Lords Sitting of 24 May 1978

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

LORD SEFTON OF GARSTON
William Henry Sefton, Esquire, having been created Baron Sefton of Garston, of Garston in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Raglan and the Lord Hamnett, and made the solemn Affirmation.
LORD DONNET OF BALGAY
Alexander Mitchell Donnet, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Donnet of Balgay, of Balgay, in the District of the City of Dundee, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath and the Lord Kirkhill.

Dr. YURI ORLOV'S TRIAL
2.36 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 reports they have received on the trial of Dr. Yuri Orlov with what he was charged; which charges in their view did not arise purely from his leadership of the group monitoring the Soviet Government's attitude to human rights following their promises at the Helsinki Conference; and what views they and our European Community partners have expressed to the Soviet Government.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Government have received reports from our embassy in Moscow that Professor Orlov was
956
indicted under Article 70 of the Russian Criminal Code, which deals with "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda"; the charges against him evidently related to his monitoring of Soviet implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. Her Majesty's Government have stated that they regard the treatment of Professor Orlov as harsh and unjustifiable and are concerned at its effect on the good relations between East and West which are so important to us all. The Soviet Government is in no doubt of these views.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. However, is it not a fact that the protests of successive British Governments since 1945 about the failure of the Soviet Union to carry out their obligations where human rights are concerned would fill a very large volume? For how long are protests to be regarded as substitutes for policies? Secondly, since the Soviet rulers have yet again breached their obligations under the United Nations covenants, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will make the terms of the co-operation agreement which is at present being renegotiated with Mr. Kirillin in London plainly subject to the Soviet Union carrying out their clear obligations under the United Nations covenants and with regard to the Helsinki promises?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think it is very important to remember what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, that the Soviet Union is one of the two great States of the world and that we must not cut off relations with her, however strongly and rightly we feel about human rights. To contemplate the alternative is really too horrible and we must not give up easily on this matter. We must press on with every means in our power to get adherence to the human rights principles which the Soviet Union freely signed at Helsinki.
On the second supplementary question which the noble Lord put to me, I think he has not quite got it right about the Joint Commission which is meeting this week in London, where Academician Kirillin will attend and where incidentally, as is routine in these matters, he will be received by the Prime Minister. This is

957
in fact a most important forum for the discussion of bilateral economic and scientific questions.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government realise that the kind of action which is being taken at present in respect of the Orlov case and the cases in which people are still being detained without any trial, such as Shcheransky and others, is horrifying the whole civilised world, and it is indicative of the kind of practice that existed at one time during the Stalin regime when innocent people were murdered under the pretext that they were doing some harm to the Soviet Union? I should like to ask my noble friend to get in touch with the other civilised nations so that protest can be made before the other trials take place, and so that other people may not be condemned in the same way as Orlov was condemned, on false accusations.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. The whole House appreciates my noble friend's particular interest in this subject. We are in touch with other Governments. The House will have noticed that the French, the German and the Netherlands Governments have already issued critical statements—as well as the United States, of course—and we are in touch with them all the time.
What exactly one can do to bring home to the Soviet Government the international condemnation of their attitude on human rights is, in a sense, a matter for opinion. But Her Majesty's Government are trying to adopt the tactics which will be most productive of a good result. And I think that detaching ourselves is not the right way to do it.
As to Alexander Ginzberg and Anatoly Shcheransky, whom my noble friend mentioned, the House will be very glad to know something that may not yet have appeared on the tape. Academician and Mrs. Sakharov delivered a message to the Moscow Embassy two days ago for the Prime Minister and the British Parliament. It is a very dignified and cogent statement and is about the Orlov trial. The British Government have taken note of it. It deals also with the future of those people like Shcheransky and Ginzberg who are
958
detained, but who have not yet been sentenced. We hope very much that international opinion will cause the Soviet Union not to proceed with those further trials.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that what we could do is not help the Soviet Union economically? We do, after all, give them credit, and in many ways we help them from the point of view of economics. The noble Baroness asks what we could do, apart from protest. Could we not do that? Why must we help the Soviet Union?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think it is important that we should keep all avenues open with the Soviet Union—cultural, economic, and every other kind—in the hope of influencing them on the human rights issue.
Lord WADE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness answer one question? Have representations been made to the Soviet Ambassador concerning the international implications of this trial and sentence?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I could not answer specifically about representations to the Ambassador, but I am quite sure that he will have read the newspapers. I am quite sure that he will know of the feeling in this country. I am also sure that the Joint Commission, which is coming from Russia this week, will be in a very good position to report back to its own Government on what the feeling is here.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I should like the noble Baroness first to understand that the last thing we on this side of the House would suggest—in view of what she said, repeating the Prime Minister's words—is that we wish to break off diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Just because we happen to disagree with political philosophies, we do not believe that the right thing is to break off diplomatic relations with countries, be they large or small. But in view of the fact that so much of the indictment of Dr. Orlov was concerned with the human rights aspect of the Helsinki Conference,

959
and his determination to do what he could to monitor whether or not the Soviet Government was living up to its promises —which was the only thing for the Russian people that came out of Helsinki—will the noble Baroness say whether Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to see that a member of his staff sought to attend the trial as a demonstration of the importance that Her Majesty's Government attach to it?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, yes, indeed. The Ambassador had discovered that the American Government had been refused permission to attend the trial. They felt that standing outside the court was not, in their sense, the best thing to do. It was reported in one daily newspaper that the American Government had been disappointed by our attitude. I can deny that completely. The American Government entirely understood our position. We think that we took the best action that we could in the circumstances.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether historical evidence does not show, from Lord Russell of Killowen's presence at the Dreyfuss trial onwards, the desirability of neutral observation of these trials, and whether it would not have been desirable at least to request the presence of an independent observer?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, sadly I am afraid that there was no chance of any neutral people being allowed at the trial.
Lord HARVEY of PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, while recognising her difficulties in this matter, that this particular case has caused worldwide indignation outside the Soviet and Communist countries, particularly in this country? Will the noble Baroness go a little further in what she has already said? I agree with my noble friend that there is no question of breaking off diplomatic relations; but must we not show rather more strength of will in making our protest really felt in the Soviet Union?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I cannot believe
960
that the world does not understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have condemned the action taken. In the words of the Foreign Secretary, it was harsh and unjustifiable. I think that that is going pretty far.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, whatever the might of the Soviet Union, what is happening to Dr. Orlov is a crime against humanity?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the whole House will, I am sure, endorse what the noble Lord has said.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the prime object of any protest is, in some way or other, to get through to the Russian people the abominable things which are being done in their name? Would she not agree that probably the best way of expressing our abhorrence in this particular instance would be for the Western countries to refuse to go to the Moscow Olympics?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I know very well that there is very strong feeling on this subject, but I must point out that, for instance, the selection of the site of the Olympics is a matter for the International Olympic movement. Participation in the Olympic Games is primarily a matter for individual athletes and above all for the national Olympic associations. I think human rights is one of the most difficult questions that faces the civilised world at the moment. The British Government have one standard for human rights throughout the world. But our tactics in dealing with particular nations must be those that are most productive in each case. That is exactly what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Soviet Union knows that the consequences of ignoring Western protests are absolutely nil, and that we are going down the road of appeasement which got us into such trouble in the past?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I do not agree with that. I feel that the Soviet Government have taken notice of international protest, particularly if one remembers the protests on the psychiatric question. I think that there has been some movement there as a result of international protest, particularly British protests and those by fellow practitioners in the psychiatric profession.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, by what criteria are Her Majesty's Government guided in deciding whether there is any link between provision of trade and aid on the one side and the suppression of human rights on the other? This is clearly recognised where Uganda is concerned. It is clearly recognised where South Africa is concerned. It is recognised in the new draft preamble to the Lomé Convention, which Her Majesty's Government support. But it is not recognised, for reasons which I cannot understand, where the Soviet Union is concerned. Why, may I ask?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is simply a misconception and an oversimplification of the whole situation. Of course it is recognised. But we do not give aid to Russia in the sense that we gave it to Uganda. The solutions to the two problems are entirely different. I must be absolutely honest with the House. I see no easy solution to the problems of human rights in the Soviet Union.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, will the noble Baroness help us a little by affirming—and I hope that she will find this acceptable—that, when a crime similar to this one takes place in the Soviet Union, it is of course helpful if important and unimportant people express their personal abhorrence, but there are certain special occasions on which it is important that Her Majesty's Government are seen to be protesting clearly and loudly?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is precisely why we have done what we have done. We have condemned it roundly.

OPERATING THEATRES: INFECTION RISKS
2.50 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandys.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what immediate measures are being taken by the Government to improve conditions in operating theatres which give rise to high risk of surgical wound infections.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of any developments which indicate the need for immediate action. Stringent measures are used routinely by staffs concerned to reduce the risk of infection to a minimum and arrangements exist for local control of infection committees to keep under review all matters relating to control of infection in hospitals.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, But in view of the evidence collected by a retired surgeon from Lewisham Hospital, will the Minister draw the attention of his Department to the need for further investigation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the survey at Lewisham Hospital in 1975, to which publicity has recently been given, was the result of the interest of Mr. Bingold, then a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the hospital. No comparable group of patients was examined in any other hospital and it is not, therefore, possible to determine whether the rate of infection was higher than elsewhere. The overall figure of 3,000 avoidable deaths is a supposition based on what happened in the view of one person at one hospital, when there was no investigation of a comparable nature at any other hospital in the country.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, if there is an investigation proceeding, will Her Majesty's Government give particular attention to the fact that, owing to the closing of a great many

963
operating theatres due to the closure of hospitals, there may be undue pressure on the operating theatres which are still functioning?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of the situation; but we are dealing with infection, and it is to that that I wish to direct your Lordships' attention.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that infection will occur if there is too much pressure on an operating theatre and things occur too quickly?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is not necessarily so. The number of germs in your Lordships' Chamber has increased considerably since 2.15 p.m. today when so many of us entered the Chamber. The same is so in an operating theatre. Whatever precautions are taken, there must be a number of people in an operating theatre in order to undertake the operations, and one can never tell the extent or the state of infection which they themselves bring to the theatre.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SCHEMES
2.54 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people are now being helped by the temporary employment subsidy and other similar schemes, and what proportion of the total are receiving training for permanent industrial employment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, statistics published yesterday show that 166,750 workers are currently benefiting from the temporary employment subsidy and a further 145,257 are being assisted under the other special employment and training measures of the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission.
964
People receive training for permanent industrial employment in certain elements of the Youth Opportunities Programme (YOP) and in the training places supported in industry by the special measures programme. These people represent about 10 per cent. of all those currently covered by the special measures. In addition, a further 36,000 people are receiving vocational training under the Manpower Services Commission's permanent Training Opportunities Scheme.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although it may be of temporary, and certainly of political, advantage to take 300,000 people off the employment register—and broadly we support most of those schemes which incidentally involved spending £900 million over the past three years—is it not true that in the long run, if more of these young people are given training for industry, it will be to their advantage and to their country's advantage? Will the Government consider raising the number of people—currently 50 per cent.—who are now receiving some sort of industrial training?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, let me first say that it is a question not of political advantage but of giving people an opportunity to have some experience of employment instead of receiving considerable sums of money in total in unemployment benefit, and standing about idly in the streets. Furthermore, I should draw your Lordships' attention—this is more or less in general reply to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing —to the fact that the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Opportunities Programme which began only on 1st April will provide 234,000 young people aged 16 to 18 with an opportunity of training and receiving work experience in a full year. Work experience is, in fact, training. In that way unemployed young people will be prepared to take up permanent employment. The £160 million a year already pledged for YOP should ensure that all summer or Easter school-leavers who are still unemployed by next Easter will be offered a place on the programme. I should say quite definitely that that is public money well spent.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that reports by the

965
National Economic Development Council and other reputable bodies of that kind, have shown that shortages in a number of skilled occupations constitute a serious potential constraint on our future economic growth?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is so. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. In point of fact, before I came into the Chamber I was reading the Eastern Daily Press in which it said that, although there was a welcome drop in unemployment, there was in fact quite a considerable shortage of skilled workers. I am sure that what is happening in East Anglia is happening elsewhere. Training for skilled workers is vitally important. Even in firms which have a temporary employment subsidy — the temporary employment subsidy keeps skilled workers training and at work, so that the firms can pick up—the shortage of skilled workers is a problem and one that the country must face up to.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of us want to congratulate the Government most heartily on the splendid job of work that they are doing in this area? However, would he not agree that perhaps the time has come when we should make compulsory the block release schemes and the day release schemes which are having such a great measure of success in other European countries?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is another question. However, as regards the day release schemes, which have tended to drop in number, there is a case for them being extended, and that is a question for industry, the unions and other authorities to decide. However, it is certainly a problem that must be faced.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us to what extent the technological advances of the past few years have been responsible for creating unemployment? If he cannot tell us, is that not a matter as regards which the Government should make some inquiries?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is a matter into which I should not care to go in great detail at present. However, it is quite obvious that as new technological methods are introduced
966
other methods cease to exist in various firms, and again the question is one of retraining for a new skilled job.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it would be better to spend more money on training skilled people for new and expanding industries than to spend so much money propping up and subsidising declining industries?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I agree that it is worth while spending money on training skilled people; but do not let us forget that skilled people must be serviced by semi-skilled and unskilled people. It is a question of the whole team and not just one section of it.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that any creation of jobs in the present circumstances is obviously desirable, and that we accept that? In my first supplementary question I asked that greater emphasis be placed on training for industry. Those of us who are trying to attract people to take up jobs in industry are having the greatest difficulty in filling vacancies. Therefore, not 50 per cent. of the Government's effort, but 75 per cent. or even more of their effort should be directed to industrial training, which mould not only improve the usefulness of the young men, but would also be of considerable benefit as our economy and industry expands.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is being done. Industry itself is doing a considerable amount; it probably could do more. We must not overlook the contribution of the Manpower Services Commission in this respect. It is accepted by the Commission, the Government and the industries involved that this is an important issue. I can assure the noble Lord that everything possible is being done. If there is any way in which he feels that more could be done and he has specific information, I shall be grateful to receive it.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the Employment Protection Act is not exactly conducive to increasing employment?

INTERPRETATION BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Interpretation Act 1889 and certain other enactments relating to the construction and operation of Acts of Parliament and other instruments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
Read 2a and committed to a Select Committee.
KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL
Read 2a and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
3.3 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
Standing Order 53
After paragraph (3) insert—
"(4) In this Standing Order" "stages of a Bill" means First Reading, Second Reading, Committee of the Whole House, Report, Third Reading, Consideration of Commons Amendments and Consideration of Commons Reasons.".
Standing Order 54
In line 1 leave out "any stage of".
Standing Order 61
After "Procedure Committee" insert "Sound Broadcasting Committee." —(Lord Peart.)
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, could the noble Lord confirm that to leave out the words "any stage of" in Standing Order 54 in no way alters the meaning of the present Standing Order 54? It could give the impression that the quorum of 30 would not apply to a Committee stage. Will the noble Lord confirm that this is merely a tidying-up endeavour, and that the necessity of having 30 in the House during a Committee stage, a Report stage, and First or Second Readings will still apply?
Lord PEART: My Lords, yes. These Amendments are consequential upon the Report of the Procedure Committee, which has been agreed by the House. The First Report was agreed to on 11th May.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is confirming my interpretation?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I said, Yes. That is better than, No, is it not?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Amendments for the Report Stage be marshalled and considered in the following order, vizt:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 18,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 19 to 22,

Schedule 3,

Clause 23,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clause 24,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 25 to 39,

Schedule 7,

969

Clause 40,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 41 to 58,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 59 to 61,

Schedule 10 and 11,

Clauses 62 and 63,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 64 to 67,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 68 and 69,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 70 to 79,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 80 to 82,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 83 and 84,

Schedule 16.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

WALES BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Wales Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, vizt.:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 9,

Schedules 2 and 3,

Clauses 10 to 36,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 37 to 56,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 57 to 59,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 60 to 63,

Schedule 8,

Clause 64,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 65 to 76,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 77 to 81,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 82 and 83,

Schedule 11.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS [AMENDMENT] BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Bill read 3a.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures.
("1.—(1) In the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, for the word "protected" there shall be substituted the word "endangered" except in section 5 and in the definition of "protected plant" in section 15(1).
(2) In section 10(d) of the principal Act, after the word "or" there shall be inserted the word "protected,".").
The noble Lord Said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for putting down on the Third Reading what seems to be a rather long list of Amendments to this Bill. Of course, the custom of the House is that no new matters should be raised on Third Reading but that it should be used as what one might describe colloquially as a "nuts and bolts" exercise. That is exactly what I am trying to do, because the object of the Bill as it was first drafted—and I think that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will agree with me—was, in fact, not to touch plants at all but to give certain added protection to vulnerable and rare wild creatures.
It will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak not only to Amendment No. 1 but also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 13, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 being duplicates because they are in the Schedule. The substantive part of Amendment No. 1—and, indeed, the others—is to make quite clear the distinction in this Bill between creatures and wild plants. The principal Act—the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975—was very much to the point so far as plants were concerned in that it gave two completely separate categories of plant. These were those that were then called the "protected plants", which are to be found in Schedule 2 to the Act, which in effect cannot be touched by any means except by an authorised person; that is to say, they cannot be picked,

971
uprooted, destroyed, run over with a bulldozer or whatever. Every other plant had all these protections, with the sole exception that they were allowed to be picked.
In the Bill as it now stands plants can be put into the Schedule only if they are in danger of extinction. The point at issue here is that many of the plants are not in fact in danger of extinction. I should like to mention just two from the current Schedule, that is, Schedule 2 to the Act. The Spiked Speedwell—Veronica spicata—has only four stations and these are currently threatened by ploughing and by proposed tree planting. In other words, that plant is not in danger of extinction by virtue of offences under the Act or the Bill at all. Secondly, Gentiana verna is reasonably widespread and has about 55 stations in England, but it is declining rapidly in vigour in at least one station and is sparse and very local in most of the others. So it could well be argued that these plants would never have got into Schedule 2 if the Bill was part of the original Act.
Perhaps more important is the fact that both Schedules for creatures and wild plants will come up for revision in 1980. There are two plants in particular which would greatly benefit from being included in the Schedule and which—because they are not strictly speaking in danger of extinction—will, as I understand it under the terms of this Bill, never get there. They are Lencajum Vernum, the Spring Snowflake, and Cyclamen Hederifolium, the Autumn Sowbread, both of which only exist in up to five stations and are rapidly declining, but which are not in any sense as yet in danger of extinction.
My Amendment, therefore, is to reinstate the position as it was in the Act. In order to do that I am afraid that I have been slightly long-winded. However, I have set out to keep the creatures part of the Bill as it is at present and to exclude the plants, and wherever the word "endangered" occurs with reference to plants, to put it back to being "protected". I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am not a botanist and I am prepared to fall in with the advice of my noble friend, in particular because it is supported, I
972
think, by the Botanical Society of the British Isles and also the Nature Conservancy Council. But I must offer one word of warning, because from what my noble friend said it is quite clear that this is slightly debasing the currency. If we go too far it could lead to a very considerable increase in the number of wild plants put on Schedule 2, which means that it will become increasingly difficult for the man in the street to realise what plants are on Schedule 2; there is a greater risk of him unwittingly committing an offence because he does not realise which plants he may pick. It only stops plants being picked; no plant may be uprooted, as my noble friend said. Provided this power to add to Schedule 2 is not abused, I should be perfectly happy, but it does mean that it will have to be done with discretion or it could do serious damage.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and, if I may do so in passing, congratulate him on his absolutely first-class display at Chelsea this week. In addition to that, there was one point in the noble Lord's speech which I did not entirely follow. The Speedwell he referred to would surely be on the Schedule anyway, because it is not necessary that a plant should be in danger from the specific threats with which the Bill deals. So long as it is in danger of extinction at all, it should be, and it has every right to be, on the Schedule. Apart from that point, however, I think that to extend it in this way, providing, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, says, care is taken not to spread the net too wide, is a very good thing. I would certainly support it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, if I may very briefly answer both noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is worried about the possibility of a large number of plants appearing on the Schedule. May I say that the alternative is to me absolutely mind-boggling? It means two Schedules, one of completely protected plants and one which in fact gives much the same protection as the general protection given to all other kinds of plant. I think that, certainly at this stage and until we have any good reason to approach the Government on this score for a second or even a third time, we should do better to leave it as I

973
have suggested. The other point was about the danger of extinction. The Act, I agree, talks about danger per se; the Bill talks about "in danger of extinction", and these are two completely different things.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("or marking").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Section 3 of the 1975 Act it is an offence to mark or put identifying rings or other similar things upon what we now call endangered wild species. Very little harm is done to an animal by marking it. The common way is to put, for instance, a dab of nail varnish on to a snail or the wing of a butterfly, so that one can identify it again and realise that one has seen it before. That is a very convenient way of finding the density of the total population. So far as vulnerable wild creatures on Schedule 3 are concerned, it does no harm at all. But there does seem to be a possibility that, under Clause 3 of the Bill, it might be prohibited although that was not intended. This is just a series of drafting Amendments intended to make it clear that that would be allowed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 37, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("or wild plant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 1, as amended by the Correction Slip, leave out ("and") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships on this particular occasion for having got myself into a muddle at the Report stage. My noble friend moved this Amendment on Report, and I was incautious enough at that stage to say that it made not a jot of difference. In fact I have now been re-reading this and I believe it makes a great deal of difference, in that it makes the wording of the Bill very much easier to follow. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, this is really a semantic argument that I have had with the noble Lord on two previous occasions. The real question is whether age should give way to youth or youth give way to age. I think perhaps age might give way to youth on this occasion.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
("(aa) if any wild plant has become so rare that its status as a British plant is being endangered by any action designated as an offence under this Act and that it should be included in Schedule 2 either generally or with respect to a particular area or in relation to a particular category or has become so common that its status is no longer endangered and it should be removed therefrom; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendment of S.14 of principal Act]:
Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the statement mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this has been a continual thread in our debates on this Bill, and the Government, in the shape of the noble Baroness, have promised to come up with an answer. If I may rather naughtily remind her, this is the Third Reading and, in a sense—as it said on a notice on the desk of one American President—the buck stops here. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very patient with us through the preceding stages of this Bill and we have tried to meet his requirements. But we have finally to tell the House that we have come up with a considered opinion that there are other cases where Government action is based on the advice of a body like the Nature Conservancy Council, and that if we were to require in every case that a statement should be laid before the House it would be a very serious additional burden on the two Houses, as well as on the Government.
We have looked into all sorts of suggestions which were made to us in the two previous stages. I have looked at a number of possibilities, including use of the Pink Paper, and inclusion in the explanatory note which is printed with every order. I find that the Pink Paper can only list Command Papers, Lords' Papers and Lords' Bills, and the NCC statement could not, therefore, be included. As for the explanatory note attached to an order, that may only explain the effect of the order, and has to be as short as possible. Therefore the justification for the policy is expressly excluded. We looked at several other fringe ideas as well which did not come to anything, and while I fully accept the reasons and the concern of the noble Lord I think the best that I can do for him at this stage—I appreciate, as he said, that the buck stops here—is to undertake that a Question will be put down on each occasion that changes are made to the Schedules. This will ensure that the availability of the NCC advice is reported in Hansard. I understand from Mr. Goldsmith of my Department, who has been dealing with this, that this solution might perhaps be acceptable to both noble Lords opposite. I think this is really the best we can come up with at this point.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, in fact the buck started with me. I think the noble Baroness has put forward an admirable solution, and I hope that my noble friend will accept it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for going to all this trouble to sort out a sensible solution, and most certainly I accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as amended.]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 20, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 23, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 40, after second ("or") insert ("protected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£200").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to do with a provision of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and it ought to be on the Schedule. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I hardly gathered from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whether this was merely a technical and legal change or whether it was an alteration in substance—that is to say, doubling the existing possible fine from £100 to £200. If it is a substantial increase in the fine I wish to oppose it and I should like to be able to give my reasons for doing so.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, the Act to which I referred put up a very large number of fines, and this was among them. I am not putting it up on its merits and I hope the noble Lord will not want me to discuss its merits. I am merely putting it here because it is now the law of the land under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I still adhere to my view that it would be excessive to increase this fine from £100 to £200. The noble Earl referred to recent increases that were prescribed in certain fines, but we must bear in mind that this particular piece of legislation was not at that stage on the Statute Book.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, this is an Amendment to the Act of 1975, not to my Bill. It is an Amendment to the Act of 1975 which was made by the Act of 1977. I think that if the noble Lord had wanted to alter it he would have had to put down an Amendment, because it is now the law of the land.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, perhaps it would help my noble friend behind me if I confirm what the noble Earl said. The penalty in Section 11(1) of the Act was increased by the Criminal Law Act 1977. This was not noticed when this Bill was drafted, and this is purely a technical correction.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if it is a technical correction I have nothing more to say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No.13:
978
Page 13, line 15, leave out ("endangered") and insert ("protected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so I must first thank all those of your Lordships who have helped me to improve this Bill since we gave it a Second Reading: the noble Baroness opposite and her department who have been of the greatest help to me, and those of your Lordships who have made suggestions which have been incorporated in the Bill. It is certainly a very much better Bill than it was when I first presented it. In particular I should like to thank noble Lords for agreeing to Amendments which have made this Bill conform to what must be an essential feature of any conservation Bill—that it should not unnecessarily put the man in the street in danger of committing an offence if that can be avoided. The Bill now conforms in that way.
By definition the wild creatures which are placed on Schedule 3 are not being endangered by killing or taking, and the Bill therefore provides that it shall not be an offence for the man in the street to kill one, either inadvertently or even on purpose. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on Second Reading, there are a number of people who dislike spiders and cannot resist jumping on one if they see it, and if one with that little phobia jumps on a protected spider he does no harm and it would not be an offence. It also allows the field naturalist to continue his ordinary studies; to capture, identify, and now mark and then release a wild creature and continue with his studies and research. Your Lordships would doubtless feel that that is something right and proper for a Bill of this nature to provide for.
The Nature Conservancy Council does not agree with that proposal. The Nature Conservancy Council would put all these wild creatures on Schedule I of the existing Act, which was intended, like Schedule 2 to which my noble friend has recently referred, to give protection to wild creatures which are being endangered

979
by killing or taking. It can only do that; it only does that; but it gives such complete protection that the man in the street would be committing an offence if he had unwittingly killed or taken one and the field naturalist would be unable to pursue his ordinary studies and research to which I have referred. That of course is directly contrary to what we have come to feel is, as I said earlier, an essential feature of any conservation Act, and we take all the trouble that we can to prevent people from being put at risk of that sort.
Let me remind your Lordships that a very large number of wild creatures which are now going to be placed on the Schedule—certainly the ones that I have placed already on Schedule 3—are invertebrates, largely insects, largely ones (and I am an enthusiastic naturalist) which I would not be able to identify myself without a great deal of trouble, several books and probably some scientific papers. You cannot expect the man in the street to be able to keep himself up to date with that sort of problem. The trouble is that this is not a scientific problem; it is a legislative one for which we have to take the necessary decisions. The Nature Conservancy Council is obviously designed to give scientific advice, but not necessarily advice on legislative problems which are the essential prerogative of your Lordships and of Members of another place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me that we must have this amendment. We must have this Schedule 3 in order to protect the people for whom we are responsible; that is, the man in the street, as well as the creatures that we wish to protect. The way that the Nature Conservancy Council suggests doing it is contrary to every reasonable canon for a conservation Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say that I think the whole House is most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. We are lucky that he has recovered his health to enable him to come from a bed of sickness and move these Amendments and take part so ably. My noble friend
980
Lord Skelmersdale has added his expertise in his field, and I would be churlish if I did not say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that I think that in meeting Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment No. 7 today she has come up extremely well with her suggestion. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook wanted this. I did not think that there would be such a simple answer, and I think that she and the Government have done extremely well on this. This is a non-Party measure, and from these Benches we can only say "Thank you" to the Government for meeting my two noble friends' points so well.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I say from these Benches that I appreciate the comments that have been made from noble Lords opposite, and also the comments that have been made about the help rendered by my officials. It is nice to know when they go out of their way to help us that it is appreciated, and it is nice to have it said in public. When I came to this Dispatch Box at Second Reading I had to advise your Lordships' House that, in the view of the Nature Conservancy Council, this piece of legislation was neither necessary nor desirable, and everything it sought to do could be done by existing legislation. The noble Earl did not accept that. We have had much consultation and he has given a great amount of time in discussion on this Bill, with the result that the Bill as amended is one that we can be very proud of in this House. We should like from this side of the House to offer our congratulations to the noble Earl, and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the work they have done on this Bill. It leaves the House now in a very satisfactory state.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, since my name has been referred to I think far too often in the course of these exchanges, perhaps I should say that I do not regard myself as being in any sense on a par with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber I have learnt a tremendous amount from him, and I hope I shall continue to do so for many years to come.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING CORPORATION GUARANTEE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

FILMS BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Birkett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 6 of Films Act 1960.]:
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved the Amendment:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("for Trade").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a purely drafting Amendment, which I hope will cause your Lordships no trouble at all. As you will see from the copy of the Bill you have in your possession, application is required to be made to the Secretary of State for Trade. Although it is the Secretary of State for Trade who administers the films legislation, your Lordships will not need me to tell you that it is not customary to refer to the Secretaries of State including their departmental title. This deletion which will make the reference just to the "Secretary of State" will bring the Bill in line with all other legislation. I beg to move.
Lord BIRKETT: I should only like to say that I stand totally in awe of Parliamentary draftsmanship and have no objection whatsoever to offer to this. I recommend the Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
3.36 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I get into the general discussion and my remarks on the Bill, I should like to declare an interest, in that I have been a member of a co-operative society for well over 50 years, having been entered by my mother at, I think, the age of 17 or 18. Ever since I have kept my membership in my married life, and my wife and my children are members of the co-operative society, and we are all part of a share-owning democracy; but I do not profess to be a tycoon as I appear to be one of about 10½ million members. Having declared that interest, I think that I had better get on with the Bill.
I should like to say something first about the background to the Bill. It is a very significant Bill, and before I briefly describe its content and what it aims to achieve, I should say something about the general background which has led to the Bill. Some of us, at least, and I suspect a substantial proportion of your Lordships' House, are already well aware of the long co-operative tradition in this country. We have among us a number of noble Lords who have made a notable contribution to the record of co-operative endeavour and achievement. Very briefly I think it would be rather appropriate at this time, particularly as this morning we paid tribute to the work and life of the late Lord Peddie, that we should acknowledge the monumental contribution that the late Lord Peddie made to the co-operative movement.
The origins of co-operation are obscure and perhaps even debatable. I have seen suggestions that they may be traced as far back as 3,000 BC to co-operative tenant farming in Babylon and the burial

983
benefit and craftsmen's societies of ancient Greece. Therefore, it would appear that the Prudential had prodecessors. That is as it may be. Certainly the earliest co-operative shop was opened in Toad Lane, Rochdale, in 1844, when the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers was first registered. From these small beginnings a worldwide movement developed.
The range of co-operative activities is very large. In many minds the word "co-operative" conjures up the image of the High Street shop of the retail consumer society. There are some 200 such societies in membership of the Co-operative Union, with some 10½ million members. The Co-operative Wholesale Society is the central organisation set up by the retail societies to buy collectively on their behalf, to engage in manufacturing and to provide technical and advisory services for them. The Co-operative Bank and Co-operative Insurance Society are wholly owned subsidiaries of the CWS. These are large and successful organisations.
At the other end of the scale are the relatively small organisations in the industrial field. First, the Co-operative Productive Federation, which is the trade association representing a number of traditional producer co-operatives. There is also the more recently formed Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM), inspired by the very successful Scott Bader Commonwealth at Wollaston, Northamptonshire. In agriculture, we have the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, which was set up in 1967 as a statutory body to encourage and promote co-operation in production and marketing, and to act as agents of the Government in administering a grant scheme. Over 400 agricultural co-operative societies in Britain belong to the Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives (UK) Limited. Other central organisations represent the interests of co-operation in the fishing industry, housing and credit unions.
There are, thus, a number of representative organisations in the various cooperative sectors. However, in recent years the co-operators have expressed the view that something more is now required a new new body to keep a general watch over the whole range of their
984
varied activities, to provide a perspective and co-ordinate a co-operative viewpoint. This need was discussed at successive Co-operative Congress and has led to a call for the Government to establish a Co-operative Development Agency. In March last year my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry set up a working group to develop further the idea of a Co-operative Development Agency as a body to give advice and guidance to co-operatives of all kinds and to speak for the Co-operative movement as a whole. The members of the working group came from many sectors of cooperative activity and from Government Departments interested in various aspects of co-operation. They set obout their task with due diligence and urgency and their report was published last October—Cmnd. 6972.
The report did not contain unanimous recommendations. Possibly that was to be expected, given the very different natures of the co-operative organisations participating. But there was a good measure of agreement among the Cooperative movement representatives on the working group. It is perhaps not entirely surprising that there should be two views on some of the detailed recommendations. These were published side by side in the report, and both were very carefully considered by the Government. The Bill now before your Lordships' House seeks to implement the recommendations of the majority report.
The essential point of difference between the majority and minority points of view concerned the method of appointing the members of the agency. Four members of the working group from some of the smaller, relatively recently founded and less developed sectors of co-operative activity—namely, housing, credit unions and common ownership—proposed that not less than one-half of the members should be appointed by participating co-operative organisations on an equal basis. This minority suggested that each organisation, regardless of size, should appoint one member. All the larger, longer established organisations objected to the proposal on the grounds that it ignored the disparities of size between them and would require too large and unwieldy a membership.
The majority view was supported also by some of the organisations representing

985
the less developed sectors of activity—producer co-operatives, credit unions, agricultural co-operatives, fisheries cooperatives—and by the member from USDAW representing the trade union viewpoint. After very careful consideration of both reports, the Government decided to accept the majority recommendation that the power to make appointments to the agency should vest in the Secretary of State, who would have to consult with and seek nominations from all classes of co-operative organisation to ensure so far as possible that the governing board of the agency comprehends the whole range of the movement's interests. It is important to set into context the background of what has led up to the drafting of this Bill.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The object of the Bill is to establish a Co-operative Development Agency. Clause 1 provides for the Agency to be established as a corporate body to perform the functions specified in Clause 2. The clause provides that the Agency will have a chairman and between four and eight other members who will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Before making such appointments, he must consult with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the Co-operative movement. But there is no requirement to appoint only people thus nominated.
The essential substance of the Bill is in Clause 2, which specifies the Agency's functions. These are designed to further the interests of the Co-operative movement generally and are based on the majority recommendations of the working group report. The need is for a new body which will work with the existing co-operative organisations to co-ordinate and facilitate the development of co-operative activities both in the existing areas of economic activity and in possible new ares. The Agency will not be expected to duplicate functions already being carried out by existing representative organisations. It will gather information from co-operative undertakings at home and abroad. It will undertake research studies to show how the co-operative approach might serve the public interest in particular circumstances. It will have power to propose co-operative projects wherever its studies and research show that there is a worthwhile opportunity.
986
The role of the Agency is advisory, promotional and representational. It will be able to give guidance to individuals, co-operatives and co-operative representative organisations. It will appraise and evaluate projects and give advice accordingly. Its aim will be to encourage the development of successful co-operatives. Co-operation is not seen as a cure-all in every circumstance. The emphasis will be on founding co-operatives after a thorough appraisal of the prospect for viability, taking into account the importance of ensuring proper organisation, management and financing. The Agency will not dispose of public funds for investment in co-operative ventures, but it should be able to facilitate finance for sound co-operative projects by helping with the applicant's presentation of his case to the source of finance appropriate to his needs.
The Agency will have also the important task of providing a forum for discussion and debate within the Co-operative movement. If the Agency is to achieve its representational objectives, it will be necessary to reconcile differences of interest and approach. The Working Group was confident that the Agency would be able to represent a common co-operative viewpoint on matters of major importance and to exercise a strong and persuasive influence in resolving differences of opinion and conflicts of interest.
Clause 3 of the Bill gives the Agency the ancillary powers necessary to discharge its functions and in particular to borrow money to do this and to meet its obligations. It also prohibits the Agency from doing certain specified things. The Secretary of State is authorised under Clause 4 of the Bill to make grants to the Agency up to a maximum total of £900,000. The working group estimated the annual cost of running the Agency to be about £300,000 and recommended that the Government should bear as launching finance the whole of the estimted cost of establishing and running it for three years. The Government accepted that recommendation. After this formative period, during which the Agency should develop its own sense of corporate purpose, its finances will be expected to derive from voluntary contributions from the Co-operative movement and income generated by the charging of fees for the Agency's services. The Secretary of State

987
is also empowered to increase the maximum total grant within a ceiling figure of £1·5 million by order made by Statutory Instrument which will have to be approved by Resolution in another place.
Clause 5 and Schedule 2 contain provisions concerning the accounts and auditing arrangements relating to the Agency. By virtue of Clause 6 the Agency will have to make an annual report on its operations to the Secretary of State, who will be under a duty to lay copies before both Houses of Parliament. The remaining clauses deal with the technical and financial provisions, the Short Title, and the extent of the Bill.
That, very briefly, is what the Bill is all about. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a worthwhile and useful measure, deserving of our support and encouragement. One of its many merits —or, at least, it seems so to me—is that it is relatively simple and uncontroversial. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in another place, and I am sure that the Co-operative movement will be greatly heartened by the good will expressed on that occasion, as well as that which I am sure will be expressed in your Lordships' House. This is a simple Bill, but the idealism behind it has its practical use. The Bill contains a tremendous opportunity, given good will from this House, together with the efforts of the newly formed Agency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
3.51 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for explaining this very important but small Bill concerning the Co-operative Development Agency. First, I want to pay my tribute to Lord Peddie. Though I was never in the position in which I had to oppose him from this side of the House, I well remember him, and I recall in particular the amount of work he did on the insurance Bill, and I know also of the amount of work he did in the Cooperative movement. I also want to pay tribute to another very great friend of your Lordships, Lord Rusholme. He was one of the first, and one of the
988
outstanding, members of the Co-operative movement. He was a personal friend of both my father and myself, and it was a sad clay when he left this House a year or more ago.
We are extremely interested in the Bill, and we on this side of the House will do whatever we can to assist its passage. Part of the importance of the Bill derives from the question of the competition which has arisen in the past few years. I notice that the co-operative shops have had a very hard hammering from the large chain stores throughout the country. The co-operative shops have had to enter into competition with the large chain stores. I recall, during the time that I was a member of the co-operative society, the small butchers and other retailers whom I knew. The noble Lord said that he, too, was a member. I recall in particular my local cobbler, who, during the war, gave me an excellent service keeping my shoes repaired.
Like other noble Lords, I consider this Bill to be important. I am interested to probe into it, but I hope that your Lordships will find that I am not controversial in doing this. Through many generations small groups of people in these islands have set themselves up in business or in agencies, and quality in both goods and manpower has been built up through these small firms: the co-operative society is but one of them.

I feel that I am wearing two hats today —and I have a small head, I hope. I am concerned with completely backing the Bill in every way possible, as well as improving it, and assisting its passage. I believe that during the Second Reading, as well as the Committee stage, we can do much good to help the proposed Development Agency. The first hat that I am wearing is concerned with what I regard as the sensible idea in the Bill to form a new body to extend the interests of the co-operative society. This will be dealt with under the Bill by the Secretary of State, and there will be a membership —I believe the noble Lord said—of over 400. I am sure that in the long run this will he a great help for the future.
A number of new situations are developing within the country, and I believe that as long as the Development Agency is viable it will serve a good purpose.

989
However, if inexperienced people, who do not know what they are dealing with, join the Agency it might run into danger, which it can ill afford. I think that the United Kingdom will benefit from parts of the Bill.
The second hat that I am wearing is a hat of suspicion. I said earlier that I was probing into the Government's intentions to find out more about what is proposed for the future. Here I have in mind the possibility that the co-operative society could link up with, or buy up, or move into, another company through politics, and I should not regard that as very safe. I feel that a danger could possibly arise here. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this; indeed, I hope that he might correct me. But a possible danger I see is that a group of people could purposely damage a firm or company, which could then become a member of an agency within the co-operative society. Such people could do that because they were embittered with the small firm concerned, or for other reasons. A small group of embittered members of the working force of a concern might run it down, and then go to the Secretary of State and say, "We can go on if you give us the money". I should like to be told that giving money in such a situation is not in the Government's mind. However, that is one of the worries I have regarding the Bill.
Co-operatives are well known throughout the world. Yugoslavia is well known for its co-operative society. China and Russia also have co-operatives; some work, and some do not. The Chinese agricultural communes or co-operatives are working self-sufficiently. I doubt that the Russian agricultural co-operative groups are working as well as that; nevertheless, they are well known. I believe that so long as there are no politics being operated within the movement, it can work to a good end, provided that there is a viable situation under which the movement can go into an agency of one form or another.
The noble Lord referred to the board, and said that the Secretary of State would probably he given a list of people to go on the board. Some questions arise here. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State was not happy with the situation; or let us suppose that a Conservative Government
990
were in power. Would there be a problem here? Alternatively, let us suppose there was a Left-Wing Government. Would a problem arise in such circumstances because nobody would agree, and because some people wanted certain political figures to go on the board? I wonder whether the noble Lord can enlighten me on how the board will be brought into being, and how it will work.
Clause 4 worries me. This relates to finance, and subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may make grants to the Agency not exceeding in aggregate £900,000 or such greater amount not exceeding £1,500,000 as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify".
That is very big money, but how is this money going to be handed out? Suppose —and I hope I am right on this—one particular agency went to the Secretary of State (that is, only one agency within the Co-operative society) and wanted £1.5 million. Would that be possible? Would that be allowed?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? All the money specified in the Bill is for the administration of the Agency. The Agency has no power to make grants or loans, or to give guarantees.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that. Therefore, if we are not careful we are going to have a heavy cost in administration. Would I be right in that?
Lord M URRAY of GRAVESEND: No, my Lords, Could I intervene? This £900,000, the original figure, is in fact over three years, so we are talking about £300,000 a year, or a maximum of £500,000 a year, over the first three years; and, in view of the fact that we give £3 million a year to British industry in one way or another, that does not seem to me an exorbitant amount.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but so far as I am concerned any money which is handed out can be an enormous amount, whether it is a fiver or £500,000. I quite agree; but I am only probing. I am trying to extract from the Government how this money is to be dealt with. If

991
the noble Lord can assure me on this, I am quite prepared to accept it, but I cannot allow this Second Reading to go through without questioning whether it be one firm or several firms, whether it is one year or three years. But I am getting the gist of it from several noble Lords on the opposite side. Equally, I must now look at Clause 7 on the financial side. It is on page 4, and it is line 16. I am worried about the words "any sums". If we could just look at that, the word "any" seems to me to be somewhat too flexible. If the noble Lord could advise me on that, I would be most grateful, but if I find I am not happy we shall have to go into the word "any" in Committee. It might be too flexible to be allowed to remain there.
These are my criticisms. I hope I have not been too controversial, but I have been trying to probe into this Bill; and the more we do that during Second Reading and in Committee, I am sure, the more useful it will be in protecting the co-operative societies. I am very much in favour of co-operative societies, so long as we can get the right board and the money is correct. I have nothing further to say, because I want to listen to what other noble Lords have to say on this; but I sincerely hope that we are going to make a useful job of this Bill and bring about an improvement in the co-operative societies through what we are going to do today.
4.3 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would wish to be associated with the tributes paid by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, to Lord Peddie, and also to Lord Rusholme. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I do not think I have any interest to declare in relation to this Bill. It is true that I am sometimes sent out to shop at the local Co-op, and I come back with stamps and with goods that often seem to me to be of rather better value than those sometimes to be acquired in rather more elaborately constructed premises; but I think that is the extent of my personal link with the movement. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for the way in which he has introduced this Bill; and we, too, should like to give it a general welcome.
Specifically, we support the proposal in Clause 1 that it is the Secretary of State
992
who should appoint the chairman and members of the Agency. I was not quite clear where the noble Viscount got his figure of 400 from, but I may have misunderstood him at that point, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when he comes to reply, will speak more authoritatively, if he can, to that. We support this proposal because it seems to us that it will not give too much weight, on the one hand, to large well-established co-operative organisations, nor, on the other hand, to multifarious small ones. We also support it so that the members of the Agency can regard themselves as being responsible, as it were, for co-operatives in general, rather than as representatives of particular organisations.
As to subsection (3) of this first clause, however, we have noted that these appointments are apparently to be made by the Secretary of State,
"… after consultation with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of the co-operative movement".
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, say that the people to be appointed will not necessarily be drawn from such representatives, but I hope that this consultation will not be so exclusive as the wording of the clause suggests, and I hope that the Secretary of State will prove willing to consult with others who have the interests of co-operatives at heart even though they may not themselves be members of the movement. When the noble Lord comes to reply, perhaps he will be kind enough to say precisely what the position is in this respect.
Under Clause 2, we agree with the proposed co-ordinating and advisory function of the Agency, and with the rôle marked out for it in establishing and developing co-operatives. We particularly welcome the recognition that a primary function of the Agency will be the promotion of better understanding of cooperative principles and what in Clause 2(b) is now called, "the evolution of cooperatives". We gladly acknowledge that the inclusion of words such as these seem to represent an attempt on the part of the Government to meet views which were put forward by honourable friends in another place as to the desirability of making rather more explicit reference to the need for the Agency to have an educative function and for it to

993
explore and encourage the development of new ventures in the co-operative field. In the same connection, we are glad to see the emphasis given in paragraph (h) of Clause 2 to training; and, indeed, in the last paragraph of that clause, to research.
We are sorry that the Government have not taken the opportunity provided by the findings of the majority report of the working group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred, to define rather more closely what is meant by co-operative principles—that is, the principles referred to in Clause 2(a)—because we fear that this omission may give rise to problems between the Agency, on the one hand, and bodies which genuinely believe that they come within the unspecified definition of co-operatives but then find that they are turned away by the Agency on the grounds that they do not come within that definition. However, we also recognise the force of the view which is expressed in the majority report of the working group, if I may quote it, that:
"Limited and realistic objectives are to be preferred at the outset, for the detailed definition of an Agency's purposes would be more a matter of proof in practice than of prior prescription".
We believe that the Government are right to have resisted any pressure under which they may have been to use this Bill as a means of giving commercial advantage to co-operatives which is not enjoyed by other enterprises that have to operate under normal market conditions. In that respect, it seems to me that the Bill affords a very welcome example of how it is possible to introduce legislation on the basis of a broad consensus among all political Parties. How I wish that this could be done more often for the sake of the industrial stability that as a country we so desperately need! I hope very much that the Agency will prove successful in encouraging the development of cooperatives as small, new ventures in which disadvantaged young people—and I am thinking particularly of those leaving school in inner city areas—may find adequate motivation and job satisfaction in working alongside skilled people in both the manufacturing and service sectors in accordance with objectives with which they can identify and which, indeed, they will presumably have helped, presumably, to formulate.
994
In that respect, may I say that I see a close connection between this Bill and the Inner Urban Areas Bill which was debated in this House at Second Reading only last Friday. It is precisely with this in mind that it seems to us most important that the Agency should proceed with its tasks as a matter of urgency. That is why we should like to see some provision in the Bill for the operation of the Agency as such to be reviewed after some appropriate period to make sure that it does not, under any Government, grow into yet another bureaucratic body which simply moulders on, its funds supplemented from time to time by further financial grants; or, alternatively, that it does not simply die of inanition at some time along the way. I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, comes to reply, he will be able to give me some assurance which is rather more satisfying than the provisions contained in Clause 4 concerning the limitations and safeguards under which the Agency may receive financial grants or under Clause 6 relating to the Annual Reports of the Agency itself —some assurance that the way in which the Agency actually operates will after a time come under positive Parliamentary review.
In regard to the powers of the Agency under Clause 3, as I have already indicated, we understand and, indeed, sympathise with the reasons why limitations have been placed on those powers in Subsection (3), but, as the House knows, we place great emphasis on the need for the provision of adequate facilities for education and training. We think they are just as important in this field as in any other and we are not at all confident that, in its present form, the Bill necessarily meets this need. Perhaps I can best indicate what I have in mind by way of illustration. Along with others, I have been trying in a particular part of the North-West to ensure that fuller advantage is taken of another new Government scheme, the Youth Opportunities Scheme; we are already concerned that full use may not be made of that scheme simply because of lack of knowledge of the opportunities under it. In the district to which I refer, the local manpower committee (of which I am chairman) is seeking to remedy that potential deficiency by running a seminar to which we plan to invite,

995
particularly, small employers in order to make sure that they are aware of precisely what is available to them under that scheme. I see the need for similar informative exercises in this field of co-operative enterprise and it seems to me to be important that the Agency should be in a position to make the promotion of such activities one of its prime tasks.
As the Bill stands, however, it would appear that the Agency is, under Clause 3, prohibited from making loans or grants to set up such educational and promotional activities. I think I am right in saying that, when the Bill was last debated in another place, the Minister held out some hope that it might prove possible to frame an Amendment to the Bill empowering the Agency to do more in this way to finance educational activities without, as it were, opening gates to other fields. Again, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, when he comes to reply, would tell me what progress has been made on this point and, in particular, whether there is any prospect of the Agency being able to finance by loan or grant the kind of informative activity to which I have referred.
My Lords, to summarise, we see this Bill as a great opportunity to give speedy and practical help in providing information and expert advice to assist in reducing unemployment by promoting the development of existing small co-operatives and encouraging new ventures in this field; and, subject to the qualifications to which I have given expression, we very much welcome this Bill and look forward to its early implementation.
4.18 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as many noble Lords are aware, I have to declare an interest. Until I retired in 1965, I was chief executive of one of the larger co-operative societies and, until 1970, I was chairman of the Central Executive of the Co-operative Movement. This Bill seeks to create an Agency which will have two main purposes: first, to promote the adoption of co-operative principles and, secondly, to advise and represent the interest of co-operative societies.
The first question which, I think, arises is this: what is a co-operative
996
society? A co-operative society has three essential elements. First, it is a voluntary association; that is to say, members can come and go as they think fit. Therefore, many of the so-called co-operatives in some other parts of the world are not co-operatives in the sense that we see them in Britain. Secondly, the members associate as equal partners. Consequently, their decisions are made on the principle of "one member, one vote" quite regardless of the financial stake. Thirdly, they associate for their common good. They have no equity capital. Share capital receives a fixed rate of interest in the same way as loan capital receives a fixed rate of interest. Any profit or surplus is devoted to the common good of the members.
It follows from those three essential elements that one can define a co-operative society in one simple sentence: it is a voluntary association of equal partners for their common good. We have cooperative societies in many spheres of our activities. I know that when we speak of co-operative societies our minds go at once to the high street and the co-op shop. But, in addition to retailing, we have co-operative societies in wholesaling, banking, insurance, industry, agriculture, fishing and housing. We also have several hundred in the form of workmen's clubs. They are able to provide social amenities for members and, at the same time, charge prices which are much lower than those of private trade competitors because they are working as equal partners for the common good.
In this country we have the largest volume of co-operative retail trade. But I would remind the House that two or three Scandinavian countries have a co-operative movement which has a bigger share of the market. This is particularly so in Finland and in Sweden. The co-operative movement in those countries has a much bigger share of the market than the British co-operative movement has in its market. We have always had co-operatives in industry but they have never been very significant. Some of the best examples of industrial co-operatives today are perhaps to be found in northern Spain. We have done exceptionally well in agriculture but we still have a great deal to learn from Denmark. In housing co-operatives, we are lamentably behind and we could indeed learn a great deal from the United States of America.

997
However, for the next two or three minutes I should like to turn to the aspect of the Co-operative movement in which we have been most successful—that is, the retail trade—and try and find out some of the reasons for that success. I think that this is the moment to do it because it can give us lessons for the future. The retail Co-operative movement has a membership of 10½ million, and in 1976 had a turnover of £2,500 million, representing 7½ per cent. of the market. It has associated with it a wholesale society with a turnover of £1,300 million. It has an insurance society with a premium income of £200 million and a bank which has current and deposit account balances of £350 million, and that is quite separate from and in addition to the £300 million which members of co-operative societies provide for the financing of the retail shops.
The journalist who a little more than a decade ago described it as the "dying giant of the high street" had only a superficial knowledge of the movement. He did not understand its problems; he did not understand its inner strengths or the determination of its leaders. In the past decade the Co-operative movement has increased its market share and has added more to its reserves in real terms—not in terms of inflated money values—than at any other time in its history. We have in the retail sector a flourishing Co-operative movement.
There are four reasons why it has made progress over its long history of 130 years. First, because its own members provided its market. Therefore, it was free from all prejudice, which was vital because in the 19th century there was considerable prejudice against the co-operative movement; indeed, there is some prejudice even today but it is very much diminished. There have been occasions during the history of the movement when we have made goods which have been winners in our own shops and we have been approached for supplies by the buyers of other firms. In some cases, when the masters of the buyers found out where the goods were coming from, the orders ceased, but in other cases we continued to supply for many years to the satisfaction of both parties. However, because we provide our own market, that has not been a problem. Our great problem, especially in the early years of
998
the Co-operative movement, was not in finding a market, but in getting supplies. That is why the Co-operative movement in Britain at one time had 200 small factories supplying its shops: it could not rely upon supplies from private trade.
There are many instances of boycotting the Co-operative movement. One of the most notable was when mass-produced radio sets were first introduced to the British market. The manufacturers of the radio sets said to the Co-operative movement: "Unless you will sell at the price we lay down and pay no dividend and give no discounts, we shall not supply you." That was a monopoly; they combined together to form a monopoly. They refused to supply us.
We declined to give way but instead joined with Plessey, co-operated with them and made our own radio sets. For 40 years "Defiant" radio and television sets were sold in co-operative stores. I like that name, my Lords! That has been our leading sale even in recent years. That is an example of the kind of problem that the Co-operative movement has encountered in its history.
The second reason for its success is that it attracted to its service working men and women of great ability and drive. I say that with very great feeling. There were people living in the past century who did not have educational opportunity not the opportunity of promotion at the place of their employment. They devoted their considerable ability to the Co-operative movement. They did many things for which they have never received credit. For example, they devised in the 19th century control methods—especially stock control—for shops which were afterwards picked up and copied by the multiples which came in in the 20th century. Those were devised by working-class people who were confronted with the job of organising retailing.
The third reason why the movement has been successful is that it has looked after the consumer. Because it has gone out of its way to look after the consumer, it has received the support of the consumer. A particular example of that is milk. The co-operative movement led the way with bottled, pasteurised milk. Even today it has 29 per cent. of the liquid milk market, because of the lead that it took and the

999
consequential support that it received from consumers following its interest in protecting them.
At this point, I should like to say this to some noble Lords who, when they speak of trade unions, suggest that militancy came along with trade unions. I should like to give them an example of the kind of militancy against which we had to try to protect ourselves. In the society I managed, though long before my time, it was decided to start a dairy department, to sell bottled pasteurised milk. Early in the morning when the dairy was to be opened for the first time, the private traders in the area got out all their spare vehicles and blocked up the road to the dairy so that no milk could get out; they started delivering their milk early, all the time knowing that the co-operative milk would be late because they were blocking the road, and we had to get the police to move the vehicles. So one can say that all the militancy does not lie with the trade unions; some resides with private traders.
The fourth reason why the movement has been successful is that it has recognised and co-operated with trade unions. For instance, in the large co-operative society that I managed all employees were required, as a condition of employment, to belong to a trade union. That was known in advance—they were given it in writing; and it was not one-way traffic, because we had an agreement with the trade union that any dispute would go to conciliation rather than involve industrial action. Consequently, we did not have strikes. We had two employees on the board; we had a consultative committee in each department with the departmental manager as the chairman, and we had at headquarters a centralised consultative committee to which we fed far more information than we did to the shareholders, because it was the employees' daily lives that were at stake. They needed to have more information and to know where they, as well as the society, were going. That did not adversely affect our profitability; it helped it. Our profitability could be compared favourably with that of Marks and Spencer; so we believe that these things can be done without sacrifice and with advantage.
1000
I should like to see the development of co-operative societies, particularly in industry. Here we have a gulf between management on the one hand, and the shopfloor on the other. We need to experiment to bridge that gulf. I believe that the co-operative idea is one way of experimenting in order to bridge the gulf. I want to see the encouragement not merely of the small business but also of the small co-operative society, because I believe that the co-operative society would, in the long run, give a far greater incentive to the people who have to do the work.
I come now to what I regard as the controversial issue behind the Bill: the question of whether or not the Agency should be able to make grants or loans and to give guarantees. Several Government supporters in the other place took the view that the Agency ought to have those powers. Under the Bill the Agency does not get them, and that was welcomed by the Opposition in the other place. In welcoming the absence of such powers, they made very great play of the need for financial discipline, for expertise in management and for a personal financial stake. I would wholly accept all those things. I have no objection whatever to them, but I would point out that in raising capital the co-operative society, particularly in the early stages and in industry, can be seriously handicapped. First of all, it has no equity capital that it can put on the market; indeed if it did, it would cease to be a co-operative society. Furthermore, a capitalist capital market does not take kindly to the principles upon which a co-operative society is based, and in most cases I think there will be some slight, even if unconscious, bias against it.
Of course, societies which are fostered by the Agency will be able, like anybody else, to go to those Government Departments and agencies which have the power to make grants and loans and to give guarantees. I would hope that those Departments and those agencies will try to give a little bias the other way, so that we get some balance. If they do, I think the present position could be accepted. If they do not, then I think that in the future, we shall have to look at this Bill again to see whether or not we need to give the Agency powers, which it could use with the consent of the Secretary of State, at least to guarantee.

1001
My Lords, this is a red-letter day so far as I am concerned. I welcome this Bill. I believe that the organisations which can result from it can be a third force in our economy between, on the one hand, nationalisation and, on the other hand, private enterprise. Whether or not it is will depend upon us and upon the people who man the Agency. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.37 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I feel that I shall be the odd man out unless I, too, declare an interest. Mine is a third-generation interest, beginning about 110 years ago, when my grandfather, a railway worker, became a founding member and a member of the committee of his local co-operative society. My father worked for the Co-operative movement all his working life and he started work with the Co-operative Wholesale Society in 1930. It was then that I met Lord Peddie and Lord Rusholme, and, given the time to do so, I could explain what a remarkable contribution they both made to the Co-operative movement, because they were initiating new ideas in what was at that time a rather stuffy organisation, which did not take kindly to new ideas.
Today, however, we must talk about this Co-operative Development Agency Bill, which incidentally many of us, even in the 1930s, were trying to promote, or at least we were trying to promote something in this form—believing, I think quite rightly at the time, that one way to overcome the many economic difficulties then facing us was for the Government to take an initiative and do something in a really practical way towards the development of self-help co-operatives.
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for enabling me to win a bet, which I hope will be paid off shortly. I bet a noble Lord five to one—actually it became evens in the end—that in the end the noble Viscount would give his blessing to the Bill and would say, I am sure quite genuinely, that he was in favour of the Co-operative movement developing but that he questioned the financial aspects of the Bill. I also ventured to think that he would get the financial aspects wrong,
1002
and I have won my bet because, as I hope everyone now knows, the Agency will not be in a position to advance any money for the development of co-operatives, in the sense of putting money into a co-operative society. It is there for the purposes which are laid out very clearly in Clause 2. As my noble friend Lord Jacques has just said, there is a controversy here about whether the Agency should have the authority—and it would require far more money than is laid down in the Bill to do this—to make grants to co-operative enterprises that it wishes to sponsor, or to be in a position to guarantee loans made to co-operative enterprises of that kind.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, talked about politics interfering in the work of the Agency. That is a legitimate point, but I do not think there is any danger there. First, I do not believe that any Government will make the mistake of putting on to the Agency itself what, in this sense, will be called political appointees. He then went on to say that there might be a danger of companies that are running into difficulties having embittered employees going to the Agency and saying: "We want to change our company into a co-operative. Will you help us?" I do not think there is much danger of that happening.
There is some point in trying to find out why the employees are embittered. If they are embittered because of stupid, inefficient management of their company, possibly with the threat of their losing their jobs through that inefficiency, then I believe that the employees have a perfect right to begin to suggest that their company, in that form, should be wound up and, possibly, that the employees should go in and take it over as a workers' co-operative. That is a perfectly understandable development and one that I should certainly support.
However, there is a safeguard, which the noble Viscount apparently missed. To operate in the way he was talking about would, of course, also require the approval of the shareholders. The decision could not be taken by the employees alone. Anyhow, I am all in favour of developing workers' co-operatives, when companies—I shall not mention any names at the moment—get into difficulties, possibly through inefficient management

1003
and when a very good way out of those difficulties is to turn the companies into workers' co-operatives.
I should like to touch on one point that I raised in a previous debate not long ago, when we were talking about tax relief for profit-sharing schemes. I said then that what we need in this country is a new type of company, particularly for the small firm, and even for the individual who has an idea that he wants to develop, but who must start some kind of business enterprise in order to develop it. As a private company, at the moment, he, or the group which he collects together, suffers financial disabilities, difficulty in raising money on reasonable terms, as my noble friend Lord Jacques said, and of course fiscal disabilities under the tax system.
I welcome this Bill, and the development of co-operative societies, not merely as an alternative to the new type of company which I was advocating then, but because this is the better way of doing it. It is a good beginning—if it works out as we hope it will—for a wider expansion of co-operative enterprise, and offers to a company the legal background and the fiscal situation of the co-operative society, for which I argued previously.
To me, the main part of the Bill is Clause 2 and, however well advertised the Agency's services may be, in recommending how co-operative societies might be set up, and advising and evaluating projects that come forward, there are other considerations that are essential which have already been touched upon. To succeed, it is most important that the group or firm which is starting the co-operative should have access to capital. Although it has been mentioned before, it is well worth stressing that in getting the capital to run the business, to buy the equipment, the tools and anything else that they need, as well as the cash flow that they require to get going, companies must have better terms than are now offered by most of the banks. Something must be done to help the financial institutions, which have been set up to help business, to seize the opportunities which I hope will flow from the Development Agency that is now to be set up. In addition, of course, they must have access to managerial advice.
There were many small groups, of which I knew in the years when I was associated
1004
with the City of Sheffield. That city breeds craftsmen who want to do jobs of work, who want to get out of the steelworks or whatever it may be, and start up their own little businesses. I understand their difficulties very well. They have the ideas, they have the skill and they have the ability to do the job that they are proposing to do, but keeping the accounts, dealing with banks, dealing with the taxman and dealing with management ideas are things which come very strangely to them. It is on matters of that kind that I hope the Agency will be able to support the projects that it has, as the Bill says, evaluated.
It is not only the small firms, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that there is probably a great field for development here, particularly in areas where there is considerable unemployment, especially among young people; this is not necessarily a problem only in the inner cities, but I appreciate the problem there. I am sure that there are many young people in the country who would be very happy indeed to start their own little businesses. They will not make much money out of them, but they will have jobs and interests and they will not be in the dole queue. It is in this field where a great deal of help can be given, and I hope that when the Agency gets to work, as quickly as possible, it will pay a great deal of attention to that field.
As I said, I am not concerned only with small firms, or with the kind of social development which the noble Lord raised. I see our economic situation, at the moment, in rather grave terms. We are at the beginning of changes in our industrial and commercial concepts of how we should organise the economy. Unfortunately, it is not that most of the people are turning Socialist—I wish they were—but I think that a lot of capitalists, or at least supporters of the capitalist system, are getting worried about that system and how it operates. We have seen, in articles in the Guardian and The Times this week, the criticisms that are developing of the powerful corporations, the multinational companies, and the enormous power that is now placed in the hands of very few people, because of their investment power and the investment institutions. The control of our lives is now, very largely, going into the hands of these small, powerful groups of people, the interlocking directorates of the powerful corporations.

1005
I think that there is a feeling growing now that we must break away from this. We must have much stricter anti-trust laws in this country, and, in the public interest, break up some of these corporations. But I also think that, in any attempt to curb the power of these small groups, we have to create new enterprises. We have to give more opportunity for people to come along with new ideas, and we must give the backing that they need to work out those ideas. This is where the co-operative idea is so important, because when a successful group gets together in a co-operative society—and, incidentally, I hope that there will be not the one co-operative society which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, spoke about, but 10,000 co-operative societies; I do not want any limit to this—and brings people with new ideas together, it counterbalances the giant corporations. The co-operative society cannot be taken over. As has been mentioned more than once, it has no equity capital. It is not subject, and cannot be subject, to take-over bids. It cannot be clawed by the asset strippers.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that in promoting and helping these bodies the Agency will have to make sure that they provide good management, otherwise they will fail. However, given good management, I believe that they will be a counter-balance to the giant corporations. It will take a long time to work out, but I see no other way round it, unless we transform our capitalist system into something nearer to the social democracy in which I believe, with public enterprises of a different type. Given our mixed economy, I am quite sure that co-operative societies of all kinds will, if promoted in a very big way, give to the people of this country a better opportunity to take part in their own affairs, to be managers of their own enterprises and to provide real industrial democracy. The sooner we can get on to that path in a much bigger way than we have managed so far, the better it will be.
4.52 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, having only a 30 years' membership of the movement, I hesitate a little to join this co-op hall of fame, surrounded as I am by my noble friends
1006
Lord Darling of Hillsborough, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, all of whom have played such a tremendous part in the development of the Co-operative movement in this country. I should like to congratulate the working party which initiated the report upon which this Bill is based. It was a very thorough piece of work which put forward many ideas that gave rise to food for thought, not only so far as this Bill is concerned but so far as one's ideas relating to the Co-operative movement are concerned. This Bill was an Election Manifesto commitment of the Labour Party, and I am glad that it is now being given its Second Reading. The Co-operative movement has been pushing for such a Bill at its congress for at least the last 10 years, and I welcome it very much indeed. The Opposition, both in this place and in the other place, have accepted the inevitable need for the Bill, and that is to be welcomed. Since the Opposition have accepted the need for this Bill, I hope that they realise the value of co-operation at every level.
It is good to realise, not only by what is contained in this Bill but by what we see throughout society, that there is a renewal of interest in the Co-operative movement, whether they be housing co-operatives or agriculture co-operatives, and that, as was pointed out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, people are trying to see whether they can get together for their mutal interest and benefit. The Bill is no panacea, however. It does not need to be a panacea, because the Co-operative movement is a thriving movement.
Although people have been prophets of doom about the Co-operative movement and have said that it is a giant which is dying on its feet, it has shown over the years that in fact it is thriving and improving and that it gives good service to its many customers. In this connection, I disagree with one of the points which are made in the minority report, where it is stated that many customers do not regard the co-op as being different from any other store in the high street. I believe that they are wrong. I have experience only of London co-operatives, but the members of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society genuinely feel that they are part of that movement. The movement is strongest in South-East London, particularly in the Woolwich area,

1007
and at one stage a whole estate of co-operative houses was built by the RACS. The people in that area feel that they are a very real part of the Co-operative movement.
When we are speaking about the Co-operative movement we ought also to remember some of the subsidiary activities which it has introduced over the years. Its educational services are second to none. It gives all kinds of opportunities to people to further their interests and ambitions through evening classes and week-end schools.
Clause 2 of the Bill spells out very clearly what the objectives of co-operatives should be, particularly in paragraph (f) which states that one function of the Agency will be:
"to provide a forum for discussion and debate within the co-operative movement".
It is necessary for the Co-operative movement to discuss different forms of working and the way that affairs should be run. As one or two of my noble friends have mentioned, when it comes to industrial disputes the movement has a very good record. My guess is that it has achieved industrial relations which are as good as these in any of our industries, or sections of industry. This is because the people who work for the Co-operative movement are co-operative members as well. This has been the great advantage of the movement.
To set up co-operatives is not the easy option that many people believe. In the past couple of years certain difficulties regarding the Kirkby co-operative and the Meriden co-operative have been highlighted. They have received a great deal of adverse publicity. Every move they have made has been put under the microscope. This has created difficulties and has led to people pouring scorn upon the Co-operative movement. I mentioned in an intervention during the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that these people do not remember that we are giving £3,000 million a year to industry. I doubt whether many of the industries which have benefited from that sum have been subjected to such searching probes as these two co-operatives have had to endure.
Turning to the £300,000 a year which has been allocated for running the
1008
Agency, the noble Viscount, Lord Long, suggested that I did not seem to think that it was a great deal of money. In fact, I think that it is a great deal of money, but it is relative and has to be looked at in comparative terms. The Agency will, I hope, be encouraged to co-operate with departments and organisations such as the National Enterprise Board to find out how they can get off the ground some of the co-operative ventures that will need to be tried. It takes more than money to run a co-operative. Both experience and ability are needed, and, as all of my noble friends have shown, dedication to the Co-operative movement.
I believe that in the other place the Minister mentioned that the period of three years will represent the formative stage. I should like to know, if possible, what the Government think should happen after that formative stage and how they foresee the development of the Cooperative Development Agency. I was persuaded in some ways by the minority report which spoke about guarantees and about money being made available to ventures. I can see the difficulties involved. It seems to me that because of the difficulty of raising capital, particularly for the Co-operative movement, some of these co-operative ventures will be put on an unequal footing. It is not a question of such ventures being given preferential treatment or more favourable treatment than anybody else. In some ways they will be given unfavourable treatment when they are trying to raise capital.
I had hoped that perhaps the Government might have some ideas on how they see the future, after the first three years of the formative process and when, as was suggested in the other place, the Agency had got on to its own feet and was running its own affairs; and perhaps my noble friend might consider that point. My Lords, I consider this to be a fine Bill. It is the dream of many co-operators and it is the framework for the dedicated co-operators in this country—the members of the co-op.—to go forward to another stage of co-operation.
5 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to all

1009
noble Lords who have made their contributions to this debate. Although few in number, we have undoubtedly heard the voice of experience today so far as the Co-operative movement is concerned. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the positive way in which they have dealt with the measure. Although there have been few speakers it has probably been one of the best informed debates about co-operation for a number of years. Some of the speeches have been based on practical experience and ideas from which we can all draw enlightenment and learn useful lessons.
I should like to discuss some of the points that have been made in the debate. First, I can definitely give the noble Viscount, Lord Long, the positive assurance that there is nothing in the Bill which will make it easier for disaffected people to sabotage existing firms in order that they should be turned into co-operatives. In other words, the noble Viscount can be assured that there are no "Reds under the beds", so far as the Agency is concerned.
On appointments, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept nominations, nor can any nominated body insist on any particular appointment. The noble Viscount and other speakers referred to finances. The sum of £300,000 was the working estimate of the cost of administration for three years, including offices, staff and some research. The estimate is based on expert advice from the Government Departments concerned, the Civil Service Department and the Public Services Agency. In fact, a most careful estimate has been made that £300,000 would cover the administration for one year; and that figure, multiplied by three, for three years is £900,000, which is quite a simple sum.
The Agency is certainly not a political organisation and is not intended to be. In fact, in making his selection of nominations the Minister will have an embarrassment of riches. We have heard the voice of experience from behind us, but I can assure your Lordships that there are people of even greater experience outside. Many of them are now prominent in the movement, as has been stressed by some noble Lords this afternoon; they have come from the ranks as members of the societies or even as humble workers in various
1010
society organisations. So I do not think the noble Viscount need be too worried on that score.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, with his usual thoughtful and constructive contribution obviously showing a very deep and great interest in the Bill and the movement, posed a number of questions, of some of which with his usual courtesy he had advised me, albeit at short notice. However, I can also give him an assurance that the last thing that the working party wanted—and this was fully endorsed by the Government—was that the Agency should be a large bureaucracy. The working party expressed the view that it should be a small but well qualified group with a minimum of clerical support, and it had in mind a total of about 20. On this point I ought to correct the noble Viscount, Lord Long. I think he probably made a slip in his speech when he referred to there being about 400 members; actually that should be "4 to 8" and not "400", otherwise we should have something more like a demonstration or a Party conference than an Agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made a number of other points on appointments. This is an important matter, and of course as may be expected, this House and another place will carefully watch it. I can assure him that the Government are sympathetic to the views that he expressed with regard to the appointment of members of the Agency. I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State's consultations on this will not necessarily and exclusively be restricted to those having a formal connection with the Co-operative movement. A number of helpful suggestions have already been made, not least by members of the noble Lord's Party in another place. All of these will be given the fullest possible consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, touched on the very important matter of review. Parliament will have an ample opportunity to review the operations of the Agency. Clause 3 provides for the Agency to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, and copies of that report will be laid before each House of Parliament. So, too, will the annual statements of account and the associated report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, by virtue of Clause 5. Grants by the Secretary of State under Clause 4 reflect the working

1011
group's recommendation that the Government should bear as launching finance the whole of the estimated cost of establishing the Agency and running it for three years and, as I have already indicated, the cost was estimated at £300,000 a year. There is, however, some flexibility in that the clause provides for the aggregate amount to be increased by order by Statutory Instrument from £900,000 to £1½ million. Broadly, this would be subject to the approval of the necessary order by Affirmative Resolution in another place to extend the life of the Agency to five years. Further legislation would then be necessary if the Agency were to continue to be funded by the Government. I can say that the objective of the Agency is to get on its own feet after three years, and we wish it well in that endeavour. As my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend said, it is not likely that it will cut off its own life at the end of five years. We hope this will be a continuing and successful operation, growing in strength to the advantage of the nation as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made an interesting and useful point about the question of educational grants. The problem that he has in youth employment is getting people to know about the available facilities, and so on. This matter was raised at the Committee stage in another place by the Liberal spokesman, Mr. Wainwright, and the Minister of State will be meeting Mr. Wainwright, who put forward this interesting proposal, at the earliest opportunity to consider whether the provision of educational assistance could in some way be incorporated in the Agency's functions. However, there may be difficulties in achieving that without changing the basic nature of the Agency from a purely advisory representative body to one with executive powers; but I undertake, in view of the information which I have just given, to inform the noble Lord of any developments on this topic as they proceed.
What can I say about the contribution of my noble friend Lord Jacques? The House has had a very experienced and potted history, if I may put it that way, of the Co-operative movement, based on his wide knowledge and experience. When I referred to several noble Lords in this place having had great experience and service in the Co-operative movement,
1012
certainly the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was one that I had in mind. I hope that he will be able to give us a great deal of assistance on the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages of the Bill.
The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Darling. I was very attracted by his vision of helping young people to set up firms and giving them every possible assistance. This is a very useful field where this Agency can be of service to the nation. Again we have in my noble friend Lord Darling a person who has contributed considerably to the Co-operative movement, and I have no doubt will continue to do so. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, we have something in common, in that we are both members of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society; an excellent society, incidentally, which has many aspects of this work apart from training and education in many other fields, and whose committees and board of management are elected by the alternative vote method, a fact which no doubt will be received with appreciation in certain parts of this Chamber this afternoon.
I do not think there is much more I need to say now, The spirit in which this Bill has been received is very warming to me and to many others who welcome the Bill and who fervently hope it will succeed. We have lived through some depressing days in the last few years. There is a ray of hope on the horizon. The nation itself needs shall we say? a thread of idealism. Here, may I say with all humility, we have a Bill which expresses, in the formation of this Agency, this very strong thread of idealism; but idealism allied to practical ideas and practical action, some of which has already been taken, which has advanced prosperity and a better standard of life through co-operative activities abroad, especially in developing countries. When we talk about the Co-operative movement and its extension here, in providing assistance to small firms and so on, do not let us overlook the fact that abroad a tremendous opportunity still exists.
Great work has been done which, like much other great work, has never been adequately publicised. At least today we make a start. I hope the House will give every possible assistance towards getting

1013
this Bill through in the quickest possible time, in order that this practical measure can have its effect in assisting the nation to progress and in raising the standard of life, not only of our own people but of many thousands overseas.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

"DISCOVERING AFRICA'S PAST": RACE RELATIONS POLICY
5.14 p.m.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will relate the policies set out in Cmnd. 7186 The West Indian Community to the comments of the Minister of State of the Department of Education and Science, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on 17th April about Mr. Basil Davidson's book Discovering Africa's Past. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 2nd April, the Sunday Express published an article in which a recent book by Mr. Basil Davidson entitled Discovering Africa's Past, published by Longmans, was described as slanted. On 17th April the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, put down a Question for answer in your Lordships' House, in the following terms:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to avoid the damage to race relations which will be done if the book Discovering Africa's Past (edited by Basil Davidson) is used in our schools".—[Official Report, 17/4/78; col. 872.]
The book was commissioned by Longmans. There is no need for me to add anything about the reputation that Longmans possess throughout the Western World—indeed, I would say throughout the whole world. They commissioned the book, they published it, and it was planned with the writer, not the editor. They consulted serious teachers in the field of multi-ethnic education, because it was a pioneering effort; new ground was to be broken. The book was designed to make available to teachers and pupils in the 14-plus range a reassessment of African culture and history using the materials which are now accepted and taught in all reputable universities throughout the Western World. Subsequently, when the Question came to be answered, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who answered for Her
1014
Majesty's Government, described the book. He said:
"When a book has out of 220 pages, about 20 which are clearly biased—and I admit that—I think it is desirable that classes which are given it to read should be given other books in an opposite sense as well".—[Official Report, 17/4/78; col. 873.]
That statement needs to be commented on, for, as I have said, Longmans planned and the author planned to break new ground. They consulted on a wide basis experts in the multi-ethnic field, and there are no other books. I will come back to this when I deal with the implied charges of Lord Donaldson in relation to the list for further reading. There are no other books, or very few indeed.
What Lord Donaldson feels about a matter and what he has to say in his personal capacity is entirely a matter for him. I have no comments to make on the personal views of any Member of your Lordships' House; that is his affair. I take this point up because Lord Donaldson is a Minister and when he speaks from the Dispatch Box he is not voicing his opinion; he is answering a Question which is put down to Her Majesty's Government. So if you find—and I suggest that I have found—a dichotomy between what Her Majesty's Government say in White Papers and what Lord Donaldson says, that needs to be explained.
Mr. Davidson is a man with an international reputation in the field of African studies. He was at some time Professor at the Universities of Ghana, Los Angeles, Edinburgh, a Fellow of the University of Birmingham, a Senior Research Fellow of the University of Manchester and an honorary D.Litt. of the University of Ibadan. So, just as Longmans have a very considerable, well-established and impeccable reputation in the field of publishing works of this character, Mr. Davidson also has a reputation so far untarnished by charges of bias or anything like that.
However, I am no expert and I am full of bias. Therefore, I took steps to check my views. The first approach I made was to a very old friend who until recently was editor of West Africa, a magazine which many of your Lordships know, again of established reputation, and a magazine which I would claim had served

1015
the interests of Britain and of Africa very well indeed. It has the highest reputation on an international scale, and particularly in the commercial field. Unfortunately, Mr. David Williams was in Africa, but in my approaches I did see "Matchet's Diary" in West Africa for 24th April, because they, too, had read the Question and the article in the Sunday Express.
As we are not limited for time in a debate of this kind, I shall read to your Lordships what Matchet had to say:
"Basil Davidson, writer, scholar and much-valued contributor to West Africa, is the centre of a storm in London over a book of his, Discovering Africa's Past, which Longman's has published in a special edition for schools … This was the subject of a hysterical and foolish attack in the Sunday Express under the heading 'New school textbook praises the brave Mau Mau'. It described the book as slanted' and objected to the unsympathetic account of Britain's involvement in the slave trade and colonialism, without any mention of David Livingstone and the role Britain played 'in helping the continent'. It also felt that Mau Mau murders and the atrocities of Amin were unfairly neglected. The article quoted Winston Churchill, a Conservative MP and grandson of the great Sir Winston, as saying that the book might 'increase racial prejudice'. It later transpired that Churchill"—
like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—
"had not read the book at the time, which made his allegation the more absurd".
I interposed the words "like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge", because it is clear that he had not read the book: he had glanced at 20 pages of it some time later. The Matchet article goes on:
"More serious than this (for to be attacked by a newspaper like the Sunday Express is a sort of praise) were statements in the House of Lords by the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Lord Donaldson. He was replying to a hostile Tory question about the book, and although he praised Basil Davidson he did repeat and accept the allegation of 'bias'. Lord Donaldson said: 'Basil Davidson has been attacking British imperialism since the early' thirties, when I used to read him … though I think Mr. Basil Davidson could be described as biased he has never pretended not to be … When a book has, out of 200 pages, about 20 which are clearly biased—and I admit that—I think it is desirable that classes which are given it to read should be given other books in an opposite sense as well'."
At the end Matchet says:
"Basil Davidson himself appeared in a television discussion of the book on the programme "Nationwide", confronting Winston Churchill with great assurance and good humour. He explained that his book was certainly the history of Africa from the African point of view, making
1016
use of the great recent advances in Archaeology, but … he denied allegations of bias: it was a work of careful and exact scholarship, he said".
I also consulted another authority. I wrote to a man whom I had never met, but I took advice on the matter. I was particularly glad that the name suggested to me was Mr. John Lonsdale, a tutor in African studies at Trinity College, Cambridge, because that college, of course, is not unknown to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Needless to say, I read this letter with the permission of Mr. Lonsdale. I specifically asked him whether I could quote him. This is what he wrote:
"The book itself is vintage Davidson. For the past thirty years he has combined a personal commitment to Africa's freedom with a scholarly interest in her past. His historical perspective is naturally governed by his contemporary concern; it would be odd if it were not. Nevertheless, it is not mere pedantry which makes me prefer to call his work 'committed' rather than 'biased'. He certainly stresses the oppressive rather than the enlightening aspects of colonial rule but he is not prejudiced against those individuals who administered the colonial system. He writes (on page 198) of the 'sincere devotion' with which many colonial officials served their African subjects, and of their 'impartial justice' which, in the better colonies at least, Africans often came to prefer to the 'sometimes wayward or abusive practices of their own former rulers'. He has therefore, it seems to me, adhered to the best standards of historical scholarship in that, while he may have judged a particular situation harshly, he has nevertheless done justice to the people who found themselves in the middle of it".
He goes on:
"Turning to the recommendations for Further Reading"—
which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, although needless to say I acquit him of the error in the printing of Hansard—
"it might be said straight away that nine of the nearly fifty books recommended are by Davidson himself. (Lord Donaldson must have been misreported—in column 873 of the debate—as saying that 59 were by him.) There is very good reason for this predominance of Davidson's work. It is simply that nobody else has been as energetic in popularising, in the best sense, the scholarship which he also helps to pioneer. He has an enviable gift for the task which few academic historians possess. Any school history of Africa by any other author would be bound to include most if not all of these nine books in its list of Further Reading".
Mr. Lonsdale goes on:
"I have not read and cannot therefore comment on the books listed 'For Pupils'; but I cannot see how anybody could take exception to the 23 works listed 'For Teachers', save perhaps on the score—hardly to be expected from the tone of

1017
the debate—that it does not include enough representatives of the young, radical, critical school of African historiography.
Apart from the eight by Davidson in this section, two are by African leaders, Nkrumah and Nyerere; eight would take the fairly conventional liberal view that the colonial period represented a whole complex of motives and consequences, some good, some bad and, on the whole, that it does not lend itself to easy moral judgments; four have nothing to say about the colonial period at all; only one could be said to represent a sustained critique of colonial exploitation".
As regards the subject of the "Further Reading" list, if further proof is necessary to demonstrate that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, had not examined the book with any great care, it arises from the fact that under "Further Reading" Long-mans are careful to point out that they acknowledge the help of Mrs. Margaret Killingray in compiling the list. Indeed, my inquiries show that the "Further Reading" list was not, as it were, drawn up by Mr. Basil Davidson at all—it was compiled by Mrs. Killingray. Mr. Davidson merely suggested a few books at the beginning.
My Lords, I did a number of additional things. I inquired whether there was a copy of the book in the Library. There was not. I communicated with Longmans and they sent a copy. Moreover, I went to the Leader of the House and ensured that he was supplied with a copy. I was glad that when he came to answer a Question to me he brought the book with him—that showed that my labours were not altogether in vain. I also invited the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to withdraw what he said, because he wrote to Mr. Davidson explaining that he did not mean "bias" in quite the sense that both Mr. Davidson and myself came to understand it. I could not accept and do not accept that, and that is why I have troubled your Lordships today.
It seems to me an elementary principle of public life that when a charge is made against a man publicly it must be publicly withdrawn. In my judgment a private withdrawal is just not good enough. On that principle I stand. It may well be that others of your Lordships will hold the view that, having made the charge of bias against a man of international reputation as high as that of Mr. Davidson, it was quite all right to write him a private letter and say, "Sorry, old boy, I did not quite mean that". However, for me that is not good enough.
1018
I often hit below the belt and when I do I try to say, "Sorry". I do not hit below the belt and then, as it were, send somebody a Christmas card.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, wrote to Mr. Davidson. Obviously, I have not asked him for permission to read the letter, but he made it clear—and this came out in a reply that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, gave me in the House—that he did not quite mean what he said. Mr. Davidson was kind enough to send me a copy of the letter he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I have his permission to read it and I propose to do so. Mr. Davidson wrote in the following terms on 28th April:
"This whole affair is grievous and surprising to me. I read the Lords Hansard of 17 April"—
which is the day I asked a Question about this matter—
"…with a serious concern to see that the scholarly credentials of my book had been called in question by you, my Lord, the Minister of State for Education and Science, and that you had three times accused me of bias: even going so far as to welcome … Lord Gridley's astonishing question, since ' will have done some good in so far as governors and heads of schools read our Hansard'.
"I find many of your words on 17 April all the more surprising and wounding in the light of the Home Office white paper, The West Radian Community (Cmnd. 7186), which also reached me in this morning's post, together with the Annex by your Department. There it is underscored that the school curriculum should now reflect 'the wide range of cultures, histories and lifestyles in our multi-racial society'; and that, to this end, 'the more informed teachers become about a wide range of cultures and communities, and the more possible it is for pupils to see their values reflected … the less likely is (their) alienation …' … The next paragraph on the same page expresses HMG's concern that minority group pupils should be encouraged by ' giving a proper and dignified place to the varied cultures that make up our present-day British Society'.
"It was precisely with these concerns in mind that my publishers and myself set about this book, consulted very serious teachers in the field of multi-ethnic education, and brought out our book. This hook was designed, and I think does, make available to teachers and pupils at the 14+ level the kind of reassessments of African culture and history, the kind of materials, that are now accepted, used and taught, my Lord, in all reputable universities in the western world. Yet this is the very book which you have deplored in the House of Lords, in your official capacity.
"But I believe that if you will look at the matter a little further you will find that our book is fully in line with sensible and moderate attitudes to the race problem; with the expressed policy of HMG; with the known needs of teachers and governors of schools; and with the belief—for

1019
which, I know, you yourself have always stood—that honesty and tolerance are vital guides to the solving of acute social problems".
Mr. Davidson then touches on his academic record, to which I have already referred. He says:
"I cannot think that my career and reputation could in any way allow, justify or support the words you have used in public to condemn my work for bias: in plain words, for conscious and deliberate misuse of evidence, which is what, in scholarly terms, the word bias must mean and is generally taken to mean. Nor can I understand why you should have wished to wound me in this way".
I invite your Lordships' attention to the White Paper that was published simultaneously, to which I have already referred. I shall read the two paragraphs which are the main reasons why I bring this matter to your Lordships' attention. This is what the Home Office said, and with it is the annex from the Department of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson:
"For the curriculum to have any meaning and relevance for all pupils now in our schools, its content, emphasis and the values and assumptions contained must reflect the wide range of cultures, histories and lifestyles in our multi-racial society. The more informed teachers become about a wider range of cultures and communities and the more possible it is for all pupils to see their values reflected in the concerns of schools, the less likely is the alienation from schools and indigenous society experienced by some minority group pupils.
"The necessary changes in attitude and curriculum are taking place and their spread should do much to encourage a secure sense of personal identity for minority pupils by giving a proper and dignified place to the varied cultures that make up present day British society".
I understand that the National Association for Multi-racial Education is meeting a Committee of another place which is looking into multiracial matters. I also understand that Mr. Davidson's book is to be held up as a model of the kind of thing that is needed.
There is one other matter to which I invite noble Lords' attention. In the article published in the Sunday Express a complaint was made that no mention was made of Idi Amin. Mr. Winston Churchill, a Member of another place, specifically raised this point. He said:
"How can one write a book on the history of Africa without even a footnote on Idi Amin?".
I want to deal with that because it interests me greatly. I am a person who is gifted—sometimes I think cursed—with a very
1020
accurate memory. It has its advantages in connection with racing, and also to some extent with politics. Major-General Amin came to power on 26th January 1971. Obviously, if Mr. Davidson had written about Amin it would have dealt with seven years in the life of a Continent, in a book which starts with the Stone Age and covers 200 pages—the fact that he does not mention this or that is not a very damaging charge. But if he started to write about Idi Amin, obviously he would have to deal with the fact that Mr. Amin is a member of the Nilotic tribes of the North. One of the great tensions inside Uganda is the conflict between the Nilotic tribes and the Bantu. Mr. Obote was also a member of a Nilotic tribe. I am a child of bias, so I am not, as it were, worried about any of the inhibitions or the sense of unfairness which clearly worried Mr. Davidson.
If you start to write about Amin, how is it that he came to power? This is where my memory comes in. He came to power on 26th January 1971, the same day as a leading article appeared in the Daily Telegraph. What was its headline? It was "Good riddance to Obote". The Conservative Party welcomed it; hells rang out; Obote had gone; Amin had arrived. They went a little further: this might even be a talking point at the election. What else did they say? They referred to the shaky régimes of President Kaunda and President Nyerere in Zambia:
"How the shaky régimes … will react remain to be seen".
That is not all. On 29th January Her Majesty's High Commissioner in Uganda attended a meeting addressed by the new Major-General and welcomed him; after all, Mr. Obote—the man who had been got rid of—had been a thorn in the side of Mr. Heath in Singapore. Indeed, Mr. Obote was on his way back from Singapore when he was deposed by Major-General Amin.
On the 26th Obote goes. The same day the Daily Telegraph welcomes his departure. But that is not all. Rumours were rife that Obote had been got rid of. The Israeli Government were charged. I do not think that there was a word of truth in it, but needless to say it was said that the CIA and the British Foreign Office had had a hand in it. I doubt

1021
whether the Foreign Office had had a hand in it, because it looks as though the operation was competently carried out and it is therefore unlikely that MI6 had anything to do with it, judging by usual form.
What did happen? As I say, three days later, the High Commissioner, Mr. Slater, was attending a conference addressed by the Major-General. Then, tucked away on 5th January, there was an Answer to a Written Question. The Written Question was put down by Mr. Wall and Mr. Cormack to the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Anthony Kershaw. Her Majesty's Government had recognised Idi Amin. It is not that I am saying that they have not changed their views: I am giving an explanation as to why it would be difficult for a man as unbiased as Mr. Davidson to write about Mr. Amin.
I come to this point. I believe that one of the important things that have happened to the Western world is contained in a book written by Mr. Alec Hailey called Roots. Those of your Lordships who have not read it should take note of the impact of Roots right throughout America, particularly amongst the coloured community. What Mr. Hailey did was to research back seven generations, to that ancestor of his who was snatched, as a result of colonialism, from the Gambia River and carted off to America. There he was one ancestor of the many hundreds of thousands of black Americans who now owe an undoubted allegiance to the United States, but who are becoming conscious of something. They are becoming conscious of the fact that they had an identity; they had a culture; they had a history—and it was not merely the blessings of the white man that came to them and transformed them. The black man in Africa, in his home—yes, cut off—had a history of which he can be proud and of which he is now becoming conscious.
This finding of an identity with one's past is not, after all, something new, because many other races have done the same thing. The Jewish people have done it. They have retained their identity over the centuries. The Poles have done it. The Irish, the Welsh and the Scots have done it. There is this search for identity. This is a phenomenon of the modern world that has a lesson not only for the coloured
1022
community, but also for us. Soccer hooliganism is tied up with exactly the same thing—the search of the atomised individual, often rooted up from where he was brought up, put into a high-rise fiat, cut off from all associations apart from his own family, having different connections at work, at play and at home. He then seeks to find an identity with others. He does it often in a very violent way.
Therefore, I welcome the policy of Her Majesty's Government as expressed in Command 7816. I welcome it greatly. The only matter about which I wonder is this: just how sincere are the Government if a Minister for the same Department as brought out the White Paper—and is partly responsible for the White Paper setting out this policy—can come along and attack the reputation and standing of those who labour to make that policy work?
5.45 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will reply for the Government to this Question. But, as I am the object which has inspired this long discourse from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, I shall reply very shortly. I have no intention of answering the noble Lord's assertions in detail. I shall state my position, which is a very simple one, and leave it to the House to judge between us.
I have known of and respected Mr. Davidson as a serious historian and student of African affairs for a good many years. He has written many books and many articles and I have often read his writings. I have always regarded him as an effective polemical writer who wrote with a strong anti-imperialist bias, with which I very largely agreed. In particular, in the last 20 pages of his book—which were the ones of which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, complained—he stressed, quite correctly, the commercial origins of imperialism, but he has perhaps tended to underestimate the good side of colonial administration. This is why I suggested, on this Question and Answer, that a head teacher might like his pupils, at the same time as they read Mr. Davidson's book, to look at the account by

1023
that very distinguished Left-Wing writer Leonard Woolf of his life as a district commissioner in Ceylon in the early part of the century.
The implications of all this do not seem to me to be in any way offensive. Gibbon wrote with an anti-Church bias, Macaulay with an anti-Tory bias; the noble Lord, Lord Blake, will not take it amiss if I say that his excellent biography of Disraeli has a distinct pro-Tory bias. So I was surprised when I heard that Mr. Davidson was offended by what I had said. It is one thing to annoy the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—that is an occupational risk in this House. But I had no intention of offending Mr. Davidson, and, though I think he was wrong to take offence, as soon as I heard that he was offended I wrote to say I was sorry, and I am happy to repeat that apology to him now.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg has raised this issue tonight. It is characteristic of him, when he feels that an injustice has been committed, to pursue it to the very last point. I had a personal experience of this. I was libelled on either the BBC or ITV—I forget which. I was not concerned. But the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was outraged by it and persisted until there was a public apology. It is characteristic that when he feels that an injustice has been done he should raise it in this way.
However, I want to say frankly that I do not agree with the criticism, in the strong way that he has made it, of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, when he was replying to the criticisms of the other side. I was present during that interchange. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, from the Front Bench, replied effectively to the criticism which came from the Tory Benches on that occasion.
The criticism tonight of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is that he used the word "bias". Are not we all biased? Was not the noble Lord, Lord Byers, absolutely correct when he said that he was biased towards the Liberal Party? Many of us try to write objectively. I have written a history of the colonial revolution. I am quite sure that many noble Lords on the
1024
other side would have regarded it as a very biased publication. It is a characteristic only of God-like impartiality to be able, even as a historian, to write without a certain bias resulting both from the environment in which the writer has grown up and from the views which he has developed in the course of his life. I for one do not want to be associated with criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for using the word "biased", for there is no-one, however objectively he seeks to write, who can avoid expression of his own attitude of mind.
However, when I have said that, I want to attack very strongly indeed the criticism which was made of this book from the Benches on the opposite side. I wondered, as I listened to that criticism, how many of the critics had read this book. I think I can make a guess that when they put their questions to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, they based those questions not on the contents of the book but on an article which appeared in the Sunday Express.
What were the criticisms of Mr. Basil Davidson which they made? The first was that he had described the Mau Mau movement in Kenya as, "a great farmers' rebellion". I was there. It was a great farmers' rebellion. It included abominable atrocities, but that phrase is absolutely accurate. I say that because I took some part in the negotiations which brought the Mau Mau movement to an end. The second criticism was that Mr. Basil Davidson did not specficially name General Amin in Uganda. Basil Davidson went very much further than that. He explicity condemned the new ruling groups in Africa as "corrupt and dictatorial".
The third criticism made of Mr. Basil Davidson's book was that he stated that Cecil Rhodes had made fortunes out of cheap black labour. Anyone with a knowledge of Africa knows that that is a very moderate criticism of Cecil Rhodes. His agents in what is now known as Rhodesia, as acknowledged by Roy Welensky, cheated the people of their land and their minerals for his private profit. I think Members on the opposite Benches should be grateful to Mr. Basil Davidson that he did not include that criticism.
Fourthly, Mr. Winston Churchill—and I say this with some regret because I have been associated with him in activity

1025
and I respect him—went so far as to claim that the book would "incite black school children to hate their white fellows in their classes". Mr. Winston Churchill could not possibly have read the book when he made a criticism of that kind.
The criticism is directed only towards the last 25 pages, devoted to "Colonialism and After"—25 pages in a book of 209 pages. The major part of the book tells with amazing detail and inescapable clarity the story of the development of the African peoples from the beginning of time, from the discovery of the earliest types of human being 3,700 years ago. As one who has tried to study these subjects, I can only express very humbly my admiration that anyone, even in a lifetime of concentration should have done the research and accumulated the knowledge which is in this book. No one has done for Europe, for Asia or for Australasia what Basil Davidson has done for Africa in this book. I say that our children and our children's children are fortunate that they will be able to study this book.
In truth this is not a history; it is a work of historical eminence, a work which in time will be valued at its true worth and which will put to shame the little critics who have voiced their opposition to it. I hope that the Ministry of Education will encourage the study of this book in our schools because from it they will learn a world perspective.
5.56 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, speak about Africa because, apart from the slight envy one feels of his vigour, manner and presentation, there is no one in this House who has had longer first-hand experience of Africa than the noble Lord, and judging from my own experience of West Africa there is no one more trusted, admired and respected by the Africans. I have addressed my few remarks this evening to the text of the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and I have therefore tried to relate the comments of my noble friend Lord Donaldson on Mr. Davidson's book to the White Paper The West Indian Community, which is what my noble friend Lord Wigg has asked the Government to do.
1026
My conclusion on reading the White Paper was that in fact the noble Lord's remarks and the White Paper are dealing with entirely different matters. That is why I could not face the contradiction alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I cannot see a contradiction where there is no similarity. The White Paper is concerned mainly with facts about the present situation of the West Indian community in this country and the policies proposed by the Government to mitigate what the White Paper calls "racial disadvantage". The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, were not directed either to matters of fact or to matters of Government policy, but solely to a matter of historical judgment. Therefore I do not consider that these facts or these policies are really relevant to the question of historical judgment raised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on 17th April.
It was on that occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, took the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to task for suggesting that Mr. Basil Davidson is biased as an historian of Africa. It is important to use the word "biased" in the same sense. I am not using it in a pejorative sense; I am using it, I hope, in the sense in which it is used by your Lordships in ordinary speech. I have myself read articles and books by Mr. Davidson, with much profit and pleasure. He writes from his own robust point of view, which is entirely opposed to colonialism and imperialism. My experience of Africa gave me a good opportunity to understand and appreciate this point of view as I lived for 3 years in Ghana shortly after independence, and became a close friend of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Your Lordships will remember that Dr. Nkrumah was among the leaders of the movement for African independence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that Mr. Davidson has done a most valuable service to independent Africa by making Africans aware of their own history and heritage, and proud of their descent from civilisations often older than ours.
Many British historians, unfortunately, have written about Africa—not all British historians by any means, but many—from an opposite point of view, treating the history of British Africa as an extension of British history. This sometimes resulted in strange consequences, as I

1027
found in Ghana, among schoolchildren who knew much more about the Commonwealth than they knew about their Francophone African neighbours, even when they belonged to the same tribe and were separated only by a national boundary inherited from the carve-up of Africa. These children could sometimes name the the capital of Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, but not the capital of Togoland or the Ivory Coast.
Mr. Davidson, and a number of African authors, have corrected this nationalistic bias by showing colonial rule in its proper perspective as a brief episode in the long and varied history of Africa. But to say that Mr. Davidson is unbiased is to do less than justice to his robust point of view. After all, many of the best known historians have written history from their own point of view, and are none the less honoured for it. The facts they have chosen to record are those that interested them, and they have interpreted these facts in the light of their values and beliefs, and their whole attitude to life and society. I need not mention the names of the great historians—I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, mentioned two; Gibbon and Macaulay—but they run of course to Lord Acton, to Arnold Toynbee, and others whom I shall leave other noble Lords either to remember or mention. They have all written history in terms of their philosophy of life.
Of course one has to remember that in choosing the facts that interest him the historian is bound to leave out others that do not, and for a balanced assessment of events what he leaves out may be as important as what he selects. It could hardly be denied that Mr. Davidson says a good deal more about the vices than about the virtues of British colonial rule, and indeed that he omits much of the good (and I believe that there was much of it) that British rule has done in different parts of the world.
This does no harm, I think, so long as one is fully aware of the historian's point of view and makes the appropriate mental reservation about hearing the other side of the case. That is why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for reminding us quite fairly, I thought, of the particular bias in Mr. Davidson's book about Africa. But I very much hope that
1028
my noble friend Lord Wigg will accept that in doing so the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has done justice and not injustice to a distinguished historian of Africa, and that there was not really anything in the slightest degree derogatory in what he said, or intended to say.
6.4 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, time is being consumed and my noble friend Lord Brockway has said almost exactly what I would have said myself, and no doubt said it better. I told the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, immediately he came in at Question Time, that I had not regarded it as anything serious, or anything to be too unduly worried about. I told my very old and very respected friend Lord Wigg that I had done so. This may show some lack of moral fibre on my part, of which I am fully conscious, but I certainly did not think that anything serious had happened.
I have since read the book, which is a very good book. It is absolutely astonishing that such a criticism should be made of it. I think it is a good book. Curiously enough, I found myself rather casually investigating exactly the same field a few months ago in order to help a near relative who is a university student. I think I spoke to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder about it. I certainly spoke to another of my noble friends who is studying ancient history, and I hope is going to make a further contribution to this subject. I shall not mention his name without his permission, although I am sure he would not object. It is a fascinating subject. One goes first to Herodotus and then almost essentially has to leap years to about the only real authorities, Leakey and his son, in Kenya, who were great anthropologists. You have the story of the original building of Zimbabwe, and the discovery of it, which is a fascinating subject. It is extremely well done.
So far as I know the only prejudice that the author really shows is that he is against the slave trade. Again, I think the author is being a little over pompous about it. It is a rough trade. Indeed, it was the fact that this is a rough and tough job that made me think I would be glad to join just for a brief time in this discussion. I was with my noble

1029
friend Lord Brockway at the time of Mau Mau. I remember when we got there that we saw the missionaries, who said, "Are you prepared to make an appeal to all for a cessation of violence?" We said, "Of course. That is one of the things we came for." They were quite astounded. We were Left Wing.
I hope that Mr. Michael Blundell, who is now a friend of both of us, will forgive my recalling from the past that he denounced my noble friend as a Communist in the State Legislature as we arrived. We were criticised, of course, everywhere. I do not think that those criticisms are made now even from extreme quarters. We did, as my noble friend told in his autobiography, meet Michael Blundell and really tried to produce an agreement. All this is not relevant to this debate, and I apologise in a sense for having strayed from the subject. I did myself make a personal offer to try to assist in a settlement, but I shall not go into that because I realise that it was something that the Minister could only accept with difficulty. I said that I would not open up the matter—although he is now long since dead. It is twenty years ago, and I had no complaint.
But of course the implication which goes with the statement is a quite serious matter. It is quite serious to a writer to suggest that he is Left Wing. I sec my noble and excellent friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, who might well have taken part in this discussion because he has spread the gospel of science, of reclamation, of reform, and so on, throughout the world. He has written some books that are masterpieces for the reading and the education of young people. I daresay that he has had criticisms in his time. I think that there was a bit of difficulty—not personal difficulty—with the Shah of Iran on one occasion. My noble friend and I have known Lord Wigg for a long time, I for at least 40 years and, I fancy, my noble friend for much longer than that—my noble friend goes back to Ho Chi Minh in 1920 and debs in America—and we know that his integrity is compelling and that he is always actuated by a desire to remedy injustice. Perhaps sometimes we think that in doing so his voice seems to take on the role of prosecuting counsel more than I would like to undertake or like to express.
1030
The Sunday Times was mourning the murder of one of its foreign correspondents shortly after Christmas. He was a very distinguished foreign correspondent. The last time I went abroad I tried to intervene on behalf of 45 chaps who were being charged with murdering the President of Zanzibar. One of the grounds which one could not express then was that, if anyone had to be murdered, the then President of Zanzibar was precisely the man who should be, but I do not agree with assassination and I do not take that view. I met there the colonial correspondent of the Observer, who was exposing Idi Amin. He was denouncing Amin, reporting the crimes and bloodthirsty acts that were being committed. To do that is not an easy job; it is a great responsibility and I was fortunate enough—
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hale, will forgive me for interrupting him. As he knows, there is no Speaker in this House and there is no means of keeping order other than by your Lordships doing it ourselves. It occurs to me that there is a rule of relevance in your Lordships' House about debates. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hale, would perhaps think that he has in the past eight minutes strayed rather far from the narrow confines of the Unstarred Question which is being asked.
Lord HALE: My Lords, that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was perfectly justified, though a little late. I never quite know why it is that I am the only person who must tread the straight and narrow path or be assailed by the teeny-boppers' dawn chorus of criticism if I move an inch. I do not think I have said a word that will offend anybody—
Lord CARRINGTON: I did not say the noble Lord had, my Lords.
Lord HALE: —and I can only say that they have disappointed, to some extent, an old and valued friend. I have a high regard for Lord Carrington and his forthright speech and I do not take any offence. Indeed, I was about to resume my speech when he intervened. And as for my noble friend Lord Peart, he has a habit of jumping up. He told me to sit down once and he really must stop doing that.
Lord PEART: I did not say a word about my noble friend sitting down, my Lords.
Lord HALE: I have been interrupted twice, my Lords, and my total speaking time has now gone to 10 minutes. Truth is disappearing from the world and the people who tell the truth and report truly on these matters are doing a great service to humanity. I see in the events of the last day or two dreadful risks, dreadful causes for anxiety and sometimes a dreadful weakness in the moral authority that Britain has on occasion exercised to the advantage of the nations.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hale and Lord Brockway for their remarks, and in rising to reply—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: I thought there were no other speakers wishing to take part in the debate, my Lords. I apologise; I see my noble friend Lady Stewart of Alvechurch does. If she wishes to speak, I will gladly give way to her.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships' House for more than a moment or two. I must say that I did not find any difficulty in relating the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Donaldson on 17th April to the policies set out in the Government's White Paper on The West Indian Community; both the White Paper and my noble friend's Statement seemed to me to display both humanity and common sense.

Basil Davidson's book Discovering Africa's Past is, in my view, valuable. It makes considerable demands on the reader's background knowledge and I think it might be more suited to a university than a school library, but as a school governor I would leave the decision on that matter to members of the school staff and I would certainly not want to prevent young people from reading the book. We want to ensure that young people, whatever their country of origin, learn not only to read but to read critically, and are given opportunities to hear different sides of the same question in
1032
school. It is of the greatest importance that the proposals relating to education which are outlined in the Government's White Paper on The West Indian Community should bear fruit in the near future.
6.17 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I now come to reply to what has been a most interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Wigg has put down a Question which on the face of it appears rather complicated. However, if he will forgive my saying so, I think the real subject of his attentions is much more straightforward, and his speech revealed that. I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord is as concerned as I am that race relations in this country should be as harmonious and happy as possible. I understand this concern very well and I know that many noble Lords in all parts of the House share it. But I must admit that even after listening to the noble Lord, I find the reasoning which links Mr. Davidson's book on Africa with a Home Office Paper on the West Indian community somewhat opaque or rather tenuous.
The Paper contains the Government's observations on the Report of the Commons Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. A section of the observations is concerned with educational issues. Three paragraphs refer specifically to the curriculum in schools. The Government recognise the need for the curriculum to—
"reflect the wide range of cultures, histories and life styles in our multiracial society".
Implicit in this approach is the need for appropriate supporting literature for both teachers and children, but this is the only link between the subject matter of the Paper and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Donaldson on 17th April about a book which is obviously a candidate for inclusion by schools in their reading lists for either teachers or children.
The use of one word, the word "biased", appears to be the cause of Lord Wigg's concern. So that we can put the whole issue in perspective, I start by quoting exactly what my noble friend said and put it on the record. First he said:
"I think Mr. Basil Davidson could be described as biased, he has never pretended not to be. I really feel that if the Conservative Party is going

1033
to suggest that defensive action should be taken in this way, it is as if they are suggesting that a former Tory Government should have suppressed Macaulay".—[Official Report, 17/4/78, cols. 872–3]
Those remarks followed Lord Donaldson's statement that it was not his business to censor books and that he was not prepared to be put in the position of doing so. He introduced the word "biased" in a neutral way and went on to link it with the illustrious name of Macaulay. The next occasion on which Lord Donaldson used the word "biased" followed an intervention by Lord Wigg, who took exception to the use of the word. Lord Donaldson replied to the noble Lord, and I quote in full:
"My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong in saying that nobody has charged Basil Davidson with bias. Of course I think he is a writer of great distinction. I think that he is a historian of Africa of great distinction, and I consider that the first 200 pages of his book are a very distinguished history of Africa. But I think that Basil Davidson would be astonished to be cleared of bias—I really do—and I mean no offence at all".—[Official Report, 17/4/78, col. 874.]
It is quite clear from this quotation that my noble friend had no intention of being offensive in any way, and his intervention this evening had made this even clearer, if that is possible.
It will also be apparent to anyone who reads the full text of the exchanges following the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, on 17th April, beginning at Column 871 of the Official Report, and ending at Column 875, that, so far from attacking Basil Davidson, my noble friend Lord Donaldson was deliberately standing between Mr. Davidson and criticism directed at him by noble Lords opposite (Lord Gridley, Lord Alexander of Potterhill and Lord Orr-Ewing). It is therefore ludicrous to suggest that my noble friend was skulking behind Parliamentary privilege in order to make remarks which he would not have made equally happily in other circumstances.
There was no conflict between my noble friend's remarks on 17th April and Government policy. A general recognition of a need for the curriculum to reflect the diversity in a multiracial society is not the same as saying that every book about colonial history, or the cultural origins of particular groups, is necessarily suitable. Each book must be taken on its merits. My noble friend made it quite clear that the school curriculum and the
1034
selection of teaching materials are the responsibility of the legal education authorities, school governors, head teachers and their staff. He has every confidence in their wisdom and their knowledge of the areas in which they work, as he made abundantly clear on 17th April. He has no intention of recommending that steps should be taken to inhibit the choice of the responsible authorities in connection with this book, or any other. So, for the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to suggest that this benevolent view of Mr. Davidson's work is in any way sinister is really quite extraordinary.
From my own, perhaps biased, point of view, I should say that my noble friend Lord Donaldson did no more than suggest that Mr. Davidson was a writer of distinction with a specific point of view, which was apparent in the last 20 pages of his book. My noble friend—and I say this for the last time—made it quite clear then, as he has done again today, that he did not consider that this reflected adversely upon the book in question.

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.
HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
Third Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.