Government's knowledge of foreign intelligence services.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, it is perhaps of some comfort to the House to learn that the present Government are maintaining the ceiling on USSR personnel set by my right honourable friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in 1971. But are not these numbers of themselves really rather alarming? Can the noble Lord tell us how they compare with United Kingdom personnel of similar situation serving in Moscow? How do the figures compare in size with the number of representatives of our democratic ally, the United States of America, serving in Great Britain?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I confirm at once that the ceilings negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, when he was Foreign Secretary, are being adhered to by this Government. They are, therefore, no more alarming in number today than they were then, when he negotiated them. On the second question of how many United States personnel represent their country in London, I have figures here which I should like to make available to the noble Lord, and in the appropriate form to the House. It is very difficult to compare the two figures, and I will not detain the House by attempting to do so. I should like to make the figures available to the House, and will circulate them in the Official Report.
My Lords, may I just say that the economic systems being so different in these two countries, a great many Soviet personnel in this country are representatives of State trade organisations, as I tried to show in the breakdown of the figures. Clearly, this is not so to any great extent in regard to a country like the United States of America. Therefore, in comparing like with like, I would prefer the House and the noble Lord, who is a former Service Minister himself, to have the two complete sets of figures before them.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister

1417
say how the numbers of British representation in Russia, official, industrial or those representing private enterprise, compare with the total figure of 329 that the noble Lord has just given for Russian representatives here?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I gave a figure of 94 for Soviet diplomatic representation in this country. The British diplomatic representation in Moscow is 82. Then we come to the realm of the not easily comparable; namely, trade delegations on the one hand and the representatives of private enterprise firms on the other. The two figures I have given, 94 and 82—and I hope I am not being misleading as to the number of diplomats so defined in both capitals—will give the House some indication that the position is not all that dissimilar, having regard to population size and so on.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. However, he mentioned other figures for the Soviet trade delegation, commercial people, and soon. There are British subjects living and working in Moscow and in other parts of the Soviet Union. Can the noble Lord give us a figure for that total so that we may see the number of British versus Russian representatives?—but perhaps he has not got the figure.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, given notice, I will do my best. Clearly, this is a different category from the official representation I have been asked about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if there were again to be a large proportion of Soviet officials in this country found to be carrying out intelligence or related activities regardless of their labels and within or going beyond the ceiling, will the Government, like my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, arrange for some of them to leave? Might the Government add, as a reason, not only the Helsinki Agreement, but also that such officials have apparently not been very efficient if their reports have led recently to the surprising impressions in Moscow of some leading persons in this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if they were that efficient, should
1418
we not perhaps encourage a greater number to come here? But seriously, this is a serious question, and I can give a double assurance. We are adhering to what I shall call the Home ceilings. Secondly, every proposal for an addition or a replacement at this level of representation in this country will continue to be scrutinised very carefully indeed.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is it to be understood from the reply given by the noble Lord the Minister that the Embassy here contains so many representatives of individual trading organisations that, in view of the very strong balance of payments running in Russia's favour, there may be disadvantage to us here in not reorganising the system of representation that we have in Moscow to meet something analagous to their advantage here?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is really another question. However, I would remind the House that in the last two years our exports to Russia have doubled.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if my noble friend is carrying out an assessment in terms of espionage as indicated by the precedent, would he hazard a guess as to what value to the Russian intelligence service are those British nationals who are such distinguished members of the Diplomatic Service as Messrs. Philby and Blake? What value they should count against the accredited Russian representatives serving in the Russian Embassy?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not without very long notice.
The figures referred to are as follows:
US based staff working for the United States Embassy in London, diplomatic, administrative and technical, 255; for the US Consulate-Generals in Liverpool, Edinburgh and Belfast, respectively, 3, 4 and 2.

NAMIBIA: UN RESOLUTION 385
3.28 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the British representative on the United Nations Security Council voted

1419
on the resolution on South African policies in Namibia on 30th January, what was the result of the voting, and whether they will print the terms of the resolution in the Official Report.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Security Council Resolution 385, to which my noble friend refers, was adopted unanimously on 30th January. The Government are pleased with this result, and we call on the South African Government to pay heed to it. The text of the resolution has been put into the Library of the House, together with the British Permanent Representative's statement and explanation of vote.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, and while expressing congratulations to the British representative on this matter, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not very significant indeed that this resolution was carried unanimously, since previously it has often been vetoed by America, Britain and France? —or they have abstained. Will my noble friend confirm that this resolution condemns the illegal occupation of Namibia, condemns the discriminatory laws there, and condemns the build-up of military power and aggression of neighbouring countries? In view of the fact that there is to be a further meeting to consider any reply from the South African Government, have the British Government any plans for action to enable this resolution to be implemented?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the answer to the first four questions is, Yes. My noble friend has correctly summarised the contents of this excellent and constructive resolution. The answer to his second point is that we are already pressing hard with like-minded members of the world authority to ensure that South Africa implements as soon as ever possible the contents of this resolution.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, is it not true that the explanation of vote given by the Permanent Representative at the United Nations include a reservation with regard to preambular paragraphs 5 and 6 of the resolution, which refer to the opinion of the International Court of Justice as to the right of South Africa to remain within Namibia for the time
1420
being? Is it not also true that these resolutions are not mandatory but only recommendations?—which I think should be borne in mind. Thirdly, is it not also true that the British Representative, in his explanation of vote, raised serious objections to the word "control" which was contained in the resolution, and very much preferred supervisory action of the United Nations with regard to self-determination of the people of Namibia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, to the best of my recollection what the noble Baroness has said is quite true. I do not, however, think that the reservations which our Permanent Representative advanced—certainly not the semantic one to which she referred at the end of her question—did anything but facilitate unanimous progress through the United Nations of a worthwhile and constructive resolution.

CONCORDE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at the convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Melchett will repeat a Statement on Concorde.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking for a moment or two, particularly in view of the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who is very deeply concerned with this matter, is not present. I just want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whether he will consider what was placed before him on a previous occasion. No one has any objection whatever to the Bill that he is proposing. I have had the pleasure and privilege of talking to him about the contents of the Bill. Anyone who suggests that anyone wishes to impede the progress of this Bill is making a very grave mistake.

1421
What is at issue here is the question of what happens in respect of the vicious and highly undesirable types of performance taking place in some of the public houses. The fact that the time will now be legitimately extended may mean, and probably will mean, that unless the magistrates who know the areas well are given an opportunity of examining the position, these performances of an indecent nature wil be carried on in the early hours of the morning. This is a very serious matter from the point of view of many people in the country. I am hoping that between now and the time when this Bill reaches the other place the noble Lord will take the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Bishop of London and with other people who are concerned. A suggestion has been made that one ought to wait until all the terms of the Erroll Commission are considered. Well, those of us with any experience, large or small, of the time that elapses between a Commission making its report and all the matters in that report being fully discussed in both Houses know that that consideration may be a very long distance ahead. I am hoping that what I have suggested to the noble Lord will meet with his approval and that he will have discussions, because the matter is sure to be raised in the other place.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I can assure the noble Lord that this Bill is a technical Bill which is merely carrying out a very necessary tidying up procedure. On the particular points made in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the right reverend Prelate, I have looked at all of them and I can reassure the noble Lord that the points raised can be looked after by the Act as it now stands. The section I am wanting to withdraw from that Act has nothing whatever to do with the particular points the noble Lord and his noble friends have raised. If it will help him, I will send him a letter explaining the sections of the existing Act which give the magistrates and the authorities all the powers they need to deal with the particular points that I quite understand are disturbing the noble Lord. I will see that he has that letter in his hands before the weekend.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the third time that I have come before your Lordships' House and asked that this or a similar Bill be read a second time. The first time was two years ago and after the debate your Lordships decided that the Bill should be read a second time. There was a General Election and naturally the Bill lapsed. During the short Parliament that followed I made inquiries to find out whether I should go forward with the Bill;I was given assurances that the Government would themselves be promoting a Bill. That was 18 months ago. In the following Parliament this Bill was presented again and was read a second time. I did not move for a Committee stage because the assurances that I had been given seemed to make it clear that the Government's Bill would be laid before Parliament. We are still waiting for the Government's Bill. Consequently, I ask your Lordships to look once more at this Bill and agree that we should go forward with it.
The Bill has as its purpose the protection of endangered species of fauna and flora throughout the world. It differs from other Bills which we have passed, which have also dealt with endangered species, in that it does not refer simply to species in this country but to the import and export of endangered species and therefore the control of trade in endangered species. The Bill is a consequence of an international convention adopted at Washington in March 1973. This convention, a copy of which is available in the Library, is one which is concerned with prohibiting the trade in these various species. The convention, when it was first put forward, was signed, I think, by 20 countries; by May 1973, 37 had signed it, and I believe that 57 countries throughout the world have now signed the convention. Our country has done this. But the signing of the convention is merely a statement that you favour the purpose of the convention. The ratification by a country is the operative step in order to ensure that the terms of the convention will be carried out. I believe that now 19 countries have ratified the convention. The convention was

1423
to become operative when 10 countries had ratified, so that the convention is now operative.
In this country we have always taken a prominent part in the control of trade in endangered species. This country can claim that it has always been active and has played a very good part in this matter. It is no criticism of the Departments concerned, it is no criticism of any Government, when we ask that a Bill should now be passed which would make the position absolutely clear. The reason for this is that, at the present time, the control of trade in these endangered species and their parts is covered in a very peculiar way. In 1939, at the outbreak of war, there was passed the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act. This Act gave powers to the Government to control, by simple Ministerial edict, the trade in anything, because its purpose was to control trade in time of war. The Act still remains, and it is this Act which is now being used by Government to control the trade in endangered species.
There are two peculiarities about this. First one would have thought that it was stretching the meaning of the Act to use it in this way, but of course once an Act has been passed the question of what it means is not for Parliament to decide but is entirely a legal matter. The other difficulty is that, because it can be done by Ministerial edict, no order has to be laid before Parliament, and consequently we cannot discuss the terms of any restriction that is placed upon import and export. This seems a strange position, and one of the purposes of this Bill is to regularise this and to make it clear how, in future, we are to control trade in these endangered species.
The Department of the Environment, which is responsible for looking after this whole problem, has for some time worked—I know that it has worked very hard at it—to try to draw up proper regulations for controls. Anyone who thinks about this problem realises that it is quite a major job to control these activities of import and export, and to make certain that the way they are controlled is effective and, at the same time, not ridiculously onerous on importers and exporters. No one can complain at the Department taking time to look at the whole matter. In a notice to importers
1424
and exporters dated 15th December last, they produced what they called, Conservation Controls on Animals, Plants and their Derivatives. I believe that this was sent out on 1st January. This notice goes a long way, but those who have looked at it—and my advisers—do not believe that the proposals go far enough.
May I just call attention to one or two matters in connection with it. There are many animals, plants, and so on listed; but, although reptile skins are included in the ban on import and export, make-up reptile goods, such as crocodile skin handbags, are not included. This can mean that one has an enormous trade going on —a very profitable trade—which is not controlled, although it quite clearly strikes at the very heart of the matter. I could quote a number of others: for instance, otter skins are not included; lynx skins, and ivory goods, and so on. There may be a good reason for all this, but the important point is that none of this is open to discussion because this is merely a list drawn up by the Department and issued. No order is placed before Parliament, so no discussion can take place in Parliament on this, except on an occasion like this because the order is not subject to our approval. As I am sure many of your Lordships will appreciate, this trade is not on a small scale at all; it is on a very considerable scale.
I have just had called to my attention the current issue of the New Scientist, and there is an article headed, "The Superfatted Turtle Oil Hand Soap Shops". We all know that these marvellous expressions are used about superfatted soaps and so on, but, when one realises that they are using the turtle for the purpose, this seems quite astonishing, and when one realises that turtles are an endangered species, it seems utterly monstrous that this trade should go on. If we are to control the trade, it is important that we not only control the import and export of turtles but also of the products; that is why this Bill specifically refers to such matters.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with detail but I wish to point out certain matters connected with the Bill. The Bill covers both fauna and flora, and there are a number of clauses in the Bill. I would not for a moment pretend that every clause is word-perfect. In fact, I have noticed a number of misprints, and

1425
a number of inaccuracies for which I must take the blame. There are several matters which will require modification, but minor modification which can easily be done at Committee stage.
Taking the clauses as they are, Clause 1 allows the Government to control, by licences issued on the advice of a scientific authority or authorities, all import, export and transit of all rare animals and plants in their province. The important point is that it is proposed that scientific authorities should be set up, that the Government will act on the advice of the scientific authorities, but that every order made will be laid before Parliament. Clause 2 requires that all listed species can be dealt with only under import licences. In other words, there is not an absolute ban on the import of anything, but anyone who wishes to import one of the listed species must get an import licence. This import licence will be issued only if he is doing it for what is recognised as being a sensible purpose and not for commercial purposes.
The third clause in the Bill requires that all wild animals or plants which are imported shall be accompanied by a declaration of the species or, failing that, as accurate a description as possible and the place of origin of the item. The reason for this is simple. It may well be that a particular importer will claim that he does not know. If you look at the Bill you cannot blame him for that. The description in the Appendix is given in Latin and the importer does not necessarily know that the species he is importing falls into that category. But if he knows that it falls within a certain category and cannot describe it accurately he must give as good a description as possible in such terminology as he has available and he must state the place of origin, in which case the species can then be identified.
The proposal in Clause 4 is that proper records should be kept of all people dealing in rare animals and their progeny. If some rare animal is introduced into this country and used for breeding purposes—which can be quite legitimate under the Bill—there is no reason why the progeny of that animal should not be capable of being transferred to other people, but unless records are kept any one can claim that the particular animal he has obtained was the progeny of some
1426
animal previously brought into this country quite legitimately. By keeping records we know exactly what is happening and can control any trade of this type.
Clause 8 covers the extension of this Bill to any dependency. The point of this is that there may well be—in fact, we know there are—dependent territories which at the moment have no legislation covering this. They may be prepared to accede but this can only be done with their consent. If they consent to it, then when this Bill becomes an Act it can be extended to cover them. We have here a Bill which is attempting to deal as clearly and as well as possible with the whole of the trade in these plants and animals which it is internationally agreed, and no less by people in this country, should be controlled, and where species are endangered we should not by our own action add to the risk of those species.
It may be argued that many species disappear for causes which are not man made. A change of climate, over-stocking or famine can cause species to disappear, but over the last few hundred years more species have disappeared by man's action than by any other way. Most of the present situation is the result of what has been happening over the last 50 to 100 years where an enormous amount of hunting has gone on, much of it illegal, and the great traffic which has occurred. This has made it possible for whole species to be wiped out almost overnight. This is something for which all of us, particularly in the Western World, carry a considerable responsibility. If we make it possible for the commercial sale of these animals to be extremely profitable to unscrupulous people we are playing a part in it, and we can stop this only by taking action of the type proposed in this Bill. My Lords, I am satisfied that the Bill in essence will serve the purpose for which it is intended. I do not for a moment claim that the Bill is word perfect, but I suggest that it is worth while continuing and, there. fore, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)
3.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, this is not

1427
the first time that he has moved such a Bill. I am sure the whole House will wish to pay tribute to his tenacity and to the concern on his part that this reflects for the survival of the world's wildlife. At the same time, it presents me, a newcomer to this subject, with something of a problem. I must ask the House to bear with me as, inevitably, I go over some of the ground that has already been covered on previous occasions by my predecessors.
As has been said many times, both in this House and elsewhere, the Government wholeheartedly support the general aim of my noble friend's Bill and the objectives of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to which it is related. The convention marked a great step forward in international co-operation in nature conservation, because the survival of the world's wildlife affects us all and it can be ensured only by the concerted action of many countries. The convention provides, for the first time, a framework for regulating trade in wildlife within which all countries can work to the same end. We in this country have traditionally been among the leaders in nature conservation. The British contribution to the negotiations leading up to the convention was notable, not only for its wide expertise but for its concern that the measures that emerged should really be made to work. The strength of public opinion here in support of the convention is probably as great as, if not greater than, in any other country in the world. The Government have repeatedly emphasised their support for the convention's aims and I am sure that the overwhelming opinion of this House is that the convention must be made to achieve its aims.
The Government have not only expressed their support for the convention; they have acted. As was announced in the House on 15th December, the convention was effectively brought into operation in the United Kingdom on 1st January of this year. We have introduced import and export controls covering all the species of animals and plans listed in the convention—and there are several hundred of them. Some idea of the complexity of the convention can be gained from that one fact. The convention
1428
requires different forms of control for the endangerous species in Appendix I from those for species in Appendix II which may become endangered if their trade is not regulated. It requires the control of readily recognisable parts and derivatives as well as of whole animals and plants. It sets out detailed requirements to be observed by scientific and management authorities, and those vary between exports and imports.
It has taken time to make sensible arrangements to deal with all those complexities and to ensure that the controls both reflect the aims of the convention and can be enforced. I know that many of your Lordships feel that it has taken too long and certainly there are others outside this House who have protested most vociferously about the delay. But time was needed to do a good job in this complicated field and I think we can take pride in the fact that, although some other countries may have implemented the convention before us, we are, I am sure, in the forefront as regards the effectiveness of our controls. I will not allow modesty to prevent me from saying that a number of countries have asked us for details of our control arrangements as a possible basis for their own.
I should like, if I may, at this stage to refer briefly to the international position on the convention. It came into force last summer when the first 10 countries had ratified it, and it has now been ratified by 22 countries. It is a source of regret to the Government that although we have implemented the convention we have not yet been able to ratify it. This is, of course, a reversal of the usual procedure. There are two reasons for this. We have been seeking agreement on the best course of action with the Commission of the European Community and our partners. Moreover, although we, in the United Kingdom, have the powers necessary to implement it, not all of our dependent territories are in the same position. We naturally wish as many territories as possible to observe the provisions of the convention in order to increase its effectiveness. Our discussions with them are well advanced.
We fully expect to be in a position to ratify the convention early this summer. This will enable us to play a full part in the first conference of the parties to the convention, which is expected to take

1429
place in the autumn of this year. The conference will consider the working of the convention and the amendments that should be made to the Appendices. This country with all its knowledge and experience of wildlife conservation, should be able to make a very positive contribution at that conference. Returning now to the domestic position, although the powers under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 have enabled us to implement the convention in the United Kingdom, the Government have many times made it clear that new measures, tailored to meet the convention's requirements, are most desirable.
The legislation that is required must provide for the fulfilment of the Government's obligations under an international treaty. With all respect to my noble friend, these are not usually matters that are appropriate to a Private Member's Bill. The convention itself is complex. New legislation must meet those requirements and fit in with our licensing system, which is already in operation and which has subsumed a variety of controls exercised under earlier legislation. It must also fit in closely with the existing powers of the Customs and Excise. I am very glad to say that my noble friend's tenacity has paid off and to be able to announce that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in this House next week. It will be designed to provide us with specific powers to operate the controls we have already introduced but, of course, there will be every opportunity for Parliament to examine it closely and to debate it fully.
I should like to conclude by thanking my noble friend for raising this issue once again and to express particular appreciation to him for his forbearance, tolerance and understanding. He has many times and most eloquently expressed to this House the need for this country and, indeed, for the world to strive to retain the richness of our natural heritage and the need for mankind not to squander irreplaceable resources. The Government share that view, have acted upon it, and will continue to do all in their power to ensure that those aims are achieved. Because the general aims of this Bill are so worth while, I hope the House will agree to grant it a Second Reading. But, in view of the undertaking I have given that the Government will introduce a Bill
1430
on the subject next week, I hope that my noble friend will then be able to see his way to withdrawing his Bill, rather than seeking to make further progress with it.

CONCORDE
4.5 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Concorde operations to the United States. As the House will be aware, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman, announced yesterday his decision on the application by British Airways and Air France for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York and one each per day to Dulles International Airport, Washington. He allowed their application in full, for a trial period not to exceed 16 months. This will start from the date of the first flight. He has specified a number of conditions for these services, but none of these appears to present any substantial difficulty.
"Mr. Coleman has reached this decision following the most exhaustive scrutiny of the arguments for and against allowing Concorde into the United States. He himself chaired a public hearing on 5th January, in which my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and a senior representative of the French Government took part. The decision, which runs to some 60 pages of closely argued text, is an impressive and balanced assessment of the environmental aspects of Concorde's operations. I have placed a copy of the decision in the Library.
"I am sure the House will welcome this decision to permit Concorde to fly direct to New York and Washington from London and Paris. The way is now open for regular supersonic

1431
services across the North Atlantic. I believe services during this period will demonstrate that they will have a minimal effect on the environment.
"British Airways have made formal application to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey today and have reminded them of the great importance of speedy decision. They are also arranging immediate discussions on the practical details of the operations with the Federal Aviation Administration. BA aim to begin service in May provided of course that there are no new obstacles. Officials will be discussing early next week with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration the monitoring programme on noise and ozone which Mr. Coleman has said should be carried out. We are already working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on a programme to measure chemical constituents of the stratosphere, using Concorde for this purpose.
"Concorde entered commercial service to Bahrein and Rio de Janeiro on 21st January. We now look forward to Concorde carrying people across the North Atlantic in just over three hours—half the time of present subsonic services."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, from these Benches we wish to welcome in the warmest possible terms the Statement which has just been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The whole Concorde saga is a tribute to the skill, enthusiasm and ability of both British and French scientists and technologists. It is a notable achievement of co-operation between these two European nations and between their national airlines. We hope that the trial period of flights to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, and Dulles International Airport, Washington, will be successful. We believe that a special word of congratulation is due to the team which has argued the case for Concorde before the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman.
We have only two minor points to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
1432
First, are the Government in a position to give us any information on the joint researches with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into stratospheric pollution, particularly as concerns Concorde? Secondly, will the Government indicate that they will give every support to British Airways when the court actions which we understand to be pending concerning pollution and noise are heard?
In general, this is a milestone in world aviation history and everybody here wishes Concorde all the success, both technical and commercial, which this outstanding aircraft deserves.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for repeating the Statement made in another place on Concorde. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has already done, we wish to congratulate the British team which went to see Mr. Coleman. In particular, we wish to congratulate Mr. Gerald Kaufman, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry. I feel that otherwise Concorde might easily have become a member of an endangered species. There was one omission in the Statement—no mention has been made of the fares. Would the Government be able at some time to give any indication of whether it will be possible not to have such a high surcharge on these fares across the Atlantic? Like the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, we too should like to know whether the results of the stratospheric tests being made between NASA and British Airways can be made public, particularly for the benefits of those who are detractors and who are anti-Concorde.
With regard to noise—which is one matter, I gather from the Statement and from Mr. Coleman's statement, that has caused most of the consternation in America—it may interest your Lordships to know that the other day a Concorde left Fairford with maximum weight on a normal take-off, and because the pilot employed the proper technique it reached only 107PNDB, which is well under the noise limits at London and New York. Therefore we should like an assurance that the pilots are specifically trained with regard to noise as this seems to be the greatest stumbling block. Can we have

1433
an assurance from the Government that if Governor Carey is very difficult about Concorde going into the John F. Kennedy Airport at New York we will, with the French, fight the engagement to a successful conclusion? I hope that possibly Her Majesty may travel in Concorde to the bicentennial celebrations.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their general welcome of the Statement, and in particular for their kind remarks about my honourable friend Mr. Kaufman. I shall certainly convey those remarks to him personally. I am sure that he and the rest of the team which went to America to appear before Mr. Coleman are very grateful for what both noble Lords have said.
Both noble Lords asked me about the tests, mentioned in the Statement, which we are conducting with NASA. As noble Lords will recognise, these tests, by their nature, are bound to take some considerable time and that, I should imagine, would be a matter of months at least, but I am quite certain that they will be published in some form once they are completed. Both noble Lords also mentioned the possibility of court actions in America. The airlines are the parties immediately concerned and, as I understand it, are already involved in those actions. If the Government have a right to intervene, and if we judge that our case would be best served by doing so, we shall do so.
The noble Earl asked me about the fares. It is essential not only that the Concorde operation should meet the conditions laid down by Mr. Coleman and pass this trial period with flying colours, but also that this trial period should enable the airlines to prove that it is a commercial success. In the first instance the fares will have to be agreed in the normal way with IATA and then by the Governments concerned, and I understand that they will involve some surcharge.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I apologise that I was listening to the original Statement and not to the echo in this House: but I did move into my place immediately afterwards. Could the Minister say whether, now that this has been achieved, as a result of a very careful appreciation by the United States
1434
Government, we could not pursue now with the Australian Government, in a slightly more robust way and with a greater sense of urgency, the completion of that route? We should not now sit back and depend entirely, important as it is, on the North Atlantic route. We should drive on now to clear the route from Bahrein over, or near to, India, on to Singapore, and on to Australia. Could the Government now give this a real sense of urgency so that Concorde is seen not only in the United States but all over the world as a great merit of British engineering and British aerospace industry?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I trust that if the noble Lord had listened to the echo rather than the original he would have found it accurate. Certainly the Government have been pursuing, and will continue to pursue, the question of other routes for Concorde extremely robustly and with a great sense of urgency.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it is perhaps unusual for someone on these Benches to come into the discussion on a Statement. But from time to time I have been individually concerned with the diplomatics of this question and I have a couple of things to say which have not yet been said. There are three reasons why this is a great day for congratulation and satisfaction. The first is that in a period when we have had the most difficult relations, on occasion, with our French friends, there is one big project with which we have persisted throughout despite all criticism—and this goes for Governments of both major Parties—and that is the Concorde project. It will be a great asset in terms of Anglo-French relations that we can congratulate not only ourselves, but also each other, on what I have heard christened as an Entente Concordiale.
Secondly, there is another great source of satisfaction. The denigrators of the United States (of whom there are too many in this country), tend to assume that all American decision making, particularly quasi-judicial decision making, is prompted either by nationalism or by corruption. I think that we owe a great deal to the courage and objectivity of Mr. Coleman, and of the Administration, that he has made a courageous decision which does not coincide with a great deal of sentiment or with whatever there may

1435
be of nationalist pretensions. That is also a matter of great satisfaction.
Thirdly, there is a point which I have mentioned in your Lordships' House before. If we study the post-Second World War history of British aircraft construction we see that it has had some triumphs but it has had a terrible number of disappointments, whether due to technical failure or financial exigencies, or somehow just a failure of will to finish something which we have begun. It is outstandingly good for national morale, and for technical morale, in this country that, despite all the objections—some rational, some irrational—this project has been pursued to its, so far, successful end. May I add my congratulations to those of the Party spokesman, with particular congratulations to Mr. Kaufman? I wish to asks one question complementary to the last question. Will we also now redouble our efforts to convince those countries who are interested, but have hitherto doubted whether it really will be in their interests, also to buy the Anglo-French Concorde?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the only question I have to answer is the last one put by the noble Lord. I do not think that it is a question of redoubling our efforts, but certainly we welcome the opportunity which this decision gives Concorde to prove itself on what is an extremely important route.
Lord GRIMSTON of WESTBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, once the service is started, what the frequency will be on the North Atlantic?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, Mr. Coleman's decision grants permission for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, and one each per day to Dulles International Airport.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I should like to ask a brief question. How many Concorde aircraft are at present flying, or are ready to fly immediately?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not entirely certain of the answer to that; perhaps I could let the noble Lord know. In all, 16 aircraft will be built, but I am not sure exactly how many are actually flying at this moment.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I am somewhat reluctant to puncture the general atmosphere of euphoria and self-congratulation. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether he himself has listened to Concorde? I live about 20 miles from Bristol and, from time to time, I am overflown by the aeroplane. It seems to me that when it is flying subsonically about as slowly as it can it makes a quite intolerable noise. Secondly, is the noble Lord satisfied with the fuel consumption of this aeroplane? Is it not the case that it wastes a very great quantity of fuel in relation to the number of passengers carried? I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that tests would be made into stratospheric pollution, but I should like to query whether the aircraft which may be causing the pollution is the right vehicle from which these tests should be carried out. Finally, my Lords, may I express the personal opinion that this aircraft is an example of misapplied ingenuity.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have not listened to Concorde, but I was not aware that it was an absolute prerequisite for noble Lords speaking in this House on this subject that they should. Neither have I flown in it. I understand that since commercial services started from Heathrow there have been 47 complaints about the noise, but 14 people have also telephoned to say that Concorde is less noisy than other aircraft or that there has been an improvement inthe noise level since the endurance flying programme.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, perhaps we can get away from this contentious "bird", Concorde, which may be endangered or not—I am not quite clear—and get back to our endangered species. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, very much for having introduced yet another of these Bills to preserve the fauna and flora of the world. I have already had the opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to the transport side of our debates. It now falls to me

1437
to welcome her to this side of the environment, the conservation of species. She is having quite a rough time of it, what with horses as well!
However, I was very impressed when the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, talked about how, 18 months ago, the Government had given him some assurances that they were going to introduce a Bill. The lapse of time since then is not at all the fault of the noble Baroness personally. She was not in the Government then, and she has only recently come into the Ministry which she now graces so well. But, my Lords, for the Government to be working on something, to be sitting on something, to be cogitating on something, for 18 months really does seem to be an awfully long time, and it has meant that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has had to go to the length of putting in all the effort and work necessary to produce this splended little Bill. We may not agree with all parts of it, but it has taken a lot of work, a lot of effort; and now, my Lords, we are told by the noble Baroness that next week the Government will be producing their own Bill.
My Lords, this debate is a complete and utter waste of time. Nothing that we can say will alter one little jot what is in the Government's Bill. It is printed already. We have not been shown it, we have been told about it. We are therefore discussing a nice, hypothetical question of what might be, what could be and what actually is in this Bill, which, unfortunately, will perhaps go the way of so many other Bills of the same sort, which have suffered from old age, General Elections and things like that. So I should like to protest to the noble Baroness on that score. Let there be no doubt, however, that, like her and like her Government, we totally agree with and support our participation in these International conventions. Let us not be in any doubt on this point: we are all aiming at the same objective. We all agree that conservation is important; and if there is a doubt between trade and preservation, I think most of us would agree that preservation, rather than trade, should have the benefit of the doubt. I go along with the Bill in all those ways.
My Lords, let us discuss this Bill a little, because although many bodies such as the World Wildlife Organisation
1438
have refused even to comment on this Bill because they knew the Government had one of their own up their sleeve, I think that, as we have the Bill before us, the least we can do is to look at it, as we shall then know approximately what we will be considering on the Government's Bill on its Second Reading and its Committee stage. Obviously, we are not going to have a chance, in practice, to discuss further details on this Bill in Committee. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his production of this Bill. I think the work he has done has been remarkable.
As to the omissions from the Government's list which they produced in their order of the1st January, I should like to thank sincerely the noble Baroness and (if she would inform him) her right honourable friend Mr. Silkin for bringing in this order. Admittedly, I for one am not over-enamoured with the way it was brought in, in the form of an order. Had it been introduced in Parliament, where it could have been debated, questions might have been asked on its details. This is a detail, I accept; but the noble Baroness will remember that we had a case the other day when we protested that we thought that something which it was proposed should be done one way could be done more openly, with discussion. In that case the noble Baroness was very capable and clever, and was able to persuade her Government to agree to what we were suggesting. I think this is another case where this sort of Government order, by killing discussion, is not in the best interests of what it is trying to achieve. At the same time I would say that we are all grateful.
This Bill and the Government both envisage, as well as the Botanical Gardens, Kew, appointing a scientific authority for animals, comprising members with appropriate knowledge and experience. So far, excellent. What I would hope and wish is that the noble Baroness, when she comes eventually to produce her Bill, will be able to assure me that this will not lead to a further proliferation of civil servants. We all respect and admire the Civil Service. One would hope, though, that this new authority could be appointed from the existing body of civil servants. They are so clever and so able that I am always amazed that they go on recruiting new "bods" to their already efficient

1439
body. The new "bods" cannot be as efficient as they are themselves already; and I hope that the enforcement of the provisions of this or the Government's Bill will not lead to further recruitment.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that one of the few matters in this Bill which I really do not like is Clause 4, with its recording and enforcement provisions. Would it not be better to have stringent controls—more stringent, perhaps, than are in this Bill—and to really enforce them? Increase the penalty, by all means; but I personally should not like to see the life of the Customs and Excise officers made harder than it is already. I know that anything coming into this country has to have a ticket of origin and certification of what it is, but here we are dealing with a Bill covering such a multitude of things. I was looking today, for instance, at some shoes which were on my wife's feet. I asked, "Are those crocodile shoes?" "No", she said, "they are sham". I said, "Could you tell the difference, quite honestly, if they were or not?" She said, If I took them off and handled them, yes. To look at them, no". There is so much of this sort of thing. I should hate to see the Customs and Excise officers' job made too difficult by too many complications.
"Manufactured goods" is, in theory, I accept, an ideal for conservationists; but is it practical? Let us take the case of ivory. In Africa, the elephant is under very great pressure from poachers, ivory thieves. It is considered in Africa that ivory is a great form of investment and it probably is. In India, there is another species of elephant which, so far as I know, is not in any great danger of extinction. It is usually harnessed for ceremonial, agricultural, or forestry work. Its tusks are not normally needed. They are, in fact, a considerable hindrance to the handlers and the people who work these animals. The Indians—and not just the Indians but the people on the sub-Continent including the Pakistanis—have developed a great art in manufacturing carved goods. They sometimes take years to manufacture small carved goods of great beauty which have great commercial, artistic and intrinsic value. If this Bill is passed as it now stands all that trade will vanish. I think that prob-
1440
ably that is going a little too far. Pity the poor excise officer who must identify whether a piece of ivory is African or Indian. I know that it is easy to pick holes; and I am doing so deliberately. We are going to be able to discuss this later and—
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, with regard to the point that the noble Lord has raised about goods which have been illegally imported, may I point out that Clause 2(2) reads:
"No one shall sell, or invite the purchase of, any scheduled item unless he can show that the item was not unlawfully imported."
In other words, the onus is there transferred from the customs officer to the person selling. The noble Lord referred, for instance, to shoes which may be made of lizard or crocodile skin. These are usually expensive shoes and are advertised specifically as being of that nature. Therefore, this clause would deal with that particular point. It would not necessarily have to be stopped at the port of entrance. It could be dealt with when it is put up for sale.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord He has elucidated one or two things. I am aware of what he said, but I still think that the onus of proof being put on people is going to add complications to life. I agree that life is complicated already and that the protection of endangered species should warrant a little bit of extra complication; but I had been suggesting earlier that perhaps "manufactured goods" ought to be left to be implemented in their own territories by those other countries who ratify the convention. I was rather suggesting that the Government, for simplicity's sake, might find it easier to impose more stringent controls of basic goods at the ports of entry. I am only putting thoughts forward. Any good law must be simple. As soon as one starts going into too much nitty-gritty of detail it becomes more awkward.
Again, on a small point, I should have liked to know the source of the scheduled list. I do not think the noble Lord told us; perhaps he can do so when he makes his summing up. It is an impressive list. I am afraid I am not able to identify more than a few of them. I looked to my wife this morning to identify them.

1441
She recognised only the bison and the gorilla. She asked whether we were really debating the protection of these animals and trying to stop them from coming into the country in large numbers. I said that I did not think that many licences would be granted for large imports of these particular animals but that others, no doubt, deserve every protection. I should like to know the origin of the scheduled list.
My Lords, the other question is this —and I have asked it before. Is the appointment of these scientific authorities going to need a support group of civil servants? I have emphasised this strongly and I hope that the answer will be, No. The Government list which came out on 1st January, and for which we are grateful, did not include, as the noble Lord said, the otter and the lynx. There is a host of other controls also not mentioned: the bobcat, the ocelot, the tiger cat and the Siberian tiger.
Perhaps there are so few of these animals coming in that they are mostly under the control of other countries. Are these to be considered in the Government's new Bill? Will the new authority be in a position of having a mandatory duty to advise the Secretary of State; or will they advise if they wish to do so? I should like to see them having a mandatory duty and occasionally to meet and give advice. I should not like it to be left to the Secretary of State to have to go to them to ask a particular question. I should like to think that they were a body rather like those splendid people who—I do not know whether they are still in existence—were paid £1,000 a year to think in their baths and to advise people. I should like to think that they should be able permanently to think in their baths of what species should or should not have more help; and when they meet they would have the onus of advising the Secretary of State.
This is basically a good Bill. It is going in the right direction. I think that that splendid society, the Friends of the Earth, who have so much interest in this cause have probably helped my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones—if I may so call him. If I may say so, I think that they deserve the thanks of the Government for the work they have done. They have gingered the Govern-
1442
ment into producing a Bill of their own. It remains for me to say, with respect, that I think the Government could have produced their Bill earlier. With that, once again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
4.38 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I stumble to my feet to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a maiden speech. There have been several of these in the last year since I first took my seat, many of them by the younger Members. I can only assume that they, like me, do not feel that at their age maidenhood rests very aptly on a noble shoulder. Indeed, when I put my name down to speak in this debate today I had not realised that it was scheduled for my wedding anniversary and I can only hope that today is as auspicious an occasion for a maiden voyage as was 5th February four years ago. In my opening remarks I mentioned the word "stumble". I seem to have stumbled also into a minor Parliamentary battlefield, not to say a minefield, for there would appear to be something of a difficulty in that what we are debating today we are also going to debate on another occasion in a few weeks' time. However, my remarks on today's Bill will apply equally to the Bill which I suspect the Government will ultimately produce and which will have its First Reading next week.
The Bill before your Lordships' House today might well be in danger of becoming a tired old horse chestnut—not because Aesculus hippocastanumis an endangered species but because this is the third time that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has promoted such a Bill in as many years. This year's version is considerably enlarged by two new clauses and one Schedule, namely, of plants and seeds to implement the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which has been signed by the United Kingdom but as I understand from speeches today, it has not yet been ratified. The Bill contains a phenomenal list of birds and animals universally considered to be in danger of extinction.
As an aside, I should like to put on record my feeling that the world is in a sorry state when one considers that man has so affected the ecology of the

1443
globe that one group of men—or perhaps I should say "persons" in view of recent legislation—has had to design a convention so that another group should be prevented from mistreating their fellow creatures. Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs. It was not long ago that the Press made much of the export of lions to South Africa, and there is no doubt that both private and public zoological gardens in this country are in the forefront of repopulating species to their homelands. This, on the bird front, is one of the main purposes of the Severn Wild Fowl Trust at Slimbridge in Gloucestershire.
However, it is neither animals nor birds that I wish to discuss today, especially as I regard myself as a total animal ignoramus. I am sure that this Bill is quite excellent in the case of animals and birds, but I am afraid that it lacks precision as far as plants are concerned. From this comment your Lordships will see that my interest is in the plant section. But before I go any further, I must declare a pecuniary interest in this subject. I am by training a horticulturalist and by employment a nurseryman. My nursery specialises in dwarf growing bulbs and corms, and pride of place in both my income and my interests is the genus cyclamen—a genus which appears in Schedule 2 as composed of endangered species. I also have a non-commercial stock of terrestrial orchids, some of which I have collected myself and others which have been given to me, some as rescues from road-widening where the donors suppose—I hope not mistakenly—that I am more likely to cultivate these plants successfully than they are.
There are two specific points that I should like to make. The Bill wishes to restrict the movement of endangered species of wild fauna and flora. Certainly nobody who knows the story of cyclamen mirabile in 1973 will object to this. Briefly, what happened is this: a well-known dealer in bulbs and plants applied to his agent in Turkey for a large quantity of cyclamen neapolitanum a species which is almost a weed in the eastern Mediterranean area. I do not know for certain what the agent's method of collecting may be, but I suspect that he employs peasants to dig the plants up. They would be told to go to a particular
1444
area and dig up plants looking like a type specimen. In this case they were obviously sent to a new area and carried out their task to the best of their abilities. The bulb merchant in this country received what purported to be thousands of corms of cyclamen neapolitanum as ordered but, on opening a case to examine the samples, found to his surprise a number of smooth coated corms with flat tops instead of the typical nobbly-coated dish-shaped tops of cyclamen neapolitanum. He suspected that they were a form of cyclamen cilicium, but they did not quite measure up to that species which he had dealt in for many years and knew very well. He then went through his other cases and found that he had some 10,000 of the strange corms.
It so happened that my nursery was short of neapolitanum that year, so I had ordered a few thousand from this particular dealer. When he delivered them he gave me some of the strangers to try. He also told me he had given some to the Botanic Gardens at Kew. I grew mine fairly successfully, but they failed to flower. However, Kew identified them as the very rare and almost legendary cyclamen mirabile which was first described by Hildebrand in 1906 but subsequently lost to cultivation. Once they had arrived in this country the damage was already done and it was essential to give the plants a good home. I—and I think one other nurseryman bought a few which was all we could afford, especially as we did not know how well they could be grown here. The dealer was left with the balance which were quite unsaleable under their proper name and they were finally sent to a well-known chain store and sold as cyclamen neapolitanum.
This is a cautionary tale indeed and the chances of this plant being imported would have been very much reduced if this Bill had been in force at the time. It would have been stopped entirely of course if all wild cyclamen were prohibited plants. Indeed, the Schedule is rather vague as to which species are to be included, as under Primulaceae it says, and I quote, "cyclamen species" Compare this with orchidaceae, there it states, "All orchid species".
My Lords, I had to stop and think long and hard—like my noble friend Lord Mowbray in his bath—when I saw

1445
araucaria auraucana in Schedule 2. This is a native of Chile and will, I am sure, be better known to many of your Lordships as that tree so beloved of our Victorian forefathers—the monkey puzzle. Even today this species is planted in English gardens and, though I do know that one can still buy it from nurserymen here, I would be surprised if it was grown in this country. It would be much more likely to be imported from a specialist nursery in Europe. In this case it cannot possibly be described as a wild plant, and it is surely wrong that the word "wild" is not clearly defined in Clause 7, as it seems to affect animals and plants in different ways. The propagation of the animals under discussion is practically unknown outside zoological gardens and in the wild, whereas the propagation of plants is comparatively easy and is carried on by both amateurs and nursery gardeners. When it is, the progeny can hardly be described as wild. As in the case of the monkey puzzle, the same would apply to many other species in the Schedule which are grown from cuttings or seeds.
This then is my criticism of the Bill: although it seeks to control the import of endangered species, what is in fact required is the control of species from their country of origin. I cannot see the need for umbrella controls, especially for those species which are already grown in specialist nurseries. I should mention here the subject of exports. So far as I can see the only species native to this country mentioned in the Schedule are terrestrial orchids. While I can see very good reasons for licensing the export of these particular plants, I fail to see how the export of the majority of the plants on the list affects their conservation. After all, my Lords, if you cannot import a particular plant, the only way you will be able to export it is by propagation from stock already in this country. In doing so, you can hardly be affecting the population of plants in the wild. Both Parliament and the Government are always concerned with encouraging firms to export, and any legislation such as that embodied in Clause 2(1) can only increase the price of the plants and the difficulty of firms in achieving this aim.
Having covered this point, I must now turn to another interest I have in this Bill, First however I should declare two other linked interests. Not only am I a
1446
supplier of plants, but I am also a consumer. In this connection I am a very minor Fellow of the Royal Horticultural Society and also a committee member of the Alpine Garden Society. Both these amateur gardening organisations have a considerable interest in this Bill, as many of their members enjoy holidays abroad. When they do so they naturally take a particular note of the flora of the country they are visiting, and some will wish to grow a few of the plants they see. Before they leave this country they obtain a permit from the Ministry of Agriculture allowing them either to bring in a packet of plants grown in the wild or to post it. In both cases, the consignment must not weigh more than 3 kg. and must be accompanied by the import permit. There are, of course, several conditions attached to this permit, one being that the plants must be available for inspection by the local plant health inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, and another being that various plants likely to carry noxious diseases are prohibited. It would be very easy to add the species currently regarded as endangered to the list of plants that are prohibited.
Earlier in this speech I mentioned my private collection of orchidaceae, and some of these were acquired in this way. I feel very strongly that, even though a plant species is endangered to a greater or lesser degree, it is wholesale ravishing of plant stations that should be stopped, and amateurs should not be prohibited from bringing in one or two plants of any species that appeals to them. It is the commercial wholesale decimation of stocks that must be avoided. In this connection it would of course be up to any country to protect its own endangered species by passing such a Bill as the Wild Plants Protection Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, last Session. Indeed, similar laws are in force in many areas of the Alps.
I should perhaps point out that many of the plants that we enjoy in our own gardens and greenhouses today have come from a very few selected plants, seeds or cuttings of a particular species taken from their natural habitat. Certainly I would not be dogmatic about a refusal to grant a licence for plants—I emphasise, plants—but I feel it would be definitely injurious to the future development of

1447
horticulture in this country to seek to control or even ban the importation of seeds or cuttings by the refusal of a licence.
I support this Bill, but I am afraid it looks as though it will be impossible for us to go through it fully in a Committee stage. However, the Government Bill will be getting the full treatment, I am sure, both in this House and in another place; and while not wishing to be controversial in my first speech to your Lordships, I give the Government fair warning that I am likely to tear into their Bill like a snow leopard! Nevertheless, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in his magnificent efforts to get the Government to work a little harder to implement the Convention and I hope very much that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
4.52 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, one of the endangered species which we sometimes hear being threatened is the hereditary peerage; but whatever may be its eventual fate, one of the great advantages of the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House is that from time to time we get the benefit of speakers who come here with very special and specialist knowledge, which does us all a tremendous amount of good and is an immense help to the work of your Lordships' House. I am sure we all wish to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and to congratulate him on his speech. Also, if I may say so, I am sure we should all like to wish the noble Lord and his wife many happy returns of their wedding anniversary. We hope we shall hear him speak often—and I, for one, shall not particularly repine if he is wading into the Government.
I think that at this time we also need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the body which has done so much to urge this Bill—the Friends of the Earth—because I have no doubt that, whatever is said publicly and whatever disclaimers are made, they must be considered to be a bit of a nuisance by the Government. I reckon that any body of any people who are regarded as a nuisance by the Government on matters of conservation are worthy of congratulation.
1448
I do not want to go at any length into the merits and demerits of this Bill. We are delighted that the Government have at last produced a Bill. We shall look at it with critical attention and hope that something really worth while can come out of it. I think that our deliberations at all stages of the Government's Bill will be illuminated by some of the debates we have already had, and are having, in this House on the Bill produced by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
I would mention only two detailed points. First, I think we must concentrate as much as possible on this business of making people keep records. It is a very difficult thing to control trade in the products from endangered species. Nevertheless, it is tremendously worth while. Although I agree that to put too much faith on records is not necessarily wise or sensible, this is one of the few ways in which we can try to stop those people who really want to get round these laws; let us make no mistake about it, there will be people trying as hard as they can to break any law that is made on this matter. So I believe that we should concentrate on the keeping of records. We must also bear in mind the necessity, in any question of doubt, of giving the benefit to the endangered species. After all, it is that which is at risk. It is much more important—as I had occasion to say to your Lordships' House during the consideration of the Wild Plants Protection Bill—that we should stop any species being exterminated or going out of existence than do a great many of the other things that Governments do.
I have one particular criticism of this Bill which I hope will not be copied in the Government's Bill, although I am sure it will not be. I think it is wrong that, as laid down in Clause 5(2), the Customs and Excise should be able to seize products if they are merely in the possession of someone, unless the possessor can prove that he got them legally. I think it is right, when buying and selling, that the burden of proof should be on the person who is buying and selling; but in the case of "possession" I think that seizure is an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject. I had the great good fortune some time ago to challenge this principle in another kind of Bill on the subject of opium pipes. If I may claim in any way to have altered

1449
the legislation of this country, it is that if any of your Lordships happen, quite innocently, to possess an opium pipe without using it, he will no longer be in danger of being arrested, as a Conservative Government at that time suggested should be done. I think, similarly, that people who are in legitimate possession of products, even if they cannot prove the ownership of some of these products should not be in danger of having them seized.
That, of course, isa minor criticism. There are others; and some of them have already been pointed out by other speakers today. I agree with some of them which I understand, and am quite sure that there are others that I should also agree with if I understood them more fully. This is a good Bill and it commands our support. As I said earlier, it is much more worth while than a great many of the things we do. It is much more important that we should preserve one of the endangered species which is flying about today in the Schedule of Birds than that we should preserve the endangered species we heard of earlier this afternoon, and which, so far as I am concerned, can stay endangered. At least the birds we are talking about do not make an unconscionable noise and they do not run the risk of causing damage to the ozone. What is more, they do not cost this country and the British Aircraft Corporation thousands of pounds every time they fly. So I am much more in favour of the birds. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has campaigned so long and so successfully on this; and I very much congratulate the Government on having at last produced this Bill.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not think this is merely a good Bill; I think it is a remarkable Bill. Those of your Lordships who have perused it from cover to cover will have noticed that 20 out of the 25 pages are in the Latin tongue. One would therefore have assumed it to have been sponsored by a great classical scholar; but not a bit of it. Its sponsor is an eminent professor of chemistry; so eminent that he was made Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Newcastle Univer-
1450
sity in 1968. Despite this, I have no proof that he was the professor who said to a student: "What is HNo8?" The student was a bit nonplussed and began to stammer: "Er—I've got it right on the tip of my tongue, sir," "Spit it out at once!" said the professor, "it's nitric acid."
To return to our muttons, or rather the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 3 says that at certain ports there will be specialist advice available on the identification of controlled—My Lords, I ask you to realise that I was in no way responsible for that interruption.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not accusing me.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, they are not friends of mine either.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, does any other noble Lord wish to rise and disclaim responsibility? If not, I will continue. I was stating that the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 3 says that at certain ports there will be specialist advice available on the identification of controlled species. But there is no mention of specialist advice in Clause 3 unless "the proper officer of Customs and Excise" covers this.
With regard to specialist advice, and whatever the names of the people are, it appears that these must be persons who have taken an Honours degree in Classics, Biology and Botany. Even those of your Lordships who were educated at Eton, Harrow or Winchester could probably identify gorilla gorilla on page 10, though why the unfortunate animal has to be duplicated, I do not know. But what about pan troglodytes (satyrus) just below it, which is a chimpanzee? Possibly those educated at the schools I have mentioned could also say what canis lupus, on page 11, is. But what about dugong dugong on page 13, which is a sea cetacean and the origin of the myths about the mermaid; or pudu pudu on the same page, which is a Chilean deer? Also, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his very attractive and notable maiden speech, there is the araucaria auraucana, which, as he said, is a monkey puzzle tree. If this Bill, or the Bill of the noble Baroness, goes forward, I beg that in order to avoid a lot of confusion.

1451
trouble and headaches, or even heart attacks, the English equivalents should be printed in the Bill.
5.3 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I always listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, with interest, I always expect to be entertained and I always expect him to say something worth listening to. But I am afraid that he is a little ungenerous to the people who have drafted this Bill and have conformed to an international convention. I agree with him that the whole of these classifications, the work of Buffon, the work of Carl von Linne and all the others, who are altering it day by day, are really quite fantastic. But if one looks into the difficulties, I think one will appreciate that at least they have tried to make these classifications on a reasoned basis.
The result is that of one variety—.I think it is the bowea—there is only one sample, and of the others there are a couple of thousand. The liliaceae—I do not propose to make any effort to pronounce these names properly, because that will arouse more division than does the Bill—includes onions, asparagus, lilies and tulips, although in the Schedule all of these are excluded and the Bill is limited to the species aloe. There are 200 different kinds of aloe. There are those used to produce medicine which my mother used to give me, but which is not now recommended quite so strongly as a purgative, and there is one which is definitely poisonous. But generally speaking, they are not a very exciting species, although they furnish supplies to many rock gardens.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who always sneaks well on any matter—I remember his speech in the debate last March—spoke, for one who is habitually courteous, with rather more force than he normally does and with something approaching indignation. Except for the fact that I wish the speech had been made—if that were possible—to a Minister whom I do not like rather than to a Minister whom I do like, I agree with every word. I really feel a sense of personal indignation, because I thought I was going to make a damn good speech today and I have not made one since, I came into this House. I
1452
spent days checking up the Schedules, because I know nothing about the subject.
It is just two and a half weeks since I was sitting in a bungalow at Amboseli watching half of creation going by. There were Malibou storks flying over, and an elephant ambling by the window and going to drink 35 gallons at one go of the water which was reserved for the birds. I saw in Amboseli at least four of the five animals listed as the kings of creation. The elephant is pre-eminent as number one and then there are the rhinoceros, the buffalo, the hippopotamus and theleopard—the leopard for its beauty no doubt, because it does not have the best of reputations—and I had the privilege of seeing all but the hippopotamus. I do not think I could have missed it had there been one there, then, but it was the dry season. I came back full of acquired knowledge. I will not try to deceive the House and say that I went to East Africa to prepare myself for this Bill. I went there at the invitation of a most distinguished Indian in East Africa, whose son is a managing director there, and the family is known to Members of both Houses.
So, having gone through agony last year, I have been persuaded, or invited, by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, at very short notice, because the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is ill, to stand up to support it. I have studied it and have personal experience of the grave penal effects of this Bill, because over 22 years ago I found myself on a brief but rather hectic visit of three or four days to Uganda. I was entertained to a sundowner, on my arrival, by my hosts who happened to be Mr. John Stonehouse and his charming wife. We met the Kabaka, who was worried about the proposals for the Federation of East Africa which would have left him a second-class citizen.
Also, I addressed a meeting of farmers who, to my intense surprise, on the eve of my departure, presented me with a leopard skin. It would not only have been a discourteous thing to ask where they had got it; it would have been a damn silly thing to do—or, in the language of this House, it would have been a work of supererogation. All I could do, fully, was to hand it over to Customs without having time to examine it care-

1453
who, very properly, confiscated it at once. I could not take any objection, but I still wish they had not looked quite so pleased about it as they did. So I have had experience both ways.
It was, therefore, with very real joy that the one lightning occasion today, apart from the able but almost desponding speeches which had to be made by those who have worked so hard on this matter, was the extraordinary speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is customary to pass facile compliments on the maiden speeches that are made in this House, but this is not an occasion for doing that. I thought his speech was a joy to listen to. I thought, here at last we have someone who knows something about a very difficult part of this subject—I know that we have other noble Lords with knowledge, too—who is able to put forward precisely the kind of case which has been in our minds as one of the problems, and who, if I understood him correctly (although I am a little deaf I heard what he had to say because he spoke with great clarity), said that even so his sympathies are rather with the objects of the Bill. That is where I think we all are.
Indeed, if I may say so to the noble Lord, I myself have been doing my homework on cacti. I find that there are 2,000 varieties of cacti. They all are cacti but they vary. Some grow 20 feet high and they now spread all over the earth. I unearthed the wonderful story about how the opuntia cacti fought against the whole of Australia with a zeal and determination which the West Indies have failed to display in the last few days. It went over there, I think, because of the phylloxera infection on grapes. Certainly it went to the Canary Isles on the same mission and to South Africa. Finally, it took over, over 40 years, 60 million acres of Australian land, half of it completely and half of it to such an extent as to render it difficult to use.
Each of the opuntia has many other virtues. It is edible and produces food which satisfies both hunger and thirst. Some of these opuntia can produce 50,000 seeds. Noble Lords may say that homo sapiens produces a million million according to Sir Aldous Huxley in his Fifth Philosopher's Song, but mostly they go to waste. However, the opuntia seeds
1454
virtually speaking, never go to waste. You plough them in and still they can come up after 20 years. One can try to destroy the plant—the Australians tried and bred insects, hatched three million eggs and imported more destructive insects, but the opuntia fought for something like 50 years before it was finally exterminated.
This was after the experience in France, where they first treated phylloxera with prayer. In the Rhone Valley they had services in the cathedral and the vine growers were warned that possibly it was their sins that had brought it about. They had a longer fight against phylloxera. The chairman of Bordeaux said that by 1888 the phylloxera fly, which is about six-hundredths of an inch, had cost France £800 million, which was about twice the indemnity that they had paid to the Germans after the war of 1870–1871. Of course, they had not got near the end of it. The methods which had been used up to then were the insecticides. In fact, an agnostic chemist came along with potassium sulphocarbonate, I think it was. Such insecticides were used and produced some results. The hierarchy held a special service of thanks to God for sending the agnostic with the black bag to do something about it. The phylloxera went on and meant the replacement of vines all over the world. In the meantime, in the Canaries where they had introduced the opuntia, they used it for the purpose for which it was imported. The opuntia is a host to the cochineal rearing fly, a scale fly. It prospered for quite a long time until somebody produced aniline dyes, and the Canaries replanted with bananas. It is an extraordinary story which I should have loved to tell but I have not got the time in which to do it. Therefore, it will have to go into the wastepaper basket, together with all the other undelivered speeches.
I will conclude with only a couple of questions, but they are important ones. First, although the noble Baroness spoke with very great clarity, and I congratulate her upon her speech, I missed the tiny explanation, which was quite extraordinary, of why we have not signed the convention. Why have we been mucking about for 11 months? Certainly the implication of the speech that was delivered last time by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was that one more signature would complete the bringing

1455
into force of the convention and that after that, but for a technical difficulty or two, we should be signing it without reservation.
The second question is, how were these orders to which the noble Baroness referred made, and when were they made? I have been searching the Vote Office for some days to find out. Let me say that every possible assistance was given to me by the Vote Office. There is no suggestion whatever of blame there. I gather that they were made under one of the Acts that was passed on 3rd or 4th September 1939, or thereabouts, when we were about to be at war. The Act has in brackets "(Defence)"as part of its Title. That gave power to make orders which need not have Parliamentary approval. I was going to say that this is an outrage. I am faced with the dilemma that, as a matter of fact, in cases of this kind I am strongly in favour of orders which do not involve lugging people to the petty sessions if this can possibly be avoided. The making of an order without punitive measures is an extremely good thing to do but it must be made with Parliamentary approval. It must be treated as a Statutory Instrument. We could not go on without that.
Finally, the noble Baroness was good and generous enough to say without hesitation that she hoped the House would give this Bill a Second Reading, at least, so that we may have a look at the Bill that is prepared for next week, or whenever it is produced. I am grateful for that assurance and I hope that at the conclusion of the debate the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
5.19 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, with the rest of the House may I thank the noble Lord for introducing this Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, for giving us the opportunity that we all wanted: to ask, why has not the convention already been ratified? I know there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, and some of us know that there have been some very good reasons for it. We hope that in due course we shall have a fairly detailed statement of the reasons why we have not ratified. My noble friend on the Front Bench
1456
was rather forceful about the question of enforcement, but I should like for one moment to put forward the difficulties facing any Government, or even the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in finding out exactly how to do these things. Some countries—not Britain—just sign anything. If we sign something, it has got to work properly. This has been the problem.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, in a most excellent maiden speech—and I hope he will become a member of our conservation Committee—gave us an example of one of the difficulties. Let me give your Lordships another. As everybody in this House knows, a number of species are endangered in the wild, but they breed in zoos in sufficient quantities to ensure that they are either no longer endangered or will shortly be not endangered at all as home bred species. As the noble Lord said, this makes it very difficult to control the movements. Not to control the movements of the species if it is endangered and caught in the wild, is to do the wrong thing. If, on the other hand, you control its movements for breeding purposes, you are doing the wrong thing in keeping the species going. It is easy enough to say and very difficult to enact.
Another great difficulty confronting conservation is that someone somewhere will offer animals for sale. They will say that the animals are home bred and you can go and see them. This applies especially to spotted cats. One knows, however, that really the animals being offered were not bred there but were caught in the wild. For every one that is offered for sale in this country, four have died in the catching. This aspect must be caught up by the regulations.
I do not blame the Government. I think they have been doing a wonderful job. The Friends of the Earth have certainly put pressure on the Government, quite rightly, and so have all the conservation bodies; but the various conservation bodies—the Fauna Preservation Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the RSPB and many others—would be the first to admit that, being registered charities, they are not able to bring the open and public pressure on Government departments that can quite properly be brought by the Friends of the Earth. The Friends of the Earth play an essential

1457
part in the pressure for conservation, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the Minister would be the first to admit that just as much valuable work has been done, not in the public eye, by bodies which are equally concerned but which are charities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones said, there are so many points to be discussed that I will not speak about any of them. It is a little difficult now because we are to get a Bill in a week's time, so anything I may say cannot alter what is already in print. But I liked two points in the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, the first being that it controlled all the products of endangered species rather than listing a few products. I think he mentioned reptile skin shoes. In my view it is essential that all the products should be controlled. We cannot pick out one, because someone will find a loophole to the detriment of the species in some other way. The second point is that it prohibits the advertising and sale of any scheduled item, whether it is imported under licence or not. This puts the onus on the person so advertising and selling to say that the item has been legally imported. These are good provisions and I hope they will go into the Bill if not, we shall have to think about them.
My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to the penalties. I consider that in these days £100 is a ridiculous penalty, and I hope the subject of the penalties will be examined. I for one congratulate the Minister and her predecessor who is on the Front Bench. I know how much he and the Department concerned did behind the scenes. I know all they have done in moving fast to get as far as they have done. I accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness, and we shall study the Government's Bill with great care. Finally, I hope that when that Bill is drafted, we shall be able to correct the mistakes that will have been made. Let us have a Bill which will enable us to put things right, because in one short Bill we cannot solve all the problems that will arise over the next 20 years.
5.25 p.m.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, I rise to make a very short intervention in this
1458
debate, for the purpose of supporting my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones in his admirable efforts which have continued over a very long time. I want to underline a point which he made and which I am rather surprised has not been more emphasised by other speakers in this interesting debate. The noble Lord mentioned that his earlier Bills had been, as it were, narrowly nationalistic, whereas on this occasion he had taken a wider outlook and the Bill had important international implications. That seems to me to be a most important aspect of this matter. We do not know what will be in the Government Bill about which we have heard, but I hope that they are taking a wide view of that kind.
Last night we had a most interesting meeting of the all-Party conservation Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, guides with such understanding and tact, at which the importance of the international aspects of this matter were raised very clearly indeed. I think we must make quite sure that when the Government Bill goes through it covers that particular matter, because clearly it is of great importance. At the meeting last night we had a speech from Sir Peter Scott, who I suppose knows more about this matter than anybody else in the country, and almost every sentence underlined the importance of the international controls which must be exercised if these species are in fact to be preserved for the world which, in regard to its splendid qualities and materials and wildlife, over the last years we have been doing so much to destroy. Therefore I hope your Lordships will make quite sure that in the new Bill the international aspects are properly looked after. On that basis I propose to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill today.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, replies, perhaps he would like to know that a great compliment has been paid to him today in that the intervention which we heard recently was in Welsh.
5.29 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones replies, may I say that there is one industry that is dying. It is in fact very nearly dead. It is the herring fishing industry of the North Sea. There is no

1459
cure for that except for international action by all the nations directly concerned—the Soviet Union, Norway, Denmark, Holland and ourselves—and we ought to summon an international conference. When I was a Member of Parliament there used to be great fishings off the Buchan coast in Aberdeenshire in the summer, and off the East Anglian coast—Yarmouth and Lowestoft—in the autumn. We used to export a million barrels of herring a year to Germany and Russia. That trade is dead. The herring is now becoming a precious fish. One used to be able to buy them, with old money, at threepence for six; now, they cost the equivalent of two or three shillings for one and they are becoming more and more scarce all the time. This is only one example of what is going on at the present time. I submit to your Lordships' House that there is only one answer, namely, international action, an international conference to decide what should be done to conserve this industry and, if possible, to revive it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his fascinating speech. I wish I had known of his interest earlier, because I might have learned something by talking to him about it. It shows how one can never cease in this House to shed a little of one's ignorance by making use of other people. Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, has been entertaining us all, and showing his great knowledge of the Latin tongue. He quite rightly assumed that my knowledge was not as great as his. Today's debate has shown very clearly a unanimity in this House on the matter. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her remarks today. I completely accept that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. The noble Baroness will naturally appreciate that, as I have not seen the Bill and do not know at all what its contents are, I should prefer that this Bill should remain until we have had time to study the Government's Bill. However, I would like to thank the noble Baroness and her predecessor, and all those people in her Department who, to
1460
my knowledge, have put in a great deal of effort on this matter.
My Lords, reference has been made to the Friends of the Earth and other organisations. Without their help the Bill which I have been presenting would not be before your Lordships. I am sure all your Lordships understand perfectly well that I am the person standing as an actor presenting his part. I hope I have presented it reasonably adequately. I can assure your Lordships that, with all good luck, this is positively my last appearance in this particular role. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) BILL [H.L.]
5.32 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Rating of caravan sites in England and Wales]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where a valuation list has been altered by virtue of subsection (1) above so as to include an area of a caravan site as a single mixed hereditament and, by reason of a change in the value attributable to the domestic or the commercial part of the property, that area of that site ceases to qualify as a single mixed hereditament, then the valuation officer may, if, after consultation with the site operator, he thinks fit, alter the valuation list so as to treat each of the pitches in that area, together with the caravan sited thereon, as a separate hereditament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to deal with two matters on which we have briefly, and sometimes not so briefly, touched before. Your Lordships will recall that I was at some pains to explain that a situation could arise under the Bill as it is at present drafted whereby a sufficient number of caravan pitch occupiers decided to opt for individual assessment in a site which was globally assessed, to upset the balance between the domestic and the commercial values of the site to the extent that the commercial site would outweigh the value of the domestic site, and the site would no longer qualify as a

1461
mixed hereditament, thus attracting half of the domestic rate rebate. It was suggested to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Second Reading, in col. 31 of Hansard—and I interpreted what she said to mean—that this option would only he exercised by pitch occupiers who were suffering from some sort of handicap or disability which would entitle them to a greater level of rate rebate than they would attract as of a mixed hereditament.
However, on Committee stage the noble Baroness agreed that under the unenviable circumstances in which I hypothetically placed her she would have little other recourse but to opt to go "individual" if she felt herself being harassed by the site operator. If that is the case, it is possible there will be rather more numerous applications for treatment in this way than she envisaged when the Bill was drafted. It seemed to me wise to put in a provision whereby the valuation officer could reverse his original decision, the option which he has taken under Clause 1 of the Bill as at present drafted, to value the whole site as a single hereditament. It was not clear to me that under the Bill as it now stands there would be an opportunity for him to do so. It seemed to be something of a one-way process, and therefore we put down this Amendment to provide an opportunity for the process to be reversed, and also to produce some sort of protection for those on the mixed hereditament who remain assessed with the mixed hereditament when it became commercially rated, because their colleagues, having had a difference of opinion with the site owner, had opted to be rated as individuals. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is concerned about the situation where the value of the commercial part of the composite assessment is more than half the total value. I accept that this situation could arise, for example on sites where there are only a small number of leisure caravans, but very substantial common facilities. Where representations are made to them—and here I include representations by individual caravanners—valuation officers may, in the exercise of their discretion, take such action as may be necessary to ensure
1462
that the caravans are separately assessed. Thus, the separately occupied caravans will be rated separately, and classed as domestic. The parts of the site in the occupation of the owner will be classed as commercial. If, despite the commercial rating, the caravanners still thought they would be better off as part of a single assessment, it would be open to them to approach the valuation officer and ask him to reconsider the position.
The noble Lord was also concerned about how domestic relief affects the caravanners. To underline what I said on Committee, I would say that in the majority of cases the sites will qualify as mixed by virtue of the fact that the domestic portion will be larger than the commercial. In these cases, the total rates payable on the site and the caravans may be up to 20 per cent. less than they otherwise would have been. In some cases, it is possible that the reduction may be even greater than this. We think that most sites will qualify as mixed, and there will be little incentive for them to opt for separate assessment, thereby tipping the balance in favour of commercial. In those cases which are commercial it is still likely that in most cases the caravanner will none the less be better off as part of the single assessment. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, Iam much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said. It is perhaps worth commenting at this stage that we are not here a Chamber of revision, and that this Bill is going on to another place. Therefore, I think it would be proper to accept what the noble Baroness has said, to consider it, and if necessary to ask for it to be considered elsewhere. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, with the permission of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 7. The purpose of these Amendments is to shift the burden of presumption when considering whether, for the purpose of this Bill, a caravan is rateable along with the pitch on which it

1463
stands. These Amendments are in place of Amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. On that occasion I said we were quite agreeable to the change of emphasis, but that for drafting purposes I would prefer to bring forward two Amendments. These are the Amendments.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we have discussed the reasoning behind this. It only remains for me to say we are grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting us in this manner.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("1976") and insert ("1977").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, another point which ought to be looked at at this stage is the question of timing. A great deal is being asked of valuation officers to get their valuation lists out in time to be effective in the next rating year, and a fortiori a great deal is being asked of the site operators to catch up with any ground which the valuation officers may lose in the matter of timing. As your Lordships will notice, the valuation officers have a month in which to give their notice after they have made their assessment. We felt that this would be an opportunity for the Government to give some reassurance to those concerned with the operation of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, about what they propose shall happen when there is not enough time for the equitable operation of the Act at the date proposed, and for that purpose I have put down Amendment No. 3, putting back by a year the effective operation of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his purpose in moving this Amendment, and also giving me an opportunity to clarify again this slightly difficult point. On the point he raised. I still emphasise that I am quite sure that the vast majority of site operators who have already entered into agreements will be in a position to pass on the additional rate charge. The agreement that I read out during Committee was quite typical. However, I accept—as was pointed out on Com-
1464
mittee, and as I have written to the noble Lord—that there may be a few site operators who for some reason have committed themselves to fixed price contracts for the coming season. I think this is the crunch of the noble Lord's argument.
If a site operator makes this fact known to the valuation officer, he will be sympathetic to the situation and can be expected to delay the exercise of his discretion to create the single assessment. I hope this answers the noble Lord's point, because, although I wrote to him along these lines, he said, quite naturally, that he would prefer to have this point on the record. That is all I want to say at this stage.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. If she could assure me that what she has said amounts to an authority for the valuation officers to take such steps, or that such authority already exists, I think there would be no purpose in my pursuing the Amendment. I take it that is what she intends.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it would be quite wrong and misleading if I made out anything that was a hard and fast rule, because what we have here is a statutory discretion given to a statutory officer, and while it is a discretion I cannot make it mandatory on him to exercise it. But the discretion is there. The fact that this has been discussed and will now be on the record, that this is the intention behind the legislation, that the valuation officer should use this discretion where he feels that it needs to be used, is all that is necessary. He has that. It is a statutory discretion. If that is what the noble Lord means by "authority", he has the authority. I think this has now made it quite clear that we would expect him to use it in the circumstances he thinks proper. Leaving this flexibility is extremely important, as I think the noble Lord would agree.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. She has clarified the matter. I am sure that interested parties will be able to direct the attention of the valuation officers to the record. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Information for caravanners about first proposal under s. 1 as to caravan sites
.—(1) Where the valuation officer makes a proposal under section 1 above in the case of a caravan site, he shall within one month after the date on which the proposal is made give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans included in the hereditament proposed to be entered in the valuation list.
(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

(a) the part of the site included in the proposed hereditament (or that the whole site is so included), the number of caravans so included and the rateable value proposed for that hereditament; and

(b) the rate in the pound at which the general rate for the rating area is charged under the General Rate Act 1967 in respect of the period during which the proposal is made.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the proposed hereditament, and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.
(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the proposal is made, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.
(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsection (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the result of a consensus of minds; my concern about what seemed to me to be a vacuum in the Bill and the contributions of various noble Lords at Committee stage. I explained then that I wanted to introduce my own Amendment which would provide that caravanners should be given certain information to enable them to judge the average rateable value accorded to each caravan included in the new single assessment. This is the purpose of this Amendment. I also explained during Committee that there were tremendous difficulties involved in this, and this has certainly
1466
proved to be the case. As always, one thinks one has a very simple point in mind and knows exactly what one wants until the lawyers get hold of it, and then one finds it is not so simple and the difficulties are enormous. To be fair to them, I should say that the difficulties are extremely real. I hoped that one would be able just to state the rate ingredient on the site charge notice, but as the whole point of the exercise is that the rating should be of a single unit or hereditament that made it practically impossible. So we have done as well as we could.
Noble Lords also, quite rightly, pressed me not to make it a complicated requirement, and I have, joyfully, so far as I could, borne this very much in mind, because I could not agree more that so many things get rather cancelled out when they are made more complicated. We have also kept in mind the need not to add unnecessarily to the information which the rating authority and the valuation officer have to provide to the site operator, because having cut down the work and expense of the local authority it would not make much sense if we then burdened them again the other way.
Where the valuation officer exercises his discretion to value the site as a single unit he will be required within one month after the date on which the proposal is made to give written notice to the site operator stating the number of caravans he took into account in making the assessment. The site operator will then be required to display a notice showing the part of the site included in the assessment; if it is the whole of the site he must say so; the number of caravans included in the assessment; the assessment itself, which is the rateable value; and the rate poundage levied by the local authority.
I am afraid, trying to cut it down, these seem to me to be the essential ingredients to have. I cannot see any way of cutting down this number of statements, which in fact comes only to four anyhow.
The notice is to be displayed in a prominent place for four months. As I understand it, there are usually central offices, or a place where people collect mail, on most of the sites. The caravanner can also ask the site operator for the information in writing. This is not only

1467
for those people who may not see the board or may not find it, but to safeguard those caravanners who may not visit the site before they take up residence there. If the site operator fails without reasonable excuse to comply with these requirements, he will be liable on conviction to a fine.
I hope noble Lords will agree with me that this goes a considerable way towards the goal we have in mind. I am equally sure it will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that, in the clause as drafted, this requirement applies only in the year in which the valuation officer first values the site as a single unit, because clearly the problem for caravanners will be very much greater in the first year.
There is one other point I should like to add. It may be possible for the valuation officers to identify for the site operators the proportion of the total assessment attributable to the caravans and pitches in the occupation of the caravanner. This is a point which I, so far, have not included and it is not in the clause, because this is something we are still working on in the Department. If this is possible—we are not yet sure on this point but I am feeling a little more optimistic about it today—we would wish to introduce an Amendment in another place requiring the site operator to put this information on the notice, which then makes it even more specific.
Finally, I should briefly mention that the Scottish position on the question is broadly similar, which is why it is down as two Amendments, given the differences between two codes which, as noble Lords know, we are constantly encountering. That being so, I have put down a corresponding Scottish new clause to which I have now spoken, and I hope I shall just have to move it formally when we come to the appropriate point. I beg to move
5.52 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, although the noble Baroness alluded to this, as indeed did several of us at the Committee stage, this is new material to the Bill, and she has rightly explained it in some detail. I hope that your Lordships will understand that I shall speak to it with a certain hesitation, because I have not had the opportunity to
1468
examine it as closely as I should like, or with the depth of advice that I should like. My immediate reaction is to say that we sympathise with her desire for equity on the site. My second reaction is that I am not certain that she has fully justified the inclusion of subsection (4) of the Amendment, though she has gone a considerable way to do so.
She has told us that there are people who will be subject to new assessments as a result of the exercise of an option under Clause 1(1) of the Bill when it comes into effect, who will not be in residence at the time when this takes place. It occurs to me to wonder how they will know that the assessment has taken place, since they will not have seen the notice posted on the notice board or to the lamp post at the entrance to the site, which has to be displayed according to the regulations listed in the earlier subsection. One also wonders how long after the assessment is made is the site operator still liable to a fine of £50, if he does not comply with the request, and similar matters. These would be Committee points. I am not raising them now because this Bill will go through a Committee stage in another place and the noble Baroness has already given warning that it may contain further Amendments when it gets there.
It occurs to me also to ask the noble Baroness once more, not contentiously, whether she does not feel that having displayed to the site occupiers, the pitch occupiers, the very grounds upon which the assessments of their portion of the rates are made upon them by the site operator, she is still quite confident that there will not be great feelings of injustice among some of them, whether rightly or wrongly held, and whether it is altogether right to leave aside some form of appeal. Then one reflects that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce, as she put it, the work and expense of running the rating system. Her objections (which we share) are to burdening them up again, as she put it. These are matters to reflect upon, and we are at the point where, if legislation is drawn too precisely in the new clause, we may once more come up against the paradox that by doing something which we hope will reduce the burden of administrative duties on the local authorities and the inland revenue, we may be increasing them.

1469
Last time we were almost in the position where the noble Baroness advocated a free market economy on the site and I was advocating a regulated economy. I think now we are in the process of approaching each other in the opposite direction. I do not wish to confuse the House with such philosophic reflections. This is a point to be pursued in another place. It would be wrong of us to resist the Amendment here, since the other place has been alerted by what the noble Baroness has said of her intentions for that stage.
5.55 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, this new clause is useful and desirable because it enables the pitch occupiers and caravan owners to know the reasons for the rate charges being made upon them. It also provides the site operator with reasons and justification for the extra charges which the caravan owner or occupier will be required to pay. However, it is not so simple and straightforward as may appear at first sight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out at Committee stage, the site owner on his site may have some pitches which, because of convenience and amenity value, are much sought after and therefore can command a much higher rental than other pitches which, because of their position, are not worth anything like as much. If, upon a best pitch a large modern caravan costing several thousands of pounds is positioned, then the rating of such a pitch and caravan would obviously be very much higher than a small and aged caravan upon a poorly placed pitch. What then is the site owner to do? If he divides the total amount of rate payable equally among all the caravan occupiers or owners, some will feel aggrieved. Indeed, the caravan owner occupying a poor site with a small and ancient caravan might seek an individual rating and find that the amount he has to pay is less than had been demanded of him by the site owner; others could follow suit, and what would happen then? Indeed, it may well be the kind of situation which my noble friend Lord Elton has warned may arise.
Again, if the site owner tries to charge varying amounts to different caravan owners and occupants, there is bound to
1470
be discontent and disagreement. In any case, he is not a valuation officer and ought not to be required to do his job. Surely it must be apparent, therefore, that this Amendment, which looks such an obvious and simple solution, is really nothing of the kind, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out at Committee stage.
The work that ought to be done by the rating authority will now have to be done by the site owner at considerable extra administrative cost, and all the basic difficulties of frequently changing ownership and occupation of the caravans will continue as well as the replacement changes of new for old caravans, or the shifting of caravans from an inferior to a better pitch according to availability. Such changes, which are continual and normal, must lead in some cases to disagreement and dispute. Is it proposed that there should be any method of arbitration to settle disputes of this kind, which, inevitably, are likely to arise? Or should the dispute be taken to the courts, and, if so, on what grounds?
It seems to me that further clarification is needed upon all these points for obvious reasons. If it is not possible now for the Minister to make any further statement, at any rate these points having been raised here, I hope that perhaps some clarification may be made upon them in another place to make it easier for both the caravan site owner and the occupants than will be possible at the moment.
In conclusion, I wonder whether the Minister could state what will happen about the present position that has arisen as a result of the intensification of efforts by valuation officers last year to rate individual caravans and their pitches. I understand that there are about a quarter of a million caravans and pitches to be rated and the work of assessing them was almost completed at the end of 1975. But in the meantime many caravans will have changed pitches; some new ones will have replaced old ones and even where caravans have been assessed it has been found to be difficult, and indeed impossible in many cases, to identify the owners and, due to a variety of circumstances, to collect the money due. Also, I believe that there are 90,000 appeals, objections, still to be heard. This Bill will not alter such a situation. What is then going to happen? It would be helpful if we could

1471
have some idea how this chaotic state of affairs is to be cleared up.
Presumably all the work done last year by the valuation officers will have to be done again to meet the requirements of this Bill. It would seem sensible therefore to start afresh when this Bill has become an Act and not to go to any further expense and trouble in trying to sort out a state of affairs which is about to be changed in the immediate future and, in consequence, will have no lasting result. If the Minister could give some guidance about what is intended, I believe it would be greatly appreciated by all concerned. I hope that the present uncertainty may be resolved by a Statement, if not here at any rate in another place.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, since my noble friend has drawn me back into this controversy, perhaps I might say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this Amendment. It goes quite a long way towards that objection which we had earlier; notably, how a pitch user, a caravan owner, would know what was being levied upon him and whether there was a share apportionment for him. However, I share the views of my noble friend on the Front Bench with regard to the four months' time during which the notice has to be exhibited. Many site owners may not be around the site at the appropriate time. It would seem to me that it may be necessary to ensure that the notice is displayed either for a longer period or for a period during which the normal season operates. One is concerned here not only with leisure caravans but with caravans used on a more permanent or residential basis.
Regarding the deeper points which the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, has raised, surely these do not come into the area of this Amendment. These are points which we raised outside the notification of the pitch users as to what is to be levied by the site operator and which go more into the general realms of the fairness and apportionment of the whole assessment breakdown. The noble Lord is quite right. Some pitches are more valuable than others, some caravans are more valuable, and at some stage—or it might have been in conversation with the noble Baroness—I
1472
intimated that some site owners may very well have a letting clause prohibiting a particular type of van on the site.
It may well be that, in order to get his rate more evenly distributed, he insists on a particular type of van being put on the site, one which may be outside the normal paying ability of his customer over the past five, six or seven years. He may specify that a particular van may be on the site for only a particular time; he may specify that the van may be purchased only through himself. He may do all sorts of things to enhance the pitch value which enables him to spread that amount of rate. I quite accept that these are not points which are taken care of in this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, has raised them and I feel obliged to join with him in seeking clarification at some time on these points.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent which the noble Baroness suggested for convenience should be discussed with Amendment No. 4. I am very conscious that the noble Baroness has undertaken the task of piloting Scottish as well as English legislation through your Lordships' House, because half of this Bill refers to the situation in Scotland. Amendment No. 11 is the Scottish new clause equivalent to Amendment No. 4. I appreciate the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with the Scottish part of the Bill and I hope that the Scottish Office Ministers are grateful to her for what she has been doing.
As regards Amendment No. 11, I have been able to have only a few hours of consultation with those concerned in Scotland, but I understand that the Assessors Association has been in touch with the Scottish Office about this. They were a little surprised by the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b) and it might help those concerned if I said now what they would prefer in that part of the new clause. Instead of paragraph (a) they would prefer the wording:
"…the number of pitches at present separately entered in the 1975–76 valuation roll and the cumulo rateable value of those pitches"
I do not know whether the word "cumulo" appears in English legislation, but I am quite used to it in Scottish

1473
legislation. I think it might be helpful for those who are looking at the record of this Report stage to know that that is the suggestion, otherwise the clause is one which they expected and which I agree with my noble friends should be added to the Bill. These points can be considered in detail and no doubt will be considered at Committee stage in another place.
I have had the opportunity of making one point which officials and Ministers might be able to consider before that stage is reached. I am well aware that the Government are trying to get the Bill through quickly, because they want to meet a deadline and the Third Reading will probably come quite soon, and therefore these points must be left to another place.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if I may, I will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, which are slightly outside this clause. It is better to clear up the point about the present assessment and the appeals against them. I can only repeat what I said on Second Reading: it would be quite wrong to make the Bill retrospective to 1975/76. It follows from that that the appeals must be allowed to go forward, so that people pay no more or no less than the proper amount. This does not mean that every one of the appeals will go to hearing. Ordinarily only a very small proportion get as far as a court hearing because settlements between the valuation officers and the appellants are reached beforehand. We would expect the same to happen on these appeals. Moreover, given the change that is being brought about by the Bill, there will probably be a greater disposition on both sides to reach a settlement, so I do not think that the noble Lord need worry on that point. Everybody is aware that we are going into a new situation and, as I understand it, there is likely to be give and take on both sides.
On the clause itself, I can appreciate the points which noble Lords have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked how people will know that the assessment has taken place. There are many ways. First, the people who are most interested in the Bill will be caravanners and site operators themselves. It will be reported
1474
and they will know about it. They will also know through the various associations and they will also be able to find out, once they know that a Bill has been passed, by writing to the locality. They will then be told what is the procedure.
The noble Lord raised the point of the length of time during which the notice will be displayed. It will be up for four months.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has misunderstood me. I was wondering how long the liability of supplying information to the caravanners (rendering him liable to a line of £50 if he does not discharge it) will rest upon the site operator. As I said, this is a Committee point and I do not wish to make much of it but, technically, the chap could be written to three years after the reassessment and still be required to deliver it. However, it is not a matter which need detain the House at this moment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I believe I can answer that point straight off without a lawyer at my elbow. As the provision applies only to the first year, it would not make any sense for anybody to write to the site operator after that season. The point which I should like to clear up in order to place it on the record relates to the four months. We could have made the time longer but, since it will not go up until the assessment which is usually finalised in about April and since the operator is then given a month, that brings the start to about May. As the season generally finishes around September we felt that it would be unfair to put the operator in a position of committing an offence at a time when it was really no longer necessary to have the notice up because nobody was there.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised questions regarding the fact that some pitches were more valuable than others and about possible feelings of injustice. I am grateful for the welcome given by noble Lords to this new clause, but I would point out that differences apply now in any case. If one is on a better site, one will be charged more and, since the site charges already include a variety of things, this will be just another ingredient. I was quite frank with noble Lords when I said that because of the

1475
difficulties all round it was rather a rough yardstick, but the clause will ensure that a firm indication is given to the caravanners, who will know whether their charges seem to have gone up disproportionately, and the site operator will be covered because he will be able to show something when, if necessary, he has to put the charge up.
As regards the differences between pitches and the differences in charges, the principle will be exactly the same as that which is operating at the present time. I believe that this is a question of disagreement and dispute. We cannot, in this Bill, bring in a question of methods of arbitration because the site operator, for the purposes of the Bill, is the ratepayer anyhow and he will distribute the rate. There are all sorts of ways in which people can express themselves. I am sure that there must be caravanners' site associations, like tenants' associations; we have a great deal of investigative newspaper reporting which takes up this type of case; and, no doubt, if anyone steps out of line as in some of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, people will write to That's Life and we shall have Esther Rantzen bringing shame on the heads of the operators and justice to the people concerned.
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Assessors' Association spokesman did not at all disagree with the new clause when he was hastily consulted. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord's view will be taken into account in another place and that his suggestion will be looked at. Taking a terrible jump into Scottish waters with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears, I suggest that it sounded as if the noble Lord was trying to bring this back to the previous year's level rather than basing it on a forward proposal. However, I feel that he is quite right and I do not intend to delve into the matter any further. I shall leave it to be dealt with in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Valuation and rating of caravan sites in Scotland]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Any alteration in the valuation roll under subsection (1) above shall have effect as from the beginning of the year in which the alteration is made or as from the date on which the caravan site becomes a site to which this Act applies, whichever is the later.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment covers the special case of the site which comes within the scope of the Bill after 1st April 1976 by making the valuation roll alteration effective from the date on which the site becomes liable to comprehensive assessment. I feel that I should reassure the House that there is no element of retrospection and that these timing rules are closely related to those which apply to other classes of property. I am sure that noble Lords who are interested—especially the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—are very well versed in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 and will be very clear as to what I am talking about.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, what I said just now about the care which the noble Baroness has taken in dealing with Clause 2 referred to this and subsequent Amendments because, following our debate a week ago, it was clear that the noble Baroness and her advisers had decided that some changes and additions should be made to the Scottish part of the Bill. We have no reason to dissent from the present Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage and to which the Government indicated that they would give attention. I thought it sounded as though it might be acceptable and I put it down again in the hope that the Government would accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("(and any area comprising it)").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very happy to accept the Amendment and to say that not only are the words unnecessary but that, on looking again at the provision, it appeared that they added

1477
confusion. We appear to have enough of that without adding to it gratuitously, so I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the point to our attention and I accept the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for accepting the Amendment which, as she said, will help to make the Bill clearer?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("in any case where") and insert ("if, but only if,"). —(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 40 and insert—

(" a) the references to the rateable value to be determined thereunder and to the occupier of the premises were references respectively to the rateable value of all the said pitches as a single sum and to the site operator;

(b) the words "gross annual value and" were omitted.

")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 2(1) of the Bill calls for valuation direct to net annual value and not, as is usual for non-industrial premises, a gross annual value which is subject to a statutory deduction. The Amendment ensures that Section 7(4) will not call for the determination of a gross annual value which in the context of these caravan sites would, I am sure noble Lords, will agree, be quite meaningless. The Amendment also removes the need to notify to individual caravanners details of any determination of rateable value. It is only the site operator who has an interest in knowing how much of the assessment will enjoy the domestic poundage reduction. In short, this links up with the ascertainment of domestic element which is determined in gross terms in Scotland and which would be quite unsuitable for this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this appears to have been an
1478
improvement to the Bill, which we commend to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 43, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) after the word "effect" there were inserted the word "a)";

(b) after the words "so included" there were inserted the words "or

(b) that lands and heritages consisting of a pitch for a caravan have been treated as part of a single unit of lands and heritages by virtue of section 2(1) of the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 and ought to be separately entered in such valuation roll; ".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection (7) is a protection to the individual caravanner. The Bill requires the assessor to make a comprehensive assessment on the site and leisure caravan pitches together, but the assessor might be mistaken in his view of a particular caravan and pitch, or the caravanner simply may not agree with him. Subsection (7) affirms the right of the caravanner to complain—to the courts if necessary—about the omission from the valuation roll of his caravan as a separate entry in its own right. He might wish to do this if, for example, the absence of a separate entry made it difficult to pursue a claim for rate rebate.
The Scottish Assessors' Association has pointed out that subsection (7) is drafted so widely that the extended right of complaint which it affords may have unintended and undesirable effects on property other than caravans, and it is in order to make the desired limitation that I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again this is an Amendment which is welcome to the Scottish clause, and I commend it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "rate" includes a domestic water rate and "rateing" shall be construed accordingly".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make

1479
clear that the provision of Clause 2 will apply to the levying of any domestic water rate which may be payable on caravan sites, as well as to regional, district and general rates. This applies only to Scotland where water supply is the responsibility of the regional councils and the islands councils and their net expenditure on water supply is met partly out of the ordinary rate. Domestic water rate is calculated on the net annual value of the premises. This rate is payable by most occupiers of premises supplied with water for domestic purposes by the water authority, but for some people the supply is metered and they pay according to the water consumed.
Caravan sites will, in general, have metered supplies and will therefore be exempt from domestic water rate; but in any case where supplies to a caravan site are not metered, domestic water rate will be payable and will have to be based on the valuation of the caravan site as a unit in the occupation of the site operator, provided for under Clause 2. The Amendment now makes it clear that this is what is intended. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind and I am sure that the Government were right to put it in. Again, it illustrates how different the system is, as the noble Baroness has described it, in Scotland from that in England. I should like to take the opportunity of this last Amendment on the Scottish Part of the Bill to say that because of the short time between the Committee and Report stages—and we understand the reason for that; namely, that the Government wished to get the Bill through quickly—it has not been possible for me to receive in time all the comments I should have liked in consultation, following an examination of Hansard of the Committee stage a week ago. I received some points only today, when it was too late to put down Amendments. I think that it would be helpful if I gave notice, bearing in mind that the Third Reading will be quite soon, I understand, that I will not try to put down Amendments on Third Reading, because that would give very little time for your Lordships' House. However, there will be two or three points which will be found to come up in another
1480
place on the Scottish Part of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness and those who advise her on the Scottish clause will be glad to have this notice that I myself do not intend to put down these Amendments for consideration at Third Reading.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as we leave the Scottish part of the Bill I should say that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself were of one mind on one point. I was concerned, as he was, to prevent the Bill from affecting the caravanner who is disabled. While we have covered this point for England and Wales, we have not yet covered it for Scotland. I said that I would hope to bring forward an Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will probably be aware that your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity considered the case of Mr. Vandyk, which turned on this very question of the rating position of structures for a disabled person. This happened very recently and was a matter of extreme complexity. Unfortunately, in the time available I have not been able to table a suitable Amendment but I hope that I shall be able to bring one forward on Third Reading. I think the noble Lord will agree that if we can bring it forward there will not be much dispute, and I hope that it will be fairly straightforward.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down. I wish to say that I was aware of that fact. I have here an extract from The Times recording the case of the disabled person concerned. I understood that, in the light of that, the Government would not have been able to take action in time for today. I am glad that the noble Baroness has taken this opportunity of making that clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, to which I spoke when dealing with an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause—
Information for caravanners about rating of caravan sites mentioned in section 2
.—(1) Where the assessor alters the valuation roll under section 2(1) above, he shall

1481
send to the site operator, along with the notice which he is required to send to the site operator under section 3(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, a statement of the number of pitches for leisure caravans which he has included in the single unit of lands and heritages by virtue of the said section 2(1).
(2) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) above the site operator shall display on the site a notice stating—

(a) the number of pitches included in the said single unit, and the rateable value of that unit; and

(b) the rate in the pound at which rates are levied in respect of that unit.

(3) The notice required by subsection (2) above shall be displayed at some conspicuous place where it is likely to attract the attention of persons occupying pitches for leisure caravans which are included in the said single unit and shall be kept displayed for not less than four months.
(4) If so requested by a person occupying any such pitch as aforesaid at the time when the valuation roll is altered under section 2(1) above, the site operator shall give him in writing the information required by subsection (2) above to be given by the notice under that subsection.
(5) If a site operator fails without reasonable excuse to display and keep displayed a notice as required by subsections (2) and (3) above, or to give information to a person as required by subsection (4) above after a written request from that person, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.—(Baroness Birk.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation and application]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 16, after ("if") insert ("paragraph 4 and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together because they are linked. The purposes of these Amendments are to include within the provisions of the Bill additionally those sites which may be exempted from holding a site licence under the terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. These are sites which are used by an organisation for the purposes of recreation, and are both occupied and supervised by that organisation. Those who have gained such an exemption include such bodies as the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and the Caravan Club. As noble Lords will
1482
probably recall, these Amendments were originally moved, in a slightly different form, in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I undertook then to bring them back as Government Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must again thank the noble Baroness for having put down the Amendment which I tabled at the Committee stage—No. 12. I am grateful to her for having looked into this question and reached agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 formally.
Amendment moved —
Page 4, line 17, after ("exemption") insert ("of certain land occupied and supervised by organisations concerned with recreational activities and").—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EEC: EIGHTH AND FIFTEENTH REPORTS ON AGRICULTURE
6.30 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN rose to move, That this House takes note of the Fifteenth Report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Farm Prices Review 1976–77 and on High Yielding Wheats (R/2020/75 and R/2021/75), and on Marketing of Agricultural Products (R/2157/75), and the Eighth Report on Milk Fats (R/1944/75 and R/1991/75). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In introducing these Reports I want first to pay tribute to members of your Lordships' Sub-Committee D. We are, I am sure, getting better at coping with a steady stream of proposed regulations from Brussels, but they are often so fast-moving, and touch upon so many different specific problems about which the Committee has to obtain quick and detailed knowledge, that at times we have been boggled (I should say that I am speaking for myself) with the volume of evidence, and occasionally puzzled by the complexity of the issues. That this is not in the end shown in our Reports is due to the fact that the members of the Committee have given generously of their time, even at short notice, arid, undismayed, have continually risen to the challenge.
I should also like to thank your Lordships' small and hard-worked secretariat for all their help and guidance, and offer my own special thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Josling, whose vast knowledge of agricultural economics and of the working of the Common Agricultural Policy has been invaluable to us. I am also most grateful for the co-operation which we have had from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who, often under difficulties, bring out their translations and explanatory memoranda very quickly and in good, comprehensible English. I think that in our turn, both in our Reports and in our taking of evidence from diverse organisations and specialists, we have been of help to them. In all our activities we feel the presence of the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir. We who work with her marvel at what she gets through, and are continually filled with admiration for her sure and sympathetic touch.
My Lords, the first part of the Fifteenth Report, which is before your Lordships, contains our comments on this year's EEC farm price proposals. There are two main points to which I wish to advert here. The first is the 1 million or so tons of surplus skimmed milk powder, which is also referred to in our Eighth Report. I am certain that we should always plan for a surplus of agricultural production, and many times in past debates I have declared as much. This is our insurance against lean years. If it were all left to the law of supply and demand, we would be very erratically provided for, with prices sky-high one year and absurdly low the next. Agricultural produce is particularly sensitive to market supply, mainly because it is so bulky and perishable. A small surplus, and nobody wants it: a small shortage, or threat of a shortage, and prices rise beyond all reason. The market must be managed for a surplus to prevent producers going broke one year and consumers going without the next and in an organisation which is as large as the Community, what appears to be a huge surplus can in fact represent only a tiny proportion of total production. So it is important that we always keep this surplus in perspective.
In the case of skimmed milk powder, however, the 1 million tons or so surplus represents a large proportion of production. This is quite unofficial, but using my own mathematics applied to available figures, I reckon that the 1 million tons surplus of skimmed milk powder, which is a cumulative total over several years, represents 4 per cent., perhaps 5 per cent., of total Community production of liquid milk over these years, which is too large. Dried milk skim is often, of course, termed a by-product of butter and cheese production. I think it would be better called a co-product; but the fact is that there is a surplus of butter, and for that reason the Commission has been pressing us to abrogate our contractual treaty with New Zealand for the importation of butter—and we refer to that in paragraph 5. My guess that the Community is now producing 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. too much milk appears to be confirmed by the figures of Community liquid milk consumption, which has dropped by about 4 per cent. this year. That is a verified figure. The Commission is trying to tackle this surplus by all sorts of means, like school milk subsidies and exporting dried milk, and under its new principle of consumer co-responsibility which was propounded in May last year it is insisting that animal feed should contain a proportion of dried milk.
Now, though, as an extraordinary measure, and lumped in at the last minute with these price proposals, is a proposition which the Committee believe to be quite unworkable and which we refer to in paragraph 7. It is to deter smaller farms—and "smaller farms" we calculate to be those which have 29 cows or less—from delivering milk which they produce. The Committee believe that the best answer to the reduction in milk consumption is to promote the sales of liquid milk, which has been done very successfully in this country by the Milk Marketing Board and which it seems to us could be done in other EEC countries if the producers were better organised.
My Lords, the only other matter in this first part of the Report which I think I have time to speak to at the moment is that of the beef premia, which is referred to in paragraph 9. It is, of course, in the interests both of producers and of consumers that beef producers are assured

1485
against market collapse. Much pressure has been put on our Minister to abandon the system of premia which we obtained in 1973 after prices dropped disastrously owing to the relatively insensitive working of the intervention system. The Commission thinks that because the market is now firm the use of intervention is unlikely; but, if intervention is unlikely, why, we ask, abolish the premia, which at present are costing nothing and yet remain as an assurance against another possible and unpredictable collapse of confidence? I hope your Lordships will give your support to our Minister in Brussels in his efforts to retain the beef premia system.
One more point which I think will be of particular interest is that we are, as your Lordships know, taking another transitional step this year to align our prices with the rest of the EEC. I am told that its implications have been swallowed up in greater rises and other inflations, and the estimated effect of both this and last year's transitional steps will be adding only 1 per cent. to consumer prices. For those of your Lordships who may be confused by the Community jargon such as "guide price", "reference price", "support price", "intervention price" and so on, may I commend the minutes of evidence taken from Mr. Williamson, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and published as an appendix? At the beginning of his evidence your Lordships will find what amounts to a glossary of these terms given, as I may say was the whole of Mr. Williamson's evidence, very clearly and concisely.
With regard to the next Report on marketing proposals, the Committee have taken a lot of evidence and have questioned at length the head of the Central Council for Agricultural Co-operation, Mr. John Morley. This is a very big subject. It is fundamental to the whole structure of a Common Agricultural Policy and we feel at the moment that the Committee can only comment generally on the proposals. Some of them relate to the financial control of the budget, about which the Committee will be taking more evidence at a later date. I should like to endorse the Committee's commendation of the admirable document on Community marketing by Mr. Ralph Howell, MP, which shows what
1486
a long way the Community has to go in this respect.
Our Report on wheat suitable for breadmaking reduces the complicated problem to the simplest terms possible, but those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject will be greatly helped by reading the evidence beginning at page 29. At first, one could not imagine that such a prosaic subject could be so fascinating; but it reads like a detective story—and our solution is to be found at the foot of page 11and at the top of page 12 of our Report. Our commendation has been conveyed to the Agricultural Commissioner Mr. Lardinois by my noble friend Lord Walston who is a member of our Committee. Our conclusion is nearly the same as that which was reached by the Commission itself except that the Sub-Committee are recommending that wheat used for breadmaking should be allowed to command its own premium in the market, without a reference price or other kinds of support prices, rather in the way that malting barley does at the present time.
We learned that countries had very different ideas on what types of wheat were suitable for making bread. British-type bread is not made from the same kind of wheat as French-type bread. Moreover, one variety—for example, the famous Mans Huntsman—sometimes produces samples suitable for making British-type bread and sometimes, when grown in other areas under different conditions, it does not produce the right kind of grain. We found that there was no quick test which would detect the difference. In other words, for breadmaking wheat there are differences of criteria throughout the Community and difficulties of testing against these criteria. It is the opinion of the Committee that if the intervention price of wheat were lowered to reduce the risk of a surplus expensively bought, various agencies would, or should, combine to initiate a scheme to promote more orderly marketing of wheat suitable for breadmaking, including the setting of adequate premia.
In this country the Home Grown Cereal Authority are on their way to designing such a scheme. If they can get going, it would be helpful to the balance of payments of this country with North America. Working against the inclusion of more homegrown grain in home-made

1487
bread in the United Kingdom, is not only this lack of homogeneity in homegrown lots, of which we heard evidence, but the fact that since the milling trade has grown up on the use of imported grain, the mills are themselves concentrated at the ports and it is simply much more convenient for the millers to import shiploads of suitable grain than to fiddle about with a multiplicity of homegrown lots, relatively small ones, on offer at home. If the Home Grown Cereal Authority can encourage an orderly home market, producing what the millers require, it seems to me that they would be performing a very valuable function. One last point impressed on us from the evidence submitted is that if in future any new grain régime is instituted by the EEC, we must be mindful of the people who grow and market the seed required as they cannot switch from growing one variety to growing another in under about two years.
My Lords, not least of the benefits which have accrued from the establishment of the Sub-Committee is that there are now a number of Peers who are kept exceptionally well informed about the Common Agricultural Policy and about what goes on in Brussels. Certainly, I, myself, am very conscious of continuously being educated in all sorts of agricultural matters. In turn, there are two short but important observations which I wish to make on the working of the system, of which we have been made particularly aware as a Committee. We have the opportunity of scrutinising the price proposals before they are decided, which Parliament never had the chance to do in years gone by under the old British system; under the EEC we have a more open type of government. But it would greatly help effective scrutiny if fewer proposals were rushed through and if they were not bunched together as they sometimes are. We, as a Committee, had very little time to consider price proposals and have done as well as we have only because our specialist adviser managed to get hold of half a copy of the French version. The English language translation, in spite of supreme efforts by our own Ministry, came out a whole month after the French. It seems to us, in conclusion, that, granted that the CAP is a very complicated thing to run, it could do with some oil applied
1488
to the machinery in certain places. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Fifteenth Report of the European Communities Committee on the EEC Farm Prices Review 1976–77 and on High Yielding Wheats (R/2020/75 and R/2021/75), and on Marketing of Agricultural Products (R/2157/75), and the Eighth Report on Milk Fats (R /1944/ 75 and R/1991/75).—(Lord Raglan.)
6.48 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that the House owes the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, a great debt of gratitude for introducing this debate this afternoon with such enormous skill. It reflects not only the skill of his Committee but the great expertise developed over the last two years by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and her colleagues in digesting the volume and complexity of European Community regulations and proposals. To follow what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has said in regard to the production of documents, I should like first to reinforce what he said in going over the timetable, because your Lordships may not be aware that the proposals on price levels for CAP products—the English document R/166/75—were published only on 13th January. The document came to Westminster on 16th January. It is before us today, will be debated in another place next week, I believe, and it will be debated in the European Parliament on 10th February. It will be discussed in the Council of Ministers between the 16th and 18th February, and their resolution will be published around the 19th or 20th of this month. This is a helter-skelter programme and it is, we are told, necessary; nevertheless, I think it is most commendable that the scrutiny has been carried out with such skill and expertise by the Committee of your Lordships' House under such very great pressures of time and lack of documentation.
My Lords, this is inevitably a two-stage review. So far as the products not subject to CAP are concerned—that is, potatoes, wool, et cetera—there will be a British Price Review around 14th and 15th February. For the products with which we are concerned in the discussion today publication will be around 19th or 20th February.

1489
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred to the beef premia, and suggested your Lordships should support the Minister. I am sure your Lordships are of one mind about this, and perhaps I could quote Sir Henry Plumb of the National Farmers' Union in what he said in answer to the question:
"Why do you support the Minister in his efforts to keep variable premiums?"
Sir Henry Plumb replied:
"I think their workability and flexibility have been demonstrated in the United Kingdom in the past year, and that they have played a central part in restoring confidence in the meat sector".
Could you have a more direct statement of confidence in what the Minister is doing at the present moment regarding the beef premia?
So far as prices are concerned, we are under some difficulty here. COPA (the co-operative organisation of European farmers) recommended rises of 10 per cent. at least; but we have the following target prices (and I regret I have to quote some percentages): wheat, a rise of 9.5 per cent.; barley, a rise of 9 per cent.; sugar, a rise of 8 per cent.; milk, a two-stage rise of 2 per cent. and 4.5 per cent.; beef, a rise of 8 per cent.; and pig meat, a rise of 8.5 per cent. It does not measure up in the present prices to anything like what the COPA hoped it would.
Perhaps the most useful role of this debate is that it provides the opportunity to stocktake the Government's own White Paper Food from our own Resources (Cmnd. 6020) as published last April. Paragraph 50 gives the "projection of higher output by 1980"giving a pattern of continuous growth of the agriculture industry of about 2½ per cent. per year, and Table 2 on page 15 of the White Paper refers to this paragraph. But what is the harsh reality? Total agricultural production— as your Lordships may be only too well aware—has fallen by about 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. It is difficult to determine to what extent the wet spring of 1975—which prevented timely drilling—and the hot summer—which created fodder problems and reduced yields—contributed towards this. However, one is at the same time well aware that the exceptionally mild autumn helped to ease the fodder situation and greatly helped in the problem regarding stock.
1490
In paragraph 23 of the White Paper we read:
"If farmers are to invest in expansion, they need a degree of assurance about their future returns."
What do we find, my Lords? In the year 30thSeptember 1974 to 30th September 1975, there was a 41 per cent. decline in the number of applications for capital grants, representing a substantial drop in investment in fixed equipment. We may attribute this to various causes: one would clearly be the lack of confidence; another, almost certainly the delay factor in the handling of applications, and the rate of inflation running at a higher rate than the grant. As your Lordships will remember, the rate of the grant on fixed equipment was reduced to about 20 per cent., and this was no doubt reflected in the lack of interest which farmers have shown.
But to come to the nub of the matter, the lack of expansion in agriculture may be set towards a cleavage in the Government's mind between their desire—which we heartily endorse—to improve farm production, and their equal and opposite desire, through their fiscal policies, to extract cash. These are two so diametrically opposite desires, although at least to some extent outside the precise wording of these documents we have before us, that we must lay some stress upon them. This really lies at the heart of the dilemma of the industry. The NFU policy on this is quite simple. They have said:
"The taxes we pay must be related fairly to what we earn. They must not destroy our productive assets or our earning potential".
Could there be a fairer point of view?
There is no doubt that this is going to continue until such time as the Government issue their proposals regarding wealth tax. There will not be the degree of investment which the industry needs until we know what is to be proposed. At the same time, the Government's proposals on capital transfer tax have made a real difference to farmers in what they consider to be the likely future for the next 10 to 15 years. The centre of so many difficulties of individual farmers is how they see the world in 1985–86, rather than simply in terms of this year's production.
My Lords, I am not going to make a long speech because my noble friend Lord

1491
Vernon is a much better versed member of the Agricultural Committee than I. It is an important factor that no less than three members of the Scrutiny Committee are contributing in this debate. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has beside him a prodigious pile of documents. While I hope this does not suggest he is going to make an excessively long speech, it indicates the amount of paper that we are attempting to consider. My Lords, I commend the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, brought this issue before us; it is timely that he should have done so.
6.58 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, although I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said about the taxation factor, I am going to confine myself to the job I greatly enjoyed, the scrutiny of the papers and proposals coming out of the Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and the close supervision of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. It has been extremely interesting and rather complicated. I see signs of sense appearing in some of the documents which we received, and the Committee have striven to introduce some simplicity into our thinking which has been transmitted to Brussels. This may be because we are simple people; but these matters needed simplifying.
Regarding the proposals for wheat, we thought a great many complications were entirely unnecessary; we thought a lot of political angles had entered into the proposals from the Commission for a separate set of premia regarding wheat for bread-making. We thought the traditional French regard for the "noble grain", which they held above everything else, had come into the matter. Therefore we had a good, hard look and we listened to a great deal of evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said. Eventually we came out with the sensible suggestion that we could not do anything to stop farmers from growing the new wheat which could produce some very large quantities of grain required in this country for feeding animals, if it was not suitable for feeding to humans in the form of bread. And we noted that our millers who used to bring in the grain straight from the prairies, the
1492
No. 1 Manitobas and so on. were willing to pay a very large premium for this.
It was quite obvious that since the war, as techniques improved, they have been using more and more home-grown wheat and this was saving them a great deal of money—because on one particular day the chairman of the Committee and I looked at the price of No. 1 Manitobas, and it was £96 a tonne, whereas the price of home-grown wheat was £67, or some such figure. We thought that if they could do that for wheat off the plains of Canada they could do that for more suitable home-grown wheat and still save themselves a great deal of money. The simplicity of putting in a bottom price and leaving it to the market to pay the premium, we regarded as right and proper, and there is every sign that the Commission are thinking the same way. As a pointer to the common sense of this view, I can say that Maris Huntsman—your Lordships may not know the name —is one of the new wheats of which many farmers are growing four tonnes an acre in this country today—and a very good crop in the past has been considered to be three tonnes. So this proposal is excellent and can save a great deal of money in imports to this country.
Referring to the Price Review, I should like to talk about the price of milk. It appears that as a result of their stocktaking the Common Market have started a review of the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy and to look at prices in relation not only to supply and demand in the Market but also to the competence of a number of farms to which they refer. This appears to us to be sensible, but we do not think that the process has gone very far. It is very curious that although the rate of increase in the price of milk has been lowered in the CAP proposals, it is going up a bit in spite of the fact that it is the commodity most in surplus in the Community at the present time.
We think that the Commission must now begin to think in terms of using the price mechanism where a commodity is in too great a surplus. But in saying this, we also appreciate that there must be a surplus if we are to avoid the situation we have today in this country regarding the potato. If you want to have level prices you must pay for a surplus; and, as I have said many times, that surplus

1493
is not too expensive. The whole of the Commission's budget for the support of agriculture is £2,500 million, and we ourselves in this country at the end of the war, when the pound was worth a great deal more, were spending nearly £500 million in subsidies for food in these Islands alone. So I do not think we should get this out of perspective.
The rate of increase in the countries of the Six is disguised in this country because of the "green pound", or by the deliberate reduction of our prices because of the rate of exchange as against the unit of account. I think that as regards milk we must be very careful over Community legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has already referred to the regulation and the offer of help to farmers who might well have up to 29 cows and may go out of business—an offer that could go up to £6,000 as a bribe to go out of business. At the present moment we are getting a distortion between the main countries of Europe and this country. In fact, we are a much more suitable dairying country and our farmers are getting something like 10 per cent. less for their milk, and the Continent is going to rise again. Therefore we must be very careful to reject this proposal applying to this country. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran is particularly perturbed at the effect of this on the small farmers in Wales who are producing milk very efficiently from 30 cows. If they were to go out of business he thinks it would be very upsetting for the whole economy. Our recommendation there is, I think, very sound; and the sooner we are on all-square terms with the rest of Europe on pricing the sooner' we shall achieve one of the objectives of the Community—that is, the production of food where it is most suitably achieved, in the case of milk.
I do not wish to prolong my speech unduly, but there is one important point which goes far beyond the specific proposals which are before us for the improvement of marketing and processing. There is a long document, and a very large number of comments upon it. These proposals are made by the Commission for the improvement of marketing and processing, and in the main they set out a number of criteria which simply express a very wide range of methods for obtaining grants and they set out a number of other conditions, one of
1494
which is that approval and a grant must be obtained from the member country. It goes on at great length and contains a number of very interesting things. I should like to refer at this point to the grave danger of appalling and increasing bureaucracy. I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the reason why I have brought such a great pile of documents with me is not that I wish to speak about all of them, but I should like your Lordships to observe that this is the amount of literature I have accumulated in three months on one Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House, examining EEC regulations. I have spent my life on various committees, and never before has such a glorious accumulation of "bumf" come my way. I think a great deal of money is being wasted because of this.
I have friends who have received FEOGA grants for improvements in Scotland, and they have been very glad to get them; but they have regarded them as a bonus. They have made their plans for an improvement or project, applied for grants and got permission here, and then applied to the EEC. All their financing plans were done in the hope of getting the EEC grant, although they did not care whether or not they got the grant. But, of course, they liked it if they got it.
There are many things wrong with the present set-up, and one of them is the amount of time involved. I should like to read from Article 13 of the Proposals, which says:
"Applications for aid from the farm shall be submitted to the Commission each year before the 1st October. The Commission shall decide on the merits of such applications before the 31st December the following year."
This is not planning. How can you plan for this amount of time before you decide on a project? It can only be a bonus with that sort of nonsense going on. I think that, as a major item of policy, this country should try to put the view that the Commission in Brussels should be a sort of "Monty's caravan headquarters" and not the source of money and grants or a place where we are creating an enormous bureaucracy.
Our own Ministry of Agriculture is rather efficient, and I see no reason why the administration of policy decisions taken in Brussels should not be supervised by our own competent civil servants in

1495
this country, because at the present moment the FEOGA grants are a bonus and they are not helping production one little bit. That is the major point which I am contributing to this discussion, as a member of this Committee. It is a point far beyond our remit, but it deserves the attention of this House.
7.10 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for introducing this Motion. Certainly, I am indebted to all the speakers who are practising farming and know what they are talking about. But at last, thank Heaven!, people are beginning to realise that some of us who pointed to the bureaucracy before we went into the Common Market, and some of us who had been to Brussels 10 or 11 times to try to understand, had foreseen the difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, paid tribute to our Ministry of Agriculture. I think the work of that Ministry stands out as some of the best in the world, and I truly believe that, whatever the criticism of small farmers and others.
I had the privilege for 26 or 27 years of representing a constituency with 3,000 small farms. They were marginal, up on the contour line and, on average, were at about 600 ft. It is a little ambiguous talking about the "small farmer", because many of them have the stature of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. They were not small by any means, but their acreage was small. They really worked and earned what money they got, as I knew because I saw many of their bank accounts when I went to their aid.
I am sorry that this debate is so late, but because of that I will try to spoke-shave my speech and make it not too long. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who is helping us more and more to understand the operations—I was going to use the ugly word "machinations", but that would not be fair—at Brussels. I thank her for the Reports from these Committees, which I try to read among all the other stuff. I have given up the ghost, as regards going to the Printed Paper Office and getting the papers sent to me, because my wife threatened to leave me if the place got in a bigger mess and made more work for the poor girl who
1496
comes in to clean up. I reached the point where I had more of these papers during the Christmas period than I had letters and cards.
I said that jocularly, but the documentation is beyond human endurance to follow. It is the apotheosis of bureaucracy and, with that and the divine right of computers in the world in which we live today, the ordinary flesh and blood human being is unable to swim through the flood of material that is put before us. I think that the British Price Review was evolved, after years and years of give and take, on a non-political basis and we understood it. We have now ruined that edifice. We have the example of a farmer putting in an application in October and getting a reply 12 months or more later. There can be no planning on that basis.
I should now like to talk about something which has been my bête noire all my life. The English in this Report is pedantic and terrible. I can imagine a poor little British farmer reading this:
"The major policy change suggested for the butter market is to increase the maximum FEOGA".
When I first looked at that—and I speak Welsh among other things—I asked myself: what is FEOGA? I know what it is now, because I take the trouble to find out. It is another of these damned acronyms. I am putting this on the record. I found these words:
"FEOGA represents the French acronym for European Agriculural Guidance and Guarantee Fund."
There should be a dictionary of acronyms used in EEC Reports. They become loaded with acronyms and lose their substance.
Paragraph 7 states:
"The Commission has outlined 'a conversion plan',
I remember conversion plans when I was a small boy; we used to have evangelists, because we Welsh were always being converted—
"for 'small' dairy farms."
This does not mean conversion at all. If we are not careful, the man with a small acreage will disappear and a farmer of the magnitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who knows what he is talking about and has six strapping sons whom he is looking to start off in farming, will not be able

1497
to find any little farms. In other words, we shall have the disappearance of one of the most hardworking contributors to British agriculture. I am not weeping for him. He does not want us to weep; he is fit and strong and willing to work.
It is all very well for people to say things like that in Brussels, when they are sitting in their swivel chairs; and that is swivel chair agriculture, as opposed to speeding the plough with the flesh, blood and muscle of young men who are willing in farming to pit their understanding and strength against nature. Just as we are losing miners, we shall lose people who will develop not in universities or colleges of agriculture, but through struggling with nature, trying to bend nature to the service of man. We shall lose young men who are willing to do that in summer, in winter and in all seasons, if we follow such things as these conversion plans. I have taken six minutes so far, and I propose to take 10. But I believe that the whole machine is cumbersome.
I come now to milk expansion. Today, I cannot get an honest-to-God ice-cream cone. Sometimes I get a few kids around when I am cutting my hedges, and they offer to do it for me. I know that it will cost me ten times more in ice-cream than if I pay a man to do a proper job, but they ask whether they can help. I tried one of the ice-creams but it was nothing like they used to be. Even the food we eat, with its percentages of first class contents, is worked out by bureaucrats sitting in swivel chairs. You do not create gladiators by giving them ice-cream cones based on skimmed milk, and without the real fats and other goods that should go in. Consequently —the nation has voted, so it is my duty to try to make a "go" of it—I hope that those who know what they are talking about in agriculture will stick to their last, mixing my metaphors, and see that some common sense is put into the Common Agriculture Policy which, at the moment, is a failure.
I shall not go into the absurd story of mountains of butter, Himalayas of beef and Lake Superiors of wine, but in 1931 —and I had to struggle through that year —I saw the misery, poverty and disease. They used to pray in the churches for God to help them not to be so wicked as to waste food. We now have the econo-
1498
mists justifying the destruction of surpluses, and what do we do? I hear everybody talking about the menace of the Soviet Union, especially in supplementary questions, yet we sell the Soviet Union fresh butter, good milk and best beef cheaper than we ourselves can buy it, so as to get rid of our surpluses. How daft can mankind become? This is a fact.
I may say, "Ah, this is the Common Market struggling to find the answers". Well, this is not the way to struggle to find the answers. As somebody who always reads with interest the reports of the International Wheat Council, I was going to ask (although my noble friend on the Front Bench has been kind enough to tell me that we are not now importing any wheat from Australia) whether the reopening of the Suez Canal will do anything to cheapen agricultural prices inside the EEC, and whether it will have any effect upon them. But nothing seems to come to us through the Suez Canal these days. Finally, in the Maritime Agreement which was made despite our talks, the United States and the USSR have agreed that for six years from January 1976 one-third of the grain is to be carried in American ships to the Soviet Union at 16 dollars a tonne.
I have one small question and then I will sit down, because the 10 minutes are showing on the geiger counter! Have we in the EEC any policy about freightage for agricultural products, about shipping from overseas or about importing and exporting? Has this problem of world freightage and its cost been discussed? Apart from that, it would be remiss of me to be pontifical or didactic since I do not possess the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, who is to follow me. All I want to do is to say that I think this debate has been worthwhile and to pay tribute to the Committee for bringing this Report to the House.
7.22 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am not sure that I am going to be didactic, but all of us who are interested, as I am, in the concept of European unity, with ultimately monetary union and a unified defence and foreign policy, are desperately anxious that the CAP should work, and I believe that we should play our part in

1499
trying to help that policy to work. In saying that, I go along entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the bureaucracy and the amount of paper which pours out of Brussels and which it is really almost impossible to digest. We are having this debate tonight—one debate—when in fact, if we were to do this properly, the amount of material could easily spill over into another two debates.
As a relative newcomer to the Community and in order to achieve the harmonisation which is the objective of the policy, I believe that sometimes we may have to make sacrifices and adapt our procedures rather more towards Community procedures than vice versa. Of course we must protect our own national interests, but we cannot expect all the regulations which come out of Brussels, which have to cater for different climates, systems and products, necessarily to be beneficial to us. We have to ensure that, in total, we get out of the CAP as fair a deal as the other eight countries, and I believe that we do.
That is one part of my thinking. The other is a belief that we as a nation should become more self-sufficient in agricultural produce. Indeed, our economic position and vulnerability to change in market prices demands this. In this respect, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with all the other members of the Community. An interesting table has recently been published by the Commission—it is, no doubt, in the pile of papers which was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—and it appears at page 5 of the 1975 Report on the Agricultural Situation in the Community, R/3271/75. The table compares population levels with usable agricultural area and with percentage value of agricultural produce.
I do not wish to weary the House with figures, but may I quote the example of Germany which has a higher population density that the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has 20 per cent. of usable land and it produces 12·4 per cent., by value, of the Community's final product. Germany, on the other hand, with 14·3 per cent. of usable land, produces 21·7 per cent. of the final production. In the case of the Benelux countries, the dis-
1500
crepancies are even more startling. Even allowing for extraneous factors such as the importation of feedingstuffs which can obviously affect the final result, the figures are, I would suggest, extremely disquieting. They demonstrate what tremendous scope there is for us to improve our agricultural performance.
Of course, the Government agree that we should become more self-sufficient, and they have said so in their White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Sandys has referred. Unfortunately, they have not, as yet, shown that they mean what they say, nor have they implemented the policy objectives which they themselves have set out. British agriculture has not been given the incentives either as regards capital—and it is a highly capital-intensive industry—or as regards end price, which is necessary to re-establish confidence. At the same time, the Government watch with equanimity while 75,000 acres a year are taken out of agriculture.
I have made this point before and I make no apology for doing so again. How many times at the Dispatch Box have not Ministers said, "Oh, well, we do not take the best quality land". What is not generally recognised is that there is very little grade 1 and grade 2 land in this country. The vast majority is grade 3, and it is grade 3 land which is taken. Yet 75,000 acres of grade 3 land could, if properly farmed, produce every year at least 150,000 tonnes of wheat—rather more on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—or 50 million gallons of milk. That is the measure of what we are losing, and we are losing it out of irreplaceable capital.
To return to the question of performance, as I have said, the farmer is not going to increase his output, with all the risks involved, unless he is guaranteed a higher end price. This price is fixed partly in Brussels and partly by our own Government. Here, I should like to refer to paragraph 14 of the Fifteenth Report on the price proposals. I believe that one way in which the Government could help immediately and give a much-needed boost to British farming would be to follow the Italian example last year and revalue the so-called green pound so that it approximated closer to its real value. It is grossly inequitable that the British farmer, because of this arbitrary

1501
and artificial value of the green pound, should receive so much less for his produce than his European counterpart. I recognise that the devaluation of the green pound would involve higher prices for the consumer, but we cannot go on living indefinitely in the make-believe world of cheap food.
So far I have spoken in generalities and I shall not continue for too long, but I want to say something on the specific subject of milk. Our habits as regards milk are different from those of the other countries in the Community. Our milk is sold straight from the cow with fat content unaltered, and the vast majority of it is consumed in liquid form, the average fat content being 3.7. On the Continent, on the other hand, milk is sold with a minimum fat content of 3.5 and fat is added or taken away in order to achieve this result. The two systems, of course, have quite different objectives. Our system of distribution through the Milk Marketing Board ensures the maximum consumption of liquid milk, and in this it is extremely effective because we consume more than twice as much liquid milk as any other country in the Community, with the exception of Ireland. Perhaps it is too effective, because it means that we pour down our throats large quantities of milk and butterfat which might otherwise be used for manufacture. At the same time, we import huge quantities of butter and cheese and other dairy products.
Just consider for one moment the difference between this country and the Netherlands—a country which, incidentally, is even more densely populated than we are. In 1974 the United Kingdom imported 327 million pounds of dairy produce and exported 37 million pounds; in the same year the Netherlands imported 117 million pounds and exported 396 million pounds. The question which I suggest we should consider is not whether our system is efficient. As I have already indicated, it is very efficient for the purpose for which it was designed. The question is, can we really afford it? Do we need to drink so much liquid milk? Is the health of our children so superior to the children of other countries in the Community who drink half the milk that we do? I doubt it. Would we really notice the difference if the fat content
1502
were reduced from 3·7 to 3·5? I think that, too, would be unlikely.
I will not discuss the Commission's proposals under which each country can choose which of the two systems it adopts. The point I would ask the House and the Government to consider is whether our system is necessarily the best. The dairy trade in England seem to think so. But I understand that in Scotland opinion is divided and I tend to agree with those Scots—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will be among them—who think that it would be more logical and in our longer-term interests to move over gradually to the continental system.
I had intended to say something about bread and wheats, but that has already been covered, so I will omit my reference to it. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who, if I may say so, chairs our sub-Committee with so much charm and skill, for having introduced this debate and given us an opportunity to discuss these interesting matters.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before the echo of that neat little speech disappears in this Chamber, may I ask the noble Lord a question: would he not agree that for the British farmer the school milk and meals—particularly the school milk after the war—gave a massive increase in average height to the child, and also weight, and from the dietician's point of view it proved excellent, and was also of great benefit to the fanner? I take it, therefore, the noble Lord is not advocating that we should abandon school milk because the British schoolboy is drinking too much of it?
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I am not suggesting that at all and the Commission in Brussels are suggesting that they should adopt our system as regards school milk. I was saying that I should like to see evidence that our people as a whole are healthier as a result of the amount of liquid milk that we consume.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
7.37 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for getting on my feet. I did not put my name on the list because it was quite impossible for me to know when this debate would

1503
take place and whether I should be able to get here. However, now I have managed to get here I should like to make a few comments. At the outset, I should like to say that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, in his attitude towards the Commission. I have not changed my opinion about the advantages which will accrue to this country by our becoming members of the Common Market. Having said that, I recognise, as so many people do, that there are problems so far as we are concerned in relation to agriculture and our previous system of giving support to agriculture, and the system operating in the Common Market, which is largely based upon intervention.
Certainly, we have to find a solution during this interim period. I should like to place on record my personal appreciation of the very great success that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already achieved in this respect on the Continent. I appreciate that the conditions on the Continent are the concern of the other members of the erstwhile Six and are rather different from our own commitments and our own requirements. However, I feel sure that we shall eventually arrive at a common solution which will satisfy everyone. It may take a little time.
I should like to make a few staccato comments on the Reports before your Lordships, starting with the Fifteenth Report. On the question of milk powder, it is part of the consequence of pursuing an intervention policy that the so-called mountains of milk powder and beef and lakes of wine occur. It is the natural consequence of the policy and the Commission are seeking to find ways and means of reducing these mountains and lakes. It does not necessarily follow that what they are proposing to us will satisfy us in our own circumstances.
With regard to the milk powder, on a broader front I should like to see it made much easier for the surpluses to be exported to those countries where one finds recurrent famine. One knows what has happened in the past few years in Bangladesh, for example, and in other places. It is heart-rending, and here is this food which is virtually being stored and not being used. But the Commission are proposing certain methods of reducing this surplus of milk powder. One of them
1504
has been mentioned; that is, that we are going to be asked to put into our animal feedingstuffs 2 per cent. of milk powder.
I asked the witnesses who appeared before our Committee what this would mean in terms of feedingstuffs prices. I was told it would mean an increase of £4.l0 per ton—quite a considerable increase. The consequences will be quite wide. It is like throwing a stone into a pool; the ripples spreading out will affect the cost of all kinds of animal products, which in turn will have an effect on prices to the consumer. I thought that this point should be made. This ties up with the proposal made in the Eighth Report on the situation in the milk products market.
We considered this, and the proposal contained in this Report is that certain restrictions should be put upon the manufacture of non-milk products. The Committee were with me, I think, in the sense that I did not like this proposal. If products can be produced by the manufacturing and processing industries which are of good nutritional value, their content of milk products, or otherwise, should not be objected to. What is objectionable is that when these non-milk products are advertised people are given the impression that they are in fact milk products. I entirely agree with those who say there should be a review of the advertising and the statements placed upon the labels which are affixed to these products, so that people know what they are buying and consuming. In questioning witnesses to the Committee, this was agreed by the Milk Marketing Board, who have an interest in another direction; but this is so.
On the subject of milk, I must say that I found the proposal that there should be a conversion plan for small producers completely out of court. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek when he says that this would have the effect of putting out of business a large number of small producers. In this country, the small producer has had to rely upon his herd of dairy cows. This is what has kept him going. If there was a movement into this Scheme whereby payments were made based on past production, they could not go on for ever, and because of the smallness of their units they could not change over to some other form of production; so

1505
the small producer would be seriously damaged. I hope that point is properly understood, and will be properly understood by those who have to deal with this matter.
My Lords, I would now comment on the problem of beef. I regret the proposal to end the beef premiums. The farming industry has become used to the beef premiums it likes them. The premiums are equitable and work well. If they go what is the safeguard for the farmer if the market collapses? I know these proposals are based on the assumption that the beef market will firm up. One cannot be so sure, because variables in agriculture are so great and the import situation is so changeable. But if prices declined the farmer can rely only on the intervention price to help him maintain a proper income on his beef products. The danger is that, instead of reducing the beef mountain, the beef mountain would grow larger if that situation occurred. One must look closely at a proposal of this kind.
I should also like to make a comment on the proposals for improvement of marketing the reallocation of FEOGA grants to assist those Government-sponsored and Government-supported enterprises to improve the marketing of agricultural products. I entirely agree with this proposal. We do not know its precise form, and are waiting further information. But I imagine there is in this country quite a large number of co-operatives, for example, who can, and perhaps ought, to develop their own marketing machinery, who could be helped by the allocation of funds of this kind. I am also concerned with the possibility of developing agricultural experts. I am a member of the Advisory Council on Agriculture and Horticulture. On that Council, we have been intensively studying the possibilities. We have been to a number of countries in Europe. We have also been to the Commission, and discussed these possibilities. As I understand it, such a grant would be available to help the development of marketing arrangements, marketing procedures and marketing projects of this kind. I do not think this project can do any harm at all it can only do good. It is not yet finalised, and I am hoping that the further information which we need will be forthcoming fairly soon.
1506
My Lords, I turn lastly to the bread problem. I must confess that a large number of farmer producers in this country will become confused. In this country we talk about hard wheat and soft wheat, the hard wheat being the type that we use to produce the type of bread we consume, bread that will keep. EEC nomenclature talks about durum wheat on the one hand, which is used for making semolina and pasta only, and the other wheats which are soft wheats. Within the category of soft wheats we have those which, in this country, are termed hard wheats. I think the farmer will find himself confused. With regard to the procedure for maintaining a proper price, certainly this has to be done. The proposal that the bread range should be based on the barley intervention price may work. On the other hand, it is fairly clear that in order to determine what are in fact the bread wheats one will have to devise a proper method of testing. So far we have not been able to find one. The only method which is possible, so far as we know to this day, is the actual baking of bread, which is a long and tedious process and clearly not available for use at the farm gate.
We also have to take into account the difference between the types of wheat used in this country for our own types of bread, and those used on the Continent. I am sure a solution could be found, but I am equally sure that all those concerned with developing this programme should really understand it, and that in particular farmers and the industry should not be led into further confusion by the two types of definition before us. I understand that the milling trade understand this, but I must confess that, as my noble friend the Chairman of Committees knows, I was myself confused and I venture to think that if with my knowledge of agriculture I was confused, other farmers will be too.
My Lords, I am sorry I have spoken for 12 minutes—I did not mean to. However, I would end by offering my congratulations, and expressing my very great appreciation of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, deals with the work of this Committee. The pile of papers is there we are all suffering for it, and the noble Lord has to suffer most, because he has to read every word of every one in order to be able to direct

1507
people like myself when we go astray. I am very grateful to him, and wish to congratulate him.
7.49 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as a farmer, I am particularly grateful to the Select Committee for their hard work. I have certainly learnt a great deal from reading their Reports. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Collison, was right in saying that it is only noble Lords serving on the Committee who learn a great deal as a result of their work. I include myself among those who have done. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek complained about acronyms in the Select Committee's Report, but I hope he will agree that we should be extremely grateful to the Select Committee for reducing the huge pile of papers which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has shown us to the short, clear and very readable Reports that we are discussing tonight.
I should like to start with the 1976–77 Farm Prices Review. The Commission's proposals are wide-ranging and complex, as I think everyone who has spoken has acknowledged. It is a tribute to the Select Committee that they have been able to produce so quickly a Report that is both comprehensive in its coverage but selective in its comments. I take the point that the Select Committee makes about the delay in the supply of the English text of the price proposals. This year the situation was aggravated by the intervention of the Christmas and New Year holidays, but, fortunately, I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture were able to prepare and submit their explanatory memorandum from the French text and to make available advance copies of English versions in time for the meeting of the Select Committee immediately after the Christmas Recess. I can assure noble Lords that we are again pressing this matter with the Commission with a view to their providing English versions of the proposals more rapidly in future.
The annual negotiations on CAP support are always a major event. This year's negotiations are possibly even more important than usual. They are the first opportunity for improvements to be made to the Common Agricultural Policy following the Council's stocktaking dis-
1508
cussions last year. They are also the first such negotiations since the Government set out their strategy for agriculture in Food from our own Resources. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, will judge our intentions from the success of my right honourable friend in the negotiations; as I say, they are the first since the publication of the White Paper.
The United Kingdom agricultural industry had a difficult year in 1975. Inflation and unfavourable weather created major problems. However, with two green pound changes in August and October and substantial increases in the guaranteed price for milk, the Government provided very large increases in support during the year. This, combined with a fine autumn and the mild early winter has led to a welcome improvement in the state of the industry. I was glad to see the Select Committee's conclusion that the EEC Commission's price proposals for 1976–77, with our next transitional step, should be enough to give confidence to the industry to plan ahead.
At the same time, I am sure that the House would agree that success in the Government's efforts to curb inflation and improve our economic performance are as important to the agricultural industry as they are to the rest of the community. Much as I am tempted, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, into the field of taxation. I think it would be discourteous to the Select Committee not to concentrate on their Reports in the short time we have available.
Lord SANDYS: I hope your Lordships will acquit me of any discourtesy.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I leave that to the Select Committee.
The points made in this afternoon's debate will be fully taken into account in the further negotiations in Brussels. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that two meetings of the Council of Ministers are now scheduled for this month. The Council will, I am sure, aim to reach decisions at the second of these meetings on 23rd-24th February, because some of the 1976–77 support prices are due to take effect from 1st March. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to our National Annual Review

1509
decisions being announced on 14th-15th February, if I understood him aright. To avoid confusion, I should perhaps say that it has not yet been decided when these determinations will be announced, though they will be announced as soon as possible.
I appreciate that so far as the EEC price proposals are concerned we are working on a very tight timetable. Nevertheless, there has been time for quite substantial discussions since the Commission tabled their proposals in mid-December. By the end of this month the Council of Ministers will have had four meetings at which the Commission proposals have been discussed. At the same time we have managed to have our debate today in goodtime before the Council begins the really substantive negotiations which will no doubt occupy much of both their February meetings.
As regards the Commission's actual price proposals, I read with interest the comments of the Select Committee on what is known as the "objective method". Like the Committee, I welcome the Commission's efforts to improve this method. It is an important contribution to our wish to see support prices related to the needs of modern farms. At the same time other factors must obviously also be taken into account, especially the state of the market for particular commodities. The Commission have proposed increases in support prices averaging 7.5 per cent. in EEC units of account. These increases are smaller in the Six in terms of their national currencies because of the Commission's monetary proposals. Even so, given the current economic climate and the problems of overproduction facing the Community, the Commission's proposals seem to us to be on the high side. We shall be looking for support prices generally no higher than the Commission have proposed and, in some cases, lower.
The Select Committee comment specifically on the Commission's monetary proposals, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, mentioned in particular the problems of the green pound. The proposed changes in the representative rates for Germany, France, the Benelux and Italy are primarily for the countries concerned to consider. As regards the green pound, I do not think it is surprising that the Commission have not proposed a change.
1510
We have made four changes since October 1974. The present sterling monetary compensatory amount is only 6.4 per cent. The net effect of the support price and monetary proposals together is to give a bigger increase in common prices in sterling terms than in most other Member-States in their national currencies. A number of factors have to be taken into account in considering changes in the green pound, including, as the Select Committee say, the need not to endanger the living standards of consumers. However, I can assure noble Lords that the Government continue to keep sterling's representative rate under review; and our record shows that we are ready to act when the need is there.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact that any proposal to change the value of the green pound lies largely with our Government and not with the Commission?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, certainly that is my understanding.
The House will recall that last year the Community adopted a series of measures designed to reduce surpluses of milk products. I hope my figures on this section agree with those of Lord Raglan; I am not entirely sure that they do. As I understand it, Community liquid milk production for 1975 was 91.2million tonnes while that of skimmed milk was 1.877 million tonnes. There are at the moment 1.135 million tonnes of skimmed milk in public storage in the Community, of which 0.025 million tonnes is stored in the United Kingdom. The proposals that the Community adopted last year covered temporary private storage aid, arrangements to permit increased sales to developing countries and incorporation in animal feed, and suspension of inward processing arrangements for butter oil and skimmed milk powder.
A further element in the package, namely, the proposed prohibition of the use of non-milk fats and non-milk proteins in manufactured milk products, encountered serious criticism, not least from the United Kingdom, and is still under discussion. In this connection I can assure noble Lords that the Government have taken careful note of the reservations

1511
expressed in the Select Committee's Report about the effectiveness of this element of last year's proposals. My noble friend Lord Collison referred to the Committee's interest in the forthcoming labelling legislation affecting milk products. We will ensure that details are made available when the Community proposals begin to crystallize.
Turning to the Commission's proposals for milk in the current Farm Prices Review, the Commission have proposed a below-average support price increase. They have also suggested that it should be implemented in two stages—2 per cent. in March and 4.5 per cent. in September. In principle, like the Select Committee, I welcome the two-stage increase. The actual size of the support price increases must be looked at against the current serious over-supply within the Community.
The Commission also propose that the fixed price intervention arrangements for skimmed milk powder be abolished in September, and replaced by a tendering system. This could be an important change towards a flexible intervention. As such it would be in line with our stocktaking objectives. While I know there is some concern among producers about the possible implications, I think we must recognise the need for some such action to discourage production for intervention. It would not however be realistic, in my view, to go as far as the Select Committee suggest and halt all further intervention purchases. Producers are entitled to some support. The new scheme of premiums for the non-delivery of milk has also attracted comment, particularly in the debate tonight. Clearly there are serious administrative problems which would have to be sorted out. I also fully share the doubts expressed by the Select Committee and by noble Lords tonight about applying the scheme to farmers producing as much as 120,000 litres of milk a year.
I also recognise the problems of principle and practicality in the proposal to make compulsory the incorporation of about 600,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder in animal feed. The problem is that the alternative outlets for this powder are limited. There are doubts whether even the Commission's proposal to raise the Community's skimmed milk powder food aid programme from 55,000 to
1512
200,000 tonnes is practicable. Sale of powder for animal feed is inevitably expensive and the question is how the cost should best be borne—whether by users of animal feedingstuffs or by Community funds. I can, however, assure the House that the points which have been made in our debate and by the Committee will be borne in mind in the course of the further consideration of the proposed scheme.
I also accept many of the points which have been made today by my noble friend Lord Raglan, about stimulating consumption. The Commission's idea of helping national school milk schemes, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, is certainly worth further examination. I share the disappointment which has been expressed concerning the Commission's proposals on the butter subsidy. We have pointed out in Brussels that our butter subsidy helps to maintain consumption here to the benefit of the Community as a whole.
I should now like to leave milk, and turn to beef. The Government have already made absolutely clear their rejection of the phasing out of beef premia. I welcome the Select Committee's support. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out how wasteful and ineffective large-scale support buying of beef can be. The Commission have put forward proposals which do not meet our requirements, although they have recognised that premium arrangements might be needed again in different market circumstances. Our system of support which relies mainly on premia, with intervention as a fall-back, has worked well, to the benefit of consumers and of producers. It has been good value for the Community as well as for this country. My right honourable friend has made clear that we need provision for premia. He has also argued, like the Select Committee, that the Commission's price proposals for beef seem to be on the high side.
I have left the cereals sector to the end of my comments on the price proposals, not because they are unimportant but because of course the Commission's proposals for this sector reflect the Council recommendation and resolution in R/2020/75 and R/2021/75 on which the Select Committee has reported separately.

1513
I agree with the Select Committee's conclusions, but 1 think we must remember that the proportions of breadmaking and feed wheat produced in the various Member-States differ. In this country we have traditionally fed about half our wheat to livestock. In the last year or two there has been a tendency, more marked in other member countries than here, to increase production of high-yielding wheats as compared with those used for breadmaking. It seems right that these high-yielding wheats, which in the main go for feed, should be supported at feedgrain level. This avoids imposing unnecessary costs on Community livestock producers and should be a step towards a better balance in Community cereals production. We must, however, ensure that any support arrangements for breadmaking wheat are fair and practicable and set at a sensible level, avoiding unnecessary increases in the cost of our strong wheat imports. Moreover, we shall continue to press the Commission for clear indications of the need for a special reference price for breadmaking wheats and on the method by which they are to be tested in order to distinguish them from feed wheats. We would certainly share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Collison that at the moment the only reliable method of identifying breadmaking wheats is to test bake, a lengthy and expensive process.
Finally, I would like to say a word about proposal R/2157/75 on aids for marketing and processing of agricultural products. As the Select Committee has pointed out in its Report, much can be done to improve the standard of marketing in the Community. This is therefore a subject of considerable importance which I am glad it has been possible to include in today's debate. We fully accept the Committee's view that the Commission proposal is far from clear on a number of points. We hope that they will be preparing a revised text, but unfortunately we cannot be sure that this will be done. On the basis of the present version my understanding is that the proposals to improve the marketing and processing of agricultural products is intended to take over from the Individual Project Scheme although, as the Select Committee points out, the limit of 80 million units of account per year may mean that less rather than more
1514
money is spent in this area. While we are taking a full part in the detailed examination of the proposals in Brussels, we still need to be convinced that this proposal represents the most effective way of achieving the objective of ensuring that producers obtain a fair return through efficient marketing. I was interested to see that similar doubts are expressed in the penetrating report prepared by Mr. Ralph Howell for the European Assembly's Committee on Agriculture, a report which the Select Committee rightly commends. In particular I recognise the danger that any increase in the size and economic strength of marketing or processing concerns might actually weaken the negotiating position of producers. I also share the Select Committee's concern that the problem areas and priorities have not been adequately identified, and we are by no means satisfied that the proposals as they stand make the best use of the limited resources of the Community's Agricultural Guidance Fund.
The Committee also pointed in its Report to difficulties caused by the imprecise drafting of the proposal. We share this view, especially as regards doubts concerning the criteria by which projects would be evaluated which makes it difficult to see precisely how the scheme would operate. I understand that the Commission are now considering ways in which they can speed up the decisions on those projects which would be eligible for grant aid. We hope that they will be able to suggest ways to overcome another problem to which the Select Committee has drawn attention; namely, the effect of the delay in taking decisions, which weakens the effectiveness of the grant scheme proposals, as was so ably pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie.
In the continuing discussions on the proposals at Brussels, we shall have in mind all the problems outlined in the Committee's Report, and we shall be seeking to ensure that all necessary modifications are made to overcome difficulties and to avoid the distortion of proper patterns of investment as well as securing real benefits for producers.
I apologise for going on at some length at this late hour. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that the proposals and the Reports we had before

1515
us would be enough for certainly two if not three debates, and I thought it only right to do justice to the considerable amount of work which the Select Committee must have done by seeking to comment on the main points which they made in the various Reports. In conclusion, I should like to reiterate my thanks on behalf of the Government for the extremely useful and constructive work that the Select Committee has done in producing these Reports.
8.9 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Melchett, and pleased that so much accord has been found between the opinions of the Committee and the opinions of the Government. There is one point on which he touched; my estimate of what proportion of the Community milk output was represented in a million tonnes of surplus milk powder. I have the figures. I believe we got them from the Ministry. They are certainly printed in our Report, and I said that it was a guess. If you get down to it and guess how much milk is represented by a million tonnes accumulated over three or four years, you come to something like 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the total output of liquid milk in the Community. That, as I said, agrees with the known percentage by which liquid milk consumption has been reduced in the Community as a whole.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Collison for the nice things he said about me, but he missed the nice things I said about the Committee, since, unfortunately, through no fault of his own, he was a little late. Some of these proposals—like the one that one might call "the 29 cow proposal"—are just "try-ons". I have the feeling that they try them on and put them forward just to make people think, and then they correlate the sum of people's thoughts and have another think. Of course this is one way of forming a policy—perhaps not a bad one. My noble friend Lord Collison mentioned the matter of hard and soft wheat. I thought we made it clear in our Report that Community wheat is not referred to as hard and
1516
soft wheat; it is durowheat and common wheat, so we have avoided that trap. I see no reason why British millers should not go on calling it hard and soft wheat if they like, so long as they do not confuse it with duro.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? I am grateful to my noble friend, because I raised this matter in Committee and it has certainly been dealt with in our Report. When I indicated that I thought people in the industry would be confused, I meant those farmers who probably will not read the Report and have a background of talking in terms of hard and soft wheat.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, it was owing to the intervention of my noble friend in Committee that we revised the draft and I think it is now clearer. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek criticised the Common Agricultural Policy, I found myself warming to it. It is not really such an unfriendly set-up It employs far fewer bureaucrats than the Scottish Office. I would welcome my noble friend to the Committee. He has every right to attend. He would thereby get a better understanding of what the Common Agricultural Policy is about. The great heap of paper which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, quite rightly showed us, indicated how hard he has been working and how hard we have all worked. A great deal of it was something we wished upon ourselves in pursuit of the truth and of clarification. I should think at least half of that is evidence which we have asked for and which has been given to us by various organisations.
We are undertaking a task which we have no need to undertake and which under the old British national system we had no opportunity of doing, but which under the Community we can do. May I give members of my Sub-Committee advance warning that we are going to take some evidence on a new potato regime in the near future; we shall be looking at marketing and asking questions regarding the financial control of CAP.
On Question, Motion agreed to.