Lords Sitting of 28 January 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

INFLATION AND PRICE INCREASES
Lord JACQUES: 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 are aware that it is reliably estimated that their policies, which they say give first priority to the control of inflation, will add per cent. to price increases from mid-1979 to mid-1980 and will account for nearly one half the rate of inflation.
The MINISTER OF STATE, TREAS-URY (Lord Cockfield): No, my Lords. The figure to which the noble Lord refers is not correct. Some of the figures used are open to question and the method adopted is conceptually wrong. Measures designed to reduce the rate of inflation may have an apparent effect on the retail price index, but it is an error to add these apparent effects together and claim that that is the effect on inflation of the measures taken. The true position is quite different. The measures the Government are taking are designed to bring the rate of inflation down and will do so.
Several noble Lords: When?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first of all I thank the Minister for his Answer. It at least gives me the opportunity of asking supplementaries. Is the Minister aware that the economists concerned are experienced in forecasting, that they use the Treasury computer forecasting model, and that they published the make-up of their 8½ per cent. in the Guardian on 2nd January? Is he further aware that Government-inspired inflation is taken into
600
account when wages settlements are made, and that consequently Government-inspired inflation does not last only one year but it feeds inflation in successive years through the free collective bargaining, which is another policy of the Government?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his opening sentence. I am well aware of the standing and reputation of the people who produced these estimates, but I do not think that they would lay any claim to papal infallibility and, a fortiori, the noble Lord. So far as the second part of his question is concerned, it is relevant to bear in mind that at the same time as indirect taxation was increased in the last Budget there were very sizeable reductions in personal taxation at all levels, and these reductions ought to be taken into account in the process of wage bargaining.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, could the Minister honestly say whether he understood his own Answer?
Lord COCKFIELD: Yes, my Lords, and on some suitable occasion I would always be prepared to give the noble Lord some tuition in elementary economics.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is now becoming quite apparent where Government policy is leading us? In the short term it is feeding inflation, in the middle term it is going to cause hardship by unnecessary unemployment and unnecessary bankruptcy, and in the long term it is going to give us the most Left-Wing Government we have ever had in this country.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I entirely share the noble Lord's sentiment in deploring Left-Wing Governments of all complexions, but so far as the rest of his question is concerned I do not agree with him on any point. It may be well within his recollection that one of the major causes of the present inflation was the high level of the public sector borrowing requirement and the excessive growth in the money supply created by the Labour Administration. Dealing with these matters inevitably involves taking measures which are unpleasant, but it is essential

601
to take those measures if we are to restore the economy to full health.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister's enthusiasm for Right-Wing Governments, at least by implication, carry him as far as having been enthusiastically in support at the time of the policies of Messrs. Barber and Heath, which are the root cause of this country's economic difficulties?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord's question seemed to me to be interesting but not directly related to the one on the Order Paper.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, it paralleled the Minister's reply.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that by 1978 the last Government had got the inflation rate down to something under 8 per cent.?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that under pressure from the IMF in the year 1977–78 the Labour Government were following a path of much greater fiscal and monetary prudence. Unfortunately, in the following year, under pressure of electoral considerations and dissension within their own party, they allowed public expenditure to get out of control, and this was the proximate cause of our present difficulties.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, would the Minister tell the House what kind of pressure would be effective upon the Government to produce a change of course, and a less fallible policy than is now being conducted by them?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, while I entirely appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, the Government's policy is clear and consistent, and we believe it is the only effective way of dealing with the very great problems we face.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, did not the noble Lord himself lay claim to papal infallibility when he stated quite firmly that his Government's policy will work?
Lord COCK FIELD: That is not a claim to papal infallibility, my Lords. Any Government must have faith in their policy and we have great faith in ours.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the Minister referred to the reductions in indirect taxation and the fact that they should be taken into account in relation to wage claims. Is he aware that £1,560 million of these reductions in taxation were given to people with incomes over £10,000 a year, most of whom do not work for weekly wages?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the reductions in direct taxation made by the present Government benefited people at all income levels. They resulted in a substantial rise in the threshold at which income tax liability commences, an increase which was double the figure prescribed in the existing legislation and double the figure included in the Labour Party's first Finance Act of 1979. There were also reductions in the basic rate of income tax as well as reductions higher up the scale.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend is, I am sure, deeply grateful for the offer of the lecture which the Minister made to him, the House in general would appreciate more the lectures which we regularly receive from the noble Lord if they were accompanied by more generosity of spirit and a lot more humour?

HOME DEFENCE
2.45 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 co-operation they have had from local authorities in their consultations with them over civil defence.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords,

603
we are pressing on with our examination of home defence arrangements, in which we have had a great deal of assistance from local authorities. We shall be looking closely at possible improvements in the level of local preparedness.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which is encouraging, may I ask whether the Government have thought of contacting the Red Cross, St. John and the WRVS, all of which took a very prominent part in civil defence in the last war and who, I am certain, are prepared to play their part again; and may I ask the Government to follow that up as they have done with the Territorials?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I acknowledge the value of voluntary work performed in aid of civil defence plans both in the past and at the present time, but the Government's present policy is to leave it to local authorities to liaise with voluntary bodies and judge how best together they can make suitable civil defence plans for their areas.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, the House will be grateful for the indication the Minister has given about the study. Will he accept that, while it would be quite wrong to be alarmist, common prudence dictates that the events of the last few weeks suggest that this is a matter which should be treated with rather greater urgency than perhaps any of us has treated it before? Can he say when his examination of the study, to which he referred today and to which he also referred on 6th December, when we last considered this matter, will be completed; and whether, when that is complete, the Government will be publishing their views?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I certainly would not dissent from the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that events in the world have caused all of us to concentrate with a good deal more urgency on this matter than perhaps we thought might have been necessary. However, this was the first review of its kind to be undertaken for some time. It has been thorough, it involved many agencies, central and local government as well as representatives of
604
many other authorities, and I can only tell the noble Lord that we are pressing on with the examination of the review as urgently as we can. Certainly my honourable friend in another place and representatives of the Government in your Lordships' House will always be ready to keep both Houses informed as soon as the review is completed.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, when my noble friend publishes the review, will he consider publishing a list of the measures which other European countries have taken in civil defence? Is he aware that the Soviet Union have been working on this matter with great energy for some time and that they reckon they will reduce the number of casualties at their essential targets in Moscow and other places by 75 per cent. as a result of civil defence measures? Is that not a worthwhile tribute, and if the Soviet Union are doing it should not the free nations also pay attention to this matter with a great sense of urgency, as has been suggested from the Benches opposite?
Lord BELSTEAD: Again, my Lords, I would not dissent from what my noble friend said. Incidentally, I did not say in my remarks that we would be publishing the review; I used different words which made it clear that of course we would keep both Houses fully informed. All I would add to what my noble friend said—I must add it because any Government would have to do so and I most certainly must do so—is that the level of expenditure on civil defence must of course always be part of the considerations which have to be taken into account in these matters.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree to publish some of the results of the recent Easingwold Conference, to let us know what progress is being made apropos the Question, and its direction? Further, does he agree that in counties such as Hampshire, Wiltshire and Devon substantial progress has been made? Is he aware that the organisation of which I am chairman, which has over 800 members in the County of Devon, will have completed the first stage of home defence advisers' training by the end of this year?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that the Government

605
think that there is most certainly a case for providing more information in what I might call peacetime, the policy always having been that, in order to have its greatest impact, information should wait until this country is under threat of attack. I repeat that the Government certainly accept that there is a case for providing more information in peacetime, and this is something that we are seriously considering. I should like to repeat what I have already said: the Government certainly recognise the value of the voluntary effort in this field, which is to be found particularly in certain local authority areas.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that years ago, just after the last war, the famous scientist who was then a member of Her Majesty's Government, the late Lord Cherwell, made the statement that, whereas there was no defence against the destruction and shock, so far as the direct radiation was concerned, a sheet of brown paper was all that was needed? Is the noble Lord also aware that in the United States some years back there was appointed a special minister to look into the whole question of civil defence and his view was that, if there was an all out attack, whatever defence there was, half the population of the United States would be destroyed?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords; I am not aware of either of the two statements which the noble Lord has put to me, but certainly we shall take them seriously into account in the review which is proceeding at the present time.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the logic of what has been said this afternoon, arising from the fact that the Soviet Union, with great sense of urgency, is devoting massive resources to civil defence, whereas we are doing very little?—the logic being of course that the Soviet Union expects the nuclear attack, whereas we do not.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, logic and the Soviet Union do not go hand in hand.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord arrange for some kind of television documentary on how to prepare a safe quarter in the house? That would get round much more quickly than pamphlets.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is on to a good point here and I assure him that this, too, is something we are looking at carefully. I should like to link this to what I have already said. The noble Lord is on to the point of how much information should be issued at a time when one feels attack is not immediately apparent, and this is a matter which perhaps we have to look at again. Incidentally, this was a point raised, when we last had a Question on this matter, by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who is not, I think, in the House today, and on that occasion I sought to reply to the noble Lord in very much the same way.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Lord and the Government take steps to see that, whatever information they distribute on this matter, they do not create unnecessary panic among the population?
Lord BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords.

JURIES: CONFIDENTIALITY OF DELIBERATIONS
2.53 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: 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 have any proposals for preserving the confidentiality of the jury room.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would have liked to answer this Question. He is at this moment sitting on your Lordships' Appellate Committee in place of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is indisposed. He has asked me to express his regrets to the House.
My Lords, the Government are considering the implications of the recent judgment of the Divisional Court in the case of the Attorney-General v.Statesman & Nation Publishing Company in which the law on this subject was considered. They have not yet reached any conclusions.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, while I accept that Answer in the spirit in which

607
it is offered, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he would agree that it is of vital importance to the administration of justice that jurors should feel free in the jury room to express their opinions frankly and without fearing that they may subsequently be reported in the Press?
Lord BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords,
Lord HALE. My Lords, does the noble Lord recall the very famous case of Adelaide Bartlett, who was charged with murdering her husband by administering chloroform, which was said to be medically impossible? After a long trial, the jury, following a long retirement, were permitted to bring in an addendum to their verdict of acquittal, in which they said that there was very grave suspicion. After all the intellectual newspapers had gone out of their way to say that it was a bad verdict and that the lady was guilty, the foreman of the jury wrote a letter, which was published in The Times, which was almost conclusive and which said that 11 were for an acquittal the moment they got inside the jury room, but that one man had said that nothing would deter him from voting for conviction. They finally agreed to this highly improper compromise in an effort to save the innocent lady from the ordeal of six days more trial, which they did not think her health was likely to stand. I know of no authority to say that a juryman is not entitled to explain himself or his action decently and properly when he is under attack and attack is permitted.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that I can best reply to the noble Lord by saying that, as I understand the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the particular case about which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is questioning me, he was of the view that there were dangers in the revealing of jury secrets in that it might deter subsequent juries from speaking their mind in the jury room because of the fear of publicity afterwards. It could also imperil the finality of jury verdicts which, as I understand the Lord Chief Justice's words, was a prime reason for jury trial in this country. Bearing in mind those conclusions of the Lord Chief Justice, the Government think it undesirable in principle that jurors should be free to disclose the secrets of their deliberations. Discussions will be
608
taking place with interested parties in order to decide what course the Government should best take.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the Minister will be glad to hear that this is a genuine request for information, with no backlash to it at all. Can he kindly tell the House what exactly is the position of a juror who betrays to other people conversations that took place in the jury room? What is the authority, what is the law, and whence is it derived?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is no oath of secrecy; therefore it is not an offence.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, in view of the great importance of this matter, will the Government consider referring it to one of the expert committees which might be able to give advice on it? I do not mean that impertinently.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I must say to the noble and learned Lord that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable and noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to what he has said. I was at pains to explain that it is the view of the Government at the moment that the way to proceed is by discussion with all the various interested parties—and the noble and learned Lord will understand the scope of that phrase better than I. As the noble and learned Lord has put this particular point to me, I should like to draw the Lord Chancellor's attention to it.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLING-TON: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the essence of the verdict of a jury is that it is reached by a consensus of 12 people who have listened to the evidence and that therefore to try to discover by interviewing one member of a jury how that consensus has been reached is inevitably bound to give rise to misconception? Will the Minister also agree that, whereas the good sense of the ordinary juryman can be relied upon in relation to the secrets of the jury room, it might be fruitful to consider whether it should be an offence to publish the secrets of the jury room?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his

609
experience, for giving me his views on the first point. I think that the view that he expressed supports the view that I have attempted to express, which is the Government's view today, and which is that it is undesirable in principle that jurors should be free to disclose the secrets of their deliberations. On the noble Lord's second point, again, if I may, I should like to draw the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if the oath of secrecy involves a sanction to uphold the privacy of matters which take place in the jury room, is that sanction, then, for the juror who betrays what happens in the jury room, liability to prosecution for perjury, or what?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think I made myself heard to the noble Baroness. As I understand it, there is no oath of secrecy in the juror's oath.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Then what is the sanction against the juror who talks?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is not one.

CANE HILL CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I say just a few words on this Bill? I remember—I think it must be 15 years ago—when in another place we had the St. George's (Hanover Square) Burial Ground Bill, and I took the opportunity to ask the then Minister who was replying whether it might not be for the general convenience of those who had to apply cemetery land for other purposes, and of the Church authorities, if consideration were given to a public general Act which laid down a procedure for relinquishing land within a shorter period of time than is laid down in
610
the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which I believe I am right in saying still regulates these matters. It is because the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 prescribes that no land may be taken for any other purpose within, I think, 100 years of the last interment in a cemetery, that these difficulties arise when land is required for some other essential purpose. In the case of St. George's, Hanover Square, it was for residential accommodation, but one can think of a great variety of really important uses to which burial grounds may be put, particularly in a built-up area such as Cane Hill, which is on the outer edges of Greater London. There ought to be some more expeditious procedure than a private Bill such as the one now before your Lordships by which this change of use can be made.
I never pursued the matter at that time, and I think we are still going through precisely the same motions in respect of private Acts in relation to disused burial grounds. I do not think there has been any change in the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, and I wondered whether I might take this opportunity to ask the Front Bench opposite whether this is not one of those aspects of the rigidity of our institutions which we might take the opportunity, during the lifetime of this Government, to rectify; or, at any rate, whether the Government might not consult with the Church authorities to see whether a public general Act could not be formulated which would be acceptable to all concerned and which would short-circuit this procedure.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord the acting-Leader of the House has listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said, and that it will be taken into account. Of course, I have no influence in these matters. I should be delighted if there was public general legislation which would ease my problems with private Bills, but I can go no further than that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX BILL
3.4 p.m.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a

615
adviser to a bank, as reported in the Press last week. He was quoted as saying:
"It is very difficult for small firms, indeed, any, to break into the North Sea right now. Only those who already have production under way stand a chance. People have to invest massive sums of money and only derive tax relief when the field comes onstream—maybe a period of six or seven years".
That was from the Scotsman on 22nd January. PRT is the first charge on the profits from a field. Corporation tax comes second.
My Lords, I have three points to raise; and this is the first. I do not expect the Minister to do more than comment on anything he cares to at the end of this debate, bearing in mind, among other things, that there is a Budget due in less than two months' time. I have, as my first point, drawn attention to certain observations being made about the PRT system which the present Government have inherited. It is contended also that companies which have not already been engaged in the North Sea are finding it difficult to start in offshore operations and that those already producing oil have a tax advantage.
As I have mentioned, PRT is applied field by field but the corporation tax is limited within the United Kingdom continental shelf, sometimes known as the "ring fence". It is argued that companies who are already producing oil can, within the continental shelf theatre, offset expenses of developing later oil fields against the tax liability of an oil field which is already producing oil. In this connection, I should mention that the interest that I have declared is not involved, because I have been working with large companies and successful fields which are now onstream. I simply draw attention to an apparent disincentive related to a weakness which I pointed out in the debate in April 1975. No oil had started to flow at the time of that debate. The first trickle started later in that year, 1975.
I have been interested to see that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, until recently the first chairman of the BNOC, has independently come to a similar view. Presenting the third annual resport of BNOC on 23rd April last year—less than a year ago—he was reported, again on the front page of the Scotsman, in these words:
616
"The companies operating the larger fields now in production were paying little in tax compared to income, yet the tax law applied harshly to companies who wanted to develop the smaller fields. Oil has been found in the smaller fields, but it was not economical at present to recover it.
The tax law must be altered to reflect the complexities of the changing situation in the North Sea".
That was said independently of my views, although I know the noble Lord and others have been following closely what he has been doing. His words were very similar to the ones that I had used in the debate exactly four years before (and they can be found at col. 194 of Hansard of 10th April, 1975) in giving a warning of what might arise if that PRT system was adopted in the form presented in the Oil Taxation Act. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was the head of a textile company at that time and the BNOC had not even been presented to us as a proposal in a Bill.
This brings me to my second point: depletion policy and rate of exploration. The tax system is a factor here, as will be seen from what I have said. I find that there is some confusion among interested observers. We can expect the Government in a year or two to start deliberately restricting output when we will have the capacity to produce more per year than self-sufficiency. At the same time, one hears criticism to the effect that more exploration should be happening now, and that it ought to be encouraged. My Lords, these are not two inconsistent policies, although I find them being thought to be. It is easy for misunderstandings to occur. Indeed, people think that the two propositions are being urged by opposing factions. That is not so; I certainly have been saying both.
What is the explanation? I suggest that it is this. We expect there to be a day, later this year, when the amount of oil produced in the British sector will be net self-sufficiency. We regard next year, 1981, as being the first full year when self-sufficiency is likely to occur. Fortuitously, this has worked out in the event very much as I guessed during that debate almost five years ago. I said then (at col. 195 of Hansard of 10th April, 1975):
"It must be a vital national interest for us to win all the oil which can practicably be extracted from our continental shelf in the next six years; thereafter we should be self-sufficient, and optimum depletion rates can be determined".

617
It is widely accepted—and I think it was then in all parts of your Lordships' House—that a depletion policy would be necessary after self-sufficiency had been reached. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. David Howell, appears to have been talking to the Press in these terms earlier this month explaining the continuation of this policy before Parliament reassembled.
The powers are available to the Government. The two Acts which I mentioned earlier provide them. I should mention one other factor, and that is the need, which I am sure we all subscribe to, to reduce to the minimum flaring—that is, the burning off of associated gas; otherwise, we are wasting gas which could be used for energy. This is a matter for careful judgment because the gas is so associated with oil that it means that until there are proper facilities available for reinjection or otherwise disposing of the associated gas, one has to delay the production of oil in those cases.
Then, on the question of exploration it is asked: Why should more be required now and in the near future? Why do various pundits urge the Government to lose no time in issuing further licences for blocks to be explored? I accept that it takes at least a year or more for the preparation and arrangements to be made for a licensing round. Is not the answer that more discoveries are needed in the next few years in order to keep up optimum flows in the 1990s and beyond? Even though control is required through a depletion policy in the 1980s, reduction in availability of our offshore supplies must be expected thereafter from the present known sources. I suggest that there is no conflict between depletion control early in the 1980s and, at the same time, the exploration rate being stepped up.
I come to my third point: the present position and the Government's attitude. There is no argument about the decrease in drilling which took place in 1978. The facts are in the last Brown book prepared under the late Government and called the Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1979. In appendix 6 figures and comparisons are shown. On page 18 it is stated:
"Total expenditure on exploration in 1978 amounted to £257 million, which represents a
618
decrease of £118 million from the 1977 level. This reflects the decrease in drilling activity".
So there was a decrease between 1977 and 1978 of nearly half the drilling that had been taking place. I am glad to say that a change seems to have occurred now. It appears that an increase in exploration drilling is going ahead. Drilling rigs which have been standing idle are now in demand. My noble friend may wish to confirm or comment upon this; but I am sure that this is welcome for oil supplies in the 1990s.
The Government have a complicated and difficult task to work out a depletion policy, and no doubt this is being worked on industriously at the moment. In the use of relevant powers in the legislation which we amended and passed in 1975 and 1976, one aim was to be able to give the companies and others working in the oilfields reasonable notice when they had to reduce the amounts that were being produced. Otherwise, it would seriously disrupt their programmes and the profiles of their oilfields. In encouraging further effort in exploration and development, this unique tax system, which is the subject of this Bill, can play an important part.
3.28 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I apologise to the House for joining this debate without having announced previously my intention to do so. I did not want to come into the debate thinking that this Bill was after all only the result of the fetish-ridden Government's bow to the so-called PSBR and the money supply. From an economic point of view, it is obviously of no importance whatsoever. It is a cosmetic affair which does not merit any great attention. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, used this occasion, to discuss the tax itself, and more especially the burden of the tax.
I have been accustomed in my years here, both on the Front Bench and on the Back-Benches, to noble Lords on the opposite side always complaining that we are paying too little to the Americans because, by way of taxation, we reduce their profits. Moreover, they usually prefer profits accruing—mainly 60 per cent.—to the American firms rather than seeing what we get out of it. Indeed, the latest statistics show that the net revenue from the North Sea is very much less than

623
in Ireland, 48 per cent.; in Denmark, 47 per cent.; in France, 46 per cent.; in Germany, 45·5 per cent.; in Italy, 45 per cent. and in the United Kingdom, 42 per cent. Those figures are from EEC sources, and if the noble Lord requires more ready references than the somewhat elusive documents from the Commission, he can find them in the Economist for 10th January. If necessary, I will point out the page to him. So much for the folklore about public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement.
"But", the noble Lord says—whether in echo or as an originator—"we must control the extent of the public sector borrowing requirement because we have to control the total money supply". If I may presume to give the noble Lord a little economic instruction—and I do so with some diffidence—he will know, as I do, that by controlling the public sector borrowing requirement you do not control the total money supply, and that, in fact, four-fifths of the money supply is completely outside the control of Her Majesty's Government. If he denies that, which he may be tempted to do, I should perhaps warn him that I have a suitable passage from his right honourable friend Mr. Lawson in another place which will verify the observation that I have made. Suffice it for me to say at this stage that the joint stock banks, on the basis of the very considerable deposits that have been made as a result of raising the interest rates, can use, and are now using, those funds as a credit base and there is nothing that the noble Lord or the Government can do about it. So to pretend that by having control of the public sector borrowing requirement—and this is somewhat elusive—you can control the total money supply is a lot of nonsense.
I pause here to say that the noble Lord is, of course, an expert on this matter. He was adviser to the Government of 1970–73 and, no doubt because of the economic ability with which he has acquainted us this afternoon, his advice was heeded. So it is remarkable that during that period of time the money supply in the United Kingdom went up by 28¼ per cent. in one year—the highest increase ever in money supply in the United Kingdom—and that that lay at the
624
root of the subsequent inflation. If the noble Lord cares to look back at his figures, he will be able to verify that. I venture to suggest that when he has verified it he will possibly not offer to give economic education to my noble friend Lord Murray of Gravesend. It so happens that the high level to which the Government have now raised minimum lending rate has, while attracting money from abroad which has enabled the joint stock banks and their subsidiaries to increase their credit base, also increased the money supply. At the same time, it has made it very difficult for small businesses in this country to obtain the funds that they need.
If the noble Lord wants a further figure to add to the battery of facts which the Conservative Party ought to possess, since they received £675,000 of taxpayers money while in Opposition to aid them with their researches, he need only look up the latest EEC figures as to projected investment in the United Kingdom during the forthcoming year to see that they predict a decline of 8·7 per cent. in industrial investment in this country—this after the glorious tax bonanza which was supposed to increase initiative, enterprise and drive and encourage industry to invest. The fact of the matter is that Her Majesty's Government do not have the remotest clue about what they are doing. They are in a panic, and there is a very good reason why they are in a panic.
Even after taking into account the amount of loans that they are going compulsorily to obtain, under questionable legal authority, from the gas industry, the Government apprehend that they will still be short of money. Why? We can only surmise, but I shall be glad if the noble Lord will inform us if I am wrong. First, the very strident and promising words of the Prime Minister about recovering £1,000 million of our money from abroad—a bold statement which was made in terms which were much more strident than those which were accorded to Mr. John Silkin—have now become a muted whisper. All that is now hoped for, according to the Prime Minister's Answer last week to a parliamentary Question in the other place, is a substantial contribution towards it. So the Government are legislating, in part, against not paying out as much. The £1,000 million which, on the basis of Government

625
utterances, this country had every right to expect were going to be obtained back from Europe have quite clearly degenerated into a mere mirage, though any contribution that can be obtained by persuasion or otherwise will be welcomed by the Opposition—just as much as I hope it will be welcomed by the Government.
My other point is that the Government know in their own minds what they are going to put into the next Budget. The Government know that in order to honour their commitment to relieve taxes on capital—yes, taxes on capital that they now have it in mind to relieve: reliefs of capital gains tax and reliefs of capital transfer tax—they cannot honour this commitment unless they make further cuts, by their own doctrine, in Government expenditure. These, therefore, are the real reasons that lie behind this very queer little Bill—"this trivial little Bill", as my noble friend Lord Balogh referred to it. The Government want to grab as much money as they can in pursuit of a ridiculous dogma, but above all in order to save face.
For our part, it is very interesting to those of us who have watched history over the last few years to see how economic dipsomaniacs can very quickly become economic teetotallers. What we want is a real Government to govern in the interests of the people as a whole.
3.54 p.m.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, may I start first with the serious contribution to our debate which was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I shall deal afterwards with the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy raised a number of points of real importance. He referred in particular to the impact of petroleum revenue tax on smaller fields. We do of course recognise the importance, from the point of view of the future development of the North Sea, of obtaining the maximum yield from the smaller fields, which tend to be the less profitable ones. The Department of Energy, in conjunction with the oil industry, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, are currently reviewing the effect of the whole range of Government policies on the less profitable
626
fields, and we will certainly draw their attention to the remarks that my noble friend has made.
My noble friend also referred to the fact that petroleum revenue tax was based upon individual fields while corporation tax looked at the North Sea as a whole. He suggested that this was a deterrent to people wishing to come into North Sea exploration for the first time and that it gave a competitive edge to larger companies already established in the North Sea. In fact, I suggest to him that the opposite is the position. If petroleum revenue tax were based on the total of North Sea operations, it would enable the large existing company with a number of fields to finance exploration and development in a new field out of the revenue from its existing fields. This therefore would tend to be to the disadvantage of the smaller company and not to its advantage.
My noble friend also raised a number of points about depletion policy and about issues affecting the rate of extraction. These are matters which essentially go outside the scope of the present Bill, but I assure my noble friend that what he says will be looked at with great care. He referred also to the fact that there had been a big fall in development and exploration in 1978 and that this fall was now in the course of being reversed. As my noble friend said, I think that the major factor which contributes to this reversal is the rise in the price of oil. This made exploration and development, particularly in marginal fields, more profitable than it otherwise would have been. The present Government have also taken a more liberal attitude towards the taxation of oil profits made in the North Sea, and I have no doubt that this has also facilitated exploration and development.
May I turn from what my noble friend said first to what the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, and secondly to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, had to say. We are all very fully aware of the views held by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, on the public sector borrowing requirement, which he described as "a cosmetic affair". On this we take a diametrically opposite view to that which he takes, and I do not think that this is the right occasion——
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to say so, I did not say that the public sector borrowing requirement was a cosmetic affair. I said that the transfer of payment from next year to this year is a cosmetic affair.
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords, it is not a cosmetic affair. What the Government have to do is to finance the public sector borrowing requirement which emerges in this year. They also have to finance in due course next year's public sector borrowing requirement; and the revenue will not be lower next year as a result of the Bill. While the Bill accelerates the payment of petroleum revenue tax this year, it correspondingly accelerates the payment next year. So next year we shall still get two full instalments, plus some £300 million left over from the accelerated instalment, plus a further advantage as the totality of North Sea revenue rises. There is no question of this Bill merely transferring revenue from one year to another. It improves the level of Government revenue for many years to come. From that point of view, therefore, it is an effective not a cosmetic measure.
I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I never expected to stand in this House and find the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, denouncing a Bill imposing additional taxation on companies operating in the North Sea and putting forward for our consideration a whole list of alternative proposals where he thought that other people were in a better position to pay the additional tax than were the oil companies. If this is his view, I seriously suggest that he ought to consult with his noble friend Lord Balogh to make up their minds between them—if they are capable of so doing—whether they wish to raise more or less revenue this year from oil companies operating in the North Sea. We took the view that the oil companies have the broadest backs and that they could well afford to pay this additional revenue in the current year; but if the noble Lord dissents from that I imagine that he will soon become the patron saint of the oil companies.
The noble Lord then went on to ask whether the shortfall in the Government's cash flow this year would not be made good by the end of the year. As my right
628
honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in detail on 15th November in the Statement to which I referred in my opening address, the shortfall is due both to the telephone bills and also to slower payment of VAT. While obviously a good deal of the shortfall will be made good by the end of the year, the shortfall at its peak exceeded £1 billion. As my right honourable friend said at the time, the Government's best judgment—and I see no reason at all to vary on this—was that at the time when he was speaking the public sector borrowing requirement was likely to reach £9 billion as against the estimate that he made at the time of his Budget, which was £8·3 billion, and the £700 million which it is sought to raise by the present measure will bridge that gap.
The noble Lord then suggested that we were being deliberately lax in the collection of VAT. The phrase that he used was that the Government are "politically committed to be lax on collection of VAT". That is completely and totally untrue. The statement that he read out from my right honourable friend's Budget Statement was a pure statement of fact as to the increase in the amount of VAT in traders' hands which would occur as a result of the increase in the rate of VAT. It was in no sense a suggestion that the Government would deliberately slow down—or to use his phrase, "be lax"—in the collection of VAT. The Government are not lax in the collection of any tax. We are of course much concerned about the slowness in the payment of VAT, and this is a matter which is receiving a very considerable degree of consideration. But to accuse a Government of being lax in the collection of tax when they come along to Parliament and ask for the payment of tax to be accelerated, is really a contradiction in argument.
The noble Lord then turned from this somewhat invalid argument to the question of the public sector borrowing requirement, and he maintained that this was a fetish so far as the present Government are concerned. There is no question of any fetish here at all. The size of the public sector borrowing requirement is crucial to the whole management of our economy, and it is crucial because the public sector borrowing requirement is one of the major factors in determining the level of the money supply. It is not the only factor; nobody on these Benches has ever pre-

629
tended that it is. But it is certainly a factor of considerable importance and it is one which lies within the direct control of the Government. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for the Government, if I may use the noble Lord's own phrase, to be lax in the management of their own affairs and to expect other people to be strict in the management of theirs. Therefore, the control over the public sector borrowing requirement is an essential step in the fight against inflation which we place at the centre of our policy.
The noble Lord repeated the charges which are so often made, that the money supply in 1973 was allowed to increase excessively and this led to the inflation in subsequent years. He really must make up his mind that he cannot, in one and the same breath, maintain that control of the money supply today is irrelevant and then go on to accuse the Government in 1973 of having allowed the forces of inflation to take over by undue laxity in the control of the level of money supply in those days.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not say—and Hansard will be able to verify it—that control over the total money supply was not necessary, and if the noble Lord can produce for me tomorrow evidence of where I said that, I shall be greatly obliged. I have never said anything of the kind. What I have said, and what I still say, is that the public sector borrowing requirement remains a fetish of the party opposite and at the best a matter of an estimate with very large degrees of tolerance.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making his views no less unclear than they were before. The public sector borrowing requirement is one of the vital components which go into the level of the money supply and we cannot effectively control the one unless we control the other. There is indeed a very great deal that the Government can do about these matters and they are determined to do it.
The record of the Labour Administration in the field of economic management was absolutely appalling and the results it produced were dreadful in every conceivable way. In a period of five years
630
they created the highest level of inflation that we have ever seen; they produced an immense rise in the level of unemployment; they produced an immense rise in the level of taxation and they succeeded in virtually destroying every vestige of growth in this country. Most of the problems from which we suffer today are problems which were caused by economic mismanagement during the period of office of the Labour Government. We are struggling to overcome those difficulties and we are determined to go on struggling to overcome them. These are matters which of course go right outside the very limited scope of the present Bill. I am of course most grateful to the noble Lord, and I would not want him to think otherwise, for the notice that he gave me that he was going to widen the scope of this debate, and I hope that I have answered the points which he raised. I come back, however, to the very simple issue raised in this Bill; namely, that its objective is to produce another £700 million of revenue this year by accelerating the payment of PRT, and on that basis I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Commitee of the Whole House.

BEES BILL
4.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Although this Bill, like the last one, is a Government Bill, I cannot pretend that it forms one of the fundamental cornerstones of the policy of the present Administration; although not of earth-shattering effect it will nevertheless have an important part to play in the limited area with which it is concerned, namely, the health of bees. This little Bill has a number of virtues. One of them is that its Short Title must be one of the shortest ever given to any Bill, and that is, of course, in keeping with the Government's general views on economy wherever necessary and appropriate.
My Lords, the Bill is aimed at promoting the maintenance of a healthy population of bees, with two important purposes in mind: first, honey production; secondly,

631
and perhaps more important, the pollination of agricultural and horticultural crops. Many thousands of people keep bees in this country, including, I believe, a number of your Lordships. Bees are kept mostly, but not entirely, as a hobby. There are some commercial beekeepers. The Bill has been introduced following demands from beekeepers' associations and the National Farmers' Union that there should be more stringent controls over the import of bees. The reason for this is their alarm at the spread throughout the world, and lately into Western Europe, of a parasitic mite called Varroa Jacobsoni, which causes an incurable disease in honey bees. The disease is called "Varroasis" and it is spread by mites. The mites attach themselves to the bodies of the bees and proceed to suck their blood—a most disagreeable experience, I should imagine—and this cripples the bees and eventually kills them. The mites resemble tiny crabs; two of them would just about fit on the head of a pin, so they are not very big. The infestation builds up slowly, making detection difficult in the early stages. But a colony of bees can be completely wiped out in up to five years. Although research is proceeding on this, in fact as yet there is no known cure.
Bees are imported into Great Britain for two main reasons, to maintain stocks and to introduce desirable genetic material. Supplies come from countries with a better climate for breeding bees than has ours. The import trade is small compared with present stocks of bees, and it consists of queen bees accompanied by a few worker bees who look after her very courteously on her journey. The trade in colonies—I am bound to say I am referring to bees and not to any sort of post-colonial nostalgia—is prohibited at the moment. The Varroa mite has reached as far as West Germany and it is feared that it might spread to France and Italy, two of our major suppliers of bees. So far it has not yet been found in any country which traditionally exports to the United Kingdom. The fundamental deficiency in existing legislation as a control measure is that our frontiers are either open or shut to particular countries and there is no way of regulating imports according to changing disease patterns. We cannot react as quickly as is desirable to the occurrence of disease in exporting counties.
632
The control at present is by the Agriculture(Miscellaneous Provisions)Act 1954 and this allows provision to be made by order to control imports. Imports from particular countries or from parts of countries may be prohibited. Imports which are not accompanied by a specified health certificate may be prohibited. And imports which in some other way do not comply with the provisions of an order, in particular as regards containers used for importation, may be prohibited.
These are the basic safeguards which are at present available. But there are in fact severe drawbacks to them. First, it is necessary to specify by order each and every country from which we wish to prohibit imports because of the disease. Under this provision we made the Importation of Bees (Prohibition) Order 1979, which prohibits imports from countries which are known to be infested with Varroa. But each time a disease such as Varroa is confirmed in another country it is necessary to make a new order, with the consequent delay between the disease confirmation and the order coming into force. Secondly, imports may be permitted subject only to being accompanied by a health certificate. These certificates although giving some protection cannot be relied upon entirely. Examination of imported bees sent voluntarily to the Ministry has sometimes revealed disease. In the case of Varroa certification is highly unreliable because when an infestation is in its early stages with very few mites it is very difficult, if not impossible, to detect. The powers which we are seeking in this Bill do not rely so heavily on certification.
I should also point out that there are, of course, other bee diseases, some of which, unlike Varroa, are already endemic in the United Kingdom. The control of disease within England and Wales is by order under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941. In Scotland control of endemic diseases is at present on a voluntary basis. Should Varroa enter Great Britain it would be necessary to have statutory controls throughout England, Wales and Scotland, and this Bill provides for that. The Bill updates both the 1954 Act and the 1941 Act. The maximum penalty for an offence under the 1954 Act is £20, and under the 1941 Act it is £50. The Bill increases

633
both penalties to £1,000. The revised penalty would be more in proportion to the serious damage which could be caused by an offence.
My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to outline the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants Ministers the power to make orders, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, in order to prevent the introduction into or spreading within Great Britain of pests and diseases affecting bees. The controls relate not only to bees but also to combs, bee products, hives, containers, appliances and other things associated with the bees. These items are covered because they might be potential disease risks as well as the bees themselves.
Our intention is to make an order which will prohibit the importation of bees except under licence. The licences would be general or specific according to the health status of the exporting country. A country's health status could be investigated at the time, if necessary. No licences would be issued for countries which are infested with Varroa. Import licences could be modified or revoked at short notice whenever changes in health status demanded it. We have consulted with the national beekeepers associations and the National Farmers' Union on the details of the import rules to operate from the time the Bill comes into force, and our officials will be keeping in close touch with the bee trade on this matter.
Clause 1 also allows for different provisions to be made for different areas. The control of endemic diseases is dealt with differently in Scotland at present. It is not proposed to change this unless a serious problem with Varroa arises. Subsections (3) to (6), which largely repeat the provisions of the present legislation, give an authorised person power to examine and take samples of bees and other things subject to an order, and to destroy them or cause them to be destroyed if they are infected or have been exposed to infection. He may also destroy or cause to be destroyed any illegally imported bees. These are all very necessary measures for preventing the spread of disease. As in the present legislation, no compensation is to be paid for bees which are destroyed. This
634
Bill differs from the present legislation only in so far as it makes explicit, as Bills of this kind are required to do nowadays, that no compensation is to be paid.
Following representations made by beekeepers' associations shortly before the Bill received its Second Reading in another place, we very seriously considered whether to alter the policy of successive Governments of not paying compensation for bees which are compulsorily destroyed because of disease control. We have decided that that policy should not be changed. In introducing the Bill and providing the means for stricter controls on imports, we have already gone a very long way indeed towards meeting the demands of beekeepers' associations and the National Farmers' Union for better protection against importing bee diseases, especially Varroa. There has never been any Government compensation for the compulsory destruction of bees and we do not think it appropriate to start it now. Subsection (7) provides for penalties for offences which, as I have said, are now to be set at a level more appropriate to present day costs and the seriousness of the offence. Subsection (8) provides for the Ministers' expenses to be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament.
Clause 2 gives an authorised person power to enter, on production of his authority if required, anywhere where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that there are or have been bees subject to control under an order. This is not a new power except in so far as it applies to imports. Beekeepers generally are very willing to co-operate by allowing inspection of their bees, because they recognise the importance of keeping the disease at bay. But it would need only one unco-operative beekeeper—whose bees might be diseased without him recognising the fact—for a pocket of disease to build up. So the powers are there if needed. We do not envisage the powers being used for imports on a regular basis—Customs and Excise are our first line of defence against illegal imports—but they may be needed to follow up imports which have passed through Customs and which are considered a disease risk. The penalty of £200 is provided for obstructing an authorised person. Clause 3 is

635
an interpretation clause. Clause 4 enables the Bill to relate to Northern Ireland. Clause 5 is the Short Title.
The Bill will provide much improved powers of control of imports which are likely to introduce bee disease. It is a Bill which has been demanded and requested strongly by the trade and it has been welcomed by them. I am bound to say that I feel obliged to relay an opinion which was expressed to me earlier by a noble Lord, if only, indeed, to contradict it. It was put to me that your Lordships would be unable to amend the Bill because it was a "honey Bill"! In fact, that is not so. I hope that with that modest explanation of the purposes of the Bill your Lordships will be kind enough to give it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.23 p.m.
Earl GREY: My Lords, I welcome the Bill which will give the Government extra powers to help prevent the threat of pests and diseases in this country in respect of beekeeping. I understand that it has the support, in general, of those involved in the industry.
I welcome the provisions stated in the Bill for increasing the penalties for contravening the disease regulations. In my view £50 is not enough to discourage anyone from taking such a dangerous risk which can have such far-reaching effects. We have an excellent record in preventing diseases entering this country. This is due partly to the fact that we have a natural geological barrier. But the beekeeping industry is not completely free from disease. I believe that the extra powers in the Bill will go a long way to solve the problems.
Much was mentioned during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, and it has also been mentioned this afternoon, of compensation to beekeepers if their stocks have to be destroyed. Compensation is not made available in the Bill because the Government feel that if bees are suffering from a serious disease they would die anyway, and are considered valueless. To anyone whose main livelihood is in this industry, that aspect of the Bill does not give comfort.
636
There are, I believe, out of an estimated 45,000 beekeepers only 500 who are fully commercial. Surely the cost of compensation would not be such a large amount? Beekeeping is part of agriculture, and the benefits derived from it, not only from the production of honey, but as regards other aspects such as pollination, are of serious importance. I do not consider that the sole remedy for compensation should be insurance, as suggested by the Minister in another place. If cattle are suffering from serious diseases they are considered valueless, and would also die anyway, but the farmer receives compensation. Why not the professional beekeeper whose main income is derived from producing honey? I would ask the Minister to consider seriously this genuine and worrying concern in the industry.
4.25 p.m.
The Earl of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I am one of those noble Lords who has kept bees. In fact, many years ago I imported two French colonies of bees. I have many bee-keeping friends and, because of the disease Varroa, I have been approached by the Bee Farmers' Association and the Hampshire Beekeepers' Association. However, I say very quickly that we all give the Bees Bill a very warm welcome and know that there is a great need and urgency for it, because as has, been said, the disease Varroa has already reached West Germany. I believe that it has also reached France. The way in which the disease travels is frightening: it is in South America and it reached there from Japan; it reached West Germany from India; it is now in Africa; and it travelled from Romania to Tunisia. However, we have certain reservations as regards the Bill, and I support the noble Earl, Lord Grey, in what he said concerning lack of compensation—a matter with which I should like to deal later in my remarks.
There is a provision in the Bill for banning imports of bees, queens and so on. The majority of beekeepers—certainly the members of the Bee Farmers' Association—would like to see the banning of all imports at the earliest possible moment; and that, I think, is the intention of the Bill. However, there is also criticism of the penalties, as shown in Clause 1 (7). To me, as someone who kept bees many

637
years ago, the words "not exceeding £1,000" sounds a large sum. But, when one thinks of the dangers from this disease and the damage that it could do, one realises that £1,000 is not a very large sum. It has been suggested to me that that should be the minimum fine. Then in Clause 2(3), there is reference to a fine of £200 as regards the obstruction of "the power of entry". Again, it has been suggested to me that that sum is not nearly severe enough.
The criticism of the smallness of the proposed fines is based on the fact that it is only on imported bees, queens, drones and broods that the live Varroa Jacobsoni mites are likely to be introduced. As has been said, it is a visible mite. It is not very large, but it is visible. I believe that I am the only Englishman who has actually seen the live mite in Korea where the disease has been devastating.
As regards the request for severe fines, I should like to point out that it is the beekeeper who can spread the Varroa disease by his current beekeeping practices. As has been emphasised, there need be only one unco-operative beekeeper to do many other beekeepers down. The practices are well known—namely, the uniting and the division of colonies; the buying and selling of queens; bee drift; swarming and also migratory beekeeping. Incidentally, there is a temptation in this respect, for I believe that the Kent beekeepers are offering about £20 for a colony, and they still cannot get enough.
Earlier in my speech I referred to the lack of compensation in the Bill. In the past we have had controlling legislation, to which the noble Earl referred. American foul brood was dealt with because they dealt, one might say, with themselves, and the colonies could be destroyed. With European foul brood there was a choice. The beekeeper had a choice of destroying his own colony or using an antibiotic treatment, terramycin, which had the help of the Minister of Agriculture's field officers. I think I am right in saying that nearly always they preferred to destroy their own diseased colonies.
We are now threatened, as the noble Earl emphasised, and obviously the need for this enabling Bill is to strengthen the Minister's hands in dealing with possible
638
outbreaks. Written into the Bill is that no compensation shall be payable for the compulsory destruction of bees. So whatever statutory instrument results it does not therefore allow for compensation. I understand that it is virtually impossible to insure against Varroa, and that there is at the moment no known antidote. Earlier in my speech I mentioned how easily the live Varroa Jacobsoni mite can be spread. This new pest has the unpleasant distinction of being readily transmissible by drones; that is, the male bees in the hive. Drones can and do travel up to four miles from their parent hive, and are freely admitted into any colony of bees at which they choose to alight at dusk.
Hence, should the Varroa pest ever reach this country it would seem that any hive within a radius of four miles of an infected colony could rightly be considered to have been exposed to infection and subject to compulsory destruction without compensation, even though these hives were quite free of infection, and perfectly healthy. Hobbyist beekeepers could have their stocks completely wiped out. Commercial beekeepers—and the noble Earl says there are not many, but if there are not many they are even more valuable—could be ruined without this compensation merely because their neighbour suffered an attack.
Incidentally, bees pollinating the same flower can be infected. It has long been recognised as a basic principle of justice that the destruction of healthy livestock as a preventive measure, such as cattle for foot and mouth, pigs for swine fever, and poultry for fowl pest, is accompanied by compensation at an appropriate scale to prevent the collapse of businesses and to obviate the avoidance of the provisions. It would, I believe, be against all tenets of justice, or indeed of economic wisdom, to except beekeepers from this dispensation.
4.34 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, of course, not only is the question of money and honey being mixed up in this Bill, but other sorts of things get thrown at one if one mentions to one's friends that one is coming to your Lordships' House to talk on the Bees Bill. Such phrases as: "What are you going to buzz about?" and "Bees in your bonnet", are fairly frequent.

639
I should like to join in the general welcome to this Bill. As anyone who is a farmer knows, the importance of bees cannot be overestimated. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Grey, and the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, that there should be compensation. But I maintain that compensation should be limited to those who have suffered the loss through no fault of their own. There should be no compensation but heavy fines for anyone who can be accused of importing bees without proper permission, or breaking the other rules in the Bill.
In my neck of the woods we are fairly famous for bees and beekeepers. Brother Adam, who has run the Buckfast Abbey Honey Enterprise for so many years, is internationally known for his work. The heather honey from his hives on Dartmoor is well known to connoisseurs of good honey. We have a large number of beekeepers. On my little patch alone there are five, and that is only about one-eighth of the parish. I hope the noble Earl bears those figures in mind in view of what I am going to ask him in a minute. On that basis, in the parish there could be over 40 or 50 beekeepers, even though they are not all commercial.
Before passing on to what I am going to ask the Government to do, I should like to mention that when I was a young boy there was an old man in a cottage on the edge of the estate who used to get his bees and collect the bee-stings. He then used to sell the bee-stings as a cure for arthritis, lumbago, rheumatism, or what have you, and I was wondering whether the Government would like to add that to the Clause 3 definitions.
What I would ask the Government to do is to make it compulsory for the Ministry man, whoever he is, to see that the name of the beekeeper who has had a disease should be made known. As I understand it, at present the rule is that they just let the general beekeepers know that it is in such-and-such a parish. I and the Devon Beekeepers' Association consider that as rather unfair. What we would ask the Government to do is to divulge the name of the beekeeper who has had a disease. This may be hard on him but not if, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Grey, he gets compensation if it is not his fault. But it is fair to other beekeepers who,
640
if his name is not published, are liable to buy his secondhand equipment, not knowing it to be infected. If they knew what they were doing and what they were buying, and what the disease was, they could take precautions. In some cases you can disinfect; in other cases you can do other things. In some cases you have to burn the whole equipment.
Therefore, I should like the Government to agree to amend the Bill to make it compulsory, in fairness to the great majority of beekeepers, that the name of the beekeeper concerned is known, otherwise the situation is going to be unfair to other beekeepers. I would ask the Government to compare it with, say, foot and mouth disease or various pig diseases in agriculture, where we all know what happens: big notices are stuck up, nothing is allowed to go in and there are footbaths and all that sort of thing. Everybody knows that that chap has had whatever the disease is.
Why not, in fairness to all the other beekeepers, make it known who the infortunate chap is who has suffered the disease? I have a friend who bought some secondhand bee equipment and later got the disease. After making inquiries, he found out that the chap had had the disease and as a result sold his equipment. If it had been compulsory for the man's name to be made known, my friend would have been saved from getting the disease. The one thing I would therefore ask the Government to do is to incorporate in the Bill a provision by which, when a disease is found, the beekeeper is named for the protection of the others.
4.41 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and for the humour with which he was able to introduce it. However, the subject is not terribly humorous and I come straight to the point I wish to make, which is probably a re-emphasis of the point made by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and the noble Earl, Lord Grey—namely, the question of compensation.
I understand that a 50-hive colony would cost about £2,000 to replace and that possible the income from a colony of that kind—from pollination fees, the sale

641
of honey and other activities—would not be likely to exceed that amount. It seems grossly unfair that there may be the compulsory destruction of an entire colony on the grounds that it has been exposed to infection through no fault of the beekeeper. I do not believe it is good enough for the Government to say, "We have never given compensation before. We have always regarded beekeepers as maintaining their own discipline in looking after their own losses and we see no reason to change that now."
That is not quite true. Beekeepers registered with either the Bee Farmers' Association or the Beekeepers' Association have, I understand, a compulsory insurance levy built into their subscriptions. So although the industry may be paying for compensation, it is backed by insurance companies and insurance company money and, very likely, by you and I who pay our insurances in other directions. Further, I understand that that insurance is essentially in relation to the brood diseases which are well known and which are generated in this country.
It appears to me from what I have learned in the last few days from interested people who have come to me that essentially we are protecting ourselves against the importation of a disease with which we cannot cope in any other way, because, according to our treaty obligations under the EEC, we cannot ban that importation, so we have to take this route. What I am suggesting, in other words, is that because of other actions in other areas, a disease may come into this country which certainly no beekeeper wants to have and in connection with which importation would not have been accepted. The relevant provision is in Clause 1(4):
"Where any bees or other things subject to control under any such order are found to be infected, or to have been exposed to infection [with] any pest or disease",
they may be destroyed; and it describes how and by whom. What does "or to have been exposed to infection" mean? Does it mean, for example, that if there is an outbreak in Scotland, Hampshire beekeepers with perfectly healthy stocks are to have those stocks destroyed? The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, suggested that because a drone can and normally does travel up to four miles—I do not know whether he means two miles out
642
and two back, or four out and four back—is that the area which is to be considered to be "an exposed area"? If healthy stocks are to be destroyed because of an exposure or possible exposure, that could, according to figures with which I have been furnished, have a disastrous effect not only because of the value of those stocks to the beekeeping industry but also, for the reasons explained by my noble friend, because of the value to other crop farmers.
If the majority of beekeepers are comparatively small and there is a widespread outbreak of this disease, and if it is this particular pest or disease which the Bill seeks to control—because in the 1941 and 1954 legislation there were controls for other types of disease—it is not unreasonable to consider what the damage caused by the destruction of an area of hives, however big that area might be, could have on other industries. In the event, the hobbyist—possibly the amateur but certainly the smaller professional—might decide not to replace his hive or colony; in any event, it takes a couple of years at least to do so. Thus, the disadvantage to other areas of farming, agriculture and horticulture could be felt in some years' time.
While the previous legislation excluded compensation, I suggest that we are now dealing with a totally different type of disease against which there is no known cure, brought about under totally different circumstances and involving totally different costs, and it is not unreasonable, therefore, to discard the precedents so far as compensation is concerned and look to present-day practice. I hope my noble friend will give a sympathetic answer so that we may be able to discuss this in detail and hear a little more—certainly as to why the Government do not feel like changing their minds on this matter—at a later stage.
I wish to make only one other point and that is the desire of beekeepers—certainly those who have been in touch with me—to support the Bill. I do not believe their claim for compensation is necessarily based on a wish to take pecuniary advantage of a disease; rather, it is to ensure that their job continues with the advantages that have been described to us by noble Lords who have spoken before me. I hope therefore that

643
my noble friend on the Front Bench can give us some sympathetic answer, perhaps so saving us the necessity of discussing this in much greater detail at the later stages.
The Earl of MALMESBURY: My Lords, may I mention again the question of the drone which flies four miles? He flies four miles to a new colony which will take him in that evening.
4.50 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I apologise for intervening in the debate without having put down my name on the list of speakers, but I have been very interested in this very important discussion, and I should like to ask the Minister to consider two points. First, can he tell us whether any research is taking place at present, or rather whether research is being actively pursued, into a test which would reveal the pest at an earlier date? It appears to me that early diagnosis of the disease, or of the presence of a mite must be extremely important.
I should like to add my arguments for compensation to those which have already been put forward from all parts of the House. I think it more important to compensate the hobby beekeeper than the man who keeps bees as a commercial undertaking, because the man who keeps bees as a commercial undertaking is fully conscious of the harm that can be done to his whole living, whereas the hobby beekeeper, if he thought that he was going to lose his hives, might well delay reporting the disease, or indeed might not report it at all. In this case I think it may be more important to compensate him, and thereby enable his neighbours in the beekeeping clubs to bring him to a sense of his duty, than to compensate the commercial beekeeper who has a much better idea of what it is all about. I should be very grateful if the Minister could answer these two questions.
4.52 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I must be the first person to speak in this debate who knows nothing at all about beekeeping. I have listened with fascination to those who do know about it, and I shall go away a little instructed, but I
644
would not claim that I am sufficiently instructed to take apis mellifera and to be able to set about producing honey. I was very interested in a number of remarks that were made. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that in his opinion the Bill had a great advantage in that it was the Bill with the shortest Short Title ever printed. He is probably right. It just beats Lord Paget's Furskins Bill by one syllable, and that perhaps enables it to go into the Guiness Book of Records.
I was also interested to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, about the use of the bee sting. I think that for a long time it has been used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Perhaps it gave rise to the little verse which went:
"There was a young man of St. Bees,
Who was stung on the arm by a wasp.
When asked does it hurt,
He said, ' Not at all,
I am glad that it wasn't a hornet'."
I think that every one of us must welcome the Bill. We are concerned here with a disease that can spread from one country to another; and we know that there are diseases which affect different animals. There is rabies, there is foot and mouth disease, and there are a number of other diseases that can be spread. It is absolutely essential for the Government to take proper precautions, and I congratulate them upon doing so.
There are just two points that I should like to raise. First, in view of the fact that a disease such as this is spread, what is the risk of it being spread from Ireland? I ask this because unless the Irish Republic has the same legislation, it will surely be extremely easy for the disease to cross the border into the Northern counties; and I see that in its present form the Bill does not apply directly to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether this does not raise a certain risk, because if the disease got into Northern Ireland presumably the various implements used in beekeeping would become infected and the disease might he transmitted. I am sure that the Government have thought all about this matter, but we should like to be reassured by the acting Leader of the House that appropriate steps can be taken.
The other point is one which has been raised by every speaker; it is the question of compensation. On looking at the Bill

645
I was surprised to find that compensation is explicitly ruled out. Surely when a Bill with the purpose of keeping down a certain disease is introduced it is wrong that a beekeeper who is told that his hives are to be destroyed should get no compensation. If he had a herd of cows he would receive compensation, and why therefore does he not receive compensation for his bees? Presumably it is because the bee is small and can be regarded as relatively unimportant. But the principle is an important one, and I should have thought that the Government ought to pay attention to it. I admit that this is a matter which can be taken up in committee and I do not want to press it now, other than to support what all the other speakers have said; namely, that there should be compensation.
As I have said, it has been fascinating for me to listen and to be instructed, and I should like to congratulate all your Lordships who have helped in my instruction. I should also like to congratulate the Government upon the Bill, which I hope they can improve.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I put a question to him, or perhaps to the Minister? I really pose the question to my noble friend because he has been very much involved in science and research. I was at a meeting of the Medical Research Council the other day and I believe that there is concern—I do not know for what reason—within the Medical Research Council in regard to this Bill. I wonder whether, through my noble friend or through the Minister, we can have an assurance as to whether there has been consultation with the Medical Research Council? If there has not been consultation, can the noble Earl see whether contact can be made, because I believe that there is some concern in this respect?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that the point that my noble friend raises is an important one
4.59 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the general welcome that you have given to the Bill, and I have certainly noted the comments that have been made about it. As always,
646
one finds that there are in your Lordships' House a number of experts who know all about whatever subject may be under discussion. My noble friend Lord Malmesbury admitted that he was a beekeeper, and indeed, I was a beekeeper once upon a time, but I was never very good because the bees always got under my veil, and that was a most unattractive form of occupation. So my beekeeping did not last very long! My noble friend Lord Malmesbury must be the only person whose words, if taken out of context, would sound quite impressive, for he says that he has imported two French colonies—and I wish him the best of luck with them! I certainly take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just made. I cannot tell him the exact details of the approaches that have been made to the Medical Research Council, but I will find out and let him know.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, commended this Bill because it has a Short Title, and said that although it is possibly the shortest Title it is only shorter than the Furskins Bill by one syllable. In fact, it is shorter by 50 per cent. if you take the number of letters used to comprise the Title of the Bill, so it wins on that score. Clearly the problem which has worried most of your Lordships is compensation, and I shall come to that in a minute. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, apart from referring to compensation, also referred to Ireland, and, obviously, bees getting over from Ireland to England would be a very serious matter. This Bill enables an order to be laid which refers to Northern Ireland, but, of course, it cannot refer to Southern Ireland. There is obviously a risk from the Republic, and we are in touch with our Embassy in Dublin and the Irish authorities, who are actively considering legislation in this respect.
My noble friend Lord Malmesbury said that the penalties are too low at £1,000. Of course the level at which to put the penalty is always a problem in the case of any disease, or, indeed, of any part of legislation. We tried to harmonise with what is provided in other Acts of Parliament, and we found that in fact the suggested figure of £1,000 is the standard penalty in magistrates' courts for this type of offence; and that is why that figure has

647
been included in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said that it ought to be compulsory that the names of beekeepers whose bees have this disease should be made public. This is an understandable reaction; and I think he said that in the case of foot and mouth, of swine fever and so forth, everybody knew what had happened and who had got it. In fact, it is not the form for the Ministry of Agriculture or a Government Department to issue the names of people who have this infection, or any infection. What is done is to state the place where the infection occurs, and in the locality the person is known. But it really would be an undesirable practice, I think, for Ministry officials to disclose the names of individuals. It is much better for this kind of thing to be done on a local basis, where those who are on the spot in fact know who is the person who has it, when what is given out in the Ministry handout is the location of the outbreak of the disease.
My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to the problems which you could have over the part of the Bill which allows for those bees which are exposed to infection. I think I should make it clear that, although a bee can fly four miles, it should not be interpreted that the order will result in the destruction of all hives within a radius of four miles. The Bill gives permission to the Government to lay an order, and the Government will be in very close touch with the beekeeping associations and the National Farmers' Union to discuss with them exactly what would be the right and appropriate thing to put in the order. As this is very much a Bill which has emanated from the beekeepers, it is our intention to be in as close touch with them as possible, to put into any order that which is mutually acceptable. I do not think my noble friend should imagine that all bees within a radius of four miles would necessarily feature in such an order; this would be a matter for negotiation. Of course, the order will be laid before your Lordships for consideration, if necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie asked what research is being done, and, indeed, whether any research is being done. There is some research being undertaken, and it takes the form of tests to determine the presence of mites, and how they involve the destruction of the bees. Research is
648
going on in that field and also into the possibility of discovering what attracts the mites to the bees in the first instance.
Quite clearly the point which has exercised most of your Lordships is the question of compensation, and, frankly, I have a lot of sympathy with noble Lords who feel that here is a case which ought to attract compensation. Let me first of all deal with the fact (and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who said it) that it is explicitly ruled out. The inference of this, of course, is that there was compensation previously. I must make it clear that there was not compensation previously. There never has been compensation in respect of beekeeping; and it is only the fact that nowadays, in this type of Bill, there is a requirement to specify the fact that there is no compensation which has caused this wording to be inserted into this Bill. I think it is that which, understandably, has exercised beekeepers. The situation is no different from that which pertains at the moment.
The noble Lord is quite right, and others of your Lordships are entirely right, in saying that cattle are slaughtered for foot and mouth and that compensation is payable, and that there are other diseases where compensation is payable; and the argument is that, therefore, if you are going to slaughter (as it were) bees, compensation should be payable there. Of course, the protection of health, whether it is of animals, plants or insects, is different in each case. In the case of plants, one can destroy them—an example is chrysanthemum white rust; where that is found the plants have to be destroyed—and there is no compensation there; and there never has been compensation, as I say, to beekeepers.
Having considered all the arguments, we do not think that it is right to introduce this new measure, and to change the status quo. One of the arguments which some of your Lordships have put forward is that it is unfair to slaughter disease-free stock. Of course, one of the problems with this particular disease is that it can take between three and five years to manifest itself. Therefore, although you may be destroying what appears to be a disease-free colony, it may in fact have disease within it. Therefore, to compensate for what is apparently disease-free

649
may involve compensating for something which is not disease-free, simply because the disease has not yet manifested itself; so these bees which are destroyed will in any event anyhow be at risk.
I think the point therefore is this—and it is an arguable one, and every single noble Lord has argued it most formidably: Whose responsibility should it be in the end? Should it be the responsibility of the Government or of the industry? This Bill has arisen specifically at the behest of the industry, because, understandably, they want their bees protected. We agreed, and we have acceded to that request. But we do not believe it is right that that should then become a Government responsibility. We think the responsibility should remain where it is at the moment, with the beekeepers. Having said that, I think it is right to point out that Bee Diseases Insurance Limited, which is an organisation which looks after bee insurance, is actively considering whether or not they can get some form of compensation arrangement for this. If that is so, then I think this is probably the best way to deal with this matter.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to make one comment on that? I take his point that this is a Bill which has been introduced because it was wanted by the beekeepers, but it is not a Private Member's Bill; it is a Bill which has been introduced by the Government. Therefore, I feel that the Government take full responsibility for the clauses in it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, may I put one point to the Minister? How do the Ministry, the experts, regard this disease? Do they regard it as the most serious threat to beekeeping and honey production in this country that we have seen for some time? Is it more serious than the standard diseases which already affect the hives?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I fear that if we are not careful we shall get into a Committee stage over this. But, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, he says that this is a Government Bill and the Government must be responsible. My immediate reaction to that is to say, with respect, "Watch it!",
650
because if introducing a Bill in Government time at the behest of beekeepers in order to encourage the beekeepers to have healthy stock is going to impose on the Government some kind of financial obligation which the bee industry has never had before, it might make the Government more reluctant to be so accommodating. I accept that this point is arguable. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that, in all the negotiations that took place over this, compensation was not requested by the beekeepers, and it has only come up because it happens to be explicitly included in the Bill for the reasons that I have given.
Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I would say that it is difficult to say what is the most dangerous disease. If you asked that in terms of human beings, it would be difficult to provide an answer. I would say that it is a very dangerous disease in so far as there is no known cure and it is increasing and is moving across Europe. We want to keep it out: in so far as there is no known cure for it, it is a horrible disease to have.
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the overall general welcome that you have given to this Bill. I accept entirely the apprehension expressed about compensation. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships that this matter has been considered and I hope that I have been able to explain why we rejected it, even if your Lordships do not feel disposed to agree with that conclusion.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INMARSAT (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1980
5.11 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the INMARSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1980 be approved. This order, which will be made under the International Organisations Act 1968, was laid before the House on 19th December 1979. The order is required to confer upon the International

651
Maritime Satellite Organisation and persons connected with it, the privileges and immunities provided for by the Draft Headquarters Agreement concluded by the United Kingdom and the organisation. Copies of that Agreement were laid before your Lordships on 13th November 1979.
Before speaking to the order, your Lordships will wish me to say something about the background to the creation of INMARSAT—to give the organisation its more familiar title. The radio services operating in the high and medium frequency bands once provided satisfactory ship-to-shore communications. But, as the wave bands available became busier because of the growing demand, maintenance of a satisfactory standard of communications became progressively more difficult. It was therefore necessary to find a way of providing a greater number of channels and at the same time to try to overcome some of the other draw backs of the service then provided, namely, interference of varying kinds, not to mention the occasional blackout.
Almost all the problems are overcome by the use of the Very High Frequency and Ultra High Frequency bands. except that, unlike MF and HF, VHF and UHF signals do not in general follow the earth's curvature, but travel in more or less straight lines. Thus, effective exploitation of these new techniques, especially for long-range application, had to await the availability of communications satellites, more particularly the geostationary satellite, that is to say, one that remains stationary in relation to a fixed point on the earth's surface.
Accordingly, the major maritime nations began to consider the possibility of developing a maritime satellite communications service to meet the future requirements of the shipping industry. In 1972, the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, which is the only specialised agency of the United Nations to have its headquarters in London, set up a panel of experts to study all aspects of the problem. This panel recommended the establishment of a maritime satellite communications system under international control, the setting up of a new inter-governmental organisation for that purpose and the convening of a conference to formulate appropriate instruments.
652
The first session of that conference, in which 54 countries participated, was held in London in 1975 and approved these proposals. Two further sessions the following year produced an agreed text of a convention and an operating agreement. These came into force on 16th July 1979, thereby establishing the organisation. The purpose of the organisation is to make provision for the space segment necessary for improving maritime communications, thereby assisting in improving distress communications, efficiency and management of ships, public correspondence services and radio determination capabilities. The initial INMARSAT system will include the following service capabilities: telephones, handling of priority traffic (including facilities for emergency position-finding and distress calls), facsimile, broadcast facsimiles, medium and low-speed data, slow scan television, broadcast telephony, telex, telegram. broadcast telegraphy, and recorded information services.
At present, only about 300 of the world's merchant ships are equipped to make use of satellite communications, and they use the American MA RISAT satellites which are now obsolescent and will fade out in 1983. They will, in any case, be superseded by INMARSAT. However. by the mid-1990s more than 2,000 ships of all nations will be able to use the services which INMARSAT will then be offering.
Britain has played a major role in the establishment of INMARSAT. It is our belief that satellites, which now have a significant place in fixed land-to-land communications, present the only practical means for the continued development of safe and efficient maritime communications services.
There have been two meetings of the INMARSAT Council, which is responsible for providing and managing the system, since the organisation formally came into existence. These meetings, understandably, concentrated on the initial needs of the organisation. A director-general, Mr. Olof Lundberg of Sweden, was elected and he took up his post early last December. We expect that when they next meet, the council will be moving toward decisions on the satellite system, decisions which we hope will be beneficial to those British firms working

653
in the aerospace and communications industries.
The first meeting of the INMARSAT Assembly, which is the governmental review body, was held, under British chairmanship, in London last October. The most important issue which it then resolved was the completion of the membership of the council by electing to it four representatives from those countries whose investment share did not qualify them for a seat.
Your Lordships will be pleased to learn that the council accepted Her Majesty's Government's invitation to set up its headquarters here. This order is required so that the draft headquarters agreement can be brought into force to provide the organisation with the privileges and immunities it needs to exercise its functions.
INMARSAT's services will be provided on a repayment basis. This, together with the fact that some of the signatories to the operating agreement are not governmental agencies, led us to the conclusion that some of the privileges and immunities regarded as customary for international organisations would not be appropriate for INMARSAT. The headquarters agreement accordingly differs in some respects from agreements negotiated with other international organisations, and the order before your Lordships reflects these differences. For example, INMARSAT will have only the limited immunity from suit provided in Article 6. Under Article 15, the director-general will enjoy certain immunities, but he will not receive those diplomatic privileges which are often conferred on the executive head of an international organisation. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome the fact that the order contains no provision which confers any immunity from motor traffic offences; and these include parking offences.
Your Lordships may remember approving a previous order concerning INMARSAT. It was made on 11th April 1979, and is revoked by the present order. The 1979 order was very limited in extent and was necessary to enable us to ratify the INMARSAT Convention on 30th April 1979. The provisions of that order are repeated in the order before us today. I very much hope that your Lordships
654
will, by approving this draft order, signify your support for the interesting and essential work which the International Maritime Satellite Organisation is about to begin. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December, be approved. —(Lord Trefgarne.)
5.20 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBFRTS: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord for his careful and interesting explanation of this order. We certainly welcome the order. Some of us were in at the birth, one might say, and we are delighted to see such progress in bringing to fruition the consultations of 1975 in which, as the noble Lord rightly reminded us, this country played a major role. There is certainly no reason why affirmative approval should be withheld from this order; it is an order to which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments do not draw any special attention in reporting to the House. It will enable the United Kingdom Government to give effect to the headquarters agreement that the noble Lord has once more described to us, the agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the International Maritime Satellite Organisation. The order will come into operation on the date on which the agreement enters into force.
One is gratified with the number of countries that have acceded to the system—I use those words because some are more forward than others, as often happens in these matters—and also the governing body, the assembly, is so representative. That fact augurs well for the administration of this very helpful and indeed essential system. The Minister has described the wide range of communications which will be greatly expedited. There may be new ways in which the system will be able to help communications that at the moment we are not very clear about. This is a continuing process. We are calling in the satellite to adjust the curvature of the world. We cannot alter the shape of the world, but we can affect the circumstances that arise in communications from the fact that the world is, as we have been told for the past few centuries at least, round.

655
I hope that all the countries which accede to the system will take the fullest advantage of it. It will be administered and made available, as the Minister reminded us, on a repayment basis. One hopes that with the passage of time and the increase of user, especially the increase in the number of ships equipped to take advantage of the system (the Minister gave us some interesting figures on that), the familiarity with the system, the increase in the number of countries and the number of operations which will fit in with the system, a kind of revolving fund will prove possible—both as to administrative, maintenance and possibly some research purposes—and the self-funding provision will be able to meet all those objectives.
Even so, even if there may be from time to time a shortfall in the income—and I put a purely personal view here which no doubt is shared by many on both sides of the House—in relation to the costs both of operation and of forward planning, I am quite sure that this country at least, and a large number of other countries, will not hesitate to look at the financial position and to intervene if necessary with new money. This is really one of the waves of the future, literally; and while we would hope that its finances can be as effective conventionally as possible, we must not lay down a hard and fast line on that point which might tend to defeat the ultimate expansion and progress of this extremely helpful and hopeful development.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARDVEENISH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2 a and reported from the Committee.
FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2 a and reported from the Committee.
FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
INVERNESS DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
KIRKCALDY DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LOCHABER DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
STRATHKELVIN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
WEST LOTHIAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.