Lords Sitting of 27 July 1979

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
The Lord Trevelyan—Took the Oath.

ETHIOPIA: AID DISTRIBUTION
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what accounts they have received of money given by Her Majesty's Government for humanitarian purposes in Ethiopia.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may apologise in advance for a rather lengthier reply than is customary.
During the financial year 1978–79 Her Majesty's Government made contributions of £750,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia, and of £1 million to the International Committee for the Red Cross for the whole of Africa, of which we believe about £400,000 went to the Horn of Africa. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that it is providing assistance to some 30,000 families in Ethiopia at a cost of about £2½ million. The International Committee for the Red Cross spent 1.75 million Swiss francs, which is about half a million pounds, in Ethiopia during the seven months commencing 1st November 1978. Assistance has been provided for displaced persons in the Ogaden and Eritrea in the form of blankets, clothing, foodstuffs and medical supplies.
Her Majesty's Government have also made grants of £50,000 to United Kingdom voluntary agencies through the Disasters Emergency Committee, to assist them to meet the cost of sending relief supplies to the Horn of Africa. Her
2150
Majesty's Government provided 10,000 tonnes of soft wheat under the World Food Programme in 1978, and are in the process of shipping a further 14,574 tonnes. This food aid is provided for the people in the areas of severe food shortage.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for that very comprehensive reply. Would he confirm that the refugee problem in the Horn of Africa, in terms of the numbers of persons displaced from their homes, is almost as grave, if not as grave, as that in South-East Asia, and that therefore all efforts must be focused on assisting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in attempting to alleviate the sufferings of those people? None the less, would the noble Earl not agree that there is a risk that some of the aid which is provided for humanitarian purposes, both by the United Kingdom and by the EEC in programmes in which we play a part, may be diverted to military use by the Ethiopian régime, and that in fact some medical and food supplies have been captured by the Eritrean freedom fighters from the Ethiopian troops who are occupying their territory? What steps will Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that aid that we provide for humanitarian purposes is not used, directly or indirectly, to assist the Ethiopian dictators in their war effort?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first point, I accept that we would wish to support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as much as we can, but I think it is invidious to compare the problems in one part of the world with those in another, although we accept that the difficulties of the refugees in the Horn of Africa are considerable. With regard to the point that the noble Lord made about food getting into the hands of the Ethiopian Army, he will of course realise that we can send food there only by agreement with the Ethiopian Government. It is our intention that this food should go to the refugees; but clearly we are not in a position to control what happens to the food, and if the noble Lord has details of instances of where it is going to military camps I would be grateful if he would let us know. But, of course, this is one of the hazards of sending gifts.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question: In view of the worldwide character of this problem, will the British Government take the initiative in having the whole issue discussed by the General Assembly of the United Nations and, afterwards, by the Security Council? Because some international action is needed if this problem is to be solved.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we will certainly take note of the noble Lord's suggestion. It is slightly wider than the original Question, which was to ask what happens to the food which has been given, but we will take note of it.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true that this matter is discussed once every year at the United Nations, when the High Commissioner for Refugees makes his report? I do not think it is necessary to have anything else.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, certainly I accept that this is a matter of great concern which is discussed by many people in many forums.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, is it not true that this is the second case within recent weeks which has been raised in this House of money intended to relieve refugee problems in various parts of the world perhaps not having been used for the purpose for which it was intended? Would it not be possible for the noble Earl the Minister to suggest to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that they appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for refugee problems and for ensuring that any monies are spent for the purpose for which they are being sent?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that is a fascinating idea, but I rather doubt whether my right honourable friend would accept that a Minister should be specially designated for refugee problems. But I would remind the noble Lord that where any Government give aid for certain particular people there is always the danger that it may not reach those people, and it is very difficult for any Government outside the country concerned to take appropriate action.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has examined how the various nations, apart from ourselves, have contributed and how particularly the oil-producing nations, who are making fortunes at the present time, contribute towards not only other refugees but those whom they themselves call refugees?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put down a Question when we return in October asking for specific information on aid given by other countries, I will do my best to answer it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider taking the initiative in summoning an international conference (on the lines of the recent successful conference on refugees from Indo-China which was held on the initiative of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary) to deal with the equally grave problem in the Horn of Africa? With regard to the diversion of supplies to the Ethiopian army, is the noble Earl aware that eye witnesses who have returned recently from Eritrea confirm that they have seen EEC aid, marked as such, both food and medical supplies, in material which has been captured by the Eritrean freedom fighters from the Ethiopian armed forces? If I supply the noble Earl with evidence of these eye witnesses, will he ask his noble friend the Foreign Secretary to consider seriously what effect this would have on aid supplied to Ethiopia directly or through the EEC?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly see that my noble friend has his attention brought to both suggestions which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with regard to a conference and with regard to the food getting into the wrong hands. I would remind him again that if we are to give aid there is always that danger. The difficulty is that, if the amount of material going to the wrong people is too great, the consequences might be even worse.

THE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION PROGRAMME
11.13 a.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continue the support given by the previous Government to the report and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Development Education.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are currently reviewing the programme of development education initiated by the past Administration following the Report by the Advisory Committee on Development Education. This is part of the general review of public expenditure.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will lift his eyes above the clouds that the Government have drawn around themselves in the past three months to the much wider and more important horizons of the rest of the century? Is he aware that for the past two and a half years this committee, sitting and acting voluntarily, have spent many hours producing a report? This was done with the assistance of devoted officials in the Ministries. It was a report which was accepted by five Ministries, and designed to encourage and stimulate organisations in this country, right from the formal education system through the voluntary community education system to the media, and to spread the concept and understanding of the international world with which the Ministry is dealing. This subject is of the utmost importance to the future of the present and coming generations of this country. Will the noble Earl tell us whether the Government, at least in principle, give the same support to the report and the recommendations of this committee as did the previous Administration?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me to lift my eyes. When I do so I see, first, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. The noble Lord is very concerned about this committee, and rightly so, because he was a distinguished member of it. I would remind him that the amount of money given to this effort in 1977–78 was £150,000 and that this year it is £728,000, which is a marked increase. I can only tell the noble Lord that this expenditure, like all other expenditure, is going to be a
2154
matter of review by the present Government and I cannot anticipate the result of that.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who has not yet made his maiden speech, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the Anglican Bishops of Scotland, England and Wales a unanimous resolution was passed asking the Government to note their support for this fund and expressing their concern at the possible consequences if it is cut back?
Earl FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the concern which the Church has expressed.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, in conducting the review to which the noble Earl has referred, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that an important feature of the British aid effort has been the partnership between voluntary bodies such as Oxfam and Christian Aid on the one hand, and the Government department on the other? Will the Government therefore bear in mind that this advisory committee referred to in the Question is a most important part of that partnership? Therefore, may we from this side express the hope that the review will be favourable to the outcome of this committee?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the partnership between the Government and these voluntary organisations is very important. In answer to his question, may he express the opinion that the review will be satisfactory?, the answer is that by all means he may express it. Indeed, he has expressed it. But I still cannot tell him what the outcome will be.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that, despite the worthiness of this committee and so on, developing countries are much more interested in trade than aid, and are much more interested in getting our know-how than in just having aid?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree. The developing countries are very much involved with requiring aid. I think that

2155
this particular Question is directed mostly to people in this country as opposed to people in other countries.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, might I assist the noble Earl? The money he is speaking about has nothing to do with aid to developing countries. It is entirely confined to support of projects put forward by a whole range of voluntary organisations and some formal organisations in this country in order to help those who are spreading international understanding among the people in this country. In his reply to me he referred to the fact that a review of public expenditure was being undertaken and this item would have to take its turn along with the rest. Would he not agree that this is not like the rest of public expenditure but is a unique exception? Would he not agree that the money that he has spoken about is not going to the committee; it is going to those organisations which the committee are assisting to spread international understanding in this country? In that respect it is an earnest of the intention of this Government to spread international understanding between now and the end of the century, and a meagre £700,000-odd is a very small amount for such a tremendous task.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is very persuasive, but I could not agree with him that this aid is different. It is Government expenditure and, as such, has to be found by Government funds. He says it is nothing to do with overseas aid, but I would remind him that it comes out of that allocation.

M.3: PROPOSED EXTENSION
11.24 a.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be better and much cheaper to complete the dual carriageway from the northern end of the Winchester by-pass to the southern end
2156
of the M.3 rather than go on waiting for agreement on an eventual line for continuing the M.3 to Southampton.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has just received the inspector's Report of the public inquiry into proposals for the Popham to Compton section of the M.3. I hope the noble Lord will understand that it would not be proper for me to comment at this stage on a possible alternative to the proposals which were discussed at the inquiry, or on the merits of these proposals.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that this question has been going on now for many years. This is the main road from London to Southampton. Vast articulated lorries go hurtling down what was originally a Roman road, the A.33. All that is required is about 3½ miles of dual carriageway to join the end of the M.3 to the northern end of the Winchester by-pass.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as I said before to the noble Lord, in another debate, it was a very long inquiry and many contentious issues were raised. I must remind the House that the Inspector was taken ill at the end of last year. Considering that, I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the Inspector for the way that he has published the report so quickly. Regarding the last remarks of my noble friend, I think that what I said originally still applies: it would be improper for me to comment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is an excellent precedent for what the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, has suggested in the shape of the A1 trunk road where stretches of pure motorway, notably the Baldock and Stevenage by-passes and the Doncaster by-pass, alternate with stretches of ordinary dual carriageway? This works very well. Will the noble Lord agree that this way of doing things prevents undue burdens being heaped on the taxpayer, prevents the dislocation of ordinary people's lives that the construction of new motorways implies, and, above all, prevents further desecration of what is left of English countryside?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I appreciate all the points. The Doncaster by-pass was an M road, part of the link-up with the M.1 for the rest of Northern England. All these matters are very important. It is a sign of the importance that both Governments—that of noble Lords opposite and our Government—attach to this matter that when we do it we want to get it right.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an indication whether we are likely to know what is the Minister's decision on the Inspector's report when we return in October? I accept that it would be foolish to go ahead and build this stretch of road if we are going to be in a position at long last to go ahead with the proper M.3 motorway. Secondly, can the noble Lord say whether the present Government are endorsing and continuing the view of the previous Government, whereby it is not necessary to cut great swathes from the countryside for new motorways but we can alleviate the situation, where possible, by by-passes?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that both my right honourable friends the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment wish to reach the decision as soon as possible. The noble Baroness and noble Lords will appreciate that it will take some time to consider the report on such a long and complex inquiry. Regarding the noble Baroness's last question, I am happy to tell her and the House that the document I referred to the other day when answering the Question of my noble friend Lord Caithness on our policy on trunk roads was placed in the Library by me this morning. It has been published today. So noble Lords will see that we do take action as soon as possible.

NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT: RECOGNITION
11.27 a.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to recognise the Government of national reconstruction in Nicaragua.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are still considering this question.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in their consideration will the Government bear in mind that the Government of the United States of America have recognised the new Government? Will they also bear in mind that, almost uniquely after the military coup, this Government are showing extraordinary liberal intentions? They are allowing the refugees in the Embassy to go to their countries, they are not going to have courts-martial for opponents and have indicated that there will be no executions. In view of all these facts, will Her Majesty's Government recognise as early as possible this new Government of hope?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we will certainly take into account all these factors, and indeed are taking them into account.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, having regard to the length of time—and the very short time—it took the Government to recognise the dictatorship of President Amin in Uganda, can they not speed up their recognition of this revolution?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that the two are at all similar.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the sole criterion for recognition whether the Government are in full control of the territory? In view of the fact that this Government are now apparently in full control, what is the reason for the delay?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the situation in Nicaragua has been a very complicated one. We have not had our own representatives there; we have sent a representative there who has made a report and we are considering that.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this: In view of the fact that the United States have contributed £1½ million to supplying medical aid and

2159
clothing to the distressed in Nicaragua, despite all the demands on the Government, could not Her Majesty's Government indicate their goodwill towards the new Government after recognition by considering whether some contribution of this kind could be made?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we will certainly consider that suggestion as well; but it comes after recognition.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
11.30 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived. Bill read 3a, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ardwick be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of the Lord Kennet resigned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, before we pass this Motion I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees would inquire what is happening about the recommendations, now two years old, of the Committee on Practice
2160
and Procedure which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Those recommendations were referred to the Procedure Committee for their advice on exactly how to implement them in terms of technical detail. I have raised this matter at intervals throughout the years since this report was presented to the House, and since the undertakings were given from the Front Benches that a first experiment on the lines of the recommendations of that committee would be instituted. We still seem to be awaiting the report of the Procedure Committee on those recommendations, and it would be very helpful indeed if we could have some indication from the noble Lord as to whether he will find out and will report later on what is actually happening.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am ever mindful of the interest taken in this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I even anticipated, when I saw him in the House, that he might ask this very question. May I tell him that certainly the Procedure Committee has not forgotten the report of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure and in fact, as I think the noble Lord realises, was waiting to see what action was taken in another place in regard to the recommendations of their Select Committee. I took the opportunity at the meeting of the Procedure Committee whose report we are now considering of mentioning, at the end of the meeting, that I thought the time was now ripe for this committee to look once again at the report of our own committee. This we shall do at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
11.33 a.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee approved a regrading of the post of Examiner of Acts.
2. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved a revision in the pay of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.
The Committee also confirmed the application of the following Civil Service Memoranda:—

(a) CM/370—Pay of the Higher Civil Service.

(b) CM/371—Proficiency Allowances.

(c) GM/173—Fees to Academic Consultants, etc.

giving revised rates of pay and increased allowances to applicable officers and staff of the House of Lords.
3. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee approved an increase in the scale of fees for the Official Shorthand Writer.
4. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised

(a) revised charges for the supply of typists for the reporting of debates; and

(b) revised attendance fees to temporary reporters.

5. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Short service gratuity to Mrs. G. Robertson, Senior Personal Secretary, who resigned on 11th May 1979;

(b) Short service gratuity to Mr. R. T. Searle, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 2nd March 1979.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
11.35 a.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for any length of time, but your Lordships may recollect that about three or four years ago we had before us a Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It was a Private Bill brought by the British Docks Board in order to take over the Felixstowe Docks. The Bill received a Second Reading and went through a Committee stage in this House, but your Lordships may recollect that it was rejected on Third Reading. Therefore the Bill lapsed and the purchase of the Felixstowe Dock by European Ferries then took place.
I do not want to go back over that issue: it is finished and I fully accept it. After the failure of the Bill to pass I met Mr. Wickenden, who is the chairman of European Ferries, and pointed out to
2162
him at the time that I would keep a very close eye on the functioning of the Felixstowe Dock, because European Ferries made very definite promises to the committee of your Lordships' House which investigated the Bill and assured us that there would be proper development of the Felixstowe Dock.
So far as I can find out, they have kept their promise and I do not in the least wish to say that there has been any respect, to my knowledge, in which they have failed. I think that the Felixstowe Dock has progressed satisfactorily. I can fully understand the need for this Bill, which would give the Felixstowe Dock the right to further development which, as is perfectly evident to anyone who has visited the dock, is badly needed. Excellent work was done by the person who took it over, Mr. Parker, but he ran short of capital and that was precisely why the dock was sold.
However, I think it is important that when we consider a Bill like this we should be quite clear what is happening. Consequently, there are a few matters about which I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. One is the question of the extent of the works which are proposed. There is at the end of the Bill a schedule which states it; but of course it is not easy, simply by reading the words of a schedule, to see exactly what the plans are for the works. I would hope that the plans will be available to your Lordships' House so that they can be looked at carefully and so that we can be quite clear as to what is being done. I am not saying anything is wrong: I am merely saying that when we pass a Bill we ought to know what we are passing.
The other point about which I should like to ask the noble Lord concerns the powers of a planning authority after this Bill has been passed, because it would appear that the Bill gives full authority to the docks to carry out any feature that they require—anything they want—if they have deposited a plan. I should like to know whether this means that the power of the planning authority is overridden if this Bill becomes an Act.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for making a few remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill. Of course, in

2163
passing a Private Bill at a Second Reading your Lordships are not endorsing what is in the Bill; you are merely agreeing that it should go to the Unopposed Bill Committee. I am in no sense promoting the Bill, and therefore I am unable to answer the detailed questions that the noble Lord has put. I can assure him that these matters will be looked at by the Unopposed Bill Committee, and I will see that his remarks are drawn to the attention of that committee. I will personally satisfy him that we have taken into account all that he has mentioned. I do not think that this Bill is likely to cause any of the controversy that the last Bill, to which he drew attention, did, because it has already passed through another place and is unopposed in this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Appropriation (No. 2) Act.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, before moving the adjournment of the House, I think it would be appropriate if we on these Benches wished noble Lords opposite a very happy Recess.