Lords Sitting of 24 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Manchester)
The Lord CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HUMAN SETTLEMENT: UN CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the conclusions of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlement and what proposals were made by the British representative.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the Conference was the first of its kind to deal specifically and comprehensively with the problems of human settlements, and was attended by representatives of more than 130 nations. Progress was made on a declaration of principles which was developed in 63 detailed recommendations for action by individual nations. These recommendations should be of particular value to developing countries, and help to ensure that the aid we give is used in the most effective way. All countries represented accepted the need for settlement policies which contribute positively to national economic and social development. In his statement to the Conference my right honourable friend the Secretary of State emphasised that the United Kingdom was the first country to experience industrial urbanisation. He set out the lessons we have learned from 30 years of developing a comprehensive planning system. Copies of this statement have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. Our main contribution was formulating recommendations endorsed by the Conference.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that statement, and appreciate that it is quite impossible to indicate to the House the concrete decisions reached. Will she use her influence to enable us to have a debate on these big issues ? Avoiding the controversial aspects, may I ask her to consider a broader matter in view of the diffused, confused and interminable discussions at this conference, repeating what has been said at five other international conferences under different United Nations Agencies; namely, is there not a necessity now to co-ordinate the United Nations organisations under a unified authority
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Brockway, all the other conferences were on different subjects. The common blanket was the human predicament, but they were all on different areas of that predicament I very much endorse the first point made by my noble friend, and think that this is a subject worthy of debate rather than a short Question and Answer session.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister how she can ask us to have confidence in those broad generalisations when we have failed so disgracefully on our own doorstep, on such a small but important issue for some people ? The inhabitants of Diego Garcia were thrown off their island, which was a British possession, and money was, indeed, given by the British Government; but is my noble friend aware that these poor creatures, now in Mauritius, are still not being properly looked after?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is something which is really a matter for a much wider conference. It is true that there are a great many injustices. I am not prepared to condone anything done which should not have been done, nor am I prepared to say that a conference of this sort could solve all the problems in the world. All I am trying to say, in as brief an answer as I can give, is that a great many critical subjects were discussed, and certain recommendations were made, and I repeat that it is practically impossible to discuss these things in the way they should be discussed,

427
covering all the peripheral matters that come into it, in a Question and Answer session.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, first of all, may I congratulate the Government on having taken a stand at this particular conference against the proposals which were made there, as they are being made at various other Agency conferences of the United Nations, to introduce attacks and to " politicise " the situation in those very places where politics should not be introduced? Because human matters should be dealt with without the bitterness and the antagonisms of the Arab spokesmen and others who are trying to crush these conferences by the kind of resolutions they put before them, and which were so correctly opposed by our Government and some other Governments on this occasion.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Janner is aware, the United Kingdom voted against the final comprehensive declaration because of the insertion of the Zionist racist part of the resolution, which referred back to the resolution of the General Assembly.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I say that I appreciate—
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend the Minister is aware that I myself congratulated the Government on this ? Is she aware that the utilisation of these conferences by those who wish to attack other members of the United Nations is an obnoxious way of dealing with the necessities of the situation? We should continue to emphasise the fact that political resolutions should not be introduced under such circumstances.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we do recognise that, and deplore it. We do all we can to try to stop it, but it is very difficult when people at a conference like this speak freely, as they have the right so to do, and introduce this sort of resolution. The most we can do is to show that we deplore it by voting against it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that at this conference the Committee of 77 representing the developing nations recommended there should be no reference in this resolution to Zionism? Further, is my noble friend aware that many of us want to pay tribute to Barbara Ward, now Lady Jackson, for her proposals for this conference? May I say how warmly we shall welcome her membership of this House ?

HMS " HAMPSHIRE "
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: 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 why HMS " Hampshire " is to be scrapped after an unusually short period in service.
Lord W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, HMS " Hampshire " was paid off on 31st March 1976 as one of the measures to implement the reduction in force levels announced as a result of the Defence Review. She was chosen for disposal principally because of her poor material condition and her relatively high manpower requirement.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, is it not the case that HMS " Hampshire " was fully operational last year? Is it not also the case that three others of her class are being disposed of? Is this due to an absence of manpower or to the obsolete character of the weapons with which she is fitted ? Even if this is so, will the hulls be of no use in the future ?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, HMS " Hampshire " was due for a major refit. Since she was reaching the end of her useful life, it was considered that the money involved in the refit could be better expended in other areas. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is correct when he says that three of the other members of her class are due for disposal. My information is that only HMS " Devonshire ", which is older than HMS " Hampshire ", is due for disposal in 1978; one ship now and one in 1978.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those who were present at the paying off of HMS " Hampshire " in Southampton regret very much the passing of this excellent ship ?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords ; all great ships pass and are remembered with affection by their crews. But let us not forget that the Type 42 destroyer is now coming into service. HMS " Sheffield " is already in service; " Birmingham " will be accepted this year, and five other ships are on the stocks.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I do not agree with his policy at all?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, before scrapping any ships of this valuable and relatively modern class, would the noble Lord consider at least putting them in reserve, because it may be possible in the future to fit more modern missile systems? If there is a temporary shortage of manpower—the noble Lord referred to the rather heavy complement of this class—it may be that a successor Government will find money to spend on the defence of our country. Is it not vitally important that these modern hulls should be preserved until a change of policy takes place?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will convey the noble Lord's views to my right honourable friend.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the County class, of which the " Hampshire " is part, were obsolescent before a keel was laid, and there were some of us who protested against this extravagant waste of public money, which overall has cost this country £57,000 million since the end of the war? The fighting quality of these vessels was nil from the word " Go ". Does not this stem from the utterly irresponsible and incompetent White Paper published in 1957 by the Tory Administration ?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when HMS " Hampshire " was commissioned and
430
how many major refits she has had since then?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, she was commissioned 13 years ago, and she has had no major refit until now.

ARMY TANKS
3.12 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 what improvements have been made in tanks provided for the Army and how they compare with previous types and those available for the countries associated with the Warsaw Pact.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Chieftain represented an all-round improvement in mobility, firepower and protection over its predecessor, Centurion, which it replaced in British Army service between 1967 and 1973. Many features of Chieftain are superior to those of the T62, which the Warsaw Pact introduced in the early sixties. The improvements we plan to make to Chieftain should maintain its superiority into the 1980s. The Warsaw Pact, however, are putting much effort into improving the quality of their tanks and are now introducing a new tank, the T72. As regards the progress of Chieftain improvements, the first stage, which is the laser sight, is already in production and issues to units are proceeding well. Trials of the improved fire control system, which, together with the muzzle reference system, forms the second stage of the improvements, are approaching completion.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I welcome improved efficiency in our tank situation, but can he say anything about the recent discovery to which his right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently referred: the armour plate which could prevent penetration and even destruction of tanks? Can he explain why the project has been made available to Iran at a cost of £500 million but will not be available to the British Army for 10 years?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a problem. It is a new concept of armour. In order to convert the existing Chieftain both the turret and the hull would have to be replaced. This would cost £100 million at least, and would not be cost-effective.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is that we are to receive £500 million from the Shah of Iran, when he can afford these sums, in order to obtain the project? Why not use the £500 million in order to provide the British Army with similar tank protection?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is a question of time-scale. I do not think the sheer Iran tank will be available for some years, and by that time the new family of tanks will presumably be coming into use in this country.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that during World War II we made the worst tanks in the world, and that subsequently with the Centurion and then the Chieftain we have made, if not the best tanks, certainly tanks among the best in the world? More importantly, will he assure the House that the talks which have now been taking place for some time with the Germans about the new main battle tank are proceeding satisfactorily ?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, they are certainly proceeding, and I believe satisfactorily.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the trouble with the Chieftain is not only the armour? This is another white elephant come home to roost. In actual fact it is grossly under-engined compared with the Leopard. We need at least 25 per cent more power. They are excellent showpieces, but as fighting instruments today they are useless.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I refute every one of the statements made by my noble friend Lord Wigg?
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at a recent WEU meeting a paper was presented which indicated the increasing preponderence of arms available to the Warsaw Pact
432
countries over those of the Western Powers ? Can he give any assurance that the recent development in tank armour will do something to correct that imbalance within a reasonably short period of time ?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, not in a short period of time; but what is important is the laser sight which is in production and being issued to the tanks, and the improved fire control system and the muzzle reference system, which are approaching completion and will be available for installation long before the armour itself will be required.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, could my noble friend say, in reference to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if the proposal now is that the German engines, which I believe technically are regarded as the best, can be wedded with the British tank frames, which also are technically regarded as the best, or are there to be two entirely separate developments ?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question, which perhaps we might discuss at another time.

FISHERIES AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND
3.18 p.m.
Lord KENNET: 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 proportion of the International Fund being set up by the World Food Council will be devoted to fisheries.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the International Fund for Agricultural Development is not yet established, so I am afraid it is too early to say what proportion of its resources will be devoted to fisheries.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, will the Government do what they can to see that when the Fund is established fisheries are not forgotten, as they so usually are, and that a due portion of the Fund goes to increasing the rationality of the world fishery pattern?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not think it will have escaped my noble friend's attention that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Development made a very cogent speech about that very point. Her Majesty's Government are very alive to the need for using fisheries for providing animal protein and we are pressing on in every way we can to encourage its use, both in the future and in the present.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness for an assurance that at any rate a suitable sum will in fact be directed towards helping the fisheries ?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No doubt, my Lords.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the visit of the President of the French Republic.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Pike be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Reigate—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE
in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Interpretation of Part III]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 23, line 27, after (" but ") insert (" , with those exceptions, ").
The noble and learned Lord said : This Amendment will correct a minor omission. On the Bill's introduction the last three words were inadvertently left out of the phrase, " but, with those exceptions " in Clause 20. With the insertion of these three words the clause will be in the same terms as the existing law. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Particulars of export agreements]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 27, line 2, leave out from (" which ") to end of line 17 and insert (" is or becomes one to which this Act would apply but for—

(a) paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act, where the agreement relates to exports from the United Kingdom, or

(b) paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule,

as if that agreement were subject to registration under this Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: These are part of the pieces of the consolidation process which have left loose ends. Clause 25 requires that certain export agreements should be notified to the Director General of Fair Trading as if they were agreements subject to registration under the Act. The wording of the clause as it stands was thought by the Joint Committee to be excessively complex. I do not claim that what I propose in its

435
place is limpid clear but it constitutes improvement, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Regulations for registration]:
3.23 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 28, line 35, leave out (" from time to time ").
The noble and learned Lord said: The phrase " from time to time " in the paragraph referred to has been found to be unnecessary, and its removal by this Amendment will make the paragraph easier to understand. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Agreements holding down prices]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 32, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: On further reflection and consideration it has been found that subsection (6) is unnecessary and may be omitted from consolidation without changing the law. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Agricultural and forestry associations, and fisheries associations]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 35, line 9, leave out (" (whenever made) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Here again, there are words included in the clause for which it is found there is no need, and accordingly they can be omitted without changing the law. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-committment he discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THEATRES TRUST BILL
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a Manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESALE PRICES BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation of the provisions relating to resale price maintenance, which means broadly the fixing by a supplier of goods of their price on resale in Part II of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and the Resale Prices Act 1964. The Bill

437
makes consequential repeals of certain other enactments. If your Lordships approve, the Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. — (The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 13 [Agricultural holdings in England and Wales: further restrictions on operation of certain notices to quit]:
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 15, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with the leave of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. In Committee I moved an Amendment which aimed to cut short the procedure provided in the Bill under what was then Clause 12, when a tenant was given a notice to quit after failure to remedy a breach of his agreement under Section 24(2) (d) of the 1948 Act. Clause 12 gave him the option at the notice to quit stage either of going straight to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to decide whether the notice should he effective, or first to an arbitrator and then, if he was dissatisfied with the arbitrator's decision, he could still go to the ALT after that. My fear was that in a bad case the tenant might try to drag out the proceedings by this means and harm would be done by neglect to the farm and its buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, argued that one might get borderline cases where the tenant had failed perhaps by a very short margin of time—the noble Lord quoted the case where a tenant had not, for example, tidied up a hedge for a few weeks—and then the arbitrator would have to say that the notice to remedy had not been complied with and the notice to quit must operate, and that was the justification for what was the old Clause
438
12. We all agree that there might arise some hardship where in a minimal number of cases an arbitrator had no discretion. I withdrew that Amendment saying that I thought that probably the best thing to do was to cut out the arbitrator altogether at the notice to quit stage, leaving the tenant with the one option of going to the ALT to decide the matter. On further reflection, this seems to me to be the neatest way of solving the problem. I still feel that there can be no case for having both arbitration and termination by the Tribunal after the tenant has failed to comply with the notice to remedy.
This series of Amendments provides that the notice to quit, if contested, will go to the Tribunal only; arbitration is cut out. The Tribunal will decide whether the reason stated in the notice to quit is valid and whether to give consent to its operation, and this is no different from the function of the Tribunal when the landlord seeks consent to the operation of a notice to quit served for one of the statutory reasons under Section 25(1) of the 1948 Act. It is well within the ambit of the ALT to decide, after having expert evidence, whether a notice to remedy has been complied with especially since, as I suggested in Committee, they can sit with assessors. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, these three Amendments follow the discussion we had in Committee on what was then Amendment No. 2. In replying to that Amendment, I tried to make it clear why the Government felt that an appeals procedure was required in the case of notices to quit founded on failure to comply with a notice to do work. I think that Lord Middleton has now accepted that this sort of appeals procedure is desirable and I am delighted to see that these Amendments do not strike at that principle. I cannot however accept the second part of what the noble Lord said; I do not agree that in practice everybody would go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, as he suggested in Committee. This seems to me to ignore the realities of the matter and to miss the main purpose of this provision, which is to provide an appeals procedure against the

439
unfair use of the notice to do work procedure.
Under the existing provisions of Clause 13, a tenant farmer served with a notice to quit founded on failure to comply with a notice to do work has several options. The tenant can, first, refer the notice to quit to arbitration; and secondly, if the notice to quit is upheld, require the landlord to seek the consent of the Agricultural Land Tribunal; or, thirdly, the tenant can refer the notice to quit to the Agricultural Land Tribunal without arbitration; or, fourthly, decide to do nothing and allow the notice to quit to have effect. I must emphasise that when we prepare the revised Statutory Instrument we intend making it clear that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will not concern themselves with whether or not a notice to do work was valid and soundly based. They will be concerned solely with whether or not a fair and reasonable landlord would, in all the circumstances, insist on possession.
I suggest to the House that the realities of the situation are these. Bearing in mind what I have just said about the Agricultural Land Tribinal's role in these matters, I suggest that where a notice to quit is soundly based and fair, the tenant will not wish to go to arbitration. Instead, he will either throw himself on the mercy of the Agricultural Land Tribunal or, if he knows that he is guilty of poor work, he may decide to forgo the expense of a hearing before the Agricultural Land Tribunal and allow the notice to quit to take effect. But where the tenant considers that the notice is invalid, either because it is legally at fault or is unfair or just not true, he will naturally wish to refer the matter to arbitration. And depending on the arbitrator's finding, he will then decide whether to press his case to the Agricultural Land Tribunal or to give in. I just do not accept, as I think has been suggested by noble Lords opposite, that a tenant will deliberately take his landlord through all the hoops just to embarrass the landlord financially. It is a fact that the complaints of harassment have come from comparatively small farmers and I do not believe that they would deliberately incur the heavy expense associated with arbitrations and references to the Agricultural Land
440
Tribunal unless they had a genuine sense of grievance.
This brings me to the substance of the Amendment, to which I have two objections. First, it ignores the fact that Clause 13 is primarily an anti-harassment provision; the Amendment assumes that every tenant in a dispute will wish his complaint to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I do not think that that will be so. The representations which the Ministry of Agriculture has received from the NFU, the professional bodies and others, have all been to the effect that the existing arrangements for arbitration must remain in being; they are a simple, quick and cheap way of settling the majority of disputes. Secondly and with equal force, I would say that it would be highly undesirable for the Agricultural Land Tribunal to start dealing with matters which have hitherto been the responsibility of the arbitrator, whether or not the Tribunal are assisted by assessors, as Lord Middleton suggested they could be. The ALT is similar to a court of law and disputes about matters of fact, such as whether a hedge has been cut properly or a field is infested with weeds, are not for their consideration. The role of the Tribunal is to consider questions of opinion as typified by the fair and reasonable landlord test.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. As I say, it is not acceptable to the representatives of the tenant farmers, it is not acceptable to the professional bodies concerned and it is certainly not acceptable to the Government.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I thought that we were not all that far apart because this Amendment has gone a long way to meet the points which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made in objection to my noble friend's previous Amendment in Committee. It is a simplification of the process, and it is in order to try to deal with the person who has manifestly not carried out his work. These cases are bound to be very few and far between.
But what in fact is the case? If a tenant is not looking after his place properly, and is asked by the landlord to repair the fences, the buildings, or the gates, but does not, he is then given a notice to remedy. The tenant can then

441
take that to the arbitrator, and under this Bill the arbitrator can change the stipulations in the notice to remedy. The arbitrator will say that the tenant can use different materials or can have a longer time in which to do the work. But let us suppose that the tenant still does not do what he is supposed to do. In those circumstances it is reasonable for the landlord to bring into effect the notice to quit. The fact that that notice is brought in when the tenant has manifestly not done that which even the arbitrator told him was reasonable to do in logic seems to be sensible.
Our only point here is that the tenant, having got a notice to quit, goes to the arbitrator and asks whether it is fair, and the arbitrator says that it is. The tenant then has to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, say that he has received a notice to quit which the arbitrator says is fair, and then ask the Tribunal to rescind it. That seems to be an unnecessary link in the chain. What our Amendment would seek to provide is that when the notice to quit has been made, because the tenant has not carried out the repairs which the arbitrator himself said were fair and reasonable, the tenant should then go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and say, " This is what I have been presented with. I don't think it is fair. Will you or will you not permit this to go ahead?" I do not think that there is very much between us on this matter, although in his final remarks the noble Lord said that the Government were against this. I should think that what is proposed here would improve the Bill and improve the process. Not for one minute do I believe that it would he at all antagonistic towards the tenants, because, having had the notice to quit, they have the right to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

THE FRENCH PRESIDENT'S STATE VISIT
3.43 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about his talks with the
442
President of the French Republic. My right honourable friend's words are as follows:
" President Giscard d'Estaing's State Visit to the United Kingdom marks the opening of a new and hopeful chapter in the long history of Anglo/French relations. All of us who had the pleasure of hearing the President's address from the Royal Gallery yesterday welcomed the positive and constructive spirit in which he spoke of the relationship between our two countries. I am happy to say that a similar spirit of friendship, candour and constructiveness has marked our official talks. Both of us welcomed the opportunity to deepen the understanding between our two Governments and countries, and all our discussions were conducted in this spirit.
" In the course of both our private talks and the official sessions, we were able to touch on most of the principal subjects of joint interest and concern to our two Governments. In particular, as partners in the European Community, we had a full discussion on Community matters, including the question of direct elections to the European Assembly, on which both sides were able to explain their concerns. We also discussed the Common Fishery Policy, on which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I explained to the President the critical importance we attach to the forthcoming negotiations.
" On the Tindemans Report, and the future of Europe generally, we had a useful exchange of ideas, and achieved a much clearer recognition of how much common ground there is between us.
" Finally, and perhaps of greatest significance for preventing future misunderstandings, we reached agreement on the need for closer and more systematic contacts between our two Governments. The President and I have decided to meet once a year, accompanied by Ministerial colleagues as appropriate, in order to discuss relations between our two countries and, in particular, the problems of common interest deriving from our

443
membership of the European Economic Community. The first meeting will be held in Paris before the end of this year. We have decided that there should he a similar annual meeting between the Ministers responsible for foreign affairs; and that there should be periodic meetings between the other principal Ministers, notably those responsible for home affairs, the economy and finance, energy, industry, defence and trade. The text of the Joint Declaration embodying this decision sill he printed in the Official Report.
" France should know that we welcome unreservedly this new arrangement and will play our full part in raising our relationship to a new high level. I hope that other nations of Europe will see it as a contribution to the cohesion of the European Community, and thus as being of benefit to Europe as a whole."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
The Joint Declaration is as follows:
" The President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
" Considering that their two countries share the same basic outlook and pursue common objectives;
" Recalling that their two countries' membership of the same European Community creates new links between them;
" Resolved to develop consultation and thereby to reinforce co-operation between their two Governments;
" Have decided to meet alternately in France and in the United Kingdom, once a year, accompanied by the members of their Governments principally concerned, in order to discuss relations between their two countries and problems of common interest, notably those derived from their membership of the European Economic Community;
" Have also decided that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and the United Kingdom will have a separate meeting at least once a year;
" Have decided to organise periodic meetings between the other principal Ministers, notably those responsible for Home Affairs, the Economy and Finance, Energy, Industry, Defence and Trade, with a view to bringing the policies of their two countries closer together and facilitating their convergence."
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in the past two years one has had to listen to so many Statements from the Front Bench opposite of either a disastrous or
444
a disagreeable kind to those of us on these Benches that it is a particular pleasure to welcome this Statement this afternoon, with every word of which everybody in this House would agree. There cannot be anybody who would not welcome the closer understanding between Britain and France and the disappearance of the misunderstandings of the past few years. One will particularly welcome the proposal that the Prime Minister. the Heads of Government and other Ministers should meet at regular intervals. I might say in passing that when I was Secretary of State for Defence for four years I met my French opposite number every six months, and defence was not a topic on which we were always agreed. I think that those meetings were very useful and I am only sorry that they were not carried on by my successor. But certainly I think that this an admirable idea.
I should like to pay my tribute to the Prime Minister for the tone with which he has approached these talks. Perhaps I might also be allowed to pay my tribute to President Giscard d'Estaing. No one who heard his speech yesterday in the Royal Gallery will forget it, nor will they forget the spirit with which he approached his visit to this country, the elegance and forthrightness of what he said and perhaps above all, the generosity he showed.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to endorse not only the Statement but also everything which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just said. In particular I should like to be associated with the tribute he paid to the Prime Minister. I think that this has been an extremely happy visit. All of us who heard the President in the past few days have been impressed with the constructive approach which he has adopted, an approach which has turned this visit into something much more important than the normal State Visit of a Head of State. In particular, we were impressed by the President's statement that the winds of change were blowing France and Britain together rather than apart. We especially welcome the proposal for more regular consultation and the establishment of a much closer relationship between France and Britain, and a relationship which will exist within the Economic Community.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for their response to the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that in any union there has to be a willingness, and those who take part in the union should clearly enter into it with a knowledge of what they are entering into and with a full heart. Until last year, in terms of the European Economic Community it could not have been claimed that one could say that of this country. Certainly the two major political Parties were themselves torn on this very matter. But I believe that the decision that was taken by the people of this country, through the ballot box, has removed beyond any doubt the question of where the British people feel that their future interests lie. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I think that the French President himself appreciated this. I believe that the fact that we have now, through the ballot box, said where we wish to be and clearly stated our intention to co-operate, has done much to make this very important meeting between the French President and the British Prime Minister so successful.
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the speech that was made by the French President yesterday. It certainly was elegant. It had its generosity; but generosity is necessary between two countries whose interests have clashed for centuries. But I think it had, too, a sense of understanding, not only of previous positions, but that we now wish to play a full part within the European Economic Community, and that we also see that it would be of benefit to that understanding within Europe if Paris and London were brought closer together. I believe that the visit of the French President and his very gracious wife to this country is a landmark in our relationship with Europe and I think that that is quite clear and has been fully recognised by the French President in all his utterances in this country during the last two days.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a very great number of people in this country will welcome what the Government have said and what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said today in his very valuable remarks? May we take it that
446
this meeting with its valuable results will be the prelude to closer understanding with Germany and the rest of the Nine and to making positive progress towards working out in practical terms the idea of the European Economic Community?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said: It is of very great importance. Of course, the House will be aware that under the formal treaty between West Germany and France there are these two formal meetings each year. I do not believe that the French Government see this new arrangement which will appear in the joint declaration as in any way seeking to put British, French and German relations in a superior position in terms of the European Community interest. It is not to be seen as an emerging directorate. We are three of the larger industrial countries and there is a great deal to be said for these more systematic bilateral talks; but I can only repeat the concluding remarks of the Statement:
" I hope that other nations of Europe will see it as a contribution to the cohesion of the European Community, and thus as being of benefit to Europe as a whole."
That is the spirit in which we certainly and, I believe, the French see this new arrangement.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.53 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, to come back to Amendment No. 1, the whole object of Clauses 12 and 13 in this Bill was to prevent harassment. By " harassment ", as we all know, we mean the possibility that an oppressive landlord could give a tenant such a long list of work to be done in the way of repairs and rehabilitation to the farm that it would be impossible for the farmer to do it. He could then be given notice to quit because he had not done it. We are on common ground in saying now that with previous legislation since 1948 and with Clause 12, with which we are fully in agreement, at the notice to remedy stage, the arbiter—and this is where he comes in, where his job is most important—has

447
such wide discretion that no notice to remedy can be unfair in any way.
It is only when a lawful notice to remedy has been ignored blatantly and badly that the notice to quit may be given. It is at this stage that we are talking about what the procedure ought to be after that. All that we are doing is saying that when that stage arrives it will be administratively better to cut out what we think to be the unnecessary step where the arbitrator is called in again, and simply go to the Land Tribunal who have vastly more discretion than the arbiter. So far, we are on common ground.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, entirely understands even now the purpose of this Amendment. I disagree almost entirely with everything he said. I certainly disagree that the Agricultural Land Tribunal cannot do the job of the arbiter. I am certain they can do it; and they do it in other cases. I disagree entirely when he objects that the arbiter's job is to decide facts and the Tribunal's job is to decide matters of opinion. I do not think that there is this division of functions between arbiters and Tribunals. I do not think this argument is a sound one. Both decide both. The arbiter's function under Clause 12 of the Bill is very much a question of opinion; and he had to use his discretion under Section 19(2) of the 1963 Act when he was empowered to extend the time for doing any work. Here he had to look at matters and exercise his opinion; it was not just a question of facts. He had to use his judgment as to whether the time given by the landlord was fair and reasonable.
Let us now turn to the Tribunal. Much of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is in deciding questions of both fact and opinion; for instance, whether to issue a certificate of bad husbandry under Section 24(2) (c) of the 1948 Act. Indeed, under Clause 13 of this Bill the tenant exercises the option, as the noble Lord said, to go straight to the Tribunal on notice to quit. If he exercises that option, they would have to decide both on the facts and on whether the notice was fair and reasonable. It would be a matter of opinion. I do not think that these arguments hold water.
On the other hand, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble
448
friend Lord Ferrers, that now we have the notice to remedy stage so tidied up, the cases where an appeal will be undertaken at the notice to quit stage I think will be few. We are dealing with an absolute minimum number of cases when this procedure might have to be undertaken. Also, I take Lord Melchett's point that there may possibly be something not quite ideal in this Amendment. For that reason, and for the reason that I think the cases that will arise now will be so few, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Agricultural Holdings in Scotland: power to enable demand to remedy a breach to be notified on arbitration. ]:
3.59 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the approval of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 inclusive. The position at the moment under the 1949 Act—and that is equivalent to the English Act that we have just discussed—is that when a tenant is in breach of his lease or his statutory obligations under a tenancy, the landlord can serve notice on him to remedy the breach or breaches. I should like your Lordships to note that at this stage the tenant is already in default of his contract; but notwithstanding this he has the right to go to arbitration if he fails to put right the matters in which he has defaulted. Already the arbiter can say that inadequate time was given to carry out the work; already the arbiter can say that what the landlord asked the tenant to do was not reasonable; so that Clause 14 (1) and (4) of this Bill are entirely superfluous and are doing nothing but complicating the issue.
However, notwithstanding that the clause is superfluous, it has allegedly been inserted to prevent harassment of the tenant. Here, again, it is unnecessary. I have been unable to find any cases of harassment in Scotland. There has been mention of a case in Caithness and I have tried to trace this. I think the case referred to was probably that of Stewart v. Brimms in 1969. If this is so, the position

449
was that Mr. Stewart, a well-known Edinburgh lawyer, who I am told is of the same political persuasion as the Government, was appointed sheriff of Caithness. He bought a farm tenanted by Mr. Brimms and then proceeded to serve a notice on Brimms requiring him to put in order certain works which he had failed to do as a good tenant should. Mr. Brimms failed to comply with the order, and on getting notice to quit as a result of his failure went to arbitration. The arbiter upheld Mr. Stewart's contention that Mr. Brimms had not done what a good and prudent tenant should have done, and Mr. Brimms had to give up his tenancy.
It can be appreciated how this caused considerable local controversy—the sitting tenant removed by the newly-arrived landlord. So the Member of Parliament for the area immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and has, I suspect, been partly responsible for the inclusion of Clauses 14 and 15 in this Bill. It seems difficult to understand how this can be considered a case of harassment, though of course there may be further details unbeknown to me and consequently not mentioned today. It seems clear, however, that not only was the tenant at fault but that, when told to remedy, he did not do so. Had the proposed legislation been in force at that time, the tenant could have gone to the Land Court in addition to the arbiter, so incurring further expense and a further waste of time. Also, although I may be wrong on this, I think a tenant has a right to legal aid when appearing before the Land Court, in which case there would be still further delay because he would have to apply for legal aid. But this may not be the case.
We should not forget that as this legislation becomes more complicated so there are more and more loopholes through which the clever lawyer can allow the bad tenant to slip. There are really no grounds for these proposals. They are nothing more than a device to make it harder for a landlord to keep a bad tenant on the rails. It is already very hard for a tenant to lose his tenancy for bad farming. Indeed, it is very seldom that a tenant can be put out of his holding except for bankruptcy. My Lords, this is not supposition ; I know it is fact from bitter experience. I know of a tenant of 400
450
acres who has not put one grain of fertiliser on his farm this year because no agricultural merchant will give him credit. His buildings have not been painted for years, and yet the landlord can only sit back and watch his asset depreciate until bankruptcy actuallystrikes. This cannot be good for agriculture; and now the Government are attempting to make the situation even worse.
I understand that on this matter there has not been consultation with the Scottish National Farmers' Union, and certainly the union has not had an opportunity to discuss it. I have discussed this with certain people of influence in the union, who felt that a reasonable tenant would be better protected by such a proposal as that which I have tried to set out in Amendment No. 5, by which it is necessary that a proper notice to remedy should be served. At the moment, I understand the position is that a landlord can write to his tenant " Dear Peter, I hope your Aunt Maggie is feeling better. By the way, last time I drove through your steading I noticed that the doors needed painting. Will you please get these done in a reasonbale time ?" I think your Lordships will agree this is not satisfactory, and it could perhaps be considered harassment if a notice of this sort was served.
What I feel would be much better than either of these two rather unnecessary clauses, which will only be a bad tenant's charter, is that the landlord should have to serve a proper notice, and this is what I have suggested in Amendment No. 5. But I should not like Amendment No. 5 to be accepted without the deletion of Clauses 14 and 15, because that would only further upset the balance between the landlord and the tenant, which appears to be thoroughly upset by these two clauses. I know that similar proposals for England have just been withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Middleton, but I feel that the situation in Scotland is different, as indeed we discussed at Committee stage. There are many more things which weigh against the landlord and more in favour of the tenant in Scotland than is the case in England, and unless these things can be put right at the same time and the whole agricultural holdings set-up examined, then I think we ought to drop these two clauses. I beg to move.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I find it difficult to see any reason at all for this clause. It is something that radically changes the landlord/tenant position in Scotland, and surely something like that is not put into a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. It should have been given much more consideration than it has had already. If the Government argue that it is perfectly right to put this into a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, then I think they could be charged with having double standards, because at one time they said that they were not going to put any reference in this Bill to revising rent reviews in Scotland, which are at present at five years, whereas in England they are reviewed every three years. As everyone knows, in this day and age of inflation a rent which is struck today will be quite ludicrous in five years' time. So will the Government please " come clean " on this and either say that they are going to drop this clause because it is not right to have it in a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill or make some provision for reviewing rents earlier than is at present the case in Scotland ?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, first of all, if I may, I should like to say a word about consultations with the Scottish NFU, which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised at Committee stage and again in speaking to Amendment No. 4 today. The noble Lord said at Committee stage, at column 568 on the 8th June, in referring to these clauses at that stage:
" As this was only introduced at the Committee stage in another place, I wonder whether the Scottish NFU have even been consulted."
I did not correct the noble Lord then as I should have done, but, of course, it is not correct to say that these clauses were introduced only at Committee stage in the House of Commons. They were in the Bill as it was introduced, and in fact no Amendments were made to the Scottish clauses in Committee in another place. The only Amendment made to the clauses in another place was a minor Government Amendment at Report stage restricting the powers of the arbiters, which I suspect might be held to be in the landlord's rather than the tenant's interest.
Before the inclusion of the Scottish clauses in the Bill as introduced, there were a number of informal discussions with the officials of the Scottish NFU,
452
who were told of the general intention to introduce clauses on the lines of those proposed for England and Wales; and at a later stage they were told the general tenor of the clauses. During these informal consultations, I understand that the NFU in Scotland admitted that they had not heard of any recent complaints about this type of case except for one isolated incident, which I suspect is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, went into in some detail. However, I understand that the Scottish NFU did not raise any objections to the extension of the law in Scotland so that it was in line with that in England and Wales, and in fact made it clear that they would be in favour of provisions along the lines of those which have been made in the Bill. So I hope that what I have said has cleared up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, appears to have misunderstood. I have a feeling that the misunderstanding may have arisen because he asked the Scottish NFU whether they had been consulted about some new clauses introduced at Committee stage in another place. Of course, there were some new clauses which introduced the family succession scheme, but no new clauses of any relevance particularly to Scotland were introduced in another place.
Turning to the Amendment, the noble Lord said that he wished to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 to 10, but I think he in fact dealt only in detail with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if I restricted my remarks at this stage to those two Amendments and dealt with the latter Amendments when they are moved. The provisions of Clause 14 catch up with some of the provisions enacted for England and Wales in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963 as well as paralleling the provisions in Clause 12 of this Bill.
I understand from my noble friend that landlords in Scotland have not in general been guilty of the type of harassment of which complaint has been made elsewhere. As I have already said, it may well be that one particular case has occurred and that may be the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred. Nevertheless, since the law was being amended in England and Wales, the Government concluded that it was desirable to bring the law in Scotland broadly into line with that for England and

453
Wales thus providing a similar protection for Scottish tenant farmers to that provided for tenant farmers in England and Wales.
The provision for arbitration is of course in the existing law and what Clause 14 does is to give certain powers to the arbiter which he does not have at present to enable him to delete and substitute items in a demand, specify materials and methods to be used or to fix the time in which the works must be done. At present, the arbiter can give findings only in relation to facts—for example, on whether a tenant is obliged by his lease to undertake the work, or whether he has actually done the work. These new powers should make the reference to arbitration much more useful.
This part of the Bill is to a large extent directed against the possibility that a tenant might be dispossessed for failure to remedy a breach of his tenancy in relation to a failure to do works when the works in question were patently unnecessary and unjustified. At present neither the arbiter nor Land Court has jurisdiction in such a case. The clause enables them to see that justice is done. I had understood that these proposals had been generally welcomed. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, your Lordships' House has agreed now, through two stages of this Bill, that similar provisions should be enacted in England.
Turning to the Lord Burton's new clause, Amendment No. 5, the noble Lord explained why he had tabled it, and he made clear that he saw it as a quid pro quo, if I may call it that, for the deletion of Clause 14, if not for the deletion of Clause 15. The wording of the clause is not in itself satisfactory, as it refers to a notice under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1949—which must mean a notice to quit given under that section; but I think that the new clause is really directed to laying down specific provisions relating to the demand in writing given by the landlord to the tenant asking him to remedy a breach in the conditions of his tenancy by doing works of repair. I therefore would have objections on drafting grounds to the Amendment as it stands.
Apart from this, there are, if I may say so, arguments against accepting the
454
noble Lord's new clause. To some extent, the basic purpose of Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill is to protect the tenant against being caught in a technicality by being literally in breach of the conditions of his tenancy, although it could reasonably be held that he was not at fault. And it seems to me that the noble Lord's new clause might put the landlord in a somewhat similar position—in other words, the position before the enactment of Clauses 14 and 15—that the case which he could legitimately make against the tenant might fail, because he had not complied exactly with the requirements of this clause. I know that landlords are advised by the authorities on the Agricultural Holdings Legislation in Scotland to specify their requirements in a certain way, and it is no doubt desirable that they should do so.
But I am on the whole reluctant to give this the force of law. The provisions we propose go a long way to safeguarding the tenant. I doubt whether we should put this further burden on the landlord. I know that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland, while they would accept such a provision as giving a small benefit to tenant farmers in Scotland, would not regard this provision as one of any great significance and would not, for example, regard it as giving an equal benefit to tenant farmers as the provisions for arbitration which we have been discussing.
It must be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that neither the National Farmers' Union in Scotland nor the Government could in any way see his proposed new clause as being a substitution for Clause 14. My Lords, I have dealt with the Amendments thus far; if the noble Lord would like me to go on and deal with the Amendment relating to Clause 15, I would be happy to do so.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, would the noble Lord say why the Government are not going to review the rent period in Scotland ?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, on the basis that that was in the form, " Before the noble Lord sits down ", I would reply that we had considerable discussions on an amendment on this matter at Committee stage, and I gave the reasons why the Government could not accept the Amendment then.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, the reason given by the noble Lord was—
Several Noble Lords: Order! Order!
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I try to clear up this matter of the consultation with the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I understand that general discussions were held some time ago. These were to cover the whole of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act legislation. I am convinced that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are no more anxious to take parts of this legislation out of context, in the way the Government have done with this Bill, than are any of us on this side of the House. This is where the trouble has arisen. One little bit has been taken up and not the whole general discussion which I understood took place. Apart from that, the annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union has been held since these discussions took place and most of the committees have changed. The noble Lord referred to the Committee stage in another place. There was only one Scottish Member on the Committee, Mr. Norman Buchan, and you could hardly expect him to oppose the Government's legislation.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, what I was correcting was Lord Burton's assertion at the committee stage in this House that some clauses had been introduced at the Committee stage in another place. I was not saying that there were not any changes made. I said specifically that there were no changes made to the clauses in the Committee stage but the clauses were not introduced then.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, the question was also brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the arbiter being able to fix a time. As the law stands at the moment, the arbiter can say that the time is inadequate. Surely, to put in a complete new clause on a small matter like that is splitting hairs. The arbiter already has powers to say that the tenant must not go out because he has not adequate time to do the job. It seems an entirely false argument. If you are going to make it harder on this clause to put out a tenant, then you ought to strengthen Clause 25(2)( d)
456
covering the rules of good husbandry. This is almost unenforceable at the moment. I do not suppose there has ever been a case on this because it is so vague. It means that it is going to be more and more difficult to remove a bad tenant. All that will happen is that agriculture will suffer. The landlord's property will steadily depreciate. We have seen this happening. I have been put in an extremely difficult position by the withdrawal of the previous three Amendments, but I take it that it would be the wish of your Lordships' House that I should withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Covenant against assignment.
" . In Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (matters for which provision is to be made in written tenancy agreements), after paragraph 9 there shall be added—
" 10. A covenant by the tenant not to assign, sub-let or part with possession of the holding or any part thereof without the landlord's consent in writing."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to meet an anomaly which will arise in certain cases as a result of Clause 17 which was drawn to our attention last week in Committee in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and by the Agricultural Law Association in a memorandum to my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture. This new clause is very similar to the new clause proposed by the noble Earl, with one significant difference—it makes allowance in its final six words for the admittedly unlikely case of a landlord who might have no objections to a tenant assigning, sub-letting or parting with possession of the holding. I should add that we have consulted the CLA and the NFU over this Amendment since the Committee stage. They have not raised any objections. I beg to move.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, as I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, all I can do is thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his right honourable friend for listening to what were obviously very eloquent words of mine.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application of following sections of Part II]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord SAN DYS Lord SAN DYS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 21, line 6, after second (" the ") insert (" sole (or sole surviving) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the same as one moved in Committee. I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, anticipated that that Amendment was being moved because of the question of joint tenants, which is covered in subsection (4) (a), but that was not, in fact, the case. I fully understand that it is very easy to anticipate an argument before it has been made, but the fault probably lies with myself because I did not explain at greater length the intention behind this Amendment. This is a case where brevity is not the best course.
In fact, the reason for bringing forward this Amendment again is to cover the case where a tenancy has been assigned. This will probably not happen in a very large number of cases, but I think your Lordships will agree that provision should be made in law for a situation of this kind. So the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that where there has been an assignment the death of the assignor will not be a death giving rise to a notice to quit. We believe that if the words remain as they are the Bill will be defective, and could be interpreted to mean that children and relatives as specified could claim the tenancy of the assignor. Clearly, in the case of an assignment, it could never be the intention of the Government that the children or relatives specified of an assignor should be placed in the position of making a claim for the tenancy. Therefore, in our submission, it would be very much better to insert the words " sole (or sole surviving) " in renumbered Clause 17, which is now Clause 18, so that they follow directly the drafting of the previous clause. In substance, we believe that this is a drafting Amendment but it has much more important implications and we hope that the Government will be pleased to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will accept this Amendment because, as my noble friend said, it is virtually in the spirit of a drafting Amendment. Clause 18 brings into play the hereditary principle outlined in Part II of the Bill by the words,
" where …the tenant of an agricultural holding dies ".
We believe that the position should be made crystal clear, and that the words " sole (or sole surviving) " should also be used as the Government have used them in Clause 17(1). One can be a joint tenant of a holding with somebody else.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this Amendment was not necessary for this type of tenancy, because subsection (4)(a) of Clause 18 specifically prevents the hereditary provisions from coming into play on the death of only one partner; and, of course, he was entirely correct. But I believe that as the Bill now stands two points are not clear. First, if there is a joint tenancy and one partner dies, on the death of the second partner can the children and relatives of the first partner claim the tenancy, as well as the children and relatives of the second partner who has just died ? As I read Clause 18, I believe that they can, because both partners were tenants. If the noble Lord says that they cannot claim, then I would respectfully suggest to him that this is a most unfair bagatelle, because the claim of the tenancy depends upon who happens to die first. I cannot believe that in a Bill of this nature, brought in specifically to prevent hardship, one can justify any set of relatives, as opposed to another set, claiming the tenancy simply because of the fact that one partner happens to die before the other.
The second point to which my noble friend Lord Sandys referred is: What happens when a tenancy has been assigned and the assignor dies? As Clause 18 now stands, the hereditary provisions could be activated on the assignor's death, even though there is still a surviving tenant in the shape of the person to whom the tenancy was assigned. Obviously this cannot be right. It is desirable that the death which sets in motion the inheritance provisions of this Bill

459
should be the death which counts for a notice to quit under Section 24 of the 1948 Act, and it is therefore right to use the same words in Clause 18 as are used in Clause 17, which of course becomes the new Section 24(2) (g) of the 1948 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have to confess that when this Amendment was first moved in Committee I did not fully appreciate what noble Lords opposite were aiming at. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for accepting part, at least, of the blame for that, but I think we were probably both speaking at cross-purposes at that stage. Having heard the further explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I hope in turn to explain rather better the Government's view.
As I understand it, the Amendment is proposed to bring the reference to " the tenant of an agricultural holding " into line with the reference to " the sole (or sole surviving) tenant " in Clause 17(1) (a). The reason is that it is feared that a case may be found where a tenant dies, triggering off the succession provisions without his being the sole or sole surviving tenant in whose case the notice to quit can be served.
As the death of a joint tenant leaving a survivor is catered for in Clause 18(4) (a), I cannot see that this possibility could ever occur. It has, however, been suggested in consultations that the assignor of a tenancy might still be held to be the tenant of the holding after he had assigned it. In view of the definition of " tenant " in Section 94(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, which states that " tenant " means " the holder of land under a contract of tenancy ", I do not think that this argument can be sustained. Clearly, an assignor does not continue to hold land in the usual sense after he has parted with it to an assignee, and in the present context I do not think that an assignor is included in the word " tenant ". The other difficulty remains, to which I referred previously; namely, that the Amendment overlaps the exemption for joint tenants in Clause 18(4) (a). It is unnecessary and confusing for the same point to be covered twice in a different manner and for this reason, as I said in
460
Committee, I would advise your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised another point as to whose children can claim a tenancy when one of two joint tenants dies. My advice is that on the death of the last surviving joint tenant only can the relatives of that survivor claim. It is intrinsic in the nature of a joint tenancy generally that the survivor out of two joint tenants inherits the whole tenancy. Presumably, those who enter into a joint tenancy agreement bear that in mind; so, though I would agree with the noble Earl that there is to some extent a bagatelle for the relatives of the two joint tenants as to who dies first, that seems to me to be something which is intrinsic in the nature of such a tenancy, where the survivor of the two tenants will take over the whole tenancy in any case. I am bound to say that, while I see that there is some unfairness, I am not sure that this Amendment strikes at that unfairness at all. In fact, I think it deals with a different point.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, the definition in Section 94 of the 1948 Act says that it means the whole of land under a contract of tenancy. The noble Lord said, " I do not think a ' tenant ' under that section would include the assignor ". I do not think the noble Lord is right. I believe that, where the definition goes on to say that it also includes " assigns ", that could include an assignor. I believe that, if we are to legislate, we must not provide infinite food for lawyers to argue over from now until kingdom come. I feel that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend would make this matter clearer and would prevent us getting endless litigation on this matter. I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, unfortunately, I was not here for the Committee stage, but I wanted to hear the arguments on this Amendment because I think it very important that all this should be clear. I have worked in this agricultural field for the whole of my adult life and I am glad to say that I have been involved in very few troubles. On the other hand, it is the job of legislators to ensure that Bills are so clear that hopes are not raised only to be dashed—and there could be hopes of considerable rewards under the present clause—and

461
that, as far as possible, they do not lead to litigation. The clause, as we have it, could be a gold mine for lawyers, and I do not believe that we should part with it until we are entirely certain that we are not leaving numerous loopholes. Therefore, I prefer the Amendment to the clause as it stands.
If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had been very much more definite, there might have been some case for leaving the drafting as it is; but, though he expressed his views strongly—as he is entitled to—I do not believe that he has convinced many of us that no dispute or misunderstanding could arise. He has left us in doubt as to whether an assignor could scrape up an excuse to say that there was entitlement to some reward which flowed from this. He has said that, where there is more than one joint tenant, it is the relations of the one who is fortunate enough to live longest (even though he may not be compos mentis) who could benefit under these succession provisions. I only hope that he can now assure me that there is no dispute about brothers, sisters, half-brothers, half-sisters and children who may be legitimate or illegitimate, and that there will be no family quarrels starting again owing to the wording of this clause, which could, in certain circumstances, be said not to be clear. I should very much like the noble Lord to answer some of those points which I feel it is our duty to clear up now.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to speak briefly for the second time to this point. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I believe that there is only one substantial point between us; that is, that my clear legal advice—and maybe I did not express it very clearly, but I have taken legal advice on this point—is that, as an assignor does not continue to hold land in the usual sense after he has parted with it to an assignee, he is not, I think, included within the term " tenant ". I have taken care to get legal advice on this point and I have also said that my legal advice is that the passing of the Amendment, because it would overlap the exemption for joint tenants in Clause 18(4)(a), would he unnecessary and confusing of itself. Our aim in this matter is identical. There is no conflict between
462
us as to what we want to achieve. If I may respectfully suggest it to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, it might be wise for both of us to take further legal advice on this. Clearly, he would not want to put an Amendment into the Bill which would be confusing, and I shall not want to leave in words if they are open to a different legal interpretation from the one which I have been given. As I said, my clear legal advice is that an assignor cannot be a tenant in these circumstances.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that there is a very strong element of dubiety here because we, too, have our legal advisers. Possibly they are not so strong as those of the Ministry of Agriculture, but nevertheless we have very clear advice that there is an element of dubiety which, without prejudicing the provisions of the clause, we should endeavour to clarify. I believe that it is the aim of your Lordships' House to clarify all legislation, for what-every purpose it is intended.
There are a number of points which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made, and the principal one upon which I should like to concentrate is an assurance that there was no question that Clause 18(4)(6) did not in any way overlap our intentions. We believe that, to make certainty more sure and clarity more clear, it would be highly desirable to bring this small Amendment—and it is small in words—into the Bill. I believe that the point which divides us is the definition of the word " tenant ". We have this definition which is fully operative in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. I set it out for the purposes of record at the Committee stage, when we discussed it, and I do not think it necessary to read the definition again. However, it contains the word " assigns ". That word is used here in the form of a noun. It could be the assignor or the assignee. It is our view that, to make this totally clear, it would be very much better to adopt the Amendment, so I regret that I must press this point.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Exeter, M.

Middleton, L.

Alport, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monck, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newall, L.

Barnby, L.

Forbes, L.

Northchurch, B.

Berkeley, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Boothby, L.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Caithness, E.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hunt, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Colwyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundonald, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 21, line 12, after (" Act ") insert (" (except sections 20(14) and 22(8), which are of general application) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. These subsections giving the Lord Chancellor power to make an order are of general
464
application, but it is not appropriate for them to be conditional upon, or linked with the death of a tenant of an agricultural holding. However, as your Lordships will appreciate, the main provisions of Part II arise upon the death of a tenant and Clause 18(1) is expressed to reflect that situation. It is therefore appropriate to exempt these two order-making powers from the conditional nature of Clause 18(1) and this exemption is effected by the Amendment which is now proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 14:
page 21, line 26, leave out (" and without prejudice to section 20 of this Act) ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment, because it is consequential upon having deleted Clause 20 from the Bill at Committee stage. This Amendment deletes from the Bill the reference to Clause 20, which is not now in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 22, line 19, after (" course ") insert (" in agriculture or in a subject which would improve his qualification for farming ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we did have a fairly full discussion on this Amendment at Committee stage. I said then I would withdraw the Amendment in order that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might consider what had been said. I thought I might come back with a similar, or possibly even the same, Amendment. Knowing the noble Lord to be very conscientious, I have no doubt that he will have considered all the arguments which were adduced at Committee stage and I hope he will have found them to be plausible and sensible arguments. I wanted to give the noble Lord the opportunity of divulging to your Lord ships the results of his cogitations, and I hope he will accept this Amendment.
If I may recapitulate the argument, it is that under the Bill at present anyone claiming a tenancy has to show, among other things, that in the seven years prior to the death of the farm tenant the claimant must have spent at least five years on the farm from which he derived his sole, or principal, source of income. Of those five years, three may be counted if the applicant was not on the farm but undertaking a course at a university, college or other place of further education.
We believe that the Bill is drawn too loosely at the moment, because a person need only spend two years on the farm and then do a three-year course on any subject—a subject which may not be remotely connected with agriculture, for example, interior decoration, Sanskrit or Chinese—and can claim his right to something which he or she may have
466
abandoned during the previous tenant's lifetime; namely, the farm, which on the tenant's death becomes an immensely valuable asset. He or she will thus be able to claim a tenancy which by right belongs to somebody else. I believe that the course of education which enables him to make this substantial claim should be one which improves his qualification for farming.
I would further point out another matter, which we did not discuss very much at Committee stage. When we deleted Clause 20, we deleted the clause which permits people to make an application even if they are not fully eligible but satisfy the eligibility requirements to some extent. This means that a claimant in fact who has done no time on the farm at all could claim the tenancy if another place chose to put Clause 20 back again—because if Clause 20 were to go back into the Bill it would mean that a person could claim the tenancy if he had done three years on the farm. He then looks at this clause and finds that, if he has done three years at a university or another place of further education, that time can be counted as time spent on the farm. Therefore if Clause 20 were put back into the Bill a person who had gone away from the farm and had nothing to do with it but had read a subject at a university absolutely separate from agriculture, and had not worked on the farm at all, could nevertheless claim the tenancy.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will agree on reflection that this small addition to the Bill would improve it. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I took part in the Committee stage debate on this matter and was absolutely amazed that the Labour Party—who, on the whole, are very enthusiastic about education and believe that people should have every opportunity they possibly can to qualify themselves for whatever job they undertake, whether it is farming or anything else—should on this occasion have put up a very weak case indeed against this type of training.
The Government have said that if you go to university and get a degree you are qualified to do anything. I do not think that is true. I know dozens of people

467
who have been to university but who have done absolutely nothing with their degrees. Equally, I know others who have done jolly well. Farming today is a very technical and skilled occupation. No longer is farming carried out in the old, slow way, with no machinery and no skilled methods. Everything is done for the maximum effect in the minimum of time, because time is the most expensive commodity we have to deal with in farming—apart from the weather over which we have no control but which makes time even more important.
It is most extraordinary that the Government should feel that anybody who takes a degree in any subject is fitted to farm. I know many very silly people who have degrees, although I know many very clever people, too, who have degrees. Therefore it is very unfortunate that the Government do not believe that in order that our farming industry—a highly technical one in which both the margin of success and failure and the margin of profit and loss are fairly narrow—should be efficiently run, it is necessary to have some kind of qualification for farming. I do not understand their point of view at all.
I should have thought that they would jump at this Amendment and would regard it as an asset. It would help all types of people who go into farming. Also it would make the industry infinitely more effective, for it would keep down the costs. If you know something about a subject beforehand, you may not make so many mistakes. I cannot understand why the noble Lord opposite—an exceedingly intelligent young man who is, I think, a farmer, too—does not feel that people who go into farming today, with all the extremely difficult and highly technical skills required, should not be given some training or qualification for farming other than just an ordinary degree at a university. I think it an extraordinary point of view and I cannot understand it.
I hope that the noble Lord will now tell us that he is prepared to accept this Amendment which we all favour, for we want our farming industry to be as efficiently run as possible.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if I may again seek clarification, as I read these
468
two paragraphs it seems that of the period of seven years, during which five must be spent following some active agricultural or educational pursuit, three of them can be spent at a university. Therefore, only two years need be spent in active farming. In addition, may I ask the noble Lord this question. Subsection (3) refers to
"…university, college or other establishment ".
When I was young, part of my agricultural education took place in a German university. Would that count, or must the education take place in this country ? If that education can take place in any part of the world, does it matter whether the country is one where the climate and agricultural conditions approximate to those in this country, or could they be of an entirely different nature ? If the latter, I think most people would say that it would not be of very great value.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said that she could not understand the attitude I had adopted on this Amendment when it was discussed at the Committee stage. I think that may be because the noble Baroness and I were discussing a slightly different argument—slightly different but with a very important difference. The noble Baroness said that I was suggesting that any degree would make a person fitted to farm. I made a careful note of her words. With great respect, that is not what the argument is about at all. The argument is quite different: whether it is fair that someone who has taken a non-farming degree, a degree in a non-agricultural subject, should automatically be excluded from farming under the family succession scheme. If the noble Baroness thinks about it, I think she will see that we are talking about a quite different point.
As we have said many times when discussing the family succession scheme, this stage of the proceedings is discussing whether the applicant is eligible. At the second stage the Agricultural Land Tribunal go on to discuss whether the applicant is suitable to farm the holding. Therefore at this stage the educational qualification is not concerned with suitability; it is concerned with eligibility—whether the applicant is eligible to farm. That is one of the reasons why I have taken a slightly different view from that

469
taken by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. We are discussing the applicant's eligibility under the family succession scheme.
When we discussed a similar Amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he reserved the right to return to it because he did not regard the position as just.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point I made, could he comment upon university education either in this country or abroad ? Is the Bill intended to be world wide or to cover only this country?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that the Bill as drafted—in other words, in its unamended form—would probably cover degrees in higher education abroad, although I should like to take advice on that point and confirm that my opinion is right. Of course, one of the great assets that the Bill had in Clause 20 has been removed already in your Lordships' House. That provided the necessary flexibility for the Agricultural Land Tribunal—an eminently sensible body, as I have said throughout the passage of the Bill—to use their discretion in cases where the letter of the law in this particular eligibility test clearly was unfair to the applicant or, of course, to the landlord. As I say, that clause has been removed.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said that he wished to return to this Amendment because he did not regard the position as being just. I do not believe that justice has anything to do with it. The question quite simply is this. Given that an applicant is to be allowed to spend up to three years out of the seven years immediately preceding the tenant's death at a university or a college of further education—and, as I understand it, nobody has questioned this, founded as it is on precedent—which will be better to prepare the person to become the tenant farmer? Of course, this is not necessarily to work on the farm but to become a farmer. Is it solely to be a three year course in agriculture at Reading or Cirencester? Is it to be a three-year course at a university reading geology or animal genetics or even economics, all of which can be said to have an application to agriculture, or can it be a course at a university of more general application, such as PPE or a foreign language?
470
I The Bill originally provided that the first of these three options must apply; in other words that it had to be a course in agriculture, such as a course at Reading or Cirencester. But after considerable discussion in another place the Government accepted the view of Back Benchers there that the third option should apply and that it should be left to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to weigh up the suitability of applicants, taking into account all relevant matters. As I see it, noble Lords opposite are trying to strike a happy medium with this Amendment between these two options.
At the Committee stage I have already given my opinion that this is not an area where restriction is either necessary or desirable. I believe, and as I have said before I think most people involved in university education would share this belief, that any degree course should broaden a person's mind and sharpen his intellect. Therefore it better prepares the person to deal with the complex problems of earning one's livelihood today, and I believe this is just as true of farming as of any other industry.
Equally, I do not believe that the halfway house represented by this Amendment is desirable because of the differing standards of subjective judgments that the Agricultural Land Tribunals will undoubtedly apply. The noble Earl said that he had very kindly introduced the Amendment to give me a chance to think about the arguments which were advanced at the Committee stage and I can assure him that I have given further and very careful thought to this. I would hope that, as we are discussing an Amendment which does not have any Party political differences init —and I think we both agree with that—he will have given careful thought to the arguments which I advanced. In regard to the argument that the Agricultural Land Tribunal will inevitably have difficulty in deciding what the words which the noble Earl wishes to put into the Bill actually mean, that difficulty will be overwhelming.
My view is that there cannot possibly be any uniformity in the application of the words,
" or in a subject which would improve his qualification for farming ".
I suspect that the debates which I have

471
had with noble Lords opposite during the passage of the Bill through this House will be echoed in Agricultural Land Tribunals up and down the country when they have to try to interpret these words which the noble Earl wishes to put into the Bill.
It seems to me, therefore, quite clear that this requirement should either be fully restricted as it was when the Bill was originally introduced, or it should be left as it is now. This would leave the Agricultural Land Tribunal to weigh up, for example, the respective merits of eligible applicant A, who has a diploma in agriculture but who, they believe, is not wholly genuine in his professed desire to succeed to the tenancy and eligible applicant B who read history at Oxford and who impressed the Agricultural Land Tribunal with his sincerity, his keenness and his obvious strong desire to succeed to the tenancy, all other relevant matters being equal between them. I do not believe that there can be any doubt as to the sensible outcome between the applications of applicant A and applicant B in the instance that I have just given; but the noble Earl's Amendment would make a sensible outcome impossible, and for that reason I hope he will not press it.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that it is going to be just as difficult for the Agricultural Land Tribunal, on a suitability test, to judge whether a course in Sanskrit makes him suitable? In fact, is it not going to be even more difficult then than at the eligibility stage to judge whether a course has some connection with agriculture, which I should have thought was not a difficult matter to decide ?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Amendment to which the noble Lord is speaking is not connected with agriculture and I think the words are in effect that it improves the applicant's suitability to farm the holding. The point I have been trying to make all along is that the view could be taken—and I have said that I strongly take this view myself—that any university degree, because of the nature and purpose of university education, would de facto improve the person's ability to farm the land. I am not saying that it would necessarily make him a
472
suitable applicant, and as the noble Lord has pointed out the Agricultural Land Tribunal go on to consider that second point at a later stage. But I take the view myself that any form of higher education is likely, without going into the person's ability to farm, to make him better at farming a holding than someone who has not had the benefits of higher education. That, after all, is the purpose of university education. The whole point of having a university at all is not to equip people with technical skills for a particular job but to improve their minds, widen their experience and to help them to deal more capably with all the problems that they meet in later life including, I would suggest, the problems met by a tenant farmer. That was the point that I was seeking to make to the noble Earl.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said earlier there is really no Party political substance in this whatsoever. What worries me is that all the way along too much emphasis has been put on what the Agricultural Land Tribunals will do. Whenever there is a case put forward, the noble Lord says, " Well, this is something for the Agricultural Land Tribunals to consider and to decide upon ". I think that is putting far too much emphasis and far too much responsibility on the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
The noble Lord said that any form of higher education will improve a person's ability to farm because it improves his education and improves his character and so forth. I do not think that is true. I gave an example, which I will give again, where we could have a tenant farming 500 or 800 acres whose daughter says. " I am going to help my father with the cows ", but after two years she gets fed up with farming, fed up with the cows and goes off to do a course in interior decoration or domestic economy. She does that for three years and may then even go off and cook directors' lunches—nothing to do with farming. When her father dies she can come back and say, " Yes, this is a valuable tenancy. I can have this, I can put a manager in and I can live very well on it ". I do not believe that that kind of course of higher education helps her in any way to take on the responsibility of farming and to stake a claim to a very valuable asset; namely, the tenancy.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Earl gave that example at Committee stage and I asked him a question then which, with great respect, I do not think he really answered. I asked him whether he seriously believed that an Agricultural Land Tribunal would consider that the girl in the example he has given would be suitable when they came to the second stage. It may be that this would enable her to be eligible, but I do not see that there is any chance of her getting her hands on this valuable tenancy which the noble Earl talks about.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I thought I gave the noble Lord a good answer: I said that in my opinion the Agricultural Land Tribunal should not consider such a case.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, that is not the answer to the question.
Earl FERRERS: Yes, it is the answer to the question, my Lords, because in fact the person should not be eligible in the first place, irrespective of whether he is suitable. After all, we only make
Amendments in this House; they have to be agreed by another place, having been sent there for consideration. If in fact another place decided to put back Clause 20, a person who had not done any work on the farm at all, could claim this tenancy, a valuable right, by virtue of saying, " I have done three years in a course on domestic economy, or interior decoration, or a course of Sanskrit. I have done this and that is to count to qualify as my period of time on the farm. " This modest Amendment merely goes to say that if such a claim is to be made, the qualifications should be that he or she would have done something to improve their ability as a farmer. I do not think there is a lot between us. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think his case is quite as good as mine. I hope your Lordships will agree that this modest Amendment could go into the Bill.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Non-Contents, 59.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Haig, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Amulree, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Banks, L.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Birk,B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Bradwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Castle, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Melchett, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

De la Warr, E.

Norwich, V.

Wigoder, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williamson, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Oram, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Wise, L.

George-Brown, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Platt, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert—
(" (i) if the holding is incapable, when farmed under reasonably skilled management, of providing full-time employment for at least one man.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this, again, is another Amendment which we put down at Committee stage, and I said that I would withdraw it and consider the implications which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had mentioned at that stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the principle of hereditary tenancies continuing on units which are fundamentally unviable. The argument which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put forward on Committee stage was that this Amendment would exclude from the provisions of the Bill 6,500 part-time units in Wales, and 28,500 in England. This, of course, is a colossal number of small units, and I venture to suggest a colossal number of unviable units, which apparently, will all be subject to the hereditary principle if the Bill goes through as it is.
I am bound to say that I thought the arguments which the noble Lord put forward against my Amendment were arguments for the Amendment, because I cannot believe that it can be right to have some 34,000 or 35,000 small units dotted around the countryside, many of which, the noble Lord said himself, were unviable on their own but on which one farmer may farm four different units.
I cannot believe it is correct to have those units all subject to the hereditary tenancy principle, because one would have a whole posse of small fields which would be subject to the provisions of this Bill. Of course, the whole argument which has underlain so many Governments is that small uneconomic units should be joined together. To permit this principle to go forward on these small uneconomic units would militate against the principle which all Governments have adopted, which is to join these small units together. I therefore had second thoughts, and I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also had some second thoughts. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Earl has reminded your Lordships, I pointed out at the Committee stage that there are 28,500 holdings in England and 6,500 in Wales, a total of 35,000 farms to which the family succession scheme would not apply if this Amendment were put into the Bill. The average size of these holdings is 32 acres. Clearly they ought to be amalgamated with other land to form more viable holdings, and the landlord will have the right to object on the grounds of good estate management under Clause 21 if he wishes to amalgamate a small unviable holding such as this with other land. As I said when we discussed it on Committee, I think the noble Earl and I agree that it would be desirable in the interests of agricultural efficiency in this country that these small holdings—as I say, an average size of only 32 acres—should, whenever possible, be amalgamated to form large and more efficient and more viable units.

477
But in many cases, particularly, I understand, among the 6,500 holdings in Wales, no amalgamation will be possible and the holding will have to remain as being a partly viable farm. I would suggest to the noble Earl that in those circumstances it is right that the tenant's family should be allowed to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal to continue to live and work on the farm. In fact if the farm is not capable of amalgamation, I can see no argument against the tenant's family being allowed to apply to the ALT and continuing to live on the farm. I do not believe the noble Earl has advanced any argument to cover that case.
This was one of the questions where it seemed to another place that a certain amount of sensible discretion should be applied through the provisions of what was Clause 20. Regrettably, your Lordships have seen fit to delete that clause. The noble Earl said on the previous Amendment that of course it was possible for the other place to put the clause back. It is difficult enough answering Amendments in your Lordships' House, but if one has to do it on the hypothetical basis that the Bill may be changed in the future in a way that one is not yet cognisant of, it is exteremely difficult to argue against an Amendment. I should have to argue not only on the basis of the Bill as it is now, but how it may be changed in another place, assuming that your Lordships do not see fit to change it back again. One could go on for a considerable time, and I certainly will not. As the Bill is now drafted—and I think, with respect, that is what should concern your Lordships—to be eligible an applicant will have had to derive his principal source of livelihood from the holding. In that case, this Amendment is clearly not necessary, and on those grounds, if for no others, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he clarify the number of farms which are not capable of being amalgamated? And when he says they are not capable of being amalgamated, does he mean—perhaps he could clarify this further—that they are not capable of being amalgamated with a farm owned by a similar landlord, as opposed to being bought perhaps by a next door neighbour landlord? Could he give us some description of how they are not capable of being amalgamated?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have the figures on how many holdings are not capable of being amalgamated. But, of course, the landlord will always be able to go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal if he wishes to amalgamate the holding with another one. There arc several grounds on which a holding might not be capable of amalgamation. One would certainly be that the landlord does not have any suitable land with which to amalgamate it. There is also the question of the physical features of the land; for example, that it is surrounded by housing, or that it is in an area where there is no similar land with which it could be amalgamated to form a viable unit. I would suggest that there is more than one ground on which it might prove impossible to amalgamate a holding.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is always honest and true, and I admired his candour when he admitted to having great difficulty in arguing against our Amendments. I would not wish to proceed any further with this point. I think the noble Lord is wrong. He thinks I am wrong. Time alone will tell. I would not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time by discussing the provisions of this, other than to say this. Throughout this Bill, the noble Lord has always said what a great thing it is to have agreement and concurrence and so forth. In fact this Amendment, as I understand it, has the approval of both the CLA and the NFU, and, therefore, it seems a pity that it does not also have the approval of the Government. But I accept that it has not, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Restriction on operation of notice to quit given by reason of death of tenant]:
5.28 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert—
(" or,
(c) it is determined by the Tribunal that no hardship sufficient to justify the making of a direction under section 20(5) or (6) of this Act would be suffered by any applicant determined by the Tribunal to be a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding if the notice to quit were to have effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 20. These Amendments were laid before your Lordships at Committee stage, and I withdrew them in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. Perhaps I may refresh your Lordships' memories with regard to what he said at col. 1015 on the second day of Committee on Monday, 14th June:
" We accept entirely that in the operation of the scheme there must be social justice not only for the close relatives when a tenant dies but also for the landlord and his close relatives."—[Official Report, 14/6/76, col. 1015.]
A few lines further on he went on to say that he thought the provision was un-necessary because the hardship test was already implicit in the family succession scheme. I think this is the point at issue between us. We believe it is not implicit in the scheme, and we believe that on a number of grounds which I shall adduce to your Lordships.
It has repeatedly been said by the Government that the purpose of this legislation is to deal with cases of genuine hardship. Yet an applicant is not required by the Bill to prove hardship before being handed somebody else's holding—and by somebody else's holding I mean a holding which is owned by somebody else—to act as tenant. The Tribunal has only to decide that the applicant is both eligible and suitable before giving him, or her, the tenancy of a holding.
When we dealt in Committee with the question of hardship, I suggested that there were only two places where hardship is mentioned in the 1948 Act, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pointed out, one of those was deleted in the 1958 Act. Of course he was perfectly right and I am much obliged to him for making that correction. So we are really left with one statement in the 1948 Act which applies to hardship, which is Section 25(1)(d). Nowhere in the present Bill before your Lordships is there a test of hardship, and very considerable thought was given, as we understand it, by the Government to this problem which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned on Committee stage, and I think it is particularly important that we should investigate this a little further.
The fulfilment of eligibility rules does not necessarily encompass hardship, especially as attending a full-time course of education is to count as deriving livelihood from the holding. For five previous years an applicant may have derived no part of his livelihood from the holding. We have spoken a short time ago to this matter of education, so I will pass over it. But what I must mention is that when discussing this issue of hardship the noble Lord said that he felt that it would considerably strengthen our case from this side of the House if the NFU and the CLA were to agree on a suitable Amendment. We have consulted the NFU and we have not been able, in the short time available to us, to reach a form of words which is entirely satisfactory to them. But in view of the fact that the last Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers was acceptable to both the NFU and the CLA, I cannot see why this should be a qualification which the Government must set down on the question of hardship.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also suggested that it was possible to bring out the question of hardship in the later clause, which is now Clause 21 of the Bill, under which the landlord may put his case; and I assume that this is the point where he suggests that it is implicit in the Bill. We believe that there really is a justification for this Amendment. We believe that without this Amendment the Bill would have no mention specifically of this problem where greater hardship arises, and we believe that the Government should think again on this issue.
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, it was my belief that the reason for this legislation was to protect those cases, on the termination of a tenancy, where hardship occurs. However, as a result of the Committee stage I am not so sure. I believe that hardship cases should be catered for, and that it is therefore only equitable that this Amendment becomes part of the Bill. If it does not, and bearing in mind that Clause 20 might be reinstated in another place, then the Government's sledgehammer will not only crack this nut but a much larger one, with resulting wider repercussions.
Since the Committee stage I have spoken to many of the senior partners in

481
the top land agent firms in this country, and my views of the future, already known to the House, are only reinforced. If this Amendment is carried then there will be a little more encouragement to let land, and this can only be beneficial to the agricultural industry.
Let us take an example of a father and his two sons farming their own farm and two let farms in partnership. On the father's death it is found that in his will he requested that his eldest son should succeed to the family farm, the second son to one let farm, and the third son to the other let farm. Under the present legislation, and bearing in mind that the previous Amendment was not carried, there is every chance that his request will be upheld. Is this what the Government want or what was intended? I do not think so. There might not be any hardship on the tenant's sons if the tenancy terminated on one or both of the let farms, but in this instance a landlord would have virtually no chance of gaining possession. Therefore, I believe this Amendment to be correct and support the same.
5.36 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, we have discussed these Amendments before in Committee, but perhaps I could repeat to noble Lords the salient points of the argument why, in the Government's view, it is unnecessary to have a hardship test in the legislation. Before I do that, maybe I could just deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised about my suggestion that it would be wise to have agreement from the NFU and the CLA before moving into the Bill an Amendment on this point. Of course, particular emphasis was placed on this Amendment because this is a cardinal and central point to the legislation. I am not sure that it is comparable with the Amendment that the noble Earl withdrew a moment ago, particularly, as I pointed out, as the Bill now stands, the Amendment was quite unnecessary since the deletion of Clause 20. So anybody could have agreed to it without a care in the world because it did not make the slightest difference to the Bill as it now stands. But I do not rest on that. I rest on the fact that the introduction of a test of this sort would fundamentally
482
change the nature of the legislation we have before us, and it is therefore important—perhaps I should rephrase that, it would run the risk of fundamentally changing the nature of the legislation before us, and it was therefore important that all sides should have agreed before any such change were made. The concept of hardship—
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord ? Am I right in saying that the noble Lord now says that if we introduce a hardship case into this Bill we alter the fundamental nature of the Bill ? If he says that—that is what I think he said, and I think that is what other Members of your Lordships' House think he said—then he is not introducing the Bill, or trying to pass this Bill through Parliament, for the original reasons which he outlined. The original reasons, he said, were to stop hardship.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I very carefully and straight away corrected what I said initially, and said that there was a danger that such a hardship test could fundamentally alter the nature of the Bill. I agree with the noble Earl that at the time I said the first sentence I used the wrong words, but I corrected myself before the noble Earl jumped up and started shouting at me; and I think he could have borne in mind that I had already corrected myself before making that sort of point which, if I may say so, is quite unnecessary. He must accept that it is possible to introduce a hardship test drafted in a way which would alter the balance fundamentally in favour of one side or the other. You could have a hardship test that said basically that landlords, because they owned something, should not have any rights over it; and that would give the tenants a far greater say in matters than they would have under the legislation that is currently drafted. I was not making a point on one side or the other. Obviously, a test of this sort could fundamentally alter the nature of the scheme in front of us. I do not say that it would necessarily, and I made that quite clear before the noble Earl intervened.
The concept of hardship to the family when a tenant dies is inherent in the scheme, and the potential elements of

483
hardship are already encompassed by the eligibility conditions of Clause 18. The applicant must be a near relative of the deceased tenant and must have been involved in the working of the holding. And, of course, the applicant must not already occupy a commercial holding except in circumstances which give him no security of tenure. In other words, the applicant will have a strong prima facie case to succeed to the tenancy. These factors in themselves suggest that there will be hardship if the applicant is not allowed to do so.
However, this is not by any means the end of the matter. After the applicant has satisfied the Tribunal as to his or her eligibility and suitability to farm the holding, the succession is still liable to challenge when the landlord seeks consent to the operation of the notice to quit. One of the grounds which the landlord can cite in support of his application is that greater hardship would be caused by the Tribunal's withholding than by giving consent. The hardship can be of any nature and is not confined to the landlord himself; for example, hardship to the landlord's near relatives who had hoped to take over the holding may be raised and we are providing for this in the revision of the Statutory Instruments as I made clear when we discussed this in Committee. Another example is where the landlord's financial position was unfavourable compared with that of the prospective tenant. It is for the Tribunal to decide where the greater hardship lies.
I do not think, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, seemed to suggest, that the number of times the word "hardship" appeared in the Bill necessarily gave any indication of the factors which the Agricultural Land Tribunal would be weighing up or gave any indication whether they would be considering hardship. As I have said, the very grounds on which a tenant's successors will be considered eligible under the Bill will mean that, if they are denied the tenancy, some hardship is bound to have occurred; they will have been considered eligible because they have a close connection with the tenant and with the holding and, after that, they will have been considered suitable because the Agricultural Land Tribunal, this impartial body with landlord and tenant representatives on it, considers that
484
the tenant's successor is suitable to farm the holding. Given both those tests, and having been passed by the applicant, I suggest that whether or not the word " hardship " appears in the Bill, there is going to be hardship if the applicant is not given the tenancy.
The next step in the arugment is to ask: will there be greater hardship as between the landlord, or the landlord's near relatives, and the applicants. That is also taken care of in the procedures before the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I would reiterate therefore the view which I expressed in Committee, namely, that hardship is adequately catered for in the scheme, and I do not think that a specific provision, as proposed, is necessary.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, would the noble Lord comment on the point I raised?
Lord MELCHETT: I apologise to the noble Earl, my Lords, and I have forgotten what the point was.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Perhaps we can deal with it later, my Lords.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we are always in some difficulty on Report when speaking for a second time and it is unfortunate that this particular Amendment leaves us in the situation in which we now find ourselves. The acid test which my late noble friend Lord Conesford used to use was to ask the question: what is in the Bill ? And remarkably little is in the Bill. I wish that much of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in his careful and helpful explanation could be published as notes to the Bill for the direction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal, but of course it will not be; it will lie in Parliament's records and only the most far-seeking and intensely keen Tribunal members will find his remarks.
We are in some difficulty here for two reasons. The first is that the hardship position is so inadequately set out in the form of drafting that it has to be assumed by implication. I find it difficult to see how the equity proclaimed by Lord Melchett—I have no doubt, following the quotation he made from my earlier remarks, that equity is his intention—can be assured. However, I accept a

485
number of his arguments. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that it may be possible to have further discussion between now and Third Reading. I am not saying that at that stage we shall be anxious to press an Amendment on this issue—on Third Reading in your Lordships' House that is not, generally speaking, a good plan—but it is clear that we have here a situation which requires further investigation. As I said earlier, there has not been sufficient time for the CLA and the NFU to find a satisfactorily phrased Amendment, but I hope that we shall, as a result of further examination, be able to find a suitably re-phrased one and that the Government will examine it with care. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Applications for tenancy of the holding]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 20.
5.47 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 25, line 41, leave out from (" below,") to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert (" give a direction granting the tenancy of the holding to the applicant whom the landlord may choose from amongst those applicants who are deemed to be suitable by the Tribunal.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we did not discuss this matter in Committee and for that I should perhaps beg your Lordships' pardon in that I did not spot the point earlier. This Amendment is concerned with a simple point and it is therefore simple in form. It is designed to enable a piece of fairness to be put in the Bill. The Tribunal by this time will have found out who has the right under the Bill to inherit the tenancy. However, if there is more than one suitable person, then in equity the landlord must be allowed to make the choice; he must be allowed to say with which of the most suitable candidates he will enter into a contract. After all, the contract involves his property.
The landlord-tenant relationships has
486
been made much of during our debates. It has been described as an important partnership which makes a great contribution to British agriculture, and noble Lords on both sides of the House agree with that. But in these close country relationships personalities have a bearing. It would appear therefore that the landlord's personal choice should be paramount over that of the Tribunal, but only, I hasten to underline, in the event of there being two or more equally suitable candidates. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is a capable Minister who I am sure will appreciate this point. If he does not, he may be interested in a quotation from Locke which I came across the other day and which seems particularly apposite to this situation:
" All men are liable to error and most men are in many points, by passion or interest, under temptation to it."
I hope that Lord Melchett can show that he is in this respect without passion or interest and is, as he has frequently said he is, regarding it only with equity.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will give this some serious consideration because it is not a landlord or tenant issue. Our case is simply that, where there are—as there could very well be—two, three, four or even more claims to the tenancy and when they have gone to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and the latter has decreed that two or more of the claimants are eligible, it should then be up to the landlord to choose which of those eligible tenants is the one who should be given the tenancy. As the Bill stands, having decreed that two or three claimants are eligible, the Agricultural Land Tribunal must then determine which is suitable. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will consider this seriously: the Agricultural Land Tribunal may interview the prospective tenants for three hours, two hours or even half an hour, but I really do not believe that, in those circumstances, they will necessarily be the best people to determine who will best farm the farm. The landlord will probably have known all the applicants for a great number of years and he will be in a much better position to judge not who shall be eligible, because that will already have been decreed, but which is suitable. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree to this.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I can quite understand why the landlord should feel that he should be allowed to choose between qualified applicants and indeed he will have an opportunity to give his views before the Tribunal, who will take them into account in reaching their decision. However, the choice between two or more suitably qualified applicants to the tenancy will not be an easy or enviable task and it is for this reason that we believe that the choice should rest with the Agricultural Land Tribunal, which, as I said before, is a well balanced and impartial body. We have already made a major concession to the landlord's interest by allowing him to give his views on the suitability of each applicant. This is only fair because if the landlord knows his tenants well—as indeed he ought—he will almost certainly know their close relatives as well, for they will have had to be working alongside the tenant for at least five years in the last seven years in order to be eligible. Who better than the landlord, therefore, to give an opinion on the suitability of people who are applying to be his tenants and who may have a business relationship with him ?
The Agricultural Land Tribunal use normal courtroom procedure. I envisage, therefore, that the landlord will be invited by the Tribunal to give his views on the suitability of an applicant when each application is being considered in turn and he can, of course, be cross-examined on it by the applicant himself. When all the applications and the landlord's notice to quit have been heard, the Tribunal will go into closed session to decide whether or not to make a direction and, if so, in whose favour it is to be made. There is nothing to stop the landlord giving his comments on each applicant in such a way as to make it abundantly clear to the Tribunal what his views are on their suitability relative to each other. The Tribunal, from their past experiences, will fully recognise the importance of harmonious relationships between landlord and tenant and I am confident that they will give due weight to the landlord's own preference for a particular applicant.
I do not believe that there will be any difference between myself, noble Lords opposite and people sitting on Agricultural Land Tribunals as to the importance
488
of good working relationships between landlord and tenant. We should have to take a very poor view of the sense and sensibility of the people serving on Agricultural Land Tribunals to assume that, where it was reasonable they would not take full account of what the landlord said in these circumstances. The whole concept of the scheme is one of social justice or equity, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, put it. I believe that this can best be seen to be done if the final choice is made by the Agricultural Land Tribunal. It is for that reason that I regret that I do not feel able to accept the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I regret to point out, showed some of the characteristics which Mr. Locke talked about—passion and interest—when he said that it was no easy or enviable task for the Land Tribunal to make up their mind. The other point is that the landlord is running something which is quite a big business. He is running an estate which may be company owned or privately owned. He will probably have to take decisions that are not easy or enviable quite often in his life. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also said that the Tribunal will take full cognisance of the landlord's views. Why, then, can the landlord not make his own decision ? We on this side of the House are not saying that the tenancy should not go to any of these suitable or eligible people. All we are saying is that the choice between two equally suitable and eligible people should be made by the landlord and not by the Tribunal.
It also seems to me that there will be difficulty if the landlord says of one of the two or three applicants, " I really actively dislike Bloggins ", but Bloggins must be his tenant because the Land Tribunal has so decided. What a lousy way to start a tenancy! I cannot think of a more difficult way of starting or of a situation in which there would be a greater likelihood of bad blood. From the noble Lord's argument, it seems that Nanny State always knows best what to do with somebody else's property. I am afraid to say that we have only too frequently over the last 50 or so years seen that Nanny State does not always know best.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, who is this Nanny State to whom the noble Earl

489
refers ? The Agricultural Land Tribunal has nothing to do with the State.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that the Agricultural Land Tribunal has nothing to do with the State. It is a State body which is established by Act of Parliament, so of course it has something to do with the State. It is with regret—but I believe

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

[Teller] Newall, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norwich, V.

Barrington, V.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E.

Boothby, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L. ]

Rathcreedan, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Haig, E.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Burton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Caithness, E.

Hereford, V.

Salisbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Chesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanley, of Alderley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

de Clifford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vickers, B.

De la Warr, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Meston, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monck, V.

Wigoder, L.

Elles, B.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Young,B

Faithful], B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Sea l)

Bradwell, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Castle, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. C'hancellor)

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 26, line 9, leave out from (" applicant ") to (" the ") in line 10.
that we are right—that I should like to ask the House to support me in this Amendment.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to ?
Their Lordships divided : Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Clause 23 [Arbitration on terms of new tenancy]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 30 and insert—
(" (4) On a reference under subsection (3) above the arbitrator—
(a) where question (a) is so referred (with or without question (b))—
(i) shall determine what variations, if any, in the terms mentioned in that question are justifiable as there mentioned; and
(ii) without prejudice to the preceding sub-paragraph, shall include in his award such provisions, if any, as are necessary for entitling the landlord to recover from the tenant under those terms a sum equal to so much as is in all the circumstances fair and reasonable of the aggregate amount of the compensation mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) below, and for entitling the tenant to recover from the landlord under those terms a sum equal to so much as is in all the circumstances fair and reasonable of the aggregate amount of the compensation mentioned in subsection (4A)(b) below,
and shall accordingly, with effect from the relevant time, vary those terms in accordance with his determination or direct that they are to remain unchanged;
(b) if, where question (a) but not question (b) is so referred, it appears to him that by reason of any provision included in his award under paragraph (a) above (not being a provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph) it is equitable that the rent of the holding should be varied, may vary the rent accordingly with effect from the relevant time;
(c) where question (b) is so referred (with or without question (a)),")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22, and with the permission of the House I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 24. As your Lordships will recall, last week in Committee in your Lordships' House, an Amendment, No. 24, moved by noble Lords opposite, was withdrawn on my assurance that the Government would consult the CLA and the NFU in order to introduce their own Amendment to deal with the matter of payments for ingoings and dilapidations under the new tenancy. As a result of these consultations it was agreed that it would be preferable to allow any such adjustments to the tenancy agreement to be made by the arbitrator according to what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, rather than to adopt the more rigid approach proposed under the Amendment moved at the Committee stage.
Amendment No. 22 requires an arbitrator on a reference on the terms of the
492
new tenancy to include in his award such provisions as are necessary for entitling the landlord to recover from the new tenant the ingoing payments made at the start of a new tenancy. This compensation is defined by Amendment No. 24 as the compensation paid or payable by the landlord, whether under the 1948 Act or under agreement or custom, on the termination of the deceased's tenancy of the holding. It includes, for example, " tenant right and compensation for improvements. As a balancing provision for the tenant, Amendment No. 22 requires the arbitrator to include also in his award such provisions as are necessary for entitling the new tenant to recover compensation for dilapidations from the landlord.
This compensation is defined by Amendment No. 24 as the compensation paid or payable to the landlord, whether under the 1948 Act or under agreement on the termination of the deceased's tenancy of the holding in respect of any such dilapidation or deterioration of, or damage to, any part of the holding or anything in, or on, the holding as the tenant is or will be liable to make good under the terms of the tenancy. As regards compensation for both ingoings and dilapidations, the arbitrator is required to make provision in his award to such extent as he considers to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. These are clearly desirable Amendments and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for doing as he said he would do, which was to consider the substance of the Amendment which I moved on Committee stage. We are most grateful to him for having put down these two Amendments, which are slightly different but which nevertheless cover the point. I, of course, will not move Amendment No. 23 when we come to it, because that was an Amendment which I put down in order merely to remind the noble Lord that we on this side had not forgotten the problem and we hoped he would not forget it, either. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for having considered this matter; and as this is the last Amendment on Report stage I hope he will realise that we have been appreciative of the way in which he has considered these Amendments. He has needed a little persuasion

493
from time to time, but I hope he will realise that we have never once breached the principle which underlies this Bill. What we have tried to do is to improve it.I hope he will agree that it has been improved, and that the principle has not been dilated. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for these Amendments.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for including in this Amendment an appropriate provision to remedy the fear on dilapidations that I had at Committee stage.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly thank the noble Earl for his kind words. Although at times I have been outnumbered four to one in our debates, if not more by official spokes-people on the Opposition Benches, and occasionally by nearly that number in the Division Lobbies, I think that is in the nature of your Lordships' House, and I am very grateful indeed for the way in which everyone has approached the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord MEL CHETT Lord MEL CHETT moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) The compensation referred to in subsection (4)(a)(ii) above is—

(a) the compensation paid or payable by the landlord, whether under the 1948 Act or under agreement or custom, on the termination of the deceased's tenancy of the holding;

(b) the compensation paid or payable to the landlord, whether under the 1948 Act or under agreement, on that termination in respect of any such dilapidation or deterioration of, or damage to, any part of the holding or anything in or over the holding as the tenant is or will be liable to make good under the terms of his tenancy.").

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES (CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
6.12 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
The Viscount COLVILLE The Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS had given Notice of his intention to move the following Amendment:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Special period of limitation 1939 c. 21
(" . Notwithstanding anything in section 2A of the Limitation Act 1939, no action shall be brought by any person under this Act more than three years after that person ceased to be under a disability:
Provided that section 2D of the Limitation Act 1939 shall apply as if—

(a) in subsection (I) the words " or 2B ", in subsection (3) the words " or as the case may be 2B " and subsections (2) and (6) were omitted; and

(b) references to section 2A were references to this section.").

Lord SANDYS: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who had not anticipated that your Lordships would he so quick in passing through the Amendments to the previous legislation, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, this Amendment will not be moved.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without
Amendment : Report received.

DRAFT IRON CASTING INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
6.15 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 8th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to say that I have been caught slightly unawares by the speed of the previous business in your Lordships' House, and, if I may, I will speak in general terms about the order in front of us because at the present time I have not with me the papers that I was intending to use. I was busy getting rid of the papers I had had most of the afternoon on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and I regret to say that I do not have the papers on this particular

495
order with me. As your Lordships will know, the order we are discussing is designed to enable the British Cast Iron Research Association to raise the levy which enables it to do the necessary research. I am glad to say that I now have no less than two sets of papers in front of me, which I think will enable us to make slightly better progress than we have made up to this point.
The purpose of the order, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry proposes to make under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, is to amend the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1971 so as to increase the income of the British Cast Iron Research Association. The existing order imposes a levy on the iron casting industry to finance scientific research carried out by the Association. The proceeds of the levy will continue to be collected by my right honourable friend and then released against the Association's expenditure on scientific research.
Iron foundries are one of the less glamorous parts of British industry, but they occupy a central position as suppliers of castings to almost the whole of the engineering industry. Their performance and the quality of their products are thus of vital importance to the future of British industry as a whole. The British Cast Iron Research Association provides a wide range of services to the iron castings industry. These include general scientific research, contract research and consultancy and advisory services. The scientific research is of particular importance as many iron foundries are too small to be able to support their own research activities, and in this field the Association has achieved a worldwide reputation for excellence. A large part of the Association's research is supported by a statutory levy collected from the firms in the industry under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The levy was first introduced in 1966 after wide consultations with the industry, but an increase was necessary in 1971 to take account of the rise in costs experienced by the Association.
The present order imposing the levy is the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific
496
Research Levy) Order 1971. It provides that every iron foundry is liable to pay, each quarter, a levy of 4p per tonne on the leviable iron castings which it produces, plus 0.14 per cent. of the emoluments it pays to those employed in the industry. This basis was adopted in order to provide a charge which was reasonably equitable between the different types of foundries. The tonnage and emolument elements contributed roughly equal amounts to the levy when the present order was introduced in 1971, but the rise in wages and salaries as a result of inflation and the decline in the tonnage of castings produced by the industry since 1971, due to the general recession, have altered these proportions so that the tonnage component now contributes only one-third of the levy.
What is more important is that the levy no longer provides sufficient income to support the Association's scientific research activities. An increase in the Association's income is required merely to enable them to maintain their existing programme of work. But recent legislation on environmental and health and safety matters will impose significant additional requirements on the industry, and the Association has therefore embarked upon an increased programme of work in these fields to help the industry to meet in the best practicable way the future demands to be placed upon it. Although the Association is seeking economies wherever possible, and making every effort to increase receipts from sources other than the levy, it is clear that unless the levy is increased all parts of the Association's planned programme of work will have to be cut back, to the detriment of the whole industry.
The new order proposes an increase in the levy on emoluments from 0.14 per cent. to 0.15 per cent. and in the levy on production from 4p to 11p per tonne. It is estimated that the annual yield of the increased levy would be about £660,000 compared with the present yield of about £420,000. The order also makes provision for the rate of levy per tonne to be automatically adjusted annually. It is proposed to do this by linking the tonnage levy to the index of wholesale castings prices published in Trade and Industry.
In preparing the draft order we have consulted representatives of the industry

497
and of the workers in it and have received a wide measure of support for the proposals, which I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 8th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am grateful—as, I understand, are my noble friends, to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the detailed information he has given on this order. I should also like to congratulate him—remembering an occasion on this side when the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was not in his seat and I was left high and dry to try to move an Amendment—on holding forth while his brief was on its way. I know that he has been working extremely hard for these last few hours and I would not wish to keep him for too long. The iron casting industry is a vital and important one as noble Lords on all sides will agree. Therefore it is essential that we should give them all the help we can. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is a particular reason for the increase in the levy. So many of these small iron casting businesses are now no longer in existence. It is a very hard business, employing only a few workers in any particular firm. I wondered whether that was part of the reason for further help being needed. The scientific side always needs help in any industry and is now becoming extremely costly and therefore we welcome this draft order which I believe is to come into operation on 1st July. I would say that it is essential to increase the levy.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his welcome to this order. I think that the main reasons that the levy has to be increased are not that some of the small foundries have gone out of business; the smaller ones were generally below the level at which the levy becomes payable. I think the reasons are, first, in the recent decline in the amount of work being done by the foundries because the levy is raised in proportion to the tonnes produced. There is also the fact that there is going to be a great deal more research work to be done in this industry in the near future because of the burdens that recent legislation will place on the industry.
498
I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the industry. That is why the Government introduced the Ferrous Foundries Industry Scheme. The noble Lord may like to know that we have already had 200 applications under the scheme and have provided assistance to the value of £10.1 million which has resulted in a total investment in ferrous foundries of £45.8 million. I think he would agree that this is a considerable new investment in the industry since the scheme started in August 1975. All applications have to be in by the end of this year. This is encouraging for the future of the industry which this levy will, in a small way, assure.

IMMIGRATION POLICY
6.24 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY Lord GRIDLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now consider that in view of the need for good race relations, the difficulties to be overcome in assimilating various national characteristics, the overcrowding of our schools and cities, and the attendant increase in the density of our population at a time of economic difficulties, that urgent representations should now be made to Governments of the New Commonwealth, that we are no longer able to accept immigration from their countries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name. I approach this question in a humane sense, constructively and, I would hope, without emotion. I think the issues which face us at the moment in this country in connection with racial problems are very severe in certain circumstances. I am most grateful to those distinguished noble Lords and distinguished noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who will follow me in this debate. I am sure that each one of them will make his or her own valuable contribution, and I hope that what is said in this House tonight will be of assistance to Her Majesty's Government in some of the difficulties which face them—and in which they have my sympathy.
What are the facts in Britain at the present time? In the past few weeks, racial disturbances in this country have resulted in the deaths of two boys: one

499
Asian boy and one white boy. This is two boys too many! This distresses me. I served over many years as a Colonial officer in a country where racial relations were excellent. I am upset when I come home to find that we have incidents of this kind occurring in Britain. If I say, as indeed I have said in the terms of the Unstarred Question that is before your Lordships, that further immigration from the New Commonwealth should cease, it is because I believe—and perhaps this is only temporary, I do not know ; at the present juncture, it may be so—that my country, Britain, is not a fit place to receive immigrants in the circumstances which obtain here today.
I am speaking particularly of the problems which face us in this country. I shall give my reasons for my beliefs on these issues in a moment ; but I suggest that the Government might consider what they should do when they have heard what I have to say on the subject. Taking into consideration what I have said, if they think it worth while, they should, if the Commonwealth is to mean anything to any of us, take some of these problems for a frank discussion with our Commonwealth friends; that is to say, men of the highest calibre within the commonwealth of nations. I should like these discussions to be of a confidential nature with the Prime Ministers and other leaders of our overseas territories.
I am not, in the Unstarred Question I am putting to the Government, suggesting tonight that we should send back to the countries from which they came those immigrants who are settled here and who are making a worthwhile contribution to our affairs in this country. Our immediate task, as I see it, is to see that those who are here are happily settled and have reasonable chances of achieving their own aspirations. But there are enough problems which face us in that connection alone and, as regards further immigration, I often wonder whether the Government of this country, or any British Government of any complexion, makes known to overseas Government the conditions or type of society which a would-be immigrant will find when he arrives in this country. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to tell us whether a proper, correct picture is given of our society to
500
overseas would-be immigrants before they come here.
My Lords, I shall speak from what I know and from what I have read about immigrants who have come to this country, and the problems which face certain West Indian families. The West Indian family is a family which epitomises the love of family and children—everything that we in this island cherish and hope for our own families. They come into a permissive society ; their children go to British schools and, in a permissive society, they are contaminated in our British schools. The West Indian parents, because they believe in a rather strict Christian attitude, chastise their children rather violently for some of the actions which the children learn in our British schools. The parents are considered by their children to be no longer " with it ". There is evidence from the reports of Select Committees made in the other place of West Indian mothers and fathers going back to the West Indies brokenhearted and in despair. There is the attendant result of a break-up of families and the children are left in Britain under the care of the welfare authorities.
There are so many instances but I can quote only a few of them. There is the case which happened in a London school recently, which was told to me verbally by a teacher in that school, regarding a Nigerian girl. Her parents, holders of a British passport, came from Nigeria and returned there because they could not stand the standards of our society in Britain. The girl remains in Britain because it suits her. Here is another break-up of a family. She likes our permissive society but the family is broken up. At this particular moment, this girl is on a police charge for theft. She is supported by the welfare authorities. Another girl, because of the religious scruples of her parents, does not like to play school games bare legged. This is because it is against the religious scruples of her parents.
As we were once head of the Commonwealth—we were the founders of a great Empire and we have had great experience of these things—it is extraordinary that we should allow these problems to arise before these people come here. Surely we have had enough experience to know of these problems. Would it not have been better if we had anticipated them and not

501
been forced to deal with them after these people arrived ? In this permissive society, in which it has been possible to challenge society's foundations, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recently called for a report on violence and truancy in our schools. Here again, go down to the grass roots, talk to the teachers in London, as I have done. Hear about the lack of discipline and the violence that suddenly erupts from some of our coloured children. Everybody then will understand—and I am sure the Government understand this now—that this report is certainly timely. I am sure noble Lords would like to see this report, if it is possible for the Government to let them do so, and then no doubt the facts will come to light.
Against this background, and the violence which has occurred, noble Lords—and probably the Government—will have read the report for the year 1975 of the Commissioner of Police, Sir Robert Mark, to the Home Secretary, and have read of the problems which the Commissioner faces with our coloured youths in the age groups 18 to 22. What the Commissioner of Police, with all his attendant responsibilities and the difficulties which face him in this country, reported does not make very pleasant reading. He has to deal with these matters with an authorised police establishment of 26,628. The establishment is short of that figure by 5,200, at a time when, with the problems with which they are faced from a racial source, they have the problems of the IRA to deal with. They also probably have the problems of dealing with subversive elements which thrive in this kind of situation.
I will quote only a few words of what Sir Robert Mark says:
" It is a regrettable fact that relations between the police and many black youths are bad, and there is a growing tendency seen frequently during the year under review for groups of black people to react in violent opposition to police officers carrying out their lawful duties ".
If one reads an account of the incidents to which he is referring, one will see that in a number of cases—I think there are five, although I shall be corrected if I am wrong—Sir Robert refers to occasions when two police officers were on duty and went to stop two coloured youths lighting each other with knives; and when they tried to separate them the police were
502
set on by from between 80 to 100 coloured youths who somehow appeared from out of the blue.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, is speaking about one particular problem in certain parts of London. Clearly, in the limited time available it will be difficult to deal with all the points which are raised in this debate. I must make it clear that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis would in no sense suggest that the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, is dealing with apply to the entire immigration community. That is a grotesque overstatement of the situation.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am prepared to answer the Minister. I accept everything he says. This is the tip of the iceberg; there are very serious situations which can blow up into something else which one day we will find difficulty in dealing with. I accept there are very large numbers of immigrants in this country who behave in a perfectly lawful manner. I would have hoped that the noble Lord would see from the manner in which I opened my speech that I wish to be constructive. Nevertheless, if I may answer the noble Lord and give him my opinion on these matters, I do not think that when the Commissioner sees fit to mention these instances in his report, it is safe for us to overlook them. That is all I wish to say on that subject.
And so to continue, my Lords. I have covered the heartbreak that occurs in the case of certain West Indian families who come to Britain, the case of the Nigerian girl whose family has returned to Nigeria, the incidents of the violence of black youths and the report which the Secretary of State for Education has called for concerning violence and truancy in our schools.
I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Lord whether I should be justified in wondering, as regards that report, if it will cover in any way what is being taught in some of our schools at the present time, and possibly by some—and I emphasise " some "—of our academics, particularly about our historical past, and those charges of " exploitation " which we hear being made by responsible people, together

503
with accusations of exploiting our former Territories from which some of the people now coming to this country originate. I know from my own experience that there is no justification whatever for what is being said about our past history, but I have my doubts about whether the real facts are being taught sufficiently clearly, especially to the younger immigrants. In that sense, this is a contributory cause of the attitudes to which the commissioner of police has referred and also of the problems involved in dealing with race relations in this country.
At this moment, we have immigrants growing up in our community and we wish them to play their full part in a settled society and in the right conditions for them to achieve their proper aspirations. In all this, as the noble Lord knows, I pay my full tribute to the social services, the community services and to all those who give unselfish service in the best interests of race relations. I join in paying a tribute to the part played by the police, because the police go to our schools and endeavour to explain to our coloured youth the part that they play in modern society. But I have been told by the police on many occasions when they go into these schools they are accepted with a studied indifference on the part of their audience. I do not have the right of reply in this debate, and I cannot anticipate what others may say. I hope the Government will understand how I feel on this subject. It is my view that matters cannot remain where they now stand and that some sort of action is necessary.
On the question of the United Kingdom passport holder, I have no doubt that other speakers, and indeed the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, will be referring to this. I wonder truthfully where lies the greater morality: to allow the immigrant to come here by virtue of his passport or to be truthful and frank about the present conditions in Britain of which I have spoken, and, in consultation with the Commonwealth, say that we cannot accept immigration at present. I know where I consider our morality to be on this subject.
To those who would have us spend large sums on the social services, on extra housing for immigrants and many other schemes which might be considered neces-
504
sary in the interests of overseas immigration at this time, I should like to say this: in 19 years our share of world trade has steadily sunk from 19 per cent. to 8 per cent., and Germany's share at present is 21 per cent. With a falling pound and the enhanced prices which will follow from this, together with our huge debt as a borrowing nation, I cannot see that we have the resources for any large-scale immigration schemes at the present time or for financing help for immigrants on a large scale. I think it would do us all good if someone would get up and tell the nation, and particularly our youth, that if we are ever to be in a position where we can help others it is to manufacturing industry in Britain that we must turn. That is where we created our wealth; and it does not help at this moment if our youth ignores industry and goes instead for other jobs which are non-productive. If we could once again regain our strength and spirit of adventure as a great nation and recreate our wealth, nobody would be happier than I at the fact that we should be able financially to help our country to reach such a situation.
6.46 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if anybody imagines that stating a question in the terms of the one now under discussion tonight is going to help to improve race relations, they must be out of their tiny minds. They could not reach that conclusion in any discussions with representatives of the ethnic minorities in this country, who are extremely worried by this constant harping on the question of black immigration as a threat or a problem. The noble Lord said that he was not suggesting that immigrants already here should be sent back to their countries of origin. I think that is something to be grateful for. There are plenty of people outside who will take up that theme
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene: I thought the noble Lord said I was advocating that they should be sent back. I did not say that.
Lord AVEBURY: No, I did not say that at all. I was saying that there were other people outside the House who will take up that theme and will take up precisely the arguments which the noble Lord has presented to the House. I suggest that some of the language we hear

505
used in this context would be more appropriate to trying to keep rabies out of this country. If noble Lords express themselves in rather less immoderate terms in this House, they are nevertheless cloaking with respectability the loathsome and evil utterances of racists outside and are giving aid and comfort to some of the nastiest and most dangerous elements in our society which aim to build, not Jerusalem, but Auschwitz, in England's green and pleasant land.
If conflict between the races becomes a regular feature of our national life and tensions build up to an even greater extent than we have seen in the last few weeks, let those who encourage fear among the native white population examine their consciences. I am not speaking about people such as Mr. Enoch Powell or Mr. Kingsley Read, who openly whip up anti-black hysteria, but of the far more numerous clandestine band of racists in Parliament, in local authorities and the media. If the small number of black people now coming here for settlement constitute such a danger as these people seek to portray, then what hope can there possibly be, once they arrive in this country, of those black people being given genuine equality of treatment? If one is the host at a party and one makes it crystal clear to some of the guests that it would have been better if they had stayed away, then they may reasonably expect to be accorded a much lower standard of hospitality.
Perhaps what is said in your Lordships' House is a matter of little importance in this respect, since it is unlikely to be widely reported outside. Of far greater concern to me is the recent treatment of immigration in the national Press and on television, of which I will give three examples. The reporting by the Daily Mail of the case of the refugees from Malawi, who were temporarily accommodated in a four-star hotel by the West Sussex County Council, was grossly inflammatory, bearing in mind the effect it was likely to have on the minds of tens of thousands of native families who are either homeless or living in slum conditions. An interview of between three and four minutes on the peak hour ITN news, with an Asian who lost five passports in eight years, was obviously likely to create the impression in the minds of viewers, not only that this man had sold
506
the passports to would-be illegal entrants, but that, bearing in mind the prominence of the item on the news, this was a practice which was virtually universal among Asian immigrants.
Then, in last Saturday's Daily Express, nearly half the front page was occupied by an article under the headline,
" Immigration men accuse Home Office and say ' We can't cope with flood of Asians '."
dealing with a series of allegations, some of which were blatantly untrue, while the remainder were unsupported by a single shred of evidence. The fact that a newspaper which presumably claims to be responsible could publish such an inflammatory article in the middle of a period of great tension passes all comprehension. In my view, this article constituted a serious breach of the guidelines on race relations issued by the National Union of Journalists, which call on members to,
" resist the temptation to sensationalise issues which could harm race relations ", and as a member of the union I have formally complained to the general secretary.
I want to present to your Lordships another side of the picture of immigration, which you are not likely to see if your reading is confined to the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. First, I give some figures which can be found in the Home Office statistics of immigration for 1975, published just the other day. Last year, we admitted 1,965 work permit holders from the black Commonwealth, compared with 7,784 from non-EEC foreign countries. The number of people accepted for settlement on removal of time limit, from the black Commonwealth plus Pakistan, was 18,755, compared with 20,462 foreigners, excluding the Pakistanis. We took in 1,642 au pair girls from Switzerland and 23 from the whole of the Commonwealth, while 11,814 students came here from the United States compared with 1,901 from India. The Japanese are clearly treated by our Government as honorary whites, the same as they are in South Africa, because we admitted 583 of them for work, compared with one from Zambia.
From Spain, there arrived 872 people for work; more than from any single Commonwealth country. From the United States, 1,052 people came here for

507
employment; more than half as many as from the whole of the black Commonwealth. If one excludes holders of United Kingdom passports, the total accepted for settlement from the black Commonwealth, either on arrival or on removal of the time limit, was 31,749, and the equivalent number of foreigners was 31,477. Thus it is clear to me—and I hope I have demonstrated it to your Lordships—that Britain is operating a racist immigration policy, and as long as it continues in this way we have precious little hope of eradicating racism within the country.
The admission of white foreigners in such large numbers and, further, the deliberate creation of a pool of 8 million patrials who are entitled to come here whenever they like, gives the lie to the argument which we sometimes hear that we cannot tolerate immigration on the present scale, because this is an overcrowded island. If, indeed, the critics on the other side are unduly concerned with numbers, why do they so consistently ignore emigration, which has exceeded immigration in every recent year except 1973, when we were coping with the aftermath of the Uganda emergency ? In 1974, for instance, there was a net outflow from England and Wales of 65,000 people. For the United Kingdom as a whole, there was a net loss of 41,800 people in 1975, due to migration to the rest of the world, and the Registrar-General's population projections assume a continuing net outflow every year to the end of the century.
There is one other essential fact which is nearly always either overlooked or ignored in these discussions. Of the people living in Britain who had one or both parents born in the black Commonwealth or Pakistan, two out of every five were themselves born in the United Kingdom and the proportion is, of course, steadily increasing. So that the use of the term " coloured immigrant ", which encourages ignorant people to equate a dark skin with an overseas origin, should therefore be avoided.
Returning to my assertion that we are operating a racist immigration policy in this country, I shall give some illustrations of how the rules are applied so as to make it as difficult as possible for those who
508
are eligible to come here from the black Commonwealth. First, I refer to the dependants of heads of household who are themselves ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The average waiting time for a first interview with an applicant is 16 months in India, 22 months in Pakistan and 18 months in Bangladesh, and except in the case of New Delhi, the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in a Written Answer to me on Monday, demonstrate that the queues are still getting longer.
The time to first interview represents the shortest interval between the application for, and the granting of, an entry certificate, since in a high proportion of the cases further inquiries are found to be necessary by the ECOs. Yet most of the wives and children who are thus sentenced to long periods of separation from their husband and father have an absolute right to come here, under both domestic and international law.
I think that Lord Justice Scarman's remarks in relation to patrial wives are equally relevant to these cases. He said:
" Delay of this order appears to me to infringe at least two human rights recognised, and therefore protected, by English law. Justice delayed is justice denied:
' We will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right '.—Magna Carta Chapter 29.
" This hallowed principle of our law is now reinforced by the European Convention on Human Rights … Article 8 of the Convention provides:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence ',"
Quite apart from these legal aspects, the system of processing applications from dependants damages race relations by keeping families separated from one another, by denying educational opportunity to children whose working lives are going to be spent in Britain, and by causing future citizens to have as their first experience of this country the attitude of suspicion and lengthy interrogation that characterises interviews overseas.
At a conference held last Sunday, sponsored by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and attended by 200 delegates representing all the ethnic minorities in this country, as well as local CRCs and civil liberties organisations, a resolution was passed unanimously demanding certain specific changes in the

509
immigration rules to make them more humane. One very important suggestion was that time limits should be laid down for each stage in the entry certificate procedures, to which ECOs would then have to adhere. In order to make sure that they did, the conference proposed that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration's terms of reference ought to be extended, so as to allow him to investigate complaints of maladministration against entry certificate officers. Considering the disastrous effects which their decisions, and their failure to make decisions in many cases, can have on family life, it is quite wrong that they should be immune from scrutiny by the PCA.
Another of the matters which was discussed at this conference was the plight of single parents, as a result of the " sole responsibility " rule. This rule, 43(e) and (f) of HC 79, says that a child is to be allowed to join a single parent in the United Kingdom only if that parent has had the sole responsibility for the child's upbringing, or where special considerations are involved such as the mental or physical incapacity of the other parent.
Almost exclusively this rule affects single mothers from the Caribbean who arrived here several years ago and had to establish themselves economically before they could bring in the child. Since most of these mothers have had to accept the worst paid jobs in our community, an older member of the family in the country of origin—frequently the maternal grandmother—has generally contributed to the child's support. The result is that even if the grandmother or other relative is ageing and infirm, and no matter how appalling the conditions may be in which the child is living, he is not allowed to join his mother here; and having made application to do so, he may even be denied permission to come to see his mother as a visitor, on the ground that he might try to remain.
Speaking of visitors, I could mention numerous bona fide applications by parents to come here to see their children which have been the subject of endless frustration and delay, even in cases where the parents might well have qualified as permanent settlers under the elderly dependant rule. In one such case which I recently conducted before the adjudicator, the elderly parents had been waiting for
510
over three years to come here and to spend a short holiday with their married daughter in Essex.
Another example, which was resolved only yesterday, was of parents who had been refused permission to come here for their daughter's wedding on this coming Saturday. The amount of time and effort which has been expended on this case by a friend in the United Kingdom, the parents, the Home Office, the High Commission in India and The Times newspaper has been quite formidable; and it is hardly surprising that public spending is out of control when so much red tape is applied to an ordinary visit. Although I wrote last week and asked the Minister, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, whether the matter could be treated as one of urgency, the decision was reached only yesterday. The parents live in Allahabad—which is 14 hours' travel, in a temperature of 120 degrees, away from Delhi—and it is very unlikely, after all this and the endless trouble that people have gone to, that physically it will be possible for them to get here in time for their daughter's wedding on Saturday.
I have by no means exhausted the criticisms which can be made of the immigration rules and the way in which they are interpreted, always to the disadvantage of people wanting to come here for any purpose whatsoever from the black Commonwealth. But I am bound to say, in conclusion, that if the Government themselves apply policies which are so utterly inhumane, conflicting as they do with all the norms of civilised behaviour, to say nothing of the provisions of international and domestic law, the results are predictable. The feelings of insecurity among black citizens will be, and are being, intensified. Relations with our Commonwealth partners will be severely damaged. The Fascist elements, which could one day pose a terrible threat to our democratic system, are given aid and encouragement. And the effect of well-intentioned legislation to promote general equality of opportunity for the black communities could be totally nullified.
7.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER: My Lords, first may I offer my apologies to your Lordships' House for my inability

511
to remain, as I would wish to do, until the end of this debate. Only the necessity of catching the last train to Manchester after four days' absence can take me away from the debate.
Those of us who live in the large cities of this country, even in cities where relations between people of different colours have generally been very harmonious, will understand quite well the thinking which lies behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Gridley. When we face the already well-known problems of our inner city areas, aggravated as these are by the rate of unemployment, especially among young people, it is very tempting to see drastic limitation of the entry of immigrants from New Commonwealth countries as an easy solution to these problems. There are not wanting those—the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has made it quite clear that he is not included in this category—who would like to put a large share of blame for ills that are of our own making upon the stranger in our midst. History can show a number of precedents for this, many of them grievous and disastrous in their outcome.
Those in the Churches who devote constant attention to community and race relations are not seeking to deny the necessity for controls over immigration and a close watch upon its effects, not least in the interests of immigrants themselves. Only a foolish person would deny that necessity. Nevertheless, we should want to argue that Government already have the necessary controls and can use and extend them without the kind of drastic representations called for in the noble Lord's Question.
Against the background of far greater poverty than our own in the New Commonwealth countries and of acute racial sensitivity in the world as a whole, we should sec such representations as likely to do much harm and little good; for surely it is the case that the number of immigrants from New Commonwealth countries is neither instigated nor controlled by their Governments, any more than the number of those emigrating from Britain is controlled by our own Government. Furthermore, the accuracy of the analysis of our situation, as contained in the noble Lord's Question, must be regarded as being open to doubt. The
512
population of our country is not, as a matter of fact, increasing greatly. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has pointed out, in recent years more people have left to settle elsewhere than have entered for settlement here. I was visiting the other day a small town in my diocese where there are five doctors practising under the National Health Service, all of whom are Indians. Whatever that may say about British doctors, that particular community must be grateful to the Indian doctors who work among them.
It is well known that the population of some of our great cities has been declining and that the decline in the number of children entering the schools has resulted in an excess of unemployed teachers. It can certainly he argued that overcrowding has long presented us with problems in these Islands ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but to represent such overcrowding as being largely due to the presence of a coloured immigrant population of between 1 million and 2 million people is to commit a fallacy which may promote real injustice.
Finally, the implications of the phrase in the noble Lord's Question concerning the difficulties to be overcome in assimilating various national characteristics would not, I feel sure, be readily accepted by your Lordships' House. I am proud to be associated with Manchester and to serve its community, but I am also proud to be in some ways an unassimilated Scotsman, and I am not aware that the Mancunians greatly resent that fact. There is already a multiracialism which runs through the tradition of predominantly Anglo-Saxon countries and which has generally saved them from the more fantastic theories of " pure blooded " race.
Our freedom has allowed many groups of different origins to develop in different ways and to maintain a satisfactory identity and style of life within the ambit of the law and of a mature and tolerant community. The challenge before us at this particular moment of history seems to be whether we can maintain and develop this tradition in a world where its scarcity value becomes ever more apparent. If we can do this, I believe that we shall earn the respect and gratitude of the world as a whole; but if we turn back, or turn out, im anyone who cannot quickly be assimilated into a

513
notional " English way of life " we shall, I think, be far from achieving those good race relations which the noble Lord's Question desiderates.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gridley on giving us the opportunity of debating, albeit in a thin House and rather late in the evening, a subject which, without any question, is giving very grave concern to many people in all walks of life whom nobody could begin to call racist. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will stay for one minute because I want to say something about him, and I should not like it to be thought that I was saying it behind his back.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has an infinite capacity for attacking those who do not see eye to eye with him. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is back in his place. For one who claims all the privileges of free speech and who uses them with great skill, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did less than justice to the noble Lord who introduced this debate by virtually threatening those who disagree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or who hold other views. I know that my noble friend Lord Gridley was speaking in good faith, with a real sense of responsibility and from wide experience. I think it is unfair to suggest that those of us who say what we believe to be true—some of us with a fair amount of experience of this subject—should be accused, if we put forward the facts, of being likely to be misrepresented by others. I believe this is an invitation to deny the evidence and the truth. I was not wildly impressed by some of the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because after all, what have au pair girls in common with immigrants ?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, immigrants come to stay; au pair girls come for a given time and if they leave the job for which they come they can be turned out by the officials because they have come under false pretences.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me? I am sorry to interrupt her, but I thought I had made it clear that these were not my figures; they were the figures produced by the Home Office. The au pair girls represented only one in a series of examples which I gave.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, the noble Lord is misrepresenting my point. I am not saying his figures were inaccurate; I am saying they were quite irrelevant to the question of immigrants. Au pair girls come for an entirely different purpose and, in the case of immigrants, we should be comparing like with like. Also the noble Lord gave—quite accurately, I am sure—the figures for American students. There are many members of this House and of the other House who have enjoyed the opportunity of an exchange and have finished their education in the United States of America, and are rather proud of it and put it in Who's Who.
Equally, we welcome the exchange of students from whatever country, and again they come for a short period of time. While I do not challenge for one moment the figures given by the noble Lord, they are not relative in balancing the problems of immigration, as such, as against short-term entry for those who will be going back.
I should like to go back over a mite of history. I was privileged to be Under-Secretary at the Home Office in the late '50s when the steady flow of, in the main, West Indian and West African immigrants started to arrive in this country. Indeed, at that time of high employment, some industries, such as British Transport, went out quite deliberately to recruit staffs. By 1958 it was apparent that the concentration in a limited number of centres was producing acute problems in housing, education and welfare. Ultimately, the then Conservative Government introduced a measure of control which was contested every inch of the way right through the night by the then Labour Opposition who pledged themselves in 1962 that their first act on the return of a Labour Government would be to repeal this inhuman, racist legislation.
Being returned to office, a Labour Government reviewing the situation with a responsible rather than an emotional eye, and having to review—because it was

515
legislation for annual review—within, I think, 11 weeks of being returned as a majority Government, the then Home Secretary (the present Prime Minister) not only re-enacted the regulations, which I believe he did quite rightly in the light of the then circumstances, but in fact he made them tougher.
Since then, and as a result of the racist policies of some of the African States, we have taken in thousands of Indians and Pakistanis, and I believe we have created a feeling among the African rulers that if they are ruthless and racist enough Britain will be forced to take all their Asian populations. Some African leaders are nationalist in the extreme and they are being supported in this country in their policy of " Africa for the Africans " by the very people who so vociferously preached to us that we should be multiracial. Those who have travelled in Africa will find that time and time again, they are taken into a corner and lobbied. We in this country are told: " You must get your Government to increase their quota, to take more of these Asians. We do not want any trouble with Britain but, you know, we shall be forced to do a General Amin unless you step up the 3,000 or 5,000 "—or whatever the quota is. Ask anyone who has ever been on any delegations in the last ten years. The thought is always, " Britain will do anything to avoid trouble. We can push all the Asians out, however brutally ". I can remember the first plane-load of the expellees from Uganda. They were people who had booked their own flights, people of means. When they arrived here, after a dozen or so forced stops by General Amin's thugs, they were penniless, young children's cheap watches having been ripped off their wrists, jewellery having been torn off the women who came. And yet the noble Lord condemns this Government and the former Conservative Government that we are arraigned before the councils of the world for not behaving fairly.
Should we not point out that the wholesale expulsion of Asians from countries is far more racist than are our limited and very necessary controls on those who come to this country ? Today, in far greater measure, we have the same social problems which gave rise to the original legislation of controls, and in addition we
516
have above average unemployment, which was not evident in the late 'fifties. We have tremendous unemployment, with a higher average among the coloured population than the white.
I believe that the gap between the Parties over these years has narrowed because there is a common desire to deal fairly and honestly with those who are here and not exacerbate the problem by having large increases of people coming into a country that cannot at this moment provide for them the jobs or the housing accommodation. No one in their senses would believe that we can take in vast numbers more, since to do so can only make things worse for the people who are already here. Our great mistake, and a major problem for all Governments—and I confess it is one to which I do not know the solution—is the excessive concentration of too many Commonwealth immigrants in too few urban centres, creating insoluble problems for the local authorities affected.
I think it is worth comparing for a moment the ease and success with which we have absorbed alien immigrants and refugees. It has always been an unwritten law of the Home Office, in which I was very proud to serve, that we would never have a foreign ghetto on our soil. To that end, while doing our full share in giving asylum to those oppressed, we quietly and strategically spread the load and dispersed the groups throughout the country: a quarter of a million victims of Nazi oppression just before the war, mainly Jewish; half a million Poles immediately after the war, including the Free Polish Armed Forces and their dependants who feared elimination if they returned to Russian-occupied Poland. In addition, in my term of office, having particular responsibility for the Aliens Department, I dealt with 36,000 Hungarian refugees, and a similar number of Anglo-Egyptian expellees, all absorbed into the community, most of them now British nationals. My point is that you cannot now go to any village or street and say, " These are all Poles, and these are all Hungarians ".
My Lords, I accept, and I know that some noble Lord will raise it, that a person with a dark skin is more discernable; but that still does not alter my basic theory, that they are concentrated in too few centres, to the detriment and

517
difficulty of too limited a number of authorities, and with too small a number of opportunities of employment. We had no such opportunity to guide and disperse more widely the coloured population, many of whom carried British passports. Their very concentration, the way in which they are changing the character of vast areas of our great cities, and, as has happened in America, in some areas are driving the white people out; the fact that they are changing the whole character and balance of services, and the balance of local authority finance, are factors that cannot be ignored. This massive concentration has highlighted every problem, whether it be in schools, housing, demands on welfare, or the incidence of crime.
If, instead of accepting such vast numbers, we had challenged more firmly black African Nationalist policy, the issue would not be in our lap, but at the United Nations, where it should have gone in the first place. If I have any quarrel on this issue with the Government it is that they did not take as firm a stand in challenging the action of General Amin in " shooting out " his Asian population, with the ruthless expropriation of their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods and ultimately their expulsion.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, it is the Tory Government, in power at the time of the expelling of the Asian population from General Amin's country, which she is criticising.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was, perhaps, a small margin of time between when I came out of the other place and my arrival here. I do not think that we should be expected, in a small, overcrowded land, to accept every persecuted Asian who previously lived under the Imperial Empire. The figures if one takes Asian as well as African countries, could be enormous.
I particularly support the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, in that this is an issue which should be discussed between leaders throughout the Commonwealth, to bring home the fact that if we are to be economically viable and a provider, as we would wish to be, of economic aid to those countries, then we should not also be
518
expected to take on a very substantial burden of a long flow of immigrants. We are committed to a certain quota from Kenya, to a quota from India, and, indeed, to a quota from Pakistan. But these have been exceeded quite substantially in the last three years. People will accept that the Government promised and must keep their word on that quota. What people do not tolerate is illegal entry, when evil men traffic in lives by bringing people over to what is really financial servitude; because when their families have sold up everything they possess, and have found £1,000 to get them to Ostend, they then cross the water in some horrid little boat and will be landed in some creek on the East coast. For ever and a day after that they can be blackmailed. They live a life of misery in this country because they will always have over their heads the threat of the evil men who organise this trade, saying, " Unless you pay up, we will go to the Home Office and say you are all illegal immigrants ".
My Lords, in my view the Government should be far more tough about illegal entry, even if it means hardship to the dozen or so people who arc caught. It would break the traffic by these evil men who trade on human lives in this manner.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as this is an important point, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, would clarify what she means by the Government becoming more tough. The practices which she is discussing constitute serious criminal offences. People who are guilty of acts of that sort when arrested are brought before the criminal courts, and in many cases are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. What precisely is the noble Baroness suggesting the Government should do now?
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, perhaps I used the term loosely; the Government should provide the legislation by which maximum sentences can be imposed. As the traffic still goes on, perhaps the sentences are too small. But maximum sentences should be imposed on people who operate these vicious schemes and give a far worse life to the unfortunate illegal immigrant than certainly he would have had, had he entered the country under a passport.

519
If we are to do our humane duty to those people already here, we should give them hope and employment; we should give them hope of better education and a proper home. But, for the time being, we must call a halt to a further influx of immigrants. All our records show that the British people by nature are not racist, nor are they inhuman. But when they and their families are perhaps deprived of a home or a job, it is inevitable that they will make comparisons. If the concentration in one town is too high, they will resent new families from overseas jumping the housing queue while daughter Mary, her husband and children, crowd in with mum, after having been seven years on the housing list. They will resent the slow-moving classes where teachers have to concentrate on immigrants with limited English while their own children are held back.
We might think it is wrong; we might think they should be Christian in their sacrifices. But I think the House would be deluding itself if it did not appreciate how deeply this is felt by many perfectly decent ordinary people in this country. They see the rate at which rates and taxes soar to meet the vast social services, and they are saying to anyone who will listen and hear, " At this time, with unemployment of white and coloured, with a shortage of houses for white and coloured, enough is enough. At least until we have survived and cured our current massive problems, please do not make matters worse ".
Some years ago I thought and hoped we had seen the end of the National Front, but their sadly increasing polls are evidence of the strong feeling of many otherwise perfectly ordinary decent people, who are turning to them not because they are fascists—there was an example where they beat the local Labour candidate with a poll that one would never have expected to see in this country—but because they fear we are not heeding their urban problems, because they feel frustrated. They fear an explosion unless something is done to hold immigration until we have solved the problems currently with us, in the interests of both coloured and white.
All we seek is that we should limit the intake, and train the current school-leavers in trades where they can have
520
opportunities outside the dozen or 20 major urban conurbations which have so high a coloured population, so that they can go to areas where they will automatically get better housing and education, outside the congested cities. We cannot direct them, but we can encourage them. Indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned how in all areas we have coloured doctors. In medicine and in nursing they have been dispersed, by reason of professional status and opportunity to live a different life. Why should we allow in 18,000 foreigners for the catering trade every year ? With the tourist trade all round our ports, all over the country, why could we not have a crash training programme so that next year we could man our hotels—many of them in delightful areas of the country and along the coastline—with people from our own country. My Lords, I hope that we can relieve the mounting pressure, that we can do justice to those who are here, before we increase the burden beyond our ability to cope, and beyond the British people's willingness to accept it.
7.33 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Grindley, because I was not here for the beginning of his speech; unfortunately, this debate came on so quickly that I was caught somewhere else. I must also tell him, however, that I am sorry that he has introduced this Question. I regard it as ill-timed. I feel that it is ill-conceived, and I am afraid it is irrelevant if what he wants to do is to foster good race relations. The reason is very simple. It again deals with the question of numbers and attempts to perpetuate the myth, because it is a myth, that the fewer the numbers the better the quality of race relations. That is a myth, and it is a myth that has inspired the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the Immigration White Paper of August 1965 and the Immigration Acts of 1968 and 1971. It is designed to placate the racialists, but it is a fallacy; for to the racialist or the anti-semite the only acceptable number is nought. The proof of what I am saying can be seen in the fact that the National Front admit that their major support lies in areas near to but not in areas of high coloured concentration. The reason for that is that ignorance leads to fear. Thus, when a person fears

521
that his next door neighbour will in future be coloured he wants immigration stopped. However, you will find that the least hostility to coloured people is found among the whites who live next to, shop with, travel with, work with and play with coloured persons.
My Lords, I will tell you my own story. In 1929 I came to this country for the first time. I was then 15 years old and a Boy Scout. I attended the World Jamboree at Arrow Park, Birkenhead. In fact, earlier today I discovered that the Chief Whip was one of the Girl Guides who visited the Arrow Park, Birkenhead, at the time, and, although I did not tell her this, it may well be that she was one of the Guides that I stood and admired as they went around. After the jamboree we came to London. We camped for a while in the Empress Hall. I notice that wherever I went I was followed by a lot of children, and some of them would rub the back of my hand; some of them would even moisten their fingers before they rubbed the back of my hand. I did not realise what they were doing. I merely smiled, as is my wont. But subsequently I was told that what they were trying to do was to discover whether the black would rub off. That was 1929. I returned to this country in 1933 and studied medicine in Edinburgh.
In the thirties there were very few black people in this country, and we were mostly students, and a few seamen. I can assure your Lordships that we experienced more racial discrimination than is being experienced by the black people in this country today. All we were asking was lodgings and some social intercourse, but very few of us escaped having landladies shut their doors in our faces, and most dance halls and clubs would not admit us. When we went into restaurants we were either refused service or placed in a corner and then neglected. At that time there was no suggestion that the country was overcrowded or that we were taking homes or jobs from the members of the host community. We were merely made to feel unwelcome.
With that experience, it is not possible for me to accept that race relations in Britain will be improved by a mere reduction in the numbers of people from the New Commonwealth who are coming into this country, as I know it is not true.
522
Most of your Lordships remember the late Lord Constantine. When the Imperial Hotel refused to honour its obligation to rent a room to Leary Constantine because they discovered he was black, it was not because there were no rooms in the hotel or that the country was overcrowded. They did not like his black face and did not want a black man in the hotel. Moreover, if we come nearer to the present, so far as the West Indies are concerned, migration to this country has virtually ceased. But there is no evidence that the attitude of the people of this country to the West Indians in their midst has improved. We listened to the noble Lord who opened this debate. I must, therefore, dismiss very firmly the suggestion that reduction of numbers will improve race relations.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the contribution that he has made, and I am quite sure that everybody here is waiting to hear his speech with great interest. However, may I say that, by suggesting that we might curtail further immigration, I am not trying to be racist in any sense, or put a stop to the idea that sometime in the future people may resume coming here. What I am saying is that there arc problems here at the moment. I do not think that the noble Lord was present to hear what I said about that. I am trying to be constructive and to highlight those problems, and make some suggestions as to how we should deal with some of the unhappiness which may exist. I hope that that is considered constructive.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I shall continue my speech. He may discover the line of my argument later on. I was going on to say that the argument in favour of control of immigration from the New Commonwealth is itself a contributory factor to the worsening of race relations. The suggestion that if there are fewer people from the New Commonwealth there will be a better society, suggests that people from the New Commonwealth are a form of pollution, and that policies should be geared to keeping that pollution at an absolute minimum. This, in itself, engenders prejudice.

523
Moreover, the criticism of coloured immigration and coloured immigrants is, for many people, a way of protesting against their living conditions. For, in addition to highlighting the degree of racial prejudice and racial discrimination which exists in this society, the presence of the immigrants has also highlighted the high degree of social deprivation which exists in this society, particularly in the big cities. Some of the points which the noble Baroness made on that are points with which I agree. She will discover which points I agree with and which points I do not. But in many instances when people protest about immigration they are in fact protesting about their conditions.
When people are told that immigration is being reduced, they expect to see fewer black people around, and they also expect less deprivation, but the opposite is bound to be the case. The people who are here will have children, and therefore their numbers will increase. Therefore, far from seeing fewer people around, they are going to see more. Then since immigration and the immigrants have nothing whatever to do with their deprivation, the deprivation will continue. It is because of that that they conclude that control of immigration is not sufficiently strict and ask—and in fact demand—for stricter control of immigration. When this does not bring about the desired change, they conclude that only repatriation will meet the case, and they then demand that that be done.
We have had all this. In 1962, as the noble Baroness reminded us, immigration control by the issue of vouchers was introduced. In August 1965 the then Labour Government issued a White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth in which they committed themselves to stricter control of immigration as an adjunct to an attack on racial discrimination. In 1968 we had an Immigration Act and a Race Relations Act. In 1971 a stricter Immigration Act, which contained provisions for helping immigrants to return to their countries of origin, with some financial help from the State. None of this has changed the situation. Now the demand is for a complete ban on immigration from the New Commonwealth, and more generous terms for repatriation. Of course, the extremist
524
groups who, in this matter, have always led the field, call for " humane repatriation ". It will not be long before they drop the term " humane ".
Let us cut out the hypocrisy, and stop talking about immigration and face the issue for what it is, because it is an issue of colour. Then let us talk about colour, and let all the major political Parties tell the people why it is in their interest to be, and to be recognised as being, a multiracial society. Do not believe that that is an insurmountable task, and do not be frightened of it. Remember that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Edward Heath, was told that the British people would not forgive him for taking them into the Common Market. But when my right honourable friend Sir Harold Wilson decided to consult the people, and the three national Parties joined hands and put to the people the case for joining the Common Market, the response was overwhelming. That bears a lesson for you, my Lords.
Your Lordships may well ask what is the case for a multiracial Britain. Personally, I think it is very simple. Britain's history and future greatness depends on it. The world is getting smaller, in that communication is quick and effective. Quick and effective communication always breaks down barriers. There are problems common to all mankind—for example, to name just two, food shortages and pollution. These problems need to be dealt with in a spirit of brotherhood. But the world could fail in its dealing with these problems if divisions of race cloud the need to share resources. We have already discovered at a stroke that our oil bill can skyrocket not for economic reasons but for political reasons. Let us learn these lessons.
What must also be faced is the degree and extent of the wealth of Africa, Asia and the Carribean, which is still untapped, and that the super-Powers are now busily engaged in trying, by political and psychological warfare, to win the minds and hearts of the peoples of those areas. The British public deserve to have these things explained to them, because at the end of the day it is from economic power that political power springs. They will also understand, if it is explained to them, that in the same way that the Social Contract between the Government and the unions has made a significant contribution to the fight against inflation, so a

525
social contract between the developed and developing nations is essential if we are to win the fight against world poverty and hunger. The people deserve to be told that the line that divides the world economically also divides the world racially and it is as necessary for the white and black nations to come together as it was for the Government and the unions to come together in this country.
It must be explained so that the people understand that Britain is the country best placed to bridge that gap, because it was from this country that people went overseas. It was British Governments who gave British Citizenship to others; it was Britain who consciously exported her customs, recruited men to fight in her wars and work in her factories. The people will understand, if they are told, that Britain can be great again by setting the prime example to the world of a harmonious multiracial society, thus justifying her Empire and being once more sought after on the international stage. Viewed in this context, the question whether the percentage of blacks in this population is five, 10, 15 or 20 is not relevant. That does not mean that immigration must not be controlled ; this island is small and therefore immigration to it has to be controlled. What it means is that immigration cannot be controlled in a discriminatory manner, and I am afraid that the Question to which the Minister is invited to acquiesce tonight is one which invites Her Majesty's Government to agree to discriminate in their immigration policy against people from the New Commonwealth. That is what the Question is all about and that is why it must be opposed.
We must control immigration, but it must be controlled fairly and compassionately, and the immigration control must be in keeping with our national ethos. It is no use our sitting here debating the importance of the family one week and the next week advocating policies which would divide the families of another race. That is not in keeping with our national ethos. That does not mean that this country needs to take a large and unending stream of dependants. When all is said and done, there is nothing to prevent any Government of this country from saying that all people living here who have dependants overseas must register them, indicating that by a certain date
526
they must all be registered, indicating that after that date anybody who claims that somebody who is coming here is a dependent will have to explain why he or she was not registered in the first instance, and indicating that everybody who comes here after that date must register their dependants. So this talk about an endless flow of dependants is rubbish because any Government can control it when they want to.
Of course, if one is controlling immigration one cannot allow illegal immigration and that must be dealt with very firmly; but we must keep the matter in perspective. I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot lay down by regulation—I do not think it need be done more than by way of regulation—that anybody registering for the first time at a labour exchange must produce his or her passport.
Perhaps legislation would be required—I do not know whether it is the law now—to make it illegal for anybody to employ a person who does not have a National Insurance card. I am not suggesting that that would stop illegal immigration. It would make it difficult and it would take away some of the carrots of illegal immigration, for the simple reason that if a person going to a country knows that when he gets there he will not be allowed to work, or that he will have real difficulty in finding work, that would be a great disincentive to any illegal immigrant; and if the people helping such people to come in illegally knew that they would be in real trouble, they would not be likely to help. There are other methods and I am sure that noble Lords can think of them. But all these matters must be kept in perspective. What we must not do is adopt panic measures or make statements which alarm people. My Lords, I have spoken for longer than my Chief Whip told me I ought. I believe that what I have said is obvious; that is why we must spell it out to the people. I await with great interest the Minister's reply.
7.57 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of speaking following the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, to whose emotional address we listened with great interest. He speaks with experience and has undoubtedly

527
made a significant contribution to this discussion. In his turn, the noble Lord followed the persuasive and knowledgeable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who also made a great contribution to our debate. Her remarks were so full of information that it is difficult to avoid repetition, tempted as one is to repeat much of what she said.
I intervene because I support the reasoning of my noble friend Lord Gridley who, in an excellent address, spoke in a temperate manner with the advantage of his experience overseas. With that experience, he has thought fit to initiate this debate, which in my view is timely and necessary. I hope that my noble friend will succeed in drawing something reassuring from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to whose reply I look forward with great interest. I wish at the outset to ask the Minister whether he can clarify the massive amount of statistics which have been thrown out by the Press towards and against immigration. There appears to be a belief that a report from Sir Claus Moser was very comprehensive, but I have not been able to discover that that document has been made available to the public. We shall no doubt hear from the Minister what that actually means.
It was clear from my noble friend's opening remarks that succeeding speakers were bound to comment both on the procedure and principle of the matters he raised. It seems that the whole subject is dependent upon the unreasonableness of the existing situation of legislation. Ever since the 1948 Act and succeeding Acts, people seem to have drawn legalistic conclusions which vary as to their justification; but, whatever it may be, it seems that what is needed at the moment—whether or not this Government will do it, and the Conservative Government omitted to do it—is a comprehensive revision of the overriding legal position. That would govern admissions to this country. The situation was made more difficult by the abdication by the British Government of their imperial burden and the absence at that time of politicians on both sides of the House who saw what the future would bring about. Their carelessness is what has brought about this present difficulty.
It has been urged by many that there are
528
obligations, sacred cows, which cannot be changed. Why cannot immigration legislation be changed ? The United States has changed her's many times. I can cite a personal experience. When I emigrated to the United States to take over the management of a family firm, I was arrested on a charge of criminal conspiracy which required the putting up of bail of 10,000 dollars. Why? Because I had offered to employees in this country the expectation of a job when they arrived in the United States. In that country now it is criminally incorrect for anybody to go there with a promise of a job. Surely, in the conditions in which we find ourselves, it is unreasonable to suggest that we cannot change our law. I am among those who believe and are convinced—as I believe are the majority of people in this country, though not in Parliament—that we do not want to see a further inflow of non-whites into this country. That is why I ask the noble Lord, first, why should we not have, going one better than the temperate recommendations of my noble friend, a moratorium of all immigration? We should plead force majeure as do other countries when they are faced with problems. They have no hesitation in committing themselves to a change of legislation.
It seems that, apart from that, we need to tighten up on the abuses which take place. The Press is full of them. There is no need in this debate to repeat some of the many examples, but I cannot resist the temptation to refer to a few. However, I want first to say that I believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy uttered about integration during all these discussions regarding immigration. The allegation that this country wants to see complete integration of all people who come here is utter nonsense. The people themselves do not want to be integrated. They want to observe their own religions and customs, living together. In other words, a separateness. In other contexts, the word is apartheid. It is the same thing. Apartheid is very much disliked in other parts but it is encouraged in this country.
Another thing which it is difficult to understand is how the Socialist Party in particular are so anxious to see a generous—or is it generous or merely overwhelming?—inflow of non-whites into the country. I use the phrase " non-whites " because I think that " coloured " is

529
wrong. It carries a suggestion of mixed race, of something that is less admired than a pure race. I believe in a pure race. I believe in the British race. That is why, 30 or 40 years ago, the idea of immigration which would give us 3 million or more non-whites in this country would have horrified a previous generation. My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith emphasised the strain on our social services. It is well known. That has all been gone over. There is no need to refer to it tonight. However, there is wisdom in interjecting that the speed of reproduction of those 3 million people far outpaces the natural habits of the British race.
I must again refer to illegal entry. It has been the subject of an exchange of correspondence and I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding so generously. The illegal entrance into this country must be on a large scale. It seems that the police are not equal to what is required. The over-staying of permits and the difficulty which the police have in tracing people are problems, but undoubtedly the police, strained as they are, should attempt to produce a better result than is the case at present.
The absurdity of legislation should be mentioned. There is legislation on race relations, sex discrimination and so on. One cannot legislate for compassion, tolerance or charity. Try to tell a white man that he must not say he wants to sell his property to English people. Why should he not? Those sort of absurdities are brought about by this compassion or, as I believe, by hypocrisy about integration and assimilation, which are not wanted by the majority of immigrants themselves.
Then there is the question of dependents. If the spouse wants to join the other partner, why can he not go back to where they came from ? Why bring the other partner into this country? The noble Lord himself will admit that it is not all people who come in on one voucher. It has been alleged that it might be up to 12. The man may have several wives and many children and they can all come in, if not all on the same permit, on other permits. Then there are the difficulties like the forged P45 tax forms which, by paying £200 apiece, anybody can get, and the insurance cards which can most easily be changed.
530
I should like to say a word about repatriation. From conversations that I have had with non-whites from the West Indies, I believe that they would willingly go back home if somebody would pay their fares. However, there is no proper system of encouraging them to seek repatriation where it would be desired. Official figures given by the Home Office relate to the mass of people who might pour into this country from a great number of countries throughout the world, and I firmly believe that the majority of people in this country are not in favour of that.
In conclusion, I turn to a point which was mentioned earlier. Mixed blood is a sad thing. Those who know the West Indies have seen it. They have seen how the throw-back can come from whites to blacks, and they have seen the sadness of the condition of those people. God forbid that we should see a big extension of that situation in this noble land of ours, which has had purity of blood for generations, and which wants to maintain it for the benefit of posterity.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord who asked this Unstarred Question. He has an outstanding record. For 30 years he worked in Malaysia, and Malaya before that, and he survived three and a half years in a prison camp as an internee. Therefore I think that he has some considerable understanding of the problems he has spoken about this evening. I am venturing to speak only because I, too, have lived and worked in Malaysia. I have also worked in East Africa, and for a short time in India. So I have some knowledge of the difficulties which occur between different races and different tribes, because of their customs, their religions and their cultures. It takes a considerable time to get to understand different people, but I hope that this will gradually happen in this country.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for his contribution to the debate. He and I have known each other for some considerable time, and he knows that I have always done my best to help with relations between different peoples. I have had

531
people visit my flat in London and to stay with me at my house in Devonport. It takes much time and much understanding, and I was privileged, having worked overseas, to be able to get some knowledge in regard to this matter. I dare say that a number of noble Lords have read the debate on this matter in the other House. I should like to mention the resolution which that House passed unanimously. It stated :
" This House notes with concern the changing demographic character of Great Britain, particularly the outflow of young people emigrating overseas and the continuing inflow of immigrants from the New Commonwealth; and calls on the G overnment,"—
and this is the point I want to emphasise—
" in the interests of improving race relations, to make a clear and accurate statement of its immigration policy."—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/76; col. 104.]
That is what we hope we are to get tonight.
I also wish to pay a tribute to those who came from overseas, particularly after the last war, and who helped build up the industries in this country again. I have in mind particularly those who worked in our National Health Service. We owe them a real debt of gratitude, and I hope that they will continue to serve in this country. However, when we know that there are 1¾million of these people from overseas now in this country, and bearing in mind that it has been stated that this will become a multiracial and a multicultural society—this is reported in Hansard for 11th May 1976—I feel that we cannot hurry this situation. Education, living together, meeting in community centres and so on are the only ways in which we can prepare the ground for future happiness for these people in this country. I know only too well, as will the noble Lord who opened the debate, that in Malaysia, for example, (which I suppose is one of the better examples of race relations) there have been race riots. We were not allowed to go into each other's clubs. The European club became open, but I have never been invited into a Chinese or an Indian club. One has to realise that the different cultures and the different food make all the difference.
There are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, British subjects without citizenship, and British protected persons
532
who could come to Britain, and one wonders what is being done to discuss the matter with the various Governments in the countries where these persons are now living. I should also like to ask the Government when they expect to receive the findings of the review of the British Nationality Law. I gather that this was instigated two years ago by the Conservative Government, and was concerned with the legal rights of British subjects. I hope that this review will also clarify the situation in regard to citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies, the British subjects, and the British protected persons, particularly, should they want to come here—those from Malaysia and Singapore.
What rather worries me is that 32,000 children have come here in the past three years, and they have been admitted to settle with parents and step-parents. This causes a great problem for education. The figure for husbands and wives reached over 10,000 in two years, and that for foreign nationals was over 50,000 in two years. This is a time when we have very high unemployment in this country. The Home Secretary said in the programme " Tonight " on 30th January 1976:
" I think there is every reason for a very tight control on immigration, and that indeed is the policy I apply."
However I note from column 1541 of Hansard of 6th February 1975 that the number of vouchers issued to United Kingdom passport holders increased from 3,500 to 5,000. There is the problem, which has been touched upon by other noble Lords, of illegal immigrants, many of whom have now obtained, illegally, National Insurance cards. I gather that in a survey of 330 Commonwealth and foreign national immigrant workers in London hotels, restaurants and cafes, 84 per cent. admitted that they were illegal immigrants.
I should like to quote from a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, hen he was Home Secretary. He was talking on the occasion of the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, when 26,000 United Kingdom passport holders entered this country in 1972. He gave the following pledge:
" I have no doubt that we had an obligation to take those citizens from Uganda when they were expelled. I said publicly, and I repeat, that I would not have remained a member of a Government that did not accept that obligation. But,

533
equally, we have a duty to this country, not least to those who came to this country as immigrants. Having accepted that burden, as we did, I do not believe that it would be right for any British Government again to accept a similar burden to that which we accepted last summer …"— [Official Report, Commons, 21/2/72, col. 589.]
I think we are all agreed that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Mr. Robert Carr, was a very good Home Secretary. He was very thoughtful and very generous in the way he treated people in regard to immigration. But Mr. Whitelaw, speaking in the other House on 4th March, called for firm counter action to be taken immediately and proper checks instituted to prevent over-staying. He has a reputation, particularly for the way he manages affairs in Parliament, for being a just and considerate man. If these two people give their views in this way, I think we can take it that they are not racialists in any way and that they are thinking about what is best for the people of this country.
I should like to know what detailed information is given to immigrants. I gather that in some places immigration officers in the countries from which people are coming have to work under very difficult conditions. When, for example, people are going to Hong Kong from this country they are given a very good briefing; there are excellent leaflets available, and they are told what to expect and how to behave.
So many of these immigrants cannot read or write. I am not talking only about those from the New Commonwealth, because those from Europe cannot speak the language, either. I should like to know what preparation is given them before they come here. In this House recently we had a debate concerning the family, and one of the sad aspects which has been touched on by my noble friend as regards immigrant life is the breakdown of the extended family system. I remember going to church in Barbados on an Easter Day. There were three sessions because there were so many people going to church. They were all dressed most beautifully in their best clothes, and the children were particularly attractive. There were queues to enter. The sad thing now is—and I manage some hostels—that we have too many of these girls, particularly, in hostels. We are very pleased to have them, and of course they are made welcome, but it is not really their place;
534
and, as has also been mentioned, there are too many in the care of local authorities.
What also worries me at the present time is that we have Indian families sending for arranged brides—brides they have never seen and do not know. It seems very unfair on the Indian women in this country. Why is it that the men cannot marry them? Many times we have heard the Indian men say that they prefer somebody from India, an arranged bride, probably because there is some money attached from the country of origin and they get the vouchers. I believe there are now 7,750 matrimonial vouchers issued for this reason. I understand that there is a report from Mr. Hawley and that this is disputed by an ex-Minister of State at the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister can say whether we are ever going to be allowed to see this report, and what he feels is the differentiation, particularly between him and the previous Minister. I think it is essential to know the real facts, or otherwise we may get more of the National Front type of action, which we would all deplore, and other groups in the island will want to know the true situation. I expect the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, knows this, but it has been said that ILEA has made a survey and has now re-allocated £400 million to help immigrant children overcome language difficulties. In present circumstances, will this mean that other people's children will have less education and fewer facilities?
I should like to make a few suggestions in regard to what we could do in the future. There is a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Mauritius in September. I should like to see this matter put on the agenda, so that we can hear the views of the various Members of Parliament who come to discuss their problems. We might perhaps get quite a different view of the problems about which we have heard tonight. We would probably also get some very good suggestions; and it would seem to me an easy way to ventilate this problem. I believe that at the moment there is a pool of 80,000 with an average of three dependants each waiting to come from India. This, I should like to suggest, is not really the time for them to come, in view of the unemployment at the present moment. I mentioned the £400 million. Would it not be better if the

535
Government could send some money to India to set up industries there, where the people would be living in their own country, among their own people and not coming here to an unknown world?
I should like to give an example, if I may. I am interested in a shop selling Indian goods just off Oxford Street. I cannot tell your Lordships the place because I suppose it might he said that I was advertising. What happens is that we send an Indian lady who is married to an Englishman over to the work centres in India to buy the goods from them, and then we sell it at a profit and send the money back to the work centres. This has been going on extremely well for some time. There has been some delay in getting the goods through, but otherwise we have had a very successful time. I should like to see some arrangements made by the Government or by other voluntary organisations to help these people, because the social services are going to be very much strained in view of the cuts that the local authorities have been asked to make.
Having, as I have said, lived overseas, I have the feeling that people are happier living in their own country unless they come over, like the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and make such a great success of their lives in this country; and even he, I know, still feels drawn to his own island, and goes back there from time to time. But he is now so integrated with us, and we hope that perhaps we shall have more people from the West Indies or from India in both Houses of Parliament. This is one of the ways in which we could help with integration.
I should like to end, then, with this question of integration. It is extremely difficult to integrate people. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, mentioned the Hungarians, the Poles and so on. I had something to do with those in the West Country. They went to different places in the West Country. For example, in Plymouth itself they had a Polish Club where they used to come and meet to keep up their friendships. But in the small village in which I am now living there is a Polish gentleman married to an Englishwoman and also an Italian married to an Englishwoman. They are living among the people of this country, and that is what I call integration; not living in close proximity to members of their own race.
536
Perhaps this is a difficult question to ask the Minister, but I should like to know whether he really recognises the real fears and concern of, shall I say, the native British people. They want to be friendly and they want to know their neighbours, but they do not always understand them. For instance, you get Jamaicans who are full of life, and if it is a nice sunny day they come out on their doorsteps and sing and make a noise. We know that most British people keep their windows closed during most of the year and live inside their houses. They do not understand them. They see them spending money in different ways—in other words, buying big cars, which is of course their right and their wish: everybody can spend their money in the way they wish. I am giving only these two examples which have been brought to my notice, but it is very difficult for them to understand unless we do more to train them in the schools and tell them more about the customs of other religions or the cultures of other people. I therefore hope that today we shall take notice of what the noble Lord who opened this debate has said, and that all of us in this House will see that we do our best to help. But we cannot do it, I suggest, if we get overwhelmed by too many people coming here at once, and also while our unemployment is so high. It is not fair on the people who are already here from countries overseas or on our own British people.
8.28 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, approached me about this debate I presumed that he was remembering my efforts on behalf of my fellow Australians and New Zealanders during the debates on the various immigration Bills, race relations Bills and other such Bills that we have had over the years. My father was born in New Zealand and I was born in Australia. I was so insulted by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, attacked the Amendment that I and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, moved in one of those debates, an Amendment which would have made things easier for those from Australia and New Zealand, that I vowed that I would not take part in such a debate again, as otherwise I should be tempted to use unparliamentary language. However, recently the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, returned to that

537
theme in a supplementary to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, the other day, so I propose to defend myself by attacking the rules and the system which has, I think, been forced on us.
My son, born in the British Military Hospital in Singapore when I was a serving soldier there, was refused a British passport under the regulations—I presume because both his grandfathers were Members of this House. I will not bore your Lordships with refighting those battles and I have a cutting from the Sydney Sun-Herald of 17th September 1967, which reads:
" Hoorah for Lord Clifford of Chudleigh!
"When am I going to be arrested?' he asked the House of Lords recently. ' I have an Australian passport and no work permit.' Every young Australian visitor harassed by Britain's immigration laws will raise a cheer. Every Australian over there facing gaol and deportation at the hands of something we still plaintively call the Mother Country will want to know why Lord Clifford is getting so little support from unsympathetic officialdom."
Things have, through successive Governments, been eased from the position in those days.
Arising out of that publicity at that time, I began to get letters from many small people in various parts of this country saying how frustrated and bewildered they were becoming by the immigrant tide from the New Commonwealth. Then, as now, what irritated them most was the continuing pontification of the self-styled " do-gooders " in the race relations racket, insisting that you only have to stick up for your own to be branded a racist. More than once we have had to stay with us a Ghanaian friend now in agriculture, whose son we looked after many years ago while he was studying at agricultural college. The late Lord Bowles who was a neighbour of mine in Devon and was then the Front Bench person who helped me to get the passport for my son, came over to tell me that he had several friends—and I use that word in a political sense—who would talk this " holier than thou " language but who would never dream of doing what we are doing in having this family staying with us. This very Ghanaian said to me—there was a fuss in the Press about some Black Power announcement at Hyde Park Corner—and the late Lord Bowles was with me at the time, that he had been to Hyde Park Corner the Sunday before. The way he
538
put it was: " You are a marvellous country. If one of your colour had made a speech like that in Accra he would have been lynched, his house burned down and his fellow countrymen kicked out of the country in no time ".
I would add that that Ghanaian has named his next two children after my wife and me, and when my son had a serious accident last August which received wide publicity, his was the first expensive overseas telephone call that I received. I am godfather to a Nigerian and have a long-time friendship with those Indians (now, some of them, Pakistanis) who were officers who did their ULIA—Unattached List, Indian Army—service with my regiment before the war. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has the same experience from his Malayan service.
I could continue in this vein, but I only mention enough, and I hope it is enough, to nail the lie that those of us who are " pro " our own are colour-prejudiced racists—which is the favourite term of the intellectual snobs in the race relations racket. There has been an outcry from these inverted racists recently about the Foreign Office report to which the noble Baroness referred. I would say that to those who know anything about it, it is old hat. I have a particular friend based on Islamabad for the last ten years, and having served in Rawalpindi myself in the years before the war I asked him one day, " Have you still got the Tongas?" He replied, " No, we have all got taxi-drivers now! " He said that once they find you are English, the first quip is, " Ah! I hear that England is a Pakistan colony now ". When he goes round the villages, children come to him, many of them saying, " We are going to England ". He, knowing the rules says, "Your father is there ? " The standard reply is, he tells me, " No. He not my father; but I have chitty say he is ". This is nothing new. People have known all about the misrepresentation of our immigration rules in that sub-continent for a long time.
Personally, I cannot see why a country like Pakistan should have continued to have the privileges of Commonwealth membership once they opted out. Those of us who remember pre-war, when we had to separate fighting crowds of Muslims

539
and Hindus, to have people like that pontificating to us about what we should do about our race relations is beyond me. I have a cutting from Dawn, a Karachi newspaper, of the 31st May. Its " London Letter " says:
" Pakistanis and other Asians point out that the Labour Party was put into office by immigrants' judicious use of their votes in key marginal seats. If immigrants can put a Party in power, they can as well throw it out ".
I call that bloody impertinence, as an interference with my country's affairs. I do not like to see my Government being blackmailed like that.
The nub of the problem in this country today is that the mass of the people in the affected areas are angry, not so much at the immigrants as at their own idealistic politicians who for a generation have babbled on about a multiracial society, but have left those in a few urban areas to suffer its traumas. I live in Chudleigh, a small village of 2,500 people. We have three West Indian families—four, really; for my local doctor is a Trinidadian and what is more he was at Oxford with me. I can tell you that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made a great mistake in going to Edinburgh—
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: The noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. Edinburgh is not the only city in which I lived.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that I had many friends in Oxford who were of many different colours—from Indians to the friend I have been talking about. I am sure they never had the trouble to which he referred in their digs. In our little way in my village I think we are an example of where we have gone wrong in this country. All those four families are, in their own sphere, completely integrated; but if instead of being four families in a total population of 2,500, they had been 300 or 400, I think there would have been the normal prejudices that arise when there is competition for jobs, competition for houses, competition for schools and competition for women—the whole gambit where you have too many in one place. I do not think you will ever change human nature. Cannot we face facts and remember what we are
540
talking about? They are immigrants, not refugees for whom I would not alter our age old tradition; but they are people who come into a totally different society in pursuit of a higher standard of living. They must surely recognise the dangers of such a move. Surely, they must have made an appreciation of the situation.
Referring to differences in standards of living, the other day the noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked a Question about the Indian Medical Service Officers. I understood that if the officer was in India he received a pension of £400. If he was here, he received a pension of £2,500. I only use that to say that it is no use pretending that the standard of living is not different. What I think people tend to forget—I am sure they are " do-gooders ", and they just do not bother to think about it—are those whom the immigrants affect. They did not opt to run the risks of a multiracial society. Their world has in many cases been turned upside down. These especially are the poorer people in the urban areas. They did not vote for it nor have they been given a chance to vote against it.
Everyone has his likes and dislikes. He may like the " Krauts " or dislike the " Frogs " or " Wops ". But what a situation we have been put into! In America I am a God-damned Limey ". In South Africa I am a " something Rueneck ". In Australia, I am a " Pommy-bastard ". In China I am a variety of a foreign devil. Nobody gets put in gaol for it, nor do I for referring to the French as " Froggies ". It used to be popular for people to write or shout " Yanks-Go-Home ". But dare anyone mention " Bangladeshis - Go - Home "? What would happen ? The whole weight of the race relations racketeers would come down on the offender.
We have been legislating where we should have been educating. The self-appointed " do-gooders " have shown no sympathy for our own less fortunate citizens who themselves see ranged against them a massive pro-immigration lobby. The most reverend Primate made a point—and a valid one—a week ago about families being reunited. But surely the point he could have made is they can be just as well reunited in their country of origin. But the suggestion is that they are reunited at a cost to the British standard of living

541
and further exasperating those of our peoplele—his people—who are bearing the brunt of this flood. It is all very well for us in our palaces, in our mansions, in our Hampstead sanctuaries, to take this " holier than thou " attitude. But there are ordinary folk in Bradford, Leicester, Southall or Brixton who see no lobby to support them. It is a different picture. Is it any wonder that some are being driven to extremism? A letter in The Times on 17th June summed it up thus:
" The final lesson is clear. If Parliament does not respond to the legitimate fears and concerns of its own people it begins to destroy its own position as the focus and moderator of political action: it is not too late for Parliament to change ".
Finally, I should like to switch subjects. Government, in their planning, Will have to make provision for a flood of refugees, much of their own making. After both World Wars, and particularly the first one, the British Government encouraged people to emigrate especially to Eastern and Southern Africa. Their children and grandchildren may soon be on the receiving end of a rather tough blood bath. We are always being preached to about that. What then is going to he the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or of the race relations racket with thousands of these people—refugees and white—who are to come here or try to come here ?
Are the Government still going to stick to the present plan where preference is given to those who come here to improve their standard of living at our expense, against those who have had the misfortune to have been damned and condemned by the race relations racketeers and who have turned the phrase, " kith and kin " into a dirty word ? If the Establishment do not make themselves clear, then they have only themselves to blame if more and more people in this country are driven in desperation into the ranks of the National Front and similar organisations.
What are the Government going to do, my Lords? Are they going today once again to the Communist-supported Afro-Asian bloc, or treat every man as a man whatever his race, religion or colour with preference to putting the family first? My guess is the Government will continue to sweep it under the carpet as has been done for some time. I personally think that good race relations have been ruined by those with a vested interest in the race
542
Relations racket. New immigrants have been allowed to take over complete areas instead of being equally spread, and the Government only make fools of themselves legislating against prejudice. If I prefer a Goanese cook to an English cook—which I do—why should I not advertise for one, or sell my property to an Arab, or anyone I choose ? My Lords, you only make people more bloody-minded if you interfere with their liberties as is being done by this restrictive race relations legislation.
8.48 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Gridley. I am glad to be able to put a line through the first sheet of my notes in which there were a lot of statistics. I am certainly not going to quote those. I was interested and glad to know from what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about statistics that the population of this country is reducing. If it is reducing, it does not seem to be reducing in the most important areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, referred to the concentration that there is in various areas.
I am particularly anxious to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, regarding the legal position about passports. The holder of a British passport has a right to the protection from this country, and whatever help this country can give him, wherever he may be. I should like to know what right there is for a holder to have claim to live here. If there is this right, with the seeming constant influx of people coming into this country, it seems a situation which will have to be altered legally.
Once we had an Empire—we have already heard Members of your Lordships' House reminding us of our history—and much of the territory which we held was in the form of trust so that the peoples who lived under our protection could one day become independent. We did not intend that one day we should become inundated with those people who were unable to get along with their new rulers. Whatever may be said about our administration of our one-time possessions overseas, we did not kick people out right, left and centre. When an incident occurs as, say, in South Africa

543
between European and non-European, there is an absurd outcry about suppression and maltreatment, but no criticism is allowed on a similar scale about how non-Europeans treat each other. Yet any incident which occurs in any part of the world, particularly concerning Asian or African affairs " boiling up ", seems to give rise to a danger signal being given and this country has to be prepared for a further bunch of immigrants all brandishing passports which somehow or other they have got hold of or, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, mentioned, these chits claiming relationship. I remember the case being mentioned of a man claiming that he had a father with a chitty to say that he was the father. I am very glad that the noble Lord remembered that incident. In fact, it seems that this country has now reached the situation where we might be likened to a ship of state. We are like a liner which is in imminent danger of sinking, but the shipping company which owns it is letting people continue to come on board just because they have a ticket.
Let us also take what might be called a certain favourable note about immigration : one might even consider it to be a compliment. It is not merely a matter of passports and British citizenship that makes people come here: it is because we in this country have built up a style of life that is worth having, and the fact that so many people want to come to this country is a compliment. But, alas! it seems that saturation point is being reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave us some interesting facts about emigration. I am very interested in this subject, because it could be the solution to some of our problems, particularly with regard to young people. If we can help people who come to this country, whether for long periods or short, to gain qualifications which then help them to return either to their country of origin or to some other part of the world of their choice where they can live a happier and more prosperous life, so much the better. As regards our school-leavers, the encouragement of people in past decades to go abroad has already been mentioned. I should like to see a lot of our young people still wanting to go to work abroad.
544
As this Unstarred Question relates not only to immigration but also to race relations, I should like to see explored how relations between countries could be improved, particularly if some of our younger people go to an African or Asian country and ask for permission to work there with a view to possible future citizenship. That might well be a step forward towards a valuable relationship between countries.
I speak as one who has worked abroad for a certain amount of time, though not nearly so much as my noble friend. I also helped for a while to protect what was still our Empire during the War; later, under the wing of the Colonial Office, I went to a country which at the moment is not viewed very favourably, Malawi. In those days it was Nyasaland. I loved that country and still have an affection for it. I would encourage any adventurous British person to try his or her luck there. It used to be called " darkest Africa in its fairest form ", " Scotland in the Tropics " and " Switzerland without snow ". In fact its old motto was lux in tenebris—light in darkness.
When I worked there I noticed the relationships between the African and the Asians, and this brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about communication. A lot of immigration problems involve Asians, and it is here that we have the problem of lack of communication. I hope I shall not get too far off the point here; but I should like to tell your Lordships how I first discovered this. I was a land surveyor in Nyasaland. I was running a line of surveys along a road. The road, for most of the time, was empty; but suddenly there was the blare of a horn and a big car came tearing down the road, covering me and my instruments with a cloud of dust. I made a loud spitting noise and then I referred to the person inside the vehicle as an " adjectival " Indian. I will not say what the adjective was. The word is not exactly unrepeatable, but it might cause confusion. The Africans roared with laughter and from then on every time we met another African in the miles we traversed along the road, the story was repeated. It became longer and longer but it always ended up with an imitation of the car going by and my being covered with dust and spitting and what I said.

545
There was a lack of communication. I believe the Asian influx into Africa began because we built railways there long ago; in order to build the railways we had to import Indian labour because, unfortunately, the Africans could not understand well enough what was needed. And with the Indian labour came the Indian traders, who set up there and traded very well. But the Africans could not understand them. They kept to their own language. And so there was the English administrative element there; and the Africans and the Asians did not speak each other's language. The Asians formed their own colonies and the Africans feared them. When the Africans got their independence, they turned on the Asians—and so the Asians came here.
In my later work for the Greater London Council I visited Southall some years ago, and it has become almost an Asian community. It is a colony of Asians. They speak their own language; signs go up above shops and cinemas, and they are all signs which we do not understand. I am afraid that we British are not very good about picking up other languages. But there is this lack of communication. Lack of communication breeds distrust. Distrust breeds fear and fear breeds hatred. We have had this incident, unfortunately, of these youths killed in racial troubles, and unless something can be done to improve understanding, these troubles could continue and these evils could cause people to rush to Parties such as the National Front. They seem to be able to offer some wonderful solutions, but if one rushes to solutions too quickly one can sometimes cause even worse disasters afterwards.
My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith said that we should get tougher about immigration, and I rather support that. She mentioned President Amin and the threat of expulsion from African territories of all Asians. It must seem that this country is becoming a race of sentimental softies if we are going to say, " Oh, yes, you can all come in and we will look after you ". This country is not a land of the proverbial milk and honey, unless people are prepared to work hard. If people want to come here they must know that they have to work and be useful. We cannot take on passengers and money really is not there for the asking or the plucking off the tree of National Insurance.
546
We have suffered a lot in this country, and we have often suffered well with good purpose and have won through. But if we persist in our present policy, we are in danger of being the world's worst " sucker " country.
9 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I should be guilty of a gross understatement if I were to say that this is not an easy subject. The other difficulty about making a speech this evening, is that after a formidable debate only a month ago in another place and after having heard your Lordships this evening, I am not sure that there is a great deal that is new to say unless there are figures which I do not know about, and certainly I am not going to talk about figures. should like to try to make a moderate speech, even if it does not appeal to some of the people who hold rather strong views on either side of this matter. I am quite unrepentant in trying to take a moderate and, I hope, constructive attitude and if others do not agree with it, then I do not necessarily agree with them either. I should like to start with the positive side of this matter, which I venture to suggest has not been sufficiently emphasised in the course of this debate, though it was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith.
For many centuries, we in this country have built up a reputation of providing a welcome and a home for peoples of very different origins from all over the world. In turn, we have as a nation reaped a harvest of enrichment from that hospitality. We are talking today about coloured or black immigrants, and I think we must be particularly careful to try not to forget or to spoil our history and our reputation, merely because those people are so much more conspicuous, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, reminded us, than the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and countless others who, because they are white, have been so easily absorbed without anybody being able to spot who they are, particularly in the second generation.
I cannot deny what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said. There seems to be some kind of reaction in human terms based upon colour. It seems to work both ways. I do not believe it is solely the whites who

547
are antipathetic at first sight to the blacks; I think it is the other way round also—and the noble Lord agrees with me. It is only after one has had an opportunity to find out and learn, that one realises that this is mistaken and wrong. I want to come back to that a little later.
Let us look at the advantages which these immigrants are now bringing us. I shall not go into many realms, but I suppose the most obvious is the world of sport. Look, my Lords, at the British team going to the Olympic Games and see how many people among them are of immigrant black origins. How many of your Lordships, who have sought something in the shops late in the evening or at the weekend, have taken advantage of the Asian traders who are the only ones still open ? Look, my Lords, at the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, himself. How glad we are to have him in this House, and how glad we are to have had the other black noble Lord, Lord Constantine. I wish he had spoken more often.
If only this new wave of immigrants would come forward in more numbers, like the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and get into local government, get up in the professions and in public life, so that we could see them in action and they could see rather more of us in action ; if they could tell us what it is like, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has been able to tell us from personal experience what it was like for him, then I believe we should understand a great deal better and the understanding would go both ways. I cannot wait for more people to come forward, not just from the medical profession but from all walks of life, and join in the activities of this country just the same as all the other people who live here. I must not fail to emphasise yet again that if people are to come here, whatever colour they may be, they must have equal opportunities, and let them also make an equal contribution; and I am afraid it is in the sphere of equal opportunities that some of the problems arise to which I shall have to return.
The source of some of this trouble seems to me to lie in our nationality legislation. My noble friend Lord Barnby mentioned the British Nationality Act 1948, and I think it is that Act which is the answer to my noble friend Lord Gainford's question about where the passports really
548
come from. There were also the provisions in the independence Acts of some of the East African countries. In both these sets of legislation, we were generous and liberal; we also made the position excremely complicated. It may, unfortunately, have turned out that we were a trifle too generous and liberal with the nationality that we bestowed all over the world. But the fact remains that those Acts arc there and people's status is governed by them. They provide them with their nationality and, whether they are Kashmiris, Gujaratis or whatever they are, they are at the moment entitled to rely upon these provisions of our domestic law, and I suggest that it is not at all easy for us to renege on this situation. Certainly, if we are to do anything about it—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gridley is right—we can do it only by discussion with overseas countries, whether they are Commonwealth or Pakistan, and by an opportunity to explain to Governments overseas what are the problems and seek their co-operation in helping. I am delighted that Mr. Bhutto is sending one of his Ministers over here to see what is happening at this end. I wish there were some inter-governmental contact of this kind, so that both sides could see what was happening in the other's country.
I should be as interested as my noble friend Lady Vickers to hear how the review of the British Nationality Act is getting on. It was not a task that we rejoiced to undertake when we were in power, although we saw that it probably had to be tackled. I do not envy the present Government the continuation of that task, but something will have to be done about it in due course and a decision reached, however difficult it may be. Therefore I should be glad to know how the task is getting on.
For better or for worse, I believe that we must accept—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, mentioned this point—that in this country there is a real fear of the present situation. I do not want to add to it and I deplore people who do anything to add to it; but that does not mean that we must not recognise that the fear exists. I think that there is fear—very likely it arises from ignorance, or lack of experience, or from a plain lack of opportunity to discover what is the truth—among the indigenous white population about what

549
is to come in the future, not only in terms of numbers but in terms of events. The indigenous white population fear that their neighbourhoods will be overwhelmed, that their life-style will be changed without their wishing it to be changed; and perhaps they fear that their jobs will be threatened.
As I read the correspondence in the newspapers over the last weeks I see that fear is also expressed by those immigrants from both black and Asian countries who are already settled here. They are afraid that if there is conflict they will be seriously harmed and drawn into it. I should think that they are also very afraid that if there is conflict of any kind it will be upon them that people will pick because, as I said before, they are so obvious: there is no ease with which one can discriminate between somebody who has been here for a fortnight and a person who has been here for 40 years and who was born and bred in this country. My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith mentioned this point. This is the race relations area upon which my noble friend Lord Gridley based his Question and upon which I am sure he is right.
It is at this point that I am afraid that I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. He said that numbers were not really the point. I was immensely convinced and impressed by his argument as to the universality and the interdependence of the human race. Perhaps this is another of the advantages that these new waves of immigrants will bring to us, as the noble Lord very properly pointed out, and I am grateful to him for making that point. But there is something in numbers, because in numbers comes the demand for resources.
One of the most obvious areas of difficulty—this emerges whether you read the letter of my right honourable friend the Member for Worcester or whether you talk to people who know the problem on the ground in Brixton—is that of the young, unemployed West Indian youths. The only solution to their problem that I have ever heard anybody put forward is the injection of resources. One wonders, therefore, whether it may not be a little too facile to suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seemed to be suggesting, that we have something in the nature of
550
a balance of immigration and emigration. I believe that some of those who are coming in will put great demands on our resources, whereas some of those going out take with them the benefit of the education that they have had in this country; if they had stayed they would have added to our wealth, not drawn upon it. I believe, therefore, that there is another element or dimension in what the noble Lord said about this problem.
Perhaps in particular the demand on resources derives from the very concentration that other noble Lords have mentioned: the geographical concentration upon which these immigrants appear to insist. I do not think that it is altogether right to dissociate the question of numbers from matters of either deprivation or local difficulties about employment. ' I believe that in the minds of people there is certainly a direct relationship between how many immigrants there are in an area and the problems that there arise.
What, then, ought one to do to try to put people's minds at rest and still some of the anxiety ? Here the Government have a role to play. If it is acceptable to talk in terms of numbers, I should like a little clarification. I think that it is acceptable to talk in terms of numbers, because if the British people know roughly how many people are likely to be coming into this country, who will have to be absorbed and whose demands for education, housing and so on will have to he met, then they will know where they are.
I was very interested to read in the debate in another place the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary telling us how many United Kingdom passport holders there are still left in East Africa. When he put forward the figure of 40,000, he was questioned as to whether that was the United Kingdom passport holders only or whether it was all their dependants as well, and he did not know—or he did not appear to know when I read the Official Report. It is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that the answer is the same, because as I understand from the small experience that I had in government, it did not necessarily follow that all the dependants of a United Kingdom passport holder were themselves holders of United Kingdom passports. So I believe we need to be told, if the noble Lord can do so,

551
what was the final outcome of the information from the East African side.
The other numbers count that has been very much in evidence recently is about the numbers of dependants in the Indian sub-continent. What is the truth about Lord Avebury's queues? Is there really a finite pool, as it has been called, of people to which we shall ultimately come to an end, or is it an open-ended pledge that we have brought upon ourselves by allowing all the dependants to come in? Reading the debate in another place I am told that Mr. Hawley's Report was mainly about the pool. Can the noble Lord tell us a little more about this? And can he also pick up the point which I noted that the honourable gentleman the Member for York, no less, suggested in another place and was picked up today by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead; and can he pursue the matter of a register?
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that there cannot be any difficulty about this. People must be required to make up their minds how many dependants they have. I do not see any problem in getting them to do so. If they have already arrived, they can tell us how many there are still to come; if they are on their way here they can tell us on arrival and then we shall have some idea and, as the noble Lord said, it will require a remarkable piece of explanation to invent a whole lot more afterwards.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will permit me to intervene for a moment, I should like to point out that if in fact the person allowed somebody who was not a dependant to come in, then in fact he would not be able to have his dependant come in.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, that might be a different sort of numbers count. Would the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, remind the House whether, as I believe is still the case, the immigration rules, subject to amendment about fiancés and husbands, are still rigidly enforced, because we hear some very strange stories about these dependants? We hear of uncles and aunts; we hear of depressed and distressed relatives and we hear the most extraordinary stories of how large all these
552
families turn out to be. What is the truth about this? There are so many rumours about it; it is upon rumour that fear feeds, and I should like as much certainty in this area as is possible. We should welcome some reassurance about that.
We should also welcome reassurance about immigration rackets and about illegal immigration. I am not suggesting that the Government or the courts should be tougher with racketeers or with illegal immigrants than they are now. But what I find so unfortunate is that we have upon one hand estimated figures from Home Office sources given in the debate in another place of the number of illegal immigrants—those detained in 1975 were only 188—whereas on the other hand it is said that the police tell other people that they suspect there are far more than that.
I was listening to Questions in another place this afternoon, and the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary reminded us that the immigration services and the police work very closely together. If they do, why do they not tell the same story about this—or do they tell the same story and is it all again merely a matter of rumour? Is it something in the order of a few hundreds, or is it a thousand or two thousand, as the rumour would have it? Can the noble Lord tell us anything about that?
Can he tell us anything about the Chapman Pincher article to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred? Again, if there is a whisper of truth in that, it is a scandal, because it means that nobody is paying attention to the rules that have been approved by Parliament. It may not have been easy to get the approval of Parliament. I remember the battles that I had in this House with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, among others, but nevertheless in the end Parliament approved them and they must he adhered to. That is the rule of law. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there is anything in that report on the front page of last Saturday's Daily Express? Can the noble Lord tell us that the Government and the immigration services really are dealing with overstayers, with the bogus students, with the eternal student? What about second wives? Are they being allowed in and, if so, how many?

553
Let us get down to the facts. I know that net figures are extremely difficult; the Government have been advised by Sir Claus Moser that it is extremely difficult and expensive to produce accurate net figures. But these are not the figures I am asking for. I am asking for a dispelling of these rumours about which I strongly suspect the Government do know, and upon which they can give us some sort of assurance.
My Lords, that is all I want to say on this, because I believe that if we know the sort of number of people who are likely to come under the present legislation and under the present policies, we will be able to tailor our resources to meet them, to welcome them, and to get them fitted into the country to which they have chosen to come. It will not be easy at the moment if resources are needed. Goodness knows!—public spending at Government and local government level is certainly not going to rise. It will have to be carefully planned if we are to make proper provision for them. That makes it all the more important that we should know how many people there are to come. But, above all, fear and rumour will remove themselves from this whole explosive situation if only we can get more and more of the truth brought out about what it is we have to face, how many are going to come here. Then, I hope with good will, we shall set about welcoming these people into our midst.
9.21 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate and has contained a number of speeches of considerable quality, not least the one just made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and earlier by my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who made a most important contribution in this debate. If I may begin with one slight quarrel with the noble Viscount, it is that I think his speech gained in quality because it was largely devoid of statistics. But, rather unfairly, he then asked me to give a very large number of statistics, so I start off at a substantial disadvantage.
Certainly, the Government welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has offered us today, for debating immigration policy. I particularly welcome
554
the fact that the terms of his Question recognise that immigration policy is closely bound up with good community relations; and further, that these are dependent not simply on people's attitudes and feelings, crucial as these are, but on concrete, objective conditions of houses, of schools and of jobs. This has rightly directed our attention in the course of the debate not just to the widespread concern felt by many people, due in part, undoubtedly, to ignorant and irresponsible misrepresentation of the facts about the level of immigration, but to the constructive measures. We are right to debate serious proposals aimed at securing and improving, through our immigration policy or through any other means, good race relations, justice and equality for all in this country.
My Lords, before coming on to some of the specific matters raised this afternoon, I should like to state two things as clearly as I possibly can. First, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have emphasised on several occasions in recent days, the Government are determined, in the interests of all of us—and because it is right—to do everything possible to ensure equality of treatment for all members of our society, regardless of race or colour. We are wholly committed to this policy. The Race Relations Bill now before another place is an indication of the seriousness of our purpose.
Secondly, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we intend to stand by the basic immigration commitments, honoured by Governments of both main Parties, to the immediate families of those who have already been accepted for settlement, and to those United Kingdom passport holders in East African countries who have citizenship of no other country and who have found themselves under severe, sometimes intolerable, pressure from the situation in those countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, in dealing with this point—and it is always a dangerous thing to do—asked a rhetorical question: Where in a situation of this sort does morality lie? I am bound to say I have no doubt about the answer to that question. I can remember only a few years ago the late lain Macleod saying in the most explicit terms that he had given his word and he meant to stick

555
to it. That is the position so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. I think it would do lasting damage to the reputation of this country if, having given the offer of British citizenship in those independence Acts, we were now to attempt to renege on a commitment entered into knowingly by the Government at that time.
But at the same time, as the noble Lord's Question suggests, there is clearly a strict limit to the amount of immigration which a country such as ours can sustain. This limitation is fully accepted, not only by the Government but I think also by many of the responsible leaders of the immigrant communities now settled here. I can assure the noble Lord that it is also accepted by many Commonwealth, and indeed many other countries from which immigration to the United Kingdom has taken place. But this is where I must emphasise my clear difference with the noble Lord, and indeed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who made the same point. When the noble Lord asks whether Her Majesty's Government will make urgent representations to Governments of New Commonwealth countries that we are no longer able to accept their citizens as immigrants, what reply does he expect we should receive ? It would, I hope, be courteous, and possibly sympathetic, but what it would amount to would be this, " Do not tell us. You must tell the men and women from our country who have already lawfully settled in Britain under your law that they cannot, after all, bring their husbands, or wives or their children to join them." We cannot shuffle this problem off on to the shoulders of other countries.
As, of course, the House is aware, and indeed the noble Viscount has referred to this, there are a substantial number of contacts between Her Majesty's Government and Ministers and officials of many Commonwealth Governments. Overseas Governments, as I have indicated, fully accept that strict limits to immigration must be set, and we certainly are under no pressure to allow in new categories. But our commitment to the main category that we have to admit, the dependants, is not something that we can somehow wriggle out of in negotiations with other Governments. It is a pledge to people
556
and not to Governments, a pledge that their immediate families can join them.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord who is replying. I think he is interpreting what I said rather widely. I am not wishing in any way to interfere with those dependants who may have the right to come here at the moment. What I do feel, and what I was trying to convey in my speech, was that I think we could talk to leaders of the Commonwealth about any future additional immigration. That is what I was thinking of, not the people who are here at the moment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will come to that point in a moment. If we and the noble Lord are talking about new immigration of heads of households, frankly, that is at such a limited level at the moment that it really is not one of the major problems facing us in terms of immigration policy in this country. May I begin this point again. We accept, as I have said, two kinds of limitation on immigration: a limit on the categories who may come, and a need to control the rate at which they come.
Now I am afraid I come to the statistics. I can only blame the noble Viscount and others for having asked questions of this sort. In 1975, out of about 40,000 people who were admitted to the United Kingdom for settlement, something under 35,000 came from the New Commonwealth and from Pakistan. That was more than in 1974 or 1973 when the equivalent number was about 25,000. Of the 35,000, 10,000 were the wives or husbands already lawfully married of men and women already settled in this country. The great majority were wives. Another 21,000 were dependent members of the immediate families, mainly the children of men and women already settled here. The remainder, something under 4,000, were holders of special vouchers under the scheme for United Kingdom passport holders. All those from East Africa who are entitled and desire to enter the United Kingdom will have done so by 1978 or 1979.
Now let me deal directly with the question of dependants. Most of these will belong to people settled here before 1973. As such, the wives and children

557
have a statutory right to come. For the rest, the immigration rules are framed to enable a family—but only the immediate family in our Western sense, not, as some would have it, the extended family of the Indian sub-continent—to be united here if the mother or father has settled. There have been suggestions that if dependants are the basic commitment, immigration of other categories of people should be stopped. I just do not believe that this proposition will stand up for a moment.
In 1975 something under 19,000 people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan who were already lawfully in the United Kingdom on a temporary basis were accepted for settlement. The largest group, nearly 8,000, were people who came earlier and were already resident in this country when the Immigration Act 1971 came into operation in January 1973, and who have completed five years' residence. As Commonwealth citizens, they became immune from deportation after five years' residence, and only retrospective legislation could now remove their right to settle. I should be a little surprised if many in your Lordships' House would really recommend retrospective legislation of that character. After 1978 there will be few, if any, people left who could qualify, because the 1971 Act conferred no such immunity on anyone who became resident after January 1973.
So far I have dealt with nearly 8,000 out of a total of 19,000. Over 4,000 of the remainder were women who came here as fiancees of men already settled in Britain. Is it suggested that they should not be admitted ? We should be quite clear what is involved. What it means is saying to a man, born in this country perhaps, or certainly at any rate accepted as settled, " You may be entitled to live here yourself and marry whom you like, but if you marry a non-resident she cannot come here. If you want to live as man and wife you must emigrate again." I find it exceptionally hard to believe that many people would really argue that. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, talked about the situation of Australians and New Zealanders. Are we to say to a man who marries an American or Australian wife that he should be put in that position ? Frankly, the situation in my view is that such a proposition would be intolerable to Parliament
558
and that there would not be the slightest prospect of a Government of any Party adopting a policy of that sort.
As to the rest of the 19,000, the Immigration Rules now permit men as well as women to come here temporarily to marry a specified person already settled here. If the marriage goes through, then the position is made permanent; some 3,600 men were given permission to settle in 1975 on marriage. The remainder of the 19,000, some 3,000, include in the main dependants of people already here and accepted for settlement after entry. I recognise that that is a heavy dose of statistics, but there has been so much misinformation put about by some who are anxious to heighten anxiety and tension, that I thought that clarification was needed.
What, then, of the future? There has been a substantial amount of discussion, much of it, I fear, rather muddled, about the so-called pool of dependants and whether it is finite or infinite. The facts are these: first, no one who came to this country, be it as a visitor, a student or whatever, after January 1973 can any longer acquire a right to settle simply by five years' residence. So in one and a half years from now, that already closing door will in effect shut. We could not shut it sooner, even if it were right, without taking away or cutting off a statutory immunity from deportation. Secondly, the flow of remaining United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who came in with their dependants at a rate controlled by the special voucher scheme—with an annual ceiling of 5,000 vouchers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, pointed out—will have dried up, as I have indicated, by 1978 or 1979. That will, to over-simplify only slightly, leave the door of settlement open only to the husbands and wives, children and elderly dependant parents of people already settled. In addition, Commonwealth citizens who are permitted to come temporarily to work, like any foreign national, may be allowed to settle after spending four years in approved employment, and it is only right to say that there were only a handful of such people last year—fewer than 200—and the criteria for getting a work permit in the present situation are obviously tight and will be kept under close scrutiny.

559
We come back to the basic commitment—to husbands, wives and children of people already settled here. There is, I know, a great deal of misunderstanding about this, and people ask, " Why don't we know precisely how many of these people there are "? The simple answer is that it depends, first, on how many of those who can come here in this way will actually want to do so and, secondly, on the habits of marriage and parenthood of people now settled here; to the extent that they cease to look abroad for wives and husbands and have their children here rather than in, say, India, the number will diminish. One thing we must understand clearly; entitlement is strictly limited. I will attempt no estimate because that would, by its very nature, be highly speculative, but as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on 24th May in another place, the truth is that the pool of entitled people is being steadily drained as they take up their entitlement, and the replenishment of it by marriage, birth and circumstances is much less.
The noble Viscount and my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead both mentioned the question of the register. As I am sure is known to some, this is not a new idea. We have in fact had a register in the past; one was set up in 1965, but after a year's experience it was found not to justify itself in terms of assisting immigration control. My right honourable friend announced in August 1966 that it was to be discontinued. The idea has, however, arisen once again in discussion in recent weeks, and we shall certainly consider it. It would be wrong to rule it out altogether but, as I said, it was used in the past and at that time was not felt to be an answer to the problem.
I should like to come now to the position of the people who are entitled to come here. We have certainly read a great deal in recent weeks about attempts to get into this country illegally. The noble Viscount raised this point, quite properly, in my view. It has been suggested that there is widespread evasion, fraud and abuse of the rules. It is right to recognise that there is immense pressure in certain desperately poor countries for people to get into this country. It is foolish to ignore the fact that there is therefore a real problem. As the noble Viscount said, we certainly enjoy harmonious relations with the Governments and the diplomatic missions of those
560
countries and, like him, I very much welcome the fact that the Pakistan Minister with special responsibility for his countrymen abroad is about to visit us to discuss the whole range of problems which we have been discussing here today, not least this one.
That brings me to the Daily Express, a question about which was raised by the noble Viscount. The Daily Express published an article on Saturday last. It occupied a very substantial portion of its front page. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was the first to raise this this afternoon. The article was couched in fairly dramatic terms. For those who do not read the Daily Express on a Saturday, I should like to repeat what it said:
"Immigration Officers appalled at being ordered to case entry have given Mr. Enoch Powell confidential information to act on. He is to table questions about allegations by the officers that the Home Office is overriding the wishes of Parliament. It is claimed that coloured people are now arriving in such numbers that defences against illegal entry are saturated."
Here comes an interesting sentence:
" So a circular has been issued instructing that immigrants will not be rejected even if they have bogus papers ".
That is a serious charge. I am sure that the Daily Express went to very considerable lengths to check the accuracy of that statement before making it. Of course I must tell the House that there is not a vestige of truth in it. No such instruction has been given that immigrants should not be rejected if they have bogus papers. of course it has not. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already spoken in another place and answered a Question this afternoon making that absolutely clear. With the fair-mindedness which we associate with the editorial policy of the Daily Express, I am quite sure that the paper will be anxious tomorrow morning to give as much publicity to the denial as it did to the initial report.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would take us one stage further. It is presumably only too easy to check. If the circulars are available in any event, for instance, in the Library of another place or the Library here, we can see whether or not there is such a circular, unless there are secret ones.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for raising that point. As he knows, the Rules are already available but neither the last Government nor the present one feel it appropriate to publish these detailed instructions. There are good reasons for that. They could provide a great deal of information to some of those involved in the practices that we have been discussing. It is for that reason that they are not available. I repeat, however, that I very much hope that the Daily Express will correct this and give the correction substantial publicity tomorrow morning.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of the Daily Express, I should like to say that surely he is not suggesting that a mere retraction in tomorrow morning's paper would be an adequate remedy for the enormous damage that this article has done and which, as I have said, is calculated to inflame the racial tensions which already exist in this country ? Does the noble Lord not think that this is a matter of which the Press Council should take notice?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is a matter on which any noble Lord can take action if he thinks it appropriate. I would not wish to say anything about that this evening. I felt it my duty, in replying to the question raised by the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, to answer this point, so far as the Home Office is concerned. So far as the Press Council is concerned, if anyone wishes to make a complaint he is of course at liberty to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, raised the question about the penalties for organisers of illegal immigration. This is an extremely serious problem, and it is recognised as such. There is a maximum term of imprisonment of seven years, which indicates the seriousness with which Parliament regarded this matter when the 1971 Immigration Act was put through. Certainly there is substantial indication that the Judiciary is tending to impose the higher range of penalties in dealing with some of the people who are involved in this particularly squalid practice.
Having said what I have, I think it is right to distinguish the problem of the
562
illegal entrant from the case of the visitor or student who simply overstays his time here. Illegal entry is, by definition, immeasurable—which is to some extent, I am afraid, the answer to the noble Viscount who put this point to me earlier. But considerable resources go into its prevention and detection here in Britain by the immigration service and the police, who also work in close co-operation with the authorities in neighbouring European countries. In 1975, 86 Commonwealth citizens were detained for illegal entry and most of them were then removed. The number of foreign nationals, incidentally, was rather higher, at 100. It may be said that if only 86 have been caught that shows how many get away with it. That is not an assertion which it is possible to meet. But let us look instead at the amnesty figures. In April 1974 the Government said that anyone who had entered illegally before January 1973 could have his position regularised as a concession, provided that he applied.
This deals with the point which the noble Baroness raised. She spoke, rightly in my view, about the potential for blackmail in a situation of that kind. I agree with her that it is very real. So one would have assumed from that that a substantial number of people who were under the threat of blackmail would have applied immediately under the amnesty, and indeed it may well be that the overwhelming majority did so. But the figures demonstrate that in the two years since my right honourable friend made that announcement fewer than 2,000 people in all have come forward, and fewer than 1,400 have qualified as having entered Britain illegally in all the years up to 1973. Fears on this evidence of tens of thousands of illegal entrants really seem to be considerably exaggerated. Overstaying is of course a more substantial problem in scale
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but this is an important point. If it is being said by responsible Members in another place that they are getting quite different figures from the police sources, then we really ought to know—I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot answer this tonight—whether that very sensible and well-based estimate is really right and is accepted by the police;

563
or whether there is another story, one which is giving rise to rumours of a very much larger number of people. I hope that sooner or later the Government will deal with this.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly, my Lords. I think it is important to be as forthcoming in this matter as possible; I quite agree with the noble Viscount. It is by its nature rather difficult to get even policemen to agree on a single estimate. I have spent some time discussing this matter—because, of course, as the House is aware, one of my principal responsibilities is dealing with the police—with chief constables, particularly in the South-East of England, but elsewhere, too, about what they believe to be the scale of illegal immigration. But I take note of the noble Viscount's point, and we will do all we can to make available as much information as possible; but, I repeat, it is inevitably exceedingly difficult so to do.
As I was about to say, overstaying is a more substantial problem in scale. The Government have repeatedly said that overstayers will be firmly dealt with, and sent away in appropriate cases. That, indeed, is what happens; and the same goes for those who seek to abuse the rules—for example, by contracting hollow marriages of convenience simply to get settlement and then rapidly divorcing, or simply splitting up. The Government know perfectly well that there are rackets—of course there are—that there are attempts at fraud and evasion, and that there is abuse. That is why the intelligence functions of the immigration service have been greatly developed, as well as cooperation with police and, as I have indicated already, authorities abroad as well as in this country. It is of great importance to deal firmly with these things, and certainly we do not shrink from doing so. It is not so much the absolute numbers as the threat to public confidence which they pose which is potentially so damaging to good race relations; and this, if I may say so, is a point where I frankly dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, and what my noble friend Lord Pitt said. I take the view that strict limitation of numbers is essential if we are going to have a climate of good civilised race relations in this country.
564
I turn now very briefly to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I intended at the beginning to follow the noble Viscount in speaking with moderation and restraint, but I find it particularly difficult to do so when dealing with a speech as to which I think I disagreed with almost every statement that was made. I am not sure that we still have the noble Lord with us, and in that case my remarks about his speech will be even shorter. I am bound to say that I deeply deplore phrases like " race relations racketeers " when one is talking about a large number of people, many of them most disinterested people, who are doing most important work to ensure civilised race relations in this country. It does no service to tolerant race relations, nor to the reputation of this House, when statements of that sort are made. I am also bound to say that I do not regard the phrase do-gooders " as one of the more objectionable in the English language, as the noble Lord apparently does. Presumably he would apply that term to the right honourable gentleman the Member for Worcester; presumably he would apply that term to the noble Lord, Lord Carr; and inevitably he would apply it to a number of people on the Government Front Bench. I just do not believe that extravagant language of that sort is in any way appropriate.
My Lords, I would not for a moment suggest that post-war immigration has not caused this country significant problems; of course it has. Just as important, it would be even more foolish to fail to recognise the major contribution made by the immigrant communities to this country—and for a period of many centuries, indeed: from the Huguenot refugees, who came in several centuries ago; to the Jews who fled from the Nazi tyranny in the 1930s; to the Hungarians who came over in 1956; to the West Indian nurses, recruited in such numbers, indeed, when I believe Mr. Enoch Powell was the Minister of Health; to the Indian doctors referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; and to many others. Of course some immigrants become involved in crime. So, I regret to say, does a very large number—all too large a number—of the indigenous population.
But it is dangerous folly to exaggerate

565
the extent of this problem; and if I may say so, just giving one example—because the problems of West Indian teenagers in certain parts of South London are constantly referred to—what is clear is that in so far as one can make any judgment in this matter (and it is not one based on a great deal of statistical data but it is one shared by a large number of chief officers of police) the Asian community in this country is one of the most law-abiding in these Islands. That is the view not of race relations experts but of a very large number of senior police officers in all parts of the country. This brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, when referring to recent cases—the two cases in which there have been deaths. One at least is sub judice. I cannot recall whether the other is also sub judice, but the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not comment on either case, for it would be inappropriate.
My Lords, I think it does no good to pretend that all recent incidents necessarily have racial significance. There is great danger in making assumptions of that sort. They can have profound consequences if built up as racially-related incidents, but it would be wrong to believe that some of these incidents which have received great publicity have necessarily had racial significance. There is clearly a handful of people—and I believe that it is only a handful—who have an interest in stirring up racial hostility; and some of these might be content if this escalated into violence. Their weapons are fear and ignorance. I think that everyone who values the reputation of this country and who regards it, as I do, as one of the most civilised and tolerant countries in the world, has a common interest in ensuring that these people are defeated.
My Lords, it is absolutely right, of course, that the Government should be made to defend their immigration policy; it is right that there should be a debate, for it is a major question of considerable public importance. But let it be conducted with moderation and restraint. Wild and exaggerated charges of the kind we have seen in the last few weeks do a real disservice to all the people of this country. The British are not an intolerant people and I do not believe that they will ever accept a cause based on intolerance.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.
ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Examiners Certificate that no Standing Order is applicable : Ordered to lie on the Table.