Lords Sitting of 18 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Ritchie of Dundee—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

AUXILIARY FORCES: RECRUITING
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister will consider making a broadcast urging young adult persons to associate themselves with various units of our auxiliary forces.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are clear signs that the recent annual publicity campaign for the TAVR has been most successful in terms of recruiting, and the smaller reserve and auxiliary forces of the other two Services are already well recruited. Although it does not appear that a Ministerial appeal for recruits is called for at this stage, the Prime Minister is pleased to associate himself with the noble Lord's sentiments.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer so far as it goes; but does not my noble friend realise, from his knowledge as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, that our reserve position is far from satisfactory, although it is better than it was? Would he not, in the circumstances, emphasise to the Prime Minister the importance of the project, not only from a military standpoint but from an ethical, physical and social standpoint? If at any time I am to be rebuked for appearing to instruct the Prime Minister, may I say that my only qualification is that many years ago he was one of my junior Ministers.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought that the Answer of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was a positive one and was an indication of a former relationship. May I say that the present campaign for recruiting is going extremely well. There have been 13,754 requests for information since the campaign began in February. This compares with only 8,170 inquiries for the whole of last year.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would it not be for the national, social, employment and reserve advantage if our ex-Serviceman Prime Minister were to restore National Service and the reserve forces to the position there were in before the Chancellor's decimation? This might even discourage some of the unemployed ex-Servicemen from becoming mercenaries, since they could then have a country of their own worth fighting for.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, does the Minister remember the speech made by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on 25th June last year, when he said that young boys were transformed when they joined bodies like the Coastguard and life-saving services? Would the Government consider mounting a recruiting campaign in schools which would enable the young of this country to get a spirit of adventure, so that when they leave school they might become Territorials?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am speaking from memory, but the noble Earl has possibly forgotten that the cadet corps and the Air Force cadets have no less than 130,000 members. That surely indicates that the interests of our own young men and women are being kept focused upon the need for national service in this area.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the Minister hear in mind that although the Prime Minister may have positive sentiments in accord with the Question, we want some positive publicity on these views? Would it not be more effective if the Prime Minister made a speech to the country, drawing attention to the fact that we have smaller reserves than any of

1259
our NATO allies, and that the Territorials presents a natural way in which young men can use their energies and dedication while at the same time helping to strengthen our national ability to defend ourselves and to contribute to the Alliance?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since the Prime Minister has authorised the Answer I have given, I am sure he will pay attention to the points made here.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the course of his reply he mentioned the young cadets but there was one very important section of cadets that he forgot to mention, and that is the Sea Cadets?—so the ships that sail upon the sea will eventually have manpower available, as these young people fit themselves for that type of service. Secondly, is my noble friend aware that it is not everyone who agrees with the recommendation about National Service? Once we start on that, we are asking for more trouble. Is it not true to state that the mass media at the moment are doing a very good job in setting out an order of campaign for the Services and the opportunities available for young men who are desirous of joining those particular Services?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My lords, I must apologise to the junior members of the Senior Service.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, is there any Government policy directed towards helping those areas which have a great deal of school-leaver unemployment? Is this not exactly the kind of service which could encourage the young to do such service rather than stay at home on unemployment benefit, and would the Minister take note of this aspect?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness must realise that we are talking of volunteers here: there are no conscripts. Therefore, if young people wish to join these forces they may do so, but we cannot compel them.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I understand that; but I was asking the Minister whether any encouragement or information was being given to the young to enable them to know what the opportunities are.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought I had indicated earlier that there was.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the interest displayed in the House on this important topic, may I ask my noble friend whether he will emphasise to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he might occasionally spare five minutes in order to advocate the desirability of increasing our reserve forces?

AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS:FUTURE PROJECTS
2.43 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, according to their information, there is any truth in reports that the French aircraft manufacturers Aerospatiale are contemplating building the next generation airbus, the A300 BB10, and the next civil supersonic transport in co-operation with the Boeing aircraft company rather than with British aircraft firms, and whether the Government have made any representations to the French Government on this matter.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I understand that the manufacturers of the airbus are exploring with Boeing the possibilities for collaboration on new derivatives of the airbus. All the European manufacturers, including our own companies, are discussing future projects among themselves and with United States companies. The Government have told the French and German Governments that we will look seriously at proposals by the United Kingdom's industry for participation in any civil aviation project, including the A300.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer which is partly reassuring. Will the Government make absolutely certain that the best aircraft industry in Europe, the British aircraft industry, is not left

1261
out of future major co-operative aircraft projects within the Community?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords; as the noble Earl will be aware from reports in the Press, discussions have been going on this week with American manufacturers, and today my honourable friend the Minister of State is meeting officials from Aerospatiale.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister give any assurance that if Aerospatiale come to some agreement with the Boeing aircraft company they will not give away the know-how, design and build of our present supersonic aircraft to the Americans, as most of the technology in this aircraft is British?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, all four manufacturers of Concorde are exchanging information on supersonic aircraft on a regular basis with American companies. So far as I know, recent discussions with Boeing and French aircraft manufacturers, which, as I said, are part of a series of bilateral discussions, and discussions between different Governments and different countries, are not connected with supersonic aircraft.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify one part of his original Answer? Have the Government indicated, or do they intend to indicate, to the French and German Governments that the British Government would be prepared to participate in the airbus industry as partners, which of course we are not at the moment?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, while we are not partners, the noble Earl will know that Hawker-Siddeley are manufacturing the wings for the airbus, which represents about 15 per cent. by value of the final aircraft. They are therefore playing a large and important part in the production of the airbus, and we are ensuring that Hawker-Siddeley should be enabled to continue to play a part in any future development.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I quite understand that, but does the noble Lord mean by that reply that the Government are not prepared to be partners in the airbus industry?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords; I did not say that. I said that the Government would consider seriously and urgently any proposals on future civil aviation projects put to us by British manufacturers.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, have the Government considered building a wide-bodied 200 or 250-seater aircraft in this country, without the help of Europe or America?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not think anybody, including the Americans, believes it would be possible to build one of the next civil aviation aircraft without some collaborative effort, and I do not think the Government do, either. That is why we have made it perfectly clear to our partners in Europe, and to the Americans, that we are prepared to collaborate on any viable projects.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if the future wing were to require a development cost of £60 million to £70 million, as I understand is the case, would the Government be prepared to back that?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I said that the Government would be prepared to back any commercially viable civil aviation projects which British companies bring to us. I regret to say that the noble Earl has not provided me with sufficient information for me to say whether or not the wing he is talking about is commercially viable.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier that Hawker-Siddeley will play an important part in the manufacture of the airbus, so why is it that British Airways ordered the TriStar? Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that the airbus is a much more satisfactory, pleasant and cheaper aircraft than the TriStar?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, that is an interesting but different question.

CAMBODIA
2.47 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: 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 steps they intend to take to alleviate the sufferings of the inhabitants of Cambodia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COM MONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government could consider giving assistance to the inhabitants of Cambodia only if it were requested by the Cambodian Government. No such request has been received.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate doing any work with regard to the subject of the Question in the United Nations, and if not, what arc the reasons? Also, does the Minister not agree that it would help if, like other countries, we were to have an embassy in Cambodia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not apparent that a UN initiative by us, or indeed any other country, would be appropriate, at least at the present time. On the question of our being represented in Phnom Penh, while we have recognised the Government in Cambodia it has not yet been found practicable to be represented in a diplomatic way in its capital; and, indeed, very few other countries are represented there. We shall, of course, continue to look at the possibilities.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication of how many people have been murdered in Cambodia in the last year or so, and how many have been displaced and are refugees in Thailand and other places? Also, is it not a fact that there was a consensus in the United Nations that we should aid the High Commissioner for Refugees in helping people? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that those of us on all sides of the House who condemn oppression, murder and cruelty from wherever it comes, find it very noticeable that there has been a silence from those who are most condemnatory about what happens in Spain and South Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall take the last point first. If there has indeed been a silence I am glad to break it now, and to condemn in no unmeasured terms any atrocities wherever they happen and from wherever they originate, whether it is Cambodia or any other country. That is the Government's policy and attitude.
On the noble Lord's first point—whether in fact we have properly tested figures as to the number of people who have been put to death and displaced—we have no means of checking the horrific reports which have reached all of us. There is no doubt that very considerable numbers of Cambodians have suffered in the way the noble Lord has described, but I am not in a position to give an estimate of numbers. So far as the attitude of the international community is concerned, I believe that I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, how the Government see this point. We are ready, of course, at all times to co-operate with the High Commissioner for Refugees in any meaningful international or, indeed, bilateral context to help refugees and people who suffer in this way. The House will recall that in connection with the Vietnam débâcle the Government set aside £1 million for the rescue and rehabilitation of refugees and others, all of which has now been taken tip. No request has come to us, either internationally or bilaterally, for a similar gesture towards Cambodia, but I repeat that we would be as ready as anybody to consider such a request.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his answer, but is it not a fact that in the General Assembly there was a consensus to help the High Commissioner for Refugees with money to aid these refugees? Are the Government doing nothing about that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, indeed not. I am not quite sure whether I am fully apprised of what the noble Lord means by a consensus to assist the High Commissioner in Cambodia.
Lord CARRINGTON: No—the United Nations High Commissioner.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, the United Nations High Commissioner in regard to the situation in Cambodia. We are part of such a consensus. We cannot, of course, operate such a consensus unilaterally. I am not aware that in any particular we have been less ready than any other country to co-operate and contribute towards the efforts of the High Commissioner.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, having been in Cambodia in its happier times, may I ask whether the noble Lord can say whether the population who are still living there have sufficient food and medical supplies? Is the noble Lord able to say what is the general position regarding the people who are still living in Cambodia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have not sufficient information to answer that question in any way which would be helpful to the House, but this we do know. The present Government in Cambodia are making very strong efforts to make the country self-sufficient in staples, particularly in rice. It seems that at least to some extent they are succeeding because they have made donations of rice to nearby Laos.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether I might draw the attention of the Minister to the latest Bulletin from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Quarterly Bulletin states that a 12 million dollar fund has been provided specifically to help refugees from Indo-China who are now in Thailand. Those refugees now number about a quarter of a million. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the United Kingdom has contributed to this fund. According to the Bulletin, the vast majority of contributors to this fund are from European countries.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If I can identify the precise segment of the international aid which has been made available by us as contributors, I will let her know. Indeed, if the noble Baroness cares to put down a Question, I will give her the particulars. The quarter of a million refugees to whom the noble Baroness referred did not figure in our calculations as to the disposal of the
1266
£1 million which we made available generally to Indo-China. However, I will look into this matter and let the noble Baroness know the details.

DOG WARDEN SCHEMES
2.55 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many district councils in the United Kingdom are operating dog warden or dog catcher schemes; under which Act of Parliament they have the authority to do so; whether they are operating on guidelines issued by a Ministry; and whether dogs collected by wardens and catchers are subject to the Dogs Act 1906.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, some 50 local authorities are known either to have a dog warden scheme or to be considering setting one up and most of the schemes are operated under the general powers available in Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. There are no guidelines issued by the Government. Responsibility for the custody and disposal of any dogs which a dog warden rounds up rests with the police under the Dogs Act 1906.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Would it not be more satisfactory if all these dog warden schemes were set up on a national level, and is not this one of the suggestions that was put forward to the working party of the Department of the Environment, which I understand reported some two months ago? Is it possible that we may soon see the report?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government have always considered that local authorities are well qualified to set up their own dog warden schemes as and where necessary when the need arises. They do not consider that central guidelines are necessary or appropriate in this case. So far as the report is concerned, the working party was an interdepartmental body which was set up in July 1974 and reported to my right honourable friend

1267
in April 1976. The Minister of State has agreed that the Ministers should consider, collectively, the working party report to decide whether or not it should be published, and we must await their decision.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, bearing in mind the gardening interests of many of us, would it not be a good idea if we had a cat catcher scheme?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider adjusting the dog licence fee to take account of inflation, since the fee remains based on the pre-war pound?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that this is one of the recommendations of the working party which has yet to be considered.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in many areas no effort whatsoever is made to carry out the law which says that dogs should be kept on a lead? If this law were put into operation, perhaps fewer dogs would be roaming the streets for the dog catchers to deal with.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that also is a point which will be considered when the working party report is published.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
2.58 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, this Bill arises directly from the growing threat posed by acts of terrorism and other violent crimes, both in this country and elsewhere in the world. Conscious of this threat, the Government keep questions of security under continuous review, and included in this is, of course, the security of fissile materials used in the civil nuclear programme. These materials are safe enough in the circumstances of the civil nuclear programme; indeed, the nuclear industry has a very fine safety record. But if fissile materials fell into the wrong hands, they could be used to cause grave danger to the community.
1268
Noble Lords will not expect me to go into details, but apart from the possibility that such materials might be used to make a primitive nuclear device, the dispersal of plutonium in particular into the environment could create a major radiological and toxic hazard over a wide area, threatening perhaps many hundreds of lives. Equally, terrorists who had seized fissile materials could hold a Government to ransom by threatening to create hazards of this kind. This risk is not merely a domestic one. It has international dimensions.
Material stolen in this country might be in a readily portable form and could be used as the basis of a threat to cause damage in the United States, Europe, the Middle East or, indeed, anywhere in the world. Nuclear materials might, therefore, be subject to attack by international terrorists as well as by those operating in the United Kingdom.
In the light of this threat, the Government concluded that the security of fissile materials should be strengthened. In practice, these materials are at present held in any significant quantities only at four sites—the Atomic Energy Authority establishments at Harwell, Dounreay and Winfrith, and the British Nuclear Fuels Limited site at Windscale. Fissile materials are also moved about the country at intervals in the ordinary course of AEA and BNFL business. The physical security of sites holding fissile materials has therefore been heavily strengthened.
In the past few months some£2 million is being spent on measures including arrangements for the strengthening of the perimeter fences and of the buildings in which dangerous materials are held; the improvements of alarm and detection systems; the use of guard dogs; and the improvement of communications. Measures are also being taken to increase the security of materials in transit; these include the provision of much stronger vehicles and better communications.
But physical improvements are not enough. The Government have to take account of the fact that a terrorist attack directed at taking possession of these materials is likely to be an armed attack. After the most careful consideration, we concluded that it will be necessary to

1269
provide armed guards where such materials are stored and when they are in transit. This decision was taken with reluctance. The arming of guards in the civil field on a routine basis runs very much against British traditions.
But, my Lords, this is an exceptional risk. And further, we have to bear in mind that fissile materials such as these are kept under armed guard in other countries and, when used for military purposes, in this country as well. If civil nuclear materials in this country are not similarly protected, they may appear to be a soft option for ruthless and determined international terrorists.
My Lords, we owe it to ourselves and to our friends overseas to take every effort to safeguard these materials and to frustrate the activities of such people. One does not wish to exaggerate the risk or to create alarm, but the risk exists and I suggest that it would be prudent for us to provide for adequate protection. We have decided to provide armed protection. But let me emphasise that armed guards at particular sites, and accompanying material in transit, do not provide complete protection. It would be unrealistic to think that site guards could deal with every kind of attack that might arise. They represent, rather, the first line of defence in depth, and we see them as having two main functions. First, their presence presents a measure of deterrence. Secondly, after giving an alarm to the outside, they can delay and contain an attack so as to give more time for the arrival of outside reinforcements.
There are standing arrangements for the provision of such reinforcements, under the general arrangements for dealing with terrorists. This function of delaying and containing attackers is important, for in this kind of situation one can envisage that speed would be one of the main objectives of the attackers. We propose that site and transit guards should be provided by the arming of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. Since the establishment of the Authority 20 years ago, this constabulary has been responsible for the policing of its sites.
Since 1971, it has also be en responsible for policing the sites owned by British Nuclear Fuels Limited. It undertakes the escorting of fissile materials in transit
1270
between sites. Until recently, the Authority constabulary has been an unarmed force. The first purpose of this Bill is therefore to place its officers in the same position as regular police forces and the Ministry of Defence constabulary, so far as firearms are concerned, by allowing them to possess firearms in the course of their duties without the need for the specific authorities normally required by the Firearms Act 1968.
I should like to clear up here one point on which noble Lords may possibly have misgivings. I should emphasise that the Authority constabulary is not a private police force. It was established under statutory authority—the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954. Its members are sworn in as special constables. It is organised as a disciplined force on lines similar to regular police forces. Its officers are either recruited as young men—like policemen in the regular forces—or are former policemen or Servicemen. The chief constable of the constabulary is responsible to the Atomic Energy Authority. That Authority is responsible for its constabulary, as for other matters, to the Secretary of State for Energy. He in turn is responsible to Parliament.
Thus we are speaking of a police force which is subject to proper control. If the Bill becomes law, firearms will be carried and used by the AEA constabulary only on the basis of Standing Orders agreed by the Secretary of State; and the chief constable of that force will authorise their carriage only when officers are on duties for which access to firearms is necessary. I would also emphasise that those officers of the AEA police who carry firearms will be trained in their use to normal police standards. These standards, as we know, are very high indeed.
Pending the passage of this Bill, selected members of the Authority police have been carrying firearms for certain guard duties on the basis of firearms certificates issued to them as individuals by local chief officers of police under the Firearms Act. To obtain those certificates they have been required to complete successfully normal police training courses in firearms. Training to this standard will continue. There will also be regular retraining and an officer who does not maintain the required standard will cease to carry weapons until he has attained it

1271
again. The Bill does two things. It deems Authority constables to be Crown servants for the purposes of the Firearms Act. This will allow them access to firearms without any certificate or other authority under that Act.
Secondly, it widens the geographical limits within which these constables can exercise their police powers, and extends the class of property in respect of which those powers can be exercised in order that they shall be able to act as constables in all the circumstances where they are likely to be protecting fissile material. The way the Bill does this is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum, but briefly: Clause 1 deems AEA constables to be Crown servants. It also deems purchase of firearms for their use to be purchase for the public service, which will allow firearms to be bought for their use without a certificate.
Clause 2 extends their powers in relation to property so that while they are outside—for instance, on convoy duty—they may be exercised in relation to the property of BNFL and to property which is in the possession or control of AEA or BNFL, or which has been unlawfully removed from it. This covers BNFL-owned fissile material, and also material which they or the Authority are handling for customers.
Clause 3: constables' powers are currently limited to sites and 15 miles around them. This clause allows those powers to be exercised wherever constables go to safeguard nuclear matter, or to pursue anyone who has stolen nuclear material which they are safeguarding. Clause 4 contains definitions; it also makes a technical legal clarification of existing powers.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene for a moment. The noble Lord has said that the Bill allows the constables to pursue anyone who may have stolen nuclear materials, but the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. What would happen if it was suspected that someone who had diverted nuclear materials had taken them to Northern Ireland to use there? Would the Atomic Energy Authority special constables be able to follow them?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the powers we are taking in this Bill are for the safeguarding and protection of
1272
material. An AEA policeman would be in pursuit only in close proximity either to the site or to the vehicle when it is in transit. It would certainly be a requirement of the local police to come to the assistance of the Atomic Energy Authority police. If there was a case where there was fissile material taken to Northern Ireland—because at present there are no nuclear establishments in Northern Ireland—then this would not be the responsibility of the AEA police either to pursue or to inquire, but would be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland police, or some higher authority in the United Kingdom. The power we are seeking here is to give the police the ability to carry arms in safeguarding from a potential attack the material that is then under their control.
My Lords, in conclusion, I would repeat that this is a Bill which the Government have introduced with reluctance. But in the circumstances of the time, we have no doubt that these provisions are necessary. Fissile material is a source of danger, were it to fall into ill-intentioned hands, and that must not be allowed to happen. We should be failing in our duty to maintain public security and safety if we did not make provisions for armed protection. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not suppose any Member of your Lordships' House will welcome this Bill, and I say that for two reasons: First, until comparatively recently, the carrying of arms by the civilian police was, in the United Kingdom, a matter of comparative rarity. Arms were used only in what might be termed desperate situations, and as a last resort. Now we know that the situation in the last few years has radically altered and, indeed, has very much deteriorated. The police now do bear arms as a matter of frequency in cases of terrorism, in cases of violent crime, and in certain circumstances in cases of the protection of individuals. So that, unfortunately, our society is now one which has had to come to terms with the carrying of arms.
Secondly, we have to admit that the arming of these special constables as they

1273
are described, employed, as they are, by the Atomic Energy Authority, raises really what might be termed a whole new dimension, in that a body other than the police or the Army, albeit the employees of a statutory body (as I understand it the Atomic Energy Authority) is being authorised to carry arms and, indeed, to use them for the protection of these admittedly important and 'dangerous nuclear materials on sites, or in transit; and do not let us be in any doubt as to the arms contemplated. As this Bill passed through the other place, it emerged that the arms would include everything from pistols to machine guns, as I understand it. So this is not a mere precaution of very little effect; this is a precaution which can have a great effect on people in this country as they go about their ordinary business, if they happen to get in the way of some unpleasant situation which developed. In a sense, the introduction of this Bill is an admission of defeat, that we have allowed the forces of violence in our society to become such a menace that we have to recognise that fact and to provide, in effect, that a body such as this, a body of ordinary citizens and civilians, created for the special purpose, is to be given the authority to be armed in the performance of their day-to-day duties.
But it goes further than that, if one reads the provisions of the Bill. It is not only that the constables are not to be contained geographically, as they used to be, to a radius of 15 miles of the establishment in question. Both in the escort of fissile materials in transit, and, perhaps more worrying still, where persons have stolen—and here I take mild issue with the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal—or who the constable reasonably believes have unlawfully removed or attempted to remove from the possession or control of the Crown, the Authority, any nuclear matter, then, in such circumstances, carrying his weapons, and entitled to use them as he can, the special constable can set off in hot pursuit—and I use that term advisedly. Again, I do not want to maximise the anxiety everyone will feel but it raises a new dimension, and I do not suppose that any noble Lord will quarrel with that contention.
My Lords, both in the escort of fissile materials in transit and in their protection,
1274
this body of men are being given power privileges, if you like, which have been resolutely denied other civilian organisations, such as Securicor. I understand full well that, at least in the view of the Government, no comparison is to be made between the special constables and Securicor, but the fact remains that they are civilians and, as I shall come to in a moment, not as directly accountable to Parliament as is the civilian police force, or, indeed, the Army. Therefore that is another reason for saying that this is a breach, a new departure in our constitutional thought on the carrying of arms. May I say that certainly we on these Benches do not disagree with the Government in what they seek to do, and we support them in their efforts to make provision in advance to deal with what could be a highly disagreeable and dangerous situation for all the citizens in this country. We associate ourselves with the Government's anxieties. It is not difficult to do so in this appalling situation in which we as a country find ourselves, especially confronted with terrorists who come from not within our ranks, but from without certainly the United Kingdom—a situation which might be difficult to contain.
My Lords, as I have said, there are two contingencies provided for: First, the theft of the bomb-mazing materials on site or in transit, and secondly, sabotage at establishments where these materials are stored. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Privy Seal, I have no wish and no reason to dramatise the situation, but in the Scottish edition of the Daily Express yesterday, which may or may not be reliable, which I read in the aeroplane coming South, they say:
"The Government is making preparation to manufacture neutron bombs, miniature battlefield H-bombs which kill by death rays instead of by blast and fire. Et is decided to start large-scale manufacture of tritium, an essential ingredient in neutron bombs. The mow would have been kept secret but the Government had to seek local planning permission to build the tritium plant at Chapel Cross in Dumfriesshire. It will take about three years to complete."
I am not twitting the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I hope, but a perusal of Hansard of another place revealed that my honourable friend the Member for Dumfries had certain difficulty in obtaining from the Ministry what it was up to at Chapel Cross, because he was concerned that it

1275
should be added to the four establishments, Harwell, Winfrith, Windscale and Dounray, which were to be the establishments the subject of protection. I am sure that those who live in the area of Chapel Cross would like to know that the Government, if they are really considering the manufacture of tritium, will take seriously the protection of the plant.
I have a word of criticism of the Government in one particular direction. When dealing with the Bill and the principles behind it, we have to consider whether the Government in fact are setting about the task which we all agree that they have, and the duty to take appropriate steps, in the correct way. I fear it is evident that, at any rate up till now, the Government have taken no steps, or certainly no adequate steps, to consult the Police Federation before introducing the Bill in the other place. May I declare a non-interest in this matter. I am nothing to do with the Police Federation, but I have, from my previous professional career, I hasten to say, very close links with the police. I have taken steps to find out their thoughts and feelings on this subject, bearing in mind that the Bill is now in the Second House of Parliament. These are not matters of detail for Committee stage, but really go to the principles behind the Bill, which I think the Government might care to answer.
There are three objections: first of all, the objection, if I may so call it, that if there is a need for armed security on a permanent basis—and I think we are all agreed that there is such a need—should it not be provided by the Armed Forces and not by the police, or in this case what I might term a third force? Facetiously, it is considered proper for the Brigade of Guards to guard the Queen's person. Should it not be the order of the day that these dangerous fissile materials should be guarded by the Armed Forces, who are responsible for our general armed safety and welfare? These special constables—and I bear in mind what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said—are not accountable in the same way as the police and the Armed Forces are to the Minister and to Parliament. As the noble Lord himself said, these special constables are accountable to their chief constable, he is accountable to the Atomic Energy Authority, the
1276
Atomic Energy Authority is accountable to the Secretary of State for Energy, not the Home Office, and he will not, as I appreciate, in the ordinary course of day-to-day Parliamentary discussion be concerned to answer questions on the deployment, the use and the behaviour of these special constables. That is an argument, and I think it is one which deserves some consideration.
Secondly, it is said, these special constables are really armed guards carrying out specialised functions, and I do not think anybody would quarrel with that contention. They act really in the fullness of the term, the specialised term of "special constables", only when they deal with theft or attempted theft. It is perhaps wrong that they should be termed "special constables" in this situation, because, as I say, constables they are not; they do not have the responsibility or indeed the powers of the average constable or special constable. I do not place very much weight on that argument, but I think it is worthy of being rehearsed.
The third argument is again one which I think deserves some consideration. The operations, especially when fissile materials are being moved from one part of the country to another, will be in areas which are in the responsibility of the civic constabularies, and as I understand it, if there is trouble, to use the phrase, the special constables will not be acting under the authority of the local chief constable in whose area the trouble happens. The possibilities of muddle and danger to the public, are I think, profound, and I say that because I think it is at least arguable that the Government when presenting this Bill should be able to say to the public at large: "We are taking such steps to minimise any muddle or confusion which there may be".
These are the three areas of anxiety, and, as I have said, they go to the principles behind the presentation of this Bill. I have two further points—and it may be that I am beginning to stray, although I do not think I have so far, into the area of what perhpas could better be discussed in Committee; but if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal were to answer them now it might be, certainly so far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, that there either will not be the need for a Committee stage at all

1277
or possibly only a very short one. They are these. One has gathered, if that is right, that there are to be laid down regulations or some sort of code of practice for the special constables, so that if there is trouble, if there is a theft or an attempted theft of fissile material so that the case becomes one that I have described as "hot pursuit", they, the special constables, will be under no illusion as to what should be their power, duty and responsibility. I think noble Lords would be relieved if they knew that the Government were determined that before this Bill comes into effect there should be the fullest consultation with the police.
It is not difficult to conceive a situation where a civic disturbance which has nothing to do with the attempted theft of fissile material might well be, as it were, combined by a body of unlawful men with their own terrorist purposes. In the deployment of wirelesses, in the deployment of men, in the steps to be taken before, if it should prove necessary, the Army are eventually called in, it is right that there should be laid down the fullest and most comprehensive strategy and tactics to be deployed in a particular situation. I think in a way both these points arise because in its passage in the other place this Bill was treated perhaps a little unusually. The noble Lord's honourable friend did a lot of letter writing apparently to private Members. The contents of those letters were not revealed—and why should they have been? But the result is that a number of points which I have no doubt are perfectly clear in the Government's mind remain slightly obscure in the minds of the general public and possibly of noble Lords.
My Lords, the other matter—and it is my final point—concerns the question of complaints. It is by no means impossible for a body of constables, as these special constables are, not really used to dealing with the public, to find themselves in a position where events happen much more quickly than they would like or anticipate, and they may find themselves coming up against members of the public who may subsequently complain. I merely say this, that the complaint procedures in England and Scotland are radically different. If the Police Bill reaches your Lordships' House, which I anticipate it will before very long, the situation so far as England is concerned will at least be regularised,
1278
if it is not made entirely satisfactory. The position in Scotland at the moment, I think, is unsatisfactory, and depends on the procurators fiscal, who are not really the people to deal with these complaints, at least in the first instance. Therefore, I seek an assurance, if nothing else, from the noble Lord that the matter is in hand and will be dealt with before long.
My Lords, I have spoken longer than I intended to. This is a Bill which at first blush seems unimportant and unexciting. In fact it is most important in the effects which it may have, and it is important, too, for all our protection. Subject to what I have said by way of mild criticism, we welcome this Bill.
3.29 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, this Bill is designed, in the words of the Secretary of State for Energy, which were paraphrased by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to cope with a problem that has to be taken on board by any modern society; namely, the threat of terrorism and the possibility that terrorists will turn their minds to dangerous nuclear materials. Rather than dealing with the many Committee points which arose in another place and which may well be the subject of consideration by your Lordships' House, I wish to pursue the idea that it is only the first step in a number that will inevitably have to be taken by Parliament if nuclear technology is pursued to the limits which some people advocate. The statement by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the arming of guards is against British tradition leads one to ask the question as to how many further infringements of British tradition and civil liberties will become inevitable unless we reconsider the dependence on nuclear energy which is likely to be justified on the basis solely of economic arguments.
The security arrangements which are envisaged under the Bill are those which are designed to prevent criminals, or terrorists, from stealing plutonium from the four sites where it is used or processed; that is to say, Harwell, Dounreay, Winfrith and Windscale, and when it is in transit between any of these sites. The Government said that while the Bill was under consideration it was a matter to be thought about whether the Bill should be

1279
extensible by regulation or whether, as they finally decided, it would be right to come back and seek by legislation any additional powers that might be needed later on. Therefore, the first point I want to make is that even now, when the only step which is proposed by the Government is to arm 400 special constables employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, it is already in the minds of the Government that this is not the end of the process and that further measures will have to be taken as the use of nuclear power in this country expands.
If the only risk we had to entertain was that of theft of plutonium, which is, I agree with the noble Lord, the most important one we have to take into consideration, we should be able to limit our attention for the time being to the four sites I mentioned, but one of the main objectives of the Atomic Energy Authority's research and development programme is the deployment of very large numbers of fast reactors using plutonium as fuel, like the prototype at Dounreay but five times as large. Anybody who questions the need for such a programme is dismissed as an ignoramus by the nuclear establishment, as one quotation from a lecture which was given by Sir John Hill to the British Nuclear Energy Society last November will illustrate. He said:
" Everybody who has seriously studied the world oil situation, the projections for the nuclear industry and the uranium reserves is of the view that the fast reactor is essential and should be developed as fast as is reasonably possible. We really should not have any hesitation at this stage."
If that does happen, and if these stations are developed, then they will all have to be guarded by armed men, and the first thing to note is that the force would have to be many times as large as the 400 now employed by the AEA constabulary.
But it is in my view a misreading of the psychology of terrorists to assume that only the theft of plutonium presents them with an attractive target to go for in the nuclear cycle. It might well be that for practical purposes they would need to steal plutonium to manufacture a nuclear weapon, but the theft of other nuclear materials would be a serious enough matter to receive enormous publicity, as would the sabotage of any nuclear
1280
installation, whether or not there was any plutonium there. As Mr. B. M. Jenkins of the Rand Corporation has said:
" To create an atmosphere of alarm, terrorists using any sort of nuclear blackmail would have much of their mission accomplished in advance. A plausible nuclear threat would instantly provide them with a tremendous amount of publicity and considerable political leverage."
The Secretary of State himself gave as one of the arguments for this Bill that in many other countries fissile materials and not solely plutonium were already under armed guard, and he said it would be awful if we were considered to be a soft target, because that might invite some form of attack. By the same token, we should have armed guards at all nuclear installations, because we are putting terrorists on notice in passing this Bill, if we do, that it will be made much more difficult for them to attack the four establishments mentioned, or materials in transit between any of them, and thus we shall be indirectly encouraging the terrorists to look at other establishments, such as the civil nuclear power stations or Capenhurst, the enrichment plant, which, for some reason which is not altogether clear to me, is not mentioned in the Bill. In fact, the record shows that sabotage of nuclear stations has been carried out successfully on a number of occasions, while the theft of fissile material is, so far as I am aware, fortunately only a hypothetical device of the terrorists as yet.
It is true that some years ago an American plant did lose some 67 kilogrammes of fuel, but it was assumed that this was diverted not to terrorists but either to Israel or China. On the other hand, conventional bombs have been used against civil reactors in the United Kingdom, in France, and Argentina, so far as I know without causing any release of radioactivity. I give one or two examples. In 1971 a fire was set by arsonists at a plant operated by Consolidated Edison at Indian Point, New York, causing 10 million dollars worth of damage. It was claimed that "Indian Point guerrillas" were responsible for the incident.
In 1973, 15 members of the People's Revolutionary Army, a Trotskyist organisation in Argentina, occupied an atomic power plant under construction at Atucha near Buenos Aires. They overpowered the guards, they hoisted flags, painted

1281
slogans on the wall and stole weapons, but they did not in fact attempt to enter the reactor area itself. In 1975, two bombs were exploded at a nuclear power station under construction at Fessenheim in France. In August 1975, two explosions caused minor damage at a nulcear power plant at Mt. D'Arree in Brittany, France. I believe that the police in that case suspected the Breton nationalists as having caused these explosions. I must therefore conclude that sooner or later there will be a need to extend the armed protection provided under this Bill to the nuclear stations operated by the CEGB and the SSEB, and to the enrichment plants at Capenhurst.
But, as I said, I agree with the Government that if plutonium did ever come into the possession of criminals or terrorists, the possible consequences would be far worse than that of any other form of nuclear malevolence. Only a few kilogrammes of plutonium would be sufficient to make a crude nuclear weapon with a yield of the order of a few tons of TNT equivalent, and the explosion of such a device, apart from the damage which the explosion would cause, would result in the release of a large quantity of highly radioactive materials. In a high density urban area even a very small bomb might cause thousands of human casualties and immense property damage.
We ought surely to take the opportunity which is afforded to us by the Bill to consider what response society would have to make to such a threat if we became heavily dependent on plutonium to meet the energy needs of our society, as we shall inevitably do if the objectives of society are not radically changed. In a highly condensed form, the argument that we hear goes something like this: energy consumption has been a linear function of GDP for some years past and that is likely to continue, so if GDP grows exponentially, so will energy consumption. We can foresee that if this occurs, in 30 to 50 years' time fossil fuels will not be able to meet more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs of the industrialised nations, let alone those of the developing countries. Therefore, an enormous expansion of nuclear power is inevitable, and since supplies of uranium are also limited, that means that we must have fast reactors which can use the whole of
1282
the energy that the uranium contains. That is the argument, which I do not agree with.
But if it is allowed to happen, then the Dad's Army created by the Bill is not going to be seen as an adequate protection for society against the diversion of nuclear materials. The force itself, as I have explained, would have to be many times larger and would have to be equipped with a range of weapons far more extensive than pistols, rifles and sub-machine guns because, after all, terrorists have already been known to use light aircraft, helicopters and rocket launchers and the sophistication of their methods of attack is likely to increase with time. However, I think that the main threat to civil liberties from the plutonium economy does not arise from the creation of a new paramilitary force responsible only indirectly to Parliament, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, explained; it arises from the fact, as the Minister put it, that the "armed guards are only the first line of defence".
At a conference of the American Civil Liberties Union in October 1975 some other alarming possibilities were envisaged. The surveillance of so-called" dissidents "would become necessary, the unlimited powers of search without warrant in cases where it was suspected that nuclear materials had been diverted would certainly be a matter for consideration—if Parliament can justify searching people's homes and questioning their near relatives for a suspected infringement of the income tax Acts, how much stronger is the case for doing that, and much more, in cases where it is suspected that persons in that household may have stolen nuclear materials!—and, of course, exceptional methods of interrogation would have to be used.
If there was a threat of the use of plutonium with perhaps a deadline put on it by nuclear blackmailers, it would be essential to detect them within the time-scale and it is hardly likely that under those circumstances the Judges' Rules would be used in any process of interrogation. The potential loss of life and enormous damage that might be caused by terrorists who managed to obtain fissile material would be such that we might have to accept the loss of virtually the whole of our civil liberties in order to prevent it.

1283
Why raise these matters now when all that we are being asked to do is to consent to the use of small arms by a few hundred men under strict controls? The answer is that we have the power to act only so long as the technology is still in its infancy. Once the decision has been taken to press the button for the go-ahead of commercial fast reactors, the technology will control us. This Bill is a perfect example of what has been called "incremental decision-making "; that is, the process of advancing step by step, each individual step appearing sensible, logical and indeed unavoidable, without ever considering where the sequence of decisions will lead us in the end. As the Secretary of State for Energy said to the National Executive of the TGWU at its meeting on 3rd March:
" It is no longer acceptable to have major national policies developed in private based upon studies conducted by Ministers and officials and then published as final and unalterable decisions."
I say that it is equally unacceptable for such technological policy decisions to be taken without exhaustive consideration of the safeguarding of our fundamental liberties. We see in this Bill the direction in which the plutonium technology will inexorably propel us, and in giving it a Second Reading we should resolve to act while there is still time.
3.44 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not put down my name on the list of speakers in this debate, but having listened carefully to what has been said I am bound to say that I agree very much with the need to protect our civil liberties. The situation that exists at present demands the action which the Bill is intended to take. I wish it were not so. There are two very important factors involved here. At a time when the development of nuclear energy is so essential to overcome the blackmail that is going on from some oil countries, every precaution should be taken to enable nuclear energy to be developed to the fullest extent. I believe that, if that is done, we shall overcome many of the difficulties from the terrorists with which the world is confronted today.
There is another aspect of this. When we are discussing a matter of this nature I should like the Government to consider why, in some respects, this has become necessary. Some time ago I asked a
1284
Question in the House about meetings which are to be held very shortly in Dublin and Belfast where terrorists will be coming together to discuss the best way of carrying out their vicious schemes. I pointed to the fact that there had been invited to those meetings members of the PLO and that they were being allowed, unless it was found that one or other of them had committed a particular crime himself, to attend conferences of that nature. For what purpose will they be attending? It cannot be for any purpose other than to develop an understanding between the terrorists of the world as to how they are to carry on their nefarious plans. I asked the Government about it and I ask my noble friend to consider it when he realises the necessity in this age for the kind of legislation that we are discussing today. Is it not high time that we took serious steps to prevent terrorists from coming to this country and establishing themselves, directly or indirectly, as entities? I am talking about the PLO and similar organisations. Is it not time that we considered how we are being put to the necessity of having this kind of legislation today? The PLO and their accomplices throughout the rest of the world are using methods which terrorise people and which could very well utilise in the course of their activities the nuclear materials that we are now considering protecting.

Noble Lords will, I am sure, feel that something should be done to call together the civilised peoples of the world to see how these terrorists and their activities can be curbed, so that nations like ours should not have to be put to expense, or to suffer terrible disasters which are caused by their actions, in order to prevent their criminal activities from being carried into effect in future. I know your Lordships will realise, for the reasons I have given, that I am not in any way objecting to the precautions which have to be taken, but I hope that, in addition, we shall be sensible enough to stop these terrorists and their groups from coming to this country or establishing themselves here. The people of Britain should be protected against the actions of such people, actions which must inevitably result in the type of legislation we are considering today.
3.50 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not object if I

1285
offer a few observations on this proposed legislation. I am bound to say that it did not occur to me when I saw from the Order Paper that this Bill was coming before us that it would present any problems. It appeared a very innocuous and innocent piece of legislation which was not likely to develop in the course of the debate into one of supreme importance. There can be no doubt that in this country and in all civilised countries—and I exclude the uncivilised countries, which shall be nameless, at least in the course of this debate and so far as I am concerned, although I am very often tempted to express myself in pungent terms about them and their activities—terrorism is on the increase. I do not go all the way with my noble friend Lord Janner in his proposition that an international conference should be held. In the course of my extensive experience, I have discovered that international conferences solve no problems; they usually create them. So I exclude that possibility, but it appears to me that we in the United Kingdom are faced with a problem.
There are many places of importance which affect the wellbeing of this country and its future and which have to be protected. Among these are atomic energy factories and sites associated with atomic energy, whether intended for peaceful use, as a deterrent or, indeed, offensively, as could happen. It occurred to me when my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal was addressing the House to wonder whether the military authorities had been consulted as to the appropriate measures to be adopted to deal with the situation. No doubt my noble friend will be able to tell us when he replies whether that was done, for it seems to me that what is required, whether we like it or not and whatever the cost, is a military operation.
I take the example of Securicor. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who dismissed the idea that Securicor was comparable to the proposed civilian police force that was to be created. They are not quite the same. What has happened in Securicor's case? They are armed men. We know that. They are trained men. So we are informed. Many have served in Her Majesty's Forces.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, my point is that the police have always set their face against Securicor
1286
being armed even with truncheons, let alone with any kind of firearm or gas pistol.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl is better informed on this subject than I am. However, let us take the case of the Securicor people who are expected to protect banks against aggressors and to protect the civilian population against any form of aggression or terrorism. On many occasions, they have failed. Why? Because the forces against them are far too powerful to deal with. Along may come a number of masked bandits or terrorists—call them what you like—armed with machine guns or clubs and cudgels. They will merely order the people in the bank to sit down and of course those people will do so for they do not want to be shot down. What is being proposed here is something in the nature of a Securicor force, but armed. That is the only difference. In my opinion, this is an example of adopting half measures to deal with—and I do not exaggerate—a situation of the gravest importance for the future of this country. I believe that it is a mistake to do this. If we are to protect ourselves against aggressors we must use the right material.
Some time ago, it was decided by the Government to reduce the defence expenditure. I shall not argue the merits or demerits of that decision, but it seems odd to me that, having decided to reduce defence expenditure, we are now to spend money on what amounts to a paramilitary force to protect atomic sites and nuclear material, in order to protect ourselves against potential aggressors. Why not use members of the armed forces for this purpose? It appears to me—and whatever arguments are used against it, I shall remain convinced of this—that an armed force is a deterrent and one which is much more effective against aggression than a para-military force or body of special constables would be, even if it were armed.
I sometimes have occasion to pass St. James's Palace and there I notice day by day and night by night a couple of soldiers marching up and down and guarding I do not know what. I am not aware that any attempt has been made to enter the palace or that it possesses fissile materials or even that there is treasure

1287
stored there. What are they doing? These are the sort of men who ought to be asked to undertake the task of protecting atomic energy sites. I do not go so far as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in saying that we should not use men who, even if they are not armed, appear to be so and who belong to military forces to protect Her Majesty. I do not go so far as that. I feel that that is the sort of thing we can endure. However, many of the men associated with our forces in the three Services could be utilised for the purpose intended in this very important piece of legislation. I have not the slightest doubt about its importance. It did not occur to me before but, following this debate, I am certain that it is a matter of supreme importance.
However, I feel that the proposed measures are not strong enough and I believe that at the Committee stage my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will have to face some Amendments. If we are to have protection at all and if we are to have deterrents, they must be effective and they must be quick. I can imagine the situation in which a special constable is standing at the gate of a factory or an atomic site when along comes an innocent group of people who have a little parcel which they lay down quietly and which is later discovered to be a bomb which explodes and blows up half the place. What is that poor fellow the special constable expected to do? On the other hand, I believe that if potential aggressors come along and see armed men dressed in military uniform, they are much more likely to disappear than if they see a special constable. I mean no disrespect to special constables. They are a very useful part of our community.
However, as we are all concerned with the protection of what may be our final resources—and I use the term advisedly—I should prefer military personnel to be used rather than what is proposed. I suggest to my noble friend that the matter might receive further consideration. We regard this as a step in the right direction but, if we are to start at all, let us start effectively and usefully, with purpose and determination, in order to provide a deterrent against aggression.
4 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the course of my opening speech I said—and
1288
I should like to repeat it—that one should not seek to exaggerate the risks that are involved. Now, in the light of what my noble friend Lord Shinwell said, I should add that it is not wished in any way to create in the minds of the public an impression that in protecting this material, in both a public and confidential way, we are not doing all that is required to ensure the safety of highly dangerous material, should it fall into wrong hands. I hope that in my winding-up speech I shall be able to satisfy my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, so that we can perhaps avoid a Committee stage on the Bill.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The case he made in regard to the future risks, the consequences, of a developing nuclear programme is one that I have listened to before, although I am still taking a great interest in it. I am assured that much of the fear which has been expressed, while not exaggerated, does not bear entirely to the facts. I have personally looked into the matter regarding our existing and immediately projected nuclear commercial power stations, and I am satisfied that there is no need, certainly not in the present situation, for armed guards. The reason for this is that there is no fissile material in an accessible form at these nuclear power stations; in particular there is no plutonium. Unirradiated fuel elements for power station reactors are made of natural uranium, presenting no fissile hazard in the Magnox stations. In advanced gas cooled reactors—AGRs—the fuel elements contain enriched uranium, but this is a low enrichment, and I understand presents no hazard. Naturally, this is an area which we shall need to take into consideration. But my main concern has been with plutonium, particularly with its transit and its storage at the four establishments where there is not only storage but also processing.
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I should say that I suppose in one way or another the Bill represents a defeat—not a defeat of this country in isolation, but a defeat of the whole world—in dealing with terrorism and increasing violence. I was glad that the noble Earl agreed with me on the importance of seeing the Bill through, because unless the safety and guarding provisions are at least similar to those of other countries one

1289
creates for oneself a soft option, and so one is more likely to be open to attack. I have listened previously to what my noble friend Lord Janner has said on this subject, and I would not today add to what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said in reply on other occasions.
I turn to the three questions which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, put to me. First, there was the point regarding the provision of Armed Forces—the Army—on which my noble friend Lord Shinwell also dwelt. This matter was looked into with the greatest of care. I point out at the outset that there are highly satisfactory back-up provisions provided by the Armed Forces to the civil authority in the event of' any attack on these stations. This force—and I should not like to hear them called "Dad's Army" because they are a very efficient force indeed—are there to hold the position against an armed attack, in order that either the civil police authorities, or the Armed Forces, can go along and render them assistance. The noble Earl is quite right: not only pistols, but also automatic weapons will be available to this force. But we expect that normally only pistols would be carried by the force, and this would be only by those who have been approved by the police authority as being adequate in weapon training. Bearing in mind the type of terrorist who might have to be dealt with, and the isolation of some of these establishments, we felt it right that there ought to be a central reserve of automatic weapons on which the trained police could fall back and use if required, solely in the protection and safeguarding of the material.
Of course, the Armed Forces have their role. But one must look upon this force, guarding these facilities, as a force that will be undertaking quite a number of other duties: the inspection of the premises at night, if the particular area is not being worked; the checking of individuals, whether they be employees or tradesmen, entering establishments. I suspect that this is not work for which soldiers are adequately trained or, for that matter, provided. This force will be a well-equipped and a highly trained force, and will be commanded by officers who will be well aware of their responsibilities in guarding the material and in their accountability to both the Secretary of State and the general public. My Lords, the second question raised by the noble Earl—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to raise a point with the noble Lord before he leaves that matter. Will he confirm that the nearest military establishment to Dounreay is at Inverness, which is about an hour's travelling time from Dounreay by helicopter? Does the noble Lord really consider that in those circumstances there could be a prompt response if an emergency occurred which was beyond the capabilities of the special constables at the Dounreay site?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the travelling time is an hour, then I should regard that as minimally acceptable. But I hope that the noble Lord will not wish me to disclose the security background regarding any of these sites. This is a matter which one must always continue to examine in the light of the circumstances at the time. But I am satisfied that the back-up meets the present requirements.
The noble Earl also raised the point concerning the accountability of this force to the Home Secretary. This is another matter which we have considered very carefully. The security arrangements for this material are intended to protect it not only against terrorists but also against theft within the establishment or weaknesses of one form or another when some material might be mislaid. Here, clearly, the responsibility must be that of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Secretary of State. We therefore felt that we ought to take security as a whole and have one organisation, and perhaps one individual, solely responsible for it. For that reason, we have laid the responsibility entirely upon the Secretary of State for Energy; but, of course, he will have to take note, as will the chief constable of the constabulary, of the rules governing the ordinary civil police force. The noble Earl was, I think, perhaps misleading, though not intentionally. This is not a private force: it is a force of special constables sworn in under the appropriate Act and governed by the disciplines of the force.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for just a moment? Of course it is not private in the sense that the army of my noble kinsman the Duke of Atholl is private; nobody would pretend that. But, equally,

1291
it is not public in the sense of our civilian police force, subject, as it is, to all the various Acts, beginning with the Police Act.
Lord SHEPHERD: That is so, my Lords. On the other hand, it is really no different, in my view, from the Ministry of Defence police force. In fact, if, in 1954, when we divided the civil and the military aspects of nuclear production, we had had any foreknowledge of the present problems, we should never have divided the force. I think we should have kept it as one force, in which case this Bill would not have been required, because then the AEA police would have remained armed, as do the Ministry of Defence force remain armed today. The noble Earl also spoke about the possibility of muddle. There is close co-operation between the chief constable of the constabulary and the chief constables of the areas surrounding the site. I accept that there is a risk of misunderstanding when you are moving material from one site to another and are going through a number of different police areas. I believe that much of that risk has been reduced in recent months, and once the Bill is through I believe that some of our problems will be overcome and that we shall be able to get a closer co-ordination than perhaps we have had in the past. But the chief constables are fully appreciative of the material that goes through their areas, and of the need to ensure that it has a safe transit.
My Lords, the noble Earl asked me about instructions to constables. My understanding is that the constables will possess these weapons while on duty and that, if called upon to use them, they would be in very much the same circumstances as are the armed police and the military, perhaps, in Northern Ireland, where there are rules and regulations about when a weapon can be used and when it cannot be used. The noble Earl also asked about complaints, and he referred to the Police Bill. My understanding is that, although the Police Bill does not relate to Scotland, the authorities concerned—that is, the AEA police—see no reason at all why they should not be covered by the complaints procedure in the Police Bill, and this could also cover their operations in Scotland. But the noble Earl will appreciate that there
1292
may be a difficulty here by way of legislation in terms of drafting. I was saying what the Authority accepts and is willing to agree, but whether it is possible within the Bill we need to see.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, surely the Long Title of the Police Bill refers to England and Wales, and therefore it would not be possible, even if the Government were willing to do so, to insert a clause which made the Atomic Energy special constables, when they were in Scotland, subject to the same procedures.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is exactly what I have been saying to the noble Earl. What I said earlier was that the AEA constabulary were quite willing to be bound by the complaints procedure in the Police Bill. Whether it can be put into the Police Bill—I think it is Clause 6—we shall need to see in terms of drafting; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, himself has mentioned, there may be problems as a consequence of the Long Title of the Bill. What I am trying to indicate to the noble Earl is that, so far as the AEA constabulary is concerned, the spirit is willing.
My Lords, I think that deals with all the points that have been raised except the last one, and that was about consultation. It is true that there was no consultation with the Police Federation, but there were extensive consultations with the chief constables; and, as I indicated earlier, we are now getting co-operation and support from them. I am sorry that this Bill is necessary, but I hope that the House will agree that it is prudent to take these powers to arm the police at these particular stations and in the transit of this dangerous material.
Lord CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this point to him? I was very disturbed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who speaks with great knowledge of matters of this kind, but the noble Lord has very largely reassured me. May I take it that he is saying that there is no reason at all why the Armed Forces should riot be used on proper occasions, and that the Government in fact have the intention to use them when their assistance is required? If that is perfectly clear, then I am content.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the responsibility of the AEA constabulary will be to safeguard and protect the material on site and in transit. In the event of an attack, they would seek to hold the position. In the meantime, the military forces or the police would automatically be alerted and brought in. Clearly, if a situation arose when it was necessary for the Army or armed police to maintain a full watch on some of this material, then I have no doubt at all that the Government of the day would, without any hesitation, provide it. But at the present moment, my Lords, we do not believe that to be necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1971 (PRIVATIVE JURISDICTION, ETC.) ORDER 1976
4.18 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Privative Jurisdiction, etc.) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before the House on the 27th April 1976, be approved. I am seeking the approval of the House to the order which is made under Section 41 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 1971 Act. That Act, by virtue of a commencement order made by the Secretary of State in February of this year, comes fully into operation on the 1st September next. The order raises from £250 to £500, firstly, the limit of the privative or exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff specified in Section 31 of the 1971 Act; secondly, the limit of the summary cause, the new kind of civil process which is to be used for the purposes of all civil proceedings specified in Section 35 of the 1971 Act; and, thirdly, the sums set out in Sections 30 and 31 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 as amended by Sections 39 and 40 of the 1971 Act. Section 30 allows the removal of a cause from the sheriff court to the Court of Session for jury trial in certain cases where the claim exceeds £250 and Section 31 provides for the trial by jury in the sheriff court, in certain circumstances, of actions where the claim exceeds £250.
My Lords, if I may, I will deal with these three points in order. Firstly, the
1294
Grant Committee on the Sheriff Court in its report which was published in 1967, recommended that the financial limit of the sheriff's privative, or exclusive, jurisdiction should be £250 and the Government gave effect to this recommendation in Section 31 of the 1971 Act. Section 41 of that Act enabled the level to be varied by Order in Council. The draft order which is before us now proposes to raise the level to£500 to take account of inflation since then. Secondly, the order increases the level of the new summary clause to which I referred earlier from £250 to £500. Here, again, the main reason for the increase is to take account of inflation since 1971. The effect of the increase will be that many claims which at present must be dealt with by the more formal ordinary cause procedure will in future be able to be dealt with by the simplified summary cause procedure.
Thirdly, the order raises to £500 the sum specified in Sections 30 and 31 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. This is simply consequential on the increase in the privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court and on the introduction of the summary cause.
My Lords it is intended that the order will come into operation on 1st September 1976 to coincide with the introduction of the summary cause. I commend this order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Privative Jurisdiction, etc.) Order 1976, laid before the House on 27th April be approved.—[Lord Strabolgi.]
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest in this matter because I sit as an honorary sheriff; but the fact that I am not paid, and, secondly, that the authorities have not yet seen fit to release me on civil causes perhaps derogates somewhat from that interest. The necessity for power which the Government seek may be summed up, I think, by one word: inflation. One can only hope that there will be an absence of this sort of order in the future. Perhaps one can welcome that part of the order particularly which deals with the simplified summary cause procedure. I think that would be a cause of satisfaction in Scotland and, in any event, on these Benches noble Lords, I have no doubt, will welcome it.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Earl has given this order. He hoped that there would not be any other order resulting from inflation. As the noble Earl, I am sure, will be the first to admit, inflation is a world-wide problem. The Act of 1971 which was brought in by the previous Government was followed by two years of their Office; they had the problem and we have had the problem as well. But we believe that with the £6 policy we have halved our rate of inflation in the past year. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to discuss the whole economic situation in the debate on 9th June.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVERS' AGES AND HOURS OF WORK) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
4.27 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 14th April, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is a parity measure and parallels the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Act 1976. The order gives effect within Northern Ireland to the provisions of Council Regulation EEC 543 of 1969 about minimum ages of drivers and gives the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland wider powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. The approval of the order will thus ensure uniformity of approach within the United Kingdom to the provisions of this EEC regulation.
The order has been made by the "urgent" procedure because the provision of the EEC regulation relating to minimum drivers' ages came into force for internal journeys within the United Kingdom on the 1st January 1976. In consequence, since that date driving licences in Northern Ireland have been issued which are in conformity with that regulation and, in so far as the regulation departs from present
1296
Statute Law, out of accord with that law. It is clearly desirable to remove the cause of that anomaly as quickly as possible and the purpose of this order is so to do.
In fact the differences between the EEC regulation and Northern Ireland domestic law on drivers' ages are not very substantial. The main effect will fall on 17 year olds, who on first licensing will be limited to driving goods vehicles not exceeding 3·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight—that is, about 30 cwts unladen—instead of their present entitlement of 3 tons unladen weight. Persons between the ages of 18 and 21 years will be restricted to goods vehicles not exceeding 7·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight instead of their present entitlement of 3 tons unladen weight. Persons over 21 will not be affected at all. Where passenger vehicles are concerned, the only effect of the EEC Regulation as reflected in this order relates to new drivers under 21 years of age who will be limited to driving nine-seaters inclusive of the driver.
Article 3 of the order substitutes for Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 a new section which contains a Table showing the minimum ages at which a person may drive vehicles of different classes. The classes are defined in terms consistent with the EEC regulation. The new provisions will apply only to first applicants for a driving licence. Persons with existing entitlements to drive will be safeguarded from the new restrictions by the provisions of Schedule 2. The opportunity is also being taken to alter the threshold at which the requirement for a heavy goods vehicle drivers' vocational licence applies, from its present 3 tons unladen weight to 7·5 metric tons permissible maximum weight. Schedule 2, however, contains provisions which safeguard existing entitlements. For example, those with recent experience of driving vehicles which become heavy goods vehicles by reason only of the change in threshold will he able to claim an appropriate licence without further test.
Articles 4 and 5 deal with the subject of drivers' hours, which, of course, also come within the provisions of EEC Regulation 543/69. The United Kingdom position on this regulation has already been fully explained to this House during the passage of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill. It was

1297
due to come into operation for internal journeys on 1st January 1976, but has been deferred until 1st July 1976 with hopes for further deferment after that. The present framework of drivers' hours and so on is governed by the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and permits an 11-hour driving day as against 10 in Great Britain and 8 as proposed by the EEC Regulation. I should mention, in passing, that action is in hand to bring the maximum driving day in Northern Ireland into line with the standard 10 hours in Great Britain.
Article 4 provides that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland may adapt, by regulations, Part IV of the Road Traffic Act (NI) 1970, to ensure compatibility of operation with the EEC regulation. For example, the EEC regulation applies to most, but not all, goods vehicles. It might be that the Department would wish to extend its provisions to vehicles not covered at present; and this Article enables them to do so. The Articles also gives power to extend the enforcement provisions of the 1970 Act to any directly applicable EEC provisions. So, if EEC Regulation 543/69 were amended at some future date, the Department could issue appropriate regulations without recourse to primary legislation. Finally, Article 4 makes provision for supplementary and consequential provisions particularly in relation to record keeping.
Article 5 clarifies the powers of magistrates' courts in adjudicating in cases of contravention of drivers' hours and records requirements. In Northern Ireland such cases are at present dealt with under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. These powers however are limited. This Article seeks to overcome difficulties which can arise under existing legislation by providing that proceedings can be instituted in a court with jurisdiction for a place where the person charged was driving when evidence first came to light, the place where the offender is or where he resides when proceedings are commenced or the place where the offender normally resides.
Moved, That the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 14th April, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
4.32 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand and accept the reason for the urgency procedure being used with respect to this order and I support its passage, but with one question which I should like to ask related to Article 4; namely, drivers' hours of duty. The noble Lord explained that Northern Ireland permits an 11-hour driving day as against 10 hours in Great Britain and eight hours as proposed by the EEC Regulation. I understood the noble Lord to say that action is in progress at the moment to bring the Northern Ireland driving day into line with that in Great Britain. Even that is of the very greatest importance to Northern Ireland. Road haulage firms in the Province will have their costs affected by that move and of course if there was a move to institute an 8-hour driving day for road haulage firms based in Northern Ireland, it would have an enormous effect on costs, particularly so now that the Belfast-Heysham ferry has ceased so some journeys from the Province are longer than necessary. Of course any increase in prices for road haulage firms in Northern Ireland are transmitted into higher prices, particularly for such things as animal feeds which already are more expensive in the Province because of the costs of haulage.
I should like to ask whether the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment is entirely a free agent in making regulations —to which the noble Lord also referred in his speech—about drivers' hours. I believe I am right in saying that the EEC are themselves looking at the eight-hour driving day provision which has not been found to be satisfactory in many of the EEC countries. But, leaving that aside for a moment, if there is to be an eight-hour day in Europe, am I correct in interpreting what the noble Lord said this afternoon as being that the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment would be free to make whatever regulations it likes about drivers' hours? If I am right in that assumption, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect? With those two questions, I support the passage of this order.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and will answer his two questions. The reduction from 11 hours to 10 hours in Northern

1299
Ireland is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned, and this is going on at the moment; it is in no way connected with this order but it is a bringing into line of Northern Ireland practice with British practice. Regarding the second point, under Article 4 the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment have powers to amend both the length of the driving day and the classes of vehicles to which the enforcement provisions refer but within the limits imposed by the EEC regulation. In other words, at the moment the EEC regulation is eight hours, but the United Kingdom has deferment of this until 1st July. Discussions are taking place and there may be further deferment. If the EEC altered this and said, "We are going to have nine hours or 10 hours", the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, without coming back to the House, would be enabled to follow that regulation. Equally, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment can attend to negotiations which they inevitably have with trade unions and employers. So the Department only have power to vary these things in relation to the limits laid down. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH WOOL (GUARANTEED PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
4.36 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order takes effect from 1st May 1976. The order amends the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955 which contained arrangements for providing guaranteed prices for wool to be set in the United Kingdom. However it only allowed prices to he determined in pence per pound.
Prices were determined this year following the Annual Review which itself was conducted in metric terms. This order would now make it possible for the
1300
guaranteed price for wool to be effected in pence per kilogramme instead of pence per pound avoirdupois. It does this very simply by substituting the word "kilogramme" for the words "pound avoirdupois" wherever they appear in the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955. The order has no other effects or implications for the actual level of the guaranteed price. This followed the farming organisations' request for the Government to support their proposals to adopt metric units. The Annual Review White Paper, published recently, quoted both metric and imperial units.
Prices for international trade in wool are declared in metric terms, and the British Wool Marketing Board have also been trading in these terms. Approval of the order will therefore help to rationalise pricing and to simplify the accounting procedure of the Wool Marketing Board. I have described briefly the purposes of the order and the background to it. I hope that, with this brief explanation, your Lordships will agree and approve this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 26th April, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing this order and explaining it. It is of course yet another move towards metrication which has the approval of the industry. This is one of the orders we are getting used to seeing. One cannot help feeling a twinge of nostalgia in seeing the good old English word "avoirdupois" giving way to the more European word "kilogramme". But, apart from that, needless to say we are happy to see this order go through. Reading through the order, I could not help feeling that the Explanatory Note looked a little odd where it pointed out that where the word "avoirdupois" is used, the word "kilogramme" should now be substituted. As this is a guaranteed prices order, one's first reaction was that the guaranteed price for a pound avoirdupois of wool was now to be the same as one kilogramme of wool. I cannot believe that is so and I assume the alteration is merely to the wording of the instrument and not to the price paid.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, having been associated with this exercise since its inception, I take this opportunity to express a few words of admiration for the way in which this has been carried out by those responsible for its administration, and to extend congratulations to those who have contributed to all the services connected with it. It is true that the moment seems particularly opportune, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has explained, to move from the historical avoirdupois area to the metric area. This is just one small matter, but it brings us into line with what is being done in other areas.
I think this is an interesting example of how successful this kind of board has been, not only in its administration but also in what has been achieved by the civilian firms which have been employed by the board to meet its objective of securing the whole of the clip. It has been cleverly arranged so that the outcome brings reasonable satisfaction to the farmers and the wool growers. However, it may well be that some might criticise the fact that the cost of the execution of this aim has proved greater than it would have been when done completely by private enterprise. But a more particular point of interest is that the price received by the wool growers, while it may not have satisfied them entirely, has at least served as an illustration of how, since the price was settled, the cost of wool has gone up. The reason, of course, is that world markets have been affected by the fall in sterling; so the very fall in sterling draws up the price of wool and therefore the cost of internal consumption and the cost of living.
The board, when instituted, was a 15-year organisation, with this period divided into three periods of five years. For some years it was affected by the general price level up or down, which of course resulted in a minus or a plus—I believe the worst minus was £3 million. The board is in the happy position in this, its first year of the third five-year period, of being able to repay the Government £1 million sterling. That is to its credit and it may possibly succeed in repeating the performance, or something very like it, in future years. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the clear way in which he explained why this order came before the House, and I naturally support my noble friend, who has already given his approval.
4.45 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I too should like to commend the order and, in doing so, seek to clear up one or two misconceptions that seem to have arisen on the Benches opposite. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that the wool growers not only receive no increase but they get no money. They get "shorn", sometimes twice a year, but always once a year, and finally end up dead. What the noble Lord means by "the wool growers" are those who put the wool which is grown by the growers to commercial profit and advantage.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made a point which did not seem to me to be worth making. He said he did not understand why we now speak in pence per kilogramme. He asked whether that meant the same as pence per pound avoirdupois. My Lords, obviously not; since a kilogramme is approximately 2¼ lbs., one will presumably receive 2¼p for that amount of wool that makes up 2¼ lbs.
Finally, may I say to a House whose presiding officer sits on the Woolsack and since we are basically the outcome of a Hanseatic trade, that the reason we ever invented, or at least imported, the word "avoirdupois" was because we knew we could not sell our wool in lbs. and therefore adopted a continental term to make the British wool trade acceptable in the Hanseatic areas across the sea. It seems to me that all we are doing—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is to simplify the language by expressing it in much easier terms and talking of "pence per kilogramme", or per 2¼ lbs. or thereabouts, and we are getting rid of this ridiculous thing called "avoirdupois". Please, would the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, never again say that the wool growers get either rich or poor. The poor wretched wool growers just die in the end.
4.48 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for what they have said and also to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, for his intervention. I admit that the phrase "pound avoirdupois" is an early example of "Franglais", as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, implied. It is taken straight

1303
from the previous order, the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955, which was introduced by a Conservative Government. As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said, there is very little in this: it is really a question of mechanics.
I am also very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said from his great wealth of experience. Of course, the United Kingdom production of wool has remained fairly static for some years now at between 33 million and 35 million kilogrammes. Wool production in the United Kingdom is subsidiary to the production of mutton and lamb. World wool prices, having reached a peak in 1973, fell steadily over the next 18 months, and by the end of 1974 had reached a level of some 40 to 50 per cent. lower than that peak. But I am glad to say that over the last 12 months world demand for wool has improved and prices have increased considerably, especially those for middle and lower grade wools which now fetch 60 to 75 per cent. more than a year ago. In the United Kingdom, auction prices for wool have also improved and average prices are now some 120 per cent. higher than in January 1975. That is for the most common grade, which was 65p per kilo in May 1975 and is now 110p per kilo. With a continuing improvement in economic conditions in the major wool consuming countries, and with industrial production also on the increase, it seems likely that demand will continue to improve and prices will be maintained, if not increased, both in the United Kingdom and on the world market.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (FIFTH AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
4.51 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Air Navigation (Fifth Amendment) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976, No. 583) be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I do not think I shall detain your Lordships very long. The Air Navigation (Fifth Amendment) Order, which I am seeking to annul this afternoon, has four principal purposes and I propose
1304
to deal with only two of them. The first proposal provides for an approved person or a body corporate to issue a certificate of maintenance in respect of a British registered public transport aircraft. It has been a requirement, ever since the air operators' certificate procedures came into force some years ago, for a public transport aircraft in use in the United Kingdom to have a current certificate of maintenance, and it has been the almost universal practice for the Air Registration Board, as it was, now the Civil Aviation Authority, to require that that certificate of maintenance was signed by an appropriately licensed engineer or engineers. Your Lordships will understand that a modern aircraft is a complex machine, and it is sometimes necessary for engineers of different skills and trades to sign a certificate, each signature relating to a specific aspect or system on the aircraft.
It is now proposed that the certificate should be signed by persons approved by the Authority, and not necessarily holding an appropriate licence. This new provision has been made necessary by the introduction in recent years of aircraft of much greater complexity. It became apparent in 1970, or thereabouts, that the existing system could not continue indefinitely, because there simply were not sufficiently numerous licensed engineers to fulfil the necessary functions. Furthermore, it was clear that the complexity of new aircraft was such that it was virtually impossible for one man to assume responsibility for a complete aircraft together with all its systems, and for that reason the Authority, or the ARB as it was, then published its proposals for these new arrangements.
A trial scheme involving these new proposals has been in operation for a year or so, and I am told that, by and large, it has been successful. But a number of people in the industry, notably the licensed engineers' trade union, have expressed doubts about it, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who is to reply to me will be able to help on that point. In particular, figures which British Airways have quite freely published—it was British Airways who were involved in a trial scheme with their Boeing 747 aircraft—seem to suggest that this new scheme has not been as successful as one might have wished. The noble Lord,

1305
Lord Oram, is, I believe, aware of the figures and I hope he will be able to comment on them when he replies to me in a moment.
There is another aspect of this, relating to the nature of the qualifications of those who would sign the new certificates, which I should like to mention. I have said that it is no longer possible to insist that the signatures to these certificates have the precisely appropriate aircraft maintenance engineers' licence and that, although regretted, is accepted. But I hope that the noble Lord can assure me that it will not be the Authority's policy to authorise unlicensed personnel to sign these certificates. I accept that it is not always possible for engineers with exactly appropriate licences to sign in the necessary way, but I believe that in future it would be appropriate for the Authority at least to insist that the signatories hold a professional engineer's licence of some kind. I accept that there is a problem in that, even now, certain people who are authorised to sign certificates of maintenance entirely properly and satisfactorily do not hold professional licences, and I would not suggest that that arrangement should he discontinued summarily. But I believe that, in the light of these new arrangements, the Authority ought not in future to authorise people to sign who do not hold an engineering maintenance licence of some kind. I hope that the noble Lord has taken that point on board and will be able to assure me accordingly.
The other provision of this order about which I seek to inquire is the last provision, which is a new one requiring the carriage of what is called a ground proximity warning system by a wide range of public transport aircraft. It is a fact that we are among the last of the major aviation nations of the world to bring in this requirement. But, none the less, it is coming in at a time when economic pressures upon airlines of all nationalities are greater than ever, and on British airlines particularly so because of the policy which Parliament has placed upon the Civil Aviation Authority to balance its books, which has resulted, quite properly, in the Authority having to raise its charges substantially in almost every area of its activities. This new requirement is likely to cost between £20,000 and £30,000 to fit each aircraft with the necessary equipment.
I do not dispute that in many cases this is appropriate, and that the order is therefore acceptable and relevant. But I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the problems of the smaller operators with one, two or three older aeroplanes, or aeroplanes of certain limited functions, for whom this is a particularly onerous requirement and who would, I believe, be proper candidates for dispensations. I accept that it would not be practicable for us to do other than make the obligation a statutory one as contained in this order, but I hope the noble Lord will he able to assure me that there will be wide and sympathetic consideration given to any operator who seeks dispensation from this new and very expensive requirement. Those are the only points which I have to mention, and with that I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Air Navigation (Fifth Amendment) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976, No. 583) he annulled. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.59 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the manner in which he has prayed against this order, and also for giving me notice of a number of the points which he has just raised, which I hope will enable me to give him a firmer assurance than I might otherwise have been able to do. In addition to answering his points, perhaps I may take this opportunity of giving the background of the order.
In addition to a relatively minor matter, which the noble Lord did not mention, concerning the licence to be held by a person being paid to give instruction in flying, the order further amends the Air Navigation Order 1974 in relation to two major safety matters. I will take first the point that the noble Lord raised last; namely, the requirement to install ground proximity warning systems. As noble Lords may be aware, despite improvements in navigational aids and operating procedures, accidents still occur to aircraft as a result of collision with the ground or water. After extensive trials the Civil Aviation Authority have reached the conclusion that carriage of such equipment is essential to the safe operation of the larger passenger carrying aircraft—that is, those of a maximum total weight

1307
of over 15,000 kilogrammes, or those which are authorised to carry 30 or more passengers. Moreover, the Authority have recommended, and the Government accept, that the requirements should be introduced with the minimum practicable delay.
The amendment calls for the carriage of the equipment by turbo jet aircraft on and after 1st January 1977 and by other aircraft on 1st July 1977, and I am sure that the House would not wish to delay the introduction of this essential safety measure. Indeed, I am fully aware that the noble Lord does not wish there to be any such delay. In this connection the House will wish to know that similar requirements are being introduced by other countries and have already been introduced in the United States. The noble Lord made a plea on behalf of smaller operators who might find the installation of this equipment unduly burdensome. The figure that he gave was rather in excess of a figure that he will have received in correspondence with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, whose presence here this afternoon I am sure we all welcome. Nevertheless, I take the point that this is a problem for the smaller operators. I am informed by the Civil Aviation Authority that while they propose to make no distinction between passenger and freighter aircraft they are prepared to consider applications for exemptions from the new requirement in respect of those aeroplanes which are due to be wholly withdrawn from service in the near future. Indeed, they are already considering very carefully some applications that have been made by a number of operators.
If I may turn to the second major issue to which the noble Lord also referred, this arises from the amendments to Articles 9, 11 and 12 and Schedule 4 of the Air Navigation Order 1974. These amendments, and associated administrative changes, are concerned with the maintenance of large modern aircraft—that is, those with a total weight authorised in excess of 30,000 lbs. which were first certificated in the United Kingdom after 1st January 1972.
As the House is aware, the Civil Aviation Authority are responsible for safety matters, including the maintenance of aircraft and the licensing of aircraft maintenance engineers. The chairman of the Authority
1308
has told us that the proposed changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, quite rightly explained, will place responsibility for the issue of certificates of maintenance in respect of large aircraft on organisations approved by the Civil Aviation Authority rather than on individual licensed engineers. He has advised that such changes are necessary, as it has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible in the case of large and complex aircraft, for individual engineers to have the knowledge required to make meaningful maintenance certifications without the total support of the many specialist parts of an approved organisation over which they, the engineers, may have little or no control.
The chairman has also told us that these proposals, which are fully in accord with advice given by the Airworthiness Requirements Board and which have been under discussion with those concerned for some seven years, are based on principles which the Civil Aviation Authority and their predecessor, the Air Registration Board, have successfully applied since 1938 to the design, manufacture, overhaul and modification of aircraft and component parts. These proposals comply with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. They are widely applied in relation to civil transport aircraft throughout the world and stem from principles which are long established in this country for military aircraft.
I understand that for the past five years the procedures have been applied to the maintenance of Boeing 747, DC10, Boeing 727 and Lockheed 1011 aircraft and that the Civil Aviation Authority have advised that in all instances the resulting maintenance standards have proved to be entirely satisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to the Boeing 747 and intimated that in his view there are figures indicating that possibly the new maintenance scheme has caused difficulty in relation to this aircraft. I have been advised by the Authority that the Boeing 747 in fact suffered more than its fair share of unserviceability in the course of being introduced into operational service, but the problem was very carefully examined by the Authority who came to the conclusion that such unserviceability was not attributable in any way to the system of maintenance. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lord that his

1309
point has already been thoroughly investigated.
The noble Lord then raised the question of whether all persons authorised to sign certificates will be licensed. He recognised that there are a limited number of persons with long experience and proven records for whom he would not insist that a licence is required. I have the assurance of the Civil Aviation Authority that with the exception of that very limited number of specially qualified people—that is, qualified in terms of experience—they will require all persons authorised to sign certificates of maintenance or certificates of compliance to hold licences. I believe the noble Lord will be satisfied to hear that.
These proposals have been considered and developed in the course of extensive consultation with operating companies, maintenance organisations, and the associations and unions representing the interests of licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. The chairman of the Authority has advised that it has not proved possible to obtain complete unanimity of support for the proposals, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, indicated that one organisation is still not fully satisfied. Nevertheless, we are assured that these proposals are very widely supported in the industry. After careful consideration, the Authority have decided to proceed with the proposals which they have concluded, and the Government accept, are in the interest of safety.
In the view of the Government, the provisions of this order, as regards both the carriage of ground proximity warning equipment and the maintenance of large aircraft, constitute important contributions to the promotion of air safety. It is, of course, possible that these requirements and associated administrative procedures may well be capable of improvement as time passes and as additional experience is gained, and I am sure that the Civil Aviation Authority will in due course be only too willing to consider any constructive suggestions concerning them. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be vigilant in these matters. I hope that against the background that I have been able to sketch the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Prayer.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. I am particularly gratified that he was able to give the principal assurance that I was seeking; namely, that the Authority will not in future approve persons to sign certificates of maintenance who do not hold aircraft maintenance engineers' licences. I was a little disappointed that his assurance on the range of dispensations that will be available against the requirement to install ground proximity warning systems was so narrow in range. However, I suppose in that case the "proof of the pudding is in the eating" and we shall have to wait and see. Taken all in all, I am obliged to the noble Lord and grateful for what he has been able to say, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SITING OF JET PROJECT
5.12 p.m.
Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE rose to move, That this House takes note of the Twenty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on the siting of JET (R/253/76). The noble Lord said: My Lords, although the Report is a short one, it deals with an extremely complex subject, but I believe it does this in a way which is clear and I hope I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating what is already clearly stated in that Report.
Your Lordships will remember that last December we debated in this House the Report of your Committee on the plan that had been prepared in Brussels for the supply of energy to the Community in the year 1985. We found it necessary to criticise that Report, mainly because of the size of its nuclear component. We understood and we sympathised with the thinking which had led the Commission to propose so large a nuclear programme. They had in mind the fact that within the Community the reserves of coal are limited and that the reserves of oil and natural gas are comparatively small. They had in mind, too, that the possibility of getting large quantities of power from renewable sources, such as solar energy or wave or wind power, within the near future was very limited, and to meet a

1311
shortage which was obvious it was natural that they should propose large nuclear programme. But we felt—and we felt bound to say—that that programme was unrealistically large and that it might even be dangerous.
I think it was realized at that time that there is at present—and probably even by 1985 the situation will remain the same—no real shortage of energy. Such shortages as we are having to put up with at the moment are economic rather than real, but there is good reason to believe that about the end of the century there will be a real shortage of energy, and even though use of the renewable resources is developed as quickly as possible I think it is certain that we shall have to rely on nuclear power to supply a large part of the World's requirement of energy.
That need for nuclear power cannot be met by continuing to build the type of thermal reactors which are at present being constructed, because if that is done we shall be short of uranium. That shortage can be remedied only if the fast reactor is developed, and developed quickly. But every honest man must admit that hazards arise from the use of both thermal and fast reactors. I believe that with care and skill and by resisting the inclination of engineers and scientists to be over-ambitious, we can make nuclear plants safe for ourselves and for our children. But we should be irresponsible if we failed to remember that all fission reactors produce long-lived radioactive products. Some of these radioactive products will retain that activity for a period which stretches out into the future far further than known history stretches out into the future far further than known history stretches into the past. I think that while meeting our own and our children's needs for energy we ought not to ignore the problems that we may be creating for far distant generations if we leave those future generations to deal with unnecessarily large quantities of radio-active materials.
One way of minimizing the problem that we leave for posterity is to get power from atomic fission. Fusion reactors would almost certainly leave far smaller quantities of radioactive products as a problem for posterity and it is this, as much as the
1312
problem of uranium supply, which makes me feel that the development of fusion power is a matter of urgency. This urgency is realised both in the Community and in other industrial countries, and a great deal of research has already been done although much more is needed. Unfortunately, most nuclear research is expensive and it may seem that the Community is already spending a great deal of money on research into plasma physics, but our present EEC expenditure is not large when compared with that of other highly industrialised countries. I believe I am right in saying that the USSR is spending twice as much as the EEC on fission research and that the USA is spending about half as much again as Europe is spending.
In the EEC the next step forward in nuclear fusion research is to build the Joint European Torus. If Europe intends to continue to do development on fusion reactors, the decision to start work on JET must be taken quickly. There must be a sense of urgency because unless JET is built soon and is built on the best possible site, we shall find ourselves so far behind the Russians and the Americans, and possibly even the Japanese, that our work will prove to be nugatory.
Two decisions are needed: The first is the decision to proceed with the construction of JET and the second is a decision on the site on which JET should be built. In considering the second of those problems, the problem dealt with in the Paper before your Lordships' House, I want to suggest to your Lordships that one consideration is paramount in determining the siting of the new plant; that consideration is, on which site will results be obtained most quickly and most successfully?
The problems that have to be solved before we achieve controlled nuclear fusion are extremely complex, far more complex than we met in establishing fission reactors. Experience teaches us that when such complex problems have to be solved, they are best and most quickly solved when the work is done in centres of excellence. One sees proof of this if one looks back to the work done by that brilliant team at Farnborough during the First World War, if one remembers the work done at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge under Ruther-

1313
ford in the 1930s, if one looks back at the work done by the Royal Radar Establishment during the last war, and the work done at Harwell after that war. I suggest it is a matter of absolute importance that JET should be built on a site which is already a centre of excellence.
My Lords, there are four sites competing for the JET project. They are the Euratom Laboratory at Ispra, in the North of Italy, Cadarache in the South of France, Garching, near Munich, and Culham, eight miles South of Oxford. If I say that Ispra has a sad history, I am not being critical. That history I think is its misfortune rather than its fault. Ispra has done virtually no plasma research, and in the field of plasma physics it certainly cannot be considered as a centre of excellence. The officials of the EEC claim that that is not of importance. They say that experts can be flown in for discussions as and when necessary, but in all of my experience sporadic visits of that sort do not make a centre of excellence. It is when able men working on related problems meet each other every day round the lunch table or in their homes in the evenings that there is that cross-fertilization of ideas which helps to solve the problems of an incredibly difficult project.
I feel that there is little other than sympathy that could lead to the choice of Ispra as a site for JET. As I look back on my life in industry, I realise I made all my worst mistakes when I took decisions on grounds of sympathy and not on considerations of logic. I believe that other work can be found for Ispra; for instance, work on high energy neutrons, I am sure that JET should not he sited there.
At present the French are not doing research on plasma physics at Cadarache. Their work on plasma physics is being done at Fontenay-aux-Roses and at Grenoble. I understand that if Cadarache were chosen as a site for JET they would move plasma physics from Fontenayaux-Roses to Cadarache. But I suggest that if this is done there must be serious disruption of the work which is at present being clone at Fontenay. The experimental apparatus is large, heavy and complex, and the engineering effort of moving it must be very great indeed. While it is being moved, the present work
1314
being done on plasma physics must be disrupted, and I feel sure that the dispersion of effort would lead to delay in the construction of JET if it were located at Cadarache. In spite of the fact that in recent years the French have achieved exemplary speed in some of their nuclear development, I believe that Cadarache should be dismissed, because in my opinion delay is inevitable if the French plan is carried out.
We are left with Garching and Culham. To make a choice between those two sites requires a judgment of Solomon. The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, who is speaking later in this debate, visited Garching with me last week. Our visit was paid after the report of the sub-committee had been agreed. I think that perhaps if we had been able to pay that visit earlier, it is possible—and here I am expressing a personal opinion—that the last paragraph of the Select Committee's Report might have been rather differently worded.
Both at Culham and at Garching the staff at all levels is outstandingly good and full of enthusiasm. Both establishments are well designed, and both are carrying out plasma physics research on a similar scale and doing work of a similar complexity and importance. Both establishments have room for expansion. Culham has the advantage of having at its disposal the general engineering support that can be given by the Atomic Energy Establishment at Risley, but Garching seems to have managed very well in the past with its own engineering design teams, with the help of German industry, and by the employment of consultants.
It can reasonably be claimed that the electricity supply at Culham is more solid than at Garching, but Garching has a firm offer of supply from the local undertaking. Whether that local undertaking has made it clear to its partners in the German interconnected network that there will be some disturbance of voltage and frequency I do not know, but I feel it is something we must leave them to sort out for themselves. Garching is already starting to complete one large Tokamak which goes under the name of Asdex, due for completion in 1978. I do not for one moment wish to argue on the basis of fair shares for all; rather, I want to argue that Asdex will stretch the Garching staff to a reasonable limit and

1315
that for this reason JET, which is the next step forward, should go to Culham.
Technical considerations are outstandingly important. I think that in addition we have to weigh the ancillary attractions of those two sites. I myself would dismiss the visual environmental amenities of the surrounding countryside as being of secondary importance. In my experience, good men will go wherever interesting work is being done under good management. The very successful engineering team which gathered at Risley to build Britain's atomic energy factories in the years after the war certainly did not go to South Lancashire to admire the scenery. The back-drop at Risley might well have been painted by Lowry.
Where Garching has a real environmental advantage is in education. Already there are foreign language centres in the area. In addition, the EEC is establishing a multilingual centre there to meet the requirements of the large patents office which it is establishing. One of the arguments made in favour of Garching is that it would be better to build JET at a place where the EEC already has a multilingual centre than to put it at Culham, where the size of the JET staff would not justify a similar school. I cannot accept that argument. Carried to the extreme it would mean that EEC activities would be centred round EEC multilingual schools. I would sooner argue thaw the United Kingdom is now in Europe and that, if we are to he good Europeans, we need an EEC multilingual school. There could be no better place for such a school than Oxford, which is only eight miles from Culham.
There is one last point which I wish to emphasise. It would be quite wrong to imagine that this JET is a prototype fusion power reactor. If JET were built at Culham, this would not give Britain the inside track in the construction of industrial fusion power plants. I think that one can find an analogy by looking back at the development of fission power plants. Research work on nuclear fission had been going on for several years before Enrico Fermi built the world's first nuclear pile in the squash courts at Chicago University. When he started to build that pile no one knew whether, with the resources of knowledge and materials available at that
1316
time, it would be possible to sustain a fission chain reaction. Fermi's pile proved that this was possible, but many more experimental piles and a great deal of research work had to be done before the world's first large scale prototype nuclear power plant was commissioned in 1956.
Fusion scientists today are not nearly so far advanced as Fermi was when he started to build his reactor. They do not know whether, with the resources that are available, nuclear fusion can be achieved, and they do not even know whether JET will prove that controlled fusion can be achieved. Even if success were achieved in JET, it is certain that a prototype plant will have to be built before the system could he used industrially, and it is quite certain that such a prototype could not be built at Culham.
We in Britain stand to gain little, if anything, in long-term industrial advantage from the choice of Culham as the site for JET. I am told that wherever JET is built the orders for the main components will be placed in whichever of the EEC countries is best able to supply the equipment. Industrially we stand the same chance as our EEC partners do.
In hoping that Culham will be chosen as the site for JET I am not being chauvinistic. If it could be proved that results could be obtained more quickly and more satisfactorily at Garching, I should be in favour of building JET there. But I think that, with the present load of work on Garching, results will be obtained most quickly at Culham. But quite certainly an early decision must be taken if we are to remain abreast of others who are working in this field. Unless results can be obtained quickly, it is not worth while for the EEC to be active in the field of plasma physics. It would be better to leave developments to the Americans, the Russians, and even the Japanese. There is no dividend in this world in chasing one's competitors round the block. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House takes note of the Twenty-eighth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on the siting of JET. (R/253/76.)—(Lord Hinton of Bankside.)
5.35 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think I can honestly

1317
claim that I have to be brief after the very authoritative and clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has predictably presented this debate this evening. If it is not pretentious, I think I can say that I agree with every word he said, and really there is not a great deal more to be said. He has pointed out that all forms of nuclear fission lead to pollution; that the more sophisticated types of reactors that we are currently developing tend to be more dangerous in this respect than the ones we are currently using, that is the fast breeders; that they are using finite resources, that is, uranium; and, therefore, sooner or later we have to find some alternative source of energy. There would appear to be two possibilities. One is the sun, the various manifestations of the energy which arrives on this planet from the sun, and the other one is the possibility of nuclear fusion, so far as we can see at the present time.
So far as the other alternatives are concerned, I think it is worth making the point that this country is perhaps potentially less dependent upon nuclear power than almost any other country in the developed world. We have greater and longer lasting resources of both coal and oil than any other developed country, and we also have something that is not often mentioned or recognised. We have potentially, on a 20 or 30 year time-scale, the very useful contribution to be made from the waves which beat upon the Atlantic shores of this country. This is less true of almost any one of our fellow European nations than it is of this country. For these two reasons, therefore, it is worth noticing that the urgency of nuclear power production is less pressing upon us than it is upon them. It is as well to recognise that we are different from them in this important respect.
If we look at the slightly longer time scale, it is not a very serious difference, would suggest. I would say merely that we ought to think carefully whether we are devoting enough of our research effort to the so-called renewable sources of energy, when we compare the amount of research which we are currently devoting to nuclear research. Furthermore, there is one further point about all these renewable resources. It is perfectly clear that the results are attainable in every case. They are demonstrably feasible within a finite time-scale. I should like to agree
1318
very much with the noble Lord in emphasising that fusion is by no means certainly possible. I think he was saying that he would have some doubt as to whether this report is not perhaps unduly optimistic when it says:
" Fusion is roughly at the stage reached by fission when the first pile was being built in 1941. Fission technology passed through many stages in various countries before a prototype power plant could be commissioned at Calder Hall in 1956."
In other words, that is a period of 15 years, as the noble Lord said, from the first pile to the Calder Hall reactor. I would suggest-—and I believe the noble Lord was saying this in another way—that it would be very optimistic to hope that we shall be at the Calder Hall stage in 15 years' time, so far as fusion is concerned.
All those things having been said, it is perfectly clear that it is right for us to play our part in fusion research, and that the JET project is the biggest and most important part of that programme. It is an interesting observation, in passing, that I believe that the name "Toekamak" or "Tokamak", I am not sure how it is pronounced, is there because this research originated, rather surprisingly, in cooperation between the Europeans and the Russians—and heaven knows we should welcome that rather unusual experience!
I would also agree with the noble Lord that the first priority is the progress of the job, and we clearly here want to make the best use of all our resources, including money. Here Culham begins to have its impressive claims. The tradition of fusion technology and plasma research there, as the noble Lord said, is second to none. Therefore, I would agree with the Report when it says on page 5:
" On this criterion Ispra must fail."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, would agree with me when I say that the European Communities Commission background note put out on 18th February appears to be standing some of these arguments on their head.
They say:
" It is necessary to ensure that a truly Community team can be brought together on the site, with adequate Community services and facilities."
They go on:
" Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that the construction of JET does not cause any upset to the essential parts of the rest of the Community fusion programme."

1319
They then go on to argue that putting JET at places where this kind of research has been going on could conceivably hold up progress.
But the noble Lord was saying, if I understood him correctly—and I hope I did, because it is part of my own feeling about this—that one of the most fundamental reasons for wanting to put this project at Culham is that this is precisely, to use his term, "Where the centre of excellence in this particular world is". To argue that putting a project of this sort in the "centre of excellence" is thereby going to prejudice and damage the other work that is going on there seems to me to be a totally nonsensical argument. This really, as I understand it, is practically the only argument which is put forward in favour of Ispra, apart from the thoroughly unrespectable one of the Italian Government, apparently, saying, "If you do not bring this project to our country, we shall attempt to veto the whole European effort". It is a really astonishing assertion from a Government about which the kindest thing one can say is that their political stability is somewhat in question, however kindly a view one takes of that Government—and I am not in any way trying to be anti-Italian but trying to be totally realistic.
In face of these arguments I find it rather odd that there are any doubts at all that this project should go to Culham, and I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, might be able to reassure us on one or two possible reasons why the decision to go to Culham might have been questioned. Have we upset our European colleagues by the cancellation of the Dragon project? We had a Question this afternoon on rather the same lines about our co-operation in the European airbus project, which suggested that Britons are no longer respectable collaborators in these high technology industries. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord, but can he reassure us that his colleague, Mr. Benn, has not irreparably upset some of his European colleagues by saying that he thinks it is more important to attend trade union meetings in the North Country than to go to European energy discussions?—because I think I would find that a little worrying were I one of his European colleagues.
1320
The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, went on to deal with the important question of what is sometimes called the infrastructure. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that, while the Government may not be able perhaps to take a very positive action in making the necessary educational facilities available, at least they will not impede any efforts in this direction. This again, on past form, is not something which could be wholly possible to rely on in the educational field in this country. Then there is the curious argument which comes out in some of the papers whereby the European Community appeared to be saying, "We must support our Community facility. Simply because it is a Community facility, we must put something there." Here again we come back to Lord Hinton's argument: should we not all the time keep in the forefront of our minds that what we are trying to do is get on with the job? For goodness sake, let us not play that kind of politics with something as important as this.
So I end up totally persuaded by the noble Lord that Culham has an unassailable claim on scientific, organisational, and on technical logical grounds. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Government are prepared to support this scientific logic by a positive enthusiasm for the project, and that they will devote the considerable political skill to it which has been demonstrated by this Government—perhaps I might think in regrettable directions. Political skill is one of the things they have never shown themselves to be lacking in, and they are going to need it all in this instance. We are, for once, in the happy situation where our national aspirations are wholly pointing in the same direction as the international benefit. I sincerely hope that the Government will tell us that Culham has their wholehearted support.
5.48 p.m.
The DUKE of HAMILTON and BRANDON: My Lords, as is customary, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence as this is the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships' House. I think it would be best if I gave your Lordships a brief description of my background. I address your Lordships as a humble engineer. I use the word "humble" after some consideration as I feel that a fourth class

1321
honours degree entitles the holder to humility. It must, therefore, be clear that it is a most daunting prospect for me to follow a speaker with the enormous knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside.
I have had the privilege over the last few months of sitting on the Sub-Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and in the light of the evidence that has been made available to us I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two points. The first is that I believe it is worse than useless to put our faith in so-called benign forms of energy production such as tidal power, wave and wind power, and solar furnaces. All these are methods of energy production which deserve encouragement, but none of which could come anywhere near to supplying our needs when oil and coal run short. It is merely fiddling with the problem to look on them as our salvation.
Secondly, it seems highly misguided, as a country, to spend, as I believe we do, nearly 10 times as much on research into nuclear fission as we do on nuclear fusion. The whole cost of JET could be covered by one year's expenditure on fission research. We must remember that fusion has the potential of producing vastly greater quantities of energy using relatively cheap and plentiful raw materials, and producing no direct radioactive waste. I am convinced that the best chance of solving the world's long-term energy problems lies in the speediest possible development of a fusion reactor.
As for JET, the evidence shows that Culham is the best site as regards both the facilities and the unparallelled wealth of expertise available there. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be better for the project to go elsewhere than to fall further behind schedule. Having said that, I should add the rider that if the project does go elsewhere, it will of necessity fall behind schedule, obviously very much more so if it goes to Ispra than if it goes to, say, Garching or Cadarache.
The way forward in fusion research is going to be lengthy, difficult and possibly hazardous. There is a great deal of work to be done on the development of instrumentation and controls, and above all materials, in addition to the work already done and described in the JET design
1322
proposals. There must always be a risk of unexpected energy emissions, although it is only fair to say that these will be extremely localised and it seems inconceivable that an accident of the magnitude that occurred at Windscale a few years ago could occur in a fusion project. However, it is certain that the end result of a successful programme will so outweigh the dilliculties and hazards that they pale into insignificance.
Let us prove that this country does not always dawdle over important projects. In recent years we have missed out on the siting of the Geneva accelerator and the Eurospace laboratories, which are now in Holland. We must ensure that Britain gets a share of the action but, above all, we must ensure that the action actually happens, and soon. If we do not, we shall go down in history as the generation which not only squandered the world's natural resources but bequeathed to its descendants a monstrous legacy—the guardianship of a hideous quantity of poisonous chemical and nuclear waste.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I have the happy duty of being the first to offer congratulations to the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, on his excellent maiden speech. He obviously spoke with knowledge, he gave a well-balanced account of his mental processes, all in a splendid logical sequence, and he ended with a nice appeal which must have warmed us all. I do not know whether I am in order in adding for the information of your Lordships that the noble Duke only just got here after having the pleasure of greeting a new member of his family, so we might add our congratulations to him and the Duchess and our good wishes to the new arrival.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said, there is very little that one can add to the masterly speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, in introducing the Motion. On the question of the siting of JET, I have only a few points to make. The first is a general observation because perhaps we have tended, certainly in the Committee, to be rather critical of the Commission in the decision it reached. I believe that it was the wrong decision, but wrong decisions are sometimes reached

1323
for quite explainable reasons. It seems to me that any attempt to decide the relative merit of different sites on a points basis obviously depends for its validity on the relative weight which is given to the different factors which are taken into account.
As Lord Hinton reminded us, the Commission has gone on record as saying that it did not consider the presence or absence of plasma physics experience to be a determining factor. I suppose that it can be said that no one factor is, strictly speaking, a determining factor, or there would be no need to consider other factors. But as the noble Lord pointed out, there is no doubt at all that this factor—the presence or absence of plasma physics experience—is absolutely paramount, and the views expressed by the Commission seem to imply that it was wrongly advised in this matter and that this most important factor has not been given adequate weight in comparison, for example, with factors associated with social conditions. I agree with the noble Lord that people who are really keen on a job will not worry much about social conditions. I might add that there is already a large international body working at Culham and we have not heard that any of the people or their families who come from other countries are complaining about the conditions there; and if more had to come to carry out the JET project I have no doubt that those conditions would be enlarged as necessary.
There is one other matter that I should mention in connection with siting. Since the report was published, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who unfortunately cannot be here today, paid a visit to Washington. While there he was invited to attend as an observer a high-powered symposium on the development of energy from nuclear fusion. Meeting in the corridors some of the United States delegates to that symposium, he was rather surprised to find a lobby, if I may so describe it, in support of the siting of JET at Ispra explicitly on political grounds. How, one wonders, has this come about? It appears that the Commission has an active propaganda organisation in the United States. It is perhaps permissible to guess that on this issue, which one would have thought was
1324
not of any direct interest to the Americans, the Commission, having come to a decision that it is clearly finding difficult to defend, felt that it might get some support by taking advantage of the natural concern of all NATO allies, and particularly of the United States at this time, about the political situation in Italy. Be that as it may, my noble friend tells me that when he put to the delegates the sort of views that have been expounded so brilliantly by Lord Hinton he found that they excited a reasonable amount of interest, but that the Americans were firmly convinced, by what they had been told, that Ispra was the right solution. I do not know whether the noble Lord who will reply, through his contacts with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has heard of this; it seems curious that what is essentially a European problem should be discussed in those terms in America.
I wish briefly to draw attention to another aspect of the matter, and that is the importance of establishing the right organisational framework within which this vitally important research can be carried on. I recognise that this is not explicitly dealt with in the report; it arises from the statement which is made earlier in the report that the Commission and the Council of Ministers have agreed to set up this advisory committee. On this aspect, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who was hoping to be present before the end of the debate but who was in Scotland earlier in the day, has received a letter from Dr. Pease, the very able director of the laboratory at Culham, which he handed to me before he went away because he felt that he might not be here to refer to it. In this letter, Dr. Pease expresses concern that the right framework for cooperation in this field among Western European countries has not yet been found. It is most important that it should be found, and found quickly. As I have already said, the Commission and the Council have now agreed to set up a consultative committee on fusion to advise on the broader aspects of the programme.
It has been suggested that the committee's first task may be re-examine the question of siting but, looking further ahead, it is of great importance that the functions of that Committee should be clearly defined. It would be more than unfortunate if, having been set up to advise

1325
on the broader aspects of the fusion programme, we should find the Committee becoming involved in the planning of the work. Once a programme has been agreed and financial limits set, it should be for the director and the staff to carry it out. I hope that we can be assured that this advisory committee will not be like a back seat driver constantly making suggestions or offering criticism. This type of research cannot be effectively controlled by a committee, however eminent its members—indeed, I may say that the more eminent the members the more likely they are to disagree and the more difficult it will be for them to control anything. So I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will be able to tell us that it is quite clear that the committee is an advisory committee on the broad lines of policy and is not concerned with implementation.
6.2 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, we have heard many fine speeches this afternoon and I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, for giving us an opportunity of speaking on this subject. May I be the second of your Lordships to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton, on his maiden speech. It was a model of humility and competence. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more of him from his eyrie up in Scotland.
Previous speakers have already covered a great deal of ground and repetition by me would be tedious. However, I should like to start by saying that, when I first came into contact with the problem of the siting of JET, I was slightly confused by the nomenclature and I should not be surprised if other noble Lords suffered the same confusion. For instance, the mention of "jet" to me means some form of turbine which squirts out a jet of gas or water. But, in the case we have under discussion today, "JET" means "Joint European Torus". "Torus" rather threw me for a loop and somewhat confused me until I discovered that a torus is a hollow, ring-shaped device something like a doughnut and that inside it there circulates this blessed stuff called plasma. I was gratified to learn that this plasma has nothing to do with the substitute for human blood but is a mysterious but definable substance sometimes recognised as a fourth state, the other three being solids, liquids and gases.
1326
It is therefore clear that we are dealing with a highly sophisticated matter.
That brings me to the main theme of what I have to say, which is that at Culham there is in being and in operation a highly advanced project which, to my mind, has all the earmarks of a successful venture. I have spent much of my business life in connection with laboratories and research establishments and I know full well how difficult it is to get the right kind of ambience and the proper mutual understanding among a team of highly intellectual and, therefore very sensitive physicists and scientists. After the lifetime's experience which I have enjoyed, one can almost smell the efficiency of a plant or a laboratory as one walks through it and I was sensible with Culham that that odour of efficiency was very marked. That bodes well for its future functioning.
I have not, like some of my colleagues on Sub-Committee F, had the benefit of having visited any of the alternative sites for JET, but I know from having been an executive director of an Italian chemical and pharmaceutical corporation that it is not a simple matter to obtain a stable, level-headed degree of operation among people who, by nature, have, to say the least of it, a delicate artistic outlook and whose background and ancestry are not noted for highly technical innovation and sustainment. After all, we in Britain can claim certain very major breakthroughs in the world of science. The invention of radar during the war has already been mentioned; there were also the original splitting of the atom, the development of the gas turbine, the introduction of penicillin.
All these are original pages in the British history book. No one can doubt that fact. We also discovered the method of aeroplane fuselage construction which is now known as "fail-safe". Other countries have exploited these inventions, but, to the never-ending credit of Britain, they were first developed in this country. I grant that we perhaps did not commercialise or productionise these inventions, but there were circumstances which at the time militated against our doing so. But, in so far as the JET project is concerned, it is not so much a matter of productionising the final form as of culminating the experimental development in a workable undertaking.

1327
What impresses me and what I hope will be accepted and fostered by your Lordships is that at Culham we have a development which is well on the way. There there are two units in which the principle of fusion is being proven. To try to move that undertaking elsewhere would create a big hiccup in the European programme for the generation of energy from atomic fusion. I must make it quite clear that, however little or however far energy creation by fission has gone, the fact remains that fission absorbs fuel whereas fusion can be developed to generate fuel and that means that fears of running out of atomic energy in years to come as a result of lack of material resources are negated. Unless it can be irrevocably proved that there is more hardware in an operating state somewhere else, I would give my judgment that the European Community will get far more out of developing the site at Culham than elsewhere.
This is not a small undertaking. The next stage which is proposed at Culham is a reactor which will be far bigger than the whole of this Chamber, taking it from ground level. It is a very important undertaking and involves the bright idea of making the shield which must surround future devices of this kind into a structural part of the undertaking. There are all kinds of advantages in the design which appeal to me as (in the words of the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton) a humble engineer, particularly the fact that the amount of active material involved in the fusion process is comparatively small, so that any danger of cataclysmic explosions is reduced.
Those of us who know Culham have seen the plans and models of the buildings concerned. All this is under way and I believe that we should be very ill-advised not to take note of what has already been achieved, what is in the pipeline and how important it is to maintain the tempo and the enthusiasm of a team of some 800 dedicated souls who will work even harder if they know that their future and that of their families is stable. I can assure your Lordships that highly sophisticated scientific units such as those involved in this project cannot be moved around willy-nilly, either in terms of humanity or in terms of hardware. My vote is strongly
1328
in favour of Culham and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to tell us.
6.9 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, I shall make only a brief intervention in this debate, since the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has very thoroughly covered the main points which arc of concern to me. I feel that the whole House is indebted to him for the trouble which he has taken to examine the question in depth. Perhaps I may also add a tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton. Some of us are neither humble nor engineers and therefore much less qualified to speak in this debate than he. I hope we shall hear from him often in the future.
Perhaps I should declare an interest, although it is somewhat out of date. When I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, as chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, it had already been decided to concentrate the thermonuclear and plasma physics work of the Authority, then divided between Harwell and Aldermaston, at a new laboratory at Culham and planning permission was obtained in January, 1960. Culham was selected for its propinquity to the atomic energy establishment at Harwell and the Clarendon Laboratory at the university of Oxford. In my first report as chairman of the Authority I observed that as the basic scientific research for which Culham was planned was not classified, it would be possible to make arrangements for free international collaboration and for visiting scientists from other countries to share in the work. It was therefore designed from the outset to be an international centre. The Authority of course had already done much work on fusion by that time, including the ZETA experiment at Harwell, and this, though one of several false dawns in this field, was none the less the ancestor of the present-day machines.

From 1960 until 1964 the Culham laboratories were built up in stages. The first stage was completed in 1962, with a staff of 300 under the skilled direction of Dr. John Adams. The laboratory was in full operation in 1964. The extent of the resources which should be committed to what in relation to the then very pressing

1329
problems of reactor development was a long-range project, was kept under constant review. However, it was decided, because of the huge prize of a successful fusion project, to continue with the build-up of the Culham site. As a result, the laboratory has been in operation for nearly 15 years and in that period has become a centre of excellence in this branch of natural science. I think that the present head of the establishment has been working there almost from the outset. I entirely share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, of the importance of building on strength. I am not aware that any fusion work at all has been done at Ispra.
I have not said anything about Garching as I have never been there, and the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, has covered that subject in detail. The Germans, I understand, are also opposed to Ispra, and have put in a claim for Garching. I would only point out that what the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, said supports the Commission's view that with major fusion experiments already under way at Garching, to put a third there might stretch the facilities too far.
The Commission's report seems to cast some doubt on the back-up facilities available at Culham, but since Harwell is only a few minutes away it is appropriate to think in terms of a Culham-Harwell-Oxford complex of facilities. The Director of Culham, in his evidence to the Select Committee, spoke of the JET project as primarily in the field of engineering physics, but if more engineering support is required than can be found locally, then the back-up, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, pointed out, could very easily be provided from the Authority's engineering laboratories at Risley—more specialised and accessible, I would suppose, than anything similar available at any of the other sites.
It has, I believe, been adduced as one argument for putting the European project at Ispra, that the educational and social facilities for members of the project would be much better than at Culham. I may perhaps be excused for being partisan; if I point out that Culham is not exactly located in a cultural desert, placed as it is between the universities of Oxford and Reading, within a few miles of the
1330
scientific establishment of Harwell, and the Rutherford and Clarendon laboratories, with access to all the educational, intellectual, cultural and linguistic facilities which exist in and around Oxford. It is true, I suppose, that the surroundings in Munich provide an environment which, if not comparable to that in Oxford, is very fine indeed. Nevertheless, I think at Ispra, despite the beautiful scenery in which it is placed, there is no such complex of facilities available.
If one now considers some of the political aspects of this matter, my mind goes back to the many occasions in which over the years the United Kingdom has put in a proposal that an international organisation should have its headquarters in this country. These proposals have almost always been rejected by our friends and allies, and as a rule Her Majesty's Government have never thought the issue to be of sufficient importance to dig their toes in. It is of course the case that the European Nuclear Energy Agency, the Dragon project, was set up at Winfrith and ran smoothly until last year, having carried research into the high temperature reactor systems about as far as was practicable on that scale. At the time that the Dragon project was set up, Winfrith was probably the only suitable place for it. But of the other innumerable international organisations I believe that the headquarters of only one or two have been established in this country. Of course this is not a conclusive argument, and I am not suggesting for a moment that international organisations should be set up according to the Law of Buggins's Turn; but it seems to be fair to claim that the United Kingdom should get one occasionally, especially when the arguments are as strong as they are in this instance.
My Lords, having read the documents in the case, I find the present position rather depressing. There seems to be a dialogue of the deaf between those who put Community politics ahead of scientific excellence and those who put the priorities the other way round. The first group also seem anxious to overwhelm the scientific programme with a pyramid of commissions and committees that are only too likely to stifle the project in a bureaucratic strait-jacket. If Europe is really to keep abreast of the Americans and the Russians in this field, then the

1331
scientific research and development must be carried on in the best scientific environment, with the greatest possible speed, and with a minimum of red tape.
We have seen many examples of the dangers of embarking on large advanced technological projects for political reasons, or indeed for any reason extraneous to the scientific and technological merit and welfare of the project itself. I hope we shall not now agree that a similar error should be made in the case of the JET. Without being chauvinistic or nationalistic or over-partisan, it seems to me that there is good reason for the Government to stick to their guns on this issue.
6.20 p.m.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, first, I should like to declare an interest in this subject, as my company has been under contract to the Commission on JET design. Secondly, I should like to apologise to the House if I have to leave before the debate is finished, as I have another pressing engagement to carry out. Thirdly, I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on his maiden speech. I think he has made a valuable contribution on a very technical subject; and if he says he is a humble engineer, I would not agree with him about that because I think that is no mean achievement, and he should certainly be proud of it. He has said some very pertinent things, and I have listened to him with great interest. I hope we may hear him often again in this House.
The document—R/253/76—on which the Committee has reported, was published very recently by the Commission after the contents were leaked to the Press and openly discussed, thus making informed debate rather difficult until the documents were available in this House, when it was found that a date tag was attached asking for the Council's opinion within three weeks. The Commission were holding a pistol at the Council's head in this case. The decision, of course, is an important one: to spend a very large sum of money—135 million units of account—on what is the Commission's biggest project yet to be undertaken; a project which is integral with the Community's fusion programme. Under these circumstances, it is probably quite right for the Commission to ask for the Council's opinion, because the JET
1332
experiment, if it is to be a success, must be sited where success can be assured. It involves a massive investment and should not be undertaken lightly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has given the House the background to the present state of the art of nuclear studies; and if anybody held out the promise of an Eldorado in energy within the lifetime of most of us in this House at the moment, then they are not likely to be scientists and are still less likely to be engineers. I think they are much more likely to be astrologers, soothsayers or conceivably oppositions promising not only the earth but the energy of the sun and the stars as well. Fusion studies are in their infancy, and it would be true to say that wherever studies are being undertaken, on whatever scale, striking new knowledge is being gained and the hunt is on for fusion energy. Therefore, the importance of the national laboratories which have built up scientific skills must be recognised, and particularly those laboratories which have been engaged in fusion studies over a long period, which have acquired a reputation and have built up a pool of qualified and experienced professionals expert in the field. Even in South Africa, Tokamak experiments are being mounted. In that country the project is named Tokoloshe, which in fact, in South African folklore, is a mischievous spirit, and if ever there was a mischievous spirit it is a plasma, I think.
What the Commission is now proposing is that JET should go to Ispra, the leading establishment of the four Joint Research Centre sites and a place where no fusion work has yet been undertaken. The Commission is dogmatic about this. They say, "JET must be at Ispra", though I find if very difficult to support the arguments which have been advanced for this decision. They disagree fundamentally with the site committee on the necessity of having plasma physicists backing the JET team on site. Who are the site committee? They are now disbanded, of course, but they were the experts, and at least those who understood that there is a direct link between major scientific experiments, the scientists and success. Having had the opportunity to visit Culham and also to visit, a few days ago with the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, Garching, it is very clear that these two establishments are

1333
strongly staffed with physicists and other specialists. They have the facilities for setting up JET and the spare land to do this. Above all, both establishments are well served by local industry, and both have access to the major European industries upon whom the JET design team will depend for construction of the various large assemblies.
My Lords, I have not visited the competing sites of Ispra, Cadarache, Julich and Mol, but it is the view of the committee, I think, that, in the case of Cadarache, the upheavals involved in shifting the physicists en bloc from Fontenay-aux-Roses, where they are now, to the Cadarache site, if it was chosen, would cause an unacceptable setback in the fusion programme as a whole. In the case of Ispra, there are many more conflicting issues, but in a way the Ispra case is in my view easier to decide, as the establishment has no prior experience in fusion, and the risks arising out of such a decision in favour of Ispra are therefore quite obvious. Julich and Mol are not thought to be true contenders, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, said. An important point made by Dr. Pease, the Director of Culham, is that the United Kingdom has the longest experience in Europe of constructing and operating big experiments, and the Culham laboratory have also built the largest fusion experiment to date in Western Europe. It is this experience, together with gifted staff, which is needed to avoid the pitfalls that may be encountered along the selected research route—that route which is most likely, within the limits of present knowledge, to lead to success.
The Commission is looking desperately for an excuse to mount a European project at the leading establishment—that is to say, Ispra—of the Joint Research Centre, and wishes to base JET there. What could be more unsatisfactory, my Lords, for a scientific establishment to be a latecomer in a scientific field? History teaches us that you can never catch up properly. In my view, the most important factor to take into account with JET is the track-record, and this is the one thing which is lacking at Ispra. What the Commission is saying publicly at the present time is that a project of the JET type should be at Ispra to show Community spirit, so that the Community nature of JET can be recognised, and to
1334
give the JRC something to bite on. But, my Lords, this is another problem. Why sacrifice JET on this modern Roman altar? If the JRC is to become a centre of excellence—and there is no reason why it should not be so—then build from the beginning; take a new field of science and develop new knowledge, acquire new skills and a reputation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, referred to the fact that it might be a good thing to start intense neutron-source studies there in support of JET and fusion generally. If there is one thing which I think scientists and engineers dislike more than anything else, it is changing horses, and if the stables have to be changed as well that is the worst thing of all.
It is also evident now that the risks at Ispra are greater than was at first thought. It was at Garching that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and myself were shown repair work being undertaken on cracks in a large quartz plasma ring of some three metres diameter which were attributed to the tremors felt in Munich at the time of the Italian earthquakes. These were regarded as second-order effects, although sufficient to disturb furniture in people's homes in that area.
Ispra is situated in a zone where geological faults lie, and I think it would he folly to locate a major scientific experiment which is vital to the success of the European fusion programme in an area which is now manifestly at risk without proper consideration of this factor, in terms of both equipment and people. It would seem to me, my Lords, that at the very least special building costs would now have to be incurred at this site to provide protection in the event of future earthquakes—costs that would not occur at other sites.
The Committee conclude—and I concur with this—that Culham is in all respects a suitable site for JET. All our evidence suggests, also, that the alternative site is that of Garching; but according to the Commission there is some risk of disturbing the progress being made on the two experiments there—that is, Wendelstein-7 and Asdex; one an accelerator experiment and the other a Tokamak experiment—if JET was sited there. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and myself were unable to assess the situation in detail, but I think that the more JET is delayed the more

1335
progress will be made on Wendelstein-7 and Asdex; and, as time goes on, JET could then become the holding factor in the whole of the European fusion programme, which I think would be a disaster. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has emphasized the urgency of reaching a decision on a site for JET.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and I myself are grateful to Professor Wienecke, the director of the Max Planck Society's Institute for Plasma Physics, his scientific board and the staff for conducting us around the Institute and spending a lot of their valuable time in discussion with us on all aspects of the experimental work, and particularly the problems concerning JET. I think it was remarkable that no members of the senior staff or any of the group leaders were not able to describe their activities in fluent English and we were very much helped by this factor. If this is significant, it is because the English-speaking laboratories of the world have been in the forefront of plasma physics studies and the case for siting JET at Culham may be slightly strengthened on the score that English is a language of plasma physicists.
However, my Lords, site for site there can be little to choose between Culham and Garching. There are many comparisons to be made but, at the end of the day, it is the factors that are most likely to lead to success that matter most. These are, in my opinion, the scientific and technical merit of the establishment; the background support in engineering; and the record of success that the establishment has had. The sociological and environmental factors were highlighted at Garching by the proximity of the site to a major metropolitan area of 2 million people—that is to say, Munich and its surrou8ndings—and include a quarter of a million resident foreigners. The demand for schooling is such that, apart from the German State schools and universities, there have been established in the area one French school, three American school, one private international school; and also a European school is to be established by 1978 to cater for foreign residents and particularly those connected with the Community Patent Office at Munich. It is the European school which is the key
1336
to the compatibility in education whereby a child who has to re-enter his own country's system can do so easily and the certificate of education is recognised by any Community university. It is these problems that now most concern the families of visiting staff.
My Lords, I think it is clear that, with Euratom financing of many of the projects at the Max Planck Institute and the founding of the Community Patent Office in Munich, the Federal Republic is already host to a fair share of Community interests. Therefore, will not the addition of JET cause an imbalance between Member-States? Is there not a case for the JET project to go to the United Kingdom on these grounds alone? We have no Community establishment in this country; neither do we have any major experimental projects except for the Dragon reactor, which I think everybody agrees is now a dead duck. I think it is a pity that there is no Community establishment here. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has said, it is an issue now for the Government to consider. Also would not the right thing be to establish an international school near Oxford, as many noble Lords have already said, to cater for European interests and to recognise the need that exists. It may be small to start with but it will grow with the years. It has been suggested as an alternative that an international stream in a State school would suffice; but has such a scheme been worked out? Is it compatible with the comprehensive system? It certainly sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. What system of secondary education can most easily absorb an international stream? I think these are all questions which need to be answered.
We are in the Community and there is a real need for these international schools. There is a European school at Mol in Belgium; there is one at Ispra in Italy. There are French and American Schools in Aberdeen as well as in London; but London is too far away for a foreigner based near Oxford to send his children. Now that we are in association with other countries and involved with international projects, I do not think we can gloss over these problems any longer. My Lords, in conclusion, I hope that the Government will press strongly for Culham as the site is certainly suitable

1337
and will be even more so if the Government are able to give assurances in the educational field. Men of science gravitate to where the action is. In plasma physics, it is at Culham and has been for many years. Let us therefore do what we can to attract people to Culham. Culham has a reputation, it has a backing of physicists and engineering. In short, it has all the ingredients necessary for the success of JET.
6.35 p.m.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, in extending my congratulations to the noble Duke, I think this House has been treated to an example of the great contribution that the noble Duke makes in attending our Committee. I hope that he will give wider expression to his thoughts by speaking more often in your Lordships' House. To the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, one can only express admiration coupled with gratitude for bringing this very important subject for debate—and not too soon. JET is a pilot experiment. Not by any stretch of the imagination will it immediately lead to the formation of a power station. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I, too, have this sensitive attitude to the atmosphere in which experiments are carried out. If you do not have this verve, this harmony, that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, you run into frustration, muddled thinking and a wasting of time on trivia.
We scientists, as the noble Duke rightly pointed out, have been revelling lately in presenting all kinds of new forms of energy: harnessing the waves, harnessing the wind; and I am claiming to be interested only in hot rocks. But all this, by comparison with the thinking in the world on fusion energy, is low-level technology. Fusion technology is a level of technology which sets out to create fusion reactions similar to those which surround the sun and the stars. It is as big and as mystic as that. It is a technology which hopes to simulate the thermal reactions which go on beneath the crust of the earth and which express themselves as earthquakes and volcanoes. That is the quantity of energy that we are contemplating.
The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, pointed out that we must not rule out earthquakes in the consideration of the siting of JET.
1338
There are massive pieces of equipment to be established with absolute stability; and the most minor of earth tremors could lead to disastrous results. I do not want to give a lecture on the geology of Germany but there are more brittle areas in Germany than in Britain—and I mean that geologically and not otherwise. Culham is situated on the Oxford clay, which is like putting something on a nice soft cushion which will absorb all the earth tremors which might hit Britain; so that there, if you take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is a point of additional favour to Culham.
To return to the high technology of plasma physics, it is a technology, as I see it, in which men and women are trying to translate pictures of plasmas and to bring them into three dimensions to perform, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, eruditely pointed out, in the fourth dimension. To do this it is believed that mankind should harness all the mental resources on an international scale to find the best way to utilise them. Between the Russian Tokamak and Culham we have seen a perfect example, without political pressure, without disharmony, without suspicion, of liaison in exercising and exchanging thoughts.
What does all this mean? Success would mean that the solution of the world's energy problems would be in sight because, as has been pointed out, fusion power stations could be sited anywhere and the fuels would be abundant, cheap and free from radioactive pollution of any significance. To realise this dream, let us hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to protect the future of plasma physics at Culham regardless of the decision made across the Channel; because along with Culham we also have these other centres of excellence throughout Britain, our universities, which theoretically are also carrying out work in this field of plasma physics. For this reason, I derive no comfort from the recommendation that vast sums of money—much of it British— will be invested in Italy if JET is to be sited at Ispra.
The ultimate design of a successful Torus will probably emerge from a concept as vivid as that conceived by Whittle for jet propulsion. Inspired ideas of this kind never emerge from

1339
fancy laboratories or in organisations swarming with scientists. It will be in the calm, modest atmosphere of a place like Culham that somebody will wake up at night and say "That is it!" and, next morning, put his dream to the test.
In many ways the history of fusion resembles that of antibiotics. When Fleming discovered penicillin he opened up a whole new world of antibiotics. When Rutherford and Oliphant discovered tritium, they revealed a new dimension in the behaviour of matter. Penicillin, the queen of antibiotics remained a figurehead until Florey and Chain placed her on the throne to govern disease. In the realm of the lighter elements, tritium is still the uncrowned king of the kingdom of plasma energy. It will be someone as yet unknown who will discover the magnetic pattern of control for plasmas and provide tritium with a kingdom. That to me is the objective of JET. If JET goes to Ispra or anywhere else outside these Islands, I urge Her Majesty's Government to make their position clear now and to render unto Culham a positive promise that, regardless of the decision regarding JET, we will continue to support this fundamental study of plasma physics.
6.45 p.m.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, as convenor of Sub-Committee F which persuaded my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir's Scrutiny Committee to approve the report which we are now discussing, I must apologise for having been absent for more than half of this debate. The last minute change of time table involved me in a clash with my duty as one of the two Scottish Standard Bearers who appear at the General Assembly in Edinburgh to flank the Lord High Commissioner representing the Sovereign. That was not a duty that I could, even if I wished, ignore or from which I could desert.
I particularly should like to apologise to my noble friend the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon and express my regrets at having missed his maiden speech. I will however tell him that the "bush telegraph" is so alive with static electricity that I heard within one minute of coming into this Chamber that his speech had been, as I knew it would be, a great success.
1340
I know it was prepared with diligence; I know he approached this day with a becoming modesty and humility so accurately and so agreeably recalling the lina-ments of the character of his father whom we in this Chamber remember with such great affection. The noble Duke has worked hard at our Sub-Committee and helped to originate this report. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, for introducing the debate, and who more fitting than he to do so? I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, for undertaking their most valuable journey of inquiry to Garching at very short notice last week.
I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part or are going to take part in this debate. I am certain that whatever effect this debate may have on Her Majesty's Government it will also have considerable effect independently in Brussels. We have learned from experience, which has mounted up in the past 18 months, that a series of debates in which noble Lords with great expertise and background take part are studied line by line, They are not studied only by middle ranking officials in the Commission but by Commissioners themselves. Therefore this exercise today should be of double value, and I hope it will so prove.
I should also like to thank my colleagues on the Committee for their work which has been purposive, zestful, diligent and untiring, and also for their work and help in educating a common layman. As an untechnical, unscientific person I do not pretend to understand what it is all about. But, so far as I have been able to make it out, this is a question of trying to harness the sun's own energy source by using plasma, the glowing material found in fluorescent lights and occurring in the stars and tails of comets; it is evidently a question of trying to confine this in a gigantic bottle, except that the bottle is a magnetic field and not one made of glass. The question is whether this enormous enterprise, already some years old in its thinking, can be successful to the point of leading to a fusion reactor actually being built. As I, as a layman, understand the matter, it is by no means certain that success is at hand. For even though the theoretical physics are sound it is thought there are gigantic engineering problems ahead which have yet to be overcome.

1341
Arriving so late in the debate and having no technical knowledge to contribute, may I content myself by calling attention to a few banal generalities? If it is true that our fossil energy resources must be at least under great pressure by the year 2000 and with it the motive power of industrial civilisation anywhere in the world, then this is not a small or mean matter. The Council of Ministers meet two weeks hence and will be deliberating beneath the laser beam of history, for the programme is already running late. From 1960 to 1969 there were what I might call general international scientific preliminaries and the exchanges of ideas. From 1971 to 1973 there has been European discussion and work. From 1973 to 1975 there has been the evolution of the JET design at Culham. The programme was that the site decision should be taken not now or even last January, but January last year, with funds being released early this year. Therefore already we are more than a year behind the construction schedule, and even if the programme were finally approved at this meeting in a fortnight's time, the actual experiments with the newly built equipment could not start before about 1980. There is a story here of sad delay, and I think it was once said,
" Doubtful delay is worse than a fever."
A question must be put to Her Majesty's Government and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when he graces our debate with his reply, will be able to give us some indication or assurance about Government policy. Are we going to stand pat on the critical issue that this must be decided on scientific and not political grounds? Are we going to stand absolutely firm on that? That is the first question. The second question is this: Are we prepared to make a real gesture to European solidarity and the success of this experiment by being ready to provide a suitable international school within range of Oxford and Culham? Both questions deserve an answer. Perhaps the question about the school is a bit of a fast ball, because I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was not aware before the debate began that this aspect would loom to any extent in our discussions. Perhaps he could let us know later about that. But we do want to know from the Government that this site issue will be decided on scientific principles and not on those of
1342
political bargaining. We also need the assurance which was asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, that, whatever happens, the work at Culham is going to be underwritten come what may. It is far too serious a matter to fool around with, if I may use that phrase.
On the site issue, one point must be stressed. Wherever the next phase goes, it will mean absolutely nothing in terms of the engineering effort for the phase following that. Therefore, to take the next phase to Culham will not, is not supposed to, and none of us thinks it could, mean any kind of enormous engineering benefit to the United Kingdom. What it means is getting on with the job in the best place. The engineering benefits will not come for a long time, and they will come from the phase after the one we are now seeking to enter upon. So we can surely be exonerated of any charge of mere national bias in favour of our own country in terms of strictly engineering advantage.
It is exceedingly important to be sure, as our report quotes from the evidence of Dr. Pease at Question 10 on page 3, that wherever JET is built there should be on site ample expertise to support the project. Yet the Commission seem to make light of this. It is also important to draw attention to a passage of our report which occurs in the early part of paragraph 8. There we noted that,
" the Commission do not think the lack of experience of plasma physics among the staff available at the site should rule that site out. Though the Commission recognise the need for much specialist advice they argue that this can be brought in as needed".
I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, will have demolished that argument when he introduced the debate. But it really is not to be taken lightly when the Civil Service of a major international organisation, the initiating body of this great new experiment of a community of nine Member States, should think in such terms, terms which are not worthy of the subject.
After hearing evidence from Dr. Pease of Culham and after being helped by Dr. Schuster of the Commission, your Committee believe strongly that the most important factor must be whether the site has, and will continue to have, such a background of experience of fusion technology and plasma physics that those

1343
working on JET will constantly be associated together and not just assembled occasionally. We attach great importance to that, and one does not have to be a scientist to see the point of it. Anyone who has worked in a university or looked in envy upon membership of a senior common room, anyone who has had the good fortune to be well tutored despite being a dullard like myself, can see that a situation where these highly intelligent people are associating all the time and living, as it were, their lives together, is not to be compared with the trivial idea that you can fly in experts or send them in by the train-load as needed. We have stressed that they should be constantly associating, both professionally and socially, with others engaged in these fields. There is the critical requirement which was underlined by Dr. Pease at Question 12 of the evidence. This is the constant presence of engineering physicists of the highest order, and we are all agreed, I think, that such people do indeed exist at Culham.
As a Committee, we have suggested to your Lordships that the Government would be well advised to continue along their present path in this regard, if perhaps not in all others, and really focus the argument on the purely scientific case. We might say, with Thomas Fuller:
" Spare your rhetoric and speak logic."
It is important to bear in mind that floating about there are strange currents—I will not say of thought, but of propaganda. We have had it reported to us privately from the United States that Italian propaganda in favour of Ispra is really going all out among members of the United States Congress. Whether that will have any effect is another matter, but it shows the kind of thing that is going on.
I think one could say in the nicest possible way to the Italians that hope is such a bait that it covers any hook. It has been said by a leading Community figure to at least one member of our Committee that to try to approach this matter on a strictly scientific basis is being unbelievably naive. It was suggested that the Government would have better luck if they just argued the simple case for Buggins' turn. But we are trying to speak in a serious way on a critical matter. In the councils of the European Community
1344
we do not believe that the Buggins' turn approach is worthy.
Attention has already been drawn to the strange confusion of mind which has led the existence of Ispra as a not very successful Community enterprise to be muddled up with the whole question of the future of JET. That has been stressed by others. All I would say is that the distinction must be made very clear. Either we go all out to make a success of JET in which case there will be great benefit to the Community, or we put the wrong things first and lose both the Community and the JET.
Attention has been drawn to this critical social question of providing an international school or schooling facilities within reach of Culham. It is of course well known that at Abingdon Grammar School, as it used to be, now comprehensive, provision can readily be made for an international stream of children capable of taking 20 children in any one year age-group and forming them into a special international stream. Whether that is good enough, I do not know. I share with my noble friend Lord Ironside the hope that the Government will be able to say today, and if not today quite soon, that they are prepared to take very seriously indeed the proposal to provide facilities for an international school.
The question of schooling is particularly unsettling to the staff now working on this project. There is anxiety among the team at Culham about their children. They are worried where they are to be placed when they get to matric level or take their bachau or whatever it may be. These are not anxieties to be lightly brushed aside. The men and women working on this at Culham are humans: they are fragile and they have family problems. Scientists are every bit as delicate as and a great deal more precious than, their instruments. This is not a mean matter nor is it worthy of a mean political wrangle.
7.3 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to reply perhaps the House will forgive me, although my name is not on the list of speakers, for making a few remarks from the European point of view, which up till now has not been

1345
dwelt upon. In saying that, I do not want to fall under the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, as one who is entirely devoted to European institutions, irrespective of any national consideration and so on. I do not think I come into that category. But during the last month or two I have heard great denunciations of the British Government for not accepting the recommendation of the Commission in regard to Ispra. If one reads the Commission's report with attention, it is very convincing so far as lspra is concerned, and it is perhaps not unnatural that the Italian Government is hanging on to that. After all, they would say that the Commission has been advised by very great experts—perhaps it has—and I suppose it is possible that Ispra is not quite so unacceptable as sonic speakers today have made out.
The case for Culham seems to be, on the face of it, unassailable, although its only rival, Garching, may be almost as good, and on general grounds I would not dispute the fact that the general interests of Europe would best be served by situating JET at Culham. I dare say that that is logical and reasonable and in the general interest, and I would not dispute that. But there is a certain amount of disquiet in European circles lest the British Government are becoming rather nationalistic, and that has not been helped recently by the murder of the dragon, as it is called. Rightly or wrongly, that is taken as showing a certain disinterestedness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in European affairs. That may be unfair, but it is all part of the case of the devoted Europeans against the present policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to ask whether JET is really necessary. Is it essential? It is alleged in Strasbourg and in Parliamentary circles in the Community, that unless we can create JET or its equivalent in the near future—and as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said, it has been delayed for at least a year—we shall inevitably be out-distanced by the Russians and the Americans who, according to all our information, are making very substantial progress. It is said that Europe—and I suppose that means Culham, Garching and so on—now has a slight edge over the Russians and the Americans, but that will not last very long and if we
1346
delay much longer over JET we shall in the long run be at the mercy of Russian and American techniques. Is that the case or is it possible that because of the machinery, which is regarded as so great and so magnificent, Culham would be able by itself to produce some kind of fusion reactor in a few years' time, independently of what the Russians and the Americans do? From what we have heard, the team and the apparatus there are so good that perhaps Culham could do it on its own, if not the Germans. If that is possible, then perhaps JET is not absolutely necessary. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who suggested that JET may now be doomed and that, after all, it is not necessary. That is the impression I got. Is that what the noble Lord said?
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to me, I think he must have misunderstood what I said.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord implied that it would not matter so much if JET was not proceeded with.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, I think no such inference can be read into what I said.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can read the report of his speech. Perhaps I have misunderstood. But I ask the Government: do they regard JET as absolutely necessary in the general interest? If they do, and if the Italians continue with their virtual veto, then I imagine that we cannot proceed with it. I suppose that that is inevitable. If JET is regarded as absolutely necessary, not only for progress towards a fusion reactor in Europe but also to lead technique in the whole world on this great project, perhaps we ought to do something about trying to induce the Italian Government to withdraw the equivalent of their veto. What kind of concession can we give to the Italians, unless it is thought that they will withdraw it anyhow owing to the powerful arguments advanced in favour of Culham, which I hope will continue to be advanced by our representative on the Council.
That is something which we ought to consider and perhaps the Minister can

1347
allude to this aspect, which cannot be ignored. Do we think it absolutely essential that JET should be proceeded with, both in our interest and in that of Europe and the rest of the world? If we do, does the noble Lord think that we can persuade the Italians to withdraw their opposition, despite the great lead in favour of Ispra given by the Commission, by technical arguments in favour of Culham? If not, is there any kind of compensation which can be devised for getting the Italians voluntarily to withdraw their veto? If possible, I should like the noble Lord to answer those questions.
7.9 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I first join with all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate in congratulating the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, on his maiden speech. I think that as much as could be said in his favour has already been said by noble Lords, so if I do not repeat any of it I hope he will understand that my tribute to him is all the more sincere for that.
As noble Lords will be aware, we in the United Kingdom have been conducting research into controlled thermonuclear fusion for well over 20 years. Work began in the universities in about 1947. Much of this research was transferred to Harwell and Aldermaston between 1952 and 1956 but the need to broaden the work resulted in a move to Culham between 1962 and 1965. In 1973, when we joined the EEC, our programme already included work on a Tokamak design but at an early stage it was agreed that by pooling resources a more significant experiment—JET—could be built, and the Culham effort was merged into a Community team, based at Culham, to prepare and cost a design. This design formed the basis of the proposals for JET. In reply to one of the questions which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked, I do not think anyone believes that it will be possible to go ahead with JET except on a collaborative basis—either on a European basis or with the resources of a country like America or the USSR behind it. Nobody has seriously suggested that either Culham or any other country in Europe should go ahead independently with this project and I do not think that it would be "on".
1348
In any event, our commitment to European collaboration is complete. There is no question of this country wanting to go it alone in any way. We are committed to JET on a European basis and will remain so, wherever JET is sited.
There is general agreement that JET is the right scientific route to pursue in the next stage of fusion research and development. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority advise that it is the only current design potentially capable of reaching a key stage known as "scientific break-even" on the road to power generation by nuclear fusion. This is the stage at which the power fed into the plasma is equal to that generated within it by nuclear fusion. A large machine is essential to achieve this but JET has been designed at the minimum possible size, thus avoiding the need for the costly radiation shielding and remote handling facilities which a larger device would require.
We are fortunate today in having before us the report on Community document R/253/76 that has been prepared by Sub-Committee F. As the Committee has pointed out, there are in fact two communications to the Council. The first concerns the site for JET. The second relates to the organisational structure of the proposed fusion programme. In February 1975 a site committee reported on the merits of each candidate site for the JET project, and these have been enumerated by various noble Lords during the debate. The site committee's criteria were the availability of electrical power supplies, the existence of facilities for the handling of tritium and activated materials and for radiological protection and medical supervision, the quality of supporting services and infrastructure, and the appropriateness of social conditions for the multinational staff and for their families. In the Commission's document the Commission has made a further analysis of the site in question and concludes that,
" The site for JET must be Ispra."
Ispra, in Northern Italy, is the largest establishment of the Euratom Joint Research Centre. The Commission rate it as the most suitable site for JET on Community and financial grounds and as well placed among other sites on technical grounds. So far as scientific aspects are concerned, the Commission does not consider the presence or absence of

1349
plasma physics experience to be a determining factor.
In setting out the arguments which led to its choice, the Commission, in the Government's view, has not been consistently objective. For example, on page 17 of R/253 the Commission discount the importance of lower staff costs in the United Kingdom, on the ground that relative costs in the Community may change over the life of the project. That is a valid point. However, the Commission fails to apply the same qualification to the lower electricity costs which are claimed for Ispra on page 16. The Commission, in recommending Ispra, asked the Council to give its opinion on this choice. In seeking the Council's opinion, rather than its decision, on the site for JET, the Commission indicated that in its view the siting decision lay within its own competence and was not a matter for decision by Ministers. However, Commissioner Brunner has since conceded publicly that, given the political implications of the site in question, the decision must be taken by Ministers.
In R/253 the Commission also proposed a new body—the Consultative Committee on Fusion—to advise them on the broader aspects of the fusion programme. With the objective of ensuring a balanced view of the place of fusion in energy research, it was proposed that the Committee should comprise senior officials whose research responsibilities encompassed both nuclear and non-nuclear areas. This proposal, amended to provide that the Committee should report to the Council as well as the Commission, was approved by the Council of Ministers on 24th February. The Committee has held two meetings—on 5th April and 17th May—at which a variety of questions on the JET project have been considered. The United Kingdom representative is Dr. Marshall, Chief Scientist of the Department of Energy and Deputy Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the Consultative Committee on Fusion is intended to be a high level advisory body and that it will not interfere directly with the JET project. They are, of course, concerned with the setting up of an appropriate management structure for JET, but JET will operate under its own director who will be appointed by the Community.
1350
I should like to return for a moment to the central question, that of the site for JET. The Government regard it as essential that this very difficult experiment should be sited where it has the best possible chance of success. Siting must be determined primarily by scientific and technical considerations which, in our view, have been given insufficient weight by the Commission. The Government agree with the Select Committee that the most important prerequisite is that the site should have a strong background of fusion technology and plasma physics to help the staff overcome the problems during construction and initial operation which are bound to occur with advanced technological projects of this kind. Culham, which is acknowledged as one of Europe's leading fusion laboratories, is very well qualified in this respect, since its fusion work has been directed to Tokamak devices, of which JET will be the largest European example. This gives Culham a clear advantage over Ispra.
Subsidiary but important factors in Culham's favour are that the electrical supplies for the enormous currents which JET will need are right to hand; that facilities for, and a vast reservoir of skill on, the handling of radioactive materials and tritium are nearby at Harwell; and that Culham has an excellent record in the construction of fusion machines on time and to cost. Other factors in its favour are that the design team is already at Culham and that, although we joined the Communities in 1973, no Community project has yet been sited in this country. The Government reject absolutely any contention that there would be a loss of Community character if JET came to Culham. The Commission itself has noted that the autonomy and Community character of JET will be assured, whichever site is chosen, but the Government agree with the Select Committee that in making its site recommendation the Commission has allowed Community ownership of Ispra to weigh heavily in Ispra's favour.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, that Garching is an excellent fusion laboratory, but Culham has the advantage that its programme—which, like Garching's, is part of the Community's fusion effort—is, unlike Garching's, already geared to accepting JET and would suffer no strain from

1351
accommodating JET at Culham. We believe that this factor must operate strongly in Culham's favour when comparing Culham and Garching. The European Parliament has recommended that the site for JET should be
" … an existing large research centre in this specific field that has an attractive location for qualified researchers and a particularly favourable infrastructure."
The Government believe that Culham is already able to meet the first two criteria. It is one of Europe's leading fusion laboratories and has the advantage of being close to the cultural and academic life of Oxford, as several noble Lords have pointed out during our debate.
If JET comes to Culham, suitable provision will be made to house the international staff. I can assure noble Lords who have raised the question of schooling that arrangements will also be made for the education of the children of the European scientists who will come to Culham. I can see no difficulty in the way of establishing the necessary school facilities at Culham, Abingdon or Oxford, nor would there be any difficulty in fitting a European stream into a comprehensive system.
I will certainly draw to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education the remarks which have been made during the debate about a European School, but, as I say, in the Government's view the absence of suitable schooling facilities need be no bar to the siting of JET at Culham. I hope the fact that noble Lords have tended to ask me some questions about the schooling will not detract from the view of the Government and, I understand, the view of all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, that the scientific and technical considerations must come first in the siting of JET, and it is on those grounds that the most outstanding case can be made for Culham.
In putting the case for Culham the Government have concentrated on the advantages of our site rather than the disadvantages of others. I am sure that this is the best policy, but I must agree with the Select Committee that Ispra lacks the essential background experience of plasma physics and Tokamak engineering. The case for siting JET there is
1352
based essentially on infrastructure considerations; for example, the proximity of power supplies, the availability of housing and the existing European school. As I have already indicated, we believe that such factors, although important, are not central to the scientific success of the project. I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said about the views they had heard being expressed in America in Ispra's favour. I have listened to what they had to say with interest and will make sure that it is taken note of in the relevant quarters.
I was upset when the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, implied from what somebody said at Question time today—it certainly was not me—that this country under this Government was not an enthusiastic and willing partner in any viable and collaborative European effort. Certainly it has been put on the record by Government Ministers recently in connection with the aerospace industry (which is what the Question was concerned with today); and if I may say so to the noble Lord I think it might be more helpful both to Culham and to this country's interests if he had drawn attention to those statements by my right honourable and honourable friends rather than to some remark attributed to one of my right honourable friends some considerable time ago in a completely different context, which as I understand it was grossly distorted and misreported after he had said it. What is important is that the Government are committed to JET and committed to supporting Culham's plan to have JET sited there.
Various noble Lords have expressed concern about the future of Culham if JET is sited elsewhere, and I should like to reassure them. As I have already said, all the fusion work at Culham forms part of the Euratom co-operative fusion programme. The continuation of that work at Culham is not dependent on JET being sited there.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Commission's document was recently debated in another place when the Motion, That this House further recognises the outstanding experience and facilities of the Culham laboratory in the field of thermonuclear fusion, considers Culham to be the most appropriate loca-

1353

tion for JET and calls on the Government to secure the choice of Culham as the research centre, was unanimously adopted with full support from the Government.
JET is the most expensive single experiment the Community has ever contemplated, and one of the most difficult. It is essential that it should be sited where it has the best possible chance of success. The Government welcome the report of the Select Committee and their support for the Government's view that JET should be sited at Culham. I agree that the siting of JET is an important matter and it certainly deserves the debate which your Lordships have given it this afternoon. I am sure that the helpful contributions made by noble Lords will strengthen the Government resolve to press the case for Culham with the utmost vigour and I join with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in expressing the hope that the debate is carefully read by those concerned in this matter in Brussels.
7.25 p.m.
Lord HINTON of BANKSIDE: My Lords, the report which your Lordships have been debating today has been prepared by your Sub-Committee which sits under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and he has already thanked those who have taken part in this debate. Having introduced the debate, I should like to add my thanks to his, and in doing so particularly to thank and congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, on a very remarkable maiden speech which was not merely lucid but which made a point which I would have wished to make if I had had time to make it; namely, that we should be wrong to have too much faith in the use of the renewable sources of energy. We hope that we may use them in the long run but they will not be available on a large scale within foreseeable time. The noble Duke described himself as a "humble engineer", but all members of Sub-Committee F have to be humble when they sit on that Sub-Committee because the noble Earl rules it with a rod of iron. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether I ought to hold up my hand if I want to go out of the room.
I should like to make only one technical point. I think it has been argued that we have lost face in Europe by the
1354
cancellation of Dragon. I happen to be one of those people who did not agree that Dragon should be put in hand in the first place. In that, I may or may not have been right; but I am quite sure that it was right to stop Dragon when it was stopped, and I think that rather than have it argued against us the Government should be congratulated on their courage in stopping a project which had already run beyond its useful limits.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his very helpful reply. I think he suggested that the Committee had been pushing at an open door, but indeed I think the Committee knew that they were pushing at an open door in so far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned. But there is another door beyond that which still has to be pushed open, and that is the door of the European Parliament. I hope that what has been said in our debate this evening will assist Her Majesty's Government in opening that next door.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SITE
7.28 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what policy they are adopting in consultations with other Member Governments of the European Communities about the choice of a permanent site for the European Parliament. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I should like to thank my noble friend for being here at the end of what must be a long working day for him and being ready to deal with it at this comparatively late hour.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining my own connection with the problem. In the years 1971 to roughly 1974 I was living in Europe as a research Fellow for one or two of our universities, working on the European institutions, and while living for some considerable time in Brussels I was privileged to be, first, the guest of the European Parliament which allowed me, as I think the only outside person who has ever had that privilege, actually to attend the private meetings of its committees. Secondly, I was the guest

1355
of the Socialist group at the European Parliament, and indeed I am still on the mailing list and for three years, until my noble and honourable friends joined the European Parliament, I was the one tenuous and totally informal and unofficial link between the British Labour Party and our Socialist colleagues in Europe.
Thirdly, during that period I was virtually given the run of the building of the European Commission by my friend Emile Noel, the Secretary of the Commission, again for research purposes, and was able to see not only the life of the Parliament, but also the life of officials in the European Commission. All in all, therefore, I had a bird's eye but intimate view of the way that the European institutions worked. May I say I was a detached observer, which perhaps added some little clarity to my own experience.
My Lords, we know what the present position of the European institutions is as regards their seat. Article 216 of the EEC Treaty says that,
" The seat of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States."
This is a purely inter-governmental matter kept separate from the machinery of the European Community. Article 216 is based on Article 77 of the Coal and Steel Community in 1952, so this question of deciding seats by the relevant European institutions has a long history.
When we come to what has been happening, the first major decision concerning the seat of the European Parliament after the EEC came into existence was a decision in 1958 by the Foreign Ministers that,
" The Assembly shall meet in Strasbourg."
More recently, in April 1965, there was what was called the Decision of the Representatives of Governments of Member States on the Provisional Location of Certain Institutions "—a terribly high-sounding phrase. Article 1 of that Decision of 8th April 1965 says:
" Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg shall remain the provisional places of work."
Article 4 of that same Decision says:
" The general secretariat of the Assembly "—
that is, of the European Parliament—
" shall remain in Luxembourg."
The Parliament itself has obeyed this very well indeed, and in its rules and procedures has stated that the plenary sessions of the Parliament and its committees shall meet at the seat fixed in accordance with the Treaty. The Parliament has played the game, and has not tried unduly to break the rules. Here we have a situation where the seat was supposed to be fixed by the Governments. It never has been, and the Parliament is still under a provisional Decision of 1965, that the provisional place of work is in three places, with the secretariat placed in Luxembourg.
The present position, therefore, is one of total confusion. We have a secretariat in Luxembourg, in that fine building which I know so very well, and to which has now been added another one. Strasbourg is the place for the main plenary sessions, separate, obviously, from the secretariat in Luxembourg. Secondary plenary sessions, the less important ones of one or two days' duration—I have been to many of them, and other noble Lords in this House doubtless have been to them as well—the separate and less important monthly plenaries, are held in a new small building in Luxembourg, a building which is totally inadequate, which holds only 198 at a pinch, with no real galleries for visitors or for the Press, and which is totally unsuitable for a Parliamentary building. However, it is a good makeshift and saves all this travelling to Strasbourg. But all these minor sessions are held with increasing French hostility. The French claim that all should be in Strasbourg. At intervals, there have been exchanges of letters with the French Government, who have protested, and protested again, that not everything is held in Strasbourg.
On top of this, the Parliament has a building in Brussels where its committees meet. The Parliament is happy to have this, because it means the committees have ease of access to the Commission Members and to the facilities, which now exist in Brussels, of the European scene. Finally, of course, there is the occasional committee sitting in other parts of Europe. Combined with all this confusion on the Parliamentary side, there is the simple fact that the Commission and Council are now firmly and finally, I would have thought (despite the provisional nature of the 1965 Decision) established in their own building in Brussels, so they

1357
are separate from the Parliament at Strasbourg and at Luxembourg. The confusion is becoming so difficult that I cannot quite describe it all.
My Lords, the disadvantages of all this are clear enough. There is the familiar scene of the caravan which starts out from Luxembourg for the plenary sessions in Strasbourg. It is a caravan of pantechnicons, moving books, papers, and great tin trunks of documents in a convoy from Luxembourg to Strasbourg, from the secretariat to the meeting place at Strasbourg, every time a session is to take place. I suppose the least important fact is that this is costing a lot of money. It cost £1 million in direct costs two or three years ago, but, added to the direct costs we know about, the hidden costs in terms of travelling time, duplicated equipment, with some equipment in Luxembourg duplicated in Strasbourg, and so on, and the physical burden on people who are doing all this ridiculous travelling about, must make the total figure into quite a tidy sum.
More important is the sheer inefficiency of all this. There are under-used libraries in Luxembourg. There is a library being built up for the European Parliament which cannot be used even when the European Parliament is having its main sessions in a borrowed building in Strasbourg. There are occasions when documents cannot readily be got hold of during the Strasbourg sessions because, of course, they are 200 kilometres away in Luxembourg. Indeed, it would not be unfair to join the Parliament in saying, as it has done from time to time, that frankly this confusion, this inefficiency, means that Parliamentary control over the Executive is being hampered. That is a crucial argument for bringing some order into this ridiculous situation. Parliamentary control over the Executive tends to slip through when all kinds of travelling is taking place, documents cannot be found, and people are unsettled. We are all visitors, itinerants in some foreign city. No sense of concert between the bodies can exist as a regular feature because they are all squatters in a foreign land, and when I say "foreign" I mean no sense of insult to the French, but foreign to the real seat of the institutions of Europe. That, then, is the first disadvantage.
The second disadvantage is that the European Parliament in meeting in Strasbourg, and perhaps even to some extent in Luxembourg, is distant from the professional associations, the employers and trade union confederations that are now Europe-wide and all installed in Brussels. The very people with whom the Parliament ought to be in continuous contact are far away and do not get to Brussels. I have been to so many sessions that I can say this without fear of contradiction: there is no life in the corridors in Strasbourg when a debate is taking place. There is no one there. The great lobbies that ought to be waiting on the Parliament and bringing life to it just do not turn up, except, perhaps, when someone turns up with a cow and tries to create a scene about agricultural prices. The really important, considered lobbies are not active when they are so far away. One might imagine in effect the United Kingdom Parliament, our own Chamber; imagine us without a home just meeting in an odd hall in Sheffield because it happened to be somewhere near the centre of the country. The whole essence of Parliament, its daily contact and its camaraderie in terms of meeting people and Press, would disappear.
The third disadvantage is the fact that small Press coverage results from this isolation from Europe's real active Community centre at the moment. Press coverage is spasmodic. When priority has to be decided in the mind of a journalist, he gives it to covering what is going on in Brussels, and only secondly to making that horrible trip to Strasbourg with all that squatting in hotels for several days.
What is the solution? I now want to come to the main points I want to make. I suppose it is impossible to say that we can now go for simply one seat for the Community's institutions, as Article 216 might have implied when it said, "The seat of the institutions", rather implying that they would all be together somewhere. Indeed it might not be a good thing. There is some value in dispersing them to some limited extent. We do not want all the European institutions in some sort of ghetto in one city. But at least some order ought to be brought into this situation and some centralisation should take place. That is the first thing. I would guess that my noble friend would

1359
agree that some order must be brought into this. In answer to Questions, my noble friend has said that he is awaiting the Parliament's opinion. This was raised some time ago, and he said that Parliament was preparing a new opinion on this subject and he is still awaiting it. With great respect to him—I know he will allow me to say this—this really is rather running away from the question. Parliament has given its opinion; it gave it in 1958 when it said, "It is advisable that Parliament should have its seat in the same place as the Executive together with its permanent Departments". It gave it in 1959; it gave it in 1960 when it asked for powers to make its own decision. It gave it in 1963, in 1964, in 1965, 1967, 1971—I could go on—and in some of those years it did not give it once but twice. To say that we have still got to sit down and wait for Parliament once again to state the obvious is rather running away from the question.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I must intervene here. I assume that my noble friend is referring to the European Parliament?
Lord NORTHFIELD: Yes, my Lords.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in view of the catalogue of decisions which my noble friend has listed from that Parliament, why has the European Parliament commissioned a report through the Political Affairs Committee and is itself waiting for that report and its recommendations?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the Commission has asked for such a report?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords; Parliament. Despite the catalogue of decisions which my noble friend has adduced, Parliament has in fact recently asked its own Political Affairs Committee to prepare a report with a recommendation on this matter, and is itself, as a Parliament, waiting for that report.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is right and I do not dissent for one moment. All I am saying is that the Parliament is asked to do it
1360
once again, after having done it a hundred times. That should not be an excuse for our continuing to say that we are still waiting for something. The issue is known; the solution is known. I do not think we can any longer be put in this position of saying that the Parliament has got to say it for the hundred and first time.
The third point in regard to the solution is that there is no legal redress, unfortunately. The Parliament has no power; it is a matter being kept in the hands of the Governments. The Parliament cannot take the Member States to the Court of Justice, which would be the normal way. It has no access to the Court of Justice. The Commission has declined to take the Member-States to the Court of Justice on this issue, though probably under Article 169 it could so do. Indeed, there is a case to be made, because the Member-States are enjoined by the Treaty to help to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations of Member-States. They show very little signs of fulfilling the obligations on this matter of making a decision on the Parliament seat. So there is some case for taking the Member-States to the Court of Justice, but the only body competent to do so, the Commission, has apparently refused.
It seems we are, therefore, moving towards a situation where we shall have to wait for a fait accompli. The Parliament one day—and I suspect this will certainly happen when the Parliament is directly elected—is going to install itself somewhere and say, "You dare to move us". I would not blame it if it did, because this situation cannot continue very much longer. Once it is directly elected, it will feel it has the power to make that sort of decision in default of Governments living up to their obligations. There are precedents for institutions making up their own minds. In a sense the Commission and the Council seem to have installed themselves permanently in Brussels, even though they are supposed to be only temporarily there. The European Investment Bank, also named in the provisional list, has in fact bought itself premises in Luxembourg, contrary apparently to what was agreed in that Treaty of 1965.
So I ask my noble friend, is it not time that we said quite frankly that a decision should be reached by Member-States on this issue? And I put to him three or four

1361
quite simple and short questions to conclude. Is it not clear that Brussels is going to be the main centre of Europe, and should we not increasingly think in terms of a Parliamentary building more permanently there? Secondly, has the matter been recently discussed in the Council, or, if not in the Council, where it is perhaps not exactly appropriate, certainly between Member Governments; and what is the state of play? Thirdly, is it, as we all suspect, French intransigence over the future of Strasbourg that is holding up the decision, and, if so, is it not rather unreasonable of the French? I am very Francophile myself and happy to live a good deal of my life in France. But the French are not doing badly. The great new building in Strasbourg is very useful for the Council of Europe and for a whole lot of other international bodies. Why should they claim the European Parliament on top of all that? Finally, if, as my noble friend has said and reiterated today, the European Parliament does once again, for the hundred and first time, say that it wants the seat to be decided finally, what offer is he making on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to the action that we shall then pursue to obtain some result to this unhappy situation?
7.49 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having put down a Question which has, as he has pointed out, bedevilled the European Parliament, I think he said a hundred and one times, though I do not take him quite literally. It has also bedevilled those peripatetic Parliamentarians who have been going there from this country for the last three years. We are grateful to the noble Lord, not only for putting down the Question, but also for explaining with such great clarity the confused state of play, and spelling out the legal basis on which the European Parliament is able either to decide or not to decide its own site.
I should like to enumerate one or two of the worst aspects of the conditions under which Parliamentarians are meant to work, some of which the noble Lord has already touched on but some of which are felt very deeply by those who have to experience them. One need only refer to the fact that one spends, as a European
1362
Parliamentarian, over 100 days in a year at least in hotels in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg. There is no possibility of having any permanent or semi-permanent place of residence because of this peripatetic existence.
Secondly, there are no adequate working places for Members of Parliament. I cannot think of any commercial company, or business, which could remain active if it made any of its employees, of any level from top to bottom, work in the kind of conditions in which European Parliamentarians are expected to work. For instance, in Strasbourg there were 18 Members of the European Conservative group, and I think we were fortunate in sharing, from time to time, three tables. This, of course, is not conducive to your work.
Thirdly, there is the fact that you have nowhere to keep your papers. Your documents always have to travel with you. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, would have every sympathy for the fact that when you arrive back at London Airport, always on the last finger of the apron, laden with papers, you walk a quarter of a mile without a trolley, and you have to carry these kilos of documentation back home, having waited, of course, over half an hour for your luggage at London Airport. These are just some of the minor inconveniences, which I know sounds light when you mention them like this, but when they are borne by Members week after week, month after month, and no prospect so far of having any change in the situation, I think we must again express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having raised this Question.
I should like to put before your Lordships four criteria which I think should be taken into consideration by the Government when they are discussing this subject, we hope, in the near future. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, mentioned, the Parliament should be near the Commission. This would avoid a great deal of travel, and it is not necessary to labour that point. It should be mentioned at this stage that, although the noble Lord said that the Commission is permanently installed in Brussels, to a recent Question in the European Parliament, I think in April this year, a reply was given that of course the Berlaymont

1363
does not belong to the European Communities; it belongs to the Belgian Government, is let at something like £3 million a year and could be vacated within a year. Although it may decide to remain in Brussels, it should be borne in mind that it is not absolutely necessary, nor is it bound in any way to remain there.
Secondly, and this is a vital point, it should be near a major airport. There is no doubt at all that the airports of Luxembourg and Strasbourg are extremely inconvenient for the number of aircraft that take off. I say "take off", because it is a natural instinct that when you get somewhere you want to be able to get out of it, particularly if you are a Parliamentarian and you want to get back for a debate, or to vote, and it is very often impossible to do so. Of course, as the European Parliament and European institutions generally increase their international connections and their international work, I would say that it is one of the major necessities that it should be placed near an airport, if not like Brussels then certainly like the Charles de Gaulle Airport, which I would rate very highly as an international airport.
Thirdly, whichever country decides to offer to have the European institutions of the Commission and the Parliament, I think that it would be a sine qua non that the country concerned should be prepared to relinquish any rights over that territory, and it should become European Community territory rather in the same way as with the United Nations. I think that this would be an essential concomitant of having the European institutions provided by a particular country. Fourthly, not quite so important obviously but nevertheless this must be taken into account, there must be adequate space near the Commission building, wherever that is, not only for a European Parliament, which may eventually have to seat up to 500, but also adequate building space to erect suitable offices for Parliamentarians so that every Member should have his or her own office, very much as in the German Bundeshaus. They have a building for their Parliamentarians, and it is expected that a Parliamentarian, like any other citizen who is expected to do some decent work, is at least given a room with a table, a chair and a telephone.
1364
These are very modest demands, but sometimes it is exactly these modest demands which get overlooked when Governments are making plans for the future.
Of course this question of the site of a European Parliament will obviously be considered within the terms of direct elections, because at the moment there are only 198 Members. With the prospect of direct elections coming, presumably, if not undoubtedly, there will be considerably more Members than 198. The whole question is, therefore, open again. I would not exactly take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on this point, but it is extremely timely that the European Parliament, through its political committee, should be asked to reconsider the question, because it is no longer reconsidering the same question within the same terms; it is considering a question which has bedevilled the European Parliament but now in a completely new context, with the thought that there will be at least 350 newly and directly elected Members coming from the nine Member-States. I would very much welcome the report which will come from Mr. Patijn. Of course, I shall listen with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will have to say on this subject. We shall certainly press the Government to take every action that is necessary to get this matter settled. Nevertheless, we hope that they will listen very carefully not only to what has been said tonight but to what Mr. Patijn will say in his future report.
7.58 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has raised this Question, if only to get perhaps a little publicity elsewhere than in this House at this moment, and for drawing attention once more to the really appalling circumstances under which the Members of the European Parliament have to work; and to the absurdity of the system and the waste of money, time, and energy of getting the secretariat moving from Luxembourg to Strasbourg and back again, the Parliament sometimes meeting in one place and sometimes in another, the secretariat in Luxembourg and the Commission and the committees in Brussels. It is a complete and absolute absurdity. But I am afraid that at the moment I think it is a bit of a non-issue, for two

1365
reasons. In the first place, whatever the exact legal position, the French believe—and I think that they have some reason to believe—that they have a veto on whether the Parliament remains in Strasbourg or whether it does not. There is somewhere or other in some treaty a clause saying that this can only be decided by unanimous agreement, which means the veto. At the moment they are quite unlikely, apart from anything else, to agree that it should be shifted from Strasbourg to anywhere else.
If the Parliament also has no powers, or very few powers, it is equally unlikely that there will be a very strong move on the part of the Parliament to desert Strasbourg. Of course, the French would he opposed to that, and certain other Members too. And it would require a considerable majority to make any drastic move, so at the moment, when the Parliament has not any great powers, it is, as I say, unlikely that any impetus is likely to come from the present Parliament. I regret that, but I am afraid it is so.
In theory, of course, even now, the Parliament could pass some resolution whereby it conformed with the law by having one meeting a year, shall we say, at Strasbourg, and for all the rest of the time it would vote a large sum of its budget to hiring some building, shall we say, for its secretariat in Brussels, and, perhaps by arrangement with the Belgian Government, making use of the Belgian Senate for the plenaries. That has been suggested. It is conceivable, but unlikely, for quite obvious reasons. It remains, however, a possibility.
Or they could agree even now to hold the great majority of their meetings in Luxembourg. At least that would mean the secretariat not having to shift to and fro most of the time, but that I think is also unlikely; there would be great opposition to it from the French. Even now, when we meet at Luxembourg, there is sometimes a move on the part of the French not to turn up. This is not conducive to efficient operations and so even that is not very probable. Of course, when it comes to a directly elected Parliament, Luxembourg—I think that Lord Northfield mentioned this—would he much too small. It would be impossible to cram everything in there. Even as things are it would hardly be possible to get all the Members of the Parliament into
1366
the building in Luxembourg, and when the Parliament is directly elected it would be out of the question.
One real difficulty will arise in the near future in regard to the site of the Parliament. Next January, in theory at any rate, the famous new building in Strasbourg will be opened. It is perhaps more likely in the spring. But even if the Ministers decide on direct elections in July and we have them in 1978, there will, even under the existing schedule, be at least a year during which we shall he expected, at any rate by the French, to evacuate our temporary buildings, which will then be pulled down, and move into the very imposing palace next door. I was asked by the President the other day to inspect this building with members of the Bureau. We went there—it is, of course, at present in a state of great confusion—and we were able to see what it will be like. My Lords, it will he magnificent, absolutely superb. It is also gigantic. What would happen if the Parliament ever left it to, say, the Council of Europe, I cannot think. The Council of Europe, meeting two or three times a year, has a small secretariat and would he lost in such an enormous building.
What would happen to it in such an event I do not know because, as I have explained, it could hardly be used by the Council of Europe only. There would be a strong movement, certainly on the part of, say, Mayor Pflimlin, and probably others, to say, "We have spent all this money on this huge and lovely building and now you propose to desert it and leave it to the Council of Europe. What a shame. That cannot be done". In the long run that argument will no doubt not prevail. Nevertheless, even for one year the rent of this enormous building will be colossal—I think it is £500,000 a year or something of that order—which the present Parliament will be expected to "cough up". I believe that the Budget Committee is objecting to that at the moment. The matter was discussed in the Bureau the other day and a certain amount of dismay was expressed, not unnaturally.
When indeed we went to inspect this great new palace we were presented with a lovely little paper written by the architect, a charming and very intelligent man, which started off by saying, in effect,

1367
" All this was agreed with the European Parliament and the Bureau in 1965, under the leadership of M. Poher, laid down everything that the European Parliament wanted". They had carried out that instruction; they had done exactly what the European Parliament wanted and he believed that the present Bureau had been kept constantly informed. I am however told by certain members of the Bureau that this is not the case; that the present Parliament thinks that it has not really been consulted and that therefore a very unsatisfactory situation is likely to arise. The architect and the French authorities will say that Parliament has been consulted and must pay £500,000 a year, while the Bureau will say that it has not been consulted and, in any case, does not propose to supply the money. What will happen then nobody knows. In any case, the whole future is fraught with difficulties, and I do not know whether the Minister will touch on it when he replies.
To sum up—I do not want to speak for too long about this—I am afraid that all the chances are that the Parliament will remain in Strasbourg until such time as it is directly elected, which we hope will be in two or three years' time. When it is directly elected it will, of course, be more important—it will have more powers—and then it will be able to put collective pressure on the Ministers to say, "We cannot go on like this. It is absolutely intolerable "; and then I think they will have to take a decision to move it from Strasbourg. What else can they do? But if they move from Strasbourg, where will they move to? The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, thought that the only hope would be to set up a sort of new District of Columbia somewhere. Originally the idea was, I believe, to transform the whole of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg into a District of Columbia. What would then have happened to the Grand Duchess I do not know, but that was the original idea and it fell through. It would have been marvellous but I do not think that that would be possible. What other District of Columbia will be carved out of France, Holland or Germany I do not know. With great respect to the noble Baroness, I should have thought that that was a non-starter.
I myself believe—and I think that with this the noble Lord, Lord Reay, agrees—
1368
that if one day it is going to move, and that day is bound to come, then the move will have to be to Brussels because there is really nowhere else to go. Therefore, it will mean either erecting a new building in Brussels or transforming some existing buildings. In the long run I think that that is how it will work out. For the moment, however, there is nothing we can do—we can protest, of course—except go on" grinning and bearing for the next two years. I do not know whether all my noble friends agree with me about that, but that is what I personally think.
8.6 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for raising this Question because it is a way by which we can find out what policy Her Majesty's Government really have and whether they are already in consultation, before the decision on direct elections, about a permanent site for the European Parliament. The only point on which I did not agree with Lord Northfield was when he said, in a rather despairing way, that he thought it was impossible to go for one seat, yet just before that he quoted to us the article in the Treaty of Rome which clearly says:
" The seat of the institutions of the Community shall he determined by common accord of the Member States."
Of course, it is the common accord to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred which is so difficult to achieve.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the point I intended to make was that unfortunately some bodies like the European Investment Bank and the Coal and Steel Community are really firmly established in Luxembourg, and I was hinting that in the end it would be a split between Luxembourg and Brussels because that was about the only possible outcome.
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is true that Luxembourg has the Court of Justice and it is not expected—it has not been proposed at any time—that that should be moved: but what we are discussing is the site of the European Parliament, and I confess that my overriding impression when I visit Strasbourg or Luxembourg to see the

1369
Parliament is of the enormous cabin trunks standing in lines along the corridors and filled to overflowing with mountains of documents. My noble friend Baroness Elles and Lord Gladwyn spoke feelingly of the awful time they have travelling about and, I suspect, the great exhaustion and the inefficiency caused by so doing.
I think we all know why Strasbourg was originally chosen for the site of the European Parliament. It was close to the border of Germany and it was thought to be the symbol of the end of the terrible conflicts that had torn France and Germany for so many years. It is for this reason that the Council of Europe has always met in Strasbourg, and having myself served in the early years in the Council of Europe I can from personal experience agree about the inconvenience of Strasbourg's communications, which are still almost the same today. Luxembourg was chosen for some of the part sessions of the Parliamentarians because it was a very small Member of the Community and it was thought that to do so would ensure Luxembourg a share of the work and of the distinguished visitors.
I would entirely agree with those who say that Brussels, chosen as the site of the Commission and the Council, is likely to be the permanent site unless, in the distant future, we manage to attract other members in a different political sense from the Eastern borders of Europe. Then we might have to consider putting the site further East. But that is a long time ahead. Considering it now, it seems obvious that Brussels should be the site for the European Parliament in this context today. In the 22nd Report of our European Select Committee which dealt with the direct elections to the European Assembly—which is still the correct term—it says in the last sentence,
" If the European Assembly met at Brussels, it would provide opportunities for closer contacts between the Assembly and the Council and the Commission."
This is really the point of the debate today. If at the same time we have to consider direct elections, we really must consider the size of the halls which are available. Luxembourg holds 200; the new hall at Strasbourg to which the noble Lord referred holds 400; and Brussels, at the Palais des Congrès, would hold 600 or more. Therefore, although we might eventually come to a decision on the
1370
numbers of Parliamentarians to be elected to the present European Parliament by direct election, we must leave room for those other countries which may in turn accede. So it seems to me that, even on the present showing, Brussels is the correct place to go.
Of course, Belgium and Holland support Luxembourg unless adequate compensation is given to that small country.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that Ernest Bevin, who was hotly opposed to any form of European union, asked his officials which place was the most difficult to get to? They said that it was Strasbourg and Ernest Bevin replied, "Let's settle for that."
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to see that written down with chapter and verse because that is not my reading of Ernest Bevin's attitude to foreign affairs. He was a very great Foreign Secretary in his time. As I have already said, Luxembourg has the Court of Justice. One could compensate to some degree for the loss of the European Parliament's part sessions by having in Luxembourg one of the directorate generals. There is no reason why one should not do that. Strasbourg, which is of course firmly supported by France, must also have some form of compensation. I submit to the House that one could, for example, consider taking Paris and giving her the distinction of a permanent site for use under the d'Avignon procedures. In other words, the Foreign Ministers, who now meet four times a year, should as a matter of course meet in Paris.
Several noble Lords have referred to the cost of moving between the three cities. In Strasbourg, the new £25 million building will have to be rented for the Council of Europe at a cost of £320,000 a year or £10,000 a day if the Parliament holds six of its eleven meetings there. Their duration at present is usually a week. The Budgetary Committee of the European Parliament has voted unanimously against this cost.
As your Lordships all know, Luxembourg is 130 miles not only from the Commission and the Council at Brussels, but also from the many interested parties who visit Brussels to lobby permanent institutions and whom European Parlia-

1371
mentarians would clearly like to meet. The cost on the budget was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, as about £l million a few years ago. But let us consider what is really involved. There is the extra staff needed to administer the buildings which are not in use; there are the extra staff for the information services. All the staff have to be housed. There are the services such as maintenance, water, the equivalent of rates, electricity. There are missions by permanent officials which take them away from their own work. There are, of course, the extra transport costs and, in answer to a Parliamentary Question in the European Parliament, it was said that 110 officials of the Commission were obliged to travel to the part sessions and that the budgetary consequences of this amounted to about BF700,000.
When Mr. Patijn comes to draft his report on this site of the Parliament, I do not feel that it ought to bedevil the issue of the size of the Parliament. I understand that that is the reason why it is not expected that he will report until after the July Summit. But I hope that the Government, in replying to the debate, will also say whether they arc really pressing for a decision in July on the number of seats, because only then will the decision on a permanent site for the Parliament be reached. I hope that they will do this so that, in the terms of the Treaty of Rome, they can reach a "common accord of the Member States."
8.17 p.m.
Lord REAY: My Lords, I feel that we can be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for introducing this debate and also for the comprehensive, balanced and constructive manner in which he did so. For my part, it was valuable and encouraging to see someone as knowledgeable and yet as detached as the noble Lord arriving at the same sort of conclusions as I myself had reached.
There seems no doubt that everybody here is agreed that the present arrangements for the European Parliament are highly unsatisfactory. They have been subjected to widespread criticism and even ridicule. And the commonest criticism now made of the Parliament is that it is, as the noble Lord put it, a caravan trekking
1372
laboriously and expensively across Europe. As the noble Lord and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir pointed out, many of the costs are hidden. Equipment has to be duplicated; there are the costs of renting and maintaining buildings in more than one place; basic staff infrastructure costs which have to be maintained in more than one place and so on. There are also the travel costs for the staff of the Parliament, which consists both of the staff of the groups in the Parliament and also the secretariat of the Parliament itself, who prepare the work of the committees. They all have to travel to the committee meetings in Brussels and to those plenary sessions which take place in Strasbourg. Then the staff of the Commission and the Council have to travel to all the plenary sessions, and that can be a very expensive form of travel, because from time to time the Commission finds itself obliged to hire aircraft for that purpose.
The other ill-effect is the loss of efficiency. The documentation for Members of the European Parliament should be available in all three places, but it is of course impossible to build up a proper library in three places. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to the fact that there is an under-used library in Luxembourg, but there are also insufficient libraries in the other two places of work. Officials have to spend far too much of their time in selecting documents to take with them, and so on. It is also difficult for Members of the European Parliament to maintain contact with the staff in the Parliament because they may not know where they are at any particular time. Finally, there is the objection which I felt was one of the most important points raised both by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir and by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and that is that Brussels is the place where the lobbyists, the trade associations and the journalists are established. They are discouraged by distance from maintaining those contacts which form part of the lifeblood of a Parliament and which can only take place where the plenary sessions are held.
With respect to the present arrangements, however, the one which works best and most naturally is the committee meetings in Brussels, because the Commission and its staff are there and they can easily attend these meetings to be interrogated and to explain their policy proposals

1373
and so on. However, even then, the Parliament staff has to travel up from Luxembourg.
So far as the plenaries are concerned, Luxembourg is better than Strasbourg, because the staff is there, and as a result of that the documentation facilities are better. The only factual point on which I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is that he said that the minor sessions only of the European Parliament now take place in Luxembourg. I do not think that that is any longer correct. For one thing, almost all the sessions last a full week now, and so there are really no minor sessions; and the balance has now shifted so that this year, for the first time, the majority of the Parliament's part sessions will be taking place in Luxembourg rather than in Strasbourg.
So far as Strasbourg is concerned, there is an historical explanation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, gave us, but there is no logical or practical justification for us meeting there at all, save perhaps for the annual constituent part session which we hold in March. There are some who, taking note of the relatively greater efficiency of our holding meetings in Luxembourg rather than in Strasbourg—for the reasons I have given—would be willing to settle for a decision to fix the site of the European Parliament in Luxembourg. We have not had this preference stated baldly this afternoon, but it sometimes is. I do not share that view, and not simply for the reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out, that neither Luxembourg nor Strasbourg have sufficiently good communication networks, which they do not—nor do I think they would be likely to acquire them quickly. But the basic reason is that it is the essence of a Parliament that it positions itself so that it breathes down the neck of the Executive. It seems to me foreign to the whole concept of a Parliament that it is stationed at a distance from those with authority.
In theory this does not of course imply that the European Parliament has to go to Brussels; it implies only that the three institutions of the Community, the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament, should be situated in one place. Accordingly, I would remain open to any proposal which might bring about this result, although I suspect that it would be more practicable to move the Parliament to
1374
Brussels than to move the Commission, with its staff of 9,000, anywhere else.
Therefore, I think that a decision should be taken to site the Parliament permanently in a specified place, together with the Commission and the Council, and that that decision should he taken for the first directly elected Parliament. At the moment we do not know what the size of that Parliament will be. If, as I hope, it is a figure of between 300 and 400, then the only building that we would be able to use at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, is the almost-completed new building in Strasbourg for the Council of Europe. But owing to the unsatisfactory nature of such an outcome, when the decision is finally taken in the Council of Ministers on the size of the Parliament, we shall need immediately to investigate the possibility of constructing a new building in Brussels, or of seeing whether there is in Brussels an existing building which could be adapted, while not wholly closing the door to the possibility that all the institutions might be moved somewhere else, although, as I say, I am sceptical as to whether that would be possible.
On the political problem of resiting the European Parliament out of Luxembourg and Strasbourg, and the matter of compensation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, raised, I think that, so far as Luxembourg is concerned, the problem is not so much one of prestige as a problem of her losing, at a blow, the economic benefits brought about by the residence there of the Parliament staff, by the direct employment which the Parliament gives there, and, to a lesser extent, by the benefits which follow from the occasional visits paid by Members of the Parliament and others who attend the plenary sessions. What I would recommend is a thorough scrutiny of all further measures of efficient decentralisation that could be taken in favour of Luxembourg, and I thought that the suggestion of the noble Baroness, which I have not heard before, was extremely interesting. This should not be too difficult, particularly if the Community continues to develop new functions for itself; and then I would recommend postponing implementation of any such steps as are found to be worth while until they can be offered as a direct compensation for the loss of the Parliament.

1375
With regard to Strasbourg, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has already indicated that this should not be such a blow. The problem here seems to me to be more one of prestige. Economically, Strasbourg would have less to lose than Luxembourg because the Parliament staff is not situated there and the benefits that flow from the siting of the Parliament there amount to less in relationship to the city's total economic activity. As to what the Community might offer Strasbourg, or France as a whole, in terms of compensation for this lost prestige, I do not know, and I should certainly like to consider the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. But I do know that the remorseless hospitality which the municipality of Strasbourg currently extends to the visiting Parliamentarians, most generously and undoubtedly most sincerely, should not distract us from these underlying issues.
When this issue is debated—and it turns up from time to time in the European Parliament—the discussion is sometimes clouded by references to the desirability of decentralising the Community's institutions. But a distinction needs to be drawn—and I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has drawn this clearly enough—between efficient and inefficient decentralisation. I am not at all against decentralisation as such. The European Investment Bank is provisionally sited in Luxembourg, and, as has been pointed out, is building its own headquarters there. The Commission has located in Luxembourg its computer centre and its statistical office, and of course the Court of Justice is in Luxembourg. The European Patents Office is in Munich, and I think that this is a process which can continue, and not only to the benefit of Luxembourg.
Moreover, I see a value in the European Parliament itself holding meetings throughout the Community. But these should not be plenary sessions; rather they should be committee meetings or delegations from the Parliament or from the Parliament's committees. I see a symbolic value in such meetings, but also a practical value in making the representatives much better informed about conditions of life in one another's Member-States. If the Community suc-
1376
ceeds in developing into an integrated political unit, I doubt whether there will exist anywhere in the world a political organism in which the representatives from one constituent part are so broadly and characteristically ignorant of life as it is led and organised in all its aspects in the others, and that for very obvious and understandable historical reasons. At the moment the tendency of the Bureau of the Parliament is to refuse or discourage such meetings outside the official places of work. I think this attitude is understandable because it is the only way that the Bureau of the Parliament can act against the excessive amount of travelling which the Parliament does. But once the problem has been dealt with at its root, and the Parliament has been permanently sited in one place, then I think the policy of the Parliament in that respect—that is, with regard to meetings of committees, delegations and so on—could be less restrictive. This could have great benefits for the general standard of knowledge and familiarity of the Members of the Parliament with what goes on throughout the Community; and still there would be an overall net saving of money.
Finally, with respect to the timing of this Question, I sec it as preparing the way for the debate which we will have in the near future rather than as likely to inaugurate now such a debate. I appreciate the great impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, with which he was bothering the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, but I think the subject will not occupy the forefront of discussion until the Council of Ministers decide on the number and distribution of seats to the first directly-elected Parliament.
One major step at a time is enough for the Council of Ministers; but immediately that decision is taken, and if the objective of holding the first direct elections in May or June 1978—and that, after all, is only two years away—is retained, then the discussion of this subject will have to come into the open. The physical preparations for receiving the first directly-elected Parliament will have to proceed in parallel with the passage of the legislation, at national level, to enable those elections to be held. For it seems to me that the public can only be asked to elect members to a European Parliament whose site is fixed, known and logically defensible.
8.31 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I rise to speak for only a few moments because I was an original member of the Council of the European Movement, appointed by Churchill, and because I was a member of the first British delegation that was sent to Strasbourg. I sat there for seven years; and I was jolly nearly elected President. I rise to say that between the years 1949 and 1952 we had a chance to lead a united Europe. They all begged us to do it, and we missed the boat. We turned down everything—the Iron and Steel Community, the European Army—and Spaak left in despair. We refused even to send a delegate to the Messina Conference. So we threw away the chance to lead a united Europe on our own terms. We missed the boat, and I do not think that chance will come again for a long time. I agree with what Sir Christopher Soames said the other day on television, that we shall be lucky if our grandchildren see an effective united Europe.
My Lords, all I want to say tonight is that one thing is hopeless, and that is this division between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The European Parliament, if it is ever to be an effective force, must sit in one place. I think that probably the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, is right when she says that Brussels would be the best. I myself would plump for Strasbourg because I have nostalgic memories of Strasbourg. It is a delightful town, with the most exquisite restaurants. I spent seven years there, and I should be sad that the lovely building which has been erected there should be given up. But the main point is that the Parliament of Europe should sit in one place and one place alone, and that this carting about of documents between Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. Even so, I have not much hope. I think the Commissions in Brussels are failing. I think that the whole conception of a united Europe is diminishing now, and a long time will elapse before it revives.
I remember travelling with Churchill from Milan to Strasbourg for the first meeting of the Council of Europe. He looked up to me at lunch—and it was a very good lunch—and said, "We have lit a fire that may blaze or may go out; but
1378
perhaps the embers will die down for a while and then revive again". I hope that happens. One of the troubles was that when Churchill formed his second Government in 1951 he himself lost interest in the united Europe movement, which he had himself launched. The late Lord Chandos, who was a Cabinet Minister, once told me that he could recall o occasion in that Government when the question of Europe was ever raised in Cabinet. He said, "If it had been, I should have been sceptical but interested". It never was.
There were only two members of that Cabinet who really believed in a united Western Europe, and they were Harold Macmillan and Lord Kilmuir, the then Lord Chancellor. They never raised it. Those who were fighting for it in Strasbourg—and I was one—had an awful time. Eden once said to me, "You know, I am not a European animal; I am an Atlantic animal. I am against you. I will not give you any help "; and he never did. Kevin was equally bad, I think that Eden and Kevin were two of the worst Foreign Secretaries this country has ever had, but I am afraid I will not command the wholehearted support of this House when I say that. I fought them both over the years: Bevin, over Israel, was disgraceful; Eden, over Europe, was almost as bad. So your Lordships will understand why I never held high Government office. It was because I did not agree with any of them. I have been a rebel all my life, and I am a rebel today. All I have to say to the Government is: Keep the European Parliament going at all costs, but keep it in one place.
8.38 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that, whatever else has come of this useful debate, none of us would have wished not to have heard that speech, with its wealth of reminiscence—pointed reminiscence—and the incomparable power of expression, if not of ultimate conviction, upon those who listened to it. As my noble friend Lord Boothby has said, he has been a steadfast, perhaps the most steadfast, advocate of a united Europe, and anything he has to say on this subject, whether or not we agree with him, is deserving of the most respectful attention.

1379
I am sure, also, that the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Northfield for the opportunity to discuss the question of a permanent site for the European Parliament. Let me say at once that I completely sympathise with members of the Assembly about the frustrations of the present arrangements. It remains an unfortunate fact that the Member States of the Community have never agreed on the seat of the Community's institutions, as stipulated in Article 216 of the Treaty of Rome. This has been going on since 1957. We are not likely to solve it by any dictum from this Box this evening. The difficulties of reaching agreement are recognised, indeed, in a most interesting annex to the 1965 merger Treaty—the one that constituted a single Council and brought the Commission into shape, which was something that the noble Lord, among others, had been advocating for a long time. That merger Treaty provided that Luxembourg, Brussels and Strasbourg shall remain the provisional places of work of the institutions of the Communities.
It is easy to be impatient with that arrangement in the light of experience, and it is right that we should be; but we must ask—and the noble Baroness reminded us of it and properly called it to mind—why Strasbourg was given a certain position in this arrangement. At that time it seemed to everybody, and certainly to me—it was the feeling and wisdom of the time—that to locate, at least in part, the European Parliament in this city might serve to be a perpetual symbol of something that Europe and the world had been seeking for centuries: the rapprochement of France and Germany. It seems that that was a major factor in deciding on that location.
Now, a good deal of the political objectives sought for in that location have been achieved. Franco-German rapprochement has developed immensely. It is one of the best things that have happened in Western Europe since the war, something that my generation almost despaired of seeing happening. But it has happened. Who is to say that, within the lights of their own wisdom and experience in those early days, those who decided that that should be part of the arrangement were not then right?
1380
Perhaps if this rapprochement, so central to the peace of Europe, and therefore of the world, had not been achieved, we should today be bemoaning the fact that we missed the boat when somebody proposed that this historical, cultural and political crossroads of Western Europe could have been selected to be the site of the European Parliament—" We missed that one". This is how we might have been talking today. Let us not talk about running away from questions like this. Our quarrel is not with the British Government that they have not solved this, as well as almost everything else in the world. Europe is a Europe of nine States. To this extent, General de Gaulle continues to be right. He saw that the eradication of nationalism is something of which perhaps democracy has not fully understood the complexities and difficulties.
My first point is this. We must face the fact that within the Nine there are varying views, as there arc in this House tonight, about where the single location should be. I take it for granted that everybody believes that there should be a single location. This is not necessary to argue. It is the question of where it ought to be that occupies us tonight, and indeed constantly occupies our European partners. There is a wide diversity of view and interest. More than one speaker here tonight has expressed himself in favour of Brussels. My noble friend has said that, at least for nostalgic reasons, he plumps for Strasbourg—I had an immediate vision of a Strasbourg duck when he said that. I understand this. A good deal of politics, and of effective politics, proceeds by imponderables.
However, whatever the diversity of view here, it may he that the balance of the argument here tonight is in one direction. There is a diversity—and I do not know that there is a balance of view—in Europe on this matter at the moment. We are bound to take that into consideration, and particularly that within that diversity there are points of real passion. Because of the wisdom of the past, both Luxembourg and France have today an almost ineradicable interest in this matter. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, led us along a temperate and constructive path when he reminded us of certain aspects of this, although making his own view pretty well clear. So it would be the height of stupidity for the British Govern-

1381
ment, or for any other partner Government in the West, at this point to issue a new case and say: "This is how we see it."
We have not even a direct interest. Not very many people have suggested that the Gordian knot could be cut by bringing the Parliament to London—or to Edinburgh. We have not got that kind of interest. Indeed, at a time when we bemoan the ubiquity of Parliamentary institutions, it is interesting to note that in these last few days we are invited to consider the possibility of a "Third Chamber" in the United Kingdom, at some distance from the present central point of Government in that Kingdom. Let us talk about these matters, but let us not insist they should be settled at a stroke, when they are great matters, they are bigger even than finance. We make mistakes of accountancy in finance; we may make mistakes of policy if we rush at this without getting the proper and necessary consensus—and within the very Community that we want to promote; and if I may borrow from my noble friend, the very Community which nowadays we must work to preserve.
So, my Lords, can we get this issue into perspective? There is a diversity of views. The British Government are studying, listening, talking to everybody about it, but are not arrogating to themselves the right to say, "This is where it should be", or, "how it should he." We stand by the sensible course of awaiting the Patijn report which, I understand, will be made available this summer. That report has been commissioned by the Assembly itself. Mr. Patijn will report this summer to the Assembly. The Assembly then will study and digest that report, including its recommendations. I think it will he the height of unwisdom, and indeed of arrogance, for any Foreign Minister, for any partner Government, at this time, when the Assembly itself has commissioned a report on this very issue, to intervene to say: "We think that this is how it ought to be done." I hope that Mr. Patijn will read this debate because every speech made in it has made a very substantial contribution to the practical thinking about this important matter.
When it goes to the Assembly, we think that it is the Assembly that ought to decide, or, at least, to recommend to the Council of Ministers, where the permanent
1382
location of the Parliament should be. It will then go to the Council of Ministers; and I can assure the House that, of course, as one of the Nine, the United Kingdom will take part in those discussions, listen to all views, examine carefully, as it is bound to do, the particularist concerns, certainly of two out of the Nine, and strive to come to—and this is the key phrase without which there can be no movement forward in Europe—common accord. You do not get common accord by pronouncing from any national dispatch box or any Foreign Office. This is not the shape or meaning of Europe.
I agree with the distinguished Member of the other place, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath, that we must look to the evolution of the mechanics of consensus in Europe and not be too much tied down to formalistic methods of decision. I am quite sure that when the time comes, when the report is presented, the Assembly will consider it. It conies to its own conclusion after all; it is for the Assembly more than any other body to decide where it shall meet. This indeed is the entitlement of any parish council, let alone an international Parliament. "Where are we going to meet? "Nobody suggests that anybody, except that body, should decide where it should meet. Nobody comes along and says, "You must meet there". Try it anywhere in this country or any other country with any local authority and see how far you get.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me? I am grateful to him for giving way. This is something almost new because in fact the Treaty says that it is the job of the Member States, not even the Council, to decide the seat of the institutions. Parliament has been inhibited for a long time, despite annual protests, from making an exact recommendation because it has felt its view was secondary to the agreement among the Member States. Is my noble friend suggesting now that the balance is swinging the other way and, despite what the Treaty says, the Ministers are going to be more than ever moved by what Parliament itself now suggests?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, obviously the Parliament is entitled to appoint a body to report to it about one of its most important functions; namely,

1383
where it should meet, and least expensively and most efficiently. It has done that. It will then come to a decision, I hope; and that decision, inevitably, will go to the Council of Ministers who will accord to it the greatest possible weight. It is at that point that we come in, like every other Government. The progression is there; it is not for a moment repugnant to the Treaty of Rome. One can argue about these things—how or from what certain movements and powers are derived. It is perfectly clear that the Assembly wishes to come to a decision which it will place before the Council of Ministers. That is the logical, natural thing to do. The Council of Ministers then will consider this and the principle of the veto will apply. But this is Europe; this is the Treaty of Rome.
Where is the quarrel? Who is to blame for holding things back? Nobody is to blame. This is the way that Europe has evolved, carrying with it the principle of the veto; and if the veto is not exercised at one point it will be exercised at another point, if a Member feels sufficiently strongly about an issue. It is the role of the United Kingdom, it is the role that the noble Lord is describing. Of course we shall try to give a lead. We are uninterested in a naturalistic sense; we are in a position at the right time, but not before an important report reaches the Assembly itself, to make suggestions in such a way that they will be listened to, and not set up new arguments among Members. This we shall do.
I was asked whether this matter had been discussed in the Council of Ministers. It has not been discussed formally. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it will certainly come up. It will come up in relation to two important matters: direct elections and powers. I hope that we are not too finicky about whether new powers or new methods of election come first or afterwards. We can argue for ever about the juxtaposition of these things. think that in the July meeting there may be an advance on these matters, certainly on direct elections, and with that, if they discuss it, the question of siting. Powers need a longer time to discuss. I hope—I cannot guarantee of course—that July will show some progress on this. If I am shown to be wrong, the quarrel will be with the calendar and not with me. We
1384
have achieved advances from one meeting to another; sometimes we have found that we have made no progress. As my noble friend said, let us keep it going and let us not quarrel among ourselves in Europe about the modalities when we ought to be studying afresh how to come ever closer about the policies.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.